fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 6 end

Archive 2013 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

David,
I don't see any reason you should need to keep your concerns to yourself. I think you brought up a very valuable topic.

As photographers or viewers of art, each of us needs to think about our style of photography and what we like and learn from others. Most of us want to at least try different techniques. That might include a grainy, Holga presentation, a sepia conversion or an over the top composite that has a lot of initial impact.

I also found it very interesting to read what others had to say. It seems about half of the participants felt that images are art and anything goes. I am in that camp. I was surprised to read comments from so many people who are of the opinion that images should be processed in a more realistic manner. That really does not match the voting for featured threads and the comments that heavily processed images receive.

Anyway, I think this is a valuable discussion topic. It is too bad that you got a personal attack and were told if you don't like something just shut up and mind your own business. I agree none of us have a right to tell others what they should like and how they should process their images, but we should be able to discuss this topic without a personal attack.

Jun 17, 2013 at 07:43 AM

Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

maybe we should all just be more upfront about what we present...if the image is blended from shots 6 months apart, then be upfront about it...I learned a little from this discussion...

Jun 17, 2013 at 07:46 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Travis Rhoads wrote:
maybe we should all just be more upfront about what we present...if the image is blended from shots 6 months apart, then be upfront about it...I learned a little from this discussion...

I think that "upfront" may be on the right track, though I don't think it is necessary to explicitly disclose every bit of so-called post-processing. Context matters a lot. I posted a black and white image earlier in this thread, and I think there would be little reason to "disclose" anything about it, since most of what I did is self-evident.

I also don't think it is necessary to expect that people will always "disclose" post-capture work on an image in all cases. There are a number of reasons for this. First and foremost, the use of the post-capture stage to move the image to where you want it to be in its final stage is nothing new - you can assume that almost any talented photographer does some things in post to achieve the desired result. We certainly don't want to get into some bizarre situation in which people must add: "raised saturation to +12, increased black point by +2, adjusted color balance to..." and so on.

The accommodation that I've come to is one that I follow but rarely voice: I do nothing in a photograph that I would not be willing to share or discuss if it came up, and in cases where I feel that it is appropriate I mention what I've done publicly at some point.

Dan

In partial answer to Jim's possible exasperation at the subject coming up, I think that it has to come up from time to time. The evidence is that so many photographers - and particularly so many aspiring landscape photographers - have some odd an novel ideas about what is and is not "permissible" and about what photographs are and are not. Strange things are often offered up as if they are the norm in photography in general or in landscape photography in particular: the idea that no modification after the exposure suggests some sort of moral or ethical superiority, the particularly odd and wrong notion that most of the great photographers "did it all in the camera," the especially odd and troubling idea that there is photography and then there is something else called "art."

Jun 17, 2013 at 09:06 AM

jforkner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

My 2-cents...

Seems to me, this matter is waaay over-thought. If a photo is hung on the wall of a home, gallery, restaurant, etc. I seriously doubt a disclaimer would accompany it. It's hung for the perceived enjoyment of the viewer. The only time a note about the capture and processing matters is when posted on a forum where the technical details are often provided and/or solicited. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how the image was achieved.

I don't understand why this issue keeps popping up. For me it's a lot like music. I don't care how the sound was manipulated in the studio or concert hall. I don't care if the bass was boosted a bit or the drums muted, I care about the final result---If I don't like it, I don't listen.

And finally, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things? Does it really matter if the image was not taken by a single press of the shutter? If the viewer enjoys looking at it, that's all that should count.

As an aside, I wonder if on the painter's forums the question gets asked, "Do you think it's not really a painting because the artist used multiple brushes?"

Jack

Jun 17, 2013 at 09:16 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

jforkner wrote:
I wonder if on the painter's forums the question gets asked, "Do you think it's not really a painting because the artist used multiple brushes?"

Jack:

I think I understand your general point, and I agree that in the world of publicly-hung art it would be unusual to specify each technique used - though such things could come up in an overview of the exhibit.

However, the "multiple brushes" issue doesn't really map to the question being discussed here. While I share some of your frustration with the some of the ideas that come up in this discussion, particularly those that might be regarded as "asked and answered" in the larger world of photography, I think that a more effective response to the questions than saying "don't ask" might be to try to offer an explanation and an answer.

Of course, those who don't want to know and aren't interested are free to ignore the conversation, and not everyone will agree with everyone else.

Dan

Jun 17, 2013 at 09:34 AM

jimmy462
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

David Baldwin wrote:
Yep, this is an argument as old as photography itself, and in a way its quite encouraging, shows photography isn't worked out yet.

Yes I can see the argument that art is art, its self expression and anything goes. On that basis taken far enough the work stops being photography and becomes something like painting, not that the distinction matters. And yes it would be undesirable for photographs to have to be "realistic" as the photographers personal viewpoint would be obviated.

On the other hand I feel all this comping together is heading night photography away from an individual photographer seeing...Show more →

Hi David, etal,

I enjoy a good discussion of the artistic side of our passion, glad I stumbled on to this conversation. I'm thinking that I'm in agreement with your sentiments as stated in your original post...

