Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

The best photography is...

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

superphil
superphil  8160 forum posts
18 Jul 2006 - 6:24 PM

unedited, If you can take a picture without editing it you are a truley great photographer. If you can see a great picture and take in the perfect way then thats the best you can be. A photograph that is heavily edited is no longer a photograph it is infact just an image, Its more graphic work than photograph, that is why ephotozine annoys me. The best pictures are always heavily edited, I think this site would be greatly improved by banning edited pictures. Have another site for edited pictures fine but if you've added some guy pointing a flash light where the sun should be, that is simply graphics work, which is great, we all know it is, but its not a photograph.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
18 Jul 2006 - 6:24 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

davidbailie
davidbailie e2 Member 10442 forum postsdavidbailie vcard United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
18 Jul 2006 - 6:38 PM

Oh well that's that then - all of you out!

Leaves just me and him Smile

Think of the book we could produce

Dave

superphil
superphil  8160 forum posts
18 Jul 2006 - 6:43 PM

lol! i though people could just take picture and not edit them i wasn't starting a mass kick out lol! ,but ye that book would be ace

Boyd
Boyd  1011213 forum posts Wales11 Constructive Critique Points
18 Jul 2006 - 6:44 PM


Quote: Think of the book we could produce

But who would edit it?
;o)

JohnHawthorne
18 Jul 2006 - 6:46 PM

What's this then? Wink

There's debate on this subject here, here, and here.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Miles Herbert
18 Jul 2006 - 6:47 PM

Where do you draw the line though? If for example you shoot in RAW format then some form of editing is needed just to get the the image looking true to life. If you hand in your roll of Kodak 200 to the nice girl at the photobooth at Tesco, her machine edits the prints for you... If you develope your own negatives, you can change the look of the images depending on chemicals/timing etc...

LOL @ Boyd!!!

Would Pete then become an "un-editor"? We could have UC's!

KarenFB
KarenFB Junior Gallery Team 84255 forum postsKarenFB vcard England162 Constructive Critique Points
18 Jul 2006 - 6:49 PM


Quote: Its more graphic work than photograph, that is why ephotozine annoys me,

. You only signed on 9 days ago! If you feel this way, why stay?

starstriders
18 Jul 2006 - 6:50 PM


Quote: The best pictures are always heavily edited

The best pictures according to who?


Quote: I think this site would be greatly improved by banning edited pictures

There are categories for digital manipulation, traditional darkroom techniques etc. I see no reason why one skill should be banned in favour of another.


Quote: Have another site for edited pictures fine but If you've added some guy pointing a flash light where the sun should be, that is simply graphics work, which is great, we all know it is, but its not a photograph

In fact it is two photographs put together in a clever way.

Excuse the pun but photography as a whole is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Wink

Centurion
Centurion  91243 forum posts England
18 Jul 2006 - 6:53 PM

Who says an edited photograph is no longer photography. It may be digitally manipulated but its still photography.

Turning a colour photo into a black and white photo is a drastic change from the original but you would argue thats it's still photography.

davidbailie
davidbailie e2 Member 10442 forum postsdavidbailie vcard United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
18 Jul 2006 - 6:54 PM


Quote: But who would edit it?

well......................... US Smile

superphil
superphil  8160 forum posts
18 Jul 2006 - 7:14 PM

changing a picture to balck and white can be done on the camera, i think anything that can be done on the camera is not editing. If your camera doesn't do black and white, it is fine to edit because your camera is not as good as you would like, but adding things that where never their is far over the top. don't get me wrong i am not totally against editing, i just think editing software should only be used to make the picture more like it looked when it was taken e.g. if the picture is darker than the enviromant was when you where their it would be fine to brighten it

superphil
superphil  8160 forum posts
18 Jul 2006 - 7:17 PM

and its a fact editing is different because graphics and photography are two completly seperate subjects, I have never seen them studied at the same time or even in a similar way, so when you start to edit it is then graphics work and no longer a photograph but an "image"

Centurion
Centurion  91243 forum posts England
18 Jul 2006 - 7:18 PM


Quote: If your camera doesn't do black and white, it is fine to edit because your camera is not as good as you would like

Im not even going to reply to this statement.....

starstriders
18 Jul 2006 - 7:18 PM

Can I point you in the direction of John Heartfield's work?

superphil
superphil  8160 forum posts
18 Jul 2006 - 7:21 PM

put its called "ephotozine" so if i don't think its a photograph then i will have somthing to say won't I? and
Quote: The best pictures according to who?

Well theres a great big dirty picture of a man holding a torch over his picture on the front page, did you miss that? tht says picture of the week over it! oh ye i remember now

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.