JayDyerLightArt Below is my take on the post by Hugo Baptisista. He goes by OddBall in his blog. Because it is so long I have included the sections I am referring to in my reply. Ill start by saying: There is an old saying You cant see the forest but for the trees. It means that when you are in the forest all you can see are the trees close to you. In other words all you can see are the small details. You cant see the big picture. I think this is the case here. I will argue the small details but this is really a very simple matter. I will explain at the end. OddBall There’s a graph in photography like there’s a graph in computer graphics. What some photographers forget is that synthesized photons are photons too. Photography and computer graphics are essentially the same: light representation by means of human/machine interaction. Notice I said representation and not capture. The word capture suggests that photons would actually be stored somewhere… they’re not: only a trace representation of the photons is left in silver nitrate or sensed by electrodes on a modern DSLR and translated to 1s and 0s. This is important philosophically, because if neither computer graphics nor photography are the light itself being stored, absolute and without interpretation, neither can make the claim that it’s more “real” than the other, since computer graphics is also merely a representation of light based on centuries of acquired knowledge about how light works. And yes it’s just an interpretation of light but so is photography. My point is: They’re the same, just different directions of input. JayDyerLightArt That is where you make your first mistake. The trace representation (as you call it) created in the silver nitrate or on the electronic sensor are created from the real thing coming in contact with the surface not a close approximation based on centuries of knowledge. The main difference is that the artist in the case of real light photons has less control over the final results than does someone who not only creates the light but also can control precisely how and where that conceived light hits and reacts with the surface. To explain this Look at a person who paints with light sticks. He may basically control the speed, movement and the angle the light moves in space, but he has no control over the variants in light intensity, which is different for each individual stick. The variants along the width of the stick nor the effect the unsteadiness of his hand or movement will have on the exposure and light trail left inside the camera. That artist must use their skill and experience to compensate for factors outside their control. The artist has little or no control over the effect of the weather conditions on the light, the light reflecting on near and distant objects. There are many other things I could point out but for the sake of space I will let that side rest for now. The computer generated work is both homogenized and completely controllable by the artist. The artist can reproduce the exact same effect a thousand times. They can change the intensity, movement and illusion of speed at any point. Not to mention, if they dont like the results of one part they can simply change that part or add other elements that would not have existed on a real photographic shoot. The Light photographer can not do any of that. All these things and more simply make the two processes different. The resulting images are not equal and can never be equal. Arguably, one might say that the computer person has ultimate control and therefore may be considered the better or greater artist in terms of final product, but in my humble opinion that is precisely why there must always be a differentiation between computer augmented and SOOC. Doing things with computers like adjusting over all or spot lighting and contrast which have been done in dark rooms since forever are not changing the basic naturally created elements of the photograph. In other words that is Adjusting not Augmenting the photo. OddBall I normally don’t tag my photos with SOOC (straight out of camera) even if they are because I think it’s irrelevant whether a photograph was finished inside a little box with a little display we call a camera or on a bigger box and bigger display we call a PC. Finishing photographs has historically been the job of the photographer either way. Some people believe photography is all about the ‘photos’ and nothing about the ‘graphos’. This image produced by computer graphics but rendered through photography presents me with the perfect opportunity to express my stance on the matter: Stop fighting against the many interpretations of light because photography is one of them. