Hi everyone,

 

I would like to share an image and a few thoughts with you.

 

The image is this one:

 

http://1x.com/photo/764177/all:user:155242

 

And the thoughts I wrote on the description are:

 

Is this a photograph? What is a photograph? What is forbidden in photography?

The "original" version of this picture was shot at the entry of the Colosseum in Rome and can be seen here: http://1x.com/photo/769188/all:user:155242

From that version I mainly did three things in post-processing:

1) Crop, adjust white balance, saturation and levels. Those are very common adjustments in digital photography. Yet, the result at that stage was already very "unrealistic" as it seemed that the image was just created by writing some text on a blank canvas and adding a red sign.

2) I obviously "erased" some parts with the "cloning" tool in gimp (I could have just painted in white...). This is also something quite common in photography though already more controversial.

3) I added the "photography ?" text in post-processing. Most will consider this crosses the line of what is acceptable for photography. Yet, I have seen digital drawings on more than one picture here at 1x, which at the same time does not accept fully computer-generated images.

 

So, back to the opening question: is this a photograph? Would it be if I hadn't added the "photography ?" text? What do you think of the fact that it would be easy to create exactly the same image on a computer, without needing to take the original picture to start with? Would it change anything?

 

These are not rhetorical questions, I wouldn't be too sure what to answer myself but I thought it would be interesting to share at least the questions if not the answers!

 

Cheers,

paco.

Hi Paco,

 

I like this one: it gives us some thoughts and it’s worth discussing.

 

You made direct questions, so I try to give straight answers, even if not always possible.

 

- It is a photograph. You took it, made adjustments and even added a text. The starting point was a reality which you made to suit your own vision. You recorded something you saw and presented it to the viewers. Nevertheless, the viewers have the right to make their own interpretation and it may, and probably will, differ from yours. That’s legitimate. As you said the image would be easy to create on the computer only, but when you know yourself it is not, then it exist as a photograph. The hard part is to convince others about the fact, but better not to care about it.

If a photo as a text or drawings or some other added parts on it, is not relevant. The photographer is the one to decide.

 

- A photograph is a moment, a reality existing in the photographers mind, recorded with a camera, worked to preserve the conception and presented on a desired format. The photograph’s real existence lives by the artist, not by the observers.

 

- Nothing should be forbidden! I hate all restrictions and rules: they are just inhibiting, chaining the freedom, suffocating our life. Rules are for the incompetent: to know what to criticize and why to complain. We don’t have to like but should let others to enjoy.

 

Let’s see what others think.

 

Greetings

Timo

 

Hi Timo,

 

Thanks for your straight answers, very interesting.

 

I'll start by your last point: nothing should be forbidden. I mostly agree with that, and actually that was the original point for this picture. I also dislike all the "rules" in photography, that's why I erased all the forbidden things in the image, I wanted to say: "make your own rules".

 

Nonetheless, thinking about it I came to the conclusion that we all have some rules as to what photography is or is not. I guess as soon as you call something "photography" or "painting" or "digital art" or whatever, you are implying a boundary, a definition. I think we have two contradictory impulses: our rational mind wants to put a name on things and therefore a limit with rules to define what falls in and what falls out and simultaneously our artistic mind wants to mess with that boundary, finding ways to create something that questions it!

 

So maybe the only possible (artistic) answer is: who cares how you call it?

 

Now there is another question that I find interesting, and that is the importance of the process. I used to think that only the final image is what matters, however you say:

 

 

So, do you think you have to know the process of making a picture to fully appreciate it? More than that: to know/define what it is. In most cases (museums, galleries) you have no clue as to how the pieces of art were made...

 

Well, I've written enough now, let's see what other people think :)

 

Cheers,

paco.

 

Hi Paco,

If you just ask the question ' Is this a photograph" I woud say yes, and this is not an opinon so long as you have provided me with accurate details. To me that would be a fact, not open to very much interpretation as far as the meaning of the word Photography is concerned. So my first answer is simple - yes it is a photograph.

 

I agree with Timo that sometimes even when something is factual you are sometimes put in a position that forces you to defend why it is a fact. I just would not go there. If they are unable to understand at least that much then they probably would need to understand the process of what makes a photo appear - be it digital or analogue.

 

As Neil de Grasse Tyson, Astrophysicist likes to say,

"you are entitled to set of your opinions, but not to a set of your own facts."

 

You may not like the photo but that does not make it a refrigerater. :)

 

So I would hope everyone would agree it is a photograph.

 

Your thoughts are rules are also interesting to me. Of course that is what makes your photo interesting to me also. It is challenging...with irony - a good combination.

 

I think the virtual world has created an emphasis on rules because how can you operate a contest/competition website without some? Like you - I have an aversion to rules and I do not pay much attention to them. I prefer intuition, mythology, and the collective unconsious to guide me. If it is an edit as you have explained, I start wit an idea...and let it take me. Some come easy others never are completed.

 

You ask...

What do you think of the fact that it would be easy to create exactly the same image on a computer, without needing to take the original picture to start with? Would it change anything?

 

For me yes. Now you have created a document not a photograph. It might not change my liking it - but it would not be a photoraph... If you try to fool me by saying this is a photograph..and it is a document...you have gained nothing. The worst or me is that I have been decieved. For you though, it is a shame...because maybe you do not know how to make a photo and you will never learn...

 

Text....I do not believe that this is true. I dont think that most people believe Text crosses a line. I do believe that this is just another 'rule' that websites impose upon people. When you look in photo mazazines or galleries...text is not viewed as a big problem. If it is there - it is there. Text these day with such gorgeous fonts are art alone.

 

I find the issue with rules stifles creativity...deadens the soul, kills the ideas, and greatly dimishes the ability to make something unique or even slightly different. So perhaps it would be more productive to plant a tomato garden; at least you will have fruit.

Phyl

 

Salut Paco,

 

The process matters to the one who is creating something, not so much to the others. You asked:

 

 

The viewers and onlookers see normally the final image only and do not know the process nor have the possibility to follow it, and even if they had, I think no one could really understand it completely anyway. The technical part yes, but how to know what goes on in the artist mind.

 

I merely meant that when we are processing our work, we know how it’s done, what it is, and if we decide to call it a photograph, then it is a photograph - at least for us. Others may have another opinion.

 

I, as a viewer, don’t need to have the information how something is done to be able to appreciate the result. The info I need comes directly from the image itself: visual stimulus affecting my nerves and causing a reaction.

 

Cheers

Timo

 

I'll be short and precise on my answer.

Keeping in mind that the lenses distort reality most of the time, in perspective and depth of field, we are starting off with something that in not "real".

