# Fakeography



## Mufasa (Sep 25, 2007)

Whenever i take a picture i try to make it good out of the camera. If i screw up then i retake the picture and if i can't retake it then i just say "oh well". This is a view i adopted after downloading a program called Photomatix. This is an HDR program but in the course of using it i made a few "fakeography" shots as i call them. It shocked me what can be done with programs to make photos that seemed like nothing look amazing.







Since i have taken this shot i have never opened that program again and i have only edited 3 shots in Photo studio (I have taken 6300).

This brings me to the point of this post, I do not agree with post processing to "make" a picture. many time i have seen a picture with a light pole, car, random person, ect... and it was edited out. This shocks me because the job of a photographer is to protray life the way they see it (and chances are they saw the pole).

What are all of your views on this?


----------



## D-50 (Sep 25, 2007)

If thats your view than you should definately use a lot of post processing.  A camera cannot capture the dynamic range the human eye can so the only way for someone to portray what they see through photographt is to manipulate the final image to encompas the whole dynamic range the eye can see.  There is a line in PHotomatix that can be crossed very easily from real to surreal which seems be what your refering to.  For me it comesdown to does the photo look real or not and someone skilled at post processing can create realistic images without crossing that line.


----------



## moliver (Sep 25, 2007)

I guess it's up to the photographer as to what they're trying to accomplish.  If I look at a photo like the one you linked there I just think 'OK, wow, you know how to use photoshop'.  I'm sure there's a lot of photoshop users who'll disagree, but I don't see that as a terribly impressive skill.  On top of that, a lot of people who do this sort of thing only know a couple tricks, and very quickly their photos become very boring.  I suppose the average internet surfer might find it very impressive, but that's not for me, thanks.


----------



## Artograph (Sep 25, 2007)

I hear you Muf....but I tend to think like a "purist" anyway.  I am just a beginner, and I thought that's what photography was supposed to be too....to take a beautiful, traggic, or whatever else shot and evoke feelings in the viewer.

On the other hand....I've been cropping and playing with colour a little---and let me tell you, it *is* kind of fun!!!  I _almost_ feel a little naughty doing it!!!  LOL!!

All of this said....my goal is always to try to get a shot...and do it "right" the first time (so that no other post processing is required).

;O)


----------



## ilockert (Sep 25, 2007)

Photography is art no matter how you look at it. Yes some people go overboard but some people that that about some of the worlds best artist. Not saying your wrong, I try not to open and programs except Nikon picture software and that just how i keep the organized. Now sometimes I get bored and start playing with the HDR software and photoshop, but when I mess with those I try to take it to the extreme level and make it look as fake as possible.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 25, 2007)

uh, we had these discussion so often on here 

just keep in mind, that there is no unprocessed image. Either the camera processes it using the parameter the camera's firmware programmers though best, or it is processed out of camera in the raw converter and/or PS and you decide which parameters to use.

(with film this is similar: choice of film, lab, or developing at home).

This sort of processing is of course very different from changing geometries, removing object by cloning and such. The latter does not suit a journalistic approach, but it does help if you just want to create some work of art.


----------



## skieur (Sep 25, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> uh, we had these discussion so often on here
> 
> This sort of processing is of course very different from changing geometries, removing object by cloning and such. The latter does not suit a journalistic approach, but it does help if you just want to create some work of art.


 
On the other hand there are journalists who rightly feel that all photos are postprocessed in any event, so there is no problem with removing extraneous objects or making other changes that do not contribute to or change the subject of the photo.

skieur


----------



## GMan_nz (Sep 25, 2007)

Is this a question of manipulating _any_ photograph, or is it a question of _digital_ manipulation?

For some reason I used to have similar feelingas about digital post processing, probably because that even as a complete beginner I wanted to be taking the best possible images right out of the camera. Basic colour or exposure adjustments seemed like I was cheating, and that I was using my computer to do the photography rather than the camera.

I still have some of those hangups, but the thing that helped change my viewpoint was learning a little about the origin of some of the tools in Photoshop. Once I understood that 'dodge', 'burn', and 'sharpen' (and probably a bunch of others) were all tools available to photographers using film - I totally relaxed about it. Yes, there are may things you can do in Photoshop that you couldn't do with film processing, but it seems to me now that digital post processing is not the sin that I thought it was.

I never had the opportunity to even enter a darkroom and play with the chemicals, lighting, masking, paper types etc etc etc in the days when 'analogue' was all that was available. Now with digital, I think we have many of the same tools, with a few enhancements (including the ability to 'undo' !), plus a few new tools. 