...but I do wonder if some photographic genres are being image manipulated to a point waaaaaaaaaaay beyond any relationship to a real scene (does that matter btw).

...but I'm also thinking that the underlying question in all this has gone unasked. That being, "Is there a way to define a boundary between two categories of artist's interpretations?" Alternately, "Are there ways to define the boundaries between various categories of artist's interpretations?" Your commentary seems, to me, to beg the question, "Is it possible to define these seemingly apparent categories?"

Now, by categories I'll loosely use some of the common notions found in this thread as my, er, definitions..."PJ" vs. "HDR" vs. "Impossible" vs. "Moon Crimes" vs. "Real Scene"...and ask, "what are the differences in post-processing that define these categories?" in an attempt at giving the disparate approaches (read: abstractions) some form here. And my loose answers (for the sake of this conversation) being...

"PJ = an attempt to accurately depict the events captured within the frame. PP = exposure compensations only."

"HDR = an attempt to capture and present a wider DR than a single exposure can depict. PP = Blending, Masking, Dodging, Burning, Layering various exposure interpretations of the same scene."

"Impossible = An attempt to create an image impossible in nature. PP = Collaging elements from different times and/or spaces into a single image."

"Moon Crimes = An attempt to "purty up" an image by adding a visually-appealing, plausible element. PP = Addition of said select element." (Can be plural.)

"Real Scene = An attempt to depict (a scene at) a specific time and space. PP = Exposure compensations that may or may not involve blending, etc. multiple exposures of an identical scene at a specific time."

Now, of course, I've left out an awful lot here in these synoptic characterizations, and deliberately so. I am only trying to characterize part of the gist of what each of these categories represent to get to this point..."That all art is an abstraction, we can, and do, differentiate between the different types of abstractions at play within a piece." And boundaries between these applied abstractions can be either subtle or blatant. It is not a question of "PP'ing or not", as some have postured here, it is a question of "what are the differences between the PP'ing abstractions?"

Which brings me to my ultimate point in all of this, "When is a landscape image no longer about the landscape subject and the image becomes, instead, a collection of abstraction subjects/exercises involving landscape elements?" The question is germane, methinks, as our host, Fred, differentiates between subject matter on the boards, we have both "Landscape" and "Digital Art and Abstract" forums. And, to my palette, with some of the images I've encountered lurking here on the landscape forum, we're talking "pork with some beans on it vs. beans with some pork in it!"

Anyhoo, my 2-cents on the matter, thanks for letting me play!

Jimmy G

Jun 17, 2013 at 09:49 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

jimmy462 wrote:
Which brings me to my ultimate point in all of this, "When is a landscape image no longer about the landscape subject and the image becomes, instead, a collection of abstraction subjects/exercises involving landscape elements?" The question is germane, methinks, as our host, Fred, differentiates between subject matter on the boards, we have both "Landscape" and "Digital Art and Abstract" forums. And, to my palette, with some of the images I've encountered lurking here on the landscape forum, we're talking "pork with some beans on it vs. beans with some pork in it!"

Once again, how do you account then for the brilliant work of Jerry Uelsmann?

Dan

Jun 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM

andyjaggy82
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

As soon as a camera is made that can capture the scene as my eyes see it, I will continue to post process my images.

There is a place for heavy post enhancements, sky replacements, etc.... that's not my thing, but I think it has a place.

And of course night photography is unique in many ways, it is already heavily manipulated, because what you are capturing is already not how we see it in real life. Not to mention it is technically impossible to capture those scenes without multiple exposures.

Jun 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
And of course night photography is unique in many ways, it is already heavily manipulated, because what you are capturing is already not how we see it in real life. Not to mention it is technically impossible to capture those scenes without multiple exposures.
not necessarily true...star trails, yes, probably not gonna happen without more than one exposure, but plenty of night photography can be done in one shot, pretty much as we see it.

Jun 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Chaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Two more cents...

Presumably (for the sake of this discussion,) most landscape photographers, as distinguished from photo-journalists, want to 1) produce "art" that appeals to themselves and/or clients and gallery customers and 2) looks attractive - maybe even striking -and interesting when hanging on the wall of home or office.

To that end, then, anything goes. As the old saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Thus, are YOU happy with the result and did the client like it or did the gallery-goer buy it? In the case of the landscape photographer the end DOES justify the means.

Good shooting and manipulation, er, post-processing to all!

Jun 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Greg Campbell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Jun 17, 2013 at 01:04 PM

Travis Rhoads
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

^just stole that...that is too funny...

Jun 17, 2013 at 01:08 PM

jctriguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

jforkner wrote:
My 2-cents...
...
I don't understand why this issue keeps popping up. For me it's a lot like music. I don't care how the sound was manipulated in the studio or concert hall. I don't care if the bass was boosted a bit or the drums muted, I care about the final result---If I don't like it, I don't listen.
...
Jack

If you paid to see a live concert, would you care if the music was just played from a pre-recorded track? Would you care if the singer lip-synced the performance, or they add an extra violin or piano track because a few people were sick?