The sky is the limit for the rest, as far as I'm concerned :-)

Thank you all for your replies. I'm glad to see we all more or less agree on the "no rules" message :)

 

Phyl, your message made me smile.

 

 

 

Cheers,

paco.

 

Do we all really want "no rules" I can scan a printed sheet of paper this then can become a photo file. A photograph is something to enjoy, to fell it's power, to feel it's emotion, it's story. The list is endless. Can you get all this from a sheet of words an symbol. This is the digital world times are changing fast.

For me it's not a photograph in the true sense..if it is we could all be judging word documents on 1x.com.

Words are Words and Photographs are wonderful things to look at.

 

Danny Springgay

"Wonderful things to look at" is a very subjective definition ;)

 

Hi there

 

I'm a pretty pragmatic person so I might have something to add:-)

 

The answer should be quite simple. If this were shot with a camera it is by definition a photograph. What else would you call it?

 

When you start adding elements like text in a post process you take the first step into a greyzone if you ask me. It is still a photography but the more you add, the more it becomes something else as well. It is no longer pure photography. And some would say it becomes less photography.

 

When you put paint on a canvas you are making a painting. But if you begin to add material stuff like wood or iron or dead mice for that matter to your painting, then I guess it eventually becomes a collage. But the painting you made in the first place is still there as a part of the whole.

 

I guess all other attempts to define photography are art related and as such very subjective. My impression is that some people confuses the questions "Is this photography?" and "Is this good photography?". It is a craft as well as an art. I guess thats a question of discourse....

 

As to your question about the importance of knowing how it was made, I find it hard to give a generel answer. Sometimes it adds to my perception and sometimes it doesn't. I think it adds a lot more to know the story (if there is one) than the technical foreplay, so to speak....

 

Dan

Can it truly be the case that if someone hires a fashion model, a makeup artist and stylist, dresses the unnaturally slender woman in designer clothing, poses her in studio lighting, and then airbrushes the hell out of the resulting image, that it is a photograph, but if someone artfully arranges a set of colored pencils and photographs them in natural light that the result is not a photograph?

 

The question of ‘what is a legitimate photograph’ has been a matter of constant debate since at least the 1850s, if not earlier. I’m not entirely certain why it matters, but some people feel extremely strongly about this topic. I invite anyone who has very strong feelings that some uses of photographic technology are not legitimate photographs to carefully and fully explain their rationale and rules.

 

A full taxonomy is impossible, because different forms of imagery overlap in multiple ways. However, I think its reasonable to map out a rough spectrum of photographic scenarios as a starting point for discussion, and I suggest the following:

 

-A mechanical capture of something that existed or took place without the instigation of the photographer.

-A mechanical capture of something that was created or organized by the photographer

-Either of the previous, with some element removed or simplified through technical processes, still maintaining the essential elements of the original scene, but not a literal transcription.

-An accurate representational capture of a real event that through framing or cropping presents a misleading understanding of what actually did happen

-A composite image formed from elements that were mechanically captured (i.e. the pieces would be universally accepted as being photographs)

-A constructed image that has no elements which were captured mechanically.

 

Hello,

 

A number of people in this thread have said why does it matter what it is called, but it does matter because you need to know how to judge the image. This does not affect how much you like it, or if it is a good image or not, but you need to know what you are looking at in order to say if it is good or not good in a technical way.

 

Let's take the example of the painting with added elements to the point it becomes a collage. You look at a collage differently, with different expectations than you do looking at a painting. Taking it further you look at a watercolour differently to an oil painting or acrylics. Thus we need to know if it is a photo or a digitally created image because our expectations of the image are different.

 

I can look at a digital image and hate it as a photo, but then if someone says 'its not a photo' and my perception changes and I can say it is a good created image.

 

Blurring the lines creates false expectations of what a photo is and what digital is. In the original example it is no longer a photo, but a created image. It is your artist expression of what you want the sign to be, using a photo as a starting point, it is not a photo of a sign.

Michaela has a point in that classification helps discussions.

 

I would like to make a few comments from my own experience:

 

My expectation does not change whether I look at an oil painting, watercolor, or collage. It is because the fundamental aesthetics are basically the same; the differences are mainly in the techniques. I will not change my judgment about a work if people tell me what I mistook as an oil painting is actually a watercolor, because no matter what medium is used, if people cannot see its beauty or feel its power before classifying it, the work is already a failure. True artistic appreciation is based on immediate visual impact (for visual arts), not logical or analytical thinking.

 

We need to make a distinction between artistic appreciation and other types of appreciation. For examples, some people may pay a high price for a tiny sculpture made out a piece of rice. If it is because of its size, then this is not artistic appreciation, but technical admiration. Some people are amazed by a painting made by foot. It is more often because it is difficult to paint with a foot. But choosing a difficult way of doing things does not add aesthetic value.

 

Let's come back to the distinction between photography and digital art. We can theoretically define them and that can be meaningful in that people can consciously choose a direction if they want (I therefore agree with Michael), although it can be difficult to draw a line and people can always combine the two approaches (like mix media in paintings).

 

The problem is not in the distinction between photography or digital art, but the confusion between digital art and digital processing, which in many people's mind means post-processing (PS). We have to be aware the following: (1) Digital processing starts in the camera especially if we are not using raw file, and processing raw data captured by the senor, in camera or PS, is an unavoidable step in photography if we use digital cameras. (2) There are common efforts in both shooting and PS, e.g., adjust composition, control shade and color values, and etc. Only the parts like removing or adding components in a picture are more typical in “digital art”.

 

 

I agree with you in theory, but in practice I think if you analyse it a bit more closely technique does impact appreciation. A person who is accustomed to painting in oils is unfamiliar with the techniques of watercolour, so if a person who was a great oil painter tried to paint in watercolours they would execute it poorly. Also a person with a fine appreciation for the techniques of oil painting probably would not have the same appreciation for the nuances of watercolour. I agree that a person with little or no technical appreciation can look at either form and say whether or not there is some aesthetic quality they like or do not like, but finer appreciation comes with understanding the underlying techniques. The more interested you are, the more you learn and the more you appreciate.

 

I do not think I am wrong in believing this to equally apply to the art of photography and for believing that corrupting that process through confusing the line between a photograph and digital art has a detrimental effect on the appreciation of both forms of art.

 

I would like to say that I am both a photographer and a digital artist and I have been on the receiving end of the negative perception when the two forms are confused. My art has been confused for an altered photo and my unaltered photos have been confused for highly post-processed. Both perceptions take away from my skill in creating both the art and the photograph. For me personally as an artist and a photographer I draw a clear line between the two forms from personal experience in creating both. There is a point at which 'improving' (this is debatable) a photo crosses the line between being a photo and being art.

