Where is the line?

[Jim Neiger]

Where is the line (if there is one) between a photograph and digital art? This is a question I have often struggled with for my work. I am one that believes that each person should do whatever they like in this regard as long as they are honest about it, but for me personaly I want to do photography and not digital art. I do not enjoy the computer work the way I do field work and I try to minimize my processing time. I have followed BPN from it's start when time allows and I have noticed that more and more of the critiques and advice are targeted towards post processing in the direction of digital art. This makes me wish for more critiques and advice that are targeted towards things that are done in the field. My personal goals have been to produce images that come as close as possible to the important elements of what existed in reality while minimizing my time at the computer. There is no clearly defined line for me, just a desire to generaly meet my goals and produce pleasing images that approximate reality. I'm curious as to how others feel about this. Please share your thoughts and personal feelings about this. Where do you draw the line, if you draw one at all?

[Juha Hytönen]

I second to this thinking totally. I don't have any answer for the line, maybe there is no one at all. I usually have the capabilities, skills and also time for doing the postprocessing. But I don't want to do it. So it has become more and more important to success in the field at once. This meaning that trying to get all the relevant elements in to the photo at the time of taking it. By the way I have also noticed this trend of advices related to post processing in the other forums. Where are we after 20 years? With the possibilities both in the camera and the software. Do we need anymore the subject (bird) or the surroundings? We can manipulate those items (invent, create) and say that if I would have been there and the weather would have been right, I would get this kind of photo...

[Harold Davis]

hi jim, i dont normally get involved in these discussions, but felt i had something to offer here. i see both. i see people offering critique on processing and how to do it better in the field. maybe it has swung more towards processing. i havent paid much attention, but the PP work is part of the process too. havent seen many folks posting images straight out of the camera.

you, on the other hand are a pretty well respected photographer in the community, but most of the time only offer up images for critique. i think that your critique would be well received and i'm sure you would put more emphasis on how to do the field work better.

i have been a member of several other nature photography websites in the past few years and i can honestly say that BPN is the only one that has helped me get better. i dont think that the "Great shot" comment helps anyone. not me, anyways.

[Alfred Forns]

Good question Jim !!

How far can you go? ... probably there would never be an answer !!!

I think today there are many ways to enhance an image and it doesn't take long but when properly done ... the difference shows. Just sharpening an image improperly can kill an image. It used to be all you had to do is shoot but its not the case any more. Beside being a photographer you need to know PS and how to process.

You used to have a slide as the finish product but now a RAW file ... not processed !! Like it dislike it ... it is the present.

Not sure what type comments you are talking about? One example .. do you think making a layer and multiplying then playing with opacity to recover whites is art? I think it just one of the tools we have now and its part of normal processing. Going overboard with lighting effects is a different mater and that direction seems to be more toward the digital art. These are a couple of clear cut examples (maybe :) ) Lots of others are a little tougher.

I do agree that images should be made in camera as perfect as possible and lots can be done. Moving a couple of inches here or there can take a twig out of play which is preferable to cloning it out !!

[Jim Neiger]

hi jim, i dont normally get involved in these discussions, but felt i had something to offer here. i see both. i see people offering critique on processing and how to do it better in the field. maybe it has swung more towards processing. i havent paid much attention, but the PP work is part of the process too. havent seen many folks posting images straight out of the camera.

you, on the other hand are a pretty well respected photographer in the community, but most of the time only offer up images for critique. i think that your critique would be well received and i'm sure you would put more emphasis on how to do the field work better.

i have been a member of several other nature photography websites in the past few years and i can honestly say that BPN is the only one that has helped me get better. i dont think that the "Great shot" comment helps anyone. not me, anyways.

Harold,

I prefer to spend what little time I have for the internet forums in the discussion forums and reading what others have to say. I resigned my position as one of the owners and publishers of BPN because I didn't have time to make the same contribution as the other owners and it wasn't fair to them. This allows me the freedom to participate as I like.

I do spend time reading the critiques that are offered here and I have noticed the vast majority of them relate to post processing and many of them suggest things that I would consider more in the realm of digital art. I would like to see more of a balance and more critique and discussion about the pre-processing aspect of nature photography. I have nothing against digital art, it's just not my thing personaly.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

People will always come back to the "the technology is better, so use it to your best advantage" comments. But in essence I agree with you Jim 10,000%.

:p For beyond basic, accepted PP work (maybe including some minor retouching), there is the OOTB forum! Some great results there in the theme challenge this week, I suggest you check out Dave Phillip's work, he is incredibly good, among the other regulars.

[Julie Kenward]

Jim, I know what you're saying and I wanted to chime in. I think most of the people who come and participate in the BPN forums have, for the most part, pretty good photography skills. I rarely see an improperly exposed image unless it is from someone very new to the forums. I, therefore, tend to spend more time offering suggestions about composition and pp. I get constant feedback from participants telling me my offering help with pp is the biggest gift because so many know so little when it comes to using Photoshop or one of the other pp software out on the market.

