# THIS is what photography is all about!



## Didereaux

The 100 best photographs ever taken without photoshop

when you take photos like these, then you are truly a photographer, and not a graphics artist.


----------



## gsgary

I didn't see anything that I wished I had taken, looked through about half and didn't like any of them not my cup of tea


----------



## JacaRanda

So they used Corel or something else other than photoshop.  Maybe Lightroom or DPP.


----------



## tirediron

Prove it!


----------



## NancyMoranG

Those are quite amazing actually. Some photographically speaking and some just to say wow. 
Thanks for posting.


----------



## cgw

Yet another "listicle." AKA click bait.


----------



## KmH

Huh?
Every photograph ever made has been edited in some way.


----------



## Didereaux

This proves once again just how many people are so literal minded that they cannot grasp even the slightest abstraction, metaphor or even a bit of hyperbole.  These are the types that check each pixel, and fail to notice the picture is a painting!


----------



## SquarePeg

Some of these were pretty cool but many of them obviously had _a lot _of post processing so not sure what the "without photoshop" designation is supposed to signify.


----------



## dxqcanada

I don't use PS ... so that means all my shots are great ?

Post processing does not necessarily mean you cannot be a real photographer ... heck, back in my film days we always manipulated the processing of the film and the print.


----------



## Didereaux

SquarePeg said:


> Some of these were pretty cool but many of them obviously had _a lot _of post processing so not sure what the "without photoshop" designation is supposed to signify.




no cut and paste, no merging, cloning removing etc.  Post isn't PS'ing.  Just thought that in that 100 photos that each person would find at least one they really liked.   But in today's world, and the Millenial Mind (if such truly exists and isn't an oxymoron) to look at 100 photos is far beyond there attention span.  A i pointed out above it also is beyond the Millennial Mind to grasp anything not of the most literal sort.    Might as well lock this thread because I certainly missed my mark in posting it.


----------



## tirediron

I am most definitely not a millennial, and I did look through all of them and liked many of them.  There were several that I thought were outstanding, but...  I'm confused by the whole "Photoshop but not Photoshop"  thing...  It was either used or not used, there's no gray area in the statement in your OP as far as I can tell....


----------



## KmH

Is it a safe assumption that each person that has visited this thread clicked on the link to look at _any_ of the photos?


----------



## Didereaux

tirediron said:


> I am most definitely not a millennial, and I did look through all of them and liked many of them.  There were several that I thought were outstanding, but...  I'm confused by the whole "Photoshop but not Photoshop"  thing...  It was either used or not used, there's no gray area in the statement in your OP as far as I can tell....




Look it said none used Photoshop.  I looked through them and no I didn't find ny obvious cut&paste.  Which is what I think was meant as most people do not realize that PS can do much more than that.  Extreme post editing seems obvious in some, but as you are well aware PS is just one of a myriad of apps that do that stuff.   My liking, and maybe I wasn't clear on that was the compositions, viewpoints, general uniqueness.  The thread title was purposely hyperbolic and meant to attract attention, but not to be taken seriously.  Since any dammed fool knows that anyone who takes a picture is a photographer by definition (a shame such obviousness has to be spelled out though)

I repeat there are just to many people nowadays that cannot grasp anything but the most literal meaning of a sentence, or recognize humor above the Stooges.   My bad for having too high of expectations.  MY APOLOGIES everyone!   Now go and hug your Teddies.   
p.s. that last paragraph was not aimed at you Tired!


----------



## Scatterbrained

Didereaux said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of these were pretty cool but many of them obviously had _a lot _of post processing so not sure what the "without photoshop" designation is supposed to signify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no cut and paste, no merging, cloning removing etc.  Post isn't PS'ing.  Just thought that in that 100 photos that each person would find at least one they really liked.   But in today's world, and the Millenial Mind (if such truly exists and isn't an oxymoron) to look at 100 photos is far beyond there attention span.  A i pointed out above it also is beyond the Millennial Mind to grasp anything not of the most literal sort.    Might as well lock this thread because I certainly missed my mark in posting it.
Click to expand...

 
How do you know there was no merging, or cloning, or removing?  You don't.  You assume there wasn't because the article says there wasn't, but I highly doubt they even bothered to find out.  This looks to me like the typical "listicle" round-up of images from around the web.   Were there some great images there, sure.  I rather enjoyed the majority of them, but I wouldn't consider them the "100 greatest no PS photographs".  BTW, if you use Photoshop (notice the word "photo" right in the name) that doesn't mean it's just graphic art.  Also, if you check you'll see that Lr is referred to as "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" in exported image exif data.     Beyond that I find the original post a bit inflammatory, as clearly others have as well.   

Are you familiar with the work of Jerry Uelsmann?  Clearly not I'd reckon.   Check out his work, keeping in mind that it was done in the darkroom, and is considered to be photography, not graphic art.


----------



## zombiesniper

I liked quite a few of the photos but my issue is 2 fold.
1. Click bait title. When I see no photoshop in my mind that is SOOC, which is cool but usually not the norm.
2. What's wrong with photoshop? Sure it can be used to much but then it's not a great photo.

My opinion is that the some of the photography cough"advertising"cough community has photoshopped things to the point that they barely look the same. Because of this people think ALL pics are photoshopped to the point that they're about as accurate as "Based on a true story" in the movie industry.
Therefore photoshop has been deemed a tool that is only used to alter a photo unrealistically.


