Good question....art or crap ?!

[Jaxs]

my only real argument with your argument is that photoshopping and creative photography are in my opinion two seperate things. creative photography is done with the camera in the hand, photoshopping can be done by someone who wouldn't know which end of a camera to look thru.

The use of virtually any photograph in magazines around the globe have been ' manipulated' in Photoshop or similar software... whether it's just to reset the brightness and contrast, cropping, removing the odd bits and pieces.... Pick up any magazine and check the adverts..... check out the dimension of photographs used.... full negative image...... Hardly.... How many pros are using digital cameras... and not using any software to edit the image........ virtually every sports photographer will edit their image before submission, and that's from Atheletics to .. whatever sport begins with Z...

It's a very competitive market out there and without a variety of styles and views the picture editors would be tearing their hair out in trying to find a new or 'different' image.

Have a look at the huge selection of Motoring mags around the globe and see the difference in the style, look at any front cover...... not digitally enhanced... yer right...

Before digital, it was the work of the Darkroom technican ... shade, dodge, adjust, crop but a straight image or print.. and then there was air brushing.... the list goes on...

Composing in the camera... of course, an absolute must but..... an awareness of the benefits of later manipulation can enhance any image. Photography and Photoshop within the print world go hand in hand... the advent of the computer and digital images has changed the print world and to dismiss Photoshop ... well ..

The buzz with any image is seeing it on the centre page or cover of the publication.

[kdr]

i think i understand a little of photoshop and its importance in digital photography, and am in now way dismissing it. what i'm trying to say is that the general rule of thumb is as the photographer (or the editor working for a photographer in the field or back at the office), working on the picture you don't go beyond what could be referred to as "darkroom techniques". although even then you're sometimes better leaving well alone and letting the picture desk have a crack at it...if you're outdoors at an event, daylight on laptop screens isn't exactly conducive to accurate photoshopping.

imho the role as a photographer is to capture as honestly and creatively what you see before you....now if the client you send the picture to wants to airbrush some lbs of that model or make your bmw picture look like a 1970s athena poster than thats their choice. the great thing about the real big hitters like rondeau, heath, bruty, mason, pretty, miralle etc is their ability to see things that others don't, and to share it...i'm almost 100% sure that extreme photoshop techniques don't really cross their minds...i'll ask them though the next time i see them.

still theres people on this forum who obviously know their stuff and its all very educational. i've only been the F1 photo editor here at Getty Images(nee Allsport)for 10 years and i still keep learning new things every day, the ins and outs of digital photography and photoshop techniques included...although i do miss velvia..

[redshoes]

Well said. Cropping, changing the colour balance, zooming in, etc are just the modern digital equivilent of what's been happening in the darkroom for years. What jaxs has done is a world away from that, just throw every photoshop effect you can find at it and end up with something that's barely recognisable from the original picture.

My own view is that if you have to resort to major photoshop-ing to add a sence of speed or dramatic effect then you'd be better off learning to take a better picture in the first place.

I'm sure there are graphics artists out there who that sort of thing great but as a photographer it does nothing for me.

[Jaxs]

AS you are at AllSport, you will remember the co-founder, Tony Duffy and his photos of Bob Beamon at the Mexico Olympics

Together with Don Morley, they supplied an original point of view, but you will also be aware that Tony Duffy followed a number of different sports to maintain the catalogue of photos...... Gymnastics and power boat racing to mention just the ones I can remember seeing him at and almost standing side by side...

I can remember his comments abiout not allowing the picture editors any space to crop or change 'His' image.. and using Photoshop, a neg scanner and an acoustic coupler to send his image in on the evening. and that would be from his hotel room.....

... and I can remember sitting my A level in Photogrpahy with one of your guys some years ago. His comment was that he needed a pass to keep his job...

[Jaxs]

Redshoes, just throw every photoshop effect you can find at it and end up with something that's barely recognisable from the original picture.

Just a couple of the effects of Photoshop....... but hey, don't worry.... Have a look at any glossy magazine, any up market cosmetic ad, any of the new car ads... and the ' Photographs' ...the list goes on and the commercial photographers are finding new ways to enhance and improve the clients image..... it's out there and being used in all types of Photography.

[kdr]

yes the legend that is tony duffy and "the picture" that started it all.

funny i can get nostalgic for velvia but not so much for chemicals, scanners and 800 neg.

i understand what you're saying about the uses of photoshop, i wasn't aware its the photographers themselves that are doing that sort of work...don't magazines and design houses have their own graphic artists and retouchers? if you're working on a brief for a specific commercial client i'd guess your constraints would be looser than say a photographer working to satisfy a wide variety of editorial clients.

[redshoes]

Jaxs, at the risk of repeating myself, I realise this sort of thing goes on but there's a fine line between removing a few blemishes and completely re-working a picture. Just because glossy mags are full of this sort of thing does mean it's good. I've seen lots of Novas with huge bolt-on bodykits and enormous bass speakers, which to me is the automotive equivalent of what you've done - it doesn't make them better cars or that I should be driving one.

