Photographic Integrity

[jjj]

Thought I'd quote myself to make a better example.  My camera can capture a person's mood, but it never makes a person's mood.

Nonsense. I do a lot of portrait work and the camera's presence directly affects people's behaviour.
It's presence also permits the subject to do a lot of the daft things I ask.  If camera wasn't there, I'd be told to get stuffed.

If doing candids, that is another matter.

[Wayne Fox]

Well said.  To return to the original point of this thread --that "Mangelsen's photographs are digitally unmanipulated"-- I happen to know personally 2 of Mangelsen printers (Mangelsen does not print his work himself).  The first is a friend of mine who is now retired but printed for Mangelsen for years (his lab was in Wyoming if I recall properly), and the second is Hance Partners, operated by Richard Jackson, in Flagstaff, AZ.  Jackson printed for me for many years and I saw prints and original transparencies of Mangelsen's images on each of my visits to their lab (I live in Arizona).  I can say that the prints are quite different from the transparencies, as can be expected.  The usual problems have to be fixed: contrast, color balance, saturation, local and global density adjustments, spotting, retouching, etc.  

Therefore, Mangelsen's statement that his images are unmanipulated is a marketing approach.  This approach has been used by many photographers in the past, and it continues to be used today, although it is fading due to the growing awareness by photography enthusiasts and investors that there is no such thing as a straight fine print.  Whether these changes are done in the darkroom or in the computer is irrelevant since these changes can be made either way. The computer provides an easier,  more reliable and more comprehensive approach,  that's all.  Hance Partners now features digital processing, so Mangelsen's work, at least some of it, is now digitally processed as well.  Mangelsen's prints continues to be done chemically.  The combination of digital processing and chemical printing is popular among photographers using this type of marketing approach.

I actually think everyone is taking Mangelson out of context.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't believe he is making any claim that his images are "pure" from the camera - that nothing whatsoever is done to them.

"A purist to the end, Tom does not digitally-manipulate his images, and is vehemently opposed to photographing animal models in game farms. Instead, he focuses on three main elements to capture the ideal photograph: Patience, light, and behavior."

I think he is simply referring to the fact that he will not "digitally-manipulate" to achieve a result.  Capture a grizzly bear and then digitally put a fish in his mouth.  Capture an eagle, and put a fish in his claws.  I don't think this statement has anything to do with typical post processing.  I think there is a pretty distinct difference between "digital manipulation" and post processing and enhancement most of the time.

[JRSmit]

May be i missed something in this thread, but why not ask Mangelsen what he means with not manipulating his images.


Regards,

Jan R.

[pegelli]

If you paint with finger colors on a photograph, is it still a photograph? I call it a mixture of a photograph and a painting. If you do the same finger painting in photoshop instead of doing it to the physical print, is it photography, painting, or digital image processing? It is digital image processing, of course, not photography or painting. Call it what it is and don't try to falsify what you're doing by labeling it with the name of a different process.

OK, let me try to build on this excellent concept that I agree with.
I would say when the digital manipulation is limited to levels, curves, dodging, burning, WB, contrast etc I would still call it a photograph. In essence you're only changing some pixels in a reltive proportion to each other. Maybe not a "pure photograph" in the sense Jack is talking about it, but still a photograph. However as soon as you start adding textures or objects that weren't there or removing major objects that were there at the time of capture you're talking about a digitally processed image.

Pretty simple definition you would say, but still room for interpretation. You're shooting a landscape and there's an ugly empty coke can laying in the grass, so you clone it out by using the texture from the surrounding grassy area. Is that still a photograph or a digitally processed image? I don't know and there might be as many opinions as members on this forum. It might even be a difference if you noticed the coke can before the shot and decided you would clone it out later, or that you only notice it for the first time when reviewing the picture on your screen at home.

Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't but I will keep following this discussion to see how it further develops.

[Rob C]

So John what about the fact that the 'master' photographer that started you on this nonsense about 'pure' photography was actually talking marketing BS about his purity?

Shhhh Futt Futt; I hear the rustling of another degree coming on!

What´s that they used to say about folks being academically brilliant but sans any common sense?

