Is there a difference between blending and compositing?

[KenElevenShadows]

Is there a difference between blending and compositing?

 

https://photofocus.com/opinion/is-there-a-difference-between-blending-and-compositing/

 

[KuruPrionz]

I will say the same thing I always say when photographers try to define the parameters of their work or justify their processes.

We don't need to do that! We can do whatever we want, because...

 

The word "Photography" is a composite of two different words. "Photo(s)" is Greek for "Light". Graphy is more Greek than not but a modified word, it means "writing". 

Photography means "writing with light". Whether you take a single exposure, multiple exposures or individual and different exposures, whatever you end up making out of them is still "writing with light" whether you use traditional darkroom techniques for film based photography (been there, done that) or you do your work on a computer (done that too and still do) - the chosen software does not matter in the slightest, you are using a monitor which is simply put, a light source. 

 

Either way and other ways as well, you are writing with light = Photography. 

It's kind of a relief to dispense with the details since they are only useful to describe techniques but do not define the overall concept. 

Which is not to say that the words are not useful when describing how to create different kinds of photographs. 

 

I remember when Photoshop first became available and popular and people decided that "photography" was done only with cameras and those of us who used Photoshop (I started with version 1.07 in 1992) were "graphic designers" and nothing more. I think more minds have been opened since then or perhaps the old school train of thought simply died off. 

 

BTW, since I could easily just be blabbering about, here is my portfolio on Model Mayhem. I've chosen to photograph beautiful women, unlike objects you can speak to them and collaborate on bringing ideas to an image. That part is fun too. I do have a couple of composites in this portfolio.

 

Not disrespecting the art of others at all, we simply must follow our own paths. Ken, you have some truly beautiful work!

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/297020/viewall

 

PS, not all of them will be wearing all of their clothes so NSFW. Best, Michael aka Kuru

[KenElevenShadows]

In the 1800s and on through the 1900s, photographers were often not considered real artists because the thought was that "anyone can click a button and create art instead of painting or drawing something" or variations on that theme. 

 

We all know that especially with actively creative forms of photography such as night photography with light painting, that's not true. But that doesn't stop people from thinking that even now.

 

Oh, and if someone wants to know when HDR was first done, they should Google "Gustav Le Grey".

Hint: it wasn't with Photoshop.

Hint: it was before the 2000s.

Hint: it was before the 1900s.

 

[KuruPrionz]

6 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

In the 1800s and on through the 1900s, photographers were often not considered real artists because the thought was that "anyone can click a button and create art instead of painting or drawing something" or variations on that theme. 

 

We all know that especially with actively creative forms of photography such as night photography with light painting, that's not true. But that doesn't stop people from thinking that even now.

 

Oh, and if someone wants to know when HDR was first done, they should Google "Gustav Le Grey".

Hint: it wasn't with Photoshop.

Hint: it was before the 2000s.

Hint: it was before the 1900s.

 

A fairly good chunk of my college photography courses involved learning the history of photography. We didn't have Photoshop yet at that point although that never stopped Jerry Uelsmann from creating his masterpieces. I got to look at two 16x20 prints he'd created on a field trip to San Francisco. Inspiring but I'm not one to copy just because. 

The "anyone can click a button and create art instead of painting or drawing something" spiel is certainly something I've heard more than once. 

 

What about images where you only get one shot to create your vision? I've attached one of my own favorites, I don't think a painting of this would have the same feel. 

It took some work to get all the ducks in a row, a model willing to get drenched in cold water on a cold day, a driver who could perform the required stunt, a moment on that specific road where I'd found the conditions I needed to make the image and there were no cars, etc. Then, only one click. After that I rushed the model to a warm, dry place where she could change into dry clothes. If I'd missed the shot, that would have been that, a failure. 😇

 

I'm certain you have your own "shoot or fail" stories to tell. It's part of the magic of photography, capturing an instant in time. I love great paintings and drawings but it's simply not the same thing. I got into shooting dance photography for more or less the same reason, can you get the shot? Another image attached. Hope you enjoy!

[KenElevenShadows]

Those look pretty great. And no, a painting is not quite the same. But initially, many painters dismissed photography as not being real art. 

 

When something new comes along, that's usually the case anyway. Where will AI-generated art take us? I'm not sure. But you can be certain that some of the places it takes us will suck, and other places will be fascinating and useful.

[KuruPrionz]

Thanks, it's fun to shoot things of that sort. 

Surrealism was one response to the camera taking all the portraiture business away from painters. 

 

It was like "OK, photograph this!!!!". 

Long ago I got to tour the Norton Simon Museum of Modern Art in Pasadena. They had a room full of Piccaso, a couple of Van Gogh, a Rembrandt (self portrait, the eyes followed you around the room, creepy), Dali and others. A fair bit of surrealism, fantastic works. Plus separate galleries for Chinese and Indian sculpture from the 15/1600s. 

An amazing place, highly recommended. 

 

I wish I'd gone to the Getty, still on the bucket list. 

[KenElevenShadows]

I love Norton-Simon. It's got a great variety of stuff, but is small enough that it feels very accessible. The nearby Pacific-Asia Museum is pretty great too.

 

The Getty (the large one on the hill) is pretty great if slightly overwhelming at times. There's so much stuff in there.