 

The line between the two is getting more and more blurred and for me part of the issue is that the public's eye is getting more and more trained to accepting a highly processed image as being how photos look. This negatively impacts the perception of the unavoidable slight natural imperfections of an unaltered photo.

 

I equate this to the difference between how real women look and how the highly processed images of women look in magazines. The one is real and the other is not. A 'natural' photo like a real woman has imperfections, the highly processed image does not, but we have all become so accustomed to the highly processed version that the reality does not stack up well.

 

My concern is that, as photographers, if we do not make our own distinctions and stand by the imperfections of the 'real' photo the art will be lost.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

No but as I said above, for those who make a study of appreciation, the difficult way does in fact add value.

 

 

I agree with this - I have absolutely no intention of restricting anyone's artistic expression, including my own, but I would like for there to be more discussion amongst photographers and artist around these issues, especially those who are invested in continuing a photographic tradition.

 

 

The problem is that the one turns into the other almost without the knowledge of the person doing it. The problem is that once you start 'fixing' things there is more and more you find that you need to fix and before you know it, you have done a thousand teeny steps that add up to a transformation from photo to art, but each step on their own wasn't the step that was too much, but the total accumulative effect is. It is this basic lack of awareness on the part of photographers as to where on the sliding scale of changes they are and when it is that they did just that one thing too much that tipped the balance.

 

We need to be discussing amongst ourselves where that line is, for the benefit of all, with the understanding that crossing the line from photo to art is not wrong, it just needs defining and clarification that this is digital art and not a photo as such. The photographer / artist needs to be mindful that there is a line, and then make a conscious decision to cross it, not as it is at the moment where the line is crossed all the time unconsciously and then there is a defensive reaction when you say 'but' and the discussion devolves into an 'and/or' argument which benefits no-one.

 

Photography is a distinct art form, digital art is a distinct art form, digital photography + post-processing blurs the lines between the two - and I think there needs to be a discussion on how photographers who want to stay firmly on the photography side of the line can find a place in that world and still be appreciated for what they do, and for those who heavily post-process and those who cross the line firmly into art also have their place in the spectrum.

 

I was just talking this through with some one and the problem is basically that photographers are not conscious of the fact that when they start processing their 'photo' that what they are actually doing is putting their foot on a slope that ends in creating a digital work of art, regardless of the whether or not it started as a photo out of the camera. The process is subtle and there is no one moment that if you do this and not that, it stays a photo or changes, it is the total accumulation of changes that makes the final difference and perhaps can only be determined when you compare the final product with original image. Where we need to be discussing this is perhaps at what percentage of change keeps a digital image a photo and at what percentage of change crosses the line.

 

I would like for the photographer to be conscious of this process, or to become conscious of this process so that the decision to create art from your photo is a determined one not the result of just too much post-processing and being entirely unaware (and all to often highly defensive of the 'I'm just developing my photo' thought) of the fact that an accumulation of changes does in fact alter a photo into a digital image that isn't a photo with it's inherent imperfections any more.

I think everyone should decide for themselves how to process their own photographs.

How can photography be art if there are restrictions?

I think every art form has some restrictions of some kind - if you choose this paint over that you are applying a form of restriction. If you choose a certain colour palette ie black-and-white or sepia, or some other monotonal range you are applying a restriction. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not there are restrictions. If we as artists do not discuss the restrictions that apply to photography vs digital art and how to separate them, we are going to be bound by restrictions others will inevitably place on us.

Sooner or later there will be a discussion about it, somewhere in some competition or magazine or something will happen that will spark the discussion in the aftermath of some scandal or perceived wrong-doing and there will be a reaction and rules imposed by some one. As artists we can either have that discussion ourselves and apply our own rules to it or we can be excluded from the discussion and have to live with the result.

But we don't have the same opinion, we are all unique, and that's why we can never decide where that line is that we shouldn't cross. It's just impossible.

 

I think it's better if you remove the link, it's not very nice to discuss someones photograph in public without asking.

To All,

Please do not link any one's photos to your posts unless you have their written permission.

Thank you,

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

Apologies. I didn't think it was a problem. Would it be ok to find an image on the net with the same qualities?

I don't know if that is alowed.

 

Hi Michaela,

I have sent you a private message.

 

Thanks Phyllis

Forum Moderator

Perhaps you can compare the perception of art with an eating or drinking experience.

 

If you lift your glass expecting to have a sip from a fine wine but in stead there's beer in the glass, your experience of the beer will be different from another scenario where you actually expected the beer.........wouldn't it?

 

 

Pretty much, in the first instance you would spit out the beer and say 'oh that's horrible wine' because your perceptions are primed for a different experience. I'm not sure that is entirely analogous to digital art vs photography but if you were a wine-taster and were blindfolded you could start drawing some comparisons.

Hi All

 

The topic regarding digital art is interesting and has no answer, at least there will never be a universal consensus.

 

First a historical view before digital images came along. Once an image is made on film, what you get (print) is not what you saw, exactly.

 

A good example would be Ansel Adams. He took processing to a new level, first by being able to expose the film properly (predictable result), then process according to need and finally working on the wet print with all sorts of modifications. Nobody question any of the procedures or made it a lesser work of art?

 

Now with digital, the question is how much is too much. Certainly zero would not be the answer, even a jpeg has processing in camera and a RAW image is an unprocessed negative.

 

I feel it is a mater of common sense and personal preference, it comes into play when we compare work, same image processed (keeping natural looking) compared to minimally worked on will look totally different, likely not as good.

 

Seems that processing is a part of photography now? Being competent for doing the basic enhancements a necessity.

 

The good part, is all up to the individual with no right or wrong. The problem, comes when things are removed, added, special effects passed as natural etc. In those circumstances, disclosure should be made.

 

al

 

But what if the drink is a mix of beer and wine, and people who love to drink beer don't like it, because it's not beer, and people who love to drink wine don't like it either, because it's not wine? Should this new drink be forbidden?

 

Hi Leonie

 

Great point !!! I think the new drink is just fine, would only object if I made to drink it and did not want to...... will be drinking away !!!

 

al

 

Absolutely not! But it might need to be defined.....:-)

For me a photography is a image created with a camera, and which is the foundation of the image.

 

I don't care if people would call my images, a photography, a picture or a image or whatever. what is important is the image itself, not how you got to it. But since this is a place for photos, of course our images must have started up as a photography.

 

I personally love to blur the lines between the mediums, and I love to have rules.

But rules should be personal. Because within the confine of rules you can grow towards a direction., and you force your creativity to solve problems.