----------



## OGsPhotography

I read all the comments and did not click the bait. Going back to take pics of my teddy now. SOOC Momma Goose.


----------



## pip_dog

I like the one of the flood in Ljubljana, which was just featured having its first snowfall this year on natgeo's Instagram.
Oops, my Millenial is showing!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## SquarePeg

Didereaux said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am most definitely not a millennial, and I did look through all of them and liked many of them.  There were several that I thought were outstanding, but...  I'm confused by the whole "Photoshop but not Photoshop"  thing...  It was either used or not used, there's no gray area in the statement in your OP as far as I can tell....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look it said none used Photoshop.  I looked through them and no I didn't find ny obvious cut&paste.  Which is what I think was meant as most people do not realize that PS can do much more than that.  Extreme post editing seems obvious in some, but as you are well aware PS is just one of a myriad of apps that do that stuff.   My liking, and maybe I wasn't clear on that was the compositions, viewpoints, general uniqueness.  The thread title was purposely hyperbolic and meant to attract attention, but not to be taken seriously.  Since any dammed fool knows that anyone who takes a picture is a photographer by definition (a shame such obviousness has to be spelled out though)
> 
> I repeat there are just to many people nowadays that cannot grasp anything but the most literal meaning of a sentence, or recognize humor above the Stooges.   My bad for having too high of expectations.  MY APOLOGIES everyone!   Now go and hug your Teddies.
> p.s. that last paragraph was not aimed at you Tired!
Click to expand...


Curious why Tired is allowed to call foul on this but the rest of us must be humorless children?


----------



## rexbobcat

How do you expect us millennials to pay attention for long periods of time when we were all raised by televisions?

I think you're asking far too much of my impotent generation.


----------



## Didereaux

rexbobcat said:


> How do you expect us millennials to pay attention for long periods of time when we were all raised by televisions?
> 
> I think you're asking far too much of my impotent generation.


----------



## NancyMoranG

Forget the title, enjoy the photos.


----------



## Ian63

OMG  I use  photoshop... I guess that means I am not a  photographer? SO?  I don't care... I create  for  MY enjoyment... people will like  it or  they don't.  BTW... I didn't even look.


----------



## jake337

Didereaux said:


> The 100 best photographs ever taken without photoshop
> 
> when you take photos like these, then you are truly a photographer, and not a graphics artist.



No. 

Per the definition of photography if you take and PROCESS images you are a photographer.


----------



## Rick50

Thanks Didereaux. Those were great!


----------



## Jim Walczak

Ok, as always I feel compelled to point out at the git-go here that these are just my own personal opinions and should only be taken as such.

First and foremost, I too have to take some degree of offense towards how this thread began.  In short, it insinuates that those who chose to process their own images are somehow less than "real" photographers.  More over, it insinuates that images created by using software such as Photoshop are somehow a "cheat".  The comment seems to totally ignore concepts such as "content" and "context"...and this is where I at least have a problem.

As I've said elsewhere in these forums (and certainly other places as well), once one moves beyond the "snapshot" and starts taking one's photography more seriously, I believe photography as a whole falls into one of two categories; photojournalism and art.  To me, this is a VERY important distinction to make...the images of a photojournalist can be artistic (and many of the best often are), *however *not all photography is photojournalism...nor should it be.  The job of a photojournalist is to represent the truth...their work is (or at least _should_ be) a factual representation of an event.  That's not to say that some post processing can't or shouldn't occur (give or take the issues with Reuters)...after all, EVERY digital image has some processing done to it, even if it's by automatic algorithms in the camera...however such processing should never alter the _content_ of the image.  My father worked for a major Cleveland newspaper for most of my life, so I do in fact have a very great respect for photojournalism.  I grew up with it.  That said however, it's *NOT* what I do.  Whether one chooses to call me a photographer or a graphics designer, I am an _artist_ and photography is one of my chosen mediums.  With my own work, I'm not trying to factually represent anything (in most cases at least), I try to _create_ images that I enjoy and that hopefully others will too.  For me, it's not exclusively about what I do with the camera...the camera is only PART of the process...the final print, be it physical prints or jpegs to post on the internet, is my ultimate goal.  To suggest however that I'm any less of a photographer simply because I may choose to alter the content of my work is, quite frankly, VERY insulting....anything in my images, whether those images are composites or not, was captured by me.  I simply use all the tools I have available to create the best final product I can.

Case in point - let's consider this image I shot this past summer...





Context - what was the intended use of this image?  Obviously this is the infamous Budweiser Clydesdale team...and for the sake of reference, it was taken at a 4th of July parade in Ashland, Ohio.  Look at this image carefully and before you scroll down, consider how this image might have been used.....











The image, in case you didn't notice or haven't guessed, has in fact been manipulated to a rather significant degree in post processing (in this case, yes, Photoshop).  As the person taking this image, I found myself to be in the right place, at the right time...the team had in fact turned from the main parade route, which allowed me to capture an image that wasn't cluttered by "people".  In this case however, as I was processing the image, I didn't like the way it was composed...I was on the correct side of the street for the light, however for a "composition", I felt the horses and cart were going in the wrong direction (I tend to "read" images from left to right)....so that was the FIRST adjustment, which also included some cropping to give the image more of a panoramic feel.  Of course, after having flipped the image, the lettering on the cart was backwards, so that too had to be adjusted....you get the idea...I put A LOT of work into this image.

