Where is Photography going???

Having just left some rather negative comments on the photos forum I ask the question "where is photography going"

Is it just me or is the world going manipulation crazy? As an older generation snapper I was taught to get it right in camera, unfortunately the current trend seems to be snap away and sort it out later, even digital photo mags seems to be overdone with articles for cooking images later. My camera clubs competitions are full of images that are obviously manipulated (yes even more than could be done in a traditional darkroom) and I often wonder "is it digital art or is it photography"?

Sadly my negative comments were for an image that was heavilly manipulated, I suspect because the original wasn't up to scratch, the photographer probably blinded by manipulation techniques from some digital mag or other, are WE the older photographers failing in our duty to educate newer people to the hobby or are we just a bunch of old stick in the muds who cant see further than FP4 or Kodachrome 64.

not just with photos.
There's soon to be an environmental levy on funerals for people with non biodegradable parts.
Burying Michael Jackson, and Joan Rivers would be an ecological disaster.

but seriously...

photography is supposed to be fun.
that has different meanings for different people.

The problem is that the oldies who started out on FP4 or K64 made sure, everything was checked, double checked etc before pressing the shutter.
Nowadays with digital (with basically free film to use) it's easy to machine gun down subjects, knowing you could fix it later, if needed. And because editing programs like PS give you so much possibility's to do something to a picture, it is easy to do it wrong. I've been there, done it and eventually learned the lesson. Now I don't use PS anymore. If i need PS to save an image from the bin, it's not worth saving in the first place. Be your selfs worst critique and learn from your mistakes.
Martin.

I guess that it is Belinda B.'s 'Egret Painting' that has prompted this line of thought.

When I was at university, those of us studying architecture, stuck to very conventional techniques in the darkroom, but the guys / girls on the Photograhy, Graphic Design, Fine Art, Fashion courses etc. produced some amazing, very heavily manipulated images in the dark room, long before computers had ever been invented.

The interesting thing about being at a university that had its roots as an Art School, was the blurring of the edges between the various disciplines, with nobody laying down hard and fast rules.

I don't do any more now than when I worked in the darkroom. I was always combining negatives, making mirror images, changing brightness and contrast, cropping and all the other tools that are now available so much more easily in Photoshop.

Not to mention multiple exposures in camera and other camera trickery!

Photography is there, the techniques and equipment are there and what you make of it all is an individual choice.

What drives it is a desire to be creative and to express that creativity.

I think you make a point here, but still think there is a big difference here.
There is nothing wrong to think outside the box. But trying to save a picture from the bin, by some heavy manipulating is something else.
And by the way; I honestly think her unedited version is 10 times better and pleasing to look at. Despite the flaws it obviously has.
Martin.

I see nothing wrong with manipulations for artistic effect, and even at times to rescue a photo. Ansel Adams used the dark room to great effect after all.
It is tempting to try all the tricks in the box when dealing with a photo, experience teaches that unless you really want a special effect for artistic reasons, the tricks are not needed (much).

My photography teacher still uses film for her work. She does double exposures, plays with them all in the dark room and makes a reasonable living from from these works of art. She freely admits to using some really duff photos as part of her creations. But they form only a small part of her creations. She does the same with digital to a lesser extent as she doesn't like using APS-C cameras for her work.

Whilst I agree that the original photo in Belinda's case is better, I admire her for trying effects and accepting some rather cutting comments on her photos. If her style is to use effects then that is fine - that is her style, just as Nimitz uses HDR for his style. Everyone is different, thank goodness.

I should just like to point out that Belinda titled her picture: "Egret painting", and not "Egret photograph". That title, in my view, implicitly suggested that the image should NOT be judged as a photograph.

When it comes to photography, I prefer to see as little done to the captured image as possible. which is why 99.99% of my pictures come finished from the Raw converter. Some might say it shows!

However, that is my personal approach. I would not wish to discourage others from experimenting. If everybody were as conservative as I am in these matters, photography would never have been invented.

And that would be a pity.

So, bravo Belinda!

