Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Just say yes...  (Read 17751 times)

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2007, 05:42:41 pm »

"Angels on the head of a pin" discussions like this make me want to run screaming down the hall. It is not possible to not manipulate a photograph. Starting with the choice of camera and lens focal length to the media the image is printed on there are a large number of possible decisions that one must make when taking (making if you like) a photograph. You can let the camera default to auto mode, but you have decided to do that, and must accept the results. You can choose to print the image as-is, but you still have to choose paper, ink set, chemical process, etc.

And so, the only possible answer to "do you minipulate your photographs?" is a resounding YES. No other answer will do.

I do think that the word manipulate has some negative vibes. For example: "I don't like being manipulated" is something you might hear in conversation. Perhaps a better choice of word here might improve the way we look at this process.

Michael
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2007, 05:56:04 pm »

Quote
..., the only possible answer to "do you minipulate your photographs?" is a resounding YES. No other answer will do.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is certainly one answer.  To think it is the "only possible answer" is a bit narrow minded, in my opinion.  "No" has been offered as an alternative.  

The there are "Maybe" and "Perhaps."  

"Depends on what you call manipulated" still another.
Logged

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2007, 06:11:41 pm »

Howie, are you a lawyer?
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Just say yes...
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2007, 06:16:12 pm »

Quote
I do think that the word manipulate has some negative vibes. For example: "I don't like being manipulated" is something you might hear in conversation. Perhaps a better choice of word here might improve the way we look at this process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree.  I personally call what I do "enhanced" or even "modified" but I don't mind manipulated if this is what people want to call it.  Different names for the same thing... I think there's a metaphor about this but I can't remember it right now.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2007, 06:16:27 pm by alainbriot »
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2007, 06:22:53 pm »

Quote
Howie, are you a lawyer?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No.
Logged

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2007, 06:36:45 pm »

Quote
No.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you can be specific.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2007, 06:37:24 pm by mcanyes »
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2007, 06:47:01 pm »

Quote
So you can be specific.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought "No" covered it pretty well.  Never have been, never will be.  

If you care, retired engineer.  I've been a photographer for a very long time.

May I ask why?
Logged

David Mantripp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • :: snowhenge dot net ::
Just say yes...
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2007, 03:23:30 am »

As far as the "yes" is concerned, fine, no problem. I think anybody who would firmly answer "no" is either deluding themselves or basically has no understanding of photography.

But there's one area in this essay that I feel unhappy about, and within which I feel a certain amount of contradicton.  Alain's insistence on seeing the world as a beautiful place is commendable, but I assume from his writings and his photography that he actually cares about this world, and not just of beautiful imagery he can derive from it.

Modifying a photograph to remove a house, say, which "defaces" (this is always going to be subjective) a landscape can be counter productive.  If the photographr wants to restore a pristine state to a landscape, presumably he or she cares about that landsacape, and is upset by the damage done.  However, concealing that damage, both from the audience and from one's self, is potentially going to lead to complacency.

I'm not particularly convinced by Alain's insistence that he can, as an artist decision, totally divorce himself from reality, or at least a relatively generally accepted reality.  In my opinion, art without engagement is not very fulfilling or indeed convincing to either the artist or the audience.  It may be much easier to sell - but then where do we draw the line between the sort of production line stuff that turns up in IKEA posters ?   Perhaps the message in Alain's art is "this is how I want the world to be" - but therein lies the danger of the audience interpreting it is "this is how the world is", and there really is no need to worry about those sweet polar bears....
Logged
--
David Mantripp

David Mantripp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • :: snowhenge dot net ::
Just say yes...
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2007, 03:27:40 am »

Quote
Salvador Dali, who like Jerry Uelsmann was a Surrealist, said that:

One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.

