PDA

View Full Version : Shouldn't a Photograph look like a Photograph?



WendysPhotos
03-12-2009, 11:23 PM
Okay this observation is not to set off a firestorm, nor is it a scarlet letter on any ones work, but Should not 'Professional PHOTOGRAPHERS Association' print competition be about photographs?

What am I talking about? I just went to see the the loan collection of print competition. Over 50% of those have been So manipulated that you cannot even tell they started out as photographs. Shouldn't extreme manipulation be in an Adobe Photoshop competition? Print Competition should be about photography, not who can totally layer, paint, blend and distort and graphic design a photograph. If you cannot tell that it started out as a photograph whats the point?

Do not get me wrong, I use photoshop daily, but when I am done it still looks like a photograph.

Honestly I think Print Competition should be about Great Photographs with just enough manipulation to improve color etc, but should look like it came out of a camera and not Photoshop.

AS ALWAYS JUST MY OPINION, not meant to get anyone's undies in a twist

Wendy Burk

Todd_Reichman
03-12-2009, 11:28 PM
Do a search on this topic and you'll see some of our past discussions of the topic. We've all got our own opinion on this issue :D. I might agree in many cases but competition has to generally allow for a broad range of styles and approaches. Then again we might also complain about the styles and approaches that aren't recognized by comp, but that's another argument.

- trr

KirkDarling
03-13-2009, 12:08 AM
I personally prefer my photographs to look like photographs--I painted portraits and went (back) to photography because I simply prefer the illusion of reality that a photograph provides.

But I would always argue that anything that starts in a camera and ends up as a two-dimensional image is "photography."

Rob_Wilson
03-13-2009, 12:44 AM
I personally prefer my photographs to look like photographs--I painted portraits and went (back) to photography because I simply prefer the illusion of reality that a photograph provides.

But I would always argue that anything that starts in a camera and ends up as a two-dimensional image is "photography."

I agree Kirk is why I am in no hurry to enter. The other issue is when a photographer enters a print that's heavily manipulated and they had an artist do all the manipulation. (Oh no here comes more analogies like well most photographers don't print their competition prints blah blah blah.)

KirkDarling
03-13-2009, 01:27 AM
Rob, but a superior photograph with minimal manipulation still merits. I suspect that if it looks like heavily "artificed" photographs seem dominant, it's more because of the proportion submitted than a bias either way on the part of judges.

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-13-2009, 03:50 AM
You won't get any argument from me. Sadly, though how can you classify or differentiate them? You really can't. Creativity should never be stifled.

But I hear ya. Anyway, there are so many hyper-realistic images in print competition that could never have happened in real life. Look at the Loan Book.

I only hope that high quality imagery always gets its due... whether it's been heavily manipulated or not. Conversely I hope that overdone hyper-realism is criticized for its lack of believability.

Keith_A_Howe
03-13-2009, 04:45 AM
I just wanted to point out that there is a seperate contest for Digital artwork, It is the EI catagory. I just did a quick flip through my loan book and I did not see a huge ratio of over manipulated images as suggested. KEEP in mind that the EI Loan images are in this book as well. I am sure there are some of the images you are talking about are in the PO catagory but I believe the majority are in the EI catagory (though I did not go though counting and getting acurate numbers, just my impression).

I just wanted to suggest that there may be a misconception that the loan book is all from the PO catagory. Keith

Marc_Benjamin
03-13-2009, 06:15 AM
I'm with Wendy on this.

While I'm not anti overly painterly, lucis'ed, nicked, whatever etc looking images, I feel that we are slowly loosing sight for straight looking images.

Don't worry though, as Kirk mentioned superior photographs that look like there's very little manipulation still gets rewarded. Might not win top category or top overall but they're still rewarded.

Rob_Wilson
03-13-2009, 01:23 PM
I'm with Wendy on this.

While I'm not anti overly painterly, lucis'ed, nicked, whatever etc looking images, I feel that we are slowly loosing sight for straight looking images.

Don't worry though, as Kirk mentioned superior photographs that look like there's very little manipulation still gets rewarded. Might not win top category or top overall but they're still rewarded.

It's like Jeter play without roids (hopefully) and A-Rod playing with roids, it should be a total seperate league. Again the biggest problem for me is that the images that are submitted I bet most of the times they had somebody else do the manipulation which maybe 70 percent of the effect of the image which means to me at least it's not their work and shouldn't get credit for it.