Rob C

[jjj]

Pretty simple definition you would say, but still room for interpretation. You're shooting a landscape and there's an ugly empty coke can laying in the grass, so you clone it out by using the texture from the surrounding grassy area. Is that still a photograph or a digitally processed image? I don't know and there might be as many opinions as members on this forum. It might even be a difference if you noticed the coke can before the shot and decided you would clone it out later, or that you only notice it for the first time when reviewing the picture on your screen at home.

So if you see something in frame that looks untidy like a coke can? Does it matter if you move it before talking shot or decide clone it out as it's a bit icky and you don't want to touch it? I think there is no difference.
If you only notice afterwards and then clone it out you are using PS to make up for your poor photographic skills and that is different and I think that is really the the point where there may be more agreement regarding good photography and poor photography being enhanced by PS.
Little details like that were touched up long before PS was invented and no-one said it wasn't photography then. Is it so different now if you airbrush an image with PS rather than an old fashioned airbrush?
I think part of the issue is that PS is is seen as easy [despite many people finding it too omplex and arcane to use]. And easy is somehow less worthwhile - photographers will value an image that was harder to shoot than one that was easy, yet anyone looking at the images won't care about that and will judge the shots purely on their own merits.

Here's a real life example - I was in a tree photographing some dancers, also in tree and below me. On floor beneath them were some cigarette butts, which only became visible part way through shoot as it evolved. In that case it was easier to clone them out, than clamber down and interupt flow of shoot, where I had little time anyway. I think staying in tree and keeping the energy of shoot was more important than moving some trash, particularly as I could so easily fix it later. Is that cheating or being practical?

[jjj]

Shhhh Futt Futt; I hear the rustling of another degree coming on!

What´s that they used to say about folks being academically brilliant but sans any common sense?

 
I met a lot of dumb people whilst at Uni and now it is pathetically easy to get in and pass, so probably a lot more there now.

Common sense to me is simply intelligence applied to the real world. And is not exactly common either.

[JohnKoerner]

So John what about the fact that the 'master' photographer that started you on this nonsense about 'pure' photography was actually talking marketing BS about his purity?

JJJ;

Before I respond, let me preface with an old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas; mediocre minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

With that out of the way, whether Mangelsen himself actually uses nothing but "pure photography" is irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. That you wish to default to discussing individuals and what they do would only serve to underscore your inability to stay on topic. I have no idea what the individual, Mangelsen, does or doesn't do ... whether he precisely lives up to his website credo, whether it's loosely, or whether his verbiage is nothing but a marketing ploy. I don't know if Mangelsen is not being forthright in his practices following his stated credo, or whether those who accuse otherwise are merely jealous and wagging crooked tongues about those practices. Nor do I care.

I merely wanted to discuss the idea and concept of "pure photography" and where (pardon the pun) "software" fit in to this picture

Nonsense. I do a lot of portrait work and the camera's presence directly affects people's behaviour.
It's presence also permits the subject to do a lot of the daft things I ask.  If camera wasn't there, I'd be told to get stuffed.
If doing candids, that is another matter.

This is a great point you make of how a person's knowledge of the camera's presence can affect their emotions, while completely missing the point that the idea of "photography" is to capture those emotions "with light" upon a sensor.

Jack




.

[daws]

Here's a real life example - I was in a tree photographing some dancers, also in tree and below me. On floor beneath them were some cigarette butts, which only became visible part way through shoot as it evolved. In that case it was easier to clone them out, than clamber down and interupt flow of shoot, where I had little time anyway. I think staying in tree and keeping the energy of shoot was more important than moving some trash, particularly as I could so easily fix it later. Is that cheating or being practical?

It's being practical, and in the endeavor to tell a visual story is no more "cheating" than using other darkroom techniques (chemical or digital) to open shadows, direct the eye with lighting, crop the composition, etc.

If editing in film, orchestration in music and poetic techniques in prose are allowed, why is the equivalent in photography questioned as "impure?"

[JohnKoerner]

Here's a real life example - I was in a tree photographing some dancers, also in tree and below me. On floor beneath them were some cigarette butts, which only became visible part way through shoot as it evolved. In that case it was easier to clone them out, than clamber down and interupt flow of shoot, where I had little time anyway. I think staying in tree and keeping the energy of shoot was more important than moving some trash, particularly as I could so easily fix it later. Is that cheating or being practical?

