desktop photography..??

[trog100]

pictures within pictures but can they all be considered photographs..???











imagine what coud be done with 20 mega pixels a wide angle lens and small prints or websized images..

its a good lesson in how a picture should be taken in the frst place thow.. the black and white derelict cottage looks nice in an arty crafty kinda way..

but i could browse thru my large picture collection and produce thousands of interesting but fake photographs useing the crop small (interesting) chunks out of bigger pictures technique..

its pretty easy to get what appears to be a perfectly framed and skillfully taken photograph this way as well.. far easier than doing it properly in the first place..

here is an example of how to make five photographs from one single snapshot in the mountains photograph..

comments welcome..

trog

[EOSThree]

Sure they are all photographs.

Main Entry: 1pho·to·graph
Pronunciation: 'fO-to-"graf
Function: noun
: a picture or likeness obtained by photography

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: fo-'tä-gra-fE
Function: noun
: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

So anything captured in this matter is a photograph. The definitions say nothing about post processing. Any of the crops you posted could stand on their own, but they also won't stand up to much enlargement, that's the price you pay. That is why capturing the vision in camera is always the best option. That's why I have a 300mm lens with a 1.4x TC and want longer. But if you want to crop and enlarge you will lose quality. "West Coast" immediately looked a little suspicious to me, like the haze was compressed(and it was)I wouldn't have immediately said crop, but something wasn't right to me, it had a grainy look to it.
I guess you as the photographer have to decide where the line is drawn:
Cropping
Dodging
Burning
Sharpening??
Color correction
HDR(combining several images)
Stacking
Contrast adjustment
W/B adjustment
Exposure Compensation
You are crusading at a point where you feel it's no longer a photograph, it's still an image captured on a light sensitive material.
Myself, I won't add an element that wasn't there in the first place. I won't usually clone out things that distract from the photo. But I still feel those are photos.

[Greg McCary]

I scan film from time to time. In that process before the scanner every scans it's final scan, I can change the film type, color balance and exposure. I can also crop it before it every arrives as a digital image on my desktop. Each minor adjustment can have major effects on the final scan and I have a inexpensive scanner. I can only imagine what a lab can do. I to would like to know where the line in the sand is? I feel if you have every dealt with film at all, your opinion would be totaly different. I once felt as you in a minor way. But dealing with all of the aspects that are involved with photography and shooting film before digital and also reading some about early photography I quickly changed my way of thinking. Photography is a way for me to express myself and my intrest and what I find beautiful,or not, in this world. If you do not believe in post processing I feel what help I can offer you in the crtique forum will be very limited. Short of liking or disliking your post and suggesting a minor crop or advise for the future I can't help you much.
If you really want to learn about photography I suggest you go out and buy a very old film camera, several different types of film, go out and shot them, take the film to different labs and have them developed. Even different labs can come up with different results. I really feel that I will be a better photographer in the long run for shooting film first anyway and suggest that everyone taking up photography do the same.
But I would like to know where the line is, so in the future I know how to best help or critique your work? I saw you hammer someone here for a major crop and then turn around and post a picture that was done the same? Please define photography and post processing to me and what kind of help are you looking for?
Greg

[trog100]

"I to would like to know where the line in the sand is?"

so would i.. i am going to use a self created phrase here.. "Desktop Photography"

also as u i need to know what i am passsing judgement on.. a skillfully taken and properly framed photograph or an example of the above which i shall now refer to as "desktop" photography..

take the cottage example.. presented websized it looks like skillfully taken and framed photograph simply downsized for web presentation.. but it isnt its a fake and something pretty much anyone could produce..

how do i critique it.. as something anybody can do or as something that requires a good photographic eye and correct framing and all the rest needed to make a good photographer..

of course the other main problem i have with all this desktop photography is the fact that a properly taken photograph get no more credit than the fake mickey mouse crops..

"Please define photography and post processing to me and what kind of help are you looking for"

well greg.. let me say the skillfull use of camera and the other photgraphic paraphernalia that goes with it.. seeing something before the image is taken as opposed to afterwards.. carefully and correctly framing the image before it is taken as opposed to aferward..

come on greg.. the fact i have to define "photography" and what a "photogrpah for u is silly.. as for the help i am looking what makes u assume i am looking for help..

i post images to get comment on them.. i know what i like and am curious to find out if others feel the same or otherwise.. was it u that saw a problem with the rams eyes.. i saw a one in a million photograph.. u saw a problem with the shadow around its eyes..

i recently saw a rather nice macro butterfly shot skillfuly taken.. others saw a branch it was sat on as being too pale.. i am beginning to think this critiquing stuff is causing folks to forget what makes a good photograph.. the limitations of photographic reality is being forgotten and the "perfection" of desktop image manipulation is taking over..

trog

[livin4lax09]

no offense trog...but how many threads do we need on this? we already have three other ones that basically are saying the same thing.

and if there was ever a post that could be responded to saying "and even the novices can do this in the darkroom" it's this one.

[readingr]

Trog,

In the darkroom was it OK to crop an image or dodge, burn, tone a B&W sepia, cross process...

These have all been accepted tools of the trade in the past. If you read any of the top photographers books they were all into modifications of the image from clearing up spots on a model, using dodge, burn, scalpel and colouring pen for deleting an unwanted item from a landscape and replacing the sky for a better one, not always easy but possible.