Brings up another point, when I go on sites in my local area and see people with a Master Photography degrees I am surprised how poor their work is on the most basic level like l harsh sunlight on the faces outdoors. I wonder how they got this far with their degrees. However, I can't help but admire the work that is published in the loan books even before digital took over.

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-13-2009, 01:40 PM
Keith, you're right. I made an assumption without checking it out first. My mistake. Thanks for correctting me on this.

Rob, many portrait masters get their merits on travel pix and scenery. Great.

At the last PPA big wig gathering a motion was voted down to allow a new category (weddings I think) for a master degree. It was felt that that would start a movement to fragmenting the degree into many different "Master of...xxx" degrees. Hey, I would be in favor of that!

Teri_Quance
03-13-2009, 01:51 PM
Fuzzy...

I was at that meeting, too. I can see both sides. However.... although I much prefer PPA over WPPI (without comparison). I do like the way they break down their print competition into categories.

Teri Q.

Rob_Wilson
03-13-2009, 02:12 PM
Keith, you're right. I made an assumption without checking it out first. My mistake. Thanks for correctting me on this.

Rob, many portrait masters get their merits on travel pix and scenery. Great.

At the last PPA big wig gathering a motion was voted down to allow a new category (weddings I think) for a master degree. It was felt that that would start a movement to fragmenting the degree into many different "Master of...xxx" degrees. Hey, I would be in favor of that!

True, I didn't think about that. I would be in favor of that also. If I were to hire a portrait photographer I could careless that he's a Master photograher that got there by doing scenics. Weddings should be in a different category. I find great portrait photogs are average wedding photogs and visa versa.

Michael_Gan
03-13-2009, 03:25 PM
I think for those who aren't familiar with photographic history, one might actually think that photography should be "straight". This discussion has been in many past threads. One that comes to mind, recently, is this one: http://www.ppa.com/community/forums/showthread.php?t=15375&highlight. Actually, for all the similar discussions, type out a search for "Ansel". His name seems to come up with every discussion that pertains to this.

Keith_A_Howe
03-13-2009, 08:41 PM
Brings up another point, when I go on sites in my local area and see people with a Master Photography degrees I am surprised how poor their work is on the most basic level like l harsh sunlight on the faces outdoors..

I know what you mean, I have seen that as well - but I have seen the other side where their work is wonderful also. Another note is I know photographers that have the degrees, Masters, Cr. Certified that are going out of business or are struggling because they havn't worked out the business side of things. The Master degree is only what it means to you. Each degree is completly personal and the maker gets exactly what they deserve. If they photographed images strictly for competition and did whatever they could to win the prize, then they get a Master's degree that just means they played the game particularly well. If they entered their client work and used each comeptition as a way to measure their progress and improve then they get a Master's that means they are truly a master of their craft. I can't control how everyone else uses print competition and how they earn their degree. But I am not going to critisize the system because some people don't use it the way I think they should. I might critisize the (IMO) abusers, but I can't fault the system.


I wonder how they got this far with their degrees. However, I can't help but admire the work that is published in the loan books even before digital took over.

When I look at images that have an effect or technique applied, I ask myself what about the org. image. Would it hold up or is the tech used to cover up or hide mistakes? Do I give credit to the maker for recognizing and useing the tools for the benifit of the image and the story they were trying to tell or was the technique used just because they could?
I understand those that want to see how good the photographer actually is, yet isn't what paper a maker chooses to print the image on and how they choose to retouch / artwork the image just as interesting? To suggest that competition should not allow the artwork would raise the question of when a maker is trying to tell a given story and a technique adds to that story, why stiffle the creativity or penalize that maker?

As to the argument of maybe they didn't do the artwork, On the entry form there is a line that makers sign that states that they were the photographer and all processing, printing and artwork was done under their suppervision - in other words they have to do the artwork or tell the artist what they want done. Since the advent of digital I do not personally know any photographers that DO NOT do their own artwork. I am sure it happens but everyone I have talked to and everyone I have mentored does their own artwork. So I am very curious to know where the idea that most photographers don't do their own comes from.

This same discussion has been going on since I started entering in the early 80's. In Nebraska we had several photographers complain that the award winning images were really the work of an artist and not the photographer. So NE started a folio competition where it was all unretouched non-artworked images. Then we had photogs. wanting to paint on the folio or add artwork and they complained that their creativity was being stiffled. So for awhile we had two catergories, unretouched and then freeestyle. Eventually they did away with the unretouched catergory because no one was entering that. So they couldn't make anyone happy no matter what they did.