 

When I say I blur the lines, I do it by taking photos of paint, pictures, screens, reflections, through objects, and whatever other way I can think of using the camera. Then I will layer images on images on images until I reach the image I am content with. Then I will blend the images together in whatever creative way I might think of in the moment of creation. Is the End result a photography?, does it look more like a painting? No its 100s of photos turned into a image, and maybe but I don't mind that.

 

 

I think you answered your own question - " Nobody question any of the procedures or made it a lesser work of art? "

 

I think there is a difference between a work of art and photography because the process by which you arrive at the final product is different. With photography your medium is manipulation and capture of light which is why I find the argument about darkroom techniques a bit of a misleading one - when developing and printing you are still working with the basic medium of light and controlling light.

 

Manipulating pixels is not a medium of light.

 

of course there is a difference between the concept of "a work of art" and the technique of doing photography. But you can't say that "the process by which you arrive at the final product is different". The photography is just one of many techniques to possibly make art.

 

So do you see a difference in capturing and manipulating light onto film or into digital pixels , in how it is categorized as being a photography?

Yes with film you are working with the basic medium of light and controlling light in the development, but in digital photography you are also working on controlling the intensity, and color of the pixel, it's just another form of capturing the light in photography, and another way to process it after shooting.

I like Michael's admirable explanation about how things can happen little by little and small quantitative changes finally cause qualitatively change through accumulation. My thoughts about this are as follows:

 

(1) We simply cannot avoid processing photo digitally if we use digital cameras.

 

(2) Let it be - we do not have to worry about whether I started with an intention to create a "pure" photo and end up with a piece of digital art. It does not matter. What is important is whether the final work is good or not. As a matter of fact, many artists like unexpected or uncontrolled results.

 

(3) Photography without PS does not equal faithful presentation of reality, because there are always conscious and unconscious manipulations through digital, chemical, or optical methods. By using light and shadows, selecting a lens or filter, or choosing a shooting angle, we can flatter a woman easily. Whether faithful to reality or not is more a matter of taste, our understanding of life, or what genre we choose (e.g., journalism), than a technical issue. Digital processing can overcome some optical limits and more faithfully depict reality.

 

(4) Theoretically, we can define what is pure photography and what is digital art. In practice, as many said, the line is personal and, I would like to add, temporary - a person can change the line any time; and the line can be legitimately blurred or ignored.

 

About restrictions. Yes, any form of art has restrictions. But these are physical restrictions imposed upon us by materials and tools. If we are talking about artistic styles or forms, there are only typical examples and no restrictions. All the existing styles or art forms are results of previous practices. They offer options but no restrictions for future creativities. We can use pencil in oil painting, mix pastel with watercolor, and add some color in B&W pictures... This is how styles and forms evolve.

 

As to whether we need art classification to help us appreciate an art form, I would say no. Craftsmanship in each art form adds aesthetic values, but it should exhibit by itself, independent of art classification.

 

thank you every one for a fascinating discussion but my revival of this thread has apparently upset some people so to avoid further unhappiness I am going to gracefully retire.

 

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and I wish I could continue the conversation as it is an interesting topic worthy of conversation but I think it is better that I not.

 

I don't think you should stop doing what you wish to do, just because someone might be upset. Especially if its a topic you find interesting and worthy of conversation.

 

Thank you, I feel the same way but there are some things you just can't fight against.

 

 

Hi Michael, I wish I was not the one who made you retire from the discussion. If that is the case, I feel very sorry. Although I have some different thoughts (some are just from a different point of view or in different terms, and they may not be truly different). I admire your ways of thinking and writing and I learned a lot from them. You are very good in making a difficult point clear. You also made me rethink things and helped me in more than one way.

 

Hi Zhang,

 

No it absolutely wasn't anyone or anything said in the thread that was the problem. I would love to continue the discussion but there have been private repercussions from me making a few noobie mistakes and what I hope is just a misunderstanding of what a proper discussion entails. The end result is that I have felt it best if I just withdraw.

 

If people are giving your private repercussions because of this discussion here, they must be afraid of the public opinion. And people who are afraid of the public opinion, has nothing to do on a forum.

For All Posting inThis Thread

 

No one has been restricted anyone from posting in this thread.

 

Posts have been deleted which were not in keeping with the philosophy of lx. That was discussed privately. It would be unprofessional to discuss the details of this in a public forum.

 

Anyone can choose to stay or leave this discussion.

 

If you continue to be a part of this discussion then I would ask on behalf of lx that you use these guidelines:

 

l. Please do not post photos or discuss photos that are not yours without written permission. Before obtaining this permission make certain that the individual you are asking permission from understands what you want to use their photo for.

 

2. Please do not use any photos in a public forum even with written permission to discuss them in a negative way. We have a critique section if someone wants that type of feedback or wants to offer it.

 

3. Please do not make mention of companies in a negative way. It is unnecessary and serves no purpose. If you want advice on equipment software or hardware you can ask those questions in a thread. If you have had a bad experience with a particular product you can talk about that in a way which is informative and not derogatory.

 

4. Make an attempt to really listen to the other person's POV, even if you disagree...at least acknowledge their ideas.

 

5. Be respectful.

 

Now I would ask that that you go back to your discussion if you would like to.

 

If any problems arise one of the Moderators will let you know. I don't expect any.

 

Best regards,

Phyllis

Forum Moderatpr

Ok, so after all that drama is over, I would very much like to continue this discussion.

 

I uploaded two of my own creations to my gallery.

 

This one is entirely CGI created in dedicated software for the purpose. This is a very old version of the software concerned - the latest versions are infinitely better, and can even create images from topographical maps thus recreating actual places.

 

https://1x.com/photo/948417/all:user:564085

 

This is a digital painting I did:

 

https://1x.com/photo/948422/all:user:564085

 

I uploaded these to illustrate the point I was trying to make about how do you judge what is real and what is not? I feel that given the artistic skills of individuals and the creative ability of software the line between what is real and what is not is being blurred and that as photographers we should be more mindful of not contributing to the growing perception that one should 'trust nothing you SEE and read'.

 

And its also kind of a pride thing. When I take a good photo I want to be praised for taking a good photo, not on my computer skills, but when I create an artificial image I would like to be praised for those skills. And when I spend days on a painting I would like to be praised for my artistic / drawing skills. I see them as three separate skill sets - camera, computer, art.

 

This is not to say I want to proscribe what anyone else does to arrive at their finished image - but I guess what I want is for photos to be photos and judged as photos and for digital art to have its own niche and for art to be its own thing too.

 

I almost think think there needs to be a new niche for manipulated photos - as a new art form that has developed as a result of digital photography.

