When does a Picture become an Image (PP)

[Roosta]

When does a Single frame from a DSLR cease to be a Picture and become an Image?

We talk about Pictures in these forums alot, but are they pictures or blends of untold layers that have been dodged/burnt - over saturated - contrast adjusted, colours removed and or highlighted in set areas to make an image.

Maybe we could suggest to Rick to change the name of this site to Aus Post Production. What do you think?

I understand that before the age of the Digital Sensor, that Photograhers used different techniques to alter their negitives to give a desired result, but has it now gone to far?

I @ M, raised a fair challenge regarding the model industry in an attemp to have the perfect face/look (All be it in a Post pushing at marketing ploys)

We see this in several of our beloved Land/Sea Scape regulars, layered to the hilt to have their stamp/touch on a picture or is it now an image. Is it because they didn't have the right conditions and we have teh ability to alter the Picture so much.

Would love to hear your thoughts, expecially from the Macro and Bird world, can they do this to make the bird look better with a pinkish sky, or the FG adjusted or their feathers blob or skimmed to loose/gain some weight???

Have we lost the art of Photography?

Or do you believe it's necessary to push the levels of Post Production to get your perfect shot?

And so, good luck picking POTY or maybe Layered - Pushed/Pulled - Dodged/Burned - Over/Under Saturated - Liquified/Smudged/Skimmed Image of the Year...

[JM Tran]

Tricky question you have posed here:)

One of the biggest misconceptions I have seen in recent times is how certain ppl tend to believe that photography for fashion or glamour/beauty is way over photoshopped etc, but failed to take into account the amount of work applied to land/seascape images. Which can have more PP done to it than any other photoshopped model image. When shooting for high end fashion stuff there is surprisingly not that much amount of PP applied, mainly due to time constraints/turn around time before publication - bar the occasional Liquify tool and airbrushing - which is not that much work compared to adding 5 or 10 new layers to a landscape shot and other alterations.

I have a few colleagues and friends who uses a lot of chroma-key stuff for their genre of work. But they themselves acknowledge that what they are doing is more digital media and art than actual photography. As the actual photographed part forms less than 20% of the end image.

[William]

Yep agree with JM, Tricky subject Roosta , But I feel safe , Lately I've been shooting with no filters or tricky things , I don't know how to use layers for Multiple image blending , No HDR just as I shoot with the same processing as the film days , Levels, contrast ( selectivley) Some Dogding and Burning , All basic stuff , But I do understand where your coming from - Bill :D

[ricktas]

I would agree.

I have seen photos that have had sun rays and foggy effects added to create a mood. Even dropping in a dark ominous sky that looked nothing like the original scene. And they have won comps here on AP.

My processing takes me less than 5 minutes on each photo. If I have to spend more than that, I delete it. My process is generally a levels adjustment, perhaps a curves adjustment, saturation boost (sometimes selectively), maybe clone out some small aspects (rubbish on the foreshore, dust bunnies), and sharpen.

Usually I have about 4 layers, if that.

I think the lines between photography and digital art have been blurred. Unfortunately no-one has set a RULE for photographers that says how much is to much.

[Karl]

I have a 10 min rule with my PP (cos I am old and slow on the computer) - basically I shot in RAW and use the RAW converter in PSE 9 to do a very quick adjustment and then in PSE I do a levels, brightness and contrast adjustment, sometimes a colur curves adjustment and an Unsharp sharpening (I hope that is the right terminology) and thats it.

Sometimes with my underwater shots I will use the 'Dust and Scratches' filter to remove floaty stuff (backscatter) from the water.

I know one guy who will spend an hour min on a photo in PS just to enter it in a comp - not for me.