I totally agree that we should get it as right as we possibly can in the field but if you have a near perfect image except for one hot spot or one branch or one dark area, why not offer the advice to make that even better?

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I tend to offer more pp suggestions than photography suggestions simply because I find that's what's needed more. If the original image needs "in field" work I certainly offer that as well.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jim,
I will come at this from another perspective;
In my workshops I get PO'd when somebody says I will fix it in PP'ing. That is not photography, that is a crutch! I always recommend that people get it right in the field! .....that being said,
In the not so distant past, Ansel Adams spent an extraordinary amount of time tweaking his negatives.......countless hours manipulating through dodging and burning.....and many other creative techniques....until he achieved his final result. How is that different from PS today? not much in my opinion as long as you view it as a tool...nothing more.... as a nature photographer. Now, as far as critiques......someone took the time to post their image for critique......it would be very easy for me to just say someone didn't do something right in the field and move on.......why not offer other options and if you are OK with them.....try them.....if not, disregard and move on. Like you I hate spending time in front of the computer and would much rather spend it in the field.......so i try to do as little PP'ing as possible.......but I will not impose my views or beliefs on others but I will offer them as many options as I see possible and always 1st stress the in the field correction. What's wrong with offering all options? I view posting here as nothing more than a digital print......so all possible corrections should be offered even if they aren't necessarily ones I would implement if the image was mine.....people can then make their own choices and ethical decisions.
PS The line is where the maker draws it!

[Ed Cordes]

I have spent a lot of time trying to learn how to get it right in the camera. I still have a lot to learn, but have come a long way. That said, I still think an errant branch or a slightly clipped wing in an otherwise perfect image is worthy of fixing in PP. To me it doesn't change the essence of the image, but shows what did actually occur in nature in a more pleasing form.

I think you will get many views on this and all of them are correct as it is an extremely personal choice.

[Jim Neiger]

My purpose in starting this thread was not to judge anyone or disuade people from making post processing critique or suggestions. I was simply interested in getting people to think more aboput pre-processing and in learning their thoughts on this subject. My thanks to those who responded. I hope more of you will add your thoughts as well.

[Mark Fuge]

I do both, when I can. I think that digital is geared more to the PP of images than slide film ever was. What you shot with film was for the most part what you got. Some tweaking could be done in the lab, and the printing prcesses, but nothing like is possible in PS.

I am still learning digital techniques, having just switched from film in the last year, and would enjoy your critique of field issues. Thoughts on what went wrong for those who work in PS to lighten their load. I just recently bought CS4 for my wife's use in her publishing work and I am trying to learn a few tricks there. But agree that camera tricks in the field would relieve me of some of the need to go beyond cropping and minor tweaking afterwards.

I have learned a lot from those here and have tried to share my limited knowledge with those that desire it. But I would agree that more could be discussed. There are a lot of new photogs here who are starting out. While I don't consider myself at your level, I think they need to learn the basics before learning the tricks of the trade. All of us know something and sharing that is what makes this board far superior to many on the internet. The international blend of photogs and their images offers a lot of knowledge. Hope some will take your suggestion and occationally go that direction.

The basics of digital are similar to film, but there are many differences in the raw product.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks Jim for another basis for thoughtful discussion; of course I would not pass up the opportunity to offer my 2 cents ;) even if everyone else commenting are senior members with thousands of posts! For someone who doesn't like to spend much time in front of his computer you do give us reason to be in front of the computer :p:). By the way, you said

I prefer to spend what little time I have for the internet forums in the discussion forums

Are there other "discussion forums" we should all consider?

Where is the line (if there is one) between a photograph and digital art?

For me this is a rather easy question and my thinking on the topic has developed over the few months on this forum. A photograph is the image that comes out of the camera be it RAW or JPEG. Digital art is the image that comes out of the computer.

Mr. Adams' "images" if printed out of the camera would have been a photograph; he engaged in hours of post processing and ultimately what I bought - I have a few of his images - is Mr. Adams' ART.

This may be simplistic; however, it draws an objective and not a subjective line. Of course, the more sophisticated the camera the more you can do in camera.

I have noticed that more and more of the critiques and advice are targeted towards post processing in the direction of digital art. This makes me wish for more critiques and advice that are targeted towards things that are done in the field.

I do spend time reading the critiques that are offered here and I have noticed the vast majority of them relate to post processing and many of them suggest things that I would consider more in the realm of digital art. I would like to see more of a balance and more critique and discussion about the pre-processing aspect of nature photography.

Jim, I know what you're saying and I wanted to chime in. I think most of the people who come and participate in the BPN forums have, for the most part, pretty good photography skills. I rarely see an improperly exposed image unless it is from someone very new to the forums.

In my workshops I get PO'd when somebody says I will fix it in PP'ing. That is not photography, that is a crutch!

someone took the time to post their image for critique......it would be very easy for me to just say someone didn't do something right in the field and move on

All of these quotes, in the order posted, relate in someway to images created in the camera.