So...what was this to be used for?  Was it for the local newspaper to go with the header "Clydesdales Invade Ashland"?  Was it for use in Budweiser advertising literature?  No.  My singular intent with this image is to do a large print for my music studio!  As such, ANY changes or adjustments I made to this image are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  In context to how I intend to use this image, any/all such alterations are completely acceptable...it's -MY- image, it will be displayed in MY home (along with a few select websites) and it was shot at a public event...why, EXACTLY, should it matter what I did to the image after the fact?  What's more is that even had I of intended to use the image for any specific journalistic purpose, the integrity of _the content_ remains fully intact.   This image would still be suitable for use in say, Budweiser literature (copyrights and such not withstanding), despite alterations to the image as it was shot.

Again - context and content...both are very important distinctions to consider when discussing this topic.

As I've also said elsewhere,  the idea of post-processing one's own image has been around for a VERY long time...long before this whole digital thing crept into our world.  A great many photographers used to setup their own darkrooms to help create prints that where something OTHER than what was captured with their cameras.  You even had people who were experts at "re-touching"...people who would print an image, airbrush over the flaws, then re-shoot the image...such things were a common practice even 30 to 40 years ago and few people ever questioned it.  Today however, people see the word "Photoshop" and many seem to assume it's something other than what it is...many ignorant people seem to think it's some sort of magic button that takes a poor image and miraculously transforms it into something wonderful...and anyone with ANY degree of experience in Photoshop KNOWS _it's just not that simple_ _at all_. I did in fact put a few hours worth of work into that Clydesdales shot...I have a few images where I've put as much as 8 hours or more into a single image....which _for me_ and _for my use_, is perfectly acceptable.  Here's another example...






In this case, the entire background of the image has been replaced.  The dog in the shot was my parent's dog, "Lady"...I had wanted to give my folks a nice framed shot of Lady as a holiday gift, so after having shot some 30 - 40 images, this was the pose my parents liked the most.  In the original image however, she had been sitting in front of my father's minivan and quite literally looked as though she had a bumper growing out of her ears!  LOL!  I have no doubt that I could have just framed the image as shot and that my parents would have been most happy with it, however as _the photographer_ who captured the picture, I wasn't happy with it at all.  Since this was intended as a gift, I took the time...well over 8 hours....re-shot the background (in my own backyard) and did a composite image for them.  Context - I ultimately _created_ an image through the use of my photography skills AND my post processing skills, that my parents were thrilled with, that I was very proud to present to them....and the framed print hung on their living room wall until the day my father passed away.  

Does the fact that the image is a composite somehow change the quality of the image, let alone how much my parents enjoyed it?  Should I not take GREAT offense to someone who insinuates or suggests that my skills as a photographer AND as an artist are somehow a cheat?  As an artist, I could NOT create the images I do without the proper understanding of the concepts related to photography, including composition, exposure, etc...the very same principles and concepts that a good photojournalist must follow.   The distinction however is NOT in how I create my images, it's their end purpose..._it's about how I use *my* images_...and as the person who has created my images, I take great offense to those uneducated in such principles as to call my work "fake" or suggest that I'm somehow less than a real photographer...it's STILL my work, regardless of how I choose to process that work. 

Think about it.


Now as far as the images on the website in question go, yes, I did find a few of them interesting and/or in few cases, well done...a few were very well planned, others appear to be little more than location or being at "the right place at the right time",  however I feel equally compelled to point out that there's NO WAY you can really tell how much post processing went on with ANY of those images.  A couple of those shots with the moon for example...having done some lunar photography, I'd bet a shiny penny those images were in fact altered.   Perhaps this is another distinction that's been over-looked - does it really matter if an image has been altered in post processing (Photoshop or otherwise), if it's been done well? 

Consider this; -if- we were to completely ignore "labels" and simply view those 100 images as that - 100 pictures posted on the internet, *WHY* should it matter whether they've been altered or not?  Does the perception of the image being altered somehow detract from the aesthetics of the image?  Beyond the labels attached to the images, none of those images really claim to be "representative of the truth"...they're a collection of (mostly) pretty or interesting images.  If anyone finds one of those images to be interesting, beautiful or in some way evocative, would the use of post processing _really_ detract from that at all?  If we eliminate the issue of photojournalism from the equation and just accept those images as...wow...pretty pictures, would any of them be any less appealing if you were to find out they were in fact altered in some way??  

Likewise, I also have to point out that having access to "extraordinary places" does NOT make an extraordinary photographer.  Consider the shot of "Tianzi Mountain"...to me that shot is really all about the location.  I don't wish to discredit the person who took that shot, however as I've often said with much of Ansel Adam's work, anyone with a decent camera could stand in that same location and likely get an equally incredible shot.  In terms of this discussion however, seriously...would that somehow make a novice a "real" photographer?  The same could in fact be said of many of those images...interesting location, interesting subject matter, etc...seems to have very little to do with if or how much those images were processed.

And btw...if we are going to be considering terms of authenticity regarding post processing, wow.....what about planned shots?  In that post of 100, there certainly seems to be a few shots, "Forests Without End" for example, that seem rather premeditated.   Should that too not be considered as some kind of cheat as well since it ultimately presents an image that is something other than the natural state of things?


Again, to me all of this is about drawing distinctions in their proper context.  If an established photojournalist takes an image that is intended to represent the facts of a given event and alters that image to make the impact more (or less) than that of the given scene, clearly this should be viewed as being wrong.  However, I'll say it again; *not all photographers are photojournalists* and as such are NOT bound by the same moral code and ethics.  I -choose- to be an artist, not because I'm unable to follow the confines of ethics regarding photojournalism, but because I prefer to follow my own sense of artistic expression.  That should NOT however suggest that people who create such work are in ANY way, less than a "true photographer".  