Karl

[hawko02]

Hello Roosta. I think people have to push their creative talent and diversify their presentation to suit what they need. I prefer natural - for me -but also visually like what others create without necessarily wanting the same for myself. I have had my first slr (a D90) for just over a year now. I try to limit my pp to what i think is acceptable for members to give me learning cc. i always check the levels and adjust and then I check for brightness and contrast -- get rid of the ffffff (member cc taught me about this as i knew nothing!!) Sometimes saturation (and i also sometimes use a grad filter on my camera ).. and then I sharpen. I would like sometime to post something "ok" but not anything done to it - straight out of the camera and ask what other members would do with it. It would be a very good learning experience even if they said "go back and try again". I don't understand layers or hdr at this point and just want to take good pictures. i like what others can do with this but I need to get better at the original picture.

[Kerrie]

Photography is an art I believe. The photographer's interpretation is presented as a final artwork. The process of acheiving said artwork is up to the photographer and while there are differences I see between digital images that have been entirely changed from an original photo take to create mad popping surreal type art that definitely says " I am digital art and I'm altered" there are also photos deemed " artwork" purely due to a good eye and good light, with minimal pp...and they are something very beautiful in a different way.

Finally there's just a really nice picture that doesnt seem like art, but more of a really nice moment captured. You wouldn't hang it on a wall, but you'd definitely treasure it. But an artist took it. And it's their interpretation of a moment captured, so is that art?


Tricky one

Each to their own

I don't think we need rules to determine what we create is viable. An artist interpretation is just that. An interpretation. Only the tools differ. I think genre is a good word.

As a fan of b&w creations....well they're all processed to get the required effect / presentation. If there was a limit on pp to deem something viable I think we'd lose a lot of good art. I mean photography started in b&w didn't it? So our color photography could be seen as a form of in camera pp. :confused013

A good image is a good image is a good image. It's something great to capture the eye and the senses...and maybe even the soul.


Again genre is a good word if one wanted to distinguish how the image got to be good.


Like Kathy said , I want to learn to take good photos that need little pp to correct technical errors on my part...but I wouldn't want my artistic flare quashed if i added to them to make them even more impressive.How people present their photos is the very act of art...and I would not like to lose the art of photography at all...ever.

[ricktas]

Here you go, a challenge to see how good you are at picking.

Post your results in this thread:

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge

I got 5 right..sheesh!

[Mark L]

When does a Single frame from a DSLR cease to be a Picture and become an Image?


A picture is an image.
Two images combined creates another image.
Do what ever else to it, makes another image.
It's not new, just more accessible in the digital world.
I don't necessarily like it much, but heck, if the image looks good to you (and maybe others), so be it.
I use no processing software other than DPP that came with the camera. Maybe I'm under processing.
Good topic Blue.

Got 7.

[hawko02]

I got 5 but I think it was guesswork!!!

[Speedway]

A picture is an image.
Two images combined creates another image.
Do what ever else to it, makes another image.
It's not new, just more accessible in the digital world.
I don't necessarily like it much, but heck, if the image looks good to you (and maybe others), so be it.
I use no processing software other than DPP that came with the camera. Maybe I'm under processing.
Good topic Blue.

Got 7.

Switch image and picture and it still means the same. I am another one who if it takes more than 10 minutes to get right it is not worth working on, and I still don't know how to use layers.
I got 6.
Keith.

[Roosta]

Here you go, a challenge to see how good you are at picking.

Post your results in this thread:

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge

I got 5 right..sheesh!

Got 8 correct.

[Roosta]

-- get rid of the ffffff (member cc taught me about this as i knew nothing!!)

What is this = ffffff ?

[LJG]

This is the age old question Bluey. Is it a real picture, or a make believe one? I like to have a picture make me feel something when I view it. personally though I do very little PP. I don't do dodge and burn, I don't do layers, I couldn't even if I wanted to. The most I do is an automated pano stitch and a few odd adjustments in LR or DPP. Most of my shots pass without much fanfare or comment. Are they that bad? Probably. They look so flat and plain compared to others. Then I do try something a bit risque and it usually fails miserably. If I was an accomplished photoshopper I could make them pop off the screen and delight the masses, get heaps of comments and everybody may like them a whole heap more. At the end of the day though isn't that what everybody wants? To view something that makes them say WOW, what a shot that is! It looks great. So, as much as I always said I was against a lot of PP I am slowly coming around to the fact quite a lot of shots need it and are infinitely better for it. And as long as the viewer loves it, who really cares if it is not perfect and as the eye saw it? It is the WOW factor, or feeling the image gives us that counts probably moreso than how it got that way.