 

 

I agree and I disagree - the fact is that paintings, art etc are classified, even on this forum - there is a category for black-and-white, and fine art and street and nature and landscape etc. We already recognise that you need to put like with like and compare like with like. I'm really just suggesting that there is a place for unmanipulated images too. If only because unmanipulated as-is-out-of-camera photos have inherent imperfections that do not stand up well to the perfections of a post-processed image that has be sharpened, highlighted, colour adjusted etc.

 

 

After reading this comment I actually went and looked at a few videos on youtube about the process of printing a photo and yes I think there is a difference - when you print a negative you shine light through the negative, through a lens to focus it on the paper, and a print is made.

 

I will grant that applying some sharpening to a digital photo can equate to focusing the image on the paper, beyond that I think I would personally have issue with further manipulation regardless of whether it was film photo or digital photo.

 

When it comes to processing an image every one refers to Ansel Adams who heavily processed his images, and somehow, somewhere the assumptions seems to have been made that you HAVE to process heavily, but isn't that a wrong assumption - just because he did doesn't mean we all HAVE to follow what he did. That is kind of like saying we all have to paint like Van Gogh (or artist of your choice). His style of heavily processing isn't the only way to take photos. And yet somehow these days it seems to be automatic assumption that you HAVE to post-process.

 

Just look at all the advice out there given to new photographers - its all based on post-processing - crop, edit, sharpen, etc, etc, etc and there is very little advice on how to actually take better photos to start off with.

I would very much welcome to have a categorie of unmanipulated photos too. However, "as-is-out-of-camera photos" are always manipulated to a certain extent by the camera's algorithms. Advanced DLSR allow for quite sophisticated adjustments before (WB, contrast, sharpening, saturation, individual colour profiles etc) and processing after taking the image. So, the "problem" starts already before taking a picture. Even when using films you get a different picture according to the type of film you are using. This is in no way meant to lessen the good reasons of a purist approach and for advocating the need for photographers to learn to see (light, composition, colours, shapes, patterns etc.)

 

I think that the difference lies in the art of taking a good photo with the camera and doing adjustments to an image that has already been taken. We all know there are many things you can do to change the image you are taking - which camera, which film, which lens, lighting, angle, composition - but every one of those happens before you press the shutter. Post-processing is everything that happens after you have pressed the shutter.

 

I think the growing perception of not trusting everything you see, and read is a great thing, and it is a important factor in critical thinking.

because no matter how you shoot a picture, or tell a story, it will be from your chosen perspective and with your choice of cropping.

 

 

Yes I agree that there is separate skill sets in doing straight photography,and photo manipulation. But then again when it comes to art, art is something different then skills, it is rather the elevation of those skills to a state where the artist shines through the techniques.

 

A category for straight photography would be a good thing, but it would also be impossible to know if people are honest about it being a pure photography.

 

 

Yes and I think its because taking good photos is much easier now then what it once was. Now you don't need to time the shot perfectly, or even have the perfect settings. You can shoot in burst mods, and you can crop, and fix the exposure after shooting. Soon I guess we can take 360 degrees 3d videos, that you can later orientate virtually. and convert to images indistinguishable from photos taken by a normal camera.

 

Well I think that there are ways around that issue, including just expecting people to be honest. Most people live up to expectations.

 

 

Well this is the core of the problem isn't it. Firstly that people don't bother taking the very best photo they can because you 'fix it' later. They don't learn about controlling lighting and composition and shutterspeed etc because you can 'fix it'. And secondly that the concept of the art of photography as skill with a camera is being lost. How many people can still take a good photo if you can't fix the lighting or crop to the ideal composition afterwards? How many people know how or even try to fill the frame in camera? How you take the photo is still important and a niche should be kept for those who wish to develop and retain those skills.

 

I partially agree with your assessment of the core of the problem. Personally, I try to take the best photo before I press the shutter and don't want to rely on PP (which I am still lacking some skills for). That is why I read quite a lot of books written by "old" but still contempory masters (Michael Freeman, Tom Ang and some others) when I started digital in 2007. However, what a sensor is able to catch is never what I see and sense as a picture in the moment I have the scene or object to photograph. Even if framing, composition, exposure and all the other elements forming a particular picture are chosen at best, the RAW-data need to be transformed (I always shoot RAW) in order to express and visualize what I had in mind . That is where PP has in my view its right to exist and to be applied.

It's not that every person who likes to edit images doesn't bother taking the very best photo they can so I don't understand why that should be the core of the problem. If the image is crappy to begin with the result won't be as good as when you start with a good quality image.

 

I'm so happy you brought up the question of RAW vs JPEG. There are a few points to consider.

 

1. Doing better job converting RAW to JPEG yourself than the in-camera software. This assumption is terribly insulting to the engineers who designed the in-camera software to create the very best conversion possible with all the knowledge of the capabilities and incapabilities of the camera only the manufacturer can know.

 

Once you convert RAW to JPEG you lose all the extra data so it makes no difference how much data you have before you convert, besides which there is also in-camera conversion from pure RAW (which is literally just data) to a file format than can be read by imaging software. Some convert to DNG, some convert to CR2 / CRW (Canon) and Nikon converts to NEF. So you aren't getting the unaltered data from the camera - it is all converted in one way or another.

 

2. RAW gives you a better picture - well not really - it just gives you more data to play with, which may or may not give you a better result depending on your skill at editing. As far as image quality is concerned there is no difference, your camera doesn't shoot a better quality RAW image than it does a JPEG - the camera is the camera is the camera - the difference is the amount of information lost in the conversion to JPEG which may make a difference in the appearance of the image depending on the software processes you use.

 

RAW and JPEG also have the same effective bit precision. JPEG has 8 bits per color per pixel and RAW has 12 bits, but RAW is 12 bit linear, and JPEG is 8 bit log, gamma corrected non-linear transformation derived from the 12 bit linear data. Thus in the shadows where this might matter the two are the same, since the full 12 bit resolution in the dark areas is preserved by the non-linear coding.

 

In addition there is also the fact that every imaging software package also applies its own conversion formulae to the RAW file so every one gives a slightly different result as well.

 

3. There isn't much you can do with the RAW file that you can't also do with JPEGs. Pretty much all the editing tools for RAW can also be applied to a JPEG. Just remember to keep the original file intact and save your edits as copies with a high progressive scan when you save.

 

4. RAW files fill up your storage space much faster. They are problematic if you want to shoot in high-speed bursts to capture action because they slow the camera down and the storage time is much longer.

 

5. An issue with RAW that few ever consider is that the technology to read the data is changing all the time. Unless you convert your files in a few years (in fact if you have been shooting RAW for more than 5/6 years you probably already have this problem) the new software isn't able to read older RAW files.

