[Closed] Stunning photos. Well worth a look!

Erm
Oh there

Amazing.

Wow

How come my pics never look like those in wrightysons link, some amazing pics in there but some of those must have been through some photoshop processing surely?.

I've a couple of mates who fiddle about with the camera, worth a look if you're bored/got 5 mins to spare

[url= https://simonshackleton.smugmug.com ]Shack's photo website here[/url]

[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/46443141@N07/ ]Fudgey's wildlife pics here[/url]

Thanks for that wrightyson

The world is a truly stunning place

As a photoshop hater, they are stunning and show that the art of photograpghy isn't dead.

Fantastic but I'd say there's been a little tweaking with some.

Some great stuff there, thanks.

Wow. Love the frozen Jeep one.

Nice!

The Royal British Navy

FFS!!!

I think you must have linked to the wrong site.

captainsasquatch - Member

As a photoshop hater,

Um, why would you hate a piece of software?

Um, why would you hate a piece of software?

Because it used to be that the camera never lied, and then along came Photoshop

Because it used to be that the camera never lied, and then along came Photoshop

😆

[img] [/img]

The girl on the right's wearing make up and the girl on the left isn't?

Why? Are they no good in your book?

Because it used to be that the camera never lied, and then along came Photoshop

[img] [/img]

Why? Are they no good in your book?

Well some are OK but most are just, well, average. I mean if you're going to hail them as being the very best photographs that haven't been artificially 'constructed' from other elements (i.e. the scene you see wasn't ever seen in reality by the photographer) you're setting the bar pretty high.

Drac - Moderator

" Because it used to be that the camera never lied, and then along came Photoshop"
😆

[img] [/img]
br />

🙄

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] ?w=655&h=893[/img]

QED.
The camera hasn't lied, the post production editing has, be it the darkroom or photoshop. The camera hasn't lied, the photographer has.

Ermmmm! Are you smoking something?

Ermmmm! Are you smoking something?

Where's the lie from the image from the camera?

WTF? You on about?

I'm proving that post photo editing took place photoshop come along, photoshop just made it digital and easier. Nothing has change but they was it is done.

WTF? You on about?

I'm proving that post photo editing took place photoshop come along, photoshop just made it digital and easier. Nothing has change but they was it is done.

Other people got it.

No.

So I tell my daughter that the F in WTF means [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wtf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=8tV5Vsu8BMmUUZXllIAL#q=wtf+means ]what[/url]?
As for others they've been equally ambiguous in the posts.

So I tell my daughter that the F in WTF means what?

I dunno?, do you explain everything on the Internet to your daughter?, if so then I imagine you've got more delicate issues to explain than an abbreviation such as [i]WTF[/i].

Whisky Tango Foxtrot out.

I dunno?, do you explain everything on the Internet to your daughter?, if so then I imagine you've got more delicate issues to explain than an abbreviation such as WTF.

None of which changes the fact that the pictures at the other end of the original link are distinctly average (as I freely admit are mine).

As for what was always the case, of course the process of developing a picture has always involved manipulation. This is after all where the dodge and burn tools and their respective icons actually come from.

But that wasn't my point about 'the camera neer lies'. PP to darken or lighten certain areas is one thing but making up whole scenes is another.

I suppose you need to ask yourself what you're trying to achieve in the creative process; do you want to convey some element of truth, some insight into the human condition, comment on the state of humanity? If you're presenting something that's not real it can still be art but perhaps it's not photography?

If you're presenting something that's not real it can still be art but perhaps it's not photography?

And don't forget black and white photos. Who the hell sees in black and white?

Anyway... So what. Your photo, do what you want with it.

I think 8 out of the first 10 posts (before it turned into the usual bickering) agreed with my original thoughts re the photos so that'd suggest they are better than average.
We clearly don't have the eye or skills for photography that you have geetee. Hope Santa brings you a nice lens or something so that you can show em who's boss when you next go out with your camera.
Merry Christmas 😉

[img] [/img]

There's no way that is straight out of the camera, that's a composite of (at least) two shots surely?

Yeah there's a few that have clearly been tweaked, still awesome though.

