I just want to get some clarification regarding creative edit. I see quite a few images in creative edit getting rejected because it's "not photography". In that case: Who decides where the limit is? Where is the limit ? What is NOT photography in the category "Creative Edit" ? Is there a percentage of real photography opposed to clean digital constructed images? How is it decided,when it's not a photography and when it is....in Creative Edit?
John C

I think the limit begins when you start to composite other elements in the scene that weren't originally there, or when something looks like more of a painting rather than a photo, imo. Like adding in an alligator that wasn't a part of your photo, but something you found on the web or on stock

There is no limit as long as your vision is true.

A vision could come true,it depends of the artist!

You should ask differently! When it is not a photography anymore? When a picture is digital editing and not photographed?

This discussion has been held many times here and there is no real conclusion for this.

In digital editing all is allowed and makeable as long as it is mention that this is a digital edit by means composing or some of this and it transmit the vision of the artist!

I do not like photographs been edited by means faked than it is not a photograph anymore but a digital editing. Don?t get me wrong I am not against digital editing as I do by my self a lot. But a photograph should stay as a photograph and the editing should not be more than in a dark room.

Robert

digital constructed images? on a photography page?

Like it or not, the question is decided and digital editing tore out the heart of photography, stepped on it and threw it into the garbage can. Die-hard photographers will keep on whining but the eyes of the public became saturated by CGI and PS effects and that's what they want to see now. For a long time I didn't believe all the complaints about "my photos are not appreciated because I don't edit them much" but now I do. Editing has become a necessity and not just a tool to correct flaws. It's painful to say but a good photo is not good enough anymore, you have to turn them into eye candy.
We had this discussion yesterday about a resent photo on the FP and this is what one of the crew said: "Yeah, the eye's aren't steeped in reality but have you seen any actor these days? Genetic engineering couldn't create emerald eyes like theirs but, they do exist. So is it out of the realm of reality? No." This mentality prevails (I don't say it's bad or good, it's just a fact - people's perception of visual art is changing, period) and this is today, purist photography - as we knew it for 100 years - was yesterday.
And don't even think of arguing about manipulation in the darkroom. Compared to what we can do on computers today, old-fashioned manual manipulation is like comparing stone-age tools to genetic engineering.

i dont know balazs:) the more i am into photography the more i like the pure image.if done very well it is far better than manipulated images.

I believe one of the crew screeners wrote, that there is no limits as far as the image is based on a photograph. (if I find the exact post I will post it here).

Balazs, I totally agree with you. There is post processing everywhere nowadays. Plain photography based on light and technique are no longer appreciated that much. We see many time amazing portraits, unedited being rejected (not just here) for lack of impact.

Even street photography has sunk that way...

John, just to point out, that the sections here are not that well organised and respected. You can find creative edits in all sections, be it portraits, nudes, landscapes or any other category.

Sasson, I agree with you, sadly though, it seems most people (viewers) are more into eye candy as Balazs puts it than pure un-manipulated photography.

Balazs, I agree with you on this one. It seems like the clean photography is loosing it's grip. Almost everything has to be eyecandy. But I hope this is more a phase we're going through and not something that is going to be permanent. I've come to embrace "clean" pictures more after my time on 1X and in time I believe this will happen to more and more people.
Faddoush, I know that creative editing is more or less involved in all pictures nowadays. But I have no problem with that as long as it looks realistic . Of course,documentary photographs (i.e. Street, Documentary, Performance,Everyday etc. ) should NOT be tampered with. Allthough I strive for taking clean natureshots i don't see any problems in altering nature as I don't see these images as documentary images .

The reason for me to write this thread is that it seems so inconsistence in the category :Creative Edit.
So many great artists and images get rejected because of too much editing allthough the mainpic is a photograph. It's difficult for those artists that get rejections so many times just to see other artists get extendedly edited images. I only seek consistency.
And by the way, I'm not posting images in Creative Editing, so this is no whining on my behalf :)

There is a quite simple - and rather conservative - view on the topic by Elliot Erwitt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh5p5Sx5qZg
(see "On digital manipulation", starting at 0:40)

I think he summarizes well what is the "purist view" and the reasons behind - which is important. On the other hand I think Balazs is right. Or better said it is the market which is always "right" - be it good or not.


Could be. But I am pretty sure that people will finally prefer heavy PS processed pictures that emulate the "clean" instead of the genuine "clean". The point to me is more that a sense of innocence has been lost rather than it is mere aesthetical vision.

This is of course a question that is impossible to answer exactly, right. There is no "42" answer for this...

This is a photography site and the material presented should be based on photographs, so any CGI created stuff that we find will be rejected. But I guess some are so good that we miss them. :-)

Personally, creative edit for me is when you create montages with several images, exchange skies, blur out backgrounds in PS, use of filter to create unnatural effects (can't even give an example since I never use them), use of PS-brushes to add elements in the image (and this is of course really close to CGI created stuff if the brush is not photo-based), use of textures.