 

However all these considerations aside - if spending hours converting your photos makes you happy - then by all means do it. I have never said don't do it, just that there are other ways of taking a good photo other than all the post-processing and that there is a point at which the number of changes add up to it not being an original photo, but original art.

 

 

True I agree with you wholeheartedly however what I was saying is that if you look at advice given on various forums you never (at least I have never seen) anyone say 'this was a crappy image to start with and you really need to go out and take better photos and this is how ....' (but preferably in a nicer way). The advice is all directed around editing. People get told to crop or adjust the lighting or sharpen or or or .... so it creates this idea that you don't need to take better pictures, or take your camera off auto and learn what the other buttons do, you just take a picture (which will probably be sufficiently focused if you had the camera on auto-focus) and you adjust from there. There is a dearth of skills even such as basic composition.

 

The problem is that it creates two wrong impressions - one is that if you get really really good at post-processing you will be creating award winning images in no time and the second is frustration that you can't go out and shoot pictures that look like the images you see on the net. When you start posting your photos you are told over and over - use this technique or that, apply this effect or that, and so people do, but their photos are still not as good as the top photos out there which leads to many giving up altogether because they are not told that the top photos are a combination of both really good photography and really good post-processing techniques.

 

And then those of us who do end up exploring the technical skills in taking a good photo run into a lack of information on how to do that. What makes it even worse that the issue of processing or not leads to a lot of antagonism from some people.

 

Some one else mentioned using old film photography books as a resource but not all of that information translates directly to digital photography, and if you are trying to learn not all the information makes sense nor do you know exactly what you are doing wrong either. Then there is no-one to ask, and the people you do ask get their knickers in a twist and tell you to post-process.

 

So personally as a photographer who first wants to take the very best picture I can, finding information, finding help, getting help is very difficult. Every course I have looked at is focused on editing, not on actual photography skills. If you say, as I do, that I don't want to process you get derided for it. No-one ever gives advice on how to take a better photo, just on how to make this one better with software.

Hi All,

 

An interesting debate! The key is transparency, in my view.

 

People have different criteria for judging photographs. For some it's the end result that counts, for others the level and type of digital adjustments is also important.

 

I personally like the approach of the UK's landscape photographer of the year competition. For each shortlisted photograph in their annual exhibition technical information, including information on digital adjustments, is provided. Viewers can ignore this information or take it into consideration, but at least they have a choice when deciding – for themselves – whether they are looking at a ("good") photograph or not.

 

1X already gives photographers the opportunity to include technical information when they upload their pictures. The question is whether it should or could be made mandatory to provide. This is after all a commercial site and I guess some photographers may be reluctant to reveal their tools of the trade.

 

 

Interesting read about raw vs jpg. I started shooting raw some time ago, and found out that for me it was too much work for too little gain.

 

May I ask why you take photos?

 

I take pictures not to document the world that I see, or give my perspective of the world, rather I shoot pictures to create a world uniquely mine, and explore philosophical ideas through the process of photography and editing.

 

I also think that wanting to be praised for technical skills is fine and dandy, but its not the technique that give the picture a soul. You can program a computer to shoot perfect pictures (the automatic function on a camera, can find the better setting faster then most photographers) , but you cant program it to create your visions (at least not yet)

 

It is isn't it? I have read a lot about the subject of RAW vs. JPEG and while many still choose to shoot RAW I personally don't see the benefit of doing so...as well as the fact that I need my camera to be fast to capture the kind of photos I take.

 

That is a complex question to ask - I take photographs for a number of reasons not all I can put into words that would make much sense to anyone but me lol.

 

Best way I can explain it is that I take photos to capture the essence of my subject, the imperfections that make them perfect. I want to capture the magic in the world that too many people don't get to see. I want to give people a reason to look at what is around then with new eyes and find wonder in the ordinary and many other reasons.....

 

As to what gives a photo soul...I think it is how you feel about the subject that really matters. How you feel comes across in your photo and can make even the most stunning photo soul-less or a technically imperfect photo great. It may seem an odd thing but there you have it.

 

 

I think that this is the only way to handle the issue and to only haul out the detection software if a question of is it/isn't it arises. I can't see any other sensible way to do it - and wildlife photography already operates like this quite successfully.

 

 

To have a new category of photography is not a problem; and it can help people intentionally choose minimal digital processing (zero is impossible) or heavy processing as different approaches. In my opinion, photography with minimal processing is an art as well and it can be perfect (if not, then no art media can be perfect - perfection is relative to the medium).

 

It seem that the worry is "the growing perception that one should 'trust nothing you SEE and read'." This worry is not needed. The goal of art is not to show or prove to audience how faithful the work is to reality. Photography happens to be a medium that can replicate reality more easily than painting, and it is a very good communication or art form for journalism or documentary. However, for most other genres of photography, we do not need to make people believe the images are faithful to reality. We know in advance that the works can be edited, the same way we see in painting or story writing. As I mentioned earlier, unedited raw materials from life may not be more real than edited one. Artists often discard accidental elements and combine and stress typical elements to make the image or story more convincing, or closer to the essence of things. We do not consider this as lying, because good art goes beyond just being loyal to what we see. If the audience question whether the work is edited or unedited, they are not asking an artistic question, but either a layman question or a technical one. True art appreciation focuses on the visual impact, not how the work is produced. We can certainly admire the techniques used or the craftsmanship, but it is part of art appreciation only if the techniques contribute to the subject. Otherwise it is technical appreciation, not art appreciation.

 

But you are now describing the philosophical difference between edited and unedited photos. The one is a true reflection - at least a true reflection of what the photographer saw while the other is an artistic impression of what the artist wishes to convey. This is getting to the core of why there needs to be separate categories.

 

Personally I am bothered by the fact that when I look at many photos my first impression is not "what a great photo" but "oh that is ... x effect". When I look at a photo I don't think your first impression should be of what effects were applied but that is a great photo.

 

I feel I share that problem, but that might have more to do with your interest in photography, then the picture itself. When I studied movies at the university, I later had problems enjoying the movies without thinking about the tools and effects used.

 

 

Well I certainly wouldn't be able to name the effects when I see them without the knowledge, but I still think you shouldn't be able to see them the moment you look at a photo.

 

I totally agree.

 

This problem, in a larger sense, exists in paintings and other forms of art as well, that is, technique overwhelms the subject matter (except the subject matter is the technical beauty itself).

