JPG

9 responses

• 

  Chris Whitney said (21 Mar 2008):

  Charlie-this debate is widely discussed. For me, some images are created by combining the "real" image with digital tools. It is easy to get mixed up with the do's and don'ts but I think focusing on the image's intent is the best way to go. If an image works with processing and the photographer desires to portray a certain message, than it is successful. For me, your image is successful. It helps to portray some character in your friend with the bold colors and lighting.

• 

  Fran Ott said (21 Mar 2008):

  Bravo! Your post production essay was right on the mark.

• 

  Jason Canavaggio said (22 Mar 2008):

  i guess the reason why people have such a hatred or dislike for heavily photoshoped digital images is because it becomes less of a photograph and more like a painting or some other type of art project. it'd be like taking a grandfather clock and turning it into one of those gumball machines that has all the falshing lights and sounds. sure you'd still be able to tell time off of it, but it's not really a grandfather clock anymore. i guess another analogy would be converting a toaster to a water heater, it may still have the heating elements and the look of a toaster, but alas it's not a toaster.
  you could also think of it as the nietzche saying "what if truth was a woman" except as "what if truth were a heavily, manipulated image."
  there's no malice intended, just offering some possible insight to it.

• 

  Charlie Howe said (22 Mar 2008):

  First, thanks to everyone for their thoughtfull responses to my post. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark :)
  Jason,
  You may have a point, it might become something else entirely but is that a bad thing? Perhaps it becomes "digital art" or "a digital Image", whatever name you slap on it, is it less than the original photograph untouched? I would argue that it is more and should be looked at with the same kind of respect as any other art.
  This is why it was important that JPG used the term "Imagemaking" instead of "Photography". I think even they understand that we have moved past traditional photography and into a world of images, not pictures. An image does not have the kind of esoteric restrictions put on it that a photograph does. An image doesn't even need to come from a camera whereas a photograph does. Heck even the term photograph is outdated because it no longer properly describes the capture process of digital imagery. Shouldn't we evlove emotionaly and artistically with the technical changes?

• 

  Pilar Coll i Gatells   said (23 Mar 2008):

  O.K.Charlie! my vote

• 

  Charlie Howe said (23 Mar 2008):

  I have recieved several emails regarding the story I wrote and I have reread my words with a different view because of them. I did not intend the piece to be as seemingly anti-JPG as I percieve them now. I was using JPG as an example to illustrate my point without realizing that what I was writing could be viewed as "bashing" this site. I did not intend, nor do I believe that JPG magazine or its editorial board are in anyway bad or wrong in how they have set things up. I would not be a part of this if I did think that. I also know that no matter how many yes votes I get, this piece will probably never be published and that is fine. My intent here was to start a discussion and I feel that I have done that. So...lets discuss!

• 

  Charlie Howe said (23 Mar 2008):

  Here is a portion of of an email that I thought everyone should read reposted with permission:
  From http://www.jpgmag.com/people/RBNews
  In the circles I hang with (small and contankerous) the basic premise for digital work is that what is fundamental to a wet lab is acceptable to a digital lab production process. Whether JPG accepts that, I don't know, but I know a number of photojournalists and count myself in that group as a wannabe, even though I'm a bit old for that game ... anyway ... altering a photo is absolutely forbidden. The concept of altering does not include color correction (unless there's a reality-based reason for keeping it), contrast enhancement for reproduction purposes, etc.
  Filters, etc., et al, are taboo.
  But the question of creativety is a different issue. If you look at the National Association of Professional Photoshop Users site (NAPP) you will see unbelievable images altered with Photoshop. The difference is, these are targeting fine art.
  The real issue is honesty about what the photo is. JPG's rules target a particular niche, and as they point out, there are other places to post the more creative avenue of image production.
  Personally, I like the site because pros, amateurs and snapshot-shooters can post their work. There is too often an us or them aspect to creativity, and seeing a pro's work along side of a newbie's work can't help but give the newbie information and stimulation.
  I've done seem things I'm okay with, but seeing some of the things on JPG lets me know how much more I need to learn. On the other hand, there is work on JPG that let's me know how far I've come. Similarly, having posted the same images on the NAPP site lets me be seen by some of the elite of the profession (and I have NO comments there on my work) where I truly am the newbie. Perhaps I'' get some solid feedback there.
  

• 

  * Jeff Boucher   said (25 Mar 2008):

  I think we all get wrapped up sometimes in reading into the details of the rules and regulations. There are alot of photos posted on JPG that have been manipulated more than what is "allowed" and they are not being taken down or thrown off. I enjoy the freedom to express my thoughts and feelings through my photos weather my mood is RAW, PhotoShop, LightRoom, etc. I think your work is awesome, I think your views, as well as JPG's views are right on. Lets not read too much into the details and get hung up on all of the fine print, If something doesn't meet criteria then I am sure you'll get an email. Keep shooting, keep adjusting, keep PhotoShopping and ENJOY.

• 

  Charlie Howe said (25 Mar 2008):

  How very Taoist of you :) I agree that the rules and regulations should never consume one to the point of affecting their artistic expression. It is true that many of the images on this site are not within the rules and have been left alone. It is also true that some of the most amazing work I have seen here or somewhere else, breaks the "rules" in some way.