What it all comes down to is we are image creaters. We have thousands of tools that we can use to create the final image. You can choose to use a certain tool or not. The choice not to use a certain tool, will not keep a photograph from excelling in competition. As a judge I reward a maker who chooses the right tool for job. Sometimes that tool is a lot of PS and sometimes it's not. FWIW I was a Diamond Photographer of the Year. All four of my images look like traditional photographs. There is no special effects or compositing. Everything I did to enhance my prints, I would have done 20 years ago with dyes, oils and pencils. If I thought I couldn't do well without a lot of manipulation and PS work I wouldn't have entered any one of those 4 images.

Keith

Keith_A_Howe
03-13-2009, 08:58 PM
Don't worry though, as Kirk mentioned superior photographs that look like there's very little manipulation still gets rewarded. Might not win top category or top overall but they're still rewarded.

Not so Marc, sorry buddy I have disagree even though it's your birthday.
This year I won Best Illustrative at both Heart of America and Nebraska. I entered at NH got Court of Honor Out of State entry. In fcat I think someone told me it was the highest scored print in their show. Both were traditional looking prints. Jim Freize, A friend of mine from NE was a Diamond Photographer and took Best portrait of Show at HOA last year. He had 4 outstanding B&W portraits - none of which looked manipulated.
Keith

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-14-2009, 03:37 AM
True, I didn't think about that. I would be in favor of that also. If I were to hire a portrait photographer I could careless that he's a Master photograher that got there by doing scenics. Weddings should be in a different category. I find great portrait photogs are average wedding photogs and visa versa.

Rob, my "Great" comment was sarcastic. Sorry, I didn't write that very well.

I DON'T like a master to earn a degree in something that is not their source of bread and butter... IF they are using it in such a way as to promote themnselves in a field they didn't earn it on.

Again, I'm not saying it well, but lets put it this way. My son is a GREAT race car shooter. But at this time he stinks at portraiture. If he earned a masters at race cars, then went into business as a portrait photographer and hung his masters degree... not right, in my book.

I realize the concept behind the masters is not that we profess to be anything in particular. But I think it should.

Ron_Jackson
03-14-2009, 04:06 AM
I would love to see a masters earned as you say, in specific catgories. That to me makes the most sense. I don't know the points numbers but lets say it takes 60 points to earn a Masters. I think 30 of those should be in the field of their specialty. The degree should read a "Master Degee - Portraiture" or Wedding Photography or Commercial etc. That just makes sense to me.

mrbarton
03-14-2009, 12:48 PM
Here's my argument as to why Ansel Adams was a hack. You see, people these days talk alot about digital manipulation, but what about the dark room? His final images looked nothing like his originals and he was called brilliant. He is an icon. Ah, but if he did it in Photoshop!!!!! What's the difference? The last I checked, my compact flash card doesn't do so well in the chemicals. George Hurrell is talked about by the actual shape of his strokes for his negative retouching. People often said he spent days in the darkroom and that he was a "print master" and a genius. So, now we have entered a world of digital hypocrisy. Think about it, up until a handful of years back most people reading this sent their negatives to a lab. Has anyone considered what was on the negative before a lab tech balanced and manipulated them? Yet, this is considered to be pure. Have we not now gone full circle where we are able to manipulate our images and do new things that weren't possible before? Doesn't this open doors instead of closing them?

Before we needed to know how to use our tools. Today we have new tools and some old ones. Don't we need to know how to you those tools as well? In the past there was no excuse to not know how to use the darkroom. Why then do we get a free ride on Photoshop? People CONSTANTLY talk about how an Ansel Adams negative looks nothing like the final print and PRAISE his work for it. Why is it different? Are we willing to call him a hack? Seriously? Same argument and SAME rules. Post is post. He shot what he shot to get EXACTLY what he got after the fact. LITTLE of what he produced was what was really there. Look at the old print masters. NONE of it had ANYTHING to do with reality. People didn't look like they did in headshots in the 30's and 40's. Why are we talking about reality? That's a slippery slope. Want to talk about Karsch?

The point of photography is that it has always been about taking a 2 dimensional piece of paper and making it magic. Making it something more than a 2 dimensional piece of paper.