Again, just my own opinions however in this case, they are opinions regarding that which I do feel very passionate about.


----------



## Ian63

WELL DONE... well said!


----------



## timor

Jim, in Ashland, is there left hand traffic ? Your picture suggest that.


----------



## Vtec44

Great photos!  However, photography is more than just using (or not using) Photoshop.


----------



## cauzimme

''
Nature and humankind are both great artists, and when they join forces, amazing masterpieces can be produced.

Today *Bright Side* has collected for you works in which the combined efforts of mother nature and photographic artists have captured magic moments showing the wondrous diversity of modern life and the natural world. '' 

Those photos are not a digital collage but it doesn't mean they didn't suffer any postprocessing like lightroom or photoshop. Jizz I wish people would stop diabolizing photoshop, it just a lab, a digital darkroom chamber... You could do a lot in a darkroom putting time and effort, and you can do twice with photoshop and in less of time, but it doesn't mean it's evil, it's just mean human can be smart about time managing and effort consuming.


----------



## 407370

To push the boundary.......
Is this a photograph?




This image was produced by a virtual camera in a virtual environment:




All the constraints of a physical camera still apply and the rules for composition, lighting etc still apply. So what makes this image less of a photograph than this ?:


----------



## timor

^^^ Technology. Photography is energy of light changing photosensitive substance. Digital is a mathematical deduction from optical image projection. Nobody is saying it is worst, it is just one more way to make an image which looks photo like. Still fun.


----------



## Jim Walczak

407370 said:


> To push the boundary.......
> Is this a photograph?
> 
> This image was produced by a virtual camera in a virtual environment:




This is just my own opinion, however I think the key term there is "virtual".  On the one hand, as I was learning 3D myself, I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of the concepts of photography...lighting, composition, focal length, etc., etc., were a TREMENDOUS help...particularly since the mid term project for 3D Modeling & Animation I was a "still life".  I watched several of my fellow academicians struggle with this, as many had little or no background or training in art, let alone photography.  Likewise being able to take good reference images can be an enormous benefit, in the creation of both models and textures (I frequently use my own photography for textures).





If anything, when it comes to 3D I actually think there's probably a greater need to understand concepts such as lighting, as that (IMO) is really what makes or breaks a great model (just as it does with a photo).  You can have a really sensational model that's been perfected down to the last vertex, but if the lighting is poor, the model is REALLY gonna suffer...one of the big reasons I suspect why you have "specialists" with pro 3D animation (the modeling department, the rigging department, textures, lighting, cameras, yadda, yadda).

BTW...for the sake of full disclosure, while I did some rather extensive work on that '57 Chevy, the base model was actually a download (and some parts, such as the windshield wipers and side view mirrors were taken from other models).  I would credit the original artist(s), however since the car was used for a couple of college projects a few years back, I no longer have the info on who originally created the model (sorry).  That said, "the photo"...the position of the car, the camera setup, the lighting, the textures...even the tires and rims, etc., are all my own work.





One of the lovely things about 3D, in my opinion at least, is that you can indeed mix "real" photography with virtual.  In the case of the jukebox image, I was lucky enough to obtain some outstanding reference images to create the model of the jukebox itself and I was able to supplement the textures with real images (the background of the record chamber and the wood cabinet, not to mention the "Rebel" poster),  making the virtual work, much more realistic.

I would also be so bold as to suggest that if anything, doing "photography" (aka _stills_) in 3D  is actually far more complex than working with a traditional camera.  In addition to all the basic principles involved with photography, you also have to understand the nuances of the software...particularly when it comes to rendering.  I do the majority of my work in AutoDesk's Maya and yea...the difference between Maya Software and Mental Ray can be rather extraordinary....





In essence most rendering engines more or less do the same thing, however with my Ralph Goings Tribute there, in order to obtain that shallow DOF, I just wasn't able to use the Maya Software rendering effectively...ended up being a 1/2 hour Mental Ray render instead.  And then of course you have lighting options...I can't speak to all 3D software on this (Poser and Daz can be quite limited here), however with a program like Maya, you can create incredibly elaborate lighting setups that can be rather difficult to duplicate in real life...after all, you can't really do "light linking" even in the best equipped photo studio!  LOL!


Now with all of this said, "Is it photography?"...in my mind, having _some_ experience with both, I'd actually have to say no.  In my mind, it's two very different things...even though I've done prints of all these images, I call them "3D renders" and _not_ "photos".  I used my Ralph Goings Tribute there specifically for reference...if you look at the work of Goings and other "hyper-realists", while such work may _look_ like a photograph, clearly the work isn't photography...it's painting.  Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs in terms of definitions here, however 3D, like painting, is a different medium than photography is.  Many of the very same concepts can be applied, but at the end of the day, the difference is greater than acrylic paints and sidewalk chalk...totally different disciplines.

Again sorry for hijacking the thread...interesting question though


----------



## timor

You not splitting the hair Jim. Everything, everything comes down to perception. And that changes with the time. For cave man paintings of bisons on the cave wall were as realistic as your 3D models are to us.


----------



## 407370

I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:

cropped photographs are failed photographs
SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
Only expensive cameras produce good photographs
I could go on..........