But where do we draw the line as to what level of manipulation is acceptable? Well I guess that's a very personal thing, and will depend on the image, the intended use, audience, whatever. But at the end of the day, I think we need to recognise that the final image has always been subject to various 'manipulations' in the process.


----------



## rmh159 (Sep 25, 2007)

I say who cares.  I don't feel it's the photographers job to represent an image as they saw it at all.  I think it's their job to represent their interpretation of the image... and there's a huge difference.

I always come back to the "Who really gives a F." response to this type of issue.  If you don't want to... that's cool.  If someone else wants to... that's cool.  It's just art... isn't the point of art to not have rules / standards / elitist mentalities?


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 25, 2007)

You can go around breaking painter's brushes but don't be surprised if one of them sticks the pieces in your ear.  

Don't take this as a personal attack because I'm just trying to illustrate a point and the point is:  Who among us sees reality as it truly is?  Certainly not you Sir or Madame!  Point out to me which of two volumetrically equal objects is the densest by the difference in the way space/time is warped around them. Tell me which of the Eleven dimensions is the one that goes  up and  doglegs to the right.

The point of photography is not to capture Truth, only to illustrate a slice of it and thereby illuminate a bit of yourself in the process.

What good is photography without illumination after all?

mike


----------



## GMan_nz (Sep 25, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Who among us sees reality as it truly is? Certainly not you Sir or Madame! Point out to me which of two volumetrically equal objects is the densest by the difference in the way space/time is warped around them. Tell me which of the Eleven dimensions is the one that goes up and doglegs to the right.


 

Yo, Mikey!  Can I get some of what you're smoking, dude:mrgreen:


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 25, 2007)

20 hours of Post Processing to meet a deadline.   

 You're welcome to it.


----------



## JIP (Sep 25, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> You can go around breaking painter's brushes but don't be surprised if one of them sticks the pieces in your ear.
> 
> Don't take this as a personal attack because I'm just trying to illustrate a point and the point is: Who among us sees reality as it truly is? Certainly not you Sir or Madame! Point out to me which of two volumetrically equal objects is the densest by the difference in the way space/time is warped around them. Tell me which of the Eleven dimensions is the one that goes up and doglegs to the right.
> 
> ...


I was going to post on this issue but you did it for me thank you....

Get a life people!!!
let people express themselves however they want.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 26, 2007)

skieur said:


> On the other hand there are journalists who rightly feel that all photos are postprocessed in any event, so there is no problem with removing extraneous objects or making other changes that do not contribute to or change the subject of the photo.
> 
> skieur



like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.

It is very hard to draw a line...


----------



## rmh159 (Sep 26, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.
> 
> It is very hard to draw a line...


 
Sorry I don't think it's hard at all.  If you're a photo-journalist and selling your images as truth... then they should be truth.  If you're an artist and selling your images as art... then they're art and not obligated to be truthful at all.

What's the point of art if you put these types of restrictions on it?

I'd also like to point out that manipulating photos has been done since cameras were invented.  It's kind of odd that people think this is some new phenomenon that's come with the digital age.


----------



## confucious (Sep 26, 2007)

First off, the OP started off with an assumption that the goal of all photographers is to represent life exactly as the eye sees it.  This poses a couple of problems:
As another poster commented - the eye has a huge range that cannot be equaled by a sensor, so already a photographer is never really presenting an image true to what he/she sees as the sensor cannot match our eyes range of colour and light.
Secondly, if we adhered strictly to this concept of exact replication (disregarding the sensors inability to replicate the beautiful imagery our eyes create) we would all need to use 50mm. lenses.  Eyes don't zoom, create fish-eye effects.  Believe me, I just tried and it inly made my eyeballs ache.  Even if we run up to the object in question, a form of manual zoom, we do not get the effect of a telephoto lens.
So - number one says we cannot possibly replicate what we see as the camera is never as good as our natural, nature-given, eyes.  And number two says, iif we lived by this creed telephoto, macro, fish eye and any number of other gadgets would all be cheating - After all, the removal of an unwanted object by cropping is the same as the removal of an unwanted object by zooming with my 70-300mm. - niether represent what the eye really saw.

     I shoot for pleasure and almost enjoy the post-processing MORE than the actual shooting.  I find there is a large amount of skill and knowledge that goes into creating shots so that post-processing can create the desired effect of the photographer.  The ability to judge what exposure time, depth of field, lens, and angle will create a specific image that can then be tweaked (i am talking basic contrast, white balance tools, perhpas cropping) to create a background that fades out, contains extraordinary colour, or  emphasizes the foreground object, or any number of things, is a learned skill.  I do not use post-processing to "save bad photos", about half my shots are taken with the post-processed (ie: tweaked) final image/result in mind - a two step approach to creating an image.

