Jim Dockery wrote:
One aspect of PP that has long bothered me (before AI) is beauty and advertising that falsely portrays models with perfect skin, hair, and bodies. (
Like they way they used to airbrush the Playboy centerfold models.
This topic has been debated for quite some time even before AI. Now with AI, one does not need the post processing skills to accomplish the major changes .
Tony, I love your vision on the redo and share your thoughts.
Portrait photographers and wedding photographers change how people look , add or remove people from groups , etc. and no one seems to object .
As long as one is not entering contests or other areas that disallow certain manipulating, I personally have no issues with most changes. I also have no issues with those who choose not to change things. It is your photo, your art , do what you wish.
I personally enjoy the process of taking a photo and being in nature.
I also enjoy the post processing to make the photo look like the vision I saw when taking the photo. Some don’t agree with that and that is fine . To each his own.
Completely generating a photo with AI can never replace the experience of camera in hand waiting for a subject and exploring nature for me. So, as long as I can , I will always take photos.
For me the question is why do you take photos? Each will have their own reason. If one does not like removing items or lots of changes that is just as okay as the one who does the opposite.
I don’t enter contests, but if I did , I would follow what the rules allow. Just my totally unimportant and humble opinion on the matter.
birdied wrote:
.......... take and make photos that make you happy😀
Birdie
You have that right Birdie.
Many years ago I joined a photo club. When I learned of all the restrictions they said you MUST adhere to when submitting photos, I never went again. Nobody was going to stifle any creative adjustments that I wanted to make to my own photos.
No AI used for image below, just post-processing adjustments I made to create an image that I and many others like. If others think it is a sin to alter your own photos in any such way, tough.
I take photographs because I enjoy getting out and enjoying nature, capturing moments with my camera, then enjoying and sharing both the photos and images created from those photos.
All making myself and others happy, except for the curmudgeons.
This is my first entry into this particular forum and this thread. But I've been taking outdoor/nature pictures for half a century (though few good enough to post here). So take this for what you think it's worth.
Of those two "pictures" in the introductory note of this thread, the first is a photograph, the second an image. The image is lovely, suitable for selling to an individual or a magazine or a museum. But I prefer the photograph. The "ugly telephone cable" is gritty and real. That's the world that hawk lives in. Likewise the patchy trees and white sky. That's true nature, not an idealized romantic nature as might have been envisioned in the 19th century. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a photograph doctored into an image. To be called a nature photograph it should show all sides of nature without the "ugly" parts removed.
When I first joined FM one of the first things I saw was a sequence showing how a zoo animal's face was doctored so as to create pathos in the viewer. The face stood out in darkness, a memorable image. The missing part was the reality of that animal trapped in a cage. (Whether animals should be kept in zoos at all is not the issue, not a fight I am bringing up here.) About the same time I watched a YouTube blogger explain how he used a particular editing program to doctor a mountain landscape. As a training video it worked, sort of. The final image looked like a magazine ad for a travel agency but didn't look like what I would have seen had I been standing where the photographer had been. If the image was meant for a travel ad then so be it, ads do that all the time. If it was meant to be a picture of that mountain range and lake, then it failed because it showed me his imagined vision. Imagined visions can be anything, which makes them meaningless. I raised the question in another thread and received understandably non-committal answers about the fuzzy boundary between a photograph and an image.
Here is a "real" wildlife picture:
Here is another. Obviously a flawed picture, taken with a manual-focus 300mm lens with no time to anything except react and get one picture before the hawk flew off. But it shows the battle for life as this Broad-Winged Hawk goes after a meal at my back yard bird feeder.