Creative edit to me NOT when you dodge and burn, add or extract saturation, lighten and darken, b/w conversion, etc. You can of course go of the wall with these sliders, resulting in unnatural looking images, but it's really not creative editing to me. It may or may not work with the image at hand, very often it will just look like bad editing :-). I would say that we on a daily basis see great images that have been ruined by heavy editing, editing that is not needed for the image. If this is done due to the "demand" from the viewers or because of the preferences of the photographer is of course hard to say...

I think there is room for both "styles". A good image is always a good image, even if it is not edited to be "eye candy". And there are images that really work well as "eye candy" as well...

About the category discussion, 1x have never been "tough" on the boundaries between categories, with strict rules on what goes into what category. See them as boxes that help people find and place images into. If we would have really strict rules about the categories, it would imo just lead to even more pointless discussions about what goes where, instead of everybody taking time for making new great images or enjoying others. But again, we don't want over edited images in "Documentary", we really would like "Nature" to be wildlife kind of images, etc. Are there images that are in the wrong category? Most probably, but does it really matter? If you find an image that you find is in the wrong category, send someone in crew a oe-mail and we will look into it.

I guess I'll be crucified now... ;-)

Indeed nothing new. :)

One of my most favourite photos ever is 'Hotshot Eastbound'.
Winston O. Link did it already in 1956.
He added the movie scene on the screen later in his darkroom.
http://shop.linkmuseum.org/_store/Display_Buy.asp?prodID=1_1001A

I agree with Robert.

There are photographers and there are artists..even both do art one should maybe remember that artists often want full artistic freedom to express something and photographers would more than anything try to capture the truth with no tampering of the image. The artist should remember to never let the discussion about what is good and what is bad interfere with his/hers artistic expression. the tools used by photographers are his/hers camera and computer or darkroom and artists tend to use whatever he can find... now what comes out as a final result is defined by the tools..if its a "pure"photographic work its photoart and if its done by a brush its digital art. When 1x have a category like creative edit, its seems fair that all kinds of digital alterations should have its chance to be placed and enjoyed in this category...like we also enjoy the pure photographic artwork that are not been altered in any way..there is a place for both imo..so back to Johns original question its imo way too much discussions and feelings towards this or that, what is photo or what is not...creative edit should be the category for altered images and it should not be limited by too much editing..its art and its always the final result that counts..

I am in full agreement with the way that Willy sees this issue.

The category under creative edits does not allow for i) 'little' editing goes here, and ii) 'lots' of editing gets posted there.
So at present the image that includes blurring of the background is submitted along with the image that might include
advanced digital editing, even some CGI's that slip through.

This ongoing issue of where the boundary lies, and what should be let in, or turned away, will be best dealt with not by
quantifying boundaries or percentages, but by accommodating the needs of those artists/photographers, and in the process us that view their work.

Thomas mentions that CGI is immediately rejected, unless it is so well done that some might slip through the net.

I agree that overt CGI does not belong on 1X - it is after all a requirement to have used a camera, I guess:)

However, I see no reason why we cannot add a category that allows for more advanced creative edits, where they can be appreciated for
what they are, and they can compete in that section on a level playing field. I firmly believe that those particular artists might even welcome
such a move. That will be my only 'barrier' that I suggest - advanced creative edits are here to stay, and will grow as technical design and ability allows.

Creating a special category for them will only be fair, and allow their artists and the viewers to appreciate them without the need
of justification, or threat.

I agree, and especially the part about not being limited. It is truly impossible to put limits on art anyhow, and who would want to? If there is a Creative Edit category then why not be open to all kinds of possibilities? Let the official screeners decide if the end result is appealing or not. This category does not interfere with good traditional photography. I absolutely enjoy both and I believe there is room for both.

What I have noticed and I do not understand its origin is that there seems to be a bias against Creative Edits. Recently, in the Critique section there were Creative Edits placed there for a critique. A few individuals, who do not do Creative Edits, came not to Critique them, but to discuss why they don't like Creative Edits. I thought to myself, 'who cares what you like'. And furthermore, if you don't like them, there are a hundred photos here to critique - pick one of those - why take away this persons wonderful energy with your negativity?

Can you imagine for a moment what it would feel like if those of us who enjoy and like Creative Edits were to go to the Critique section, and under all the photos that were just photos dismiss them..because they were not taken to a different or a more advanced state of editing?

I think that at least in part - this bias against Creative Edits has actually forced people to make composites, and put them into other categories. They are then viewed as a photograph and more easily accepted. However, they are composites of more than one photograph ( and a composite is a composite is a composite). Then you start to see people becoming annoyed that they are competing with advanced Photoshop work in a non-creative edit category. For the record I have no problem with this but I can see how others might.

I have no idea where this bias against a Creative Edit came from as I was not here at the beginning of this website..but I am interested in understanding it, and I wish it was not so. People here are called Artists under their names. This title must have been chosen for a good reason.

I think I must just be a person who loves art of all kinds. My mind wants to stay open to all of it. I don't have to love it, or buy it, but it will not kill me to look at it. When I go to a museum I don't say to my friend, 'oh no I won't go see Picasso, they don't look like real people.' I will look, and keep my mind open to what is in front of me.

I started with Photography in 1970's...in a darkroom, I loved it. Now I am with a Photoshop darkroom, and I love it. Photoshop has not taken away my love of a picture taken with film, dripping with grain, and processed n a darkroom. Having had both experiences - I see both as real, very real.

