Sleepy Weasel wrote:
...
Can someone explain to me why it matters? Is it jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, or elitism that prompts these attitudes that post-production in a photo is bad?
...

I will answer your question if you can answer mine.

"Why do you care what they say or think?"

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Me personally, I agree with you.  Among my favorite photographers are those who don't do any post-production that a darkroom can't accommodate, such as D. Brian Nelson, all the way to people who do so much work in Photoshop that their work is really illustrative art, such as Jeffery Scott.  I don't see why it has to be an us vs. them mentality, with one being staunchly defended as the "better" approach.

I also agree with you entirely, but there is something we need to understand.  There are three groups of artists who produce great images with a camera:

1.  There are photographers, for lack of a better term, "old school" who produce quality images right out of the camera.

2.  There are photographers who produce quality images out of the camera and then use Photoshop to improve the image or dramatically transform it into something interesting and unique.

3.  There are photographers who are incompetant with a camera, who take technicallly lousy pictures and then use Photoshop to transform the image into a beautiful work of art.

Given the end product off all three, they are all great artists.  The value and contribution of their art is no better or no worse.  The role in the artistic community is unquestioned and, I for one have absolutely no criticism.

However, and I hate to be the one to say it, the end product doesn't make you a photographer.  There are incredible artists who go out to the junk yard and get pieces of automobile scrap, weld them together and make them into incredible works of art.   That, however, does not make them an auto parts designer.

So, please understand what I am saying because it is, in no way a criticism.  Those in group three use their incredible artistic eye to create a concept and then capture a portion onto their digital sensor.  Their magic lies not in their ability to take a snapshot (which my neighbor's 12 year old daughter does quite competantly), the beauty of the work is their ability to transform something very regular into something very special.  I have seen some guys with an incredible gift, which means art is just keeping up with technology.

So, while their photography can't stand on it's own, their work, in total, can stand with any of us here.

Yuriy wrote:

I will answer your question if you can answer mine.

"Why do you care what they say or think?"

Because I am curious by nature, and when things don't make sense, I question them.

If we are all attempting to create wonderful things to look at, why does it matter how you got there? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I started another thread about a photographer who's work I really liked (https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=99737), but several comments came in remarking about how they didn't like his use of post-poduction manipulation. I don't see why that takes away from the final image.

If the shot is good, does it matter how it was created? Does art have rules that it's only good if the whole shot is 100% natural? We go to movies that are 50% or more of CGI and don't complain, yet a photo that uses digital editing to create the vision the photographer wanted is treated negatively?

Can someone explain to me why it matters? Is it jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, or elitism that prompts these attitudes that post-production in a photo is bad?

If I like the final shot, I don't really care how the photographer got there. Is it just me?

First let me say that I read the other thread and out of all the responses, only one person said anything about not liking his post production manipulation. Everyone else in that thread liked his work.
But to respond to your thread....I could care less how someone gets to the final image.......if I like what I am looking at....who cares how they did it

Thomas B wrote:
First let me say that I read the other thread and out of all the responses, only one person said anything about not liking his post production manipulation.

I counted three. But it's not so much about not liking the work, I guess, but making it a point to say that it was done digitally or manipulated.

If the shot is good, does it matter how it was created? Does art have rules that it's only good if the whole shot is 100% natural?

Here the thing so many seem to miss when discussing this issue. It is never 100% natural! I don't care if it was shot on film, digital or with a paint brush. The image is not natural.

With film all sorts of things come into play that make the image not "natural". The choice of film alters what the scene was at the moment the shutter was clicked. Of course the choice of lens will make a difference how the viewer sees the image.

Come on all of us as photographers (this may not apply to total novice snap-shooters) make artistic choices when we decide to create an image. Shooting with film we decide what film, format, lens, filter to use. Do we want to shoot black and white or color. If color how do we want the colors to look. Will we be adding light or maybe taking it away. What shutter speed will we use to freeze or show motion blur. Even the best photo journalist will make decision on how, where and when to snap a picture to give it the most impact. Yeah we alter reality, always!

With film we even do plenty of post processing. Again we altering reality. Most of us do it consciously for effect. We want to tell a story, create an emotion, increase impact. Hopefully we are thinking about the final product before we even grab the camera.