Lastly, we spend a lot of time talking about "Digital Debbies", "Soccer Moms", "Weekend Warriors", and people that just shoot and burn. It makes people sick. NOW, we have a crop of photographers that are retaliating by making what we created more than it can be and we rip them? Is not the solution to raise the bar and take things further? How can we pick on one demographic without seeing the obvious problem with going after another? Photoshop is a tool. If I'm going to be a photographer in 2009 I need to know how to use it. I'm sure people fought the power tools when they came out. There's a lot of people that make amazing structures using them. Then again don't the Amish make great buildings using their hands?

In the late 1930's and 1940's musicians in New York realized that there were too many people working and that gigs were harder and harder to get. In short, everyone was a musician. A handful of them including Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gilespie and others invented Be-bop. They made the music faster, more difficult, and to many, more interesting. The result was a new art form that forever changed the face of jazz. The other result was the decrease in the number of musicians that could make a living without practicing. Music has never been the same. Ain't that kind of what Photoshop is doing? So, the question remains, who's Dizzy? Where's Miles? Who's going to be Bird? This ain't gonna make a few people happy, but I'm cool saying it as things aren't going to change. I don't think Adobe is going to stop making Photoshop and I really don't think Canon and the rest are going to start making digital cameras more expensive. None of this is going anywhere. Here's the part where I make people mad:

Back in the 30's and 40's which of the musicians do you think were complaining?

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-14-2009, 01:51 PM
I LOVE stirring, challenging and thoughtful arguments, especially when it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks Michael.

OK, I'm with ya, man. We shouldn't complain about pushing the limits at the same time as complaining about the acceptance of medocrity.

But it begs the next question, what is our NEXT BeeBop? Where do you see that we need to go to push ourselves and our profession?

D._Craig_Flory
03-14-2009, 02:13 PM
I LOVE stirring, challenging and thoughtful arguments, especially when it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks Michael.

OK, I'm with ya, man. We shouldn't complain about pushing the limits at the same time as complaining about the acceptance of medocrity.

But it begs the next question, what is our NEXT BeeBop? Where do you see that we need to go to push ourselves and our profession?

Hi Fuzzy;

It is all in our minds ! Till a photographer tried putting a piece of shower door glass in front of a print, and then photographing it, it was unheard of. Afterwards, the "Beltrami Effect" was copied and used by a lot of others. It just takes someone's imagination to come up with the next new trend. For me, I am going back to using cookies in mt Altman spotlight a lot more. "What was old is new again" will be my motto as I review methods of yesteryear.

mrbarton
03-14-2009, 02:17 PM
Fuzzy, thanks for your response. Frankly, you're one of the cats who's been stirring the pot for awhile. That's what this industry needs. Don't go changing!

They say that people only use about 7-9% of their brain. Well, that's probably been proved and disproved, but the fact is we never quite live up to our potential. I would say the same thing for this industry. There are people that come along and knock us over but there's always room for another gear. To use another cliche (and I love cliches!), the fastest mile anyone can run is 0 seconds. No matter how fast someone goes there's always another .01 second to shave off.

You have a great question about what the next be-bop is. The truth is be-bop was created with an endgame, a purpose, and a plan. It was not an accident. Strangely it was greatly impacted by WWII and the ban on record production. That's another story, but it didn't hurt to have recorded music disappear for 4 years! It's a bit easier to reinvent when the continuum in broken. I guess my point is that outside influences play a big part in the humanities. Maybe the world climate these days is our x-factor. I'm not entirely sure I would be the one to know where things are going as I'm not certain I'm John Coltrane. Admittedly John Coltrane didn't know he was "John Coltrane" either. History did that.

Back on the print competition track before I totally hijack this thread! Print competition will always cause heated conversation. It should. The goal should not be to judge work by the status quo, but by where the industry is headed. We are responsible for shaping the way people view photography. That's a large task. In the past few years I've had a good amount of success in the arena of competition. At the same time it has forced me to learn how to print my own work with technical excellence (still a work in progress). I have learned a lot about materials, boards, lamination, paper, profiles, interpolation, color, density, and the list goes on. I've learned what hair dryer works best on black matts and high contrast images! This ALL applies to my clients. I have also learned how to edit without losing detail. I've learned new ways of creating. I have learned about ALL of the 12 elements and it has dramatically shaped my work. I have traveled a lot more and seen new places that have changed the way I look at the world. I have learned what it is like to get joy from a camera in ways that I didn't know I could. I share that joy with my clients.