This seem very "narrow". Would Adams or Weston have considered their extensive experimentation and techniques in the darkroom as "no tampering of the image"?? I REALLY do think that this is just your personal definition of what a photographer would try to do. In reality, the techniques of genuinely talented photographers are a much broader pallet of tools than you describe. And this is true of wet AND digital darkrooms, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of most of us who call ourselves photographers. I personally do very little of what you might call tampering with my images. Although once in a while... I am a big fan of film, but when I have a digital image that I feel might look better with a "film look" I will not hesitate to fire up Nik Silver or Color plugins. I have been know to occasionally clone out some distracting object near the corner of an image. Would that, in your mind disqualify me from being called a photographer? If so, then you are really narrow minded on this subject.


This already exists, no need to create any new category. The "Creative Edit" category is flush with "advanced creative edits". Works of folks like Daria, Ben and Angela come to mind. And, yes there are images in other categories that are heavily edited. The crew has stated that Mood and Conceptual are also proper places for such images.

AMEN!!


Nor does it make you any less a photographer!!

Creative edit should not be a category per se, but rather a caracteristic attached to the pic, such as "nude content". I think it will put people doing CE more at ease because they will be able to put the pic in the correct real category. And having an icon stating it is CE would be fair to the viewer as well.

I find this a very good idea and agree that CE could be seen as an attribute/characteristic instead of a category. I like that!

As I've been reading all your "answers" I find that there are no "answers"...just interpretations. Imo creatiive editing should have no boundaries except the fact that it contains photographic elements. I wouldn't set any percentagelevel 'cause this special category is meant to be creative. And when a photograph can let his/her imagination and creativity run absolutely free...why set boundaries ?
And I also agree with Jaques. The icon CE sounds good, and might put Ce-artists at ease..even the purists might accept the labelling ;)
What would be interesting though is to read where the Crew of Photoscreeners set their borderlines in the CE category: Is everything allowed? Do there have to be photographic elements? What will not be accepted at all on 1x 's category CE?

Because we also mark genetically modified vegetables - to let those who prefer the original thing have a choice. IMO it would be easier to do it the other way round (e.g. labelling analogue/unaltered images), because it is next to impossible to define where CE begins (BW conversion? Cloning? Toning? and so on), but it is much easier to tell where "pure" photography ends (namely: any alteration of the visual elements in a photo, imo). If we label photos containing CE, we end up 99% or our photos labelled like that.

I personally don't see the boundary in terms of true/false because there is few truth in any photog even if shot analog with no further editing. It is a photographer choice of real moment and real space but end up being somehing specific that is subjective. No truth, even for documentary. Just a point of view.

That is why I don't like the term CE. I think "Image Manipulation" suits more to what it is about. It refers not only to techniques and tools not available and the moment of shot (though mostly) but the fact that as soon as an image is made out of things that alter the original real moment(s)/real space(s) it is manipulation. I don't see it as less "true" than a non-manipulated pic (see what I wrote above), but the point is that it involves manipulation and I think it is important that it is stated somewhere. That is why I like the idea of an icon, even if practically there are obviously borderline cases.

I think the distinction between "point of view" and "manipulation" is very important in photog. It is crucial to sort it out (not only for 1X of course)

Don't worry jacques. I bet that due to lack of time and resources etc this labelling thing won't be implemented any time soon, so we're just stirring hot air here :)

Oh yes I know! that was just to feed the debate :) ... and also because I can' wait to see CE in the Fine Art Nude section :))

It would be difficult to compete with Daria, maybe that's why there aren't many...

Let film purists label their pictures as 'uncontaminated by the evil that is computer technology' perhaps? And let the rest of us get on with enjoying doing whatever we want to do to our images. I have nothing against film or it's proponents but purists get up my nose. As soon as someone tells me that there is a 'real' or 'authentic' way to do something, or that the way the masters did it was best, especially when the masters didn't have the options we have, and aren't around to give their views then I start wondering what their agenda really is.
Just upping the heat of the hot air ;-)
Jon

Indeed. BTW I think of her at the moment I wrote my lines. She needs competitors :)

It's like human rights. I'll believe it as soon as anyone defines "human". Likewise, do us all a favour and define "creative edit".

I want this also very much to know where I stand.



How long didn't we ear anything from Daria (which I admire)...what happened, how comes?
Is life not to hard here in CE ?

I and some have been away for several months, others in CE for always (some must be happy with it)
If this mentality versus CE goes on, I will be soon part of the last group.
CE (digital alternation) exist on nearly all photo-sites and photo-contests, with much less problems as on 1x.

I like 1x because diversity of all kind of GOOD pictures an with respect for others work.
If you don't like a style don't react!!!!

So, (in the future, If I have one) I better upload my image in Mood or Conceptual, because some are more edited than in CE!!!

I hope, it doesn't become an endless discussion again like usual.

Don't think for a minute that the "film purists" don't use computers, scanners, image editing software, they do if they show us their images on the internet. Every one has sliders that effect the final look of the image, just like every darkroom has timers, heater, goboes and varied chemicals and papers that effect the final look of the image. And guess what touch up brushes too!

