Computer Inhanced Photos Are They Really A Photo?

[pesh]

Hi All

I'm going to try and word this just right as I don't want it to come across the wrong way....

I've been looking at a lot of photographers photos of late, no one in particular, and I'd say 99% of these photographers work are digitally inhanced. Even though they are spectacular and beautiful to look at, I'm thinking are you still a photo or a computer inhance image, no longer showing the true photo?

Are we depending too much on computers and the not the eye of the photographer?

I hope this makes sense as I know what I'm trying to say, but as most of you know I'm no word master. :laugh:

Thx

Sharon :D

[persephone]

pesh.... I know what you mean.

For long time, I did no editing of my photos .....

and then realised that what I saw on screen was sometimes not really what I had seen with my eyes - and so now I do adjust some things so it looks more like how I saw it.

I also digitally alter photos ...with effects - but obvious ones .

[huga]

Film is processed, digital images are processed. It can be overdone, just like film. It's all about personal taste, I guess.

All my images have been processed. I wouldn't not process them.

[CrazyCresties]

kja started a good thread on this a few months back.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/236590-why-straight-out-of-camera-isnt-it/

I think you'll find it interesting Pesh :)

[Are You Serious Jo]

Every time you choose the aperture, shutter speed ISO, lens etc you are manipulating the images. No one goes around showing their negatives, ALL film was manipulated at processing anyway. There was a lot of dodging and burning and manipulation in the darkroom by the old masters as well. Digital also is a bit lower in contrast so even basic shots need a bit of tweaking. Funny when people put in caps NO MANIPULATION of their images, it's not a badge of honour.

[tlc]

If you shoot in raw format you have to develop (process) the photo anyway.

Some editing can be described more as art rather than photography.

I guess it is all personal taste really.

I shoot in raw and develop every photo individually or batch edit if the photos are similar so they all have the same look/feel. Depends on what I am shooting.

I use lightroom to develop my photos,

is a really good basic video of how it works and what it can do for your images. Edited March 23, 2013 by tlc

[tlc]

Fantastic explanation Snook!

[Linda K]

Ansell Adams, who many regard as one of the true master of film, would work for hours (if not days), in a dark room, exposing different areas of a negative (or plate), shielding others, until he got the image exactly the way he wanted it to look - the original exposure taken was just the starting point to his finished product, not the end point. if his work is regarded as classic photographic images, why then are images that are captured on a digital device, and then worked on and enhanced in different areas on a computer any less an image. The fact that our own eyes can see a range of at least 11 - 12 different exposure points at once 0 and can constantly adjust - for instance when you look from a bright area to a darkened area, but a camera (film or digital), can only do a range of 6 at once means that any image recorded will never match what we can see with our own eyes anyway, and it is only multiple exposures or bringing out of other details afterwards in the processing of the images that then allows an image to even begin to match what we see.

I do however have a problem with calling straight out digital manipulation of images, into unreality as photographs, they should more correctly be called photographic art or perhaps digital art, as they then move from the realm of being a photographic image that has been digitally processed, and moved more into an interpretation that may be a total fantasy.