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I’m fine with people only liking a certain aspect of photography more than another just don’t tell me that what I do is lesser photography because it was post processed. JayDyerLightArt This is the perfect place to bring in the difference between Picture and Photograph. If I understood, you created something in a computer, then photographed it and maybe some other stuff too. The resulting image was pictorial in nature. If I got all that correct then what you created was a piece of Pictorial ART. You created a photograph once you took a picture of it with your camera. No matter how the subject came into existence it became a photograph as soon as it was created inside the camera. Now when you took that resulting image and enhanced (changed or added new elements) it with your computer, it was transformed into a computer generated picture. If the resulting product is a picture that is a componently different image than what was inside the camera, then it became a picture but is no longer a photograph. A picture can be a part of a photograph and a photograph can also be a part of a picture. A photograph can only come from a camera of some sort. A picture can be created or produced in a variety of ways. There is a difference even if you can not tell the difference with your eyes. This brings me to another difference between a Picture and a Photograph. Admittedly, this might blur the lines that I have worked hard to explain here, but I must move in this direction because of my own struggle in the Light Art community. As long as the image created in the camera is a recognizable representation of the real world object, then I would say the resulting image is a photograph. Once the camera is moved or manipulated so as to cause the image being created to have absolutely NO resemblance to the original subject matter, then I would classify that image as a picture and not a photograph. A picture can create its own image in the imagination of the viewer and thus can be interpreted in different ways . A photograph delivers a specific set of images to convey one message to many viewers. So, a camera can produce both a photograph and a picture. Another way to put it is All photographs are pictures but not all pictures are photographs OddBall This is the opposite of apologizing for having post-processed some of my light painting photographs, because I’m proud of what I’ve done with most of them. It’s just a question of principle because to me they too are real light painting photographs in their fullest right. I would prefer if they were not seen as the F!#*ing Photoshoped variants that are allegedly less real. JayDyerLightArt Simple. They are as much ART as the next. They are Light Art PICTURES. They are no longer photographs because of the processes I explained above. Straight out of the camera photographs that recorded the movement of lights along with the surrounding area are Light Art PHOTOGRAPHS. Once you add or remove elements from the photograph with a computer they are changed into PICTURES based on photographs. They are still ART and just as valuable as anyone wants to value them. OddBall I was discussing this with my friend Steve Miller who’s also interested in reality, philosophy and photography and he said the following, with which I also agree: “You do a set up and spend hours gathering a light composition / performance then crop it in post… and I take a stock photo & add light streaks in photoshop… which is “light art”. Which is just cgi augmentation. For a purist, if it doesn’t come straight from the camera, then it’s not art. For an amateur, why bother with all the work, just add a Glow effect and act like I made a Picasso. There are levels of purity in between, but I don’t feel a bit of post tweaking ought be forbidden, but may have to be disclosed to separate the work from pure-camera.” JayDyerLightArt Your friend hit it right on the head and if you agree then you contradict yourself by not insisting on differentiating the differences. No matter how a work of art is created is should be valued based on the process of its creation. The skill set of a computer person is quite different than that of a photographer. Now a photographer whos a great computer person can create wonderful works of art, but the process has to be explained to the viewers in order for a fair assessment of value or skill can be applied to the art itself. As your friend said be disclosed to separate the work from pure-camera. It is the disclosure that makes all the difference. OddBall I agree but adding a flare is something else than enhancing tonal qualities of measured light or cropping a photo so you can have a custom aspect ratio that fits your subject and composition. I don’t get the purists that think that these two examples at least are not a part of photography. JayDyerLightArt Cropping, burning and dodging are perfectly legitimate uses of a computer in photography. No one should question that. It is ashamed that we must try to protect ourselves from the few people that would try to pass completely computer generated images as natural photography. That unfortunately is the world we live in. For the purest there is no way to prove a well done picture was not PhotoShoped, so they never use it to set themselves apart from the rest. And as such they do not trust anyone that uses post programs (as I do) for cropping and watermarking and file reduction. OddBall I’ve read the passage “made without F!