Surrealism is, in part, the representaion of dreams or of a dream-like state.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


But then again, Cartier-Bression identified himself at least to some extent with the Surrealist movement, and he, perhaps, is one photographer who could honestly have answered "non".
Logged
--
David Mantripp

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2007, 08:03:48 am »

David,

This is how I would see it: a lot depends upon the integrity of the artist to make this type of decision. I feel that the artist has a right to make these decisions, and you have the right to reject the work if you don't like the decisions. Granted that some of these decisions may not be so obvious, but painters make them all the time - why not photographers?

My favorite example. Lets say I shot a great image of a mother fox and her kits. But there was a beer can in the background. I would never add another kit to the image, but the beer can would stay or go depending on what I wanted to illustrate.

Michael
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

David Mantripp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • :: snowhenge dot net ::
Just say yes...
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2007, 08:58:38 am »

Quote
David,

This is how I would see it: a lot depends upon the integrity of the artist to make this type of decision. I feel that the artist has a right to make these decisions, and you have the right to reject the work if you don't like the decisions. Granted that some of these decisions may not be so obvious, but painters make them all the time - why not photographers?

My favorite example. Lets say I shot a great image of a mother fox and her kits. But there was a beer can in the background. I would never add another kit to the image, but the beer can would stay or go depending on what I wanted to illustrate.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, I don't mean to say it is wrong as such. I do it too, sometimes, although less & less these days. For example, I recently had a shot of a waterfall in a storm which had a small sign intruding into it.  I knew it would be better if I took the sign out, and photographers who've seen it have instantly zeroed in on it (it is tiny, but even so). Non photographers don't seem to notice it, or don't mind.  

I know it is there. I know it is a visual imperfection. But if I take it out, it will miss it. There is a footpath by the waterfall, indicated by the sign - it is not particularly easy, especially not in a rainstorm, and actually going there i those conditions was only one stop short of stupid, but even so, if I take it out, what am I saying ? That this some pristine savage wilderness ? I'd be lying. I couldn't avoid it, as moving the camera would have exposed it to spray.

I can see where Alain is coming from, and I certainly do not deny his right to be there, especially as he is quite open about his intention and vision. But I'm not sure it is what I want, personally, from photographers.


Actually, as an afterthought, I'm actually currently reading Alain's book (highly recommended by the way), in the chapter on developing a style. Maybe by beginning to work out where my vision differs from Alain's, I'm actually beginning to realise that I might actually have some hope of developing a style of my own :-)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2007, 09:01:26 am by drm »
Logged
--
David Mantripp

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2007, 09:55:00 am »

Quote
Oh, I don't mean to say it is wrong as such. I do it too, sometimes, although less & less these days. For example, I recently had a shot of a waterfall in a storm which had a small sign intruding into it.  I knew it would be better if I took the sign out, and photographers who've seen it have instantly zeroed in on it (it is tiny, but even so). Non photographers don't seem to notice it, or don't mind. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of the best descriptions of a good teacher that I have heard: someone who knows what to leave out. Works for photography and other art forms too.

One's eye should flow over the photograph, and I tend to take out things that pulls the eye away from that natural flow. Small white spots for example, reflections, that sort of thing are obvious. If your sign pulls one's eye perhaps it should go. Or perhaps the waterfall should go?  

I tend not to think about this stuff too much. I just sit down at the screen and poke at the image unitl I like what I see, and print it. A gut approach I guess. A few years from now I will probably approach this process somewhat differently. But, with the possible exception of basic technique, no one can tell me that I am doing it wrong. That is the really neat thing about art.
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2007, 10:45:26 am »

Quote
One of the best descriptions of a good teacher that I have heard: someone who knows what to leave out. Works for photography and other art forms too.

One's eye should flow over the photograph, and I tend to take out things that pulls the eye away from that natural flow. Small white spots for example, reflections, that sort of thing are obvious. If your sign pulls one's eye perhaps it should go. Or perhaps the waterfall should go?  