Julie, I am not sure that I agree that "most" have "pretty good photography skills". Having very thick skin I am willing to admit for myself and the silent majority/minority that I am a learner both about in camera techniques and PP techniques. For example, in Artie's thread about camera meters (http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=20634) there was a discussion about exposure technique and EC for the given subject.

Perhaps if more original images were presented it would engender more photographic technique discussions.

IMHO, the reality, I believe, is that BPN is not a place for beginners and even beginning intermediates. Every image presented has been PP in some small or greater manner.

I would love to have a forum where you presented what you shot with NO PP. Simply import into a conversion program, resize, and post. No cropping; no fixing ANYTHING.

For beyond basic, accepted PP work (maybe including some minor retouching), there is the OOTB forum!

Akos, the OOTB is really an advanced forum and IMHO doesn't answer what Jim is raising - to wit: properly created photographs in camera. The OOTB pushes the envelope and that is great; however, neither OOTB forum is for posting avian or landscape images that have no PP.

Query: would it be appropriate in the ETL forum to post images that have no PP as I have described. Perhaps even the title would start with "NO PP: .........." Those images would be subject to critique regarding the exposure "box": ISO, WB, aperture, and SS; AND composition. It could also include PP suggestions starting with the image presented, not an image that already has been PP.

I think today there are many ways to enhance an image and it doesn't take long but when properly done ... the difference shows. Just sharpening an image improperly can kill an image. It used to be all you had to do is shoot but its not the case any more. Beside being a photographer you need to know PS and how to process.

I, therefore, tend to spend more time offering suggestions about composition and pp. I get constant feedback from participants telling me my offering help with pp is the biggest gift because so many know so little when it comes to using Photoshop or one of the other pp software out on the market.

I do believe that PP technique is absolutely necessary and a part of the creation process - the more we learn the better the ART that we present to the viewer.

Cheers from a newbie,

Jay

[Desmond Chan]

Query: would it be appropriate in the ETL forum to post images that have no PP as I have described. Perhaps even the title would start with "NO PP: .........." Those images would be subject to critique regarding the exposure "box": ISO, WB, aperture, and SS; AND composition. It could also include PP suggestions starting with the image presented, not an image that already has been PP.

Probably Al and Lance would be better to answer your query but, I have the impression that you can post any kind of photos on ETL. It's truly "it ain't just birds" ;) I mean, I've even seen a photo of a wall-light there :D:D Anyhow, go visit there yourself :)

IMO, if you want to post a straight copy of your raw file to ETL or anywhere, hey, if you don't say so, who knows it's straight from a raw file. Nobody says you have to pp your files before posting, only that you likely will receive the same kind of comments as a pp file will. :)

[Jim Neiger]

Jay,

There are many internet photography discussion forums. Some are for photography in general and others are specifically geared towards nature photography. I particpate in at least 6 that are nature related and a few more that are general but cover nature photography topics as well.

[Jay Gould]

IMO, if you want to post a straight copy of your raw file to ETL or anywhere, hey, if you don't say so, who knows it's straight from a raw file. Nobody says you have to pp your files before posting, only that you likely will receive the same kind of comments as a pp file will. :)

Des, the whole point of my suggestion is to identify that you are posting the RAW file without any PP so that would be the basis for photographic techniques and not PP techniques.

Jay

[Desmond Chan]

Des, the whole point of my suggestion is to identify that you are posting the RAW file without any PP so that would be the basis for photographic techniques and not PP techniques.

Jay

I know. And my point is you can do that even now. I believe all you need to do is simply state what you are posting and what you would like people to comment on. Otherwise, like I said, you likely will be getting the same comments as any other file will, i.e., increase the contrast, enhance the colors a bit, crop a bit off the left, etc., etc. in addition to shooting from a different perspectives, using fill flash, so on and so forth.

Oh, I think one of the assignments on the ETL some time time actually was : "straight from the camera". Then there were others about "the use of depth of field", "wide angle", etc.

[Roger Clark]

Des, the whole point of my suggestion is to identify that you are posting the RAW file without any PP so that would be the basis for photographic techniques and not PP techniques.

Jay

Jay,
To view the rawfile, you must do post processing. The raw file is similar to the negative before development.

Mr. Adams' "images" if printed out of the camera would have been a photograph; he engaged in hours of post processing and ultimately what I bought - I have a few of his images - is Mr. Adams' ART.

I like it! Well said.

Jim, my statement related to this subject is on my web site:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html

Roger

[William Malacarne]

Jay

I spend much of my time in ETL and I don't think it matters if a picture has been PP'd or not. I see and have gotten many comments such as.....Light is harsh, light from wrong direction, horizon not level. horizon or tree branch or fence going through head of bird. Head angle not correct. These and many more have nothing to do with PP but making it correct in the field.

Bill

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
To view the rawfile, you must do post processing. The raw file is similar to the negative before development.

:D Time for more education!!

OK, I create an image in my camera.

I can do several things: I use a card reader and download to my computer into a folder - voila - a CR2 file, or I import directly from the CF card to LR and it is saved in a folder - voila - a CR2 file.

