Rules of the Game (of Photography) - LL

[groovyone]

For all those that claim Photoshop or other digital manipulation is "cheating", an interesting but quick read.

Rules of The Game

Originally Posted by Harold Merklinger

Photography, like many aspects of life, is a game – but we don't always know the rules.

The mere notion of "cheating" implies that some set of rules exists. As a physicist I'll offer that photographic technology has no choice but to obey the laws of physics. Whatever works works; whatever fails fails. It's pretty hard to cheat Physics! But there is usually a human aspect to photography: the photographer and the viewer. Indeed the subset of photography discussed on The Luminous Landscape pretty much sets a high value on the human element whether it's the ergonomics of the tools used or the assessment of the image produced. Physics has little to do with the human aspects apart from the fact that physics plays a role in keeping the humans alive. Thus I would argue that any rules associated with photography somehow must derive primarily from those humans rather than any natural order of the universe.

This was a response to: Am I A Photographic Cheat?

[ptrd]

Interesting take on it.

[groovyone]

Right now I don't do much manipulation, but I do wonder if it is skill based more than anything. Before I was good at flash photography (although some would argue I am still not), I used to claim to prefer natural light. Well, I did compared to my crap skill with flashes. Seems that this could be much the same discussion.

[SCone]

Making adjustments in PS is no different than developing film. It's when the photo is altered to the point that it no longer resembles the original that it crosses the line in my mind. The recent million-dollar piece that had removed an entire factory from the landscape comes to mind. It really cannot be viewed as a photograph anymore.

[Nikonfan]

Originally Posted by SCone

Making adjustments in PS is no different than developing film. It's when the photo is altered to the point that it no longer resembles the original that it crosses the line in my mind. The recent million-dollar piece that had removed an entire factory from the landscape comes to mind. It really cannot be viewed as a photograph anymore.

That's true. But it could still be viewed as art. Maybe the creaters of the images should refer to themsellves as artists instead of photographers.

[donlfaulkner]

It seems to me that the rules are that there are no rules. Just my inexperienced $.02.

[kenw]

Originally Posted by Nikonfan

That's true. But it could still be viewed as art. Maybe the creaters of the images should refer to themsellves as artists instead of photographers.

I would rather say that there are 2 kinds of photographers: artists and technicians. We need both.

[rab3rd]

then there are artistic technicians, we need them too

[ronocnikral]

there is no cheating. manipulate all you want.

having spent the time to read adams' "trinity," he makes clear that everything should be done with the end product in mind.

there are good images and there are not good images. while your path may be of interest to me, you are ultimately judged on your end product. if one would like to build an image pixel by pixel, have at it.

[Nikonfan]

Photography is a lot like painting. There are realists and impressionists. Then there are painters that just paint houses. Just because you have a camera or paintbrush, it doesn't make you an artist. At the same time, there are no rules on what is art and what is not art. What is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

[sbsbennett]

If you consider Ansel Adams a cheater, then manipulating a photograph with the resources available is cheating. He spent hours and hours in the darkroom dodging and burning to get his photos to be what he envisioned. His originals had to be of a quality to be a foundation to work from. And he was very excited before his death about the onset of digital photo and its expanse of possibilities.

[Abel]

moving to post processing section

[HillPhotos2009]

I think I should have my husband read this article. He's been trying to drag me into this debate for months. I watch a lot of shows about photography when they're on, like the Peter Lik shows on the Weather Channel - as soon as he sees them he starts in on how unless the person takes the photo directly from the camera, they're not a real photographer. I don't debate with him because he has no clue. I don't even think he knows what a darkroom is. But his experience with photography is a couple of disposable point and shoots he's used between marriages to take pictures of his kids on special occasions so I leave it alone.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by HillPhotos2009

I think I should have my husband read this article. He's been trying to drag me into this debate for months. I watch a lot of shows about photography when they're on, like the Peter Lik shows on the Weather Channel - as soon as he sees them he starts in on how unless the person takes the photo directly from the camera, they're not a real photographer. I don't debate with him because he has no clue. I don't even think he knows what a darkroom is. But his experience with photography is a couple of disposable point and shoots he's used between marriages to take pictures of his kids on special occasions so I leave it alone.

Just pat him on the head and say "Sure thing, dear".

[Jake]

Originally Posted by HillPhotos2009

...I watch a lot of shows about photography when they're on, like the Peter Lik shows on the Weather Channel - as soon as he sees them he starts in on how unless the person takes the photo directly from the camera, they're not a real photographer.....

Peter Lik is fine with photoshoperry.
Unless this is straight from the camera.....
http://www.lik.com/media/catalog/category/WG858.jpg