----------



## Jim Walczak

407370 said:


> I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
> I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:
> 
> cropped photographs are failed photographs
> SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
> HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
> Only expensive cameras produce good photographs
> I could go on..........



While I do absolutely agree with your thoughts regarding limits on creativity (or lack there of), I have to disagree with the comment regarding any digital image being a digital image.  This is, quite obviously, my own personal opinion however, I think that just as with art in the "real" world, it's important to recognize distinctions in the digital realm as well.  In the real world, one typically recognizes "a painting" as being something completely different to "a photograph".  In a VERY broad general sense both can be considered "pictures" and both are based on concepts of "light/shadow", "composition", etc., however they ARE very different things.  A person who may indeed be a proficient painter may have NO CLUE what to do with a camera and a great photographer may be totally inept using paint brush and canvas...as I said earlier, VERY different disciplines.  Likewise, in the virtual world, the differences between raster and vector graphics (including 3D) are truly worlds apart.  A person adept at adjusting/manipulating their own images in a program such as Photoshop, could be totally lost in Illustrator...and 3D takes that into another very distinctive realm.

I do in fact consider myself a "digital artist"...my chosen medium is that of the computer, mouse, monitor and printer (and occasionally a graphics tablet).  I have done more traditional art work (painting, drawing, etc), at least as a student and as with my earlier comments regarding photojournalism, I have a great respect for such artists (well...most of the time...there are notable exceptions), however it's not what I do.  That said, I do very much consider the differences in digital art to be quite distinctive.   My vector work is _not_ the same as my digital photography, which is *not* the same as my 3D work.  To try and lump all of this under the term "digital images" seems rather ignorant to me...if you're not going to draw such distinctions, then why even bother with the term "digital"?  After all, if we're simply going to apply such broad generalizations, then ultimately whether we're talkin' da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" or the latest cutting edge virtual images,  it's all just "pictures", yes?

I won't speak for others, however I think such distinctions, in both the real world and the virtual are quite important, at least in terms of what we do and how we do it.

Something to think about.


----------



## Vtec44

With photography, you get to the decide on what to exclude because your canvas has already been "painted".   With painting, you start with an empty canvas and get to decide on what to include.  It's actually not that complicated.  We just make it to be because we love to talk about it rather than actually go out there and take beautiful photos.


----------



## 407370

Jim Walczak said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always had the belief that any digital image is just a digital image. It does not matter whether it was produced in 3D, Photoshop, camera, scanner or what the image origin is. A scanned camera film image is just the same as a 3D model.
> I dont agree with any rule that limits creativity like:
> 
> cropped photographs are failed photographs
> SOOC (this particularly gets my goat as all images are edited by the camera)
> HDR / Tone mapping is not used by real photographers
> Only expensive cameras produce good photographs
> I could go on..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't speak for others, however I think such distinctions, in both the real world and the virtual are quite important, at least in terms of what we do and how we do it.
> 
> Something to think about.
Click to expand...


Looking at an oil painting hanging on a wall is a totally different experience to looking at a photograph of it on a website, but when it is digitised  it is just another image.
The software used to create or manipulate an image is irrelevant. The end result is important in the sense that the image is what the artist envisioned before they started. Various bits of software create images associated with that software, 3D software like Cinema 4D can create images that cannot be created with Photoshop or Illustrator, but my point is that someone who is very proficient in a certain piece of software will tend to use that software and that is a limitation. 
A lot of my artwork is based on photographs (textures, backgrounds etc) but is firmly in the digital sphere and I use whatever software I need to create the image in my mind.


----------



## limr

Why the resistance to calling something "graphic art" instead of "photography"? Changing the label doesn't stifle creativity - it simply assigns a more precise name to an image that didn't start its life in a camera. It's not a judgement on the quality or validity of the image, either. For me, the only muddied water is when an image starts as a photograph and then becomes so heavily manipulated that it becomes something more akin to graphic or digital art. There's no good word for that kind of hybrid.


----------



## timor

You see Jim, your perception is waaay ahead from general populus. It will take us a generation to get there. Or maybe never.
But unfortunately this all are only pictures,  entertainment to which huge philosophy was added.


----------



## Achaicus

It seems to me that the issue isn't what is used to create an image, but whether the image is true representation of a physical reality or an artistic derivative. A large part of the argument is due to individuals drawing the line at different places and differences of perception. 

A good part of the reaction against whatever "process" is a reaction against something being presented as a true representative of physical reality and it isn't.  It is a bit like my reaction when my parents went vegan when I was a kid, and put dishes in front of me with "cheese" in it. I eventually came around and grew to like the concoctions they were calling "cheese" for what they were, but still to this day have a distaste for the imitator. Either it is or it is an impostor and deservedly hated for the deception. Call cheese, cheese, and call a sauce, however 'cheese' like, a sauce.

However that is not to say that there is not merit in the works that stray from that idea of true representation of physical reality. There is a lot of merit in these works, provided that they are represented as what they are. A photograph is to broad a term these days.


----------



## limr

Achaicus said:


> Either it is or it is an impostor and deservedly hated for the deception. *Call cheese, cheese*, and call a sauce, however 'cheese' like, a sauce.
> 
> However that is not to say that there is not merit in the works that stray from that idea of true representation of physical reality. There is a lot of merit in these works,* provided that they are represented as what they are. A photograph is too broad a term these days.*



This was my point as well.


----------



## 407370

Achaicus said:


> . A photograph is to broad a term these days.


 Could not agree more.