I do nothing to the file other than export from LR as a .jpeg - I do understand that when that occurs the image is resized and the colorspace is changed from aRGB to sRGB. I do not apply any sharpening in the export process.

Roger, did I miss something regarding your statement that "you must do post processing"?

Cheers, Jay

[Roger Clark]

I do nothing to the file other than export from LR as a .jpeg - I do understand that when that occurs the image is resized and the colorspace is changed from aRGB to sRGB. I do not apply any sharpening in the export process.

Roger, did I miss something regarding your statement that "you must do post processing"?

Cheers, Jay

Jay,
When you convert the file from raw to a tiff or jpeg in lightroom or any other raw converter, there are a bunch of settings. The monochrome pixels from the camera must be interpolated to to make the image, and the interpolation depends on the settings. And different raw converters may use different algorithms giving different results. It is post camera processing. You can change contrast, color balance, adjust the tone curve, change the sharpening, etc. Some raw converters even have filters you can apply, e.g. gradient filters. In photoshop ACR, for example, the default settings include sharpening. Hidden in most raw converters is the tone curve that gets applied, which compresses the highlights and stretches the lows. The image data out of the converter is not a linear representation of the input, but heavily processed.

People in general don't seem to realize how much processing goes into making an image, and some say do nothing to make it "real." But unless you take the raw data and do nothing to it, even applying a tone curve, you are processing it and the result is a distortion of reality. Film distorts reality too (e.g. velvia especially).

The bottom line is we must process images in order to make something viewable on output devices, whether print or monitors.

Roger

[ChasMcRae]

I agree with your line of thinking. The basic adjustments are great to have ,but I just can not do things like flip wings so both are perfect even though they are the same open wing in flight. This is just an example in my opinion. We are just taking it too far. At what point we label a picture as art and not a photograph ? I don't have the answer ,but I know people are considering that now.
Chas.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

I like this discussion a lot. Personally, I dont like to do a lot of cloning. A few stamps here and there is as far as I go. But I do things like curves, noise reduction, sharpness.....not only over the entire image but also selectively on some large parts of the image. It allows me to shoot at iso 640 and get decent images.

Whenever I critiue I usually say " if you do cloning, then clone this out ". I don't usually add canvas too. And I dont micro-optimize the image by dodging and burning much. Sharpening the eye is pretty much the only micro-optimizing I do.

I think everyone just has to draw a line for yourself and all of us will end up re-drawing it over the next many many years I guess.

So a lot of time the suggestions I get I dont implement...but still it taught me what the shortfalls were. So I would rather hear "clone the other OOF tree" to "great shot" although I wont do anything to my photo after hearing either.

So Jim....I hear you that a high percentage of suggestions are photoshop suggestions...but they are helpful even if you dont intend to implement them. Thats the way I look at it.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Guys - I am away with the wife at present - Macdonalds free internet access (Ahh couldnt help myself).

Jay - ETL did have a SOC (Straight out of camera) assignment a little while ago - You are of course free to post a image and say that it is SOC - Please comment on exposure composition ETC.

Generally in ETL I will cover the basic's first and then Photoshop work last - As you may know I am not a big fan of cloning removing objects in photoshop - I always try to get as much right in camera at the time of taking the shot as possible, but thats just my ethics doesn't have to be everyones.
As Artie has pointed out many times - there are many images posted that are overexposed etc - to me theis should be pointed out in the critique along with the possabilities of fixing them in PP.

Jay post your image sin ETL and I will be happy to comment on the basics not including any PP for you - as I am sure AL and Gus will be also.

Gotta go - cya in a couple of days.

[Jay Gould]

Roger, our exacting BPN scientist ;), of course there is post processing in that something must be done for us to see the image.

What this thread is about, IMHO, what Jim is addressing, is how much of the post processing is "voluntary" ("You can change contrast, color balance, adjust the tone curve, change the sharpening, etc."), and how much of the post processing is "mandatory" ("The monochrome pixels from the camera must be interpolated to to make the image").

Obviously, LR processes the image so that we can see the image. When I import into LR I have a choice to apply "develop settings" or not. If I do apply develop settings then I am voluntarily changing the image that was created in the camera - I am outside of the camera creating ART; I choose to say - in order to draw an objective line - that if I do not apply any voluntary/additional changes in addition to the bare minimum required by the program to produce the image I am producing a photograph.

Frankly, once I have produced the PHOTOGRAPH, I have no problem with applying major voluntary changes to my photograph - clone all you want; add and subtract; all OK with me as long as disclosed - and then I am producing ART.

Chas, as long as you are willing to acknowledge the difference between a photograph and art, once you cross the line then it really doesn't matter how far you go. As I explained, IMO you cross the line the moment you apply levels and curves because you are voluntarily changing what the camera captured and the minimum applied by the conversion program.

Lance, I ACCEPT!! While I am going to continue to post images with my fetal PP as I learn CS4, I will definitely start to post images and indicate in the title "SOC:......". Thanks for that; perhaps others will join me and we will learn from each others' SOC image critiques. :D

Cheers, Jay

[Jim Neiger]

Roger, our exacting BPN scientist ;), of course there is post processing in that something must be done for us to see the image.