People expect certain things in certain situations. Many people, both on forums and the 'general public', view photography as an expression of reality. They expect a photograph to be an image of an actual scene captured in a moment in time. I think most would agree that this is a very limited view of what photography is. In a similar sense, when you attend a concert you expect that people will actually be playing the instruments and singing live on stage. When you go to a movie, you expect the combination of 1000's of takes, special effects, stunts, etc.

This discussion is about our expectations when viewing a photograph, and if we believe their is a need to differentiate between a photograph and art.

Jun 17, 2013 at 01:43 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

jctriguy wrote:
a need to differentiate between a photograph and art.

Isn't a photograph "art?" Do you not want your photographs to be regarded as "art?"

Jun 17, 2013 at 01:53 PM

jimmy462
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Once again, how do you account then for the brilliant work of Jerry Uelsmann?

Dan

Hi Dan,

Thanks for pointing me to Jerry Uelsmann, can't say that I was familiar...

Jerry Uelsmann:
http://www.uelsmann.net/

...

Using my simplistic characterizations I would say, in general, "Impossible imagery either based-on or incorporating landscape elements". And I would go so far as to argue that were an image such as this...

ju_10.jpg (JPEG Image, 504x414 pixels):
http://www.uelsmann.net/_img/works/ju_10.jpg

...presented here on FM that that material would best fit the Digital Art and Abstract forum.

Now, I don't know if this satisfactorily "accounts" for Uelsmann's work to your liking�and I may well have missed your point�but if you'll flesh out your use of "account" more thoroughly, I'll be happy to take another swing at it!

Jimmy G

Jun 17, 2013 at 03:12 PM

jctriguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Isn't a photograph "art?" Do you not want your photographs to be regarded as "art?"

I was posting that as a summary of the discussion and overall view of the two different camps. I personally don't see the need to differentiate.

The only area that still absolutely requires photographs to be authentic is journalism. I think we can all agree that a photo that shows up on the NY Times should be as close as possible to reality. We all saw what happened when photos were edited during the Boston bombing.

Jun 17, 2013 at 04:15 PM

msoomro
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

For me fine art photography is just that. An art form. A way of expression. As landscape photographer, I don't restrict myself to just document a scene.

A painter/artist starts with empty canvas and fills it with an imaginative scene or paints a real life scene as artist perceives it, the artist is using the brush,canvas and colors as tools to bring a vision to life. In same way I see photography - the camera, lenses etc. (hardware) and digital darkroom (software) and an actual scene / location are the ingredients and means to create an image that i find pleasing to my eyes and feel passionate about sharing with others.. :-)

Jun 17, 2013 at 06:12 PM

nma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

aFeinberg wrote:
You're debating art. Art is art. If a photo is to be submitted to a contest that says no HDR/stitching etc, then obviously those photos will never appear. Otherwise it's about self-expression. And being true to oneself when asked for the truth. But anyway...Art

aF

+5

Jun 17, 2013 at 07:43 PM

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Here is my thoughts - which means nothing

I used to be in the boat where I would do as little PP as possible, but that is impossible. I mean i don't go overboard ( I hope not), but at least the cameras I have used to take these shots don't have the DR to use no PP. In the end it is all about conveying the emotion in which YOU witnessed. It is art. If you want to sell it, it needs to be pleasing to the eye and attractive. You can bet Lik edits the holy eff out of his shots. They are NOT straight out of camera. He has a team of world class editors I bet.

Here is a screen shot of my NEF files of my now "famous" panther creek falls shot - and the edited version.

http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-3l4A0wewT-o/Ub-4NNHKE-I/AAAAAAAAIMw/YjJ0NkSImqM/s800/PCFSS.jpg

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sl4Vrh7AJUE/UWDERbiRT5I/AAAAAAAAHw4/LLRi-Q-GcSA/s800/Hobbit-FallsRedux.jpg

Jun 17, 2013 at 08:27 PM

jdc562
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.

Good question.
Here's my quick take:
1. Misrepresentation. If you fabricated a faked fabulous scene for the FM Forum by (1) combining elements from different photographs into one image, and (2) let the viewers believe you captured this from one photograph, then you're a faker and by omission, a liar. Even if you produced a beautiful image, your reputation as a skillful, resourceful photographer on FM is deservedly diminished, and the beauty of your photograph as an accomplishment in nature is damaged, even if gallery-goers would pay a good price for it.
2. Truth in labeling. You can be a truthful artist by labeling your work as a composite. As a common example, we all know that present-day DSLRs cannot produce a beautiful sky full of concentric star trails in just one shot. But we do not denigrate the spectacular images on FM produced by skillfully compositing multiple short shots framed against the foreground of those shots, especially when the photographer states something like "multiple 5min exposures with light-painted foreground." The beautiful image and truthful representation remain an admirable accomplishment and elevate the photographer as an artist. Beauty and truth are an attractive combination.
---John

Jun 17, 2013 at 09:03 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Landscape Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end