What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Enhancing a photograph to make viewing a more pleasant experience can't be bad.

Couldn't have put it better myself

[Greybeïż½rd]

[Tinka]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

I went for No 2.
I'm sure that I am not alone in applying some processing to most of my shots. If spending a few minutes with curves, usm and noise removal etc. enhances a shot then I'm all for it. I consider myself a low level amateur, especially when viewing some of the shots in the gallery, and as such a few tweaks here and there are pretty much the norm for me.
I think each individual will have their own level of acceptance as to how much manipulation can be applied before passing over the line between photograph and digital art. Enhancing a photograph to make viewing a more pleasant experience can't be bad.

Hi all,
I'm comeing in again here, I thought the poll was to find out what individual people would /do, consider a true photograph to be. not to find out what is or is not acceptable in the forums. If the forum comps etc: are for "True photographs" only, then I am in big DO-DOs. Let us ask, what if I take a photograph, heavily manipulate it and edit it beyond recognition of the original, I then photograph it and enter it into the comp, would that be a "True Photograph" or not? My views on what constitutes a true photograph are as I said in this thread before. but please lets not get the forums bogged down in technicalities, it is a hobby for most of us and a very enjoyable one at that..

[ChromeBee]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Do you call what Ansel Adams produced "true" photography? He planned his photography very carefully both both before, during and after taking the shot. Every step was use to manipulate the image into what he wanted. Most of his shots were also in black and white. Can a black and white image ever be the true representation of a scene?

What about magazine fashion shots. They are also heavily retouched.

I think most people would call these examples in most cases "true" photography.

I have just put together an picture for my mother-in-law for her Christmas cards. It is a picture of her dog at the top of a mountain on a pair of skis. I wouldn't call it a "true" photograph.

I guess I'm falling between 1 & 2. It is up to the viewer to decide if they consider something a "true" protograph. I may use a number of techniques on an image and still consider it "true" and yet use the same techniques on another image and not.

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Hi all,
I'm comeing in again here, I thought the poll was to find out what individual people would /do, consider a true photograph to be. not to find out what is or is not acceptable in the forums. If the forum comps etc: are for "True photographs" only, then I am in big DO-DOs.

The poll is basically intended to show where individuals draw the line in terms of what they deem to be a true photograph. To that extent we've seen a trend towards the middle ground in the poll itself and range of written responses which indicate that everyone's "line" is different, and for different reasons.

However, as was the case with a previous post in this thread, I'm confused as to why you think anyone is trying to determine what is right or wrong in respect of the photographs displayed in the forums. I haven't seen any attempts by people in this thread to do anything other than express a personal point of view; nobody has tried to dictate what should be considered photographic or otherwise in respect of this website.

Let us ask, what if I take a photograph, heavily manipulate it and edit it beyond recognition of the original, I then photograph it and enter it into the comp, would that be a "True Photograph" or not?

As far as I know, there are no hard and fast rules or definititive criteria which define "true" photography when it comes to this site and those who manage it, so you're hardly in the "do-do". That said, if the curator of a salon decides that shots posted to his or her contest should not be heavily manipulated, then those rules should be respected. All's fair in love and war, etc...

My views on what constitutes a true photograph are as I said in this thread before. but please lets not get the forums bogged down in technicalities, it is a hobby for most of us and a very enjoyable one at that..

Forgive me if I'm missing something blindingly obvious here, but has something occured in this thread which suggests anyone is getting bogged down with technicalities? All I've seen is a perfectly healthy debate on a subject which is relevant to us all, and I think that by understanding one anothers points of view, we can all learn to assess one anothers work in a more informed way. In starting this thread, my intention was to promote discussion and highlight how we all see things differently, but by no means was the poll intended to produce a definitive set of criteria to be adopted in the forums - people are free to express themselves photographically on this site as they choose, within reason of course...

[Ian]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Hi all,
I'm comeing in again here, I thought the poll was to find out what individual people would /do, consider a true photograph to be. not to find out what is or is not acceptable in the forums. If the forum comps etc: are for "True photographs" only, then I am in big DO-DOs. Let us ask, what if I take a photograph, heavily manipulate it and edit it beyond recognition of the original, I then photograph it and enter it into the comp, would that be a "True Photograph" or not? My views on what constitutes a true photograph are as I said in this thread before. but please lets not get the forums bogged down in technicalities, it is a hobby for most of us and a very enjoyable one at that..