What this thread is about, IMHO, what Jim is addressing, is how much of the post processing is "voluntary" ("You can change contrast, color balance, adjust the tone curve, change the sharpening, etc."), and how much of the post processing is "mandatory" ("The monochrome pixels from the camera must be interpolated to to make the image").

Obviously, LR processes the image so that we can see the image. When I import into LR I have a choice to apply "develop settings" or not. If I do apply develop settings then I am voluntarily changing the image that was created in the camera - I am outside of the camera creating ART; I choose to say - in order to draw an objective line - that if I do not apply any voluntary/additional changes in addition to the bare minimum required by the program to produce the image I am producing a photograph.

Frankly, once I have produced the PHOTOGRAPH, I have no problem with applying major voluntary changes to my photograph - clone all you want; add and subtract; all OK with me as long as disclosed - and then I am producing ART.

Chas, as long as you are willing to acknowledge the difference between a photograph and art, once you cross the line then it really doesn't matter how far you go. As I explained, IMO you cross the line the moment you apply levels and curves because you are voluntarily changing what the camera captured and the minimum applied by the conversion program.

Lance, I ACCEPT!! While I am going to continue to post images with my fetal PP as I learn CS4, I will definitely start to post images and indicate in the title "SOC:......". Thanks for that; perhaps others will join me and we will learn from each others' SOC image critiques. :D

Cheers, Jay

One thing to consider is that the camera sees very differently than the eye does when looking thru the camera. I consider PP that adjusts the image closer to what the eye saw as part of photography and not digital art. There are exceptions to this, but in general this is what I try to accomplish with PP. My line is not firmly defined to the point where I can articulate it here, but it seems fairly well defined to me when I'm working on a particular image.

[Don Lacy]

Obviously, LR processes the image so that we can see the image. When I import into LR I have a choice to apply "develop settings" or not. If I do apply develop settings then I am voluntarily changing the image that was created in the camera - I am outside of the camera creating ART; I choose to say - in order to draw an objective line - that if I do not apply any voluntary/additional changes in addition to the bare minimum required by the program to produce the image I am producing a photograph.

So if I let engineers from Adobe, Apple, Canon, Nikon or any of the other conversion software designers determine the settings used to create the image from the RAW data thats a photograph but if I change those settings the image ceases to be a photograph. I am sorry but I do not buy that I was there I saw the photograph I wanted to create why should I have to except someone else's decisions when it comes to changing all the the 1's and 0's that is the RAW data to RGB pixels. A photograph is the end result of the creative decisions made by the photographer both pre capture and post capture so for me a photograph is the finale image as presented to the public for viewing either online or in print.

[William Malacarne]

Don

Very good point and if one does not think it is true you can take any number of RAW converters and without adjustment I don't think any two will come out the same. So which one is correct....none of them are.

Bill

[Roger Clark]

So if I let engineers from Adobe, Apple, Canon, Nikon or any of the other conversion software designers determine the settings used to create the image from the RAW data thats a photograph but if I change those settings the image ceases to be a photograph. I am sorry but I do not buy that I was there I saw the photograph I wanted to create why should I have to except someone else's decisions when it comes to changing all the the 1's and 0's that is the RAW data to RGB pixels. A photograph is the end result of the creative decisions made but the photographer both pre capture and post capture so for me a photograph is the finale image as presented to the public for viewing either online or in print.

Don, Jay,

I agree with Don. My point to Jay was the mare act of software either in camera or in the raw converter does more to change the linear data from the sensor than we as photographers typically do in post processing by using curves, dodging and burning, changing color space, color balance, etc. I have had people see me do very simple and modest S-curve with the curves tool in photoshop and their mouths drop and say "Hey, that's cheating!" But they don't realize that film did the same thing, printing does the same thing (choose the paper grade and developer and development time). Then we have the concept of "master printer." A Master printer doesn't just print straight from the negative of slide. The master printer matches the dynamic range of the negative/slide to that of the paper, including dodging and burning with the idea to make art. Photography is art. Jay said that when Ansel Adams made a print, it was ART. He was a master printer. But that art is still a photograph. It should be no different with digital. Suddenly because more people can become "master printers" with digital methods makes it not photography? Every image ever produced from film or digital has been manipulated, whether through a chemical or digital+software+chemical process. Just because some engineer pre-programmed in a generic tone curve (by the film design or the digital software) and the end user doesn't "see" it doesn't mean major modifications haven't happened.

The idea of out of camera isn't modified simply means you accept the engineer's modifications, not that the image wasn't modified.

For my images, I do whatever tone curve, color balance, contrast I desire to make the image. If I add/subtract major elements in the image, I disclose. These days there is a major mistrust of perfect images and if someone finds out you didn't disclose, your reputation can be damaged.