   In the end, I create an image that generates a mood, inspires an emotion, or maybe just makes someone think "cool".  That is enough for me.

  In the end, though, to each their own.

  PS  - Having said all this, I shoot purely for me and purely for pleasure.  Photo journalism would be a whole other argument.


----------



## gmarquez (Sep 26, 2007)

Mufasa said:


> This shocks me because the job of a photographer is to protray life the way they see it




Shouldn't you edit this to say "*in my opinion*, the job of a photographer is to protray life the way they see it"?  Or is it an absolute truism that I haven't yet learned?


----------



## skieur (Sep 26, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.
> 
> It is very hard to draw a line...


 
Some photojournalists who are also newspaper editors don't really care about Reuters mistakes and by that I mean their "overkill" and reactionary response to a limited problem.

skieur


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 26, 2007)

If you are employed as a photographer then the guidelines for image enhancement should be understood by both parties.  Adherence to those policies is in most all cases a condition of employment- whatever those policies may be.

If someone (mufasa for instance) chooses to print  images straight from the camera with no darkroom  manipulations, this is perfectly acceptable and  illuminates a bit of his character for the world to see.

One would hope that he realises that in camera sharpening and saturation is the same whether it's done  by the camera or Photo Shop. (I also hope that he understands that upper end Digital cameras are designed to shoot soft so that post production can be better accomplished)

The choice of film is much the same.  A fine grained film with strong mid-tones and highlights will convey a happier feeling in a photo than a grainy, dark film and thereby 'finesse' an image as much as general darkroom techniques.  Manipulating exposures will accomplish the same.

Whatever you do will have your DNA all over it so don't worry about anyone else, make your mark by making your stand and let the world spin on.

mike


----------



## |)\/8 (Sep 26, 2007)

When does a photograph become digital art?  Even before digital, photographs were spliced, overlaid, and manipulated a thousand different ways in darkrooms. 

I guess you could argue that any photograph that receives post processing (probably 95% of the photos on these forums) has now become digital art.  If you are using a digital camera, is every "photo" you take really digital art, and does it really matter?  I don't have the answers, I am just glad I have the tools to develop what I see in my head.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> Some photojournalists who are also newspaper editors don't really care about Reuters mistakes and by that I mean their "overkill" and reactionary response to a limited problem.
> 
> skieur



These images were pushing a certain agenda by the way they were manipulated (added smoke and added flares). They were taking side for one party in that war-like conflict. Even if it was "the right side" (which I doubt is that easy to judge though) the photographer wanted to support, the way he chose was certainly wrong and has nothing to do with serious photojournalism. If photography is used in this way to illustrate news, than it would be better if the news came without any images whatsoever. There are enough ways to manipulate the recipient of news by the wording which is chosen, we do not need even more manipulation by heavily modified images.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 27, 2007)

rmh159 said:


> If you're an artist and selling your images as art... then they're art and not obligated to be truthful at all.
> 
> What's the point of art if you put these types of restrictions on it?



I am not talking of photography as art at all. 

Why should I, as art has no restrictions aside from those the artist imposes on himself.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 27, 2007)

confucious said:


> Eyes don't zoom, create fish-eye effects.  Believe me, I just tried and it inly made my eyeballs ache.  Even if we run up to the object in question, a form of manual zoom, we do not get the effect of a telephoto lens.So - number one says we cannot possibly replicate what we see as the camera is never as good as our natural, nature-given, eyes.



Well, our eyes and brain see highly selective and do not give an objective impression of reality. In that sense they "zoom in" even more than our telephoto lenses can since you only see what you concentrate on. What you actually see is a decision, and not imposed on you.

The eye is actually worse than what can be achieved by photography in terms of giving an image of reality, if wanted.


----------



## ksmattfish (Oct 5, 2007)

Mufasa said:


> ... the job of a photographer is to portray life the way they see it...



I'm a professional photographer, and that's not part of my job description.  In fact I'd say it's my job to make things look better than in real life.  You are possibly confusing "photographer" with "photojournalist".

Before digital and Photoshop the masses often thought photography equaled reality, but that's never been true...

Said by Edward Steichen 80 or 100 years ago:

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability."


----------



## JIP (Oct 5, 2007)

You know I had a book I was going to scan a page to post it here and I kept forgetting to do it but the basic gist of it was this.  It had an image from Ansel Adams and showed a beautiful desert scene and the sky was breathtaking.  Well on the caption of this image it read that the image was a coposite the scene was from one neg and the clouds were from another.  I think photographs are a form of art and as such will be manipulated to present the image of the artist.  So no matter how "pure you might think an image is, before I saw this I would have thought of Adams' images as "pure" there will always be some, a little or alot, manipulation.  To me the only photographers whos images need to be pure are photournalists and I would be surprised if even 50% of them are.  Lets face it in the age of photoshop and even before reality is in the eye of the observer.