The better I do in comp, the better I shoot, the better my business is. I have started creating art books of my clients in new and creative ways. I just created an art book for comp that did really well. I invited the clients in for a VIP party and made money by selling the book. Think they want to make another?

Oh yeah, check out the magazines on the rack. Websites, video game covers, movie posters. THAT's what clients want to look like. Not exactly photo realism. . .

Stan_Lawrence
03-14-2009, 03:24 PM
"In the late 1930's and 1940's musicians in New York realized that there were too many people working and that gigs were harder and harder to get. In short, everyone was a musician. A handful of them including Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gilespie and others invented Be-bop. They made the music faster, more difficult, and to many, more interesting."

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying be bop was invented to weed out lesser players....sorry, that's just not correct. The evolution of jazz has a little more to it. It was a continuing theme of jazz, change and inspiration. Swing came from Bach, be bop came from exploration, which is part and parcel of jazz.

"Here's my argument as to why Ansel Adams was a hack."

Ansel, a former concert pianist, referred to the neg as the score, and the print as the performance. The score is interpreted by the conductor, in both classical and jazz. He was very up front about the importance of creating in the print what his vision was when he took the photograph. He was not a hack, he was an artist.

"So, the question remains, who's Dizzy? Where's Miles? Who's going to be Bird?"

They've been succeeded by a lot of players with a ton of talent and drive. Arturo, Brecker, and on and on. The comparison between music and photography is interesting, I just don't agree with your analogies.

" Don't we need to know how to you those tools as well?"

On this we agree.....:cool:

mrbarton
03-14-2009, 03:59 PM
Stan, thanks for your input. I don't want to get into an argument about music, but haven't evolution and survival worked hand in hand when it comes to art? If you follow history, the most significant changes in the art world have come during times of conflict and strife. We certainly don't have to agree on everything. They were after all called "Cutting Sessions" however. Taking this a step further what we can agree on is that much of the standard repertoire of bebop was and is built on music from other sources. Most of the successful genres of music have roots just as photography has roots.

As for the score and music. I'm 100% with you on that. There's just no way to argue it. Well stated. Why, however, is it that the darkroom is exalted and Photoshop is shunned in many circles? I would argue that Ansel Adams shot exactly what he needed to shoot to get the result he wanted. This is so much that the viewing of his original negatives is obsolete in comparison to the final result. Why would this be any different with digital capture? The man was a genius in the same that many geniuses will be born and are being born out of the digital age.

As for brilliant musicians these days. Man, they are around. There are some brilliant players. Deny us our past and you deny us out future.

Michael_Gan
03-14-2009, 04:49 PM
The point of photography is that it has always been about taking a 2 dimensional piece of paper and making it magic. Making it something more than a 2 dimensional piece of paper. Even a bigger point is that photography is not the end all of artistic expression. Photography is a media just like a paint brush. For some reason, people get confused as to what they use and what they create.

I made the point earlier in this thread that Michael B spoke of, that is, all of us would have a better understanding of the medium if they have an understanding of photographic history, then this conversation would not be taking place.


Back on the print competition track before I totally hijack this thread! Print competition will always cause heated conversationActually, you didn't. That's the other thread, now you've hijacked it. :D


They've been succeeded by a lot of players with a ton of talent and drive. Arturo, Brecker, and on and on. The comparison between music and photography is interesting, I just don't agree with your analogies. Gotta put Phil Woods at the top of my list ;)

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-14-2009, 06:40 PM
Michael, what did you mean by "a hair dryer works best on blacks"?

mrbarton
03-14-2009, 07:15 PM
Oh yeah, ouch, out of context that sounds VERY bad! I am literally running a hair dryer on a print at the moment. I have a couple Epsons and do all of my comp prints with them. I found that using a hair dryer on high for 15 minutes or so on my gloss prints actually give deeper black tones. I am especially specific on images with black matts. There's a big difference. Just in case someone read that wrong I'll edit that post. That said, I never get the "milky" black matt comment from judges. Ionizing hairdryer on sale at Linens and things.