JJJ;

I think it is good, common sense and I would do the same. Yet still this does not address the point. Perhaps I should have titled this thread differently. Maybe by the use of the word "integrity" yall are getting the idea that my position is non-photographic techniques are "bad." This continues to be a recurring theme of the dissention.

By integrity, I meant images produced by the strict adherence to the discipline of photography, not that creating images by other means is "bad" or "wrong." I meant the concept of photography and where does "digital manipulation" fit in to the equation? A beautiful image is a beautiful image, and no matter how an artist wishes to create beauty if it is in fact created, hey, that is great. But is it photography?, is my question. Again, if I am a MMA fighter and win a fight by ankle lock, hey that is great and I won, but can my method of winning be called "boxing?"

As an example of my point with digital manipulation, take Dan Brown's incredible efforts to produce a stunning image of a flower:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32680

This man used 272 images that he "focus-blended" together to create an incredible masterpiece of work. He is like a MMA fighter, he won the championship, but can the digital blending of 272 images into one be called "a photograph?"

Or is it now a "digital image?"

Please understand, this is not criticism! If anything, my jaw is on the floor at all of the incredible work Mr. Brown put into the crafting of his image, and what he did is so far beyond mere "photography" that I am simply amazed. So please don't view my comments as negative, as they truly are not. They are merely conceptual.

I guess my question is and always was, has the digital age transcended mere "photography" and become something much more? Boxing used to be "all" of a professional prizefight, but now it is only becoming a "part" of a complete MMA fighter. Qua-photography seems only to be a very small part of overall image crafting anymore. My original question of "does anyone only use pure photography" was not intended to be a dispersion on those who do not, anymore than I would cast a dispersion on a fully-rounded MMA fighter by asking if anyone is a pure boxer anymore. It was just a question.

Quite frankly, I am as amazed at the kind of total dedication, vision, and discipline that a man like Mr. Brown would make to compose a work of perfection in his flower image as I am with a man like Mr. Mangelsen who would sit for months on end to get the perfect "one shot" of the grizzly bear out in the wild. Both feats are remarkable in their own ways. The latter I consider to be "pure photography," while the former I consider to be master image-making. Both produced incredible results.

I hope this clarifies that my question allows for a mutual respect and admiration of both approaches. I honestly don't know if what Mr. Brown put together can properly be called "a photograph," philosophically, as opposed to a "digital image." However, whatever label is given to the work "beautiful" and "amazing" must surely be part of any label as well ...

Jack



.

[JRSmit]

JJJ;

Before I respond, let me preface with an old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas; mediocre minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

With that out of the way, whether Mangelsen himself actually uses nothing but "pure photography" is irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. That you wish to default to discussing individuals and what they do would only serve to underscore your inability to stay on topic. I have no idea what the individual, Mangelsen, does or doesn't do ... whether he precisely lives up to his website credo, whether it's loosely, or whether his verbiage is nothing but a marketing ploy. I don't know if Mangelsen is not being forthright in his practices following his stated credo, or whether those who accuse otherwise are merely jealous and wagging crooked tongues about those practices. Nor do I care.

I merely wanted to discuss the idea and concept of "pure photography" and where (pardon the pun) "software" fit in to this picture






This is a great point you make of how a person's knowledge of the camera's presence can affect their emotions, while completely missing the point that the idea of "photography" is to capture those emotions "with light" upon a sensor.

Jack




.

John,

Now that i understand (i believe) your reason for this thread, can you describe what you mean with "software"?
It would make the thread a lot clearer.

Jan R.

[jjj]

Before I respond, let me preface with an old saying: "Great minds discuss ideas; mediocre minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Uh, you held him up as an example of what you mean by this whole integrity thing, yet he was being a little loose with the truth. As what he claimed was not exactly true. So Im not discussing people for no reason, I'm doing so as his claims are so very relevant to the discusion. If he is being disenguous about PPing, is he being truthful everywhere else?

