Manipulated Photos... How far is too far?

[Ext User(Alienjones himself)]

There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.

His style of photography is quite curious stuff. Here are some of his
pictures; http://www.auspics.com/byron I'd be interested in hearing
comments on them. Programs like "mystical lighting" and such from
companies like "FX" are probably used for doing this although I could
see many tools in Corel Photopaint and Photoshop which would do a lot of
the effects too.

Could this actually be a new area of photography or is it just another
process like we used to get by printing negs over trannies with Cibachrome?

D & AJ.

[Ext User(Scott Schuckert)]

In article <gekmf.15535$ea6.11010@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Alienjones himself <just@the.groups> wrote:

> There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
> Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
> perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
> description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
> calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.

Dead link, by the way - so I can't comment on those images.

In general, however, I believe the concept/word "photograph" should
refer to something you could have seen with your own eyes. (assuming
the correct viewpoint and place to stand, etc.)

- Darken an overxposed sky? OK, our eyes have a greater dynamic range
than film, you can adjust for that.

- Add clouds to a cloudless sky? No.

- Remove power lines that get in the way? Well, maybe - the human brain
is pretty good at ignoring extraneous elements.

- Paste a person into an existing scene, or a bird into the sky for
"visual interest." No.

The distinction is subtle, but clear - a photograph records an aspect
of reality, a painting (digital or not) creates something nice to look
at that MAY be BASED on reality.

[Ext User()]

In article <091220051418565323%not@aol.com>, not@aol.com says...
> In article <gekmf.15535$ea6.11010@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Alienjones himself <just@the.groups> wrote:
>
> > There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
> > Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
> > perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
> > description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
> > calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.
>
> Dead link, by the way - so I can't comment on those images.
>
> In general, however, I believe the concept/word "photograph" should
> refer to something you could have seen with your own eyes. (assuming
> the correct viewpoint and place to stand, etc.)

I aggree with this. My wife has shoots that people often think of as
digitally manipulated or painted. When she tells them they are printed
strait from slides they freak. This has gained her a good rep with
galleries and magazines. I am afraid that a total digital world will make
it difficult if not impossible to prove that you really took the shot and
knew what you were doing. It has been proposed that some kind of legal
notarizing may become necessary to prove that a shot went directly from a
digital cameras storage to print. Not sure how this is going to pan out
in the future but it will be a shame if the value of good shooting is
lost.
>
> - Darken an overxposed sky? OK, our eyes have a greater dynamic range
> than film, you can adjust for that.
>
> - Add clouds to a cloudless sky? No.
>
> - Remove power lines that get in the way? Well, maybe - the human brain
> is pretty good at ignoring extraneous elements.
>
> - Paste a person into an existing scene, or a bird into the sky for
> "visual interest." No.
>
> The distinction is subtle, but clear - a photograph records an aspect
> of reality, a painting (digital or not) creates something nice to look
> at that MAY be BASED on reality.

[Ext User(Gordon Moat)]

Alienjones himself wrote:
> There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
> Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
> perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
> description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
> calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.
>
> His style of photography is quite curious stuff. Here are some of his
> pictures; http://www.auspics.com/byron I'd be interested in hearing
> comments on them. Programs like "mystical lighting" and such from
> companies like "FX" are probably used for doing this although I could
> see many tools in Corel Photopaint and Photoshop which would do a lot of
> the effects too.
>
> Could this actually be a new area of photography or is it just another
> process like we used to get by printing negs over trannies with Cibachrome?
>
> D & AJ.



I saw lots of the same when PhotoShop 3.0 came out, so this is nothing
new. It seems to be more of a "flavour of the month" thing, with some
notoriety / popularity every so many years.

My opinion is that this should correctly be called "photo illustration"
and not photography. Of course, not all will agree with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[Ext User(Scott Schuckert)]

In article <MPG.1e0389d4e9f1f019989936@news.east.earthlink.net>,
<punishspammers@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

> I aggree with this. My wife has shoots that people often think of as
> digitally manipulated or painted. When she tells them they are printed
> strait from slides they freak. This has gained her a good rep with
> galleries and magazines. I am afraid that a total digital world will make
> it difficult if not impossible to prove that you really took the shot and
> knew what you were doing. It has been proposed that some kind of legal
> notarizing may become necessary to prove that a shot went directly from a
> digital cameras storage to print. Not sure how this is going to pan out
> in the future but it will be a shame if the value of good shooting is
> lost.