#*ing Photoshop” quite a lot in the light painting circles.. and some even go as far as eliminating cropping altogether from their palette of tools because it is made outside of the camera… what I mean to say is that CGI and photos are all eventually manifested in the form of photons that have been created/altered by the medium they were recorded/displayed on, so on that basis I don’t think it’s important to differentiate between a SOOC photo and a computer enhanced photo because light painting photography is augmented perception too: no one can open the shutter of their eyes and record the accumulation of light for minutes at a time. That’s a power reserved to our minds that can visualize anything we imagine. JayDyerLightArt This is the hypocritical part I was referring to above. As long as you do not accept the concept that a picture can be photographic in nature without actually still being a photograph, then you are right. If you can accept the difference then you MUST acknowledge and promote the difference in the creation process to allow all artwork to be judged and valued fairly. OddBall Calculating a photo-realistic computer generated image is creating an approximation of reality just like photography is. It’s futile to make one less real than another.. My point is I guess pure photography doesn’t exist because photons are transient. What we have at our disposal are many different ways of photons being created and recorded. That’s why if I could pick only one I’d call myself visual artist and not photographer even though I’m proud to be one. I struggle with having to accept that photography is separated from computer graphics because to me they both require only one skill set to master: interpreting light. JayDyerLightArt Have you ever tasted a tomato grown in someones garden and compared the taste to those things you buy in the grocery store that call themselves tomatoes. Anyone who has will tell you they may look the same, feel the same but they dont taste anything like each other. Your computer generated homogenized infinitely reproducible photons dont produce the same visual flavor or feeling that real light captured in a camera does. Yes, I said captured. It goes in and dies on that flat surface leaving an image of itself behind for us to enjoy for time immemorial. You say photographers and computer people use the same skill set. I can create wonderful images with my camera in moments, It takes me forever to do anything in PhotoShop or any other program because they require a skill set I just dont have. What you are saying is that anyone who is a master painter in oils should be equally able to paint with ink pens or water colors. The one true statement you made was the label youd call yourself Visual Artist. That fits. You create visual works for the world to enjoy. The method you use is just that, a method. Conclusion: If youve jumped here, I ask that you NOT cheat YOURSELF. Go back and read the whole thing to gain an understanding that comes from knowledge and not just opinion. If you judge everything based on what you already know, You will never be anymore than you are at this moment. Anyway, I said at the beginning this issue is really simple. Lets talk real world. In the ART world a value is placed on works mostly by people who appreciate the labor, skill, complexity, materials or what ever. Sometimes it is as simple as someone who knows some rich person and can convince them to pay big bucks for something they just wiped up. One thing is true today, Computer generated art is valued far less than any other kind of art on the market. Who cares who sets the rules, they are what they are. I personally love fractal art. I could never do that stuff. I love the complexity of it, the symmetrical nature of it, the amazing details generated in those tiny spaces. Alas the hard fact is, at this point in time non of it sells for tens of thousands of dollars in the ART world because of its perceived value. We are all Light Artist in one form or another. It seems that if works are created by human skills using something other than a computer, the ART world will place more value on it than otherwise. This issue of Photograph vs Picture is only of value to us. No one else cares. As an Artist, it is your job to create a work you are proud of. It makes no difference what you use, it does make a difference what you call it. It matters that you are honest in your description of your creative process. It is this honesty that will ultimately determine whos work will be accepted by the world of ART and the world of Artist. Believe me they are two different worlds. Be great at combining photography and computer art; be great at taking photos; be great at what ever form of ART production you chose. It is in your efforts to be better today than you were yesterday that will determine the life of your art, which hopefully will out live you. Light Art is a broad label. As a group we need to determine sub groups and label them according to the broad process used. We dont need fifty different classifications. Something simple like SOOC, Computer Augmented for upper labels. Sub categories under both upper labels like, Scripting, LED drawing, Spotlighting, Abstract painting, Outlining, Light trails. These are just examples off the top of my head. Im sure they can be refined to cover all types of Light Painting out there. The idea is that as each group gets populated with artist the cream within each group will rise to the top. At the moment we are arguing amongst ourselves as to which groups are real or should have more value placed on them. NON are more real or valuable than the next. Different is Different, Different is not Less than nor More than. Enough for my two cents worth. Now let the fighting begin.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:15:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015