We clearly don't have the eye or skills for photography that you have geetee

LOL my photo's are crap! I might aspire to be better and to have a better understanding but what I produce is, at best, distinctly average and most of the time a cloying cliche.

I have no problem with people producing whatever they want and commend anyone for wanting to express themselves. But things change when someone presents it to the world as both important and truthful. That's the point at which the observer is now invited to also be a critic and that's simply what I'm doing on this thread. The act of critiquing is an essential part of the creative process; it's what helps us improve.

On the point of 'truthfulness', I think that working on a RAW file to adjust things like white balance, shadow point, contrast, colour etc is one end of the editing spectrum and reflects the desire to convey mood, atmosphere and character. Building a composite picture from elements that were never in the scene is still a creative process, and it's still done to convey the same things but it's a different genre. It's not a genre that is always done at all well in my view and is, in many ways, highly reductionist.

The 'art' in photography, in my view, is in the space between the photographer and the subject. But if the subject was never there in the first place, then one might argue that there is therefore little or no art left. It's become nothing more than a technical exercise in how to use PP software.

I think in many ways, it's not wholly unlike the artist who sticks some lights up in a gallery, gives it a name and then claims it to be art because he/she created it. Where is the art; where is the artistic process? If you have to write a commentary to explain what you're doing then you've surely failed as an artist?

Similarly, if your photograph, while impressive, leaves the viewer wondering how you created it rather than why, I think you've also failed (in using photography as a medium for artistic expression).

There are some very impressive shots in that gallery. Some are painfully twee. To call it the "100 Greatest Photographs Ever Taken Without Photoshop" pretty much pisses on 200 years of photography and is rather stupid since every photograph ever taken, was taken without photoshop.

A better title would be 100 impressive royalty free photographs but that wouldn't be such good clickbait 😉

[url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken#.rf9nVMJP9x ]Photographs that have real impact[/url]

There are some nice shots in there, but an awful lot that wouldn't get any further than a quick snap on an Instagram feed for most people. I'm also sure that prooooobably all of them have been touched by Photoshop (or Lightroom, or similar) in some way - they all look processed, though modern camera jpeg processing is pretty good and I'd be willing to bet they've been resized and sharpened from the originals too.

The whole photography as art thing is a whole different argument. To dismiss something as being incapable of being art purely due to the use of a particular piece of software is just silly. Surely creating something new from a number of elements is just as valid an art form as capturing a moment over which you have no influence? Would you discount photo collage as an art form?

Whether something is "art" or not is surely down to the intention and process of the artist rather than some arbitrary definition based on media.

To dismiss something as being incapable of being art purely due to the use of a particular piece of software is just silly.

I agree; this wasn't my argument.

Surely creating something new from a number of elements is just as valid an art form as capturing a moment over which you have no influence?

I think it is yes (and I did make that point above -

Building a composite picture from elements that were never in the scene is still a creative process

My argument is whether that process can be considered art in the context of the photography as a genre/medium. Every genre/medium will have a different set of criteria by which we as viewers evaluate the thing we are viewing and which we bring with us (how these criteria are constructed is a separate but no less interesting debate).

Also, the differentiation between medium and genre is important here. It could be that creating entirely fabricated/artificial images in PP is a valid genre within the photographic medium and thus have its own set of values by which the 'art' should be perceived and judged.

It could be that I am too dismissive of that genre as a valid artistic construct and that this is why I make the arguments to dismiss the creative process inherent in those images.

Probably I am a purist, which means that for me at least, in order for a 'photograph' to be evaluated along artistic lines and congratulated for it's artistic merit, it needs to be truthful to it's own characteristics, which is, conveniently, built on veracity; the capturing of real light in real situations in order to create an image that tells a story in some way or which reveals something about the world and the nature of humanity.

Building a composite image still results in something aesthetically pleasing, and can still be seen as art and artistic but it's less truthful to the medium in which it was created. It's a different medium in effect; still valid, still important and still art, but not necessarily 'photography'.

OP thanks for the link, enjoyed that.