See my view in post 11 above.

Problem is Thomas, these are just your opinions. The VAST MAJORITY of complaints about how this site operates stem from the fact that there are no "site policies" only "crew opinions". When I say there are no policies, I meant it appears to be that there are no site policies because all we as members ever see is the opinions of the individual crew and founders expressed in forums. We are told that the FAQ's in the About section are obsolete and we should use the Forums instead. But then the problem is further exacerbated because these forum based "crew opinions" often contradict the "crew opinions" of other crew or founders...

So when you say see "my view" in post 11 above, it does nothing to answer John's question about where "the Crew of Photoscreeners set their borderlines in the CE category" because any given different member of the crew may well have different a "view". From having read these forums for years now, I would say that contradiction is more the norm amongst the crew rather than consensus.

Hillbilly wishes all circular forum readers and writers a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Robert you left out one important darkroom tool, the touch-up brushes.

And sir, in this case you are just wrong. There is no BIG difference. The only thing that makes either darkroom tools or software tools different or wrong or inappropriate is the user. It's not the tools. There are plenty of images out there made in a darkroom that you would not call "photographs" you would call the "art" or "trash" or something else. SAME EXACT thing for digital.

It's a new world my friend and it's about to be a new year. Let's all just go have fun using our tools to make our images. If we are lucky, some of our friends will like looking at them. And if they don't, they can bugger off!!

Yes these are my opinions, and I guess that is all I can give your right now. As I know, there is only one clear cut site policy that draws that line in CE and that is no CGI-stuff. This has clearly been stated by Jacob earlier. Other than that, I know of no other rule.

I guess there are no written policies because they are to hard to write. How to you define CE? What is to much editing for documentary? How much can you turn up saturation in a Landscape? What is to much sharpening? Where do you draw the line between cloning out dust spots and cloning out something else? How much dodging and burning can you do? At what percent does the HDR sliders go over board to creative edit. Does using three different exposures of the same scene count as creative edit, after all, technically it is a montage? Can you make an b/w conversion of a documentary shot? Etc, etc, etc. I guess if we would write "The 1x policy bible" we would do even less photography and spending even more time talking in circles...

My view, and I have the feeling it's shared with the rest of the crew is that there should not be to many rigid rules set up for the site. That goes for the categorization of images as well as what is to much editing for different types of images. How would we enforce such rules? Should we ask for the raw files and the psd:s with all layers so we can check how much clarity is added to an image? It would be great to have clear cut rules, I just don't think it's possible. We can't even come to a conclusion on what photography is in the community lol...

And to what point really? Rules make it sound that it's some kind of competition, that everything is about getting published. On that I can only agree with Richard in another post that we often fuss to much about technical details instead of looking and talking about the images theme selves, regardless how we have pulled the ps-sliders.

Wish everybody a really Happy New Year!

Hi Thomas,
Many years ago (+- 40), in darkroom we had chemicals to transform photo's in sepia, ColorVir technique and many other treatments on photo paper, even photo-montages were made with masks in the darkroom, some even illustrated on big negatives, other painted with color pencil on the photo, used graphic grain filters to create grain, "photo grammes" photo's made without camera ... and I can go on with other techniques.
Many of those photo's were rewarded in national/international photo-contests.
There was no problems then how it is made or technique used.

Now 40 years later, the techniques are different, give still more possibilities... but also more problems to be accepted and under critique.
Experiment is now new... Jerry Uelsman!!!

Happy New Year and a lot of photo-pleasure in 2010:-)

No Clyde,it wont, and i suspect you misunderstood my meaning here. The discussion is more IF one should set a limit on the degree of tampering/creative editing when put in a CE section. I mean no as long as the edit is based on one or more images created with a camera, at least here on this site. I like both "the pure" and the edited images as long as i like the final outcome. The way i put this may have come out wrong, but my meaning is that photographers always..sometimes and now and then,,,, want an untampered image that shows the truth, like in a "purist" way and thats fine with me..nothing more to it than that :)


And here i totally agree :) if just one person likes my images,fine, if that person is me, im pleased, if many people like my stuff im thrilled and if one wants to hang my work on their wall, im in heaven, and looking forward to the next...a very happy new year to you and yours and the rest of 1x members..

For this I am glad!! Would be boring here without you...

I have 6.920.313 folder views on photo.net: close to heaven, but not loved here!!!

Happy New year !!!

Views? I sold over 100 prints in 2009. It was a good year. :D

I'll try to do better. And on that not hopefully you will also so maybe you can get something published.

Does the views or the count of sold prints means to be a good photographer?
In Germany we have a law, that nobody is allowed to call him self a photographer without the necessary professional training and certificates! But photo artist is allowed!

OK, I had 21 pay shootings last year with each 2x12 prints! One pay shot for Holiday Inn in Tianjin! 3 publications in a daily news paper! But still not won an award! I am a good or a bad photographer?

I am in heaven when the private person who hired me so happy that she put the photographs I made in a frame and on there wall! Than I have done right!

If digital processed or heavy manipulated does not matter a thing because the result is what counts!