We do the same thing with digital. I'm guessing most here still try their very best to get it "right" in the camera with a thought to what the final image will look like. We may skew the color balance in the camera for effect. Push the exposure one way or another to achieve our goal ( we did that with film too)

Sometimes we will take photo with thoughts of heavy manipulation in post processing. We may want to blend layers, stack negatives or make multiple exposures. Sometimes we know we will be dodging and burning the image. Heck just deciding what paper we may use for the final print is an attempt to alter how the final image looks.

I guess it really comes down to this, the so called " film purist" were never really all that pure. I think we're all really artist and we're just trying to create our own vision of reality and trying to tell a story with our images. How we do it really doesn't matter as long as we get our message across to the viewer.

And that was my ramble for the day.

Bill

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
However, and I hate to be the one to say it, the end product doesn't make you a photographer...

From either an artistic or commercial point of view, I agree with you on all of your counts but this one.

He who creates a photograph is a photographer.  He who creates a great photograph is lucky.  He who creates great photographs time after time on a consistent basis is a great photographer.  It is not talk that makes you a photographer, it is not wishing that makes you a photographer, or all the equipement in the world.  It is the end result that makes you a photographer.

If an integral part of the photographic process involves post, so be it.  Neither the commercial client nor the art buyer will turn away the work because of the process.

So if a photographer creates a beautiful piece that is either commercially or artistically viable, or both, who are we to say he is not a photographer?  If we only saw the gorgeous final piece, how would we know what he started with?  Why would we care?  Maybe because he's selling pieces and we are not...

Daguerre wrote:

From either an artistic or commercial point of view, I agree with you on all of your counts but this one.

He who creates a photograph is a photographer.  He who creates a great photograph is lucky.  He who creates great photographs time after time on a consistent basis is a great photographer.  It is not talk that makes you a photographer, it is not wishing that makes you a photographer, or all the equipement in the world.  It is the end result that makes you a photographer.

If an integral part of the photographic process involves post, so be it.  Neither the commercial client nor the art buyer will turn away the work because of the process.

So if a photographer creates a beautiful piece that is either commercially or artistically viable, or both, who are we to say he is not a photographer?  If we only saw the gorgeous final piece, how would we know what he started with?  Why would we care?  Maybe because he's selling pieces and we are not...

Bravo.

Daguerre wrote:
From either an artistic or commercial point of view, I agree with you on all of your counts but this one.

He who creates a photograph is a photographer.  He who creates a great photograph is lucky.  He who creates great photographs time after time on a consistent basis is a great photographer.  It is not talk that makes you a photographer, it is not wishing that makes you a photographer, or all the equipement in the world.  It is the end result that makes you a photographer.

If an integral part of the photographic process involves post, so be it.  Neither the commercial client nor the art buyer will turn away the work because of the process.

So if a photographer creates a beautiful piece that is either commercially or artistically viable, or both, who are we to say he is not a photographer?  If we only saw the gorgeous final piece, how would we know what he started with?  Why would we care?  Maybe because he's selling pieces and we are not...

I think this sums it up pretty well.

Daguerre wrote:
So if a photographer creates a beautiful piece that is either commercially or artistically viable, or both, who are we to say he is not a photographer?  If we only saw the gorgeous final piece, how would we know what he started with?  Why would we care?  Maybe because he's selling pieces and we are not...

My feelings are not meant to be demeaning in any way.  And I happen to agree with you.  It makes them no less of an artist.  I also have no problems calling them a photographer.

However, what they have is a different form of art, no better or no worse.  It relies upon a great artistic eye and an exceptional artistic ability, but not upon good photograpic skills.

Is that bad?  Of course not.  I can't draw a straight line but I have done some teriffic body painting over the years.

But bear in mid there are also some great photographes who are also incredible with post production.  We have some fantastic air brush artists in the days of film.  Today we have some wonderful photographers who do incredible things with incredible photographs.

I happen to admire both groups.  I am not one of them!

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
...
I feel there are some that would suddenly dislike the digitally altered photo if they knew how it was created, even though it looks almost exactly the same as the darkroom photo. It just seems silly to me that this would even matter to some, but I know it would.

