artistic photography.

[stirling]

Would you consider wildlife photography as an art form?
What do you think the best combination would be for the most artistic wildlife photo?

[Interpreter]

Originally Posted by stirling

Would you consider wildlife photography as an art form?
What do you think the best combination would be for the most artistic wildlife photo?

I think that you can produce photographs as purely a record of the moment or as an art form, but this is very subjective. A lot of work can be done on the image after aquisition. Change it sepia or black and white. Use one of the inexpensive programmes which allow the image to be reproduced as a line drawing or oil painting. But at some point it ceases to be a photograph and becomes fantasy. Painters use their imagination to paint what they percieve the subject to be and not as an accurate recording. Portrait professional removes skin blemishes and wrinkles from portraits, which pleases the sitter, but Reuters sack photographers for manipulating images for publication.
So really, it is up to you.

[jamesandpip]

I certainly think it can be artistic if you approach it in the same way as other photography considering elements such as composition, colours, lighting etc. A brief look through a 'wildlife photographer of the year' portfolio can leave you in little doubt of this! There is a vast difference between these photos and the 'record' shots you would find in an ID guide!

[nightshade]

I have seen pixel perfect wildlife shots gently manipulated to produce a watercolour
like artwork, both have their merits but a really good shot can be a work of art in itself

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

But at some point it ceases to be a photograph and becomes fantasy. Painters use their imagination to paint what they percieve the subject to be and not as an accurate recording.

Not sure about the "fantasy" - the best ID books use "artwork" to represent wildlife subjects because they can show the average specimen so there are wildlife artists who spend their time producing meticulously accurate recordings - Richard Lewington stands out as one, his portraits of butterflies and dragonflies are surely beautiful works of art.

I had a go at manipulating one of my images in Photoshop - it's not art but I had fun doing it and I think it's a legitimate way of handling photos. Enlarged to A3 it makes a good print to hang on the wall.

Manipulated using one of the "artisitic filters" in photoshop elements:



This is the original:



As pictures I think they both work well, I'd rather hang the manipulated one on the wall.

[Interpreter]

Robsutton, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what you have done to your images. I think that Reuter are afraid that photomanipulation can alter the image into something which it is not and in order to prevent accusations have banned all manipulations except for the very basic ones.

If the photographs are for your own use, do what you like to them. If they are for publication, then you must say what you have done to them. This is why Canon sell the Image Verification Kit to news editors and forensic labs. They claim that it will detect a single changed bit, so it must be serious.

There are a couple of very good examples in the EOS magazine. One is where a batsman has been bowled out. The 'better' photograph has had a cricket ball added to it. This really improves the image, but is banned from publication.

The artistic photographs, where the image has been changed into a line drawing or a water colour or oil painting can look much better than the original image and I see nothing wrong with this sort of manipulation. It is obvious that it has been done and there is no attempt to pass the image off as something which it is not. I assume that these are the artistic image originally mentioned.

[eeyore]

i agree with night shade that a good shot can be art in itself without having to be manipulated - particularly abstract and reflection shots which sold as "fine art" prints account for a certain ammount of my photo income

as an aside - does the reuters ban cover all image work including such things as levels , hue/saturation, cropping etc ? or is it limited to actually changing elements of the photo ?

[glsammy]

I'm afraid I haven't got any idea about art or arty images. I suffer too much from just trying to get the basic image, without even attempting to look at the pleasing arty aspect of it. Even if I looked, I'm not at all sure what I'd be looking for!

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I'm afraid I haven't got any idea about art or arty images. I suffer too much from just trying to get the basic image, without even attempting to look at the pleasing arty aspect of it. Even if I looked, I'm not at all sure what I'd be looking for!

Same here Graham, I'm just pleased to get a decent shot of anything.
Roger

[Interpreter]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i agree with night shade that a good shot can be art in itself without having to be manipulated - particularly abstract and reflection shots which sold as "fine art" prints account for a certain ammount of my photo income

as an aside - does the reuters ban cover all image work including such things as levels , hue/saturation, cropping etc ? or is it limited to actually changing elements of the photo ?

Here is the link to Reuters rules concerning photomanipulation.
The use of Photoshop - Reuters Blogs

A further indication of what happens to naughty photographers can be found at this address.
Toledo Blade Discovers Dozens Of Doctored Detrich Photos

This is about a really top photographer who did what all of us must have done at some time. He was caught out and had to resign.

The links come from an article in the EOS magazine July/September 2007.