----------



## crotograph (Oct 5, 2007)

Post processing is always done, as has been mentioned before. I think what you are driving at is the "look" that can be sold as professional versus the software that can mimic, with tons of bytes, what a pro can get out of the camera.

It is an irony that so much of what has been learned through trial and error a by journeyman photographers can now be had with the computer in camera or the software for post processing. However you want to think of it, this is where digital is leading us. I am not for it but then I have been shooting professionally for 30 years and arguing this moot point for 7 years.

It is what it is. The good news is that film is far from dead. Actually, it is enjoying a limited resurgence from digital users who actually want to make a photograhp by themselves, as a thinking individual. Remember, there are the lazy and the ones who seek the proper methods of shooting and learning the nuance of the craft.
The loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on forums.

That said, there is an amazing amount of info on the internet about photography. Just like stealing money one can spend a few months learning photographic nuance and espouse knowledge never learned. It's really easy. Until they are forced to use a film camera, with no computer.

OK, I have left myself open to detractors who want to start the digital/film argument. Sorry, it isn't here. A digital camera in the hands of one who knows photography can work wonders. The discussion, to be PC, is whether you can exist in the real world as a photographer eating heels of bread, or, rather on the net, claiming what ever you want to claim and arguing and offending others you don't know nor care about. Claiming a knowledge garnered that reflects your interest in photography but allows you to fail as to photographic millimeters is BS. 

The good news is that the net offers great lessons for free from photographers. The bad news is that ignorant folks use this and then argue their knowledge.


----------



## rickpricemba (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't see any examples of fakeography.

Rick


----------



## rmh159 (Oct 7, 2007)

crotograph said:


> Remember, there are the lazy and the ones who seek the proper methods of shooting and learning the nuance of the craft.
> The loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on forums.



Man that was a tough read but since I fought my way through it I feel I've earned the right to respond.

While I respectfully think that entire post is crap... I'd like to pick out the quoted phrase above.  You're saying that "the loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on the forums"... haha umm... wasn't your post being argumentative?  And by saying people on forums are lazy... aren't you saying you're lazy?

So after reading your post I'm left with two opinions.  You're either arrogant to come on here and state your opinions and then point out that those that don't agree are lazy or you have no idea what you're talking about and you're not as smart as you'd like us to believe.


----------



## crotograph (Oct 8, 2007)

Your sig says it all. Lazy is defined as purposefully not doing enough to support ones needs. If your needs include photography you have to strive after it in every aspect of photography. You must be proficient in all methodology of photography, or, be on the path to learn it.

Typical forum response, but, thanks. I really appreciate your demonstrating your understanding of the intent of the written word.:hail:

Oh Yes, one other thing, I am NOT speaking of beginners or part time photographers who do this as a hobby and are where they want to be. I am speaking of those who use the internet, not the intense practice of every aspect of the craft, not just digital, to garner enough knowledge to reply on a lot of forums. If this is not you then you shouldn't have taken this personally.

Arrogance. A misused term. Arrogance means the thought process of personal perfection that subjugates others under yourself in thought, nowadays, or level of royalty, in the earlier years of royalty, think Henry the 8th. 

In this case I posted a thought that I was willing to defend. No one but yourself paid attention. Forums are like this. You get a lot of people asking for help and more than one bursting a bubble against one misunderstood post by one defensive individual. Perhaps you should stop posting and start listening. I came on here to sound out this body of members. Until you, I thought this a interesting group. 

I am semi-retired. 59. How old are you? Doesn't matter. 47 years dealing with chemicals, people and stuff and junk. 

Just really starting on the internet and digital. I think the moderators should take better care of their responsibilities.


----------



## RacePhoto (Oct 9, 2007)

Arthur Stieglitz published an art periodical known as Camera Work.  He announced that every published image would be a picture, not a photograph.

Do you honestly believe that Ansel Adams or Stieglitz or any any other great creative photographer, never dodged, burned, did composites or altered anything out of their camera?

Do you think that any art work or in this case, photograph should be "as is", out of camera, and not modified or edited to make it better?

I can understand the desire to make better photographs to start with and do less manipulation. That takes more effort and skill. But to say, that there's something wrong with editing, is kind of arbitrary.

On the other hand, if that's your choice, that's fine with me. I just can't buy the idea as something based on valid principles, or that should be claimed as being more pure than editing.


----------



## skieur (Oct 9, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.
> 
> It is very hard to draw a line...


 
Not hard to draw the line at all.  Cloning a microphone out that looks like it is sticking out of a celebrity's head does not change the shot.  Same thing with a water bottle, telephone pole, elbow or other body part of someone in the background.