[William]

I got 7 :D

[rellik666]

I got 7! :(

[Shelley]

I got six - but I didn't take heaps of time choosing either.

With my birding, I used to try and change my images - not anymore. Now I try to get it right in camera and position myself right out in the field to get the best image possible without distractions etc. All I do is soften the background and sharpen the bird. In raw mode sometimes I will add fill light and fiddle with the exposure if necessary.

I think because of bokeh from the telephoto lens, people think its photoshopped in my bird photos, but I do not do anything much to my backgrounds. I not really into backgrounds that show no shape of the environment, if that makes sense.

edit: I don't mind pp, but I just wanna get the birds all the time and spend less pping the blighters. My people shots, now that is different.

[Art Vandelay]

I got 7.

No effort or thought, just guessed each one as computer generated. :D

[hawko02]

Hello Roosta. The"ffffff" - I click on the colour picker tool in Gimp and tick the show info window and then on the white in the picture which is generally clouds. If you get the fffffff or eeee etc then it is over exposed and I need to alter the brightness and contrast (at least that is what I do) :D

[Roosta]

Tricky question you have posed here:)

One of the biggest misconceptions I have seen in recent times is how certain ppl tend to believe that photography for fashion or glamour/beauty is way over photoshopped etc, but failed to take into account the amount of work applied to land/seascape images. Which can have more PP done to it than any other photoshopped model image. When shooting for high end fashion stuff there is surprisingly not that much amount of PP applied, mainly due to time constraints/turn around time before publication - bar the occasional Liquify tool and airbrushing - which is not that much work compared to adding 5 or 10 new layers to a landscape shot and other alterations.

I have a few colleagues and friends who uses a lot of chroma-key stuff for their genre of work. But they themselves acknowledge that what they are doing is more digital media and art than actual photography. As the actual photographed part forms less than 20% of the end image.


Yep agree with JM, Tricky subject Roosta , But I feel safe , Lately I've been shooting with no filters or tricky things , I don't know how to use layers for Multiple image blending , No HDR just as I shoot with the same processing as the film days , Levels, contrast ( selectivley) Some Dogding and Burning , All basic stuff , But I do understand where your coming from - Bill :D


I would agree.

I have seen photos that have had sun rays and foggy effects added to create a mood. Even dropping in a dark ominous sky that looked nothing like the original scene. And they have won comps here on AP.

My processing takes me less than 5 minutes on each photo. If I have to spend more than that, I delete it. My process is generally a levels adjustment, perhaps a curves adjustment, saturation boost (sometimes selectively), maybe clone out some small aspects (rubbish on the foreshore, dust bunnies), and sharpen.

Usually I have about 4 layers, if that.

I think the lines between photography and digital art have been blurred. Unfortunately no-one has set a RULE for photographers that says how much is to much.

[Roosta]

For some reason me comments have been scrubed? Weird.

[Roosta]

Agreed with JM on Land/Sea Scapes being the biggest offender.

Agreed with Bill on his points, being left over from the old film days.

Questioned Rick as to the "I Would Agree" hoping he's not refering to my suggestion to the name change. LOL ???

And did Rick feel that Land/Sea Scapes is the biggest user of PP?

Is it because the "GENRE' of photographers not able to get what what they beieve to be a good clean shot, Land/Sea Scapes that is?

[Roosta]

I have a 10 min rule with my PP (cos I am old and slow on the computer) - basically I shot in RAW and use the RAW converter in PSE 9 to do a very quick adjustment and then in PSE I do a levels, brightness and contrast adjustment, sometimes a colur curves adjustment and an Unsharp sharpening (I hope that is the right terminology) and thats it.