 

The problem, however, is not caused by whether we do digital processing or not, but due to the lack of aesthetic sense in processing (in painting as well), i.e., the sense of being appropriate. It is not what we do, but when and where to stop. Although digital processing can easily lead some people over process images, but that is not the fault of digital processing, but that of the person who does it. As a matter of fact, the same problem happens in pure shooting: the way we stage lighting and pose, the selection of lens and filters, the use of other auxiliary things (e.g., a fan to blow a woman's hair in a studio, etc.), can all cause artificial, unnatural, or fake results, if applied inappropriately.

 

Separating photography with minimal processing from that with heavy processing will not resolve the issue we are discussing here. It is the cultivation of the artist that is the key.

It would be nice to see some examples of photos where the effects ruins the image. But I guess that is against the rules here. These rules are pretty detrimental for a good discussion in my book. But I guess you can always send me links in pm.

 

Let's start with almost any photo in which HDR is applied ;)

 

Any image processed with certain really recognisable software or effect like you can't mistake it.

 

Any image that is overcropped with associated pixelation.

 

Any image that is over-saturated.

 

Any image that is over-contrasted.

 

Any image that is too in focus.

 

Any I have left out?

 

I'm inclined to agree in principle however certain techniques are just so obvious is hard to see how they can be applied to the point they wouldn't be immediately recognisable.

 

For example focus stacking in macro images would be really hard to disguise as the point is to get all of the image in focus which is physically impossible with the narrow DOF of macro lenses.

 

With regard to this point,

"For example focus stacking in macro images would be really hard to disguise as the point is to get all of the image in focus which is physically impossible with the narrow DOF of macro lenses. "

 

Macro lenses do not have narrow DOF. They have regular normal Capabilities in terms of DOF. You can if you like take a photo with a Macro lens and have it all in focus., or a shallow DOF.

 

Phyllis

 

Yes, A. Jaco. you are correct.

 

If you would like to have a discussion where you discuss and show examples of how effects ruin a photo - please do that in a private message or email.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

Hi Michaela

 

Been meaning to say a few words regarding your opinions, always good seeing another persons point of view, as long as is given as an opinion,not facts.

 

I will be bringing up "facts" not opinions. All from your list RAW vs JPEG. Someone reading could get the wrong idea.

 

1. "Doing better job converting RAW to JPEG yourself than the in-camera software. This assumption is terribly insulting to the engineers who designed the in-camera software to create the very best conversion possible.........."

 

A photographer with average knowledge will get better results shooting in RAW than letting the camera convert the image.

 

2. "RAW gives you a better picture- well not really" RAW will give you a better picture, period.

 

3 "There is nothing much you can do with the RAW file that you can't do with a JPEG" Not the case, in RAW gives you a better dynamic range and even have detail in highlights which are lost in the JPEG.

 

Photography for many people means many things. I see only two distinctions, Professionals and Amateurs. Difference between the two, a Pro will have to do things as he is told by the person paying the bills. An Amateur can do anything he pleases.

 

Talking Amateur, anyone can do anything he/she pleases with no rights or wrongs. The problems starts when someone starts to set standards which must be followed.

 

Hi Joco Regarding effects that ruin images, it is fine to discuss but not to post unless is your own image.

 

The follow up to your question by Michaela seems is interesting.

 

Just want to bring one of the samples .... "any image that is too in focus" the only way you would be right is entering a blur contest.

 

My only point here, discussions are healthy as long as there is an interchange of ideas, allowing different points of views and not trying to make "your" idea as the only valid.

 

For my own photography, I like getting the best possible image out of the camera. Ideally getting the crop right and needing very little work. Similar as I would have done in a darkroom. If I have to do heroics (seldom) could do but a full disclosure would be made. Not doing would be misrepresenting.

 

Wil continue to read any additional posts, subject mater is interesting with the diverse points of view. All so long as we all respect each other and keep the discussion civil. It has been interesting and refreshing, lets keep it that way.

 

al

Head Moderator

Two mods have now mentioned 'keeping the conversation civil' which implies that it is not and that this is something that needed to be addressed. I want to point out that this is the single most civil conversation I have had on the subject without anyone getting upset, or defensive. Please don't create problems where none exist. This has been a wonderful discussion with many points of view being expressed.

 

 

Sorry to correct you but macro lenses do have a narrow depth of field, which is the result of two factors - aperture and magnification. At any given aperture value, the higher the magnification ratio, the smaller the DOF. Raise the aperture and it gets narrower still.

 

There are two solutions to the problem - focus stacking and angling the camera so that the flat part of the object (if there is a flat part) is parallel to the lens. Otherwise you have to live with the fact that parts of a macro image will be out of focus.

 

 

Well that is also just an opinion :) RAW isn't a picture it is just data which has to be processed either by the camera or by imaging software to produce a another file is in an image format. Whether or not that final result is 'better' is subjective and not objectively defined. Objectively the quality is the same if taken by the same camera because image quality is a function of how the sensor gathers the data which is why full sensor cameras have better image quality than smaller sensor cameras and why more megapixels is not better (if we want to go there too :) ). If there was an objective definition of how to process the raw data then we could write the perfect algorithm for doing so and end the debate.

 

 

You can still apply the same effects to any format image - the software doesn't care - the results may differ, but you can still do it.

 

 

There are standards set all over the place - for competitions, by magazines, by newspapers - but this isn't the point really - the point is that there should be a niche for unedited just as there are niches for black-and-white, landscape, nature, wildlife, street etc. No-one argues those so I don't really understand why there is such an argument against a niche for unedited as-is-out-camera photos. What is the real issue here? Creating a niche for those who want one shouldn't be met with such opposition. If there is sufficient interest and support for the niche, making one shouldn't be an issue. Asking if there is support for the idea is a simple matter too, but consistently regardless of where it is asked the mere suggestion is met with opposition. Psychologically that would indicate that the suggestion hits a nerve for some people.

 

 

Sorry I should have been clearer what I meant, but I was just doing a quick list. To clarify - even in landscape photography where you have a much deeper DOF it is still physically impossible to get ALL of the image in the exact same degree of focus and sharpness ie foreground, middle ground and distance so when I see one that is it feels very unnatural because even looking at a landscape with my eyes not all of it is in the same degree of hyper-sharp focus. The focus will be where I look - foreground, or middle ground and far away objects like mountains are lacking detail because of the distance. So when I said 'too in focus' this is what I meant. Photos that have a uniformity of focus where in more natural circumstances there wouldn't be, are IMO 'too' in focus.

 

 

I thought there was a very healthy discussion here with many different POV's being expressed.

 

 

I agree with you - but most don't, and there is seldom a requirement to do so.

 

Hi Michaela

 

Best not to make implications since non were made.

 

If anything would have been out of line, the comment would have been deleted, has not been the case.

 

Now your tone of telling me not to create problems is a problem. This is what I was talking about regarding being civil. Please refrain form such comments.