----------



## Jim Walczak

limr said:


> Why the resistance to calling something "graphic art" instead of "photography"? Changing the label doesn't stifle creativity - it simply assigns a more precise name to an image that didn't start its life in a camera. It's not a judgement on the quality or validity of the image, either. For me, the only muddied water is when an image starts as a photograph and then becomes so heavily manipulated that it becomes something more akin to graphic or digital art. There's no good word for that kind of hybrid.




For myself at least, the "resistance" is because what I do as a graphic artist, even if my art work includes photography, is different from what I do as a photographer.  In other words...

This...





...is different than this...






...which is different than this...





...which is completely different than this...





The first is a *photograph* (albeit a creatively captured photograph using a "painting with light" technique), the second is a _*vector illustration*, _the third is a _*3D render* _(just fired off this morning for the sake of this conversation) and the last is a *photo manipulation*.  If we simply choose to lump all such pictures under the category of "graphic art", then essentially all we have are 4 pictures of guitars....which for some people is fine.  After all, it's all just CG right??  As a freelance however, for myself at least, it's important to distinguish such differences...what I do with vectors as a graphic artist is quite different than what I do as a photographer which is quite different from what I do in 3D.  They are distinct and unique disciplines.  From that perspective, again it's no different than traditional artists...a person who paints does something quite different than someone who draws/creates sketches, which is a different discipline still from someone who does sculpting.   All may loosely be considered "artists", but you generally wouldn't call someone who paints a sculptor (unless of course they do both, LOL). 

In very loose definitions, I do in fact consider all of those images to be "digital art" and likewise consider myself to be a digital artist. If I were doing a mixed exhibition of my work (as apposed to an exhibition featuring just my photography), I would label it as such ("The Digital Art of..."), however when I'm dealing with clients (or even other artists), such distinctions are in fact quite important.  If someone hires me for my photography work, they are _not_ hiring me as a graphic artist to do vectors and vice-versa (and I do typically charge different rates depending on the gig).

For myself at least, I hope the explains why I feel such distinctions are important.


----------



## Jim Walczak

Achaicus said:


> It seems to me that the issue isn't what is used to create an image, but whether the image is true representation of a physical reality or an artistic derivative. A large part of the argument is due to individuals drawing the line at different places and differences of perception.



I can't help but feel that first sentence begs the question "what is artistic derivative"?  It seems to me that the ONLY true "representation of a physical reality" is the simplest snapshot, taken with a simple point and shoot camera (and I could even question that).  I honestly don't think I'm too far off base here to suggest that a good photograph...something beyond a simple snap shot...is in fact an "artistic derivative" of a given scene.  After all, is it not the photographer who decides what to include and exclude from a _composition_?  Is it not the photographer who decides which lens is appropriate for a given situation?  And what about concepts such as long exposure/short exposure, high key, low key and even the use of flash...could these all not be considered as artistic considerations? Even if a photographer chooses to use full auto mode on his/her camera, has that photographer still not made an artistic choice?  For that matter, given the limitations of both digital AND film in regards to how they capture this thing we call light (i.e. latitude), can either really be considered true, genuine or faithful representations of reality?  Are the concepts of light and color not completely subjective within themselves?  And none of that even considers the classic paradigm regarding how people can often see the exact same thing quite differently.

So where exactly would one draw the line in what's considered an artistic derivative?  To me that seems to be a large part of what _good_ photography is all about...presenting an image that represents a given photographer's own vision.

With this in mind, I also have to seriously question your use of terms such as "imitator", "impostor" and particularly "deservedly hated".  Once we step beyond the specific confines of photojournalism, where...exactly...does one draw the line with such terms and definitions?  After all, a LARGE portion of photography, including that which pre-dates digital, has OFTEN been less than faithful regarding it's representation of reality.  Let's be honest...do you look at the picture of a Big Mac combo meal on the menu and expect the sandwich stuffed in your "to go bag" to _ really _look like that?  And gee...what about all those Covergirl ads or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit pinups...what happens when the model wakes up on the day of the shoot with a big ol' zit on her forehead?  Don't you think that get's "retouched" in one way or another?  People seem to have this preconception that photography is supposed to be about some faithful representation of a given scene, however once you look beyond the likes of The New York Times and other such publications, soooooooooo much of the photography you see around you _every day_ has been altered to one extent or another...most people simply _never _realize it....and until the digital revolution came into play, most never even questioned it.  

If I'm looking at a newspaper, yes, I expect a given image (that accompanies an article) to be a reasonably faithful representation of the specific event.  That said however, if I'm just looking at pictures on the internet...say Google Images or wow, even an internet forum...unless I see something that's obvious or badly done, then taken in such a context, I really just don't see why it should matter.  As I said earlier, if a picture is an otherwise beautiful image, would the fact that it was altered from how it was captured really detract from that beauty?  Outside of what's already been discussed, if someone chooses to alter their own work in the name of artistic license...why should anyone care at all?


----------



## Jim Walczak

407370 said:


> Looking at an oil painting hanging on a wall is a totally different experience to looking at a photograph of it on a website, but when it is digitised  it is just another image.



If we are in fact talking oil paintings in the classical sense of say Caravaggio's "Calling of St. Matthew" as it hangs in the San Luigi dei Francesi, then yes...this is certainly a different "experience" than the way we perceive most images today.  Even in terms of work that may be displayed in a gallery where the "space" (including the lighting) may be tailored to the piece, there is a certain something that may very well be lacking in "reproductions".  That said however don't confuse "digitized" with reproductions.  The reproduction of such work has been around LONG before the days of computers.