Sometimes with my underwater shots I will use the 'Dust and Scratches' filter to remove floaty stuff (backscatter) from the water.

I know one guy who will spend an hour min on a photo in PS just to enter it in a comp - not for me.

Karl

I'm with you Carl on the 1 Hr? Seriously, what does this say about the original picture?

[ashey]

You have to do something to your shots especially if you shoot in raw, I use aperture 3 for most of my shots and try to get the shot as close to what I seen at the time. I think the moment you depress the the shutter button you have created the image,picture,shot, photo, what one does after that can be be a bit contentious, but you don't have to like it. Yes some people go to far, I went to an exhibition before Xmas to look at the work of a well known W.A landscape photographer, and there were only a couple of shots that I thought worthy of hanging, the majority of them looked way over processed. But thats his style and you have to appreciate that, but you don,t have to like it.

[Roosta]

QUOTE=Kerrie;967353]Like Kathy said , I want to learn to take good photos that need little pp to correct technical errors on my part...but I wouldn't want my artistic flare quashed if i added to them to make them even more impressive.How people present their photos is the very act of art...and I would not like to lose the art of photography at all...ever.[/QUOTE]

No offence intended, but this says to me in some ways, that you could take an average picture at best picture, and then PP it to death to get an image and be happy?

Would/Is it not best to get the art right in the first place (taking the Picture)?

But I can see what your point is, no problems at all.

Thanks for input.

[terry.langham]

I think photography has changed with the introduction of the digital camera. So long as you start with an exposure (or several), then I would consider it photography. PP is just part of the whole system, some will like a lot of it, others will find even a small amount ghastly. In the end does it really matter how much PP was applied to an image. You will either like what is presented or you won't, and if you don't like it because it looks overprocessed, then that is as valid as any other reason for not liking an image/photo.

There is still a strong group of photographers that are traditionalists, and only like PPing that was available in the days of film. Just like there are those that think that real cars have 8 cylinders and carburettors. Neither view is any more valid then the other, just a matter of different tastes.

[ricktas]

For some reason me comments have been scrubed? Weird.

No they haven't. Nothing has been deleted from this thread.

[Roosta]

No they haven't. Nothing has been deleted from this thread.

Loged out and back in, still can't see anything. Love our IT department, LOL.

[wmphoto]

Here you go, a challenge to see how good you are at picking.

Post your results in this thread:

http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge

I got 5 right..sheesh!

I got 1 :Doh:

Keep an eye out for some cheap camera gear coming up for sale soon :D

[Ezookiel]

As a person new to photography, I have to say, some of the images seen on this site are spectacular, but at the same time incredibly disheartening.
You see a fantastic sea/landscape photo on here, and you go out in much the same conditions and time of day etc, and you take a photograph with your camera, and get back home all enthused with how good it's going to look from what you've seen here. Instead you find it is a sad pale shadow of the ones you've seen here, and after several attempts to recreate the quality you see here, you feel you're obviously just not good enough, and get disheartened, and damn near give up photography as a hobby.

You might be lucky. ON one of those threads where you saw the awe inspiring photo, you might get to the end of the thread where someone has asked about how the person took the photo, and what settings they used, and you find it's been worked to hell and back, and bears so little resemblance now to a photograph that it is now closer to a piece of art than a photograph, and that realistically you're never going to come back from your landscape/seascape photo trip with photos that look like that.
So now you don't know whether you're any good with a camera, just because you're not as good with a computer as some people here are.

[Analog6]

To me it is a 'real' image while it is the original, even if you perform PP with adjustment layers etc, and nothing is added. It becomes a fake when extra images are layered in that have no relation to the original. So if you bracket your shots so you get a usable sky and a usable foreground, that's OK, it's making the most of what you have.

But if you add in a sky you shot someplace else entirely, with no relation to the subject whatsoever, that's a fake.