G

I think the beauty of a place like this is that it represents a safe environment in which to experiment and to receive constructive comments from a broad spectrum of users. I don't suppose Belinda was proposing her picture as a new direction in which the photographic art should be moving; just that she had a photograph which she was trying to improve and was seeking the advice of a circle of friends on her attempts.

When I first started in photography, I loved the idea of 'soot and whitewash' mono landscapes. But, after a few years, I grew out of it when I worked out what I wanted from my photography. Everyone needs to learn and I wish there were places like this when I was first starting.

Adrian

Well pointed out George, I should have spotted that myself.

It seems Martin and myself are at least on the same wavelength, as for other opinions I too have no problem with manipulation if its done well and produces a good image, and as said this was even possible in the darkroom, unfortunately digital has made manipulating images a lot easier for the masses and I feel this is where the problem (if it is one) arises, in other words are newer photographers relying too much on photoshop as an image rescue tool when they should be addressing the problem in camera?

I've always maintained 'get it right in camera' as much as possible and done very little in the way of manipulation, almost everything I've done is cropping and moving sliders til it 'looks right'.

My entry in the 'Ugly" competition was my first go at trying something else from an existing shot. The Council offices in Aylesbury are ugly, but the original shot was taken on the Sunday after I got my first Limited lens (the 43mm). Was just putting it through it's paces as well as taking myself out of my comfort zone, left the house with no grip, no zoom, no DA* just the K10 and the 43mm. It was a good lesson, made me think!

Anyways, looking at the original shot I just thought it wasn't ugly enough




Cropped it, rotated it, tweaked it, moved some more slidy bars around and ended up with this which I am very pleased with




Manipulation definately has its place, everyone has there own style, so I guess it's not wrong at all. Relying on it because you're not good enough to take a cracking shot in the first place is an altogether different thing though!

That's a superb image with lots of real impact. Fantastic quality.

You've made the image, but to fulfil your vision, not to rescue a shot.

In other words, it's been done the right way round. The manipulation was done to make the image you wanted in the first plcace. The technique followed the inspiration.

Here is an example which can be used as the opposite of what Unlocker posted above.
Remember this one?


I took it a year ago in Denmark. I saw this billboard, while walking the streets. And immediately saw the potential. I posted myself on the other side of the street and waited for the right person to come by. After several attempts this male Muslim character approaches. I see the controversial scene develop and push the button. Boy!! Was i pleased with myself.
Only until the moment I saw it on a big screen. Not sharp at all.
How could I possibly mess up that chance. I should have binned it, but blinded by the promise of : "what could have been", I decided not to.Maybe I can save it, later on..........
And then the Street competition is launched. A golden opportunity to show them.......
So i tweaked, fiddled, added grain, sharpened and finally thought i had it.
I entered the comp. with this result:
Gartmore said;
And off course; He is so right. Valuable lesson learned. Moral of this piece of self punishment ?
If you start of with a great picture you can do a lot of great stuff to it, even to make it better. ( see unlockers example)
If on the other hand you start off with a weak one........
Martin.

PS, I like the way this thread is developing.

I really like Unlocker's end result for the "Ugly" competition and thought that it was a definite contender for 1st place. But for me, the manipulation was done to rescue the shot, since the original image is somewhat less than impressive and although the building is definitely ugly, it looks pretty innocuous as originally taken.

I can see both points of view.

It's the difference between,

"Here's a photo with good raw material (eg exposure, sharpness), and my vision for it is this... and I'll do x, y, and z to it in order to achieve precisely that."

... and

"Here's a photo that technically isn't really very good, and I'll spend ages fiddling about with it to try and improve the contrast/sharpness/removal of distracting background/cloning of burned out highlights etc etc."

In the former case, the result can often be fine, and the building is a case in point (even though I don't find it ugly, it is more imposing and mysterious - it reminds me of the building that sets sail on the high seas in Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life').

In the latter case, it's rare that all that effort is worthwhile. I think we all go through a phase of trying in vain to salvage something from poor raw material, but it's a pretty dispiriting experience, and I've all but given up on it.