Robert

I've only had 1 photo published here, but it has had 6000 views. Robert Hutinski has had 252 published. So if I multiply 6000 by 252, I end up with 1,512,000. Therefore my view rate, pro rata, is higher. Does this make me a better photographer...?

*grin*

Kim :)

Hi Robert,
everybody is "photographer" for the moment, so much that the "real (pro) photographer" has no work anymore:-((

The job a local photographer has lost much perspective, even for selling films : nearly finished - digital camera's : much cheaper on websites - marriage and other events: there's always a uncle BOB, who had a expensive DSRL, who know the way to make photo-books via websites (less cheaper and sometimes not SO bad quality and even more creative, if used by the wright person)... evolution in the good sense?

We, I and another pro photographer, had a 2 days workshop with pro (local) photographers (B&NL), what must be done to save there income... at the end we they agreed that "creative/difference" was the key to be more successful.

Creative people in agencies work more and more with stock photography...already 12 years ago, I have seen how very good photographers had no job anymore, except the super creative, specialisted onces.

Some student in photography ask me what to do to be successful... I always respond with: look at the best, try to be better and different with a personal, creative style... and hope that it works!!!

We "photo artist" what could we do, if there were no photo-websites for the moment?
Exhibitions?... a lot of people has no interest in it, because they are overloaded with all kind of images everyday.

We should be happy with the response in our hobby and sell some images from time to time, to cover the costs.

AMEN!

No matter if hired or not, but if someone likes a pictures that much that he/she wants to look at it every day on the wall, that is the best compliment you can get!

About that law in germany, that is a a difficult thing, the intention is good, but I know too many "not real" photographers who have so much stronger technique than some professionals I know. It's the same as in job, only to have good grades don't make me a good working.

ok lets say, photography is to capture light on film or sensor. art or creative edit is to bring it on paper or on screen.

if i choose a t-max the photo will look different than a tri-x. also the same film developed looks different in rodinal than in d76. if i produce a positive with a multigrade filter nr.1 it looks different than with a filter nr. 5. thats creative edit, but its darkroom pp and not photography.

to add things to a photo, stamp things out, combine 2 photos, blur a background is another quality of creative edit.

And that is really what its all about......
Happy new year everybody! :)

That's true it's the result that count:-)))

I must be in "heaven"?... because last year a man purchased at once 22 "crazy surreal" images from me and wanted them in big format canvas ( impact) for his conference room, because is a surrealist/art lover.
They ware exposed during 8 months (and still are) where a lot visitors came, who are also interested to have one on or more there walls:-))
Every year, I have an exhibition with the local photo-club in a well place location, with also lot off visitors, there's where the man discovered them.

But, I still find a lot of pleasure to create them.


Happy New year.

Sorry but I don't agree. If it is the result that counts then Steve McCurry doesn't have to go to Afghanistan to make the 'Afghan girl". He just has to hire any model, dress her like an afghan and if her eyes are not catchy enough tweak them on PS. If that makes such a final result as valuable as what he came up getting over there then I have to stop photography.

I have nothing against digital art as long as it can be seen as digital art, for the purpose of fantasy, imaginery or whatever, be it based on actual photos or not. When there is no ambiguity about the process that is fine - in the same way that the collage techniques were relevant for artistic purpose because immediately visible and recognizable as such.

But when digital manipulation is used in the purpose of enhancing reality and giving it more "impact" it is a problem imo. Viewers will look for the cleanest the more candy and finally mere virtual reality. "Hey you have this litter here. That is disturbing. Clone this out", "The road is not straight ? level it" etc, etc... Think about heavy photoshopped model in fashion/beauty. Who now would expect "normal" faces to promote cosmetic products ? (and despite the fact that fashion magazines have stories from time to time to make their hypocritical act of contrition).

Do you see a difference in "digital manipulation" vs. darkroom "optical/manual manipulation"?? I ask because the exact same motives that you describe are the same that motivated many of the respected photographers of the pre-digital age to spend hours, even days in a darkroom making print after print from one negative. I really don't see a difference. I am fairly sure that some of these same photographers would fully embrace the the digital darkroom and expend the same sort of energy for the same motives were they alive today!

Im really quite surprised over the argue here. Of course its the result that counts. when Steve travelled to Afghanistan he really hoped to capture something..or else he didnt bring the camera? and the result he came back with and presented does make impact....? ..when Angela B.C or Ben G. here makes their art is it not the final outcome that counts...? when a street photographer takes his camera out, he is hoping to shoot something great no matter who this pleases...?.....you see, imo the argue about what is good or what isnt is totally uniteresting course in the end it all comes down to what each of us likes or not. Now i might have a huge agenda against film..(which i dont :) ), and some other here might hate digital art or PS, or.. and use his/her voice to try to convince others about his/hers meaning,,and its ok..but still in the end we all go back to our camera and pc or chemicals and our thing...............nothing to argue about..imo...there are many ways and there are many tools, there are many genres and there are a whole lot of different minds....once we all accept that, these discussions are not necessery :)

You are right. It is not about digital. It is not about the "how" (i.e. the tools) but more about the intention and motivation behind. It is about what is done practically and about being honest or not with the final result. There can't be no written rule behind. I guess Creative Edits are fine as long as they are creative.