Some of the best photo's I've seen on the web are here,some proper stunners.
When I first saw them I didn't know whether to be inspired or sell my camera gear..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/petehuu/

geetee1972 - Member
To dismiss something as being incapable of being art purely due to the use of a particular piece of software is just silly.
I agree; this wasn't my argument.

Surely creating something new from a number of elements is just as valid an art form as capturing a moment over which you have no influence?
I think it is yes (and I did make that point above -

Building a composite picture from elements that were never in the scene is still a creative process
.
My argument is whether that process can be considered art in the context of the photography as a genre/medium. Every genre/medium will have a different set of criteria by which we as viewers evaluate the thing we are viewing and which we bring with us (how these criteria are constructed is a separate but no less interesting debate).

Also, the differentiation between medium and genre is important here. It could be that creating entirely fabricated/artificial images in PP is a valid genre within the photographic medium and thus have its own set of values by which the 'art' should be perceived and judged.

It could be that I am too dismissive of that genre as a valid artistic construct and that this is why I make the arguments to dismiss the creative process inherent in those images.

Probably I am a purist, which means that for me at least, in order for a 'photograph' to be evaluated along artistic lines and congratulated for it's artistic merit, it needs to be truthful to it's own characteristics, which is, conveniently, built on veracity; the capturing of real light in real situations in order to create an image that tells a story in some way or which reveals something about the world and the nature of humanity.

Building a composite image still results in something aesthetically pleasing, and can still be seen as art and artistic but it's less truthful to the medium in which it was created. It's a different medium in effect; still valid, still important and still art, but not necessarily 'photography'.

Good points well made, and looking back I think I scanned over your post too quickly initially, so apologies for missing some of your points.

In essence I think I agree with you, though I think there are shades of grey running through the whole issue and no definitive line in the sand as to where "pure" photography stop and "photographic art" (for want of a better term) begins.

I would tend to break down into three genre (rather than media):

Documentary Photography (in which a moment beyond the photographer's control is captured).
Creative Photography (in which the photographer creates the scene to be captured).
Photographic Art (in which the image or images are manipulated into a final piece which is a distinct creation in its own right).

Of course there are huge grey areas inbetween these, and I would still argue that the vast majority of photographs don't qualify as art (or creative, in a lot of cases).

Of course there are huge grey areas inbetween these

Yup it's not all Black & White.

Bustaspoke
Some of the best photo's I've seen on the web are here,some proper stunners.

I like Keith Carter, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Tom Baril, things of that ilk. The gallery you linked to just leaves me cold.

geetee1972 - Member

Could you kindly refrain from talking shit, please? 😆

Jimjam, Fair enough it's all subjective!

Could you kindly refrain from talking shit, please?

Woah woah woah. This is the internet, imagine what would happen if we all talked sense.

Imagine what would happen if either of you actually engaged your brains for a moment and tried to engage in something worthy of discussion.

Sure what I have written is easily interpreted by others as intellectual nonsense. But there are other people who think this stuff important and I'm more than comfortable in my own intellect to standby what I have said and argue that it says something important about the genre. You don't have to like it or even understand it. But you don't get to dismiss it because of that.

geetee1972 - Member
Sure what I have written is easily interpreted by others as intellectual nonsense.

I wouldn't say intellectual nonsense. You aren't talking about anything I don't understand. I just think you are talking shit, not intellectual shit, just pure unadulterated shit! 😆

If you had a valid and informed opinion you'd a) share it and b) realise that nothing screams ignorance more than castigating someone else's clearly considered opinion by hurling insults at them.

FWIW, I think I'm agreeing with geetee1972. I don't enjoy looking at photos that have been heavily manipulated to a point they don't reflect what the human eye actually sees. That allows for some use of post-processing to overcome the limitations of a camera lens/imaging system but falls short of much of the overly-processed stuff around (often on here as it happens).

Some B&W shots might be a special case....

geetee1972 - Member
If you had a valid and informed opinion you'd a) share it and b) realise that nothing screams ignorance more than castigating someone else's clearly considered opinion by hurling insults at them.

Ps, I haven't insulted you once, just stated that I think your opinion is shit, which I still do! 😆

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-35151041 ]Some cracking pictures here - probably not much photoshopism gone on[/url]