Sometimes I ask to myself what can by fair in post-processing and what changes the nature of one image.
In my opinion I'm pretty sure that in my digital darkroom I can do every processing that was possible in the "analogic" darkroom.
I always try to distinguish between very elaborate post-processing as HDR, that in my opinion produce an image and not a shot and light post-processing, as white-balance corrections, curve corrections, conversion to black and white.
But recently an alarm bell rang, reading the comments to this picture:
"Winter stories 46053" by Roberto Ballerini - traveling [?]
This is obtained using The GIMP on this intermediate result:
"Winter stories 46053 (intermediate)" by Roberto Ballerini - traveling [?]
and this is obtained in Lightroom, color correcting and cropping the original colour shot:
"Winter stories 46053 (the original)" by Roberto Ballerini - traveling [?]
And you? What do you think about this processing and, more in general, what is a "fair" post-processing?
I postprocess as much as I like. Some like that and others don't, so there is no correct amount of postprocessing but the amount that I prefer for my pictures.
I draw the line at not changing the imagecontent. So I don't put additional persons or things into an existing picture. But that also is a personal choice.
light...
Roberto Ballerini -… has replied to ArneRoberto Ballerini -… has replied to JohanJohan has replied to Roberto Ballerini -…I'm also sure that everyone can judge differently a shot, like or dislike it: it happens with masterpieces and it happens more with amateur photography, as mine and as the majority of the shots uploaded to ipernity.
What I was asking is something more specific: do you think it is possible to trace a limit between photography and graphical expression? when do you think that an image can't be considered a shot no more and have to be considered a graphical work (or another form of artistic expression)?
I can't relate the word Art to my crap.
I try to express myself through photography, through my way of capturing what's in front of me.
I'm sure that in front of a real scene or in front of a snapshot everyone of us "sees" and "feels" something different and I'm also sure that "the map isn't the territory", as someone said.
As Mat Fot said, there isn't a limit for creativity, but I suggest that the result of creativity on a shot isn't always photography, as you can see in Pimp my shot and related experiments.
I'm curious to know what everyone of you define as photography.
Feel free to add your thoughts to this thread ;-)
Arne has replied to Roberto Ballerini -…The noun "photography" has a touch of objectiveness to it (and I think a lot of people err on that). But as soon as I decide what to put on the picture by just framing I start giving personal feelings into the picture. So any objectiveness is lost already. But would you already call it graphical art?
Some pictures become graphical just because of a long exposure time or complete unsharpness or extreme exposure. Others require a lot of postprocessing, but in the end look like a perfectly normal photo. So to me there is no correct answer to that.
I call my work photography, because I start with a foto and don't add additioinal content. But that's just my personal defintion.
light...
--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)
Sign-in to write a comment.