"Creative" Photography

[rjd]

So basically, it comes down to this...

Some people are of the opinion that, as a photographer uses a camera to create art...he/she's an artist, but a 'graphic designer', using photoshop to create art ISN'T an artist...i smell elitism...

No one is arguing that.

Using photoshop to create art is art. Using photoshop (in the main) to create art is not photography.

Its kind of like calling a sculptor a painter or something.

[Desmond]

Using photoshop to create art is art. Using photoshop (in the main) to create art is not photography..

That's what I agree with using photoshop may be creative , but it's not creative photography.
Photography .
" Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.^[1] "

[Paul.]

So basically, it comes down to this...

Some people are of the opinion that, as a photographer uses a camera to create art...he/she's an artist, but a 'graphic designer', using photoshop to create art ISN'T an artist...i smell elitism...

I feel you are totally missing the point of this thread, as no one is arguing that graphic designers are not creative, they can be creative at producing graphic designs, but it it goes without saying that they are not creative photographers (the point in discussion, as per the thread title).

As an aside, you don't catch trains out of the camps, you have to hitch a ride on a camel, if you run you might catch it up

[rjd]

The camels are a lie!

[SteveB]

That's very creative Rob.

[Adam]

I remember being "awed" by that camel shot in NG years ago!

[stic]

Re-touchers are highly skilled, but I wouldn't call them 'creative', they can only work with the material presented to them by the 'creative' photographer.

I feel you are totally missing the point of this thread, as no one is arguing that graphic designers are not creative,

???

Don't think so...

I am a professional photographer (in the only way i know how to define...that i do it as a job and get paid for it as it is of an acceptable quality for the market), i am a professional writer too (see previous) and i am also a graphic designer and use photoshop extensively in my photography...

Now, unless you are going to claim that all 'proper' creative photographers find the PERFECT situation, add ALL the components needed and wait untill the light is JUST right before using their standard and ONLY lens, at ISO 100, at the same aperture etc...and then pushes the button, then someone who is ALSO a photographer but takes the 'shot' and manipulates the resulting image electronically has to ALSO be a creative photographer...

However, I am coming from the viewpoint of a photographer who uses photoshop...as opposed to what you MAY be describing...a photographic retoucher who is NOT a photographer...

[Paul.]

I'm still not sure you are following the point of the thread mate.

Now, unless you are going to claim that all 'proper' creative photographers find the PERFECT situation, add ALL the components needed and wait untill the light is JUST right before using their standard and ONLY lens, at ISO 100, at the same aperture etc...and then pushes the button, then someone who is ALSO a photographer but takes the 'shot' and manipulates the resulting image electronically has to ALSO be a creative photographer...

no ..... I (including everyone else who has posted here) am (are) not going to claim that, I have already given two examples of creative photography with heavy post production (see this quote ....)

The creativity comes with pre-visualisation. If your initial shot is taken with the end processing in mind then, in my opinion, that is creative.

Taking a snapshot and HDRing the crap out of it in post processing is not creative.

Miss Anelia http://www.missaniela.com/ as already mentioned is creative photography/processing.
Rebekka Guoleifsdottir http://www.rebekkagudleifs.com/index.php produces creative photography.

FWIW, I have nearly 10 years experience with Photoshop, i am an advocate for the program, i'm in the process of upgrading to CS6. I am a photographer of about 9 years. I still use film and I develop my own negatives and prints, I also hand retouch prints out of the darkroom. I don't sell my photos to make a living, I am therefore technically an amateur.

[Jos]

Creativity is all in the head, you use the tools you need to achieve the end.

Most of my photos are to make my customers happy and to keep a record of our garden and life, I tweak all of them to make them as good (in my eye) as I can.

Occasionally I poke and prod an image a lot for the fun of doing so. Often with only a vague preconceived idea of what I'm after really. Often I don't even bother saving them.

[Desmond]

Creativity is all in the head, you use the tools you need to achieve the end. .

That's right , but ''Creative photography'' is mainly about using a camera .

[Jos]

No, it's about being creative. using photography.
and it's not like 10 years ago, we don't shoot on 6x7 transparency anymore, we have digital cameras with all that digital entails. Use the tools.

[stic]

The creativity comes with pre-visualisation. If your initial shot is taken with the end processing in mind then, in my opinion, that is creative.

Taking a snapshot and HDRing the crap out of it in post processing is not creative.

Those two statements are at odds...

I sometimes "HDR the crap" out of my photos...because i intended to do so when i took the shot...it is as much a part of the final image as pushing the button...this does NOT make it less legitimate, nor does it detract from the 'creative photography' i'm engaged in performing at the time.

I DO understand the argument...i just disagree with your side of it...i guess...