I tend not to think about this stuff too much. I just sit down at the screen and poke at the image unitl I like what I see, and print it. A gut approach I guess. A few years from now I will probably approach this process somewhat differently. But, with the possible exception of basic technique, no one can tell me that I am doing it wrong. That is the really neat thing about art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see the possibility for other than "no" answers here.  "Maybe."  "Perhaps."  "Sometimes."  "It depends."
Logged

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2007, 11:18:42 am »

Quote
I see the possibility for other than "no" answers here.  "Maybe."  "Perhaps."  "Sometimes."  "It depends."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Howie, please give me an example of an unmanipulated photograph.
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2007, 11:40:40 am »

Quote
Howie, please give me an example of an unmanipulated photograph.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you define as "manipulated."  A must to accurately answer this question for you.

If merely making the image "manipulates," then there are, of course, none by definition.  It is easy to prove all prints are manipulsted if you first assume all prints are manipulated.

If cloning out cigarette butt(s) is manipulating, then those with cigarette butt(s) are not manipulated.  But then what do you call prints that have no visible butts to start with?

If "It looks manipulated" is your definition, then those prints that do not look manipulated (to you) are not manipulated (to you).
Logged

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2007, 11:59:41 am »

Well, I don't have a lot to do today; I'll go one more round.

Take whatever dictionary definition you like for manipulated (in current use, not from the 1300's) and then give me an example.
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2007, 12:11:12 pm »

Quote
Take whatever dictionary definition you like for manipulated (in current use, not from the 1300's) and then give me an example.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK.  I found this definition in an on-line dictionary.

"To tamper with or falsify for personal gain"

Example.  None of my images are manipulated according to this definition because none have produced any "personal gain."
Logged

mcanyes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
    • www.dig-arts.biz
Just say yes...
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2007, 12:21:33 pm »

Quote
OK.  I found this definition in an on-line dictionary.

"To tamper with or falsify for personal gain"

Example.  None of my images are manipulated according to this definition because none have produced any "personal gain."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Depends on how you look at it. As soon as you have pointed the camera you have tampered; what you select with the camera position, zoom, etc.

Personal gain does not have to mean money. It could easily mean the pleasure you get from the photograph.
Logged
Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff www.dig-arts.

howiesmith

  • Guest
Just say yes...
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2007, 12:55:29 pm »

Quote
Depends on how you look at it. As soon as you have pointed the camera you have tampered; what you select with the camera position, zoom, etc.

Personal gain does not have to mean money. It could easily mean the pleasure you get from the photograph.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Personal gain does not have to mean money. It could easily mean the pleasure you get from the photograph."  Sounds like further defining the definition.

So it really does depend on how you define manipulated.  I have many images that produced no pleasure at all from any immediate stage of image making.  Some images were a chore to make and I did not make them for my pleasure.  I guess too that if you back your definition up to the to include the pleasure I got from the cup of coffee I drank 10 mintues before I set up my tripod (and don't count pinching my finger in the tripod's legs), then maybe every image is manipulated.  (If pinching my finger hurt really badly, does that make the image less manipulated?)  At some point in time I have experienced both pleasure and pain from the photographic process.


Two more definitions:

To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner.  I give this a likely or even a resounding yes.  Even if I picked up the cigarette butt before exposure instead of cloning later.  Back this up to include the making stage, and the answer is yes, manipulated.

To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.  I give this a depends or maybe.  (The obvious cropping when making an in camera image I do not consider either shrewd or devious.  There is no intend to hide, either shrewdly or deviously, that the image was made.  I do not include photoshop "tricks" here.)  This seems to fly into the face of "looks manipulated."  If it looks manipulated, perhaps the managment was not so shrewd or devious.

Still depends on how you deside to define manipulated.
Logged

dturina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
    • Picasa gallery
Just say yes...
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2007, 01:03:26 pm »

Quote
Howie, please give me an example of an unmanipulated photograph.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would a projected slide qualify?
Logged
Danijel
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up