Social Anxiety Forums

aramoor · Gold VIP Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 166 Location: S.Wales

I'm doing some graphic design and re-branding work for my old man's photographic tours company at the moment. I've come up with some nice designs in the vein of what he's looking for. He wants very classical designs, that hold an integrity to the single image, which is fine, but I cant help feeling like I want to push the designs to be slightly more contemporary in their feel. First off is an example of a design that I came up with that I knew was the kind of style he's looking for. Secondly is an image I came up with knowing that it was wholly unsuitable and he would reject, but I wanted to challenge how far I could push the design without breaking from the constraints of the brief. Basically as a photographer, my dad has always been about the "single image" being all-important, so when I e-mailed him the design with his images broken down and chopped and merged, he was duly disgusted. This led to an interesting debate about photography and imaging. As a photographer working solely with the camera in the environment (and only using PS to do things that were possible in a traditional dark-room) he feels the integrity of what he is doing is being questioned by people doing photo manipulation work as an image painstakingly created and worked in the environment can easily be created in Photoshop.

Now my dad actually thinks any work created digitally (when I say digitally I mean photo-manip work) should carry a DM (digital manipulation) watermark so as people know where they stand. Its interesting stuff, because its not just today in the digital age that this debate as gone one. Back in the 1860's some dude was splicing negatives together, sometimes over 10 different negatives and creating one single image from many different sources, which of course questions photography as a single image medium as much as the digital manipulation work does today.

Now as far as I'm concerned people digitally enhancing a photograph and perhaps brining 2 or more elements from different sources together and claiming its a real life photo is where the issue starts. To me that is wrong. Why say that? Why not just say it was created in Photoshop? Its just as much of a skill to manipulate a few images in PS and make it all look real as it is to go into the real world and look and "see" an aesthetically pleasing composition and translate this 3d environment into something that works in 2d. Passing off a photo-manip as a genuine image is like passing off a photograph as a painting - ethically bankrupt and largely pointless.

I don’t think the type of design above with the highland cow is in anyway questioning the integrity of the single image. Nobody is going to mistake that for a real image, and so the elements taken from photographs are no longer photographs, but graphics to be used as the designer sees fit. However I do see why when the product being sold is a photographic tour lead by someone who has always believed in the integrity of the single image, un-changed from what was captured at the time of taking the photograph, that it would not be a suitable design to market that product.

You can check out my dad's work here if you want. Btw, I designed that site Very Happy

_________________
I embrace my desire to
feel the rhythm, to feel connected
enough to step aside and weep like a widow
to feel inspired, to fathom the power,
to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,
to swing on the spiral
of our divinity and still be a human.

Anonymous · Posted: Wed December 13, 2006 Post subject:

It is a bit hard to read some of the titles on the picturelinks.

aramoor · Gold VIP Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 166 Location: S.Wales

Maybe they are a little small. I can see them fine on my screen though. Prehaps something relating to resolution? I'm using 1440 X 900. Anyway, I'l most likley be re-doing that site soon as its like 18 months old, and was the first website I made and consequently isnt very eay to update and stuff like that.

d_styles · Posted: Wed December 13, 2006 Post subject:

personally I like the first pic more. it seems to flow together well. the second one is a bit too chaotic. I like the style of it but I just dont think its well suited for nature style graphics. it just seems to me like the animals are out of place in that pic.

I'm amazed sometimes at the things people can create with ps. at times I'll come across a pic that is so well done that I really have a hard time telling wether its real or not. I like that though, its cool to see people push the program to its limits and create amazing looking images.

Anonymous · Posted: Wed December 13, 2006 Post subject:

The resolution you are using probably makes your objects look smaller (I am using 1080x800)

aramoor · Gold VIP Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 166 Location: S.Wales

Anonymous · Posted: Sun December 17, 2006 Post subject:

Photography is about the single picture, it can be staged or a momentary pic, but it is about the picture itself, not about the manipulation of it. That goes for manipulating with negatives and fluids too. It all depends on how far you are willing to go with the manipulation though, it's still art, but it ain't pure photographic skills. For me it's ok to call it a photograph even though it's manip work, as long as it still looks like a photograph and the original image is one. I mean, who gives a shit, it's still Art. No more, no less. It is the final outcome that matters.

About the site, your father seems skilled with the lens. Some of those pics are really nice.
It's quite irritating that the whole site is made of tables and images. That really isn't a good idea. The design is neat though.

aramoor · Gold VIP Joined: 23 Nov 2006 Posts: 166 Location: S.Wales