Faking the event or the seriousness of a battle, protest or insurrection is a lot more than simply cleaning up photos for publication.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 9, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> These images were pushing a certain agenda by the way they were manipulated (added smoke and added flares). They were taking side for one party in that war-like conflict. Even if it was "the right side" (which I doubt is that easy to judge though) the photographer wanted to support, the way he chose was certainly wrong and has nothing to do with serious photojournalism. If photography is used in this way to illustrate news, than it would be better if the news came without any images whatsoever. There are enough ways to manipulate the recipient of news by the wording which is chosen, we do not need even more manipulation by heavily modified images.


 
I see this as a somewhat isolated incident.  There are always idiots around in any field or profession.  Any photojournalist in even shooting a regular photo realizes that how he shoots it can influence opinions and even future events.  Shooting a politician giving a speech can emphasize the full seats or the empty seats depending on the angle and background.
The apparent height of a snow pile could determine negligence in a wrongful death lawsuit.  Any photographic decision made by a photojournalist could be considered subjective and biased.  What is a neutral shot of an event in photographic terms?  Facial expressions can indicate support, resistance, anger, potential violence etc.  What the photographer catches and how it is interpreted in the article may or may not be remotely objective.

I would tend to think that it is wrong to paint photojournalists with the brush of faking shots for personal agendas. Many simply consider themselves as witnesses to history and have not even taken the time to research or form a personal opinion about the event.  At the same time however, some of the greatest shots from an artistic and photojournalistic point of view may come from those photographers with a personal bias.

So, it is really difficult to say how much objectivity we want from photojournalists.  If objectivity means boring documentary shots which viewers ignore then perhaps A little subjectivity gets more attention to the photos and the articles from newspaper readers.  A news editor has to take a more global view than the "purist" who does not see a lot of shades of grey between strict objectivity as an impossible objective and blatant fakery.

skieur


----------



## Mufasa (Oct 10, 2007)

When i posted i said just editing in general. I don't really mean slitght tweaks and the like but i am more gearing it towards huge editing. I personally don't think that using RAW conversion software to fine tune your exposure is right. I have seen people blurr the background to single out the subject more, another thing i don't agree with (should have used a smaller apreture). I guess what i am trying to say is that i personally don't think somone should fix something that they could have done at the moment of exposure. 

There are lots of stories of poeple in film shooting a day on ISO800 film but having the camera set up for ISO200 but due to films "tollerence" towards highlights they could rescue them. So the argument of "they did it in film" IMO is sometimes just as bad as digital.

P.S. Keep in mind these are just my oppinions about photography and plz don't get all trist because i didn't say "In my oppinion" earlier. Just trying to hear other oppinions here


----------



## rmh159 (Oct 10, 2007)

crotograph said:


> Your sig says it all. Lazy is defined as purposefully not doing enough to support ones needs. If your needs include photography you have to strive after it in every aspect of photography. You must be proficient in all methodology of photography, or, be on the path to learn it.
> 
> Typical forum response, but, thanks. I really appreciate your demonstrating your understanding of the intent of the written word.:hail:
> 
> ...


 
:roll:  Get over it.  I'd just advise you that if you're going to post and overly generalize about people being lazy, not knowing photography because they shoot digital / use a PC, etc... don't act all surprised /offended when you piss people off.  I did think your suggestion that the Mods should censor my post though... cute.

I respect your experience and I'm sure your photography is high quality but it always strikes me as "odd" (for lack of a better adjective) when people put down digital / PC-editing / the internet as a learning tool because they've spent X years shooting film, learning the art, etc.

The bottom line is that all of this stuff now exists... fighting it and putting it down is foolish.  There *is* enough info available online to learn this stuff quickly.  Times change... those who don't change with them will be left behind.

In an attempt to bring this back on topic... I still stand by the point that film / digital / darkroom / PC-editing is all irrelevant as opposed to the quality of the photographer.  If the person doesn't know how to use the tools correctly it will show regardless of the tools.  Editing photos on a PC isn't exactly easy, take a look at some of the pics posted on this forum.  The PC-edited shots that will look REALLY good require a lot of time and experience... it's not like you can just pull a shot up in Photoshop and click the "Make It Look Good" button and that's it.

The art of photography will become blurred as digital-imaging with the PC tools and higher quality cameras become cheaper and easier to use.  It is what is, no use crying over it.


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 10, 2007)

You'd almost think you people were talking about religion.  Lighten up folks.

The only thing you can judge about a news service is their body of work.  The rules placed upon the employees and or contributors will in fact shine through in their content.  The occasional aberration happens and the services reaction to it will be telling as well.

