brad-man wrote:
If I offer an image for sale that was created using CGI, do I need to disclose that fact if nobody asks?
Absolutely not. But the subsequent conversation must go like this:
Gallery Visitor: "Wow, that's a stunning photo. How did you manage to capture that?"
Me: "Actually it is not a photograph but rather a computer-generated image that I created for all to enjoy."
Gallery Visitor: "Boy, I don't care how you did it - it sure would look great in my den. How much do you want for it? By the way - do you have any actual photographs I can see?"
ME: "Well, now, that depends upon what you mean by 'photograph'. My colleagues over at FM are debating that question as we speak..."
Chaz wrote:
Absolutely not. But the subsequent conversation must go like this:
Gallery Visitor: "Wow, that's a stunning photo. How did you manage to capture that?"
Me: "Actually it is not a photograph but rather a computer-generated image that I created for all to enjoy."
Gallery Visitor: "Boy, I don't care how you did it - it sure would look great in my den. How much do you want for it? By the way - do you have any actual photographs I can see?"
ME: "Well, now, that depends upon what you mean by 'photograph'. My colleagues over at FM are debating that question as we speak..."...Show more →
Well in your made up scenario, there is already an implied diminished value to the computer generated image as the customer wants to see an actual photograph...not something made in a computer.
chez wrote:
Well in your made up scenario, there is already an implied diminished value to the computer generated image as the customer wants to see an actual photograph...not something made in a computer.
Au contraire. In this made up scenario the visitor wants to see a photograph simply because he was surprised to learn the image of his desire was not one. No implied diminished value.
Again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Back to the hypothetical gallery visitor. He sees both a painting on black velvet of dogs playing poker and then your Thread Winner of Thor's Well.
He buys the dogs playing poker while understanding that Thor's Well was the result of considerable effort, timing and skill. You ask him why the dogs? He simply replies, "I don't know. I just like it."
sbeme wrote:
After a wonderful trip to Ireland, my wife came back with a beautiful silk tie purchased at the site of the Blarney Stone. She was told it was hand-made in Ireland.
After thanking her I turned the tie over and saw a label said 100% silk, made in Italy.
The tie is still beautiful.
The experience, amusing, but perhaps a little less beautiful.
Scott
Blarney, you say?
And, to no one in particular, I guess y'all are big fans of the art of Richard Prince, then?
Chaz wrote:
Au contraire. In this made up scenario the visitor wants to see a photograph simply because he was surprised to learn the image of his desire was not one. No implied diminished value.
Again, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Back to the hypothetical gallery visitor. He sees both a painting on black velvet of dogs playing poker and then your Thread Winner of Thor's Well.
He buys the dogs playing poker while understanding that Thor's Well was the result of considerable effort, timing and skill. You ask him why the dogs? He simply replies, "I don't know. I just like it."
Sorry...but my work would not be next to some "black light" 70's fad. I would not let my photos be displayed in galleries which have such low standards.
I already hear a lot of people use the phrase "Has that been photo shopped"...with the notion of it not being "real".
But like I said...if black velvet posters are your passion...who am I to judge. Just not my cup of tea...much like combining two images taken at different locations and different times is not my cup of tea...no matter how spectacular it might look.
I believe anything is fine as long as you are honest about how it was made. As in this case a composite........what is severely lacking in today's society is honesty and integrity.......it should never apply to just when asked. A truly honest person is honest to themselves......the byproduct is they are then honest to everyone else.......not just when asked.
To me the issue with highly enhanced digital landscape images is that it creates an expectation in the viewer's mind that if they visit the shoot location, there exists the possibility that they will observe such a scene. However, once we cross a very fuzzy line, it becomes statistically very unlikely that anyone will be able to observe that landscape under those artificial conditions. Now, landscape photography is not generally documentary photography, but if "the masses" think that they can go out where someone took a shot and see that scenery in person it creates at least a couple problems in my mind. One, people have an unrealistic expectation of what they will see and will be disappointed or fail to grasp the intricate beauty of a place. Two, it creates a feedback loop of more and more doctored images that in turn drives more people to make such images. In a day and age where we are so distanced from the physical realm, I don't find that making hyperbolic images that are misconstrued as being mostly documentarian adds a lot to our collective being.
seanderson wrote:
To me the issue with highly enhanced digital landscape images is that it creates an expectation in the viewer's mind that if they visit the shoot location, there exists the possibility that they will observe such a scene.......
Perhaps that is true for some images but for many the viewer knows the image has been pumped up and manipulated for maximum impact. Some like that impact anyway. Others of us just see it as a cheap trick to gain attention. There is nothing new about this. Photoshop has always had the slider to pump up saturation to the point of neon colors which no one would consider realistic. Nor is there anything new about substituting skies. Photoshop has now just made it easier.
Camperjim wrote:
Perhaps that is true for some images but for many the viewer knows the image has been pumped up and manipulated for maximum impact. Some like that impact anyway. Others of us just see it as a cheap trick to gain attention. There is nothing new about this. Photoshop has always had the slider to pump up saturation to the point of neon colors which no one would consider realistic. Nor is there anything new about substituting skies. Photoshop has now just made it easier.
Do you feel the same with B&W photos because surely someone pumped down the saturation slider to the point all colours leave the scene which no one would consider realistic...right?
I personally don't care how much people pump up or down the saturation...but I draw a line where elements from different scenes are combined into one...that to me is fake and should be considered digital art and put into its right forum. Colour enhancement ( Velvia ) has been going on for a long time and the elements are still captured in the scene...just somewhat exaggerated.
I am not all that concerned with the saturation slider, other techniques or even the loss of realism. What bothers me is those simple techniques often substitute for the lack of artistic intent beyond just shock and awe. IMO when we visit a place and make an image it should be about communicating what is special, unique, interesting. It should be about capturing the viewer's attention and showing the nature of the place as interpreted by the photographer. For others it is about globs of shock and awe impact whether it takes a milky way composite or a dramatic substitute sky or HDL like neon colors. I don't object. I don't expect disclosures. I just move on and look for images that have something more to say.
What more is there to say other then this is beautiful or this should not be abused by mankind? Landscape is not documentary.
The rules of documentary do not apply to landscape photography.
Personally I think this is ethically OK as long as there is disclosure up front - as is the case here.
Personally, I don't like these in a landscape photography forum, they cross the line into digital art which I define (others are of course welcome to their own definition here) as a make believe construct. I have stayed away from Luminar for this reason. Would it be fun to fool with it in this way for a few minutes? Sure. But I would not want to represent any of that as what my photography is about.
jim allison wrote:
I started to play around with Photoshop's sky replacement tool. This so easy to use and resurrected many missed opportunities!
Hell of a lot of fun, but I feels like I'm cheating. Any comments appreciated.
All depends on where it is used and how it is represented represented. I like what you did from an entirely different perspective. Stepping away from the term photo and referring to it as CGI or digital art. I see many possibilities of using it as a background in an animation or video where the scene plays out in the foreground.