In the early days of digital, I did more manipulation (some examples are on my web site). But as I acquired more images and traveled to more exotic places I found I had so many images and so little time, I don't bother cloning in or out components, even a stick in front of an animal. That lack of time made me more aware of getting it better in camera so I didn't feel I needed to remove that stick. Also, I was helped by doing view camera landscape photography for years where 12 or so sheets of film might have to last me for a day hike. So I needed to make every shot count. I have translated that to digital. I tend to take the shot when the image is best in my opinion, and some days when I go out, I take no images at all.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Has the entire thread gone full circle so that in reality :eek: there is no viable distinction between a photograph and digital art?

For the sake of discussion, for the moment, just perhaps it is all photography because within the family PHOTOGRAPHY there are many genera, two of which are film photography and digital photography!

Jim, if we go back to the original question, for anyone to have replied "I do not believe there is a line between photography and digital art" without having had this discussion probably would not have had the same impact as it might now that others, like Roger, have explained the process in detail.

In reality, because the camera is a machine that attempts to capture what we have seen, and because we want to present not what the camera has captured but what we remember was the scene on the day, and because the conversion programs MUST make changes as explained by Roger, if we want to present as a photograph what we saw that day, we must manipulate the image created by the camera.

IMHO, the manipulation doesn't change a photograph into digital art photography simply because of the manipulation. No matter how much it has been manipulated to MAKE IT LOOK LIKE WE SAW IT AT THE MOMENT OF CAPTURE it is still a photograph of what we saw at the moment of capture.

IMHO, within the genera digital photography there are at least two species: digital photography and digital art photography.

IMHO, the distinction between the two species has been discussed many times on BPN. When you change what you saw in any manner: remove a twig, add a feather, add a catch-light, intentionally change levels and curves to present the subject in a better "light" than at the time of the capture so that, for example, the BG is different than at the time of capture and you know it is different, then you have entered the realm of digital art photography.

As an aside, I think participation in this type of discussion, and the discussions we have had, for example, pertaining to gear choices (from which I have benefited immensely to the detriment of my bank account ;)) is an equally important participation in BPN as are the critiques. Again, IMHO!

[Roger Clark]

Jay,
That is more along my thinking. When you change elements, whether it is remove a twig, animal, change gray sky to blue sky, add puffy clouds to a blue sky, etc, thus changing it to something that didn't exist. I would consider extending canvas and adding a wing tip as not digital art before adding/removing major elements. For example, the wing tip really was there, so adding it in is making an approximation of what was seen. Adding a second bird into a scene that was not there is digital art.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Jay,
That is more along my thinking. When you change elements, whether it is remove a twig, animal, change gray sky to blue sky, add puffy clouds to a blue sky, etc, thus changing it to something that didn't exist. I would consider extending canvas and adding a wing tip as not digital art before adding/removing major elements. For example, the wing tip really was there, so adding it in is making an approximation of what was seen. Adding a second bird into a scene that was not there is digital art. Roger

I guess we are evolving into the "what you saw is what you can recreate" in PP rule and that is digital photography;
when you add or subtract what was/wasn't there that is digital art photography.

Adding some canvass and fixing a clipped wing, while it should be disclosed, is still within the realm of digital photography since the BG was there and the wing was there even if it wasn't captured.


Great minds think alike ;); unfortunately so do small minds :confused: :eek: :D

[Don Lacy]

IMHO, the distinction between the two species has been discussed many times on BPN. When you change what you saw in any manner: remove a twig, add a feather, add a catch-light, intentionally change levels and curves to present the subject in a better "light" than at the time of the capture so that, for example, the BG is different than at the time of capture and you know it is different, then you have entered the realm of digital art photography.

Before digital when marco photographers wanted nice OOF BG they would carry mounted photos of said nice OOF BG and place them behind the subject they were shooting producing the image they wanted to create, was that slide not a photograph? Is a catch-light produce by fill flash more real then one added later in PS neither one was present when the photographer found the scene. If I cut or tie back a branch to remove it from the frame before I press the shutter I don't need to disclose it if done in PS I do and the image is no longer a photograph.

intentionally change levels and curves to present the subject in a better "light" than at the time of the capture

Again it is okay for me to use reflectors or diffuser in the field to manipulate the light but as soon as I bring the image into PS its wrong and BTW the manipulation of light is the true art of photography both in the field and in post processing.

I guess we are evolving into the "what you saw is what you can recreate" in PP rule and that is digital photography;
when you add or subtract what was/wasn't there that is digital art photography.

What if do it in the field?

Most if not all of the things you want to call digital art were done way before the advent of digital photography it may have been harder or less known but it was done, I recently saw a exhibition of Ansel Adams work and was amazed at the amount of manipulation he was able to do in a darkroom I was looking at prints knowing the work needed to pull out all that detail and tonal range.

[Dr.Pranay Rao Juvvadi]

I ‘m involved in the conservation of raptors in India. I’ve been surveying for raptors and their habitats for many years now, photography came much later when I released I needed to document what I saw. I started off with a Canon FTb film SLR and a 50 mm lens (do not correctly remember the focal length), then I moved on to a Canon EOS Rebel (film) and a Sigma 500 4.5. At the onset, my focus was only on the subject, without any attention to light, background, composition etc. The results were not very pleasing, compared to the ones I saw in books or on the net, I wondered why! As I read more and carefully studied good raptor pictures, I began understanding the importance of light, background and the other elements that make up a good photograph. I mostly shot on negatives, but also some positives. The finished roll would go to a commercial lab for processing. I would print the images as they were without any alterations at all.

