richhrly
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
skyhawkpilot wrote:
On the other, I don't think I would have been able to stay focused enough on any of mine to pull off the editing. though, and do not take this as offensive, are they considered true photos with all the layered edits of added fill light and masks? Or art?
I was taught photography in a strictly photojournalist standpoint so I am still stuck in the mind set that lots of edit makes it "not real" in a newspaper. Again, no attack, the pictures look great.
I did my degree where we had endless chats about exactly the point you're making, and the lecturers firmly believed that thinking "this is art, this is documentary" is rather a limiting view. Not trying to be insulting - I know how hard it is to break one's training (I shared the view before I did my degree thanks to my previous photography education) but being able to talk, with proper photography discourse, about any image in either doc mode, or art mode (and the space in-between!) seems very natural once we accept that Photographs, to an extent, only harbour so much "truth" and we need to work out for ourselves where reality stops and the art of the photographer takes over.
Editing has always been part and parcel of Photography. I'd say there's nothing "unnatural" about Jay's editing, I always get the sensation of the photographs showing exactly what his eye saw, but with the benefit of being cropped to really focus the eye. What Jay brings out in the photo is more detail in shadows, highlights, and colour tones. The detail exists within the file, but is not being displayed to it's fullest due to the limitations of current camera tech - Jay's editing just brings it out. Nothing is being created or destroyed, but only enhanced. I believe once things are being created (things added from other photographs, items being painted out and so on) then it does take away some truth from the photograph, and it moves more into the realm of art - again, no bad thing - it's just the approach the photographer has chosen.
I think the difference between art and photojourno isn't in the editing, but in the intentions of the photographer. And personally, I think there is a massive crossover between those 2 fields, and between all the other fields we show on here. There is potential to take a photo of some drinks for a client and for it to be knocking on the door of Dutch golden age paintings (in fact I wrote my dissertation on that!) - the joy of photography is that we can produce photos of nearly anything that could grace the wall of a gallery. I've seen aviation photos in the Tate Modern, there's no "this is a photo of a modem, this can't be art" or "this photo of a pile of food left on a table can't be documentary" definitions, just appreciation of photography and the photographers intentions with their storytelling.
Everyone in this thread produces beautiful images, some edited more than others - I know I've put up work which looks like renderings, where I've been far too heavy handed with the HDR (live and learn. Looking back on them, I'm a bit disgusted, but at least I've now learned how to use it subtly.) - but what I think is shared, is the Photography in this thread seems to be always "this is what I see in my mind" - no one is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. If the photographer feels the need to edit to pull out colours and so on to communicate their vision of an aircraft at any given second, that's great. If the photographer wants to be as pure to the camera as possible, that's equally as great. No approach is better than another, as long as our minds are open to the different interpretations of each photographer.
Feel free to tear that theory to pieces, btw! I get rather excited talking about photography (and not necessarily talking about photographs within that discussion!)
Rich
|
edit - I'm on the right 
during Mike Fizer's presentation, you'd have learned that he and AOPA Magazine do not consider everything they shoot to be "journalism." 