I don't know Tony. With all the post processing miracles that we have available to us these days, not to mention AI, there's just too much gray area and too many variables to attempt to say what's acceptable or not. At this point in time I tend to agree with you. Just create what you want to create. Whatever satisfies you as a photographer. But for me personally, adding elements, whether that be backgrounds or additional subjects, does not satisfy me as a photographer. The image below I shot 4 years ago. Could be my favorite photo of a hawk I've managed to get. But it's been destined to the trash bin because of the ugly power line and too busy BG. Back to the drawing board, as they say
Gary
jimmuller wrote:
Of those two "pictures" in the introductory note of this thread, the first is a photograph, the second an image.
Yes, exactly what the subject title says.
This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of a photograph doctored into an image. To be called a nature photograph it should show all sides of nature without the "ugly" parts removed.
What are you talking about? Anyone who wants to change their own photo into an image can do so. It has nothing to do with you, nor is it illegal. Do you know how many artists have created paintings from photographs? They made any changes they wanted to and ended up with legitimate paintings.
When I first joined FM one of the first things I saw was a sequence showing how a zoo animal's face was doctored so as to create pathos in the viewer. The face stood out in darkness, a memorable image. The missing part was the reality of that animal trapped in a cage.
So what? You are complaining because cropping removed something that the photographer found unnecessary to show? Should he have used a wide-angle lens to show the whole zoo? How much of the surroundings did you crop out in-camera of your shot of the songbird?
Imagined visions can be anything, which makes them meaningless.
Wow, we should ban all visionaries lest they give us meaningless works of art or inventions.
Here is a "real" wildlife picture:
Now you are referring to a photograph as a 'picture'. It is a photo of wildlife that your camera tried to duplicate. Hardly reality though since it shows no movement, is only two-dimensional, has a blurred background, has no sound, etc., etc.
.................. But it shows the battle for life as this Broad-Winged Hawk goes after a meal at my back yard bird feeder.
It shows no such thing. You had to explain what it is supposed to show.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Could be my favorite photo of a hawk I've managed to get. But it's been destined to the trash bin because of the ugly power line and too busy BG. Back to the drawing board, as they say
Gary
Beautiful hawk shot Gary.
You have my permission to change your photo into an image you would like better. You can even put a vole or stick in its talons.
Just don't then call it a photograph, or you may get crucified.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
The image below I shot 4 years ago. Could be my favorite photo of a hawk I've managed to get. But it's been destined to the trash bin because of the ugly power line and too busy BG. Back to the drawing board, as they say
Gary
That is a superb hawk picture even with the power line and the background.
Imagemaster wrote:
So what? You are complaining because cropping removed something that the photographer found unnecessary to show?
I'm not complaining about anything. You asked the question " Do any of these changes mean those photographs are no longer photos, but now images?" I answered with my thoughts. You did say that anyone can do whatever they want with their own pictures as long as they don't violate rules or laws. I never said you couldn't, never disagreed, so you needn't be so defensive just because my thoughts are different from yours.
You have my permission to change your photo into an image you would like better. You can even put a vole or stick in its talons.
Just don't then call it a photograph, or you may get crucified.
Tony
Ha ! Thanks Tony but I don't have the skills necessary to make something out of that. I've tried just for kicks
jimmuller wrote:
I'm not complaining about anything. You asked the question " Do any of these changes mean those photographs are no longer photos, but now images?" I answered with my thoughts. You did say that anyone can do whatever they want with their own pictures as long as they don't violate rules or laws. I never said you couldn't, never disagreed, so you needn't be so defensive just because my thoughts are different from yours.
You did indeed answer, with a lot of 'complaints' about what some people do with their photos. My comments are no more defensive than your opposite comments.
Gary said sum1sgrampa wrote:
.............Could be my favorite photo of a hawk I've managed to get. But it's been destined to the trash bin because of the ugly power line and too busy BG. .........
On the other hand, you think That is a superb hawk picture even with the power line and the background.
Goes to show everyone has different tastes and/or standards. However, the point of this thread is that Gary is free to alter his photo with any vision he may have of making it into an image he likes better. And you are free to like his 'real' hawk photo with the real ugly cable better.