Yup. I personally may have an unusually severe aversion to
manipulation. Once upon a time, I used to do undercover photography
for a private detective. Since I had my own lab, it was sometimes
useful to be able to testify the film had never left my physical
presence, from shoot to courtroom.

[Ext User(The Dave©)]

> Scott Schuckert wrote:
> > I aggree with this. My wife has shoots that people often think of
> > as digitally manipulated or painted. When she tells them they are
> > printed strait from slides they freak. This has gained her a good
> > rep with galleries and magazines. I am afraid that a total digital
> > world will make it difficult if not impossible to prove that you
> > really took the shot and knew what you were doing. It has been
> > proposed that some kind of legal notarizing may become necessary to
> > prove that a shot went directly from a digital cameras storage to
> > print. Not sure how this is going to pan out in the future but it
> > will be a shame if the value of good shooting is lost.
>
> Yup. I personally may have an unusually severe aversion to
> manipulation. Once upon a time, I used to do undercover photography
> for a private detective. Since I had my own lab, it was sometimes
> useful to be able to testify the film had never left my physical
> presence, from shoot to courtroom.

Wouldn't an opposing lawyer be able to accuse you of manipulating the
photos yourself?

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."

[Ext User(BigPix)]

Sorry about that Scott,
I've just removed the server from my studio and I though all the domains it
hosted were functional on the new network in the USA... Wrong! Anyway soon
enough it will be visible again... If you have the patience.

--
----m0o0m
"Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091220051418565323%not@aol.com...
>
> Dead link, by the way - so I can't comment on those images.
>

[Ext User(BigPix)]

>
>
> I saw lots of the same when PhotoShop 3.0 came out, so this is nothing
> new. It seems to be more of a "flavour of the month" thing, with some
> notoriety / popularity every so many years.
>
> My opinion is that this should correctly be called "photo illustration"
> and not photography. Of course, not all will agree with that.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
I'm with you in this Gordon illustration they could be. Those Polaroid lifts
you have on your site, how do you classify them? I notice you have some
strongly "distorted" (is that the word?) images yourself although true
photographs in that the distortion is either camera induced or later from
the film. So I guess they qualify as photographs by definition but in the
world of people not technically aware, are they too, photo illustrations?

--
----m0o0m

[Ext User(nb)]

>Could this actually be a new area of photography or is it just another
> process like we used to get by printing negs over trannies with
Cibachrome?
>
> D & AJ.

I haven't seen the pics mentioned on the dead link but photographers have
been manipulating photographs either wittingly or unwittingly since
virtually day one of photography.

Lens choice, camera position, lighting, film choice, , filtration, printed
dark or light, contrast or lack thereof, all influence the end result.
Digital manipulation is merely the modern way to alter a photograph.

In my opinion, digital manipulation is perfectly acceptable as a tool to
translate the photographers vision/idea/concept to a final image as long as
it is not purported to be 'real'.

Where you differentiate between reality and vision is a question much like
'How long is a piece of string?'



Cheers

nb

[Ext User(Gordon Moat)]

BigPix wrote:
>>
>>I saw lots of the same when PhotoShop 3.0 came out, so this is nothing
>>new. It seems to be more of a "flavour of the month" thing, with some
>>notoriety / popularity every so many years.
>>
>>My opinion is that this should correctly be called "photo illustration"
>>and not photography. Of course, not all will agree with that.
>>
>>Ciao!
>>
>>Gordon Moat
>>A G Studio
>><http://www.allgstudio.com>
>>
> I'm with you in this Gordon illustration they could be. Those Polaroid lifts
> you have on your site, how do you classify them? I notice you have some
> strongly "distorted" (is that the word?) images yourself although true
> photographs in that the distortion is either camera induced or later from
> the film. So I guess they qualify as photographs by definition but in the
> world of people not technically aware, are they too, photo illustrations?
>

I suppose the Polaroids are somewhere between photography and painting,
more of a grey area. They are very random in how they turn out, and they
require a lot of hand work (manipulation) before they are done. The SX70
manipulations are more photo illustration, since those involve directly
drawing on the print.

