Serious question about "Award Winning" photography trend

chauncey wrote in post #12010697
No, it would not.
You would benefit from some education to learn how we humans "see" as opposed to how a camera "see" as well as learning what happens within the camera when you "snap a picture".

Been photographing for 40 years. Please don't insult my intelligence simply because you want to nitpick about the differences in how eyeballs, photo sensitive emulsions and/or digital sensors gather light.

When you take a picture of your friends at a birthday party then look at that photo, what do you see? Microwaves? The 10th dimension? The planet Jupiter? A Monet painting?
Or do you see the representation of pretty much the same thing you saw when you were standing in the room taking the picture?

Then pray tell...what do you mean when you say this

Is that a trick question?

In my opinion that depends on many variables, such as the equipment you are using, the ambient or artificial light, the relative motion of the subjects - the list could go on and on. I would argue that in order to get that representation of pretty much the same thing you saw, to any degree of accuracy, you must apply some post processing, to adjust for the deficiencies of the camera. If the subjects are rolling around laughing in a poorly lit room my eyes still see this clearly, however for my cameral to catch this I need to greatly increase the aperture or reduce the shutter speed or up the ISO, most likely a combination and compromise of all of the above with resulting consequence in sharpness, exposure, colour etc. Depending on the camera settings and adjustment of each factor in turn is going to achieve a usable picture but vastly differing results each time, and all different from exactly what I saw. Colour cast, shadows, contrast and brightness are very hard to replicate precisely straight out of the camera, and the skill really is capturing and saving all the information digitally (light information) through the sensor, then processing it correctly afterwards.

*sigh*

*face palm*

*bangs head against wall*

keep missing the forest for the tree's

to answer anything further i'd have to repeat myself

I give up

Where is it wrtten that photography MUST represent reality every time all the time..is that one of those unknown rules that everyone must follow or be called out by the image police...or is it simply your opinion of how YOU think photography should look..
Why must we, as photographers spend so much time & energy trying to set limits on what constitutes a photograph (See any HDR discussion). Everyone wants to impose their view on the subject in some way..You know only SOOC is a real photograph, or pick your argument thats out there.

I like the pictures of Lootie.

jblaschke wrote in post #12000840
In the past year (and I know it's been around longer) there seems to be a rapidly growing trend with contests sponsored by PPA, WPPI and others to lavish photography awards on pieces that are composites subsequently heavily processed so that they look for all the world like paintings evocative of the "Old Masters." Waterson is a popular artist to emulate, but it runs the gamut.

Without trying to offend anyone who works in this style, can someone tell me why this is considered photography in the case for awards? Understand, I'm not saying this isn't art, or that it doesn't take a high degree of skill, vision and talent to pull off. But the photography itself is a comparatively minor part of the finished product, akin to painters in centuries past using camera obscura in their work. What's the rationale for defining this as photography? At most I'd consider it mixed media. Thanks!

That to me is a a question if many would do their home work was resolved 100 years ago when photography moved away from pictorial photograph to what became straight photography. Pictorial photography was photography that was imitating the paintings of the day which at the time was impressionism and post impressionism but for photography to become a legitimate art form it had to stand on its own and not be a cheap imitation. Therefore straight photography evolved and did what no painter could ever do and as we all know the rest is history.


PPA and many other professional groups are catering to a market because after all its a professional organization. Many of the work you see do well at these places are created for commercial purposes. What I mean by commercial is money making not what we consider commercial in the type of work sense. So that would be driven by their markets which is usually the general public. Nothing more, nothing less.

Justin Bieber is also driven by a market. Remember that Threes Company was once the highest rated show on television. If you cater totally to the public you will get a lot of work worthy of that mindset. Its neither right or wrong its just what it is. The key I guess would be as a photographer, what do you want to be?

jetcode wrote in post #12011960
I wouldn't argue with your original statement however before digital I took an experimental class which was used to show how to create outside the box of the normal literal statement. In fact some of my best images were total darkroom disasters or purposely altered with the intention of creating an effect. There were neg sandwiches where on the one hand much of what we attain in simple tuning in PS was achieved and on the other where collage work was created in the print. So the concepts are not new to photography but the technology is off the charts these days.