Also, if someone wants to be Holier-than-thou about being a Perfect Photographer and always getting it right in camera... just remember that in photography the End does justify the Means because the image presented to the public is all that will be judged.  No matter how much the photographer boasts, what you see is really all you get.

These last two paragraphs are not opposing because Journalism is exactly the same as Art in that you Choose the medium with which you practice your discipline!

A bad journalist is just that.  Whether they embellish a story or a photo is absolutely the same and just as reprehensible either way.

A bad Artist is no different.  If they butcher their ideas then there is no help for them no matter the media they use.

So, be happy, go shoot something.  

mike


----------



## TLTownsend (Oct 13, 2007)

I am not against programs like photoshop.  Though I do feel one can take it to extreme as far as when it becomes a different form of art than photography. 

Photoshop however is more than just simple clicks and plugins.  Many people use it as an easy program but in reality it is very complex.  

There was time when if you were using an SLR that could be set to Auto well you just weren't a photographer you had to use a manual camera.  Well the years and time have changed that.  Photography like all forms of art changes.  

The nice thing is since the Digital camera has came about more and more people are getting into Photography and through programs like Photoshop Lightroom and host of others more people are able to learn about filters and other things.  These cameras and programs make Photography affordable to many.  Not everyone can go out and buy a darkroom setup and buy tons of filters and not many of us want to spread vaseline on our lenses to get an effect anymore.  Using vaseline, breathing on the lens, thin colored plastic, colored glass, circular polarizers and other filters are all ways that have been used Photographers to create or enhance their photos.  Programs like photoshop basically does those things and more. It is nothing more than another tool to use.  

Also there is the 3D graphics world which now want photo textures instead of trying to create their own textures.  You need a program like photoshop to take your photo and map it so they can apply to their 3d objects.  People that use a program called Poser apply photos of peoples skin to their characters they create.  The world of Photography and this new age of digital cameras, computers and software.  Has opened up bunch of new avenues for Photographers to explore not only in the way they shoot but sell.  

We may like all the changes that have happened and we may not consider many of them proper Photography but I really don't think many of us would want to go back to days of Ansel Adams and other greats of the past and use their a equipment to call ourselves Photographers.  After all they would have every right to call these new fangled things we have acquired since their day as not pure photography.  

Don't discount the new and remember the old for knowing both increase the chance of attaining and capturing that perfect shot.   Which means maybe in another 20,000 shots I might get a good one.  At least I can hope.


----------



## Marci Renee (Oct 14, 2007)

Even with film you have to do post production. I was taught expose for the shadows develop for the highlights. I apply this to my digital camera also, thought it reads light differently then my film camera. Film and digital film need and go through post production its not a bad thing.


----------



## Joxby (Oct 14, 2007)

ish...this thread shoots off on so many irrelivent tangents, I'm trying not to read it.
Too many agendas and not enough concise to the point I think this/stuff, relating to the thread starters actual point, oh so many lines ago.
To be perfectly honest, If an image is to be posted as a photograph, I dont give a wet fart how much processing is done, as long as it looks like a scene that exists/could exist, 
I dont care about peoples individual preferences to the colour/saturation of the sky or whatever, so they think it was a bluer, so they think it was greyer...so what...thats cool with me, I do know it wasn't radio active neon purple, and there folks is where the road divides for me, (allthough I could be persuaded, Northern lights bouncing off the ionesphere through a rubber weather ballon or some crap)
*Overdone* HDR follows this route, as beautifull as it is, its a manufactured scene, I know it doesn't exist, nobody free of LSD see's it that way, and that photograph has become something else. 
What is the point of a camera if the scenes produced are so far removed from the original, they might aswell have be made from scratch. Owning/shooting/using one becomes a short odds minor detail non speaking bit part existance.
B/W HDR you say.....well don't.....I dunno....still trying to work it out myself, it doesn't fit into my pigeon holes very neatly, I could easily hate it by default, but both my IQ points are busy right now..


gawd.....I feel.....purged


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Oct 15, 2007)

Here are the guidelines for photographers, from Reuters. AP has a similar set of guidelines or code of conduct for photographers.

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Every great once in a while, I get a little wire service work thrown my way, and these guidelines are pretty much the way I shoot all events. Some editors ask that I tweak the sharpness a bit and so on, but no cropping of any kind- and then some editors just ask for the straight image, the way it was shot in the camera, and they do whatever adjustments they feel are necessary to the image.

As far as art is concerned, well, isn't that where we can really let our creative juices flow? That's what makes this stuff so much _fun._


----------



## RMThompson (Oct 15, 2007)

Bottom line:

1. Digital Photography is just as relevant and artistic as film photography. The fact there was a lot more film photographers for years, throw away cameras for example.

