Comments on: Snow Day! http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/ Thoughts on Photography, Digital Imaging, and Travel Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:20:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Jim Ewins http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10491 Jim Ewins Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:27:38 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10491 Real life is in a sense a "fiction" in that our consciousness do not all see the exact same image ."... situations (such as photojournalism) where creating an invented scene isn’t appropriate." and PSA rules on "Nature" are limiting constructs that like the Sherman anti-trust Act stifle individual creativity. Every exposure is an act of bias - the maker includes, excludes, manages the environment with filters etc. and so fictionalizes his reality. Why Not? Art is in the eye of the beholder, unless it is defined by the elite in academia as Fine Art. Real life is in a sense a “fiction” in that our consciousness do not all see the exact same image .”… situations (such as photojournalism) where creating an invented scene isn’t appropriate.” and PSA rules on “Nature” are limiting constructs that like the Sherman anti-trust Act stifle individual creativity.

Every exposure is an act of bias - the maker includes, excludes, manages the environment with filters etc. and so fictionalizes his reality. Why Not?

Art is in the eye of the beholder, unless it is defined by the elite in academia as Fine Art.

]]> By: Cam http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10430 Cam Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:49:49 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10430 This is an age old debate and always a healtly one. Photography has been manipulated since the begining starting with the Pictorialist who would smear vasoline on the lens to create a more painterly effect. Ansel Adams our great landscape photographer heavily manipulated images in the darkroom and would continue to evolve/change the image over time. Harry Callahan would do multiple exposeures in camera to create different effects. Photojournalist have also manipulated their images when they wanted to emphasize a point. It's a little confusing to me when peole who view photography as an art form can have any resistance to people pushing the media. I would guess when abstract painting started there were people who thought this was not painting. This is an age old debate and always a healtly one. Photography has been manipulated since the begining starting with the Pictorialist who would smear vasoline on the lens to create a more painterly effect. Ansel Adams our great landscape photographer heavily manipulated images in the darkroom and would continue to evolve/change the image over time. Harry Callahan would do multiple exposeures in camera to create different effects. Photojournalist have also manipulated their images when they wanted to emphasize a point. It’s a little confusing to me when peole who view photography as an art form can have any resistance to people pushing the media. I would guess when abstract painting started there were people who thought this was not painting.

]]> By: ADD http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10350 ADD Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:30:51 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10350 Eugene, Most people (probably everyone) would agree that a photograph shot in a zoo is not a nature photograph. But you seem to be suggesting that it is not a valid photograph and must be "labeled" as a zoo photograph. I strongly disagree. A fine art photograph that happens to be taken in a zoo is a photo. If I'm not claiming it's a nature photograph taken on a safari, I'm not being dishonest. If I'm representing it as art, then I'm being perfectly honest in calling it "Gorilla" or whatever. Art is not journalism, and shouldn't be. Eugene,

Most people (probably everyone) would agree that a photograph shot in a zoo is not a nature photograph. But you seem to be suggesting that it is not a valid photograph and must be “labeled” as a zoo photograph. I strongly disagree. A fine art photograph that happens to be taken in a zoo is a photo. If I’m not claiming it’s a nature photograph taken on a safari, I’m not being dishonest. If I’m representing it as art, then I’m being perfectly honest in calling it “Gorilla” or whatever.

Art is not journalism, and shouldn’t be.

]]> By: Eugene Grochowski http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10339 Eugene Grochowski Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:34:58 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10339 Books are labeled as fiction or labeled as a novel, so there is no confusion with non-fiction. Sometimes, to emphasize the accuracy of the facts underlying the fictional story, the book is labeled as historical fiction. So, perhaps photographs ought to be labeled: if a composite, if animals are shot in a zoo, etc. Gene Books are labeled as fiction or labeled as a novel, so there is no confusion with non-fiction. Sometimes, to emphasize the accuracy of the facts underlying the fictional story, the book is labeled as historical fiction. So, perhaps photographs ought to be labeled: if a composite, if animals are shot in a zoo, etc.
Gene

]]> By: Terry Straehley http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10336 Terry Straehley Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:12:38 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10336 Paul I think one has to understand the context of the image's presentation. As Tim mentioned an alteration of the visual fact is a no-no in photojournalism. In my camera club and in the Photographic Society of American (PSA), your example of adding bison to an open range would not be allowed in an image submitted as a "Nature" image. However, if it were submitted as a "Creative" image, it would be legal (although not creative). Thus the subject image which was presented as a piece of art is legitimate. To answer your question, it crosses the line when it is understood by all concerned that the story is fiction, not reality. Paul
I think one has to understand the context of the image’s presentation. As Tim mentioned an alteration of the visual fact is a no-no in photojournalism. In my camera club and in the Photographic Society of American (PSA), your example of adding bison to an open range would not be allowed in an image submitted as a “Nature” image. However, if it were submitted as a “Creative” image, it would be legal (although not creative). Thus the subject image which was presented as a piece of art is legitimate. To answer your question, it crosses the line when it is understood by all concerned that the story is fiction, not reality.

]]> By: Jay Abramson http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10331 Jay Abramson Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:38:16 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10331 Tim, I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to making a photograph, although I am firmly digital in how I shoot more than 99% of the time. I believe in making the best photograph I can, and then optimizing it to make it (pardon the pun) all it can be. I don't believe in presenting a composite image as a photograph, although I have no problem with an image identified as a composite. I use some of the digital equivalents of traditional darkroom techniques. Essentially, when it comes to retouching nature/wildlife photographs, leave them (content-wise) alone. Portrait retouching is not included in this, as we all need a little help! All photography is an abstraction of reality, so within the confines of this discussion I believe a composite image is in the realm of digital art; it just happened to have its source material supplied by a camera. Jay Tim,

I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to making a photograph, although I am firmly digital in how I shoot more than 99% of the time.

I believe in making the best photograph I can, and then optimizing it to make it (pardon the pun) all it can be. I don’t believe in presenting a composite image as a photograph, although I have no problem with an image identified as a composite. I use some of the digital equivalents of traditional darkroom techniques.

Essentially, when it comes to retouching nature/wildlife photographs, leave them (content-wise) alone. Portrait retouching is not included in this, as we all need a little help! All photography is an abstraction of reality, so within the confines of this discussion I believe a composite image is in the realm of digital art; it just happened to have its source material supplied by a camera.

Jay

]]> By: Paul Pokrywka http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10324 Paul Pokrywka Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:18:03 +0000 http://timgrey.com/blog/2008/snow-day/#comment-10324 Tim, I guess the "Question" is 'When does an altered Image get to still be called real life?" If I shot an image of the wide open range, with no bison in it, then copied from another image bison into it, do I get to call it "Nature"? (Or real life?) It could have been. When does story telling cross the line from "reality" to "fiction". - Paul Tim,

I guess the “Question” is ‘When does an altered Image get to still be called real life?” If I shot an image of the wide open range, with no bison in it, then copied from another image bison into it, do I get to call it “Nature”? (Or real life?) It could have been. When does story telling cross the line from “reality” to “fiction”.

- Paul

]]>