Hi Tinka, let me reassure you that the poll has nothing to do with official site policy. Tim is simply conducting a rather interesting exercise to discover how blurred the distinction is between 'true' photography and otherwise.

I'm all for skilful manipulation of photo images (within the right context ) and you, in particular, are showing very promising signs of becoming a real artisan in this genre. Anyway, by the looks of the poll so far there seems to be a split opinion.

No matter what anyone thinks is a 'real' photo or not, if any image is interesting to look at and it has had some kind of photographic content or process in its production, then it's more than likely to be relevant to DPNow (there are a few exceptions, but I doubt these would concern most of us here).

Ian

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Do you call what Ansel Adams produced "true" photography?

Yup

His methods and general ethos (if not his genius... ) are pretty much key to how I tackle my own work - both professionally and in my own time. I see the capture and composition of my shots as a completely seperate thing to the processing, and in fact I often gear up the more artistic shots with a view to processing them a specific way in order to realise the vision in my head. Only in commercial contexts in which the client is essentially looking for a true record of a particular event or scenario, do I provide an accurate representation of that scenario.

Digital art, montages, surrealistic images (a monkey's head blended with a man's body...) and certain composites are often very interesting, visually thrilling and leave no doubt as to the creativity and effort which has gone into them. The only thing I personally stop short of in respect of such heavily-manipulated images, is referring to them as photographs. That's why I felt that this poll would be a great exercise, and it was

Thanks for taking part.

[ChromeBee]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Yup

His methods and general ethos (if not his genius... ) are pretty much key to how I tackle my own work - both professionally and in my own time. I see the capture and composition of my shots as a completely seperate thing to the processing, and in fact I often gear up the more artistic shots with a view to processing them a specific way in order to realise the vision in my head. Only in commercial contexts in which the client is essentially looking for a true record of a particular event or scenario, do I provide an accurate representation of that scenario.

So throwing your own question back at you. Do you consider what you produce (as you descibe above) as a "true" photograph? Or do you only ever produce a "true" photograph if the client specifically asks?

[Bearface]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

So throwing your own question back at you. Do you consider what you produce (as you descibe above) as a "true" photograph? Or do you only ever produce a "true" photograph if the client specifically asks?

I'm not sure if you read my original post to this thread or not, but in my opinion a "true" photo is one from which one can clearly identify the original scenario, or obvious elements of it. I'm all for editing out blemishes and indeed enhancing what is already there, but I think that my own personal line is drawn (in terms of what one can accurately describe as a photo), when the image no longer resembles a photo, but instead a computer-generated illustration. I actually love a lot of digital art, but I just don't see the heavily manipulated stuff as photography.

Because I'm a photographer at heart and because I'm not particularly interested in dramatically altering what I shoot, I definitely feel that my own work - even the more processed stuff - is representative of "true" photography.

[ChromeBee]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

but I think that my own personal line is drawn (in terms of what one can accurately describe as a photo), when the image no longer resembles a photo, but instead a computer-generated illustration.

-- stuff cut out --

Because I'm a photographer at heart and because I'm not particularly interested in dramatically altering what I shoot, I definitely feel that my own work - even the more processed stuff - is representative of "true" photography.

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Each person has their own line between what constitutes a "true" photograph and what doesn't.

For me it is somewhere between 1&2. Some enhancements and touch-up permitted that may take it out of option 1 (Only an accurate representation of the original scene will do) but not allowed to go fully wild into option 2 (An image which closely represents the original, with some tasteful, considered alterations). What some people consider tasteful other do not.

[Ian]

Re: What constitutes a "true" photograph..?

Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Each person has their own line between what constitutes a "true" photograph and what doesn't.

For me it is somewhere between 1&2. Some enhancements and touch-up permitted that may take it out of option 1 (Only an accurate representation of the original scene will do) but not allowed to go fully wild into option 2 (An image which closely represents the original, with some tasteful, considered alterations). What some people consider tasteful other do not.

If you think about it, reality is being distorted by any camera; take a picture and display the result and if you use 10 different cameras, each one will produce a slightly different version of the same scene, even before any post-processing.

Ian