Consider the Mona Lisa...there are without doubt countless copies of the original and have been for a _very_ long time.  Certainly those copies, be it in print, on the internet or otherwise, don't compare to the "original"...regardless of where the original may hang (you can bet your britches that Leonardo didn't intend that painting to hang in the Louvre).  *However*, your comment seems to be intended to belittle such copies.  It completely over-looks the fact that without such reproductions, digital or otherwise, the vast majority of people on this planet would have little or no chance to see such work, let alone be inspired by it.  Think about how many other notable artists have done their own interpretations of the Mona Lisa...people ranging from Marcel Duchamp to Andy Warhol.  And because of such reproductions, even lowly people like myself can, to this day, be inspired by such work...





That is my own rendition of da Vinci's famous painting...in this case, created as a vector illustration in Illustrator, with additional airbrush work (mainly the background) done in Photoshop.  The piece was created to accompany a video I created for an art history class, also on da Vinci's work (I also created my own version of Vitruvian Man as well).  Is viewing the image here on a forum as significant as viewing the print I did for the classroom, let alone da Vinci's original?  Does it look as good here on my monitor as the matted print does?  No...of course not.  Does that make my work any less significant for what it is?  I won't speak for others who do such work, but I take great pride in the work I accomplished...and I do have to take some offense to the suggestion that such work is "just another image".  Whether I ever become famous or not, because I took something classical and re-created it in a rather unconventional way, that would seem to put me in good company with other notable artists.

Without access to reproductions, the simple truth is that I wouldn't have been able to create my own work with that piece...I just don't have access to a private jet to be able to fly out to the Louvre, let alone be able to sit there for 2 weeks in order to work from the original (if nothing else, I had a full load of classes that semester, LOL).    

This is just my own opinion, however I think you have strongly over-looked the significance of reproductions...digitized or otherwise.  



> The software used to create or manipulate an image is irrelevant. The end result is important in the sense that the image is what the artist envisioned before they started.  Various bits of software create images associated with that software, 3D software like Cinema 4D can create images that cannot be created with Photoshop or Illustrator, but my point is that someone who is very proficient in a certain piece of software will tend to use that software and that is a limitation.



Ok...again I think you're over-looking a few things.  While I haven't used Cinema 4D (yet), I do have a fair amount of experience using Maya, Poser and Daz, and to some lesser degree Max and even Blender.  Compare Poser and Maya...*NO* the software isn't "irrelevant" AT ALL.  Not by a freakin' long shot.  Compare Poser to Maya for example...Poser is a fun little software package for getting your feet wet (as is Daz), however in comparative terms, it's incredibly limited in it's capabilities.  I recently did a commission where the piece required a total of 88 lights...you just can't do that in Poser.  Then of course there's the issue of "learning curve"...a novice can open Poser and within a few minutes of poking at buttons and flipping thru menus and such, figure his/her way around some of the basics.  Maya on the other hand, a novice can spend MONTHS poking at that software and be lucky to not break it!  I've been using Maya for a few years now and there are days where I STILL feel as though I've only scratched the surface.  And in terms of learning curves, Maya makes Photoshop look like MicroSoft paint!  

As far as one's "comfort zone" regarding software usage, I will agree that it can be a limitation to some, _however _there's something to be said for those who specialize as well.  Again consider a professional feature animation...you don't just have 1 person who does the "CG"...you have teams of people dedicated to modeling, rigging, textures, lighting, etc...people who specialize.  I choose to pursue whatever catches my fancy as a freelance artist and as such, I do have experience with a variety of applications, however that shouldn't in any way suggest that every artist needs to be a "master of all hats".  After all, some of histories greatest painters never did anything but paint.  If someone uses just Photoshop (or Lightroom or Coral or Aperture or Gimp....) and they are happy with their results, I can't really fault anyone for that.

I will say that I am a big believer in "the right tool for the right job" and that one uses whatever one needs to get one where he/she needs to go, however to suggest that the software is somehow irrelevant seems rather naive at best.


----------



## runnah

Photography is just another way to make pictures. Not sure why everyone is so uptight about it. Insecurities maybe.


----------



## PropilotBW

There's no way they created that Namib desert photo without photoshop.  If it was a night photo created with a long exposure, then there should be star trails.  
It's on the Internet, so it must be fact.


----------



## runnah

PropilotBW said:


> There's no way they created that Namib desert photo without photoshop.  If it was a night photo created with a long exposure, then there should be star trails.
> It's on the Internet, so it must be fact.