In my exhibited pieces, I call them what they are as prints: Polaroid
Emulsion Lift, Polaroid Transfer, Polaroid 690 Transfer (special process
to do 690 film this way), and SX70 Manipulation. I suppose the last
qualifies as photo illustration, while the others I am less certain
about, but they are not really photographs.

Some of my regular (if I could call them that) photography involves
unusual angles, camera movements, unusual lighting situations, or
unconventional ways of using the lenses and gear. Some thing I have
photographed are not directly visible like that when viewing such a
scene in person. The moment may have been too brief, too long, or the
lighting not what the human eye would see. Might be tough for some
people to call them photos, though they were done in camera. When I show
some images as prints, some people ask me if I manipulated an image, or
if the image was a digital image . . . I guess that means I sometimes do
something people don't expect.

I try not to judge my own images, but outside of the Polaroid stuff, and
my graphic design work, they are just photos. A few photographers I
sometimes exhibit with have asked why I don't do more manipulation in
the computer; basically I just don't enjoy it. To me, manipulating
images is like work, namely graphic design. I do regular illustration
work (paper or computer) too, so I have nothing against illustration,
but I don't want that to happen with most of my photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[Ext User(grumpy@mailinator.com)]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:42:20 GMT, Alienjones himself <just@the.groups> wrote:

> There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
> Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
> perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
> description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
> calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.
>
> His style of photography is quite curious stuff. Here are some of his
> pictures; http://www.auspics.com/byron I'd be interested in hearing
> comments on them. Programs like "mystical lighting" and such from
> companies like "FX" are probably used for doing this although I could
> see many tools in Corel Photopaint and Photoshop which would do a lot of
> the effects too.
>
> Could this actually be a new area of photography or is it just another
> process like we used to get by printing negs over trannies with Cibachrome?

I have got examples in a book of doctored photographs from the Civil War era so it is nothing new.

[Ext User(chrlz@go.com)]

Oh dear. Forgive my mirth.

>I recently finished making the 2006
>calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.

(gee, with Capitals no less!! Douglas is a legend in his own mind..)

>His style of photography is quite curious stuff. Here are some
>of his pictures;
>http://www.auspics.com/byron

The link is indeed dead - I'll check in later when it finally hits the
airwaves. But anyone vaguely interested in this crap should know that
ALIENJONES is equal to BIGPIX is equal to DOUGLAS MACDONALD is equal to
TECHNOAUSSIE is equal to.... well, it just goes on and on, including
many other notables including 'One Million Pics', 'Joe Bailey',
'Alvie', 'The Yowie', 'Graham Hunt', even 'healthypcs'... Check the
header information for vital clues, and do your own search on those
names if you want a bit of a laugh.

Douglas' ability to self promote, and morph into anyone he needs to
support his claims and advertise his positively mediocre photography,
is almost without peer. Personally, I find it sickening, and a little
sad..

But nice try Douglas.

By the way, your post over on the wedding thread was actually very
good. Credit where due. But you deserve NO credit for *this*
dishonest behaviour. Do you think everyone on the Internet is a twit?

[Ext User(chrlz@go.com)]

And if anyone thinks I'm being harsh with the 'mediocre' bit, here are
a couple of "auspic's" (Douglas MacDonald's) wedding shots:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/clews_wedding/slides/PB050536-s.html
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/clews_wedding/slides/PB050576.html

I could just rest my case there. I'm still shuddering over that first
one - how could you *do* that to a bride?? The only reason for that
photo's existence is as a warning to newcomers to portraiture - it
shows just about everything you should *never* do in a portrait, and
why...

But to be fair to Douglas (and if you want further torture, IMO!) check
out the entire series starting here:

http://www.photosbydouglas.com/clews_wedding/index.html

Hey, there *are* a few good ones, but in general, note the poor
cropping, the incredibly distracting backgrounds/foregrounds, the blown
highlights, the... oh heavens i think I'm going to be sick.....

(O:

(Wonder how long these images will last - Douglas has a bit of a habit
of pulling anything that gets criticised.. especially when it's me that
does it..)