Then tell me why CGI are banned here ? And finally why going out photographing when you can create a much more fancy virtual reality out of your computer ?

Dont know why CGI are banned, its up to the founders to define what they consider to be here or not i guess.but its a site based on photography so....and to why we should go out with our cameras, ..? i guess its because we love to photograph...the way we use our tools is defined by how we want the outcome. Now i do some news work now and then and there are rules one have to follow when shooting news as you all know, and i do portraits,studiowork and the outcome is how the costumers want it to be and the creativity of my self, and i do artwork, both painting and photographing and sometimes i combine this as mixed media and the outcome, the final result i use every tool i can get my hands on to secure that the outcome is how I want it to be.. so i do some snaps of my family to describe holidays and such..doesnt allow my self to tamper with that truth..:) And here is the point: Sometimes this is right and other times its a compleatly different story, and what i tried to say earlier, its all about the result...and to what you as an photographer/artist are trying to do in that specific situation you shoot in or to that specific purpose you have with the shot.. :)

Don't get me wrong, I am not against what tools are used and furthermore it is not about what we like/want to do as photographer. It is about the final result being honest or not and how it is eventually perceived and absorbed by the public. What I am trying to say is that it affects how people see and value images (of course I don't speak specifically about 1X people). Better said it is about the kind of image culture it builds.

It is fine that you/we like to go shooting in the street, in nature, in the studio etc, etc... But when finally the public will value tampered/ virtual reality more than the "real thing" because it is more perfect, more fancy, more candy then where is the future of photography - except for family album purpose ?

I agree on this, but one has to understand that this is already here and we should not underestimate what people want to see. I have good confidence that if people opens their newspapers they would not like documentary images that have been manipulated. In the news context they will still want to see the truth. And if they later on will like to go to a artgallery to see a photoexhibition that contains shots from various landscapes they will not like that their "familiar" landscapes have been altered.. if they go into the same gallery and expect to see abstractions and surreal images done based in a camera and digitally edited, they will enjoy this. My meaning is that its room for all of this, and people i believe should be given the credit to see the difference. Now it seems that its often a one way wiev on this matter as the socalled "purist"always attacks the digital way to do things, but wice verca those on the other side always stands out defending the "old way" if one can call the one against the other...why is it so? should it not be room for all? As long as we are telling what we have done with a shot? and i dont mean exif necesserally, but if i have removed one item from a shot i would tell so, and if i have added several layers i would tell so....and if i sell one shot from a scene to a newspaper i will ALWAYS tell, but then again i would not tamper such shots from the beginning :)

Yes, the market is always right, unfortunately!
Though, it would be nice if Creative Edits was posted as such.
Is that too much to demand?

Lars :-)

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to this discussion. As a newbie to this site and to photography in general, it would be nice to know, from an educational standpoint, how an image was accomplished. I'm not here to judge, just learn.

My impact is that mostly the "digitals" are much more tolerant and open minded than the "purists" are.
All "digitals" I know are also open minded and like the classic and pure photography,
I'm always wondering and will never understand why there is not enough room - Perhaps I am too young :)

Has nothing to do with age or 'room' IMO. - It's only a question of being honest and posting Creative Edits as such. Nothing else! :-)

That would be easy.
Only two categories needed then: Digital art & creative edit.
:)

The debate about whether the final image is all that matters, or whether the process of getting there is important is at the heart of this whole debate.

Personally I tend to lean mostly towards "the final result is all that matters" category, but I have sympathy for the other viewpoint too. It's like "provenance" in the world of antiques. This desk might be a lovely desk, but knowing it was built by this person, or used by that person, or was connected to an historic event increases the value of it.

Or with wine - for many people, surely all that matters is the taste, but for others how it was made, the variety of grape, the position of the vine on the hill in the particular region etc, all play a part in enhancing the experience of the wine.

If we come across an image with no idea of the background, the creative process, the mood or ideas of the photographer or artist, then we can only judge it on its merits - how does it impact on us here and now. But if we know more - the fact that the photographer stood in his shorts for 62 hours in an ants nest in order to take it - does it make a difference on how we perceive the image?

It seems to me that the debate between the "purist" photographers and the "digital manipulators" is really to do with the perceived importance of Provenance.

Those who rate provenance highly are outraged by the idea someone can create a something on a computer that didn't require an adventure to capture it, while those who don't rate provenance as important cannot understand what the fuss is about.

Perhaps the notion of "creative edit" or "digitally manipulated" categories are actually irrelevant. Perhaps it should be "good creation story" or "no creation story" categories :)

Kim :)

Frankly I don't really care about the process itself. And I am not a purist (I am too much of a lousy photographer for that). But the process makes the final result - even if it is not something always discernable. Process and final result are not dissociable. That means that if you clone out something of importance then the result is a fake, period. Now if you are doing imaginery digital art there is nothing wrong with editing as much as you need (cloning in, out, having multiple layers etc..) because you don't want to come up with something real. So again, it is not a problem of process per se (analog vs digital or whatever). It is about being honest and consistent in the process and its final outcome.