Fuzzy_Duenkel
03-14-2009, 10:01 PM
Thanks. I thought that's what you meant, but I never heard of that before.

mrbarton
03-14-2009, 10:13 PM
It could be like the goat and the Chicago Cubs. Nothing more than in my brain. I was told that using a hairdryer on an inkjet print help to release the gases more quickly. Most of the time you want them to rest for 24 hours before they are laminated. I do both. I've a-b'ed them before and it was pretty dramatic. Kind or weird right? I'm using Coda Glossy Lamination and really like it. What's even better is the marker comes off when I slip while darkening the edges! Ha. Supposedly this all helps to make the colors more vibrant. There very well may be someone at Epson laughing at this, but last year the darn thing printed a heck of a lot of Loan prints. If it ain't broke. . .

I must say if you can make your images look good at F16, ISO 100 at 1 second, you can pretty much make them look good anywhere. Something else I learned from print comp.

Stan_Lawrence
03-15-2009, 07:34 AM
"Taking this a step further what we can agree on is that much of the standard repertoire of bebop was and is built on music from other sources. Most of the successful genres of music have roots just as photography has roots. "

Bebop, like a lot of jazz, was tunes from other genres that were reharmonized....."back home in indiana" became "donna lee". Geez, sonny rollins even recorded "I'm an old cowhand". If you really want to analyze structure, buck owens is based on bach, as is chicago and the beatles. Most jazz is based on classical harmony. Bebop took more chops, and a lot of folks still made a living playing swing. I still hear the older players today complaining about guys playing fast, it's just one more style in the rep. Nice info, can't see how all this helps photogs in today's market.

"Why, however, is it that the darkroom is exalted and Photoshop is shunned in many circles?"

I don't know, for me ps is today's darkroom. I see no difference between the two. The argument I've heard, that ps can make an amateur look like a pro is really not true from what I've seen. Once again, it comes down to marketing. If the amateur becomes a better marketer, the pure vs ps is really not the issue....:cool:

photorow
03-15-2009, 09:50 PM
Thank you Wendy for putting my thoughts into words! I was just looking through the photo galleries and was thinking the exact same thing. To me, photography has become two art forms these days...one is a computer art and the other is what I call "real" photography. Both have their look and their place and their part in allowing us to achieve our personal visions, but I will still be continually impressed with the photographer who actually got the shot then with the photographer who pieced it together using alot of different photos.

Julie_Poole
03-18-2009, 05:50 PM
I don't think prints that have been manipulated by someone else should be allowed in competition. That's just my opinion

I do think PS is a necessary part of a photographer's tool bag. Whether it is minimal or extreme processing, you need to know how to work it. I can say I sell a mix of it. Over the top that artsy people love does not always sell well. They love it, but, don't really want it on their walls.

I do think you can take a well done photograph and make it into something special, that it wasn't, in PS.

D._Craig_Flory
03-18-2009, 06:11 PM
Competition images have always been about manipulation. I remember seeing a lot of images where a photo artist / retoucher made a good image great. I remember seeing a lot of images where a texture mask was used in printing to add the Wow factor. I used to do actual step-mounts ... with prints and long before Photoshop. I saw one photographer start a trend when he photographed his images through a piece of shower door glass and then printed those negatives.

There has always been a lot of looking for that edge. It is all part of trying to get images score / do as well as possible. (my first pro print competition was in 1975)

Michael_Gan
03-18-2009, 09:31 PM
I don't think prints that have been manipulated by someone else should be allowed in competition. That's just my opinion

I do think PS is a necessary part of a photographer's tool bag. Whether it is minimal or extreme processing, you need to know how to work it. I can say I sell a mix of it. Over the top that artsy people love does not always sell well. They love it, but, don't really want it on their walls.

I do think you can take a well done photograph and make it into something special, that it wasn't, in PS.In a sense...well, actually, we have that vehicle now. EI is all about the Electronic work done to an image regardless of whether the original photograph was from the maker, or not. In the Open photographic competition, we used to rely on a print retoucher (generally a photographic Master Artist) to do the finishing work for us. If any, the original photographer is more likely to do the work themselves than ever before.

Keith_A_Howe
03-19-2009, 12:39 PM
Just to be sure everyone is aware that when looking at galleries, loan and showcase books etc., you are looking at images that were entered in the EI catagory as well as images from the PO catagory. This may explain Joan's concerns that
[QUOTE=photorow;198192] To me, photography has become two art forms these days...one is a computer art and the other is what I call "real" photography./QUOTE].
Keith