You berate conventional photography as everyone is doing the same thing, then tell us this sort of thing is the way forward as it's what all the glossy mags are doing. To use your own argument perhaps what you are doing is already cliché.

[David L]

Originally Posted by kdr

i understand what you're saying about the uses of photoshop, i wasn't aware its the photographers themselves that are doing that sort of work...

In my experience, it's better for the photographer to check the picture and reset the white balance, colour space etc (if required) and to then apply the relevant sharpening to redress the anti aliasing, all before it goes out.. After all, they're your shots and you want them to speak for themselves..

This isn't the case with many agency guys, who tend to fire and forget when out of the camera.. They get caught out if the publication cannot be bothered with setting balance, sharpness etc.. though.. stuff looks poor then..

Cropping and other more dramatic effect type stuff, I always leave that to the editors, layout and picture desk people, as they will have thier own ideas as to how they want to portray the image.. It's quite common for portrait covers to be made from landscape shots, for instance..

IMO, post processing by the photographer is an extremely important step in producing quality.

[David L]

Originally Posted by Jaxs

How many pros are using digital cameras... and not using any software to edit the image........ virtually every sports photographer will edit their image before submission, and that's from Atheletics to .. whatever sport begins with Z...

Zebra throwing..?

Seriously, I'd say you're right about freelancers editing images before submission but it's perhaps not as common with agencies, in my experience, where there is a far more "fire and forget" attitude to the work.. The photographer takes the shots, the guys back at base deal with them.

Originally Posted by Jaxs

Composing in the camera... of course, an absolute must but..... an awareness of the benefits of later manipulation can enhance any image. Photography and Photoshop within the print world go hand in hand... the advent of the computer and digital images has changed the print world and to dismiss Photoshop ... well ..

Agreed.. I can't think of many conditions where the camera will get the white balance spot on, for instance.. maybe the hue is a little off also.. Use the same settings for a chome yellow Corvette and that really brilliant white that Champion use, and you're going to have problems..

Originally Posted by Jaxs

The buzz with any image is seeing it on the centre page or cover of the publication.

To be honest, I get more of a buzz when the cash hits the bank account.. But, yeah, seeing your work in pole position is a buzz and something to be proud of..

[kdr]

Originally Posted by David L

In my experience, it's better for the photographer to check the picture and reset the white balance, colour space etc (if required) and to then apply the relevant sharpening to redress the anti aliasing, all before it goes out.. After all, they're your shots and you want them to speak for themselves..

This isn't the case with many agency guys, who tend to fire and forget when out of the camera.. They get caught out if the publication cannot be bothered with setting balance, sharpness etc..

Cropping and other more dramatic effect type stuff, I always leave that to the editors, layout and picture desk people, as they will have thier own ideas as to how they want to portray the image.. It's quite common for portrait covers to be made from landscape shots, for instance..

IMO, post processing by the photographer is an extremely important step in producing quality.

no david i meant the more radical photoshopping, like yourself thats what we would leave to clients. the snappers, their editors or the desk all get involved depending on the situation in tidying up the pictures before they go anywhere.

anyway, thats me for a while...maybe see some of you next week.

[Jaxs]

Redshoes, I wrote an article at the advent of digital photography advocated a similar line of thought, was it really photgraphy after all the digital manipulation?

I don't know what your understanding of art is, then the argument: Is photography art?, any photograpy, that is because you are reliant on a mechanical apparatus to capture your moment? The capture of the image is the result of the pressing of a button, the artistic license of colour, composition, mood are restricted if you are totally reliant on a silver halide image. The lack of icon imagery, and the use
colours and icons to depict and underline the intenion of the image is lost.

But are the use of sepia toning, solarisation, etc acceptable tools within producing a print to achieve your aims?

Darkroom techniques do not stop at the adjustments of contrast and brightness, selective dodging and shading are the next steps in image manipulation, multi exposure choice of paper grades perfectly acceptable in the darkroom now all contribute to elements within Photoshop.

I can understand the difference between classical, modern, impressionist, etc etc within art but why is this not acceptable with a digital image?

KDR, .don't magazines and design houses have their own graphic artists and retouchers? if you're working on a brief for a specific commercial client i'd guess your constraints would be looser than say a photographer working to satisfy a wide variety of editorial clients.

Other way round, the client can and will dictate their needs and the requirement, at times it is up the photographer to point out if it is at all possible as a ' normal' photograph.

Normally in liason with the Photographer, copyright and all that.... the use of the image, The Catolgue's pack shots, but trimmed and manipulated to suit the demands of the client, the photographer will, normally, either by himself or by his own guys edit and manipulate the image to suit the clients needs.

The Design studio will work to fairly strict parameters, knowing the demands of everyone involved, printers, clients etc, these guys will take the whole thing another step in the reproduction process

But is Photography art and is manipulation allowed? and to what degree?

