Photograph ?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by No_Duff, Jan 5, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I asked this on another Forum, but wondered what arrse photographers think.

    If you use software on photographs to alter them, is there a point when the photograph stops being a photograph ?

    Original Photo:


    Final Photo, is it still a Photo ?

  2. Mmm... Know what you mean.

    With my film cameras I took photograph but when I went digital I started taking images.

    I tend to think of them still as images until I print one out on to paper when it then becomes a photograph. Does that make sense?

    Most of what can be done in imaging software could/can be done in a dark room by a skilled developer so I guess these are still photographs?

    However imaging software now allows us to be more 'arty' with our photographs - Pop Art for example.

    This could turn into a long debate!

  3. Good question. It depends how much the original shot has been adulterated. A good photograph, well framed and exposed is an artform but who is to say that there is no art in the manipulation of a photograph into something else.
    What is art?

    Check the rules of various photographic competitions for your answer.

    'Do not despise the snake for who is to say that one day it will not become a Dragon...'
  4. Yes, thats good.
  5. Its difficult to draw the line. Personally I try to do all my "editing" in camera so that when I transfer it to the computer I do minimal editing. Used to be just for dust spots but now Canon have fixed that with the vibrating sensor thingy (behave).
    Admittedly dodging and burning can be useful for certain images in tricky light conditions, but I hated that the majority of photos on one of Canons recent competitions were all Photoshop'd beyond belief and, in my eyes, testament more to design and computer manipulation skills than photography.
  6. This is the great debate at the moment especially in the camera club I belong to. personally as soon as you step into the point of adding and subtracting from the scene that was there then you are then into graphic manipulation. This does include cloning out objects etc. BUT this has always gone on and there were ways you could do that in the darkroom. but recreating a new scene is not photography it is graphic art
  7. The BBC has the following rule for it's popular Country File Photographic competition:

    Images may be digitally enhanced to remove spots or scratches, but not manipulated. Entrants can enhance the picture to make it brighter, clearer etc, but not manipulate the content. BBC Countryfile and the judges reserve the right to exclude any image they believe may have been excessively treated so as to alter its authenticity.
  8. When I used to sell cameras, there used to be an old gentleman who came into our shop and he was the Canon rep. He was nobody's fool, he really knew his stuff and this was just when Digi was starting
    He said to me that with film one composed a photograph and that with Digital one took snap shots and then altered them afterwards.
    He asked me what I used and I told him that it was a very old Nikon F and that made him laugh. So I asked him what he used and he replied "A Leica"
  9. B_AND_T

    B_AND_T LE Book Reviewer

    Didn't I read somewhere that digital photographs were not admissable in court as they could be altered?
  10. B N T Raw images are admissable in court as these are unaltered images... The metadata attached to the image tells you if it has been altered in anyway... JPEG images are a different story though....
  11. B_AND_T

    B_AND_T LE Book Reviewer

    Aha!!! Many thanks.

    Talking of altered images do you still have the Det one?
  12. Yes Bud, Would you like a copy. If so PM me your address and I'll put one in the internal mail.....
  13. I like the countryfile competition rules but I have a fairly easy attitude towards this, to my mind photographs are an art form and are about documenting what is seen but also, to some extent, felt at the scene it can also be about using something that you visually experienced to represent a concept or idea. It's about recreating the scene that you as the photographer experienced and encouraging the viewer to feel and understand that from your perspective. Graphic art on the other hand is about translating ideas and concepts that don't necessary exist in the real world into a visual representation.

    I struggle with HDR, I like it and I loath it, I've used it but more often prefer not to, when I see what Trey Ratcliff does especially with his urban themed work I have nothing but admiration, it is a technique which conveys well the lighting and essence of urban landscape however you see it overdone again and again. I like your final image, personally I would have framed the original differently and used a wider crop, I can see a really interesting photograph with the concrete head and the lightning like shape you have focused on creating a contrast of light and texture but I may still have run it through photomatix to accentuate the colour and texture. It really would depend on how I experienced it.

    It took me a while to get this clear in my head but I now try to be true to the image. In the past I have spent hours learning to use all the functionality of photoshop to improve my crap photography, staying true to what I intended to convey when I made the shot has improved my photography no end as I think about it more and strangely people seem to appreciate the results all the more. It's not something I thought of in isolation it seems to me to be a theme that runs through the work of all the landscape photographers whose work I admire.
  14. So long as he hasn't switched to the digital Leicas he'll still be a happy man. Played with one the other day and they are shite.
  15. I always try to get it right in camera first and if that means moving the viewpoint to get rid of a bin or a car then I will or picking up the litter in the foreground then I will. I use ND grads, ND and polarising filters in most of my landscapes. The problem is that if you try to correct a crap image it will still be a crap image no matter how hard you process it.

    Experience of composition, f-stops and light are still required to produce really stunning images. Pointing the camera and then trying to make it "better" in photoshop is not the answer.