Joe I think the work at PPA is more of the coping painting (impressionism) more in line with pictorial photography than what say
Jerry Uelsman
http://shutterbug.com …vesart/0907uels​mann03.jpg

http://i192.photobucke​t.com …ver/350-Untitled_1997.jpg
Uelsman did all this in a conventional darkroom.

or what John Paul Caponigro is doing (digitally)
http://images.apple.co​m …mages/index_cap​onigro.jpg

http://www.portlandmus​eum.org …nsthaas_gallery​/has_1.jpg

I would guess neither of these two photographers work would score well at a PPA or WPPI. Justa guess

digirebelva wrote in post #12011945
Where is it wrtten that photography MUST represent reality every time all the time..is that one of those unknown rules that everyone must follow or be called out by the image police...or is it simply your opinion of how YOU think photography should look..
Why must we, as photographers spend so much time & energy trying to set limits on what constitutes a photograph (See any HDR discussion). Everyone wants to impose their view on the subject in some way..You know only SOOC is a real photograph, or pick your argument thats out there.

Exactly, this is the “forest” that GtrPlyr is overlooking. OK, on a pragmatic level, I get what one means by a realistic photograph; one that, despite certain altering physics, best attempts to mirror or present a literal interpretation of what our eyes might see (even if reduced to black & white). Fine; but who is to say that true photography, by definition, must best try to abide by this equation?

Man Ray’s and Lee Miller’s experimentation with solarisation; not photography? A photo developed using a cross processing technique, not photography? Using a red filter to make jet-black skies, not photography? A composite photo showing a girl with little fairies dancing before her, not photography?

Where do you want to draw the line?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12011999
Joe I think the work at PPA is more of the coping painting (impressionism) more in line with pictorial photography than what say
Jerry Uelsman
http://shutterbug.com …vesart/0907uels​mann03.jpg

http://i192.photobucke​t.com …ver/350-Untitled_1997.jpg
Uelsman did all this in a conventional darkroom.

Those two are really great, the second way more so. I'm partial to image collages.

chauncey wrote in post #12002827
There has never, ever been an image printed that hasn't been subjected to some form of post processing.

That is very true Chauncey.

Chemical strength and temperature effect contrast and density on B&W and color negatives. The same goes for transparencies (slides).

When I was a younger man and did large format commercial work, we would hold off final shots to see how exactly the lab was running that day. We would shoot test sheets of film, the lab would then process that film, we would get film back in about an hour and then filter to compensate for how that batch of film and the labs processors where running that day.

GtrPlyr wrote in post #12012035
Those two are really great, the second way more so. I'm partial to image collages.

He's a great guy and the son of the great Paul Caponigro.
His fathers work
http://www.afterimageg​allery.com/featurecapo​nigro.htm

http://www.soulcatcher​studio.com/images/arti​stpages/CAP_TP.jpg

http://www.pointlight.​com.au/images/art_capo​nigro_10.jpg

sjones wrote in post #12012009
Where do you want to draw the line?

Yes, where indeed. Its not easy. But to go back to what the courts decided on the definition of pornography and community standards with regards to say, the 'fluff' of Playboy vs triple x hardcore, for example, is that people know the difference when they see it.

And I have my own standards on where an image drifts from the use of realistic photographs into the fantastic or illustration level. At some point...and that line can be very blurry...it no longer, as far as I'm concerned, a photograph, but rather something else entirely.

I'm not saying the resultant image is bad....no, a good image/painting/illustr​ation/graphic design/etc, is good no matter what it is or how you'd label them, but they no longer say photograph to me.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #12012060
He's a great guy and the son of the great Paul Caponigro.
His fathers work
http://www.afterimageg​allery.com/featurecapo​nigro.htm

http://www.soulcatcher​studio.com/images/arti​stpages/CAP_TP.jpg

http://www.pointlight.​com.au/images/art_capo​nigro_10.jpg

Nice. Thanks!