Still, by my criteria, lots of Frank Hurley's photographs are fakes, as he was well known for taking images of a scene over several days and sandwiching them for a final effect.

Darkroom print specialists used to do lots of adjustments too, you know. Ansel Adams was famous for it - one example of his darkroom technique I saw on a video had a worksheet planning the 24 steps he was going to take creating an image (print) from his original negative. It took him FOUR DAYS to get it right! So don't be so quick to dismiss PP as a new thing.

[ricktas]

As a person new to photography, I have to say, some of the images seen on this site are spectacular, but at the same time incredibly disheartening.
You see a fantastic sea/landscape photo on here, and you go out in much the same conditions and time of day etc, and you take a photograph with your camera, and get back home all enthused with how good it's going to look from what you've seen here. Instead you find it is a sad pale shadow of the ones you've seen here, and after several attempts to recreate the quality you see here, you feel you're obviously just not good enough, and get disheartened, and damn near give up photography as a hobby.

You might be lucky. ON one of those threads where you saw the awe inspiring photo, you might get to the end of the thread where someone has asked about how the person took the photo, and what settings they used, and you find it's been worked to hell and back, and bears so little resemblance now to a photograph that it is now closer to a piece of art than a photograph, and that realistically you're never going to come back from your landscape/seascape photo trip with photos that look like that.
So now you don't know whether you're any good with a camera, just because you're not as good with a computer as some people here are.

I think that is the time to organise an AP member meet and make sure some of the 'experts' (a word I dislike) come along. There is a lot you can learn from AP, and there is a lot you can learn standing next to someone and have them show you. We even had a couple of Post Processing meets here in Hobart. Good way to learn new techniques, improve your own. etc. Whilst reading on AP and learning is a wonderful tool, there really is nothing like practice..and practice..and practice.. to improve both your photography and your processing skills. If you can get the assistance of someone more skilled whilst doing this practice, it certainly makes it a faster learning curve.

I think the difference is between good and bad/over post processing. If done well, and to improve on the limitations of our gear, then viewers often don't even think about the processing and get absorbed in the photo. As soon as a photo stands out for being almost too 'perfect' we start to wonder how much processing went into it. I think land and sea scapes get this a bit especially the sunrise, sunset ones cause it is easy to over saturate the colours in the sky, so that, whilst they look great, they are beyond what we have seen in real life. There is a fine line between well-done and over-done, bit like a sausage on the BBQ. :D

[steve812]

Excellent comment. I agree.

[Ezookiel]

I can't get that fake or foto site to work with either IE or Firefox.
Especially the plane photo which won't load at all.

[Ezookiel]

We had an experienced photographer along with us on the 4WDAction Photography Trip, where a bunch of 4wd enthusiasts, who also like photography, decided to do a trip together where no one would complain if we stopped every thirty seconds to take a photo. It helped heaps to have him alongside doing a session on how to do "Light Painting"
I'd seen the concept described here, but probably wouldn't have tried it out if it wasn't for him taking a bunch of us out about midnight to give it a go, and then be insipired by each other's results.
I imagine that would be the same result if we had an AP meet.

[Mat]

You might be interested in this link... He did in the darkroom what we do now in PS

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/jerry-uelsmanns-analog-dreams/
It is a good read.


I got 7

[Kym]

This had minimal PP... The sky was that for about 1 minute.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3212/3279628001_7e9bd0f2eb_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cypheroz/3279628001/)
Red sky at night... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cypheroz/3279628001/) by cypheroz (http://www.flickr.com/people/cypheroz/), on Flickr

[Mark L]

You might be interested in this link... He did in the darkroom what we do now in PS

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/jerry-uelsmanns-analog-dreams/
It is a good read.

A quote from the interview in Mat's link, "If I have an ultimate goal, it’s to amaze myself."
Does it matter if it's a SOOC or heavily processed? Does it matter if it's a photo or an image?
Which ever way you go, try and amaze yourself.
:scrtch: Probably easier said than done.