Some people just prefer certain processes...

Whether this is rational or not is not completely relevant since everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


To turn this around a bit please consider this: Some people would prefer to buy a table that is handmade by a carpenter somewhere even though they can get an identical table made by a machine at a lumber product manufacturing company. Sometimes it’s not just the end result but also the path it takes to get there.

MMDesign wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the photoshop started kicking in. I remember saying something like "I feel like I'm overdoing cleaning up her zits, maybe you should take over.." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like photographers, all swooping and screeching and criticizing the image. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! Who are these goddamn animals?" My retoucher had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest to facilitate the inebriation process. "What the hell are you yelling about?" he muttered, staring at the monitor with his wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind", I said, "their opinions mean nothing to me!" I left him to his retouching. No point mentioning the photographers I thought, the poor bastard will hear them soon enough.

after HST

haha...that's funny
"No point in mentioning these bats, I thought. Poor bastard will see them soon enough."

Bill Bates wrote:

Here the thing so many seem to miss when discussing this issue. It is never 100% natural! I don't care if it was shot on film, digital or with a paint brush. The image is not natural.

With film all sorts of things come into play that make the image not "natural". The choice of film alters what the scene was at the moment the shutter was clicked. Of course the choice of lens will make a difference how the viewer sees the image.

Come on all of us as photographers (this may not apply to total novice snap-shooters) make artistic choices when we decide to create an image. Shooting with film we decide what film, format, lens, filter to use. Do we want to shoot black and white or color. If color how do we want the colors to look. Will we be adding light or maybe taking it away. What shutter speed will we use to freeze or show motion blur. Even the best photo journalist will make decision on how, where and when to snap a picture to give it the most impact. Yeah we alter reality, always!

With film we even do plenty of post processing. Again we altering reality. Most of us do it consciously for effect. We want to tell a story, create an emotion, increase impact. Hopefully we are thinking about the final product before we even grab the camera.

We do the same thing with digital. I'm guessing most here still try their very best to get it "right" in the camera with a thought to what the final image will look like. We may skew the color balance in the camera for effect. Push the exposure one way or another to achieve our goal ( we did that with film too)

Sometimes we will take photo with thoughts of heavy manipulation in post processing. We may want to blend layers, stack negatives or make multiple exposures. Sometimes we know we will be dodging and burning the image. Heck just deciding what paper we may use for the final print is an attempt to alter how the final image looks.

I guess it really comes down to this, the so called " film purist" were never really all that pure. I think we're all really artist and we're just trying to create our own vision of reality and trying to tell a story with our images. How we do it really doesn't matter as long as we get our message across to the viewer.

And that was my ramble for the day.

Bill

All photographs lie to some extent!  The finished product never can have the range of what the film or sensor captured thus a lie of omission is always being told by the finished photograph.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
However, what they have is a different form of art, no better or no worse.  It relies upon a great artistic eye and an exceptional artistic ability, but not upon good photograpic skills.

I am SO sick and tired of hearing this because it is such bullshit!  And I don't mean to rail on you Alan, I like you.  But WTF???

Look at any of the folks you would consider great "digital artists" working in photography and I guarantee you they are great photographers.  You cannot start with a crap image and then turn it into something good in post.  You want to do a composite?  A realistic one?  You better know your lighting down cold to pull it off.  And I'm sorry, but if you are shooting digital, you need some post, otherwise all your shots look like crap snapshots, even if all you're doing is a levels adjustment.

If anything those who are the best at "photographic digital art" have far more skills, and more varied, than 95% of the photographers here....

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
However, what they have is a different form of art, no better or no worse.  It relies upon a great artistic eye and an exceptional artistic ability, but not upon good photograpic skills.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I am SO sick and tired of hearing this because it is such bullshit!  And I don't mean to rail on you Alan, I like you.  But WTF???

Look at any of the folks you would consider great "digital artists" working in photography and I guarantee you they are great photographers.  You cannot start with a crap image and then turn it into something good in post.  You want to do a composite?  A realistic one?  You better know your lighting down cold to pull it off.  And I'm sorry, but if you are shooting digital, you need some post, otherwise all your shots look like crap snapshots, even if all you're doing is a levels adjustment.