I learned some things here, and I understand in the meanwhile what you mean with the difference between digital art and creative edit -
Finally these are only drawers defined by someone - From my point of view digital art does not begin with just at bit manipulation,
from my view it's just normal that you use the tools you're able to use today, why don't do little corrections?
(But I agree that a street or documentary shot should be as real as possible!)

I'm okay If you say I'm only doing digital art, I'm using the tools given me to "create" the view/impact I have in my mind,
but I do have this view in my head in the moment pulling the trigger, and I do indeed care about that the photograph itself is best shot as possible.
For me I'm doing photography, it's okay for me if other see my as just a digital artist - I don't care about titles or sections.

Sure I can also do good pure photographs but that's not my target, when I shoot I've a clear picture in my head and I'm thankful to have the tools to create it -

I can imagine if I'd be eduacated photographer I would see it different

I think this is the most difficult point.

What is "little correction" ? For what purpose ? To what extent it remains honest ? when does it start to be "too much" ? I have no answer to that and of course it's up to the artist to decide, for every image he makes.

But the question of why doing correction should be stated in the first place. As an example: why levelling a not-so-straight street (assuming it is not due to lens distorsion) ? Depends on what the artist want to come up with. That's what I am saying that the process and final result are not dissociable. Level the street if it serves your artistic vision. But not just because "it has to be straight" with no other valid reason. And viewers has to accept that, that you don't do the correction if it does not serves the purpose. This also is open-mindness

... or none of those 2, than there will no endless discussions anymore!!!!

I cannot seem to sleep tonight..so I was reading this thread..but after I write this I am going to bed. Why should people who do manipulation outside of the camera have to justify themselves? Someone raised that question above somewhere and I don't believe it was answered. I wish someone would answer the question.

I can like an antique and an ultra modern piece of furniture and frankly everything in between.
For the purists...
If you want to prove to me that you are a REAL photographer..then I think you must throw out your digital camera, your scanner, and anything that makes pictures in the new way. Because in fact, you are using digital and you are then a digital photographer. So we could say you are a digital artist then?

So to be real, buy a camera, film, and all the equipment needed to make your own pictures. Put the film in the camera go 'click , click , click.' and then make your own negatives..not sending them out to anyone. Not fair - you must do them. Buy a bag and do them yourself. Okay..now look at them..and then do your contact sheets. All of this is called post processing. Now you pick the ones you want to pick - mix up those chemicals - yummy yummy - and go to town making a picture. Black and White of course...because color is much too new..no color allowed. Oh..you are not allowed to burn and dodge anything - nothing- or do anything else...because that would be cheating..lying, and dishonest..right? So, you better do a good job in the camera because this is it. Now you wash and dry it..hang it..and frame it. A real photographer. Throw away your digital cameras. Or you can them to me I will send my address...:))))

One of the reasons that these conversations go 'nowhere' is because no one really wants to understand the other person's process. In the end I could maybe learn something from Robert H. , Jacques or Lars if they actually talked in depth about their philosophy...AND were willing to hear mine. Then, although we might still do what we like with images, at least we might understand why the other person is making the choices they are making.

What I think is very important is to understand that neither type of photography with or without manipulation is better than the other. They each have their advantages. I may even buy some Tri -X film...do they still make it?

Off to bed now. :)))

Phyllis

Phyllis,

As I said many times in this thread I am not bothered by digital art as long as it is honest i.e. it serves a purpose or a vision and it is not a gimmick. It is NOT about digital vs film (I personnaly do 100% digital all along the process).

My "philosophy" for photography ? quite simple: It is about how reality is reflected within a frame a photography. Not more but not less. And subsequently how it can be distorted, how it can deliver a point of view, how it can be transformed into a lie...

The problem I have with manipulation (digital or not) is not what artists do for their own vision (they do what they want with the tool they want, I have no problem with that), but rather how the tools are massively used with not other purpose of using it. And how it affects the culture of image widely spread in the public (this has to do with what Richard Ford reffered as superficiality in another thread).

What I find extraordinary is when people say "Be open minded, artist should do what they how they want" This is fine statement indeed! but when such comments come such as "this piece of trash is disturbing, clone it out", "This is not levelled", "this is not sharp enough" etc, etc... the only justification heard most of the time is "editing tools allow it" ... but who challenges the why doing it ?

Have a category for the purists to post to, 'pure film' if you like, then they can leave the rest of us alone to wallow in our tainted swamp of ignorance and impurity. . .

:-)))

I second that. However, the other thread about technical flawless and artistic creativity is from my point of view more constructive. It's much more easy to talk about what you see in an image rather than how it was made.

To give you and idea.

A photographer paint with light, hence a tool like a camera to capture the actual light. Whereas an artist paint with all means necessary. Mostly just a mouse-click away.

Does it really matter which method was used, given that the end result looks the same? Nope. Well, does it matter whether it was a photographer or an artist who came up with the end result? Maybe. One side of the coin has to do with how we perceive ourselves. As photographers or artists. The other side has mainly to do with what the end result is going to be used for. A digital artist should perhaps not focus too much on documentary, for an example...

