While checking out Alan's recent post of the pine forest, I got on one of my coffee (or wine!) phylosophizing binges. Rather than highjacking his post, I thought I'd start my own in hopes of hearing your thoughts about the topic. Grab a coffee or glass of wine - it's 4 o'clock somewhere - and let's talk about the appreciation of 'arty' alterations in photography.
I like photography taken to a place that some would consider too "artsy". Post processing seems to be accepted when trying to make an image look better without it generally looking like it's highly manipulated. However, if you use it in such a way where your original image is like a canvas that you now create an art piece with, somehow it seems to be less valid among the broader photography community.
As an example, the image of the heron below is an altered version of a very highly rated 'natural' version. I actually like this version better but it doesn't garner remotely the same positive feedback on fStoppers than the other, more natural-looking one receives. This one would work in a general art venue - but on a photography site it has garnered feedback such as "too altered" or "nice by arty".
As another example, picture an ICM image in your mind. If I created it on my computer from a standard photograph, what is your first immediate reaction? Probably not the level of appreciation as when I now tell you I did it with the camera. Your impression changes right? That's because you are thinking of the image as a photographer. Anyone else would just be thinking 'that is pretty' or 'i don't like that'.
I think sometimes, as photographers, we get stuck in a rut of looking at every image from a critique / technically evaluative perspective and less from just a gut reaction, artistic appreciation aspect.
I also mention this because I think there is a bias here on this site. fStoppers is predominantly for working photographers. I have no problem with this. I'm thankful the site is here! I'm just saying that the arty fringe (my favorite place) is not the target audience. Those in the fringe are reminded that your style is valid even if it isn't mainstream here.
I started this group for the interesting, unique things that get posted here. So I guess this could be an unconventional pep talk to my fringe friends to continue doing whatever makes you happy. And - post in this group!
Whew. How's that for a random burst of opinion!
What's yours on this topic?
PS - These are just some images that I like that are on the artsy end of the curve.
It is an interesting topic for sure and I agree with everything you've mentioned and have seen it for myself with different images.
My past is in computer graphics, 3d modeling and animation and only recently took the dive into the world of photography. In the computer world, everything is built from scratch, the objects, color, shading, occlusion, reflections, refraction, lighting, shadows, environment... and the all important, how "photo realistic" do you want the scene to be.
From my "fresh eyes just entering this world" there is definitely a... what to call it... a feeling, a notion? When the word "photography" is used it's just translated by others as "professional, I'm selling my work" photography. I actually got kicked out of a FB group for watermarking my work with the word Photography. Reason: "You are advertising your business", but I wasn't... 'Since I have stopped watermarking.
More on topic, and the more I dive into this world, I am finding what your are talking about to also be true. The more "artys" style of edits spark less of an interest from others; sometimes even hostile responses. Which is crazy I feel.
On a parallel topic... I started out here posting images I took using my own lens I built using parts out of an old project tv set. Those images were instantly '1' stared and just outright triggered a poor response from the community. The images were of simple things, a small flower, the image was super soft as the lens had no aperture (and the rear element was almost the same size as the camera mount itself!)...
These images were very artsy in nature and I was fairly proud.. I have always been a "tech" and a tinkerer, and the experience of building my own lens no one else had was an amazing one. Sure there was no comparing it to the latest and greatest $3000 canon lens, but that was the point. Turning someone's trash into a functional lens was. :)
This is the lens and just two examples... At this point I did add a cardboard aperture, which can clearly be seen in the lens. I have since upgraded to a true adjustable, bladed, iris. Total cost, roughly $25.. 20 for the new iris, and 5 for the reverse mount to connect the lens to the camera.
Love the green one, Joe!
Thanks Chris... This lens is a Bokeh Monster... Just silky smooth gradients. With the New Iris/aperture things are a bit sharper.. The lens definitely gives a very unique feel to images.
One day when I get a mirrorless camera, and using the lens with the shorter flange distance... well.. I super want to test that out. :)
Hey Joe, I applaud your efforts and look forward to your future experiments
Thank you Alan, much appreciated. I have a few things planned and can't wait to get to them.
Well, guys, it is called Fstoppers so what DID you expect?
Exactly what it is.
Good question Chris. TBH I visit this site to be inspired by beautiful and creative art, created using the camera (my tool of choice).
I really enjoy seeing what can be achieved with the camera and whilst I may not always enjoy the final product I always try to appreciate the artist's viewpoint and learn from their efforts.
I don't think anything "can be too artsy". It all depends on your goal - if it is to accurately depict what is seen in front of you (as in a documentary or product image) then the output should reflect that.
I believe what you are questioning though is how far to too far when taking a capture and modelling to a desired output. i don't think there can be any limit imposed on this.
My goal is to produce interesting and aesthetic results - if that is pleasing to the eye then the road to get there should not matter.
The fact is that ALL photography involves manipulation, be it from an artistic choice of film/chemicals/paper, to dodging and burning and through to today's editing packages and techniques. Photography is simply a medium that used to produce an end result, not the end result itself.
I think it's fine for all to have their own boundaries on what is acceptable, but respect needs to be allowed to those that have a differing outlook - there is no 'correct' answer here, only opinion based on personal belief.
Agree, point for point, Alan.
Well put Alan!
Just wanted to say Ruth that I'm sure I too prefer all these "altered" images to what they started as. We've discussed some of the bird images before. The red one's a bit much for me, but I'm sure it would appeal to others, as it obviously did to you to make it.
And kudos to you for promoting these ideas, Ruth, in this Group and elsewhere.
This group is a team effort and I hope we continue to explore new things together.
In that vein, when I see something posted on this site that might be a good fit here, I invite the person to join us. I encourage everyone to do this too! It keeps the group fresh and strong!
Thanks for the feedback too Chris!
:)
I also steer people here in the same way, Ruth. This, of all Groups, could be "tolerant of diversity" to coopt a popular current concept. So, the wilder, the better. Obviously not from tame old me.
Hi all 😁..This is a very interesting topic and one that could go on for years and years.It seems to me that there is a bias on this site for either landscape or studio images with all the bells and whistles thrown at them.But even these are mostly manipulated .In real life a lot of the landscape images would look nothing like they do once they,'ve been photoshopped , in fact they probably look pretty dull but it's an accepted thing that photographers do.The same goes for the studio stuff, there are some incredible images out there ,really polished and technically brilliant ...but....they can leave you feeling absolutely nothing and have all the emotional quality of cold custard !!. Just yesterday a friend sent me a a snapshot of her new puppy...made my heart melt ...So I know what I prefer..The pic that made me feel something..😁...I suspect that if you took a hundred people ( non photographers )and asked them to choose between the puppy snapshot or the studio model...the puppy would get the most votes.....So....as long as an image ( whatever it is ) makes you feel something or think about something then it,s good !
Very well said!
PS - i cant help thinking of this image as it is exactly what you are describing. i was laying on the lawn playing with a new lense and friend's puppy when took this. It would definitely be called a snapshot here. But Its always been a favorite. Makes me happy exactly like you describe. So heres a little joy!
Wonderful wonderful 😁😁😁😁...had my heart strings pulled again 😍