I really want to know why edited pictures are considered photography. I thought photography was all about capturing the natural moments of the world.. not editing them and basically changing the whole entire point of the photo itself. But I assume there is a sub-branch of photography.. like natural (for unedited and nature pictures etc.) and something for editing photos (photoshop etc). But im not sure.. i still dont understand. In Deviantart, you can submit a photo that you worked hard to capture the natural aspect in the perfect angle of this beautiful meadow, and someone else can take a picture of dirt and add in a meadow with photoshop and they're considered the same thing. kinda lame...
anyways, thanks .. looking forward to hearing from you guys.~
Why are edited/Photoshopped pictures considered photography?
The idea behind art is not to replicate nature (necessarily) but to show the artist's vision. If that vision DOES seem a perfect reflection of a real subject, fine an dandy. But to limit art to replication alone would be grossly unfair. Photography is an art that can encompass many many forms, some realistic, some surreal. No need to eschew edited pictures, unless a competition requires that they be unedited. While I understand your complaint, I would say that the photographer who needs to edit in order to create more artistic pictures is probably less skilled.
Still, there is room for all!
Why are edited/Photoshopped pictures considered photography?
It's all about how you view photography and your opinions of it. I agree with you about editing. A good picture is dependent on how little editing you want to do but I don't think it's so bad to take blemishes off of skin or brighten some of the colors. It's all about what the picture is. I don't think you should add things that weren't there. I don't really like the %26quot;color splash%26quot; fad that's going around. I also don't like the hacks taking pictures from above angles. It's all about personal preference.
And if you think about it, every time you switch settings on your camera say from portrait to landscape, that's editing because you change the way the picture would come out if it were just on Auto.
Check out my gallery! I don't have photography on it but you can go see. :D http://shini-dono.deviantart.com/
If you wanted to add special effects, or change lighting or something, I still consider it photography. But you add things that aren't really there, like a fake meadow, it's usually crap.
That's just my opinion.
the same reason abstract art is considered art. personally, i don't understand the concept of abstract artwork, such as this: http://www.beautifullart.com/Paintings/O鈥?/a>
i don't see the talent at all. a five year old could do that. anyone could do that. but only if it's done by an artist is it considered %26quot;art%26quot;.
i'm more accepting of edited photos, however. i see those as photography, because you are still working with photos you took. it's an artistic arrangement of the photos, or artistic manipulation to shift the focus in the photo, or color changes, editing two photos together, or something like that. and in many ways this can be so much more difficult than simply snapping a picture because it takes a lot of thought and additional talent to really pull it off.
not to mention that many people also argue that photography isn't even art in the first place. but if photos are art, then photo manipulation is art. that's my logic.
I don't consider %26quot;photoshopped%26quot; pictures to be photography. Photography means capturing an interesting, meaningful picture with a CAMERA. Translated from its root words, photography means %26quot;drawing with light%26quot; or %26quot;recording with light.%26quot; Notice that does NOT say anthing about a computer.
If someone understands basic photography, they should be able to take a good picture with NO editing. There isn't anything wrong with making slight adjustments to improve a picture, such as cropping, adjusting contrast, color temperature, etc. The problem is that too many people depend on %26quot;Photoshopping%26quot; to try to make a boring snapshot look more interesting that it is.
At a certain point, you can overedit a picture to the point where it is no longer a real photograph anymore. Then in becomes something else. It's just a computer generated image. I'm not saying CGI isn't an art form. It is. But it's completely different from photography.
Photography is an art and discipline that a true photographer undertakes with his or CAMERA, and using light, optics, and the natural world to create an interesting and meaningful picture. Photography is NOT about sitting on a computer, %26quot;photoshopping%26quot; pictures for MySpace and Flickr.
----
Yup, that's right. Go ahead and look at my pictures. Especially the darkroom prints I've developed myself. You may be especially interested in the prints I've made from glass plate negatives from the 1900's. The fact is, I get compliments all the time, and many of my pictures have been favorited. People specifically say my pictures are well composed and exposed. I've also sold a lot of my prints. If I don't need to %26quot;Photoshop%26quot; my pictures, why should I?
As a note to everyone else...the %26quot;nipples%26quot; guy , who posted a link to my pictures has changed his YA screen name at least 10 times that I'm personally aware of. Also, it's up to you whether you want to take advice from someone with 'nipples' in his screen name, who says that %26quot;good photographers photoshop their pictures.%26quot; But hey, thanks for the plug.
But I assume there is a sub-branch of photography.. - - for unprocessed images there is its called %26quot;snapshots%26quot;
art is about interpretation, any fool can take snap shots - just record things, good photographers manipulate light and make things look good
good photographers use post processing, bad ones dont - its really that simple - see gateways flickr shots if you need proof: http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverscape鈥?/a>
great images have three aspects to them - - - the concept, the recording, the post work, anything less is just a snap shot
example - - - ansell adams spent hours and days working on images in the darkroom, if he lived today he would love photoshop
There was 'art' long before there was photography.
On that assumption, let's consider the caveman's view of say, photography. 'Ay,Og, Wat Da *** Dat?
One form of photography does not negate the other. That would be like saying classical music is the only music and all else should not exist. There is so much beauty in so many different ways. Why should one purposely limit themselves?