With that out of the way, whether Mangelsen himself actually uses nothing but "pure photography" is irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. That you wish to default to discussing individuals and what they do would only serve to underscore your inability to stay on topic. I have no idea what the individual, Mangelsen, does or doesn't do ... whether he precisely lives up to his website credo, whether it's loosely, or whether his verbiage is nothing but a marketing ploy. I don't know if Mangelsen is not being forthright in his practices following his stated credo, or whether those who accuse otherwise are merely jealous and wagging crooked tongues about those practices. Nor do I care.

But it is relevant and completely on topic. As part of his 'pure' photographic approach is not soo pure after all.

I merely wanted to discuss the idea and concept of "pure photography" and where (pardon the pun) "software" fit in to this picture

There is no pure photography and that is the point you seem to not understand.

This is a great point you make of how a person's knowledge of the camera's presence can affect their emotions, while completely missing the point that the idea of "photography" is to capture those emotions "with light" upon a sensor.

No point missed at all as it wasn't relevant to the point in question. I was only commenting on the claim of the camera having no influence.
Besides your idea of what photography is as I have said before simply naive. You need to look at history of photography a lot more.

[jjj]

As an example of my point with digital manipulation, take Dan Brown's incredible efforts to produce a stunning image of a flower:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32680

This man used 272 images that he "focus-blended" together to create an incredible masterpiece of work. He is like a MMA fighter, he won the championship, but can the digital blending of 272 images into one be called "a photograph?"

Or is it now a "digital image?"

No it is a photograph. Just because a computer was involved makes no difference. Most things done in a computer were done before computers existed. It was always called photography then, why make the distinction now?
BTW - Photography literally means drawing with light.

I guess my question is and always was, has the digital age transcended mere "photography" and become something much more?

No. It just a different way of doing exactly the same thing.
Go look at the work of Uelsmann or Hag. They did their work before computers and were always regarded as photographers.

Boxing used to be "all" of a professional prizefight, but now it is only becoming a "part" of a complete MMA fighter. Qua-photography seems only to be a very small part of overall image crafting anymore. My original question of "does anyone only use pure photography" was not intended to be a dispersion on those who do not, anymore than I would cast a dispersion on a fully-rounded MMA fighter by asking if anyone is a pure boxer anymore. It was just a question.

The fighting analogy is a very poor one. Boxing is a sport with very specific rules and regulations. MMA is another sport that has a different set of rules and restrictions. Photography has never had restrictions, being an open creative medium. So not a good comparison. I could even easily beat a MMA, simply by ignoring their rules. Real fighting has no rules and real fighting is a better comparison.

Quite frankly, I am as amazed at the kind of total dedication, vision, and discipline that a man like Mr. Brown would make to compose a work of perfection in his flower image as I am with a man like Mr. Mangelsen who would sit for months on end to get the perfect "one shot" of the grizzly bear out in the wild. Both feats are remarkable in their own ways. The latter I consider to be "pure photography," while the former I consider to be master image-making. Both produced incredible results.

Both are photographers. I can think of other ways of doing what Dan did - without a computer. If the end result is the same, what difference is there?

I hope this clarifies that my question allows for a mutual respect and admiration of both approaches. I honestly don't know if what Mr. Brown put together can properly be called "a photograph," philosophically, as opposed to a "digital image." However, whatever label is given to the work "beautiful" and "amazing" must surely be part of any label as well ...

It's a photograph.
I think your whole premise is based on an ignorance of photographic antecendents and practices that have existed a very long time.
You may as well say anyone who uses a digital camera is no longer a photographer.

I realise you are thinking aloud and debating a concept. But I think you need to look at the history of photography a bit more, as you may well argue very differently, if at all.

[JohnKoerner]

JJJ said,
"Uh, you held him up as an example of what you mean by this whole integrity thing, yet he was being a little loose with the truth. As what he claimed was not exactly true. So Im not discussing people for no reason, I'm doing so as his claims are so very relevant to the discusion. If he is being disenguous about PPing, is he being truthful everywhere else?"