Once I moved to digital I began using PS. It was really exciting then, with the number of things one could do to make a picture to look better. I set out to capture raptors in their habitats as I saw them, but results, pleasing as they were, appeared a bit too altered. That’s when I felt that I have to draw a line and stick to it. As a result, I limit my time on the computer to do the following alterations only (not necessarily the exact order): Exposure Compensation (when needed), Cropping (when needed), Contrast (when needed), Saturation (when needed; I used to apply this regularly on images with my 20D, but now very rarely do with the images from my Mark III), Levels (sparingly, when needed) USM, Neat Image and sizing for web or print. I like to keep PP to the minimum and try to get what I want in the field. I like the end result to look as close as possible to what I saw, when I pressed the shutter.

I do not mind critiques such as ‘clone that distracting branch, twig etc.’, as it helps me to understand what to avoid when I photograph my subject in the field. I dislike cloning, as this is removing an element that was present when the shutter was released. I do not have a problem with other people cloning, blurring the BG etc., as long as they disclose the changes. I also do not believe in removing a distraction in the field, I’ll try for a better angle to avoid the distraction and if I can’t, I’ll take what I get and move on with the hope of getting a better image of the same subject without any distraction. Similarly, I don’t fix clipped wings or add canvas.

I think there is never going to be ‘a set line’ for all; the line will vary from person to person and has to be set by the photographer. Sorry for the lengthy write up, but I felt I needed to tell you guys in brief about my background. This has been a great discussion and hope to participate more in the future.

Best regards.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I agree with Dr Pranay.

As a matter of principle I don't clone as that is changing the scene. For eg. a tiger is drinking water and there is a strand of grass infront of its face. Can I go near the tiger and remove the grass? If the answer is no, then I should also not cut a branch to get a clear view of a small chick and i should not do that in the computer either.

Anything that changes the reality like cloning is resulting in digital art. I won't call it a photograph.

All my images are shot in Raw and the changes are basic. I want to get my images right, straight out of the camera. All most all my images are full frame. What is the point in cropping 50-60% and then presenting an image here? Just to get a few accolades? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I have seen people getting into the cloning habit and they have stagnated as a photographer. They don't push themselves more in the field, as they can clone the offending branch later, change the white balance to make it appear warm even if the light was harsh and the shadows tells the reality.

Human mind has got a craving for appreciation. At times, these internet forums put lot of pressure on people to show good shots and they resort to these kind of creation of digital art.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Mark Fuge]

Hello Sabyasachi,

In your post you note the purity of photography, which is shared by many photographers. Others share the view that some manipulation is not prohibitive, in providing their vision of the subject.

While I respect your thoughts and do not wish to chance them, as that is your vision. I agree in principal with others who see photography as an expression of a vision, rather than just an image.

Additionally, the camera is not designed to truly reflect the image, so to say it is “pure” is not fully correct. It will always be an interpretation, until the technology of photography can equal the “technology” of the human eye.

We modify the image in many ways, to make it “true”. First, we alter the lens to bring us closer to the subject, as is very important in the image of a Tiger! :eek: ;) To alter the lens choice, alters the depth of field of the image and therefore is not “true”.

I agree with you, to some extent, on cropping and cloning. However again, it is often impossible to correctly compose an image in the viewfinder. Especially of a moving, flying, subject. I see no problem of cropping for composition. It has been a basic element of darkroom techniques since the dawn of photography. What is excessive cropping is up to the photographer. Some here are able to shoot with 800mm lenses and do not have to crop as much, but fight the need to find the image of BIF in the viewfinder. Others are forced to try to shoot BIF with 200mm lenses, due to budget restraints (as I was for many years). If they are able to get a “perfectly exposed” image with a 200mm lens, which does not fill the frame, should they be required to toss it because they should not crop it?

For still life, mammals, travel and scenic photography, I try to avoid cropping. But it is not always possible. For BIF, I feel it is almost a necessity to accept some cropping, as long as the image does not suffer.

Cloning is another issue. Here I am closer to agreeing with you in principal. While I have cloned and will continue to clone, it is a last resort for me personally. If there is no canvas I will clone in a background extension. I do not favor cloning body parts and subject matter into an image. I recently suggested to a poster, that they clone an extension of a trail on the bottom of an image. The trail ended at the foot of the subject (Tiger). The image otherwise was very good. I see no reason for not extending the bottom to give some room to the subject. It in no way changed the subject or the environment of the subject. This is the type of cloning I condone. I have removed branches, but usually avoid it. But again, subject affects the need for cloning. While it would be nice to move to the right, as you can often do with a stationary subject. BIF however do not offer that option, nor to birds in general, as they will often take to flight if you do move.

