| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photo Art
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:00 AM on 05.28.05 |
->> With all the recent discussions on photo ethics, I'm wondering if I should even be asking this question here, but I think it's a reasonable question.
There are many people in this world who like to create things, whether it be working with modeling clay, stone, pen/ink, paints, and so on. Some people like doing this with photography. I guess I'm one of those people, who like to take an image, play with it, manipulate it, and end up with what I want to show the world (which may or may not be anything even remotely close to what the original photo showed).
This is in no way "photojournalism", but it's no less a valid means of expressing oneself. Of course, when the image is finished, I'd like to be able to show it off. These are the types of images I used to enter in photo contests. I'd never represent it as being "real", but there were lots of times when the final image looked as if it could be "real".
My question here, is if any of you also like to do this kind of work, how do you avoid having someone criticize you because you've "changed reality"? |
|
Jim Comeau, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 2:13 AM on 05.28.05 |
| ->> You really have to question the definition of "real." By changing exposure, by using flash, by using a telephoto, normal, wide angle, etc you are changing reality. If its art, its what you want it to be. If its expression, its what you want to show. IF someone is going to challenge you saying its not real, say, "this is what I think real is" or "I know, and thats why I made it" or something like that. As an artist, you must be able to stand by your work, explaining why you did what you did. Photography is like painting, you have a brush (camera) and paint(film) and a canvas (the print). You choose what you to put in the print. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
 |
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 9:59 PM on 05.28.05 |
| ->> I think it's totally cool as long as you are honest about what it is and you aren't trying to pass it off as a captured photo moment. That's the problem some people are having. |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:34 PM on 05.28.05 |
->> yes, what doug said.
keep up the expression!
-g |
|
Jon Thorpe, Photographer
 |
Mississauga | On | Canada | Posted: 12:12 AM on 05.29.05 |
->> Sometimes it's what sells. Look in any magazine - do you think half of the advertorial stuff is real? Or pick up a Maxim - sorry guys. I stretch, slim, remove blemishes, smooth, tuck, enhance and beautiful women all the time to give them that extra clean look. And so long as its done tasteflly, most people would never guess it was edited.
There is a BIG market for good manipulation out there, and if you are good - you can get some pretty good cha-ching too.
I have done manipulation work for a number of companies, and they are quite receptive to my end-to-end services. I will update my site with some of my work, I have one heavily manipulated photo (shot for a clothing company) on my member page as the main image. I have also shot stuff for much larger companies.
I belive it's art, very cool, and sellable. Just don't send anything like this into a paper! It's purely commercial and has it's place. |
|
Jon Thorpe, Photographer
|
Mississauga | On | Canada | Posted: 12:50 AM on 05.29.05 |
->> I just updated my member page with a before/after just for the fun of it :)
http://www.sportsshooter.com/jont |
|
John Tucker, Photographer
 |
Cordova | TN | USA | Posted: 1:41 AM on 05.29.05 |
->> Jon says what I tried to say in another such post........he just was able to say it without the threats I received, but what he says is true.
I guess where I failed was that I didn't mention magazine submissions vs some newspaper news article.
It's a fine line.....you can make a somewhat attractive model into a super gorgeous specimen by taking away her blemishes, but never remove the tips of a referee's hand.
What it boils down to is that if you are showing your work as news, leave it alone. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:41 AM on 05.30.05 |
->> That "fine line" can look awfully blurry from this point of view. As an artist, you are showing off what YOU want people to see, which may have nothing to do with what was originally there. Never mind just removing the tips of a referee's hand - as an artist you're free to change anything in the image, entire people, signs, buildings, the sky, the moon... the only limits are your imagination, and your ability.
If you don't represent it as "news", and only as your artistic creation, I think it's just fine. The only puzzling part of the picture, is if some viewer(s) see it and think it's "real". That's where Doug's comment fits in somehow, as regardless of what you say about the image, people's perceptions might make THEM feel that it's a real image, as they probably won't bother to read the caption should there even be a caption... just having a caption in the first place makes an image more "real" in some ways. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
 |
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 9:02 AM on 05.30.05 |
->> Sometimes these artistic expressions cause mankind to stop and see a new perspective and appreciate the artists interpretation.
I do not think if it appears to be realistic should deter the artist. As long as they call it art and not try to sell it as news--then it can be just about anything.
We need artists to entertain us and challenge us. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 05.30.05 |
->> Photoshop's layering ability wasn't designed for photojournalists who were editing and cropping. It's for creating complex art from separate, simpler, elements, allowing us to make a photo-realistic images when we're done. Bookstores are full of great books showing creative art using PS and layers.
Like said above, how the results are represented is what's important. Manipulating an image or creating an image from separate elements, then saying it was real is not right. We're seeing too many magazines do that these days, which ruins their reputation. Artists who represent the results as creative art don't have that problem.
Years ago I used to go to MacWorld every year. There'd be a great art exhibit of "computer art" which was the result of artists who used the Mac (and Photoshop or similar apps) to create their art instead of traditional media. The results were stunning, incorporating photography, scanned freehand art, manipulated images, etc. |
|
Oscar Sosa, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | USA | Posted: 6:21 PM on 05.30.05 |
->> Michael,
There is nothing wrong with creating art, it is, in my opinion, one of our greatest abilities as a species. From the walls of prehistoric caves to the walls of the MOMA, we've captured both the reality of our world and the vison of humanity. Anybody who can create art is a step above me, because all I'm good for is capturing reality.
