When is a photo not a photo? (1 Viewer)

[Langtoftlad]

...and when does it become a artistic creation?

This "image" won the International Garden Photographer of the Year competition.

... but it's not just a photo, it's two combined, and no doubt some clever post processing.

I've always understood that the photographer takes an image of what is there and what he sees, whereas an artist interprets what he sees to make his image.
Technology has obviously blurred this distinction.

The old adage that a photo never lies is simply not true anymore.

Is a good photographer someone who chooses a great subject, gets the light right, makes a good composition, or someone who snaps in RAW and fixes everything in the computer?

 

[Jim]

Photographs have always been an interpreatation of what you saw. I had my own darkroom for twenty years, I would spend hours on a single print, film choice, exposure, processing, cross processing, paper choice, grading, dodging, burning etc. Don't see any difference apart from not stinking of fixer all day.

 

[LesW]

A nice image but, in my opinion, nothing to do with 'art'.. just having the software and knowing how to use it.. plus a decent camera.

Plus, unlike Jim no time (or skill) spent developing.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

Well it's a valid point of view - but for me, a photograph is capturing what the eye can see - not what can be conjured up by software or in a dark room, they are images but not reflections of the truth.

There's a local guy who posts his photos on TZ-UK
This is a location but not something I can see if I go there

...because it was taken with an IR filter, something my eyes don't have. But I think it's a cracking image/picture to look at.

This is a 'proper' photo - because if I was there, it's something I could see for myself

as is this

...except I wouldn't because I'd never voluntarily get this close to a wasp !

Mind you I get annoyed at wildlife programmes which cheat by recreating the wild in the studio
"The BBC faced controversy in 2011 when a Frozen Planet programme, also narrated by Sir David Attenborough, combined wild polar bear footage with film of cubs in an ice den taken in a Dutch zoo, a conjunction that only emerged after the show had been broadcast."
Those photographers who spend days/weeks in awful conditions to capture that one unique shot must feel mugged.

 

[Mikey RV]

To me a photo is the same as what you see with your eyes. Photos that have been altered with filters apps are nice but not real.

 

[jockaneezer]

Wasn't it Bailey or Hockney that got invited to a dinner party and when they were introduced to the host, the host said "Oh, you must use a really expensive camera ?" Bidding farewell after the meal, the host asked them " What did you think of the food ?" The reply was "You must use a really expensive cooker !"

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Grocklets]

News flash. Pretty much EVERY photo you’ll see taken on a digital camera today will have been edited/post-processed if it has been taken in raw format, because if it isn’t edited it will look absolutely rubbish. If a photo is taken in jpeg, the camera will have done the editing for you. It’s a never-ending debate/conversation/argument regarding the fine line between what some will describe as ‘art’ rather than a photo, but how about when someone shoots ‘fine art photos’? And I’ll encourage you to look up what’s happening with AI art/photography - there’s a whole new can of worms My personal taste? Well, I can’t say I like it when a photo has been overdone (i.e. massively oversaturated colours for example), however even then I can appreciate the skill of the person who has taken the time to scout a location, work out the best composition, in some cases go there multiple times waiting for the perfect light, and then go away and spend the time editing and producing their interpretation of what they saw.

 

[Lenny HB]

I used to spend ages in my darkroom in the 70's trying to improve my photos.
I think a bit of titivating to improve the image is acceptable but that one is a step too far.

These days I tend to take snapshots and can't be bothered to mess about with them.

 

[Odd job]

When I was working as a photographer I was asked to take a picture of the dining room in a hotel, they had a mural of a lakeside scene and wanted it to show. I then spent a couple of hours in the dark room and got a perfect shot by bringing the mural up and keeping the dining room slightly darker
It looked great, but the picture was rejected by the brochure publisher as misleading

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Abacist]

I used to do some black & white processing but my father got into colour work which was fiercely expensive. I had a couple of Bronica medium format cameras and took some nice pics with them and a friend's wedding where they were convinced that they did not want official wedding photos. I have a Canon digital SLR setup but nowadays just us my iPhone 13!

 

[EuroTrotters]

Photographs have always been an interpreatation of what you saw. I had my own darkroom for twenty years, I would spend hours on a single print, film choice, exposure, processing, cross processing, paper choice, grading, dodging, burning etc. Don't see any difference apart from not stinking of fixer all day.

I tried that too. Never got the colour corrrct so ended up in black and white

 

[Otter Spotter]

Here is AI creating the photos for a guy who has been posting them pretending to real photos.
Go to 7.13mins to get past Jared’s whaffle.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}