That said, I hope you will do as you do and continue to make the awesome images you have shown us. But understand there are limitations to photography that sometimes require the use of “manipulation” to create a vision. The above is written based on your post, but is not intended to disagree with your views. I only found your post to express, in a civil manner, what many here believe and therefore I wanted to express the other side, as I see it.

Make A Great Day!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I don't mind debate as most of the people in BPN are good. Ofcourse, there are exceptions. There are people who move from forum to forum with the only motive of running down others. As far as you are concerned, I like the way you critique images. Your comments indicate that you try to visualise the scene for yourself. Not everyone does that, and hence most of the people don't learn. I kind of like the sincerity in your approach.

Coming back to the debate, I didn't say don't clone. I am quoting what I had said: "Anything that changes the reality like cloning is resulting in digital art. I won't call it a photograph".

In the OOB forum I found a painting, photographed and then photoshopped. Is it art? Yes it is. The artist has expressed his vision. Do you call that a painting, just because the starting point was a painting?
No I won't. It is a digital art and let us call it so.

Similarly just because the starting point was a photograph, before someone started manipulating, the end product shouldn't be called a photograph.

I hope you understand my viewpoint.

As far as BIF is concerned, I love a lot of images posted in the avian section. I don't mind if it is a small crop. However, I feel let down when I see that a sharply focussed bird in flight image with the entire tip to tail in focus, is actually a 50% or higher crop. I believe one gets better with practice and can later on create images that are most of the times out of the camera or needs very little cropping.

I have realised that no lens is enough for bird photography. For every bird, there is a specific place where you can get it very close. For example, I photographed Purple Swamp hen a bird that looks similar to your purple gallinule in a swamp behind my house. However, if you go to Keoladeo Ghana Bird Sanctuary, which is a Ramsar site, in India, you will have to use a long lens to photograph this bird. Also, sitting in a hide or car is a good way to photograph. Anyway, that is another point. With a 200 mm lens, it is not easy to photograph birds and get frame filling shots. However, if one is at the right place and with tons of patience, one can get some decent images. I remember one of Artie's shots of a pelican taken with a 70-200 mm. In India, I have taken shots of pelican with 400mm f2.8+2x ie. at 800 mm. I have also photographed frame filling shots at 43mm, ofcourse at a different place. Its tough, but not impossible.

And lastly, A cynical point of view: We have cameras installed in our factory premises. And there are lots of birds flying and at times perching on top of the cameras. May be several years down the line these cameras would become better and you can grab a shot out of it. Is that art?

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Mark Fuge]

Hello Sabyasachi,

I think we think the same with a slightly different viewpoint. Not major, but slight.

I see your point and respect it. I see photography as a continuing creation of the image. Like you, I like it as pure as possible, but also understand (as you noted) that sometimes there is a need.

To me to take an image of a subject and create a new image is "art". To improve an image is photography. As many have said, but don't agree on the limits, the line is thin and only the photographer can define it.

Interesting, as I was on the Nature Photographer forum today and they have a similar discussion going with a similar point of view(s). ;) They can't get a resolution either. I guess we probably also wont

I agree that practice makes perfect and that is why we are all here, I hope!

If there is disagreement, I agree to disagree and respect the other view. On those points in common, which are many, we share the same view.

Make A Great Day!

[Roger Clark]

Sabyasachi,

I pretty much agree with you except on cropping. For example, many people used cropped sensors. I have been photographing more often with my 5D Mark II. The pixel size is the same size as a 30D. So I could crop by more than 50% (21 megapixels down to 8) and still get the same view as with a 30D. I find this to be a great advantage. I can select my focal length for a subject (e.g. extenders or not) and leave room in case the bird opens it's wings, I can get a full frame shot without clipping the wings, or if the bird has its wings folded up, I can crop to 8 megapixels and still have a great image, equivalent to a full frame shot on a 30D.
Sp cropping doesn't change the image of environment, it only changes the fixed view and aspect ratio of the camera in use.

I'm hoping the 1D mark 4 will be full frame and greater than 20 megapixels.

Roger

[Don Lacy]

Similarly just because the starting point was a photograph, before someone started manipulating, the end product shouldn't be called a photograph

I couldn't disagree more with that statement no one would have called a negative a photograph when shooting with film it was just one of the first steps in producing a print the end product the print was considered the photograph only when slide film became popular was this statement close to being true. A RAW file is no more then a negative the whole reason to shoot RAW is to be able to manipulate the file to produce the finale image I would no sooner show someone a minimally process RAW file as I would one of my old negatives.
Sabyasachi to me your confusing field craft with photography every decision I make in the field is with the end product in mind the final image, which is not always going to be an exact copy of the RAW file I happen to be creating at the time. You choose to pursue a different path in the field which is fine in the end we both create a final image for viewing which is a photograph in either print or digital form. Now you want to name my image as digital art because I did not follow your path to creating it but instead choose to use Photo Shop to manipulate the raw file. Which would be find except every thing I did in Photo Shop photographers have been doing for years in analog darkrooms yet they got to call there finale images photographs.

Respectfully