2. Post processing is your choice unless your a photo journalist, but if you want to get all high and might about it, remember, even a white balance is processing.

3. The picture posted by the OP was awesome!


----------



## RMThompson (Oct 15, 2007)

Oh and I use a freaking D50 with a 50mm lens and I don't consider myself lazy!


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 15, 2007)

crotograph said:


> The good news is that film is far from dead. Actually, it is enjoying a limited resurgence from digital users who actually want to make a photograhp by themselves, as a thinking individual.


 
As a digital shooter, this comment is rather offensive. I was going to stay out of this thread (as it has been covered many times before) but I had to comment on this remark. I have not shot film, nor do I have a desire to shoot film.  _*edit*I have absolutely nothing against film, I think it is capable of amazing images, it just isn't the medium for me.*edit*_    However, I consider myself a "thinking individual" and I strive to make all my photographs "myself" (not even entirely sure what this means.... do you think the digital camera and the computer make the photographs for us?) using the tools and medium that I am most comfortable working in.

One other point... you have stated that you feel the moderators should "take better care of their responsibilities". The moderators here do a fantastic job, and perhaps you should consider avoiding generalized statements about the thinking capabilities of digital shooters if you don't want to deal with negative responses to your comments.



Joxby said:


> I dont give a wet fart how much processing is done, as long as it looks like a scene that exists/could exist,
> I dont care about peoples individual preferences to the colour/saturation of the sky or whatever, so they think it was a bluer, so they think it was greyer...so what...thats cool with me, I do know it wasn't radio active neon purple, and there folks is where the road divides for me


 
Ok, just playing a little bit of devil's advocate..... you say as long as the scene could exist, that's fine, so no neon purple. I understand what you're saying, but let me ask you this question; what about black and white photography? Do you feel that this is ok, or is it not also a scene that has no existence (in nature, for example)?



RMThompson said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> 1. Digital Photography is just as relevant and artistic as film photography. The fact there was a lot more film photographers for years, throw away cameras for example.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you, that summed up my view of this discussion beautifully.




RMThompson said:


> Oh and I use a freaking D50 with a 50mm lens and I don't consider myself lazy!


 
Ditto!



Jason


----------



## RacePhoto (Oct 16, 2007)

I think some people are missing the point.

Photojournalism is not the same as art.

Three basic rules for photojournalism, very simple:

1) No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
   (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)

2) No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image.
   (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)

3) No excessive color manipulation.

The photo should be honest and not altered to mislead the viewer.


All the rules of photography as an art:

-

(no I didn't leave this blank by accident, there are no rules!)

The camera can be anything from a pinhole in a shoe box, to a $40,000 digital back on a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. You can take film, paper negatives, digital, albumen, or whatever else you prefer... IT DOESN'T MATTER!

But for the film defenders (many who just can't afford digital, so they write from jealousy) and the people who claim they are pure because they don't use editing software. Please give it a break. No one is impressed with your arrogant snobbery.

Just about everyone here takes pictures, the way they want, because that's what they decided for them self. Not because someone else tells us what methods or what medium, or how to edit what we like. The people who don't are probably under contract, or hired to shoot with whatever they use.

Calling it Fakeography is an broad insult hurled at a majority of the people here, right from the start.


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 16, 2007)

Well said, RacePhoto!  I think you and RMThompson summed it up best.


----------



## RacePhoto (Oct 16, 2007)

JHF Photography said:


> Well said, RacePhoto!  I think you and RMThompson summed it up best.



Salty old curmudgeon on a soap box. Some days I can't help myself. :blushing:

Less words. Have fun doing what you like. Don't let the self appointed thought dictators tell you what you personally enjoy or how you should do it. :lmao:


----------



## JerryPH (Oct 18, 2007)

Being an enthusiastic begining amateur, I have already formed the opinion that what is "offensive" or "wrong" to one photographer, is the pinnacle of art to another. 

In the end, unless you are trying to sell your work, whether it is good or bad is something that is important to only one person... you yourself.

Have fun doing whatever you like, because in the end thats all that really matters.


----------



## crotograph (Oct 19, 2007)

On all forums that I stopped attending, it is the lack of knowledge of photography that holds sway since digital, computers, have taken over the acute mind of a photographer. There is no acute, narrow focused mind in a digital photographer that has never been in a darkroom. Neither is there any interest as, in a digital photographers mind, any reason to do an exposure themselves. A little knowledge works. A lot of knowledge as to exposure is a pain. 
Money can be made, or accolaids on forums, for a kick in the pants as to pretty ignorant photography. The cameras computers serial # should be what is your username.

