Can Photoshop Improve Art ?

[The Old Ruminator]

Just haze removal on Turner's classic. I will say that some cave photographs are so edited and " improved " by AI that they no longer look real any more.

 

[mrodoc]

I have a theory that was brought up years later that Turner's impressionism was due to his sight. He certainly wore spectacles as I discovered some years ago at an exhibition of his work.

 

[ZombieCake]

I have a theory that was brought up years later that Turner's impressionism was due to his sight. He certainly wore spectacles as I discovered some years ago at an exhibition of his work.

It was also the case for Claude Monet in later life. Failing eyesight affected his painting style.

 

[pwhole]

It's likely the pigments in the original have also faded a bit since it was painted though? I doubt Turner was that concerned with archival techniques at the time, and it's probably been hung in some pretty rotten air conditions in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

[Cantclimbtom]

Definitely faded, the natural indigo he used is affected. Rain, Steam, and Speed and the Fighting Temeraire both used quite a bit. A bit of colour rebalance wouldn't go amiss.

I'm slightly confused by the original post which mentions Photoshop (I'm assuming implied human) and also AI

In my uneducated opinion eyesight might be a minor factor but doesn't explain his style, he's purposefully painting what we'd now call an "artistic" rendering not trying to reproduce anything an observer may have seen, sunset in the East of the Fighting Temeraire as an obvious example isn't an eyesight issue

 

[Lankyman]

Definitely faded, the natural indigo he used is affected. Rain, Steam, and Speed and the Fighting Temeraire both used quite a bit. A bit of colour rebalance wouldn't go amiss.

I'm slightly confused by the original post which mentions Photoshop (I'm assuming implied human) and also AI

In my uneducated opinion eyesight might be a minor factor but doesn't explain his style, he's purposefully painting what we'd now call an "artistic" rendering not trying to reproduce anything an observer may have seen, sunset in the East of the Fighting Temeraire as an obvious example isn't an eyesight issue

I think with Turner (as with any artist) you have to look at their early work to see where their later offerings were coming from. Even at an early age you can see a bold use of colour, innovative perspective and a willingness to employ unconventional techniques. See 'My Cats' by Joey Turner:

 

[The Old Ruminator]

I think my point was what do we recognise as real any more ? All photography is moving into an area where everything is edited. Maybe reality becomes distorted and when we are faced with how things really are we can be disapponted. Having read my own obituary on an AI search I have become rather distrustful of it. Nearly all images on Google Image of the Northern Lights have been " improved " by editing. Same with rainbows and sunsets. The latter you can actually add on later. If you visited Wookey Hole show cave you will see how lovely it all is. In truth its rather drab and the effect is done with coloured lighting. Can we actually believe anything we see in glossy magazines any more ? In truth Estate Agents have been doing it for years by using wide angle lenses. I believe the same is done to create that " eye " in the roof of a large chamber. Would you see that if you went there ? Descent 306 has a remarkable image on the front cover. Would we see it that way if we went there ? How much is down to lighting and editing? Of course I don't know and I condemn no one for doing it that way. As a purely natural image I prefer the one on the inside of the front cover. To me its far more realistic and says more about the subject. I suppose there is no right and wrong way with photography if you look at it as artistic expression. How far you go with it is the question. I rather think cameras will become more intuitive with onboard editing ultimately learning what the photographer likes to see. Editing gives you the view that the photographer want us to see. Its his perspective. It shies away from reality though. So is it art or a fair representation of what we can expect to see when we go caving ? If its art it becomes easier with editing programmes. The human input becomes less. The AI programme can sort it out. My old fashioned view is that an image should tell a story. ( " worth a thousand words " ). The best images of the past don't rely on editing because they tell that story. Capture something that cannot be repeated. Well thats long gone as I could construct an image of me sat on the top of Mount Everest. So where does my drivel leave us ? Hopefully not to be lured down that path where all reality is gone. I rather think magazines go for the impact rather than the story. It waivers from the truth though. I will never get a photo award or a Descent cover shot . I prefer reality and stories and unadulterated records. Old school I suppose. I have only been doing it for 60 years perhaps I have been left behind.
I hope you like my philosphical discussions. Like my photography they remain rooted in the past.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

" The Dragon's Eye " explained.

" It's actually a flat circular excavation into the rock layers, but the photographer used a fish-eye type lens which makes it appear round."

 

[pwhole]

I hope you like my philosphical discussions. Like my photography they remain rooted in the past.

I don't mind them!