Uh, you don't really have any idea of what Mangelsen does or doesn't do photographically. At best, you are repeating what someone else said, who himself repeated what someone else said. This makes you a parrot. A 3rd-hand parrot. This is not "knowledge"; this is gossip, which why I don't wish to discuss Mangelsen any longer. I don't think it is right to accuse someone of anything improper, who is not here to defend himself, when no one has any facts at all but rather hearsay allegations.




JJJ said,
"But it is relevant and completely on topic. As part of his 'pure' photographic approach is not soo pure after all."

Wrong. Again, you have no knowledge of what Mangelsen does or doesn't do. My desire is to discuss the concept of pure photography, not the individual who claims to practice it. What part of this simplicity do you find so difficult to grasp? Please re-read my emboldened preface to you ...




JJJ said,
"There is no pure photography and that is the point you seem to not understand."

Perhaps this is all of it. And yet, as Dalethorn posted previously, the idea of capturing the image on a sensor can be likened to capturing the sound on a recording device. The idea is to record the image/sound as exactly as possible with NO further manipulation. This is the concept I wish to discuss. Perhaps, as you say, this is simply impossible.




JJJ said,
"No point missed at all as it wasn't relevant to the point in question. I was only commenting on the claim of the camera having no influence.
Besides your idea of what photography is as I have said before simply naive. You need to look at history of photography a lot more."

What? When have I ever said the camera has "no influence?" This is precisely the opposite of what I am saying.

What I am saying is "photography" is when the camera has virtually ALL of the influence, and where "developing" is merely taking the recorded image "as is" and turing it into a physical image with AS LITTLE manipulation as possible. I am also saying that the more the creation of the image comes through digital manipulation that produces a result which is substantially different from what was created on the sensor, the less and less the produced image can be called a "photograph" and the more and more it becomes a "digital image."




JJJ said,
"No it is a photograph. Just because a computer was involved makes no difference. Most things done in a computer were done before computers existed. It was always called photography then, why make the distinction now?
BTW - Photography literally means drawing with light."

I believe you to be wrong on several levels. First of all, if (as has already been provided) "photography" is defined as capturing an image of gathered light upon a sensor, then "working on said image later" is NOT photography, it is something quite different. Even in days gone by, this "after process" of the recorded image was called developing, not photography. This is why one man could be a professional photographer and another could provide professional services as a developer, as the two skillsets were (and are) completely different.

Second of all, I would like to hear you explain the logic of how the digital manipulation of 272 photos into one composite image consititutes "a" photograph. If "a" photograph is "a" captured image upon a sensor, and 272 of these things were then clipped, altered, and fused together digitally upon a computer, and not a sensor, then please explain how the final product can be called "a captured image upon a sensor."




JJJ said,
"No. It just a different way of doing exactly the same thing.
Go look at the work of Uelsmann or Hag. They did their work before computers and were always regarded as photographers."

I will study these and comment later. However, a "different way" of doing the same thing is therefore a different discipline. That is the part we keep disagreeing on. Again, if I win a fight by kneebar, I may have won but I did not use boxing, I produced my desired end via a different discipline, namely grappling. This is in no way ranking one over the other, it is merely a simple observation of basic fact and basic definition. If Mr. Brown produced his magnificent image through the digital manipulation of 272 images, then the greater majority of his work was digital manipulation, not photography. Again, this is not to rank one over the other, but another simple observation of basic fact and basic definition.




JJJ said,
"The fighting analogy is a very poor one. Boxing is a sport with very specific rules and regulations. MMA is another sport that has a different set of rules and restrictions. Photography has never had restrictions, being an open creative medium. So not a good comparison."

There are differences in my analogy, true, and you are searching for them, but the point I am making is a very good analogy IMO. A "desired end" is being achieved NOT through one discipline, but through another.




JJJ said,
"I could even easily beat a MMA, simply by ignoring their rules. Real fighting has no rules and real fighting is a better comparison."






JJJ said,
"Both are photographers. I can think of other ways of doing what Dan did - without a computer. If the end result is the same, what difference is there?"

One is a pure photographer; one only uses photography as a small part of the overall effort to achieve an end. Morally, there is no difference. Only a different set of skills being implemented. A man who uses a computer to make the sum and substance of his work is being a digital manipulator more than a pure photographer. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, only observing that "pure photography" is becoming a dying art, same as "pure boxing" is becoming a dying art. This may actually be a GOOD thing, as there are many more creative possibilities opened-up.