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by Jaxs

I don't know what your understanding of art is

If by 'understanding' you mean have I studied the subject, or have a university degree in it, well no, but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

For me art is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man's 'art' is another man's pile of junk. For some people Damien Hurst's work are great peaces of modern art, for other they are just a dead animal in a fish tank. Some people think a Picasso painting is a work of genius, others think it's a incoherent scribble. Just because you hang it in a frame or display it in a gallery doesn't make it art.

Do I think photography is art? I think SOME photography can be art in the same way that SOME oil paintings are art. I don't believe that ALL photography is art. It may surprise you to learn that I don't think ALL computer generated graphics (both original work and 'enhanced' photographs) are necessarily junk. I've seen some very good examples and some of those I would classify as art.

At the end of the day it's very much down to personal preference, which brings us back to the point of this thread. You posted the digitally enhanced BMW picture under the title 'is this art or crap'. In my option that one comes under the latter category. I'm NOT saying that ALL digitally enhanced images are crap, only that THAT ONE is. There's little you could say that would change my opinion on that. As I've said already on this thread, can't you just accept that not everyone thinks your work is that great and lets just move on.

[Jaxs]

I would be demented to think everyone should like or understand every image, photo, painting or whatever.

But, as I have already said, just to say something is crap or similar without a plausible reason undermines the comments and detracts from the original question.

I realise that a degree or qualification, either having or not having, does not detract from holding an opinion. But, the value of that opinion is balanced against the individuals knowledge of the subject.

That's All, nothing serious, nothing, earth moving, not Quantum wot's it...

[redshoes]

As I didn't study politics at university I'd better not vote in the next election as my option wouldn't count for much either.

I believe both myself and other posters HAVE given reasons why we dislike the image, but for reasons known only to yourself you chose to ignore those. Clearly there's little point in continuing this conversation.

I think David L had the right approach a couple of pages back

*plonk*

[Jaxs]

Well, that's a completely new insight into the discussion on the values of communication...

Go for it, .. One day..

[rdjones]

I was out and about at Le Mans last week. I came up with these two:-

http://www.rdj-pics.co.uk/Photos/200...s/LeMan087.jpg
http://www.rdj-pics.co.uk/Photos/200...s/LM-Thu23.jpg

[BillyT]

The 2nd one is good, the first one is a bit err.....all over the place.

[egor]

Here is one from last week at Le Mans (but it could be anywhere!).
art or crap or just some brambles with a torch behind them??????

[Hepatic]

OK, here's some of my efforts »
San Marino GP 2004 - Exit of Tosa - Police keeping watch over F1 Qualifying
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/SanMarinoGP04/aaq

San Marino GP 2004 - Aqua Minerale - Porsche & Allianz
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/SanMarinoGP04/ada

San Marino GP 2004 - Aqua Minerale - McLaren & Allianz
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/SanMarinoGP04/afe

San Marino GP 2004 - Aqua Minerale - Ferrari & Marshals
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/SanMarinoGP04/aff

Gold Cup 2003, Oulton Park - Thru the Roll-Hoop
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/GoldCup2003/abm

Gold Cup 2003, Oulton Park - GB Helmet Closeup
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/GoldCup2003/aez

LG SRW 2003, Donington - Exit of Melbourne - Lister Up Close
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/SRW03/agv

Goodwood 2005 - Ferrari Enzo Engine Cover & Flag
http://www.hepatic.no-ip.org/gallery/Goodwood05/aag

the last one was totally unintentional, in fact i didn't realise i'd got it until i downloaded the pictures from my camera yesterday!

[Bernard Bram]

Langstreckenpokal Nürburgring. Saturday morning before warmup. Underexposed with the sun shining into the pits. Dunno if this picture works.

[Snapperjack]

I think it would have worked very nicely without the mechanic and with a dark background. Possibly a tighter crop too.

[kdr]

Originally Posted by Snapperjack

I think it would have worked very nicely without the mechanic and with a dark background. Possibly a tighter crop too.

i'm with you on that, it would make a nice ident picture with just the engine in view.

[Bernard Bram]

Ok, what's an ident picture? Obviously i can't get rid of the hand, my editing skills are not up to the task . Tighter crop:



Thanks for your input.

[kdr]

Originally Posted by Bernard Bram

Ok, what's an ident picture? Obviously i can't get rid of the hand, my editing skills are not up to the task . Tighter crop:



Thanks for your input.

thats a bit better.

in my little circle we take an ident picture as a picture that illustrates something, a picture that you could identify with the theme in a quick or subtle way. like car going by harbour in monaco is what the public always invisage f1 to be, a chequered flag, a football in back of net, a car engine in a garage, or i once tried to illustrate a game of rugby at london irish with a line of pints of guiness hanging over the barrier at the side of the pitch!

[Jaxs]

http://img163.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mga6ya.jpg

From the recent MGCC meeting at Silverstone, the White Horse Pub in the village

Hand held, slow and not much light