To be honest, I don't think the difference between journalism and art is a fine line at all; I look at it more like a reinforced brick wall. Since photography's early years, artists have been able to change the "reality" of what they photographed into what they wanted to "see". Journalists have tried to capture the world around them in as realistic a manner as possible. The difference, historicly, is how and where they are presented.
This isn't any type of purism, it's just knowing what to expect. For example, I want to pick up a newspaper or a news magazine and have a certainty that what I'm reading and seeing is a factual representation of what is happening. If a reporter quotes someone, I expect it to be an accurate quote from someone the reporter actually talked to. I also expect the photographer to submit an image to the publication without altering the content.
"Photo artists" and "photo journalists" are just different sides of the same coin. Most times they are the same people. I love looking at the work of Gainesville Sun photographer John Moran. He once did a timed exposure of the sun during the Summer Solstace as it crossed over the sky. It was art, published in a newspaper, surrounded by news stories and photographs. But it was a beautiful, personal perspective of a natural event that left no doubt that it was a created rather than a captured image.
Maybe this post is confusing to some, but what I do is clear to me. That's why it's really important that what we present to our viewers is clearly understood to be either an artwork or journalism. None of us like to find out, or even perceive, that we've been fooled by anybody. That's why a clear understanding of ethics and the responsibility we have to our viewers isn't bullshit, it's fertilizer.
Oscar |
|
Keith McArthur, Photographer
|
Beale AFB | CA | USA | Posted: 6:28 PM on 05.30.05 |
->> lets remember that manipulating an image is not an act of art.
Just because I go crazy with the hue/sat slider on all my photos and print them 38"x28"....
Jon mentions Maxim magazine retouching. Is that really art, or is the photographer merely doing what is expected in the industry, working towards some editor ideas of the social status-quo.
What about the advert. photographer that refuses to retouch?
Also,
photos dont have to be manipulated to be considered art. Robert Frank, Ed Templeton, Craig Stecyk ... all photographers outside photojournalism, never manipulate images.
Many would argue work by some VII photographers as journalism is questionable.
The whole idea behind journalism is objectivity.I think once an image becomes a reflection of the creators expierience, it becomes art. whether its a documentary project or not. "The Golden Age of Neglect" by Ed Templton or Frank's "The Americans" are the first to come to mind.
-Me |
|
Jean Finley, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 7:17 PM on 05.30.05 |
| ->> Keith - Don't you mean "manipulating an image is not **always** an act of art"? |
|
Keith McArthur, Photographer
|
Beale AFB | CA | USA | Posted: 7:26 PM on 05.30.05 |
| ->> yep |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:21 AM on 05.31.05 |
->> Artists typically have lots of tools at their disposal. If a photographer can create a wonderful piece of art within the camera, no external manipulation needed, that's one way. Or, another might prefer to use the captured image as a start, and add to it later.
I guess it's fair to say that if the image shows up on page 2 of your local newspaper, Time, or Newsweek, it ought to be "photojournalism" and not "art", unless it's perfectly obvious that it's "art". If the image shows up in an art exhibition, then it's probably the opposite - the image is assumed to be art, even if it's "reality".
Of course, that leaves a couple of hundred thousand other magazines, brochures, leaflets, webpages, and other areas where images show up..... the water starts to get real murky real fast when some of these manipulated images end up posted there. In some cases, people's reactions to these seem rather strange to me. There was a University that publsished a brochure, and they wanted a person of color included in a photo, so they added one. Since in my opinion, brochures (a sales tool, like an advertisement) are assumed to be artistic images, with all kind of manipulation, I saw nothing wrong with it, but other people got quite upset.
Somebody posted a link last year to a website showing off photo manipulation for sales purposes. The fellow who did this was wonderful at it - he'd take every part of the image and make it look "perfect". His finished images looked more "real" than the original images he started off with. He'd take a shoe, and remove all the imperfections in the leather... or a table setting and lengthen it, change the pictures on the wall, and the furniture... what amazed me, was his finished artwork did not look at all like artwork - it looked like a "perfect photo" with everything done to perfection. I'm guessing he spent a week or two on each image... maybe he could have done the same thing by manipulating the objects in front of the camera, but I'm not sure. I wish I could remember the link now, but it's saved on my home computer which I don't have access to. I guess what I'm trying to say here, is I "know" this fellow was creating artwork, not a "realistic photo", but his finished product looked completely like a "realistic photo" with no sign at all that it had been manipulated... that's how good he was at what he did! If his photo was printed in a newspaper or magazine, even if the caption said "photo art" people would surely see it as "real"..... :-) |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
NEW 12x12 & 9x12 PhotoBooks
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
NEW Adorama PhotoBook sizes 12x12 & 9x12 (Portrait Orientation) PERFECT for Portfolios! Present and distribute your portfolio, create albums for clients, or just enjoy showing off your own family and vacation photographs. There’s no better way to preserve and display your photographs than in a real photobook from AdoramaPix. Our PixPublisher is simple to use and best of all works from any web browser. There’s no software to download or learn to use. Drag and drop your images into a themed template of your choice, or design your own layout. Resize your images, add borders, frames, backgrounds, captions or other descriptive text. It’s your book! SPORTSSHOOTER MEMBER SPECIAL-- 25% OFF USE COUPON CODE PXBKSP12 Good through 11.15.09
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|