Yeah this list is baloney


----------



## limr

Jim Walczak said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the resistance to calling something "graphic art" instead of "photography"? Changing the label doesn't stifle creativity - it simply assigns a more precise name to an image that didn't start its life in a camera. It's not a judgement on the quality or validity of the image, either. For me, the only muddied water is when an image starts as a photograph and then becomes so heavily manipulated that it becomes something more akin to graphic or digital art. There's no good word for that kind of hybrid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For myself at least, the "resistance" is because what I do as a graphic artist, even if my art work includes photography, is different from what I do as a photographer.  In other words...
> 
> This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is different than this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is different than this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...which is completely different than this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first is a *photograph* (albeit a creatively captured photograph using a "painting with light" technique), the second is a _*vector illustration*, _the third is a _*3D render* _(just fired off this morning for the sake of this conversation) and the last is a *photo manipulation*.  If we simply choose to lump all such pictures under the category of "graphic art", then essentially all we have are 4 pictures of guitars....which for some people is fine.  After all, it's all just CG right??  As a freelance however, for myself at least, it's important to distinguish such differences...what I do with vectors as a graphic artist is quite different than what I do as a photographer which is quite different from what I do in 3D.  They are distinct and unique disciplines.  From that perspective, again it's no different than traditional artists...a person who paints does something quite different than someone who draws/creates sketches, which is a different discipline still from someone who does sculpting.   All may loosely be considered "artists", but you generally wouldn't call someone who paints a sculptor (unless of course they do both, LOL).
> 
> In very loose definitions, I do in fact consider all of those images to be "digital art" and likewise consider myself to be a digital artist. If I were doing a mixed exhibition of my work (as apposed to an exhibition featuring just my photography), I would label it as such ("The Digital Art of..."), however when I'm dealing with clients (or even other artists), such distinctions are in fact quite important.  If someone hires me for my photography work, they are _not_ hiring me as a graphic artist to do vectors and vice-versa (and I do typically charge different rates depending on the gig).
> 
> For myself at least, I hope the explains why I feel such distinctions are important.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood my point. I did not mean _everything _that didn't come out of a camera should be called graphic art; I was saying that there _should _be distinction between photography and other forms of digital art depending how the image was created. And I wondered why some people get their panties all in a bunch if someone says, "No, that's not really photography; it would be more accurate to call it graphic or digital art or [insert term for finer distinctions here]." They seem to argue that the term "photography" should be expanded. I argued that it should _not_ be expanded, but that other terms be used to describe them more precisely.


----------



## Scatterbrained

PropilotBW said:


> There's no way they created that Namib desert photo without photoshop.  If it was a night photo created with a long exposure, then there should be star trails.
> It's on the Internet, so it must be fact.


At night, in the desert, under a full moon, you can get stars and well illuminated foreground without trails, so long as you use a very wide, fast lens.   Granted I imagine there may be some stacking or other work going on in that image, but you can get a well illuminated foreground without star trails if you have a full moon.


----------



## Achaicus

@Jim Walczak

Those kinds of questions were what I had in mind to generate by stating the process that happens because of the usual visual laziness ingrained in society and evidenced in the expressions used about images. Why would it matter that a picture is "worth a thousand words" if those words weren't assumed to be true? It is that assumption that often gets tripped over and we are shown to be wrong over and over concerning images. It is as much a commentary about us as it is about any photograph.  We all have varying reactions to that process of moving past laziness and into a critical assessment of our own perceptions of reality.

This thread's start of bashing photoshop is one more example of that laziness. Worse it is an assertion of the "truth" of the images which oversteps anyone's right to judge the degree of veracity of the images for themselves.

The one that stands out to me as being a composite image is the one titled  "An autumn forest. 50% downloaded". Was the landscape like that? I highly doubt it, but I still like the image with that knowledge that it is probably a composite. But if whoever wants to claim that was the scene in front of the camera I'll think they are lying. Don't lie to me, don't hate me like that.


----------



## 407370

Sorry Jim you lost me.
I would *never* show disdain for anyones artistic interpretation of anything. That is an assertion that *you *made.
If I took a picture of the Mona Lisa then that photograph is in fact a digital image to be manipulated to the users requirements with no more or less options than any other digital image.
My friends dont care what software I used to create an image. Whether they like it or hate it has no reference to the process used to create it. If I stick a few images on a website no mention is made of creation process, just that I am interested in peoples reactions to the image.  PROCESS is totally irrelevant to me.
Jim, you seem obsessed about the technicalities of creating an image and thats fine, but I have a different viewpoint.
Each to their own.


----------



## 407370

Jim Walczak said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> .*NO* the software isn't "irrelevant" AT ALL.  Not by a freakin' long shot.  Compare Poser to Maya for example...Maya on the other hand, a novice can spend MONTHS poking at that software and be lucky to not break it!  I've been using Maya for a few years now and there are days where I STILL feel as though I've only scratched the surface.
Click to expand...


You truly are missing my point.
The viewer does not need an explanation of how long it took you to learn a technique or how difficult the software is to use. They just have to look at the image.


----------



## Achaicus

Just looking is a mental process which is affected by what we know and assume. Is it necessary to know anything about the image to view it? Of course not. But that is a shallow look. If I am to understand more than just the image, to begin to understand the image creator knowing how much time you spent creating it and the process does carry some weight. That information is part of the "context" of the image and is relevant as such. Some want context and others don't care. I don't need that information to look at your stuff, but I want it, and if you want to tell me my wants are irrelevant I don't need to look at your stuff.


----------



## Buckster

The ongoing obsession by some that everything MUST be fit neatly into a particular taxonomic category seems pretty ridiculous to me.  Taking that further, anyone who thinks that anyone else who thinks that some particular 'thing' belongs in a little box that's different than the little box they themselves decided it should fit into needs to be straightened out on that issue - probably needs help - before it turns into an uncontrollable twitch accompanied by an obsession to touch door handles 3 times before opening or closing one, along with serious hoarding.

Arguing endlessly about things as insignificant as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable is pointless.  It doesn't change the way a tomato looks, smells, tastes or is used, no matter WHICH labeled box it's put into, no matter who agrees or disagrees with that label that makes no significant difference.

"This is what photography is all about"?  No, I don't think it is.

I think instead that thread titles like this is what trolling is all about.  It's just a pity that it works so well.


----------

