Save 40% On inPixio Photo Studio 12 - Now 29.99

Graphical images - good or bad for ephotozine?

kit-monster 18 3.7k 2 Singapore
14 Jun 2004 9:54AM
I had a good debate with a few of the members on the NW meet about images posted by graphic designers, so I thought I would bring it on-line. Seeing as another graphically designed image has won photo of the week - is this a good or bad thing for a photography site?
michaeldt 18 1.2k
14 Jun 2004 10:05AM
i think the question is either: where do the bounds of photography lie in terms of including graphically designed images or: is this a photography only site or a general image site?

if this is a photography only site and photography does include these images, then it's fine. but if photogrpahy doesn't inlcude these images then it's not. however, if this isn't a photgraphy only site then it's acceptable.

what would also be interesting is whether or not images that are created without any use of photographic equipment at all would be acceptable? some designers can use various tools to produce stunning images without capturing anything from the real world. everything is completely "drawn" on the pc. can these be included and what happens when it is too difficult to tell which are photos and which are "drawings"?
digicammad 19 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2004 10:22AM
I suppose you don't want to hear from me Ed, as we discussed it at length at the weekend. :0) However, never knowing when to shut up....

I think as long as an image starts with a photograph and is still reasonably recognisable as being from a photograph by the time the editing has been completed it is okay. It is really only an extension of the 'is manipulation cheating' argument.

I think the real crux of the matter is that, on this site, professionals and amateurs mix and have an equal opportunity to submit to both the gallery and competitions. There are plenty of amateur winners so it doesn't appear to be too much of a problem and possibly proves that the main difference between professionals and many amateurs is simply choice.

kit-monster 18 3.7k 2 Singapore
14 Jun 2004 10:30AM
I've always thought it strange that the sites home page doesn't actually tell you what the site is for. There's no real introduction.

The about page does include the following though:

ePHOTOzine was launched in May 2001 as a web magazine for photographers by Magezine Publishing. Its aimed at photographers of all levels from consumers who use a camera to record events or supplement secondary hobbies, to enthusiasts who use the camera to be creative, and to professionals where the camera is used purely as a business tool.

So I guess the site is primarily aimed at photographers using cameras?

I personally think an image should have a strong photographic element. Keith Henson has posted a tennis photo that falls into the graphically designed category but contains a very strong photographic element.

I certainly admire the dedication and effort that goes into producing graphically designed images but is that a reason to praise the result? Does the photographer who gets up at 2am to climb a mountain to catch the first rays of dawn get the same praise for their effort?
u08mcb 18 5.8k
14 Jun 2004 10:46AM
I wouldn't lose sleep over it Edward, different strokes and all that.
Pete 21 18.8k 97 England
14 Jun 2004 11:01AM
This week's looks as though it's created originally from photos. And from a photographic beginning is ideally all I ask...although with programs such as Bryce and those clever designer types that are joining ePHOTOzine it's getting harder to distinguish.
kit-monster 18 3.7k 2 Singapore
14 Jun 2004 11:11AM
Pete - thanks for the clarification. I just hope the wrong message isn't sent out and we get swamped with images from graphic designers.

Just realised I've shot myself in the foot for this weeks 24-hour challenge . . .

Malcolm - I'll try not to loose too much sleep although I do find myself thinking things over a lot whilst out and about looking for things to photograph.
digicammad 19 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2004 11:15AM
Ed, you couldn't possibly get far enough away with that lens of yours to shoot yourself in the foot!


c_evans99 18 7.0k 1 Wales
14 Jun 2004 11:51AM
Emerging from my dusty tomes ("does he never go to work?" [Ceri's boss :"Now and then, and we're getting a bit miffed"])... reading around, much of what we admire about Victorian photography wasn't all that highly valued at the time, there were naturalistic photographers but it didn't become the norm until well into the twentieth century... what were regarded above all were composites or montages, produced in an academic style by photographers with art training... so I guess we may be seeing a swing back away from the natural style... if it's any consolation the trend for montages only lasted about sixty years...

brm 18 76
14 Jun 2004 1:23PM
I think it's a bit unfair to label graphic designers as the ones responsible for the quite obviously digitally manipulated images on the site - although yes, I'm aware that the photo of the week is by a graphic designer Wink

I've seen lots of designers portfolios on this site & in the vast majority they're characterised by very abstract shots rather than manipulated ones.

Personnally I always presume that manipulated images on here are by photographers who have just got their hands on PS, it almost seems to be an obligatory part of the learning curve to produce them...

Back to the point of the discussion - I think if the component parts are still recognisable as being photographed then there's nothing wrong with it. When you start bringing in 3d models etc. then I think you're moving too far away from a 'photography site'. Personal view though.

warb 18 839
14 Jun 2004 1:50PM
i think this weeks potw is absolute class, but i suppose i would do being a graphic designer :o)
kit-monster 18 3.7k 2 Singapore
14 Jun 2004 2:11PM
Danny - would you rather create an image from your head or camera? Do you think the potw week is class because of the image or knowing how much work and imagination must have gone into it? Do you submit your work to a site for graphic designers?
digicammad 19 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2004 3:06PM
I can hear the worms escaping from the can....
digicammad 19 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
14 Jun 2004 3:42PM
I know it isn't in the same league as the images produced by Danny et al, but this is an example to illustrate

a) you don't have to be a graphic designer to do something creative with a photo


b) you can create something totally different without losing the feel of a photograph.

btw, feel free to give it lots of clicks and comments :0)

keithh 18 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
14 Jun 2004 5:08PM
For me, the point is, was it ever a photograph and does it still bear any resemblance to its origins. This week's PotW is clearly 2 photographs. My own post for today, is two photographs, with a touch of blur and a mock up of EPZ's logo, but I've seen many pieces of work on this site, which have either never been photographs; might as well never have been, or manipulated images of other people's photographs. I've stopped even commenting on any of these.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.