I will be proved correct. It is Darwinism at it's opposite. You folks who have no ability to take a decent photograph without a computer need to study, not post. Quite a load I see here. The usual stuff and junk. 

Don't mean to offend. Cut me off, Moderators, if you think I am offending the minds of your residents.


----------



## fido dog (Oct 21, 2007)

I liked it Crotograph. I put my jammies on right when I saw it. I got COLD!

No offense taken here bro.

I miss having use of a darkroom, but love digital just as much now. I remember when digital started to get big. NO WAY MAN! That's not photography!?!? I went and bought an RB67. A few months later I tried a DSLR. I didn't touch the RB for over a year and finally sold it.

I agree that WAY too much digital processing can ruin a photo, but I like this one.


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 25, 2007)

crotograph said:


> OK, I have left myself open to detractors who want to start the digital/film argument. Sorry, it isn't here. A digital camera in the hands of one who knows photography can work wonders.


 
Ok, first off let me say that I whole heartedly agree with this statement. The digital/film argument isn't here, nor do I want to start it. Both mediums are capable of phenomonal pictures. However, you seem to have a mindset that the only people who know photography are those who have shot with film. That may be the way you learned photographic knowledge, but I think you need to realize that your way may not be the only way.



crotograph said:


> There is no acute, narrow focused mind in a digital photographer that has never been in a darkroom.


 
I'm assuming (because this statement is rather unclear) that by this you mean a mind that is highly attuned to exposure technique, light quality, light control, compostional vision, and all the other things that a photographers mind "see's" differently. (If this is not what you meant, by all means enlighten me). I'd love to see some hard evidence of this very general statement. Again, it shows through very clearly that you believe those who have graced the inside of a darkroom are imparted with special powers unavailable to the rest of us ignorant digital users.



crotograph said:


> Neither is there any interest as, in a digital photographers mind, any reason to do an exposure themselves. A little knowledge works. A lot of knowledge as to exposure is a pain.


 
I tried to decipher this, but just can't do it. What does this even mean?



crotograph said:


> The cameras computers serial # should be what is your username.


 
I will now ask the same question I posed in my previous post (which you completely avoided last time): Do you think digital cameras and computers take the pictures for us?

I know that you have already stated you are "Just really starting on the internet and digital". If this is the case, perhaps you need to learn a little bit more about the digital photography world before dismissing it's photographers in broad, sweeping statements.


Jason


----------



## D-50 (Oct 25, 2007)

After having used PHotomatix for a while I must say it is not cheating to use this program at all.  yeah it makes any picture look abit more interesting but honestly the results are best when you know how to set up a shot and light it correctly knowing how you will be editing it afterther shot is done.  For landscapes I have stopped using it, its just to fake but I have found for people HDR really ads to a photo, keep it subtle though.  Any jackass with a computer can run a photo through photomatix but only people who understand its practical application and using light creatively when shooting are going to make consistantly stunning images.


----------



## RacePhoto (Oct 30, 2007)

fido dog said:


> I agree that WAY too much digital processing can ruin a photo, but I like this one.



I agree. Most of the time, people go trick with editing digital and it wears thin and becomes boring, very fast.

These guys (assuming they aren't ladies) are way too full of themselves, with lines like these below. Or did they just dropped in to stir the pot? 

Oh I'm so pure and only shoot film. Digital isn't "real" photography.

I edit in the camera and don't use Photoshop. Editing and effects are Fakeography.


> There is no acute, narrow focused mind in a digital photographer that has never been in a darkroom.



Challenge for

Mufasa
crotograph

Enter the monthly contest here and show us how good you are. Talk is cheap! :hail:


----------



## Zatodragon (Oct 30, 2007)

Well, first off, i think photography should be what ever the person wants it to be.  If someone wants to be creative or try to gain an effect on a lense they can't purchase just yet, then go for it.  

But as for just taking something at the time of the exposure, a person could do quite a bit.  Doing multiple exposures on one frame can do many wonderous things.  Or if you wanted to remove a single object, it's possible to etch the glass of a filter to blur out a streetlight or something else.  

So i guess a better definition of what 'fakeography' really means.  But going back to the fact that however a person wants to do photography, they should do it regardless, unless it's hurtin someone else directly.


----------



## JHF Photography (Oct 31, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> Challenge for
> 
> Mufasa
> crotograph
> ...


 

Love it, RacePhoto!


----------



## heip (Oct 31, 2007)

The only difference in todays digital age and film is we are able to do it ourselves rather than very expensive retouchers. Manipulation has been around forever. Back in the day if you wanted to remove a telephone pole it would probably cost you $20 - $50 for that work...now... boom, gone in 30 seconds.


----------

