Photo vs Photoshop..informal poll

[Ronnoco]

Some photographers here use Photoshop well and like to experiment whereas others who perhaps consider themselves purists don't quite approve of using Photoshop or perhaps don't know how to use it.

Here is the question:

Is it possible to create a digital image without a camera that would be mistaken for a photo by pros and advanced amateurs?

Ronnoco

[lidarman]

Are you talking about a computer graphics image using rendering techniques or using cut and paste from other images? Or are you meaning film versus digital?

I think there are some powerful texture tools out there that can render some images in certain cases that would be hard to distinguish from a photo taked from a camera. However, the light sources in renderers can't be as complex as the real world and subtle lighting is hard to achieve.

And if you were talking digital versus film, that discussion had been done before, but of course when you scan an image and present it here on the computer, there is something lost so it's a hard matchup.

[payn817]

I don't think anyone disapproves of PS. Some prefer to keep it to a minimum. No different than someone deciding to shoot b&w film exclusively, just a matter of personal taste.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=lidarman]Are you talking about a computer graphics image using rendering techniques or using cut and paste from other images? Or are you meaning film versus digital?


Hi:

I am talking absolutely no cut and paste....from scratch no camera: film or digital, and on top of that using a computer with less than 20 meg. of on-line memory

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

I don't think anyone disapproves of PS. Some prefer to keep it to a minimum. No different than someone deciding to shoot b&w film exclusively, just a matter of personal taste.

It may have been the March issue of Popular Photography that had unbelievably artistic scenic shots by a photographer where one shot was the composite work of 30 different shots from various angles plus a months work with Photoshop. Absolutely beautiful with tremendous impact. The creator was extremely talented as an "artist/photographer". It becomes difficult to define what he is.

Notice too that the magazine title is Popular Photography and Digital Imaging. Perhaps definitions are becoming blurred by the technology.

What do you and the rest of the members think?

Ronnoco

[lidarman]

I'm kinda confused of where this thread is going. Sorry, but to me it's all an artform and you get what you want out of it.

Photoshop is a tool that is ideal for taking existing images and manipulating them. Illustrator is a tool for creating images. Cameras are tools for capturing images. They can be combined in any combinations to make newer images.

Does this stuff really have to be compared or defined? I mean as an art, you do what you feel and express yourself using one or all of these tools...or even more.

I am of the opinion that digital photography needs as much post processing (photoshop) as it does composing, metering and exposing the image on the sensor. In the old days, this post processing was done in the film lab with filters, developing times, dodging and burning...and a lot of creativity was lost because most people didn't do their own processing.

In the digital world, it's with a tool like photoshop.

I almost don't believe that a camera can capture the perfect image. It might come close but it never has the dynamic range the eye has as it moves around the world looking at a scene. Thus, the image has to be tweaked to give a feeling and express what is desired from the photographers eye. This is what makes photography an artform. And when it comes to art, there really isnt a rule.

Photography that is just pointing a camera and downloading, its just taking snapshots. Just like polaroid instant shots. It's the world joe average lives in and his goal is to record and show some event in its simplest form.

[Ronnoco]

I agree with everything you said and you expressed it very well. Certainly Photoshop is just a sort of continuation of the type of work that was originally done in a photo lab.

I suppose my point is. Does the modification, manipulation, touch up and combination of so many different photos reach a point where it is difficult to define the end result as a photograph at all? Then of course, the follow up question is: Does it matter?

Then there is the reverse of the idea above. One of the forums here is Photography As Art. Can that be reversed? Art as photography. Is it possible to, without a camera, or any kind of cut and paste, to create a digital image from scratch to make it look so much like a photo that it would fool, for example the members here?

Someone mentioned in effect that natural lighting was too hard to simulate without a camera and that would be the main weakness in a simulated photo. Interesting point.
What do you think?

Ronnoco

[Asylum Steve]

Then of course, the follow up question is: Does it matter?

No, it does not. Photography is an interpretation of what you see and feel.

There is no nobility in creating images with "self-imposed" restrictions, except as an exercise in confining your vision...

BTW, to answer your original question, yes it is possible to create an image using photoshop alone that looks like a photo. It's called pixel painting, and it really is more similar to the "photo realism" style of painting than traditional photography.

[LeeIs]

I am talking absolutely no cut and paste....from scratch no camera: film or digital, and on top of that using a computer with less than 20 meg. of on-line memory

Ronnoco

This thread is kinda confusing, you start by talking about photoshop use on photos and then you ask if it's possible to creat an image out of scratch that would fool pros into thinking it's real.

1st photoshop, I don't mind when it's used. I tend to use it too but to a minimum. So I'm totally open to that.

2nd, it is possible to create images through 3D rendering programs that look real. It's been done in the movie industry for a long time now, nothing revolutionary about it.

What's online memory? never heard that term before. Do you just mean memory as in RAM or did you mean storage memory? And since you're asking about the possiblity of making up scenes digitally without any photo equipment, why limit it to 20 megs? have you discovered a cool little rendering app that you'll like to share with us?

P.S. I was browsing the photo as art section of this forum when I came across your submission of what looks like a rendered scene that looks like a work done in Bryce or a similar app. You seem to be asking the same question there as well.

My question to you would be what's this beating around the bush? Why not just speak directly of what it is you wanna talk about?

For those interested, check out the Bryce link I gave up, there's some real cool work there.

[LeeIs]

Check this one out.

Who'd guess this one was a digital rendering?

http://www.daz3d.com/galleries/index.php?id=3934&sec=

[payn817]

It may have been the March issue of Popular Photography that had unbelievably artistic scenic shots by a photographer where one shot was the composite work of 30 different shots from various angles plus a months work with Photoshop. Absolutely beautiful with tremendous impact. The creator was extremely talented as an "artist/photographer". It becomes difficult to define what he is.

Notice too that the magazine title is Popular Photography and Digital Imaging. Perhaps definitions are becoming blurred by the technology.

What do you and the rest of the members think?

Ronnoco

I do believe they are becoming blurred somewhat. However, again, I think it is a matter of taste, and getting results. If it fits your vision, I don't care how you got it.

[another view]

Back to your original question - yes, I believe it can be done. I'm not a gamer but I look at the ads on TV and see how great the graphics are now versus only a few years ago. If we're not there yet then it's just a matter of time.

Personally, I don't worry too much about this. I think the only exception would really be the case of a news photo, where an image is presented as a "truth". You probably remember the LA Times getting in trouble about someone making a composite image out of two photos taken moments apart, and that resulting image was much more powerful than the single shots. The left side and right side of the photo happened only moments apart, but not at the same time - so it was a misrepresentation of the truth.

[freygr]

[QUOTE=Ronnoco]

Are you talking about a computer graphics image using rendering techniques or using cut and paste from other images? Or are you meaning film versus digital?


Hi:

I am talking absolutely no cut and paste....from scratch no camera: film or digital, and on top of that using a computer with less than 20 meg. of on-line memory

Ronnoco

That is cutting it close most of the stuff I have done the photographs are anywhere from 30meg and up. And I can't use the versions of Photo Shop(LE & the new limited version) I have both crashed and burn when I tried to print the 8 by 54 panorama.

I've seen some graphics which you real have a hard time telling that its a fanasty photo. Heck Photo Shop will not run with 20 meg of ram or disk storage.