next thread »

[Rolf]

Well, let's talk here about this question:

The image to the right is not made with GIMP - it's shot with a "Subjektiv" and had only it's curve tweaked a bit. The Subjektiv is a lens with exchangable optics. I used an acrylic lens, like in the Holga. There is also a glas lens which even can be stopped down with an aperture, a pinhole and a zone plate. So this image is a "real" photography - would there be a difference if I had shot it with a good lens and made it look like this in GIMP?

[ted]

A camera is just a tool.
Gimp is just a tool.
Use the one that suits you best to get the result you want.

How close am I to saying that perhaps there might just
be another program out there that is also just a tool ?
Who would want to use something that costs vasts amount
of money and still more every time there is an upgrade and
worst of all doesn't work on linux ?

[paynekj]

I think your question comes down to:-

What is important to you? The end result, or the journey to that result?

Personally I find the journey to be the interesting part, especially if it involves "real world" tools to play with, but I can also see the pleasure to be had from creating something using "virtual world" tools.

Edit...

After reading the excellent words of w_nightshade below I feel I have to add that I'm an engineer, hence my interest in the tools rather than the artistic outcome!

[w_nightshade]

The unfortunate answer to this question is, "It means exactly as much as you choose it to mean... no more, no less."

Photography (done for anything other than strict factual documentation) is art.  With all art, meaning comes both from the artist in their intentions, and the viewer in their interpretation.  That is true for both the final product as well as the medium and techniques used to create it.  If someone reproduces Michaelangelo's David out of Lard, the medium and technique become important to the interpretation of the piece.  Likewise, using digital manipulation to produce art has meaning if anyone wishes it to be so.  The artist may not choose to reveal that digital manipulation has taken place; the viewer may disregard a piece as "fake" if digital manipulation has taken place; the artist may decide that the digital manipulation IS the piece, and the photo just source media; the viewer may be captivated by the sheer number of digital manipulations. 

Art is really, really difficult to pin down (as it should be).  It all comes down to what the artist wants to say, and how the viewer hears the message.

Have I whitewashed this question enough?  Forgive me, I am a literature major.

[facets]

I echo the above sentiments. The amount of post-processing that is 'correct' is that which brings out what was visualized. Ansel Adams' famous image http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html was what he envisioned and not at all what he captured on film.

Richard.

[Rolf]

Thanks for the link, it has a lot of information behind it. And a very funny thing: Look at the big version of Adams image. What do you notice in the dark part of the sky? Hint: Adams never saw it. ;-)

[Dan]

Oh that's a great catch..  the rising moon in what 3/4 and it's on the horizon at evening.  Should be full! 
 Or was there something I missed?

Just to add,  I heard this was a one shot wonder whereas the sky parted with light for just the seconds of the capture and closed again.. Luck is often found with persistence and sweat and skill.

We had recently a TV hour show on Ansel Adams.. his photos, his difficult years and his late in life fame.


Dan

[Penphoe]

As paynekj mentioned earlier, is it the end process or journey?  For me, I enjoy it when people enjoy my "end process" a.k.a my final picture, however I enjoy the process my journey takes me to the end.

As for the route the journey goes on, IMO it has to do with the tools available.  Since I do not have a Subjektiv lens, I cannot enjoy the process of shooting with it.  All I can do is through whatever image manipulation tool(s) I have to get me to the image I want - that is if I wanted to re-create something like Rolf's flower pic.

@ Rolf - a dust blob?  Well, maybe since Adams wasn't using a large format digital sensor, is it a star or planet hanging out in the top right corner?

LaterZ!
Darren!!

[Rolf]

I think I see the reflection of the photographer who shot the framed print. :-)

[mramshaw]

Have I whitewashed this question enough?

Thank you for putting this into words [for me]. My sister was whingeing about the colours in a
picture I had been working on. The picture as the camera took it was horrible but it was a family
thing and she had specifically asked me for the pictures.

I had a nice family group that had some interest and tried for realistic skin tones. I could not
get her to understand that there is no such thing as absolute colours (they're all a product of
the specific instant in time and relative to something else) so I tried to sell her the idea that the
picture was an artistic expression of what I wanted to say (no sale, but that's her problem).

Thank you for the literature major version!

[Rolf, I noticed the reflection and actually I think it's another layer in a masterpiece. There's
been some bollox talked about Ansel Adams here lately, and the documentary *I* saw (the
same one Dan saw I'm sure) made it very clear that AA spent days - if not weeks - in the
darkroom post-processing. I can confirm that prints made are not purely mechanical; some
ARE worth more than others - and experts can reliably tell who made the print.]

[Dan]

I think I see the reflection of the photographer who shot the framed print. :-)

Ah.. thanks.. had to GIMP with it on my view to see it..
That was fun. .
Please..Remove this if it's not ok...

Dan..
PS.. some pieces of the documentary is on YouTube I see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZND3eczqoIA&feature=related

[ted]

Yes indeed !   I also did a bit with curves on a cropped image.
So, is that a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad that the phantom
photographer is using ? 

[Rolf]

I think it's a SLR. Perhaps on a tripod, he holds his right hand a bit funny.

[mramshaw]

A camera is just a tool.
Gimp is just a tool.
Use the one that suits you best to get the result you want.

I watched Episode 98 yesterday and got to thinking. With regard to the 'Subjectiv' I think that
last statement is the important one. The difference between a picture and art comes down to
intention. Ansel Adams was definitely an artist as he had always a specific destination in mind,
but if you or I had taken 'Moonrise' would it still have been art? I think not.

We allowed him a great deal of freedom with his post-processing as he was using B & W and
photographing remote places unknown and inaccessible to most of us, but would we have
allowed a photo-journalist [where we are looking for representational realism] the same
freedoms? I don't think so.

The pictures in National Geographic have NEVER looked anything like the real thing, but we
allow for their heavy processing to create the emotional experience of exotic foreign places.

If you are setting out to create a specific emotional response according to some predefined
idea of what you are trying to achieve, then all means are acceptable and it is definitely art.

If it is merely a happy accident, then it may still be art. Or maybe not? Any other opinions?

[monoceros84]

[...] but would we have allowed a photo-journalist [where we are looking for representational realism] the same freedoms? I don't think so.

The pictures in National Geographic have NEVER looked anything like the real thing, but we
allow for their heavy processing to create the emotional experience of exotic foreign places.

I think I can't agree totally with this. Sure, DIP might change a whole image a lot and it's everything else that journalism to do so. But on the other hand every camera hat it's limits. Take e.g. an image I shot lately (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monoceros84/3445247821/). The dynamic range was so high that I could decide between white sky or black hills. But what I saw in reality was a stunning landscape and dramatic clouds that started to rain right afterwards. The picture would have lost a lot and would not have shown the reality as it was.
That's why I think some basic DIP should also be acceptable in journalism. Just as NG did.