The only common factor is that they took the image knowing that it would need to be post processed and there was no other way of getting the image.

There are now electronic tools and the same stands, except the darkroom is now on the desktop and the smell of chemicals has gone.

I used to spend hours in the darkroom adjusting times, cropping, tinting images, so nothing has changed.

The only difference now is the tools give you much more and is now part of photography and it is up to you to use or not use as it pleases you.

It doesn't mean that your photos are better or worse than someone who uses these tools. However, if you crop a small part of a picture then you'll end up with too much noise and in the old days grain so you still need to take care in the original composition.

Some people starting out may not have all the lenses that you need or just using point and shoot and cannot get the picture they want. However, I would still recommend they take it and then look at it using the cropping tools to see what a different lens would do.

Then when they have the cash buy the appropriate kit.

It's all a part of the learning process, and has always been and always will be a part of photography. Take a look at the work done to magazine pictures today and in yesteryear and you'll find that not much has changed, especially in the fashion trade.

As for the photo's you put up they are all good composition wise and fine for the web. Now try and print the crops on A3 or larger and there you'll notice the difference. The uncropped would be fine.

The photos you posted need a level adjustment to brighten the pictures, which again in old days was the exposure and chemical development time which was always adjusted.

Where is the line - well that depends on the photographer and how far he or she wants to go, and what they want to tell the viewer. Taking the picture for me was the start of a process not the end, not even using slide film.

Roger

[trog100]

"and if there was ever a post that could be responded to saying "and even the novices can do this in the darkroom" it's this one"

that my friend is exactly my point.. but such things are being presented as photographs for critique on this very forum.. if u guys wish u to see such things being called photographs and being presented as photographs for critique as it seem u quite clearly do there isnt much i can do about it..

i see nothing wrong with having some basic rules as regards what can be presented as a photograph but again it does not seem something the majority wants..

if u all want newcomers to become good croppers and poor photographers who the heck am i to try and stop u..

my cause is noble even it it does fall on deaf ears.. he he

it seems none u even have the vaguest idea what my cause is thow..

best of luck dudes i give up..

trog

[Greg McCary]

But the beauty of the rams eye was already there. I didn't create it, just revealed it. The same is true with lighting and color adjustments, the elements were already in place, I didn't create them out of thin air.
Greg

[payn817]

i recently saw a rather nice macro butterfly shot skillfuly taken.. others saw a branch it was sat on as being too pale.. i am beginning to think this critiquing stuff is causing folks to forget what makes a good photograph.. the limitations of photographic reality is being forgotten and the "perfection" of desktop image manipulation is taking over..

trog

Trog, I saw that too. If I recall, he asked for critique. It was nicely framed, the colors and sharpness were fine. However, in anything involving development of one and their skills, there's always a but. That situation was no different.

[Erik Stiegler]

Is this a joke?

Photographers have always cropped photos. It's a basic darkroom technique that's been around as long as photography.

I'm sure if Ansel Adams were alive today, he'd be suprised to learn he was a mickey mouse faker because he cropped photos during printing. That guy was such a slacker.

Before you post another one of these threads, I suggest you drop by your local library, check out and read copies of his books The Camera, The Negative and The Print.

There's nothing wrong with postprocessing. With the obvious exception of doctoring journalistic photos, but that's not at issue here.

[MarcusK]

I will have to agree with Roger....that was beautifully put... and i will also agree with all who are asking "where should the line be drawn?"

The point is....When you are at a particular location, and you see an image of a mountain (to stick with the images posted) then as you turn around...you see a cottage or cabin.... you think to yourself....i wish the cabin was there and take it with the same frame i took for the mountain....so you take the cottage or cabin....and then fix it in post....

From another example, You go to hawaii, take pictures of a cabin...and post it on the snowy mountain, doing a great job at blending them.... this is unacceptable......WHY? what about collage??? was this not a part of photography???

Let us face it... what we have issues with here is not the post processing....in as much as the laziness people have reached because of post....Photographers (or rather wannabe photographers) are no longer caring....always thinking: "pfffffff who cares i'll fix it in post"... But when as photographers we use the "digital darkroom" to create images.....images we took in the same location or even different and compose.....there is nothing wrong with that.....

furthermore, it has become an issue, because the credibility of the photos has been destroyed... since any dimwit can alter images... no one believes them anymore.... but again....images have always been manipulated in the same ways.....except before.... only the pros did it..... now the mass market with their little phone cameras are taking pics....and fixing them later in some image editing software, and are wondering: "why do i need a photographer?" yet agencies are still looking for photographers...people still go to pros to shoot their weddings....etc.... Why? because of what makes a photographer!

A photographer is someone who SEES the image in his MIND.... before taking a shot even....before even holding the camera or taking it out of the bag....

So stop nagging will you? The artist is judged by the result of his work and NOT the method by which he obtained the result.... for if this is what you want to talk about...then why not say....a photographer is someone who has 40 Mega-pixel camera......or ranging from 17 to 40.....why not?? otherwise he is not using the proper tools to be WORTHY of being considered a photographer.....

Art has nothing to do with tools..... but with results....THAT is what makes an artist...THAT is what a photographer is all about!

Marc