If anything those who are the best at "photographic digital art" have far more skills, and more varied, than 95% of the photographers here....

I appreciate your comments, but ... before you get upset, read what I said exactly.

When we deal with digital artists, who I have a great deal of respect for, you have two classes of people shooting the underlying images.  You have great photographers and not so great photographers.  Both of which produce a fantastic end product.  There are some great photographers shooting and then manipulating their images.  That is wonderful.

I have serveral guys that come to my studio and events that can barely handle a camera.  I set up the lights for them, I meter them, I sometimes even have to help them set their cameras.  They take a snapshot based on what I delivered to them.

From that snapshot though, they have produced some incredible, gallery quality works of art.  It wasn't from their skill as a photographer, it was from their skill as a digital artist.

Here is where I have a problem.  What is wrong with being an exceptional digital artist?  That is my point.

Why do people get into such a tizzy when I suggest that not all great digital artists are great photographers (or depending on your definition, they may not be photographers at all).  In my book, they should be proud of their work and proud of their skills and the "label" should make no difference.  The mere fact that they can take a very basic image and turn it into a work of art is more than I can do.  I don't see the problem and I am at a loss why people get emotional about it.

The day may come when photographers are passe' and the digital artist becomes the tip of the sword.  I still have a few years left in the business, and some day, I may be asking them for the job!

Cliff Young Photography wrote:
I have to agree ... The final product is the key .... No not everyone is a photographer and his income will prove it.

This can be a very contradictory statement.  There have been quite a few world class artists that barely made a dime in their day, yet today their work is sought after and paid for with very large bills.  So is it the image or the money?  And at what point in history do you want to call it?  The truth is that we are all photographers of varying degrees, depending upon which subjective chart you wish to compare us to. No amount of money will ever prove a thing, other than being in the right place or the right time.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it matters? Is it jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, or elitism that prompts these attitudes that post-production in a photo is bad?

I don't get involved in those discussions. There is one other topic that I can think of that evokes so much emotion and that is topics in which models that are too heavy call thin models anorexic.

I think it's just sour grapes from people who can't or are not willing to keep up with the changes in photography.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
We go to movies that are 50% or more of CGI and don't complain, yet a photo that uses digital editing to create the vision the photographer wanted is treated negatively?

I both complain and feel cheated WHEN the CG takes center stage and is obvious. When it's a supporting role then I just sit back and enter the world they created.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Can someone explain to me why it matters? Is it jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, or elitism that prompts these attitudes that post-production in a photo is bad?

You phrase this as you are looking for a fight. Turn it around. it could be jealousy, etc on the part of the photographer unable to finish their vision in camera. In fact, it's the attitude of both camps that bother me. Photography is a tool. Make art, do commercial work or make crap. All possible. PhotoShop is JUST another tool to effect the same ends. BUT, that said, Photoshop can be abused more quickly than any photography tool since the fisheye! Especially the drained color or selective color aspect. I love some of it, but most is garbage. Bad photography plus heavy photoshop still equals bad photography.

There are incredible artists who go out to the junk yard and get pieces of automobile scrap, weld them together and make them into incredible works of art.   That, however, does not make them an auto parts designer.

No, it makes them an artist....

If someone were to go to the junk yard, get pieces of scrap, weld them together and create a working automobile, THAT would make them an amazing auto mechanic, or whatever.

Your argument -- based on what you said -- is actually that what you started with doesn't matter:  pieces of automobile scrap turned into incredible works of art = incredible artist. 

Therefor, a comparable argument would be:  so-so photo, turned into incredible photo = incredible photographer/artist.


I agree with the basic point that it's the final product that counts, but I wouldn't call someone who turns a so-so photo into something wonderful a great PHOTOGRAPHER.  In MY mind, the great photographer is the one who TAKES a great photo.  I would call the person who turns "okay" stuff into something spectacular a Photoshop Artist, or something equivalent.... 

Does that make any sense to anyone else?  (It does in my head, but I may not have come across clearly....)

Carole Hayes wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has argued with this:

There are incredible artists who go out to the junk yard and get pieces of automobile scrap, weld them together and make them into incredible works of art.   That, however, does not make them an auto parts designer.