 

I agree it has been an interesting thread and hope it continues, not your normal thread and very good reading.

 

al

Head Moderator

 

Annnnnd once again some one is implying that I am not being civil. I'm really fed up with this now. Between the public posts and the private messages on the subject I'm feeling victimised here. I object to being categorised in this way without specific proof of instances where I have not been civil to back up the accusation. Thinly veiled threats do not go down well with me. I have asked via PM for clarification of the accusations more than once - all of which have been ignored. So sorry, but if there is SPECIFIC problem - address it - so I can defend myself but don't repeatedly say the same vague thing which implies wrong-doing where there is none.

 

This conversation has been incredibly civil and fascinating and I feel that interference by mods in this thread and in private has been entirely unwarranted. Yes I made a mistake in linking to a member's photo. The other 'rules' are unstated and I can not be penalised for breaking an unwritten rule. There has been no other comment or response in this thread by any one that is vaguely impolite even to the most paranoid.

 

So when the mods are done trying to kill the conversation .... once again I'm forced to examine the possibility that this topic in and of itself is threatening. I would love to know why because seriously what the h-ll is the issue?

From Michaela,

Sorry to correct you but macro lenses do have a narrow depth of field, which is the result of two factors - aperture and magnification. At any given aperture value, the higher the magnification ratio, the smaller the DOF. Raise the aperture and it gets narrower still.

 

There are two solutions to the problem - focus stacking and angling the camera so that the flat part of the object (if there is a flat part) is parallel to the lens. Otherwise you have to live with the fact that parts of a macro image will be out of focus. "

 

Michaela,

I have never used stacking my my macro images. I believe many people use stacking for insects as the subject is so tiny , and they often move especially when disturbed by a photographer wanting their portrait :)

 

The way your original post is written - when read in English it would mean that Macro lenses can only shoot in a shallow DOF, and therefore you cannot get the entire frame in focus. I see now this may have been an issue of semantics.

 

However, my question to you is this.

Which Macro lenses do you shoot with?

I ask because the two Macro lenses I own both allow me to shoot a frame in full focus - and I do not have to do it i the way you describe.

 

I pretty much can stand as I like using the

Nikor 60mm Micro f2.8 or the Nikor l05mm f/2.8.

 

What I do need to do is have sufficient light to shoot at a deep depth of field and make sure my shutter speed is at l/60 (minimum and at 1/l125 is even better. If light does not allow for a deep DOF then I probably need a tripod. Or, I can use a strobe, or a fill flash. At a DOF like f/22 and above everything will be in focus.

 

The other issue here is the ISO on the Camera itself.

 

On my last camera I could not raise the ISO high enough at times to have sufficient light; that was the Nikon D200. Anything above 400 ISO began to show some ugly noise. With my current camera the Nikon D800 has been reduced. I can not shoot at an ISO of 2000 without too much noise. This of course gives me more possibilities.

 

So my own personal experience is simple. I can shoot with everything in focus provided I have enough light - and stability with the camera and the subject.

 

These types of all in focus macro photos when taken lets say with flowers are a record of the flower, but often are not very artistic. However, there are some subjects which one might want all in tack sharp focus.

 

You say, that one solution to the problem for you is ...

"angling the camera so that the flat part of the object (if there is a flat part) is parallel to the lens. Otherwise you have to live with the fact that parts of a macro image will be out of focus. "

 

I don't seem to be having this issue. The only suggestion I can make is to use a tripod, and bring in more light - however you can. Then you will not have to shoot at a narrow DOF.

 

My best,

Phyllis

 

Focus has nothing to do with amount of light, and everything to do with magnification and aperture when applied to a macro lens. With other lenses there are other factors involved but not with macro. I do think that this is going off-topic and can only suggest you google DOF in macro lenses to get any number of in-depth discussions on the subject.

 

Michaela,

 

So we will end the discussion here.

 

If you make statements which are inaccurate, a moderator at some point or even another member will probably question or correct you. Generally speaking we see that as helping each other here.

 

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

 

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

Phyllis, I am quite asthonished about your persistence in expressing that Michaela's statements about DOF in macro lenses are inaccurate. Well, you are wrong, as you can read e.g. in the following article: http://www.usphotogroup.com/Tutorials/Focus_Lite/Focus_Lite.htm Furthermore, the characteristics of macro lenses make them for some photographers particularely suited as portrait lenses, at least for the 105mm.

 

Yup just as you have been corrected :)

 

 

Thank you very much for the support. I would have also linked to various discussions on the topic but I'm afraid to.

 

 

I'm doing the same after also getting my post deleted for being insulting and that I'm supposedly attempting to create a problem where none exists.

 

I want to thank Michaela and everyone else that contributed to a interesting discussion.

 

 

The quality is not the same, a RAW image holds much more information. When you save it as a jpeg you camera is going to choose which information will remain. And the rest of the information is gone, you can't get it back in postprocessing, it's not there anymore. A RAW-file contains all of the information.

 

 

Your camera already does that when you save as jpeg.

There is no perfect algorithm, because perfect doesn't exist, perfect is not the same for me as it is for you, we all have a different view on what is perfect.

 

Thanks Leonie

 

Agree with your observations.

 

Interesting, there is a group of photographers that like using JPEG, Wedding Photographers.

 

No idea if all do but seems logical, most of the images made are in predictable/controlled light conditions, they frame images in camera, make many images most with use of flash.

 

Beng able to go right to editing without converting must be a plus, big time saver. I am sure there are some other types of photography that will benefit from the same workflow.

 

For absolute best quality RAW is the standard.

 

al

I'm sorry to see you go Michaela.

 

Best wishes,

 

Merel

 

 

I think the "real issue" here is: no one is really against the "no editing" practices. All the arguments are not trying to forbid or down grade photography with "no" processing, but to say that processing is unavoidable and can be a good thing.

 

As I observed, it is often those "no-editing" persons who tend to criticize others for digital editing, and the "editing" persons are usually on the defending side.

 

About the "niche" I have to point out the difference between the niche for black and white photos and that for "unedited as-is-out-camera" photos. The former is a stable practice while the latter is not as camera technology changes. In addition, "unedited as-is-out-camera" is just putting the editing power in the hands of camera manufacturers, instead of the hands of photographers.

 

A better way to label that "niche" is "minimal editing," because "unedited" simply does not exist except in raw data (assuming all sensors work the same way), which are not images yet; and again, from artistic point of view, "unedited" does not exist even in raw data, because purely optical approach also edits "reality".

 

To prefer minimal processing is OK and there can be great or "perfect" photos of that type. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of people doing that all the time, and I do not see anyone is against them, or has problem with them.