[Ext User(Alienjones himself)]

>
> By the way, your post over on the wedding thread was actually very
> good. Credit where due. But you deserve NO credit for *this*
> dishonest behaviour. Do you think everyone on the Internet is a twit?
>
Only you Charlie, deserve the description of twit. Somehow you see
dishonest behavior in ever post I make. You accuse me of fraud when my
factory foreman posts a reference to a deal to sell Samsung my patents.
You fantasize that posting to a news group will somehow drive up the
value of a print centre I was selling below the value of the equipment
it had because he mentioned the deal was close to agreement. Amazing
imagination you have there, Stevens. Must be the sea air in Port
Lincoln, eh? Maybe it's the stuff you inhale? Sounds more likely.

Then you start defaming me and calling me a liar when I say I can
enlarge a 6 megapixel digital image to 24" x 36" or even -shock horror -
scan a snapshot and do the same but somehow you can't bring yourself to
believe it is possible. Your loss there mate. Walk into my studio or the
print centre and the proof is all over the walls. Better still, have a
gander at this picture: http://canvasphotos.com.au

Of all the recognized experts in 4 countries (76 of them) I provided
proof of this process to, only you never got one of my packages. I
wonder why that would be? Someone with a world shattering reputation as
a Photographer like you have, missing out on my promotion? Amazing.
Would it have been the Sony handi cam you use that gave you away, do you
think?

Why didn't you bother to read the Australian or even post in these
groups for a reply from anyone who either knew me personally or had
bought my prints or even - shock, horror - had a print enlarged from
one of their snapshots to a poster size enlargement... Before you
started inventing bullshit about someone you don't know, never bothered
to contact and only had to telephone to verify their bona fide? No...
Couldn't read a telephone book, perhaps?

It's not like I'm hiding, you know. I'm on the Electoral roll, all my
businesses - yes, Healthy PCs too, are in the phone book. You couldn't
bring yourself to consider that a legitimate businessman who contributes
to several local charities and financially supports the local advocacy
service for under privledged and displaced people might be up front and
actually have a legally incorporated corporate structure, could you?

That's not your style is it Stevens? You much prefer to invent sinister
fantasies about crooks pumping up the value of a worthless idea and fire
off shots from under your rock ...like the bullshit about your "mates"
in the Securities commission you were going to "get on my case" to shut
me down. You have to be one to think like one mate. It's you who are the
slime bag, gutless mongrel, not me.

Odd, it's almost a year now since you threatened me with that reprisal
for what? Oh yes, I remember. For adopting the warranty practices of
every major automotive supplier in Australia. And... Despite your
fantasies Technology Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 100 319 168)
http://www.technoaussie.com is still flourishing. I'm Beyond bladder
control looking up the history of your childish antics. It's a good
thing you are a worthless feral or I'd have sued you long ago.

For anyone interested in the article Gordon Moate wrote about my
enlargement algorithm and the process I developed to enlarge digital
images - http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html is the first
article... Chrlz never even bother to contact the man or read his or any
other article to see if there was any truth in my claims. Instead goaded
me relentlessly to respond to a Norwegian joker quite capable of reverse
engineering anything I sent him... I wonder why he missed out on the
samples too? Maybe it was his association with a certain University?
Mathematician, I think the word is.

I gave up spending $27 on postage to send packages of my enlargements
worth $60 in print costs all over the world to silence or satisfy my
critics - Well those with any credibility. That leaves Chrlz out
again... Bugger, he must've been tossing when the invites went out!

Oddly since I stopped trying to convince the narrow minded and highly
vocal idiots like Stevens, (both of them) I've developed a nice business
out of the process of enlarging photos and printing them on canvas,
rayon, vinyl and of course, photographic paper.

And finally I buy a few new PCs as I move my servers off shore and
downsize my local network ready to move my studio and gallery to new,
separate premises at Christmas and this total fucking loser who's main
claim to fame is he once worked for someone - decided it's dishonest
behavior to start using a screen name I invented and used on and off for
12 years.

This is the fellow who asked for help to read headers (come on guys,
anyone out there good with headers) just a few month ago and now he's a
forensic expert in Internet fraud. ROTFL at that one. He hasn't figured
out yet that Alienjones is posting from a brand new Bigpond service and
all the others he listed post from my private network provided by TPG...
Some detective - *NOT*.