No one debated that point, because this point of Alan's is just too illogical.  Everything you said, everyone was already thinking...

Daguerre wrote:

No one debated that point, because this point of Alan's is just too illogical.  Everything you said, everyone was already thinking...

I was just afraid he thought everyone AGREED with it. 

Okay, I feel better....  : )

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I started another thread about a photographer who's work I really liked (https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=99737), but several comments came in remarking about how they didn't like his use of post-poduction manipulation. I don't see why that takes away from the final image.

If the shot is good, does it matter how it was created? Does art have rules that it's only good if the whole shot is 100% natural? We go to movies that are 50% or more of CGI and don't complain, yet a photo that uses digital editing to create the vision the photographer wanted is treated negatively?

Can someone explain to me why it matters? Is it jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, or elitism that prompts these attitudes that post-production in a photo is bad?

If I like the final shot, I don't really care how the photographer got there. Is it just me?

Any photo with Liz Ashley in it is a good photo

Carole Hayes wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has argued with this:

There are incredible artists who go out to the junk yard and get pieces of automobile scrap, weld them together and make them into incredible works of art.   That, however, does not make them an auto parts designer.

Daguerre wrote:
No one debated that point, because this point of Alan's is just too illogical.  Everything you said, everyone was already thinking...

I think you are reading it backwards and perhaps that is why nobody has commented because my point is your point.   What the person is, is not a parts designer but an artist.

My point is the same with digital artists.  Some are both excellent photographers and digital artists and others have limited photographic skills but have incredible skills with photoshop and other tools.

Just as not beinig an auto parts designer isn't necessary to create great art, if you are well skilled with Photoshop and other image editing tools, you do not need to be an exceptional photographer to be an exceptional artist.

That in no way diminishes the quality of the art.  It is an irrefutable fact that there are those that are better qualified with the skllls of the camera than others just as it is an irrefutable fact that there are those who have better image editing skills than others.

I think there is a tendency of some to apologize because they aren't as good with the camera as others.  I have seen stunning work by a lot of people who would not be regarded as master photographers but would be regarded as master artists.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
Be forewarned, this thread is probably going to devolve into a sniping match between old school film photographers who get it right in camera, and the young uppity whippersnappers who think they can just up and use new tools to create images. 

Me personally, I agree with you.  Among my favorite photographers are those who don't do any post-production that a darkroom can't accommodate, such as D. Brian Nelson, all the way to people who do so much work in Photoshop that their work is really illustrative art, such as Jeffery Scott.  I don't see why it has to be an us vs. them mentality, with one being staunchly defended as the "better" approach.

If the finished image is good, I'm happy, however someone got there.

Great.  I'm left out again.

I'm an old school photographer who's real strength was the darkroom.

But I while there  is much I don't like, I love some of the features that come with digital photography.  Photoshop is top of them.

With it I can do what I used to do in the darkroom (dodge, burn, bleach, tone, etc.) without getting my hands covered in chemicals.

I can do things I used to do in the camera:  such as filter, color tone, sky select, aspect correct (okay, only with a bellows camera), and more.

And I can do things that I used to do on the art board: such as crop, spot, outline, and block.

I can do things the art department used to do.  Such as airbrush, selectively bleach, fade, or texture, reduce hips, remove flare, and more.

If you are industrial, journalistic, medical or legal then manipulation is a no-no.  In art, in the end, it is about the image.  Artistic license is granted to artists.

But don't fool yourself.  If it isn't supposed to look manipulated, and it does, then it's bad.  Plastic skin is still plastic skin.

TXPhotog wrote:
We already have one religious thread going on the forum today . . . .

Finally!!  Someone else who sees it!



I've been trying for I-don't-know-how-long to get people to see the parallels.  I find it especially ironic the way most photographers who otherwise claim to not be the least bit religious seem to exhibit the spiritual devotion of a zealot when it comes to their views on this subject...

Habenero Photography wrote:
All photographs lie to some extent!  The finished product never can have the range of what the film or sensor captured thus a lie of omission is always being told by the finished photograph.

Agreed.  I used to have a saying back thirty years ago.  "The camera always lies."  People thought I was getting the quote wrong, and would correct me to say "never".  I knew better.