I shot this last week, and it was a very hazy day, so my original shot was very weak, but simply altering the Levels slider in Photoshop to absolute black and white points produced this. Other than that, no AI at all. It just looks amazing anyway

But I'm quite happy to remove small distracting objects near the edge of frames etc. using the various tools if they work, and they're unnoticeable, as in all honestly, I would have always tried to do it on darkroom prints when I was doing film work, if I'd been skilled enough. I did try, and anything larger than dust and scratches was hopeless. Printing in colour, forget it. Trying to retouch a Cibachrome was terrifying to me, especially on a student budget. I removed one of the small cows at the bottom, as a disclaimer.

At the end of the day I'm trying to produce art, so don't really care if I tweak things a bit - but compared to the majority of photography out there I think I'd still be classed as 'super realist documentary'

 

[alanw]

I think my point was what do we recognise as real any more ? All photography is moving into an area where everything is edited. Maybe reality becomes distorted and when we are faced with how things really are we can be disapponted.

FotoForensics - The Hacker Factor Blog

The initial query came from a friend. Her kid had a recurring rash on one arm. These days, doctor visits are cheaper and significantly faster when done online or even asynchronously over email. In this case, the doctor sent a private message over the hospital's online system. He wanted a photo of the rash.

This sounds simple enough. Take out the camera, hold out the arm, take a photo, and then upload it to the doctor. Right?

Here's the problem: Her camera kept automatically applying filters to make the picture look better. Visually, the arm clearly had a rash. But through the camera, the picture just showed regular skin. It was like one of those haunted house scenes where the mirror shows something different. The camera wasn't capturing reality.

TLR: No way to turn this off. Only solution was to use an old, dedicated camera.

 

[pwhole]

Sometimes the old ways are the best. Though I have to admit, now using a new, dedicated camera, and several (very expensive) dedicated lenses

 

[Roger W]

I remember back in the good old days of slide film and sending it off to be processed, I could get quite different results using Kodak or Agfa film. The Kodak was much warmer than the Agfa. But I rather think the Agfa was closer to what my eyes saw.

 

[ChrisB]

I removed one of the small cows at the bottom

Small, or far away?

 

[The Old Ruminator]

I have to admit adding a pile of boulders to a cave image where it was overexposed. Oh dear --

 

[TheBitterEnd]

I think my point was what do we recognise as real any more ?

Well ... the real thing is real, a photograph or a painting is a real photograph or painting.

All photography is moving into an area where everything is edited

Ansel Adams regarded the photographic negative as "raw material" and spent far more time in the dark room than behind the camera and the vast majority of "serious" photos always have been edited. Editing now might be easier but the bar has also gone up

 

[Brains]

In a previous life/ career I spent a lot of time preparing photo micrographs, almost exclusively in monochrome. Preparing the prints was a bit of a dark art with the balance of paper grade and exposure with develper and fixer timings and temperature. Elucidating details was the aim. The nasal sarcastic intonation of my then boss saying that the images were too muddy lives with me still... Together with rewashing and drying a print to then have it accepted an hour later!

Being mostly reflected light images a true rendering was moot...

 

[wormster]

All of my work with a camera above or below ground are never edited, I believe that my "snaps" stand by themselves. It's more about the person behind the lens and what you want to preserve.

 

[mrodoc]

I think with Turner (as with any artist) you have to look at their early work to see where their later offerings were coming from. Even at an early age you can see a bold use of colour, innovative perspective and a willingness to employ unconventional techniques. See 'My Cats' by Joey Turner:

View attachment 24101

Sure it's not a Louis Wain painting - certainly resembles one only not as good.

 

[mrodoc]

FotoForensics - The Hacker Factor Blog

The initial query came from a friend. Her kid had a recurring rash on one arm. These days, doctor visits are cheaper and significantly faster when done online or even asynchronously over email. In this case, the doctor sent a private message over the hospital's online system. He wanted a photo of the rash.

This sounds simple enough. Take out the camera, hold out the arm, take a photo, and then upload it to the doctor. Right?

Here's the problem: Her camera kept automatically applying filters to make the picture look better. Visually, the arm clearly had a rash. But through the camera, the picture just showed regular skin. It was like one of those haunted house scenes where the mirror shows something different. The camera wasn't capturing reality.

TLR: No way to turn this off. Only solution was to use an old, dedicated camera.

As a doctor I consider this deplorable. I have heard of people being asked to photograph the backs of their heads and their throats in recent years Problem is that not everybody has the brains to think about the variables. I did take medical images and had some published (taken in the course of my work) but a certain amount of thought had to be put into photographing skin lesions etc. I worked with both slides and latterly digital. Some the things I saw were fascinating rarities but I am still trying to find somebody who wants my library of shots.

 

[Fulk]

All of my work with a camera above or below ground are never edited, I believe that my "snaps" stand by themselves.

Well, that's an interesting comment, wormster, but occasionally (!!!) I make a mistake. Consider this picture of elphants at a watering hole – I obviously cocked up the exposure. (Continued)