It's nobody's business but mine to decide if I'll set up a new PC with
an account on bigpond instead of TPG or anyone else and use a name of my
choosing. Like "Chrlz" is a real name too, eh? Keep it up Stevens and
I'll spill the beans on you mate. A year is long enough to get the dope
on you.

Tell us now, the name of the studio you did all that medium format
wedding photography for in Adelaide all those years ago before you made
bludging a profession. Presumably their business has flourished since
getting shed of you and your uncontrollable imagination.

It won't take long, we should be able verify your claims withing a week
or so. Highly unlikely they won't be in an industry organization. Even
if it was just a lone Photographer using you for the more difficult jobs
he wasn't able to do, tell us his name so I can ask him through APPI all
about you.

[Ext User(Alan Browne)]

Alienjones himself wrote:


> Could this actually be a new area of photography

New? No. People have been manipulating photographic images in one way
or another for over 100 years. Photoshop provides a cleaner, cheaper,
more powerful way to do it. That's all.

It is post photography artwork, not photography, per se.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

[Ext User()]

In article <k1rkp1hp123ipdj2q39phr9atoi3u8m3rv@4ax.com>,
grumpy@mailinator.com says...
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:42:20 GMT, Alienjones himself <just@the.groups> wrote:
>
> > There has been a movement by some well known (Professional)
> > Photographers in recent times towards using software (Photoshop
> > perhaps)to manipulate their photos and produce what for want of a better
> > description I'll call works of art. I recently finished making the 2006
> > calendars for a well respected Australian Wedding Photographer.
> >
> > His style of photography is quite curious stuff. Here are some of his
> > pictures; http://www.auspics.com/byron I'd be interested in hearing
> > comments on them. Programs like "mystical lighting" and such from
> > companies like "FX" are probably used for doing this although I could
> > see many tools in Corel Photopaint and Photoshop which would do a lot of
> > the effects too.
> >
> > Could this actually be a new area of photography or is it just another
> > process like we used to get by printing negs over trannies with Cibachrome?
>
> I have got examples in a book of doctored photographs from the Civil War era so it is nothing new.
>
>
>
I think most of us know that.

[Ext User()]

In article <%1Emf.60014$FP6.873224@wagner.videotron.net>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> Alienjones himself wrote:
>
>
> > Could this actually be a new area of photography
>
> New? No. People have been manipulating photographic images in one way
> or another for over 100 years. Photoshop provides a cleaner, cheaper,
> more powerful way to do it. That's all.
>
> It is post photography artwork, not photography, per se.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
>
I love photoshop but with photoshop more talentless people are taking on
the task. Same in the auido field. Is that a good thing, I don't know?
For audio the digital home studio has proven to be a wash. Not any really
great music coming down the pipe and if there were it is an impossible
task for someone like myself to weed through all the horrible demo tapes.
I can see this in photogrpahy now as well. Nine zillion guys think they
are now good photograpers. So, it is nothing new but, sometimes it might
be better if things are more difficult as too weed out the less serious
folks.

[Ext User(Alan Browne)]

punishspammers@NOSPAM.com wrote:

> are now good photograpers. So, it is nothing new but, sometimes it might
> be better if things are more difficult as too weed out the less serious
> folks.

The market does that quite naturally.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

[Ext User()]

In article <ucGmf.42052$S93.970066@weber.videotron.net>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> punishspammers@NOSPAM.com wrote:
>
> > are now good photograpers. So, it is nothing new but, sometimes it might
> > be better if things are more difficult as too weed out the less serious
> > folks.
>
> The market does that quite naturally.
>
>
Not in music. Hopefully in photography this will be the case.

[Ext User(Mark²)]

Alienjones himself wrote:

> I gave up spending $27 on postage to send packages of my enlargements
> worth $60 in print costs all over the world to silence or satisfy my
> critics - Well those with any credibility. That leaves Chrlz out
> again... Bugger, he must've been tossing when the invites went out!
>
> Oddly since I stopped trying to convince the narrow minded and highly
> vocal idiots like Stevens, (both of them) I've developed a nice
> business out of the process of enlarging photos and printing them on
> canvas, rayon, vinyl and of course, photographic paper.

It is truly baffling why you would go to such lengths and expense to
"silence" newsgroup critics.
What on Earth could possibly be so important as to cause you to spend such
$$ simply to try and justify yourself to a bunch of strangers on usenet??
Very odd, that.