What really concerns me, though, is that instant eye-candy has become more important than artistic creativity in terms of strong message and such. The latter will last longer and in addition help us develop further as both photographers and artists, but is still rejected more often than ever. Is that what we want?

Sorry about being off topic.
U

Ulf, I imagine were talking about the internet here which is no where near the same as the real world. The internet, honestly, is not a good judge for identifying what a good image is. People take seconds to look and come to conclusions on images. In the real world (shows, fairs, etc) people actually look at the images.

The great thing about the 'real world' is that people are isolated to look at your piece. They don't have 20, 40, 100 thumbnails all cluttered together and it's not an environment where eye candy makes them stand out. They are looking at a 20x30 (whatever size) of your image and can judge based on it's own merits and aren't distracted by a thumbnail next to it that is bright, loud and full of WOW but no substance.

Balazs, good images are good enough and I hope always will be. Maybe not on the net as much, but in real world environments they still stick out like a sore thumb.

Humbly yes, for me it does. First of all, just talking from an aestetic point of view, a real shot and a sophisticated one very rarely can look the same. Look the same to most of unexperienced viewers maybe, but not to a critic eye. And second, most importantly, there are antithetic philosophies behind a photomontage and a real photograph. The latter aims to capture/document reality in an interesting way only thanks to the photog's eye and one sigle exposure; the first, instead, aims to impress the viewer thanks to an artistical manipulation/craftmanship of one or more original photographs (if any). They are just different schools...and this should be reflected on the category, since they are both present here on 1x. I've seen some shots here published that they are clearly manipulated but classified as "landscape", "portrait" and even "street"...

Yes, Dave, webb communities is what's on my mind, and I fully understand it's not the same thing as real life.


As a former screener here at 1x I can appreciate the challange with such a great number of images to skim through every day. Eye-candy is therefore a gift from god and makes the screening much easier. But I'm wondering if that's the way we want it to be?

Maybe we should discuss ways to encourage creativity? Or reduce the amount of uploads? I don't know. All ideas are welcome!
U

Fabio, you might be right, but as a photo screener I had serious problems telling the difference. And that was a year ago. Given the rapid development I guess your presumption is 'dead' sooner than anybody might believe.


I totally agree. But what if you can't tell the difference?
U

I believe you there were some (I guess very few) cases in which this happened, but for most of them it's just a matter of "eye", you can easily tell it's manipulated.


I remember one cleverly emulated street shot categorized as 'creative edit' that looked rather authentic. The author was honest to classify the shot correctly. So yes, it may happen, even to a very experienced eye (and I'm not, it's just 1 year I'm shooting), perhaps, but mine was a general call to distinguish these two radically different approaches to obtain an image through the use of category, addressed both to screeners, like you were, and to members - like we all are.

F.

To some extent, the materials (film, digital, graphics software) used are accidents of history, technology and suchlike. An idea in the head of a practitioner (photographer, painter, sculptor, whatever) takes material form to a certain extent opportunistically, whatever is to hand, or can be learned etc. Ideas and materials run on two different but parallel tracks, or better, they are like induction coils, they never touch but they induce energy in one another. Ultimately the idea and the material become essential to one another, and consequently it is demanded of the practitioner to become expert in both.

But there is something more involved in what we would regard as art than an idea and how it is represented. If you step back you can see it. It is that both the idea and the materials together are the solution to a problem. This is what gives the product value and makes it art. We cannot float on the controversial surface of idea and representation when we are discussing art because there is no way to justify the use of one material over another, pure photography or graphic image creation for instance, unless we can fathom whether or not the product produced from them is solving a problem.

Obviously, not every photograph is, and not every digitally created graphic is, but those of both that *do* solve a problem are art, and the arguments end about choice of material, and appreciation begins of the artist's consummate skill with their idea and whatever material they *have* used in giving us a solution which we value.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Knowing, finding or identifying what the problem is that we are trying to solve it possibly the hardest part of this equation I reckon.
interesting post,
Jon

hehe, yes, I was a bit obscure, I realise.

Well, the "problem" is related to the purpose of the image and its relevance to the maker and viewer. There are a lot of trickydicky images around with a big WOW factor, both "pure" photos and "synthesised". They are sensationalist, exciting our senses, and getting our attention. Nothing wrong with any of that. There are things that we like for those kinds of reasons. Then there are other images which seem to us to build into the scheme of things that we know, they throw light on what we are and our situation, they are eloquent of us and our situation. They help us understand and keep hold of that understanding. They help us to go forward in the direction we want to go - they help us solve those problems. Do you see?

It seems to me to make a difference to the acceptability of the medium used for an image which kind, of the two kinds I have described, an image is. It is more likely in the second kind, I suggest, that the medium is more inseparable from, more integral to achieving that more significant kind of effect, and that the maker's use of that medium is in the end the only option for the image. The medium is necessary to what the image achieves in a way that it is not in the sensationalist kind of image. An image maker can be sensationalist in any number of ways, generic ways (the HDR fashion is an example), as we know very well, but an image which "solves a problem" has a unique identity. It is that unique identity which justifies the medium, be it "pure' or "synthetic".

Hope that helps things along ;))

brose

http://www.brosepix.com