As said above...it's gone digital...and 'tweaking' for the desired outcome is NO LONGER restricted to just a couple of dials and buttons on a camera...

[Paul.]

Those two statements are at odds...

I sometimes "HDR the crap" out of my photos...because i intended to do so when i took the shot...it is as much a part of the final image as pushing the button...this does NOT make it less legitimate, nor does it detract from the 'creative photography' i'm engaged in performing at the time.

I DO understand the argument...i just disagree with your side of it...i guess...

As said above...it's gone digital...and 'tweaking' for the desired outcome is NO LONGER restricted to just a couple of dials and buttons on a camera...

The key word in my quote was 'snapshot'.

I give up.

[stic]

The key word in my quote was 'snapshot'.

I give up.

No, it was pre-visulisation...and you are claiming those who just 'take a snapshot', then HDR it aren't capable of visualising the outcome...

You also said "Re-touchers are highly skilled, but I wouldn't call them 'creative'"; so...are all re-touchers now also 'snapshot takers'?

...i'm a retoucher...are all my photos just snapshots?

...are my photos even photos, seeing as how they are not on film but digital?...and if they are, at what point did it go from a 'photo' to re-touched...in the camera, while tweaking the RAW file on the PC or during the 'planned' retouching in photoshop...?

...and was it creative photography when i took it, and where did it stop being creative photography during the post production...?

Your right...i don't understand...i'm a photographer who is trying to produce a specific image...am i being creative while attempting to do so? and does post production eliminate the creativity originally invested in the initial capture...

Either i'm being creative as a photographer or i'm not

[Paul.]

yes to all the above

I honestly don't care anymore, we are going around in circles here. Anyone want to chip in with a Canon vs Nikon debate? Mac vs PC? .... anyone?? ....

[Desmond]

yes to all the above

I honestly don't care anymore, we are going around in circles here. Anyone want to chip in with a Canon vs Nikon debate? Mac vs PC? .... anyone?? ....

RAW vs jpeg !!!!

[Jos]

Yep, canon wins, so do pc's, expensive mice and a cold beer.

& headphones with built in soundcard.

[rjd]

Creative people use canon and PC's.


.
.
.
.
.
What?

[Jos]

and a cold beer!

[Lia]

I'm just giving it my simple response , the time is i feel that maybe there should be different catagories in photography for no manipulation and for yes manipulation..everyone has a right to view and practice their photography in one way or another, creative or otherwise. Photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography
Personally i like raw not so perfect , street /photo journalism shots , so not very creative some would say ..but i did have to think about this shot quickly, background etc. .To me it would be sacrilege to heavily photoshop this particular image. It could be HDR 'd the crap out of but that would be grim..So i figure if you creatively/artistically take a photograph and then you artistically /creatively give it a photoshop going over sweet as because that is your chosen genre.For me the con. is when a photograph gets so mongrelled over to the point where it is no longer recognizable as a photograph...creatively or otherwise.



Cheers
and now you are all leaving for a cold beer ! Wait for me ...

[stic]

everyone has a right to view and practice their photography in one way or another, creative or otherwise.

That's the problem, right there...

Thinking there is ANY other type of photography than creative to begin with! Photography IS creation; you are creating something and by doing so you are creative! Further post production can only ADD to the creativity...

Whether other people like it, or rate it as being any good is immaterial...

Oh and as a graphic designer, writer and photographer i HATE Macs and will ONLY use PC!

...but i don't use BEER...

[Paul.]

To me it would be sacrilege to heavily photoshop this particular image.

mmmmm sacrilicious ....



Don't hate me, i'm being creative :/

[chrisgin]

mmmmm sacrilicious ....


Don't hate me, i'm being creative :/

Actually I quite like the details it's brought out in the person! Not too fond of the cartoony colours though.

[stic]

Now, THAT is what i call creative....

[Lia]

Geez Paul you are living life on the edge there pal
You've gotta be kidding stic , there's plenty of photography that's not creative to begin with ..lets not even go there but certainly i could give you a few links on that scenario.(i've got some extremely uncreative shots in my own archives actually ..so straight from the horses mouth as it were ) wouldn't inflict them on anyone...yep it matters a wee tiny bit if other people like them.
BUT..back the truck right up .. your statement "that's the problem , right there..." etc.., i strongly disagree as per above statement and I have the right to not appreciate my images being tinkered with because artistically i am happy with how i shot them or in your words created them.(subjects are helpful)
Perhaps though you could enlighten me with a link to your writing and graphic designer/photography ? I'm always interested in seeing peoples work. Unfortunately i don't have one at the moment but am working on it.
Oh PS the is just kidding
oh all right then , just call me artiste and we'll say no more about it