JJJ said,
"It's a photograph.
I think your whole premise is based on an ignorance of photographic antecendents and practices that have existed a very long time."

Well, I humbly admit my ignorance on so many different aspects of photography, and yet (as it is defined) post-process digital manipulation is not photography. Recording an image as exactly as possible upon a sensor, using a camera, is photography.




JJJ said,
"You may as well say anyone who uses a digital camera is no longer a photographer."

That is almost exactly what I am saying, same as a MMA fighter is no longer a boxer. He merely uses boxing as one of his many tools to win, where previously boxing was the sole discipline of the prize fighter.




JJJ said,
"I realise you are thinking aloud and debating a concept. But I think you need to look at the history of photography a bit more, as you may well argue very differently, if at all."

Really, that is all I am doing: thinking out loud. I don't think studying history would alter my view much at all, but perhaps it would. I am merely thinking that the digital age of photography has placed as great or greater emphasis on digital manipulation as photography. I don't think this is "bad" at all, merely an observation. There really is no "point" to discussing this, really, just conceptual and something to do. René Descartes drafted a whole book on trying to prove he existed, and could only come up with "I think therefore I am," as the only logical inference a person can make. This might be mental masturbation to some, but it was an exercise in trying to validate and prove what we think we "know," as opposed to what we "assume" we know, to others.

Is there a practical point to such questions about whether digital manipulation is "photography" or not? Probably no. However, it was something that struck me as I considered a goal of simply getting the perfect image "in camera" rather than via "post process." That is all.

[jjj]

So many of your comments above are based on misreading or not reading posts in context or continuing with the completely irrelevant and very bad analogy about boxing/MMAs, I won't bother asnswering them.
Instead I shall show you a snippet from Jerry Uelsmanm's site which I linked to above.
I cannot copy + quote it so I screen captured it instead.
[attachment=11962:Uelsmann.png]

Notice how he is lauded as a photographer by many esteemed and august photographic institutions.
And if they all think what he does is photography, then heck, it's photography.
Most people if looking at his work now, would probably describe it as digital art. Despite him doing this sort of thing 30+ years ago.

And to repeat what I said above, if you weren't so ignorant of photographic history, you would not make the daft claims you do.
A computer is simply a different tool to achieve the same end result as has been done for years by photographers in the darkroom. Using a computer or darkroom makes no difference to whether something is photography.
The only time a image strays from being 'pure' photography [in darkroom or in computer] is when you incorporate elements that were not captured by a camera/lightsensitive medium.

Oh and demeaning Alain Briot's comments,  who has first hand experience of Mangelson's work, as simply being gossip and not to be trusted is a bit much. And to follow your logic, why then believe anyone's testimony?  Or is it simply that you only acknowlege information that supports your arguments and anything else is dismissed?



BTW It's easy to beat an MMA if you fight with out obeying the rules of Ultimate Fighting or what ever it is called these days. You simply poke him in the eye with a finger or stick a knife in him, you could even shoot him before he gets near you. It is not what he expects or is used to dealing with, so Game Over.  Cage fighting, like boxing has rules, therefore is still a sport. In real fighting you cheat and do what ever it takes to survive/beat your opponent.
There are also no actual rules in Photography and that is why your analogy is irrelevant. There are only gidelines.

[JohnKoerner]

So many of your comments above are based on misreading or not reading posts in context or continuing with the completely irrelevant and very bad analogy about boxing/MMAs, I won't bother asnswering them.
Instead I shall show you a snippet from Jerry Uelsmanm's site which I linked to above.
I cannot copy + quote it so I screen captured it instead.
[attachment=11962:Uelsmann.png]

Well, then allow me to look back at you through the same lens, as I feel you are guilty of the very confounding of points of which you accuse me. And so I will likewise offer you the same lack of consideration and ignore your statements as well.

Notice how he is lauded as a photographer by many esteemed and august photographic institutions.
And if they all think what he does is photography, then heck, it's photography.
Most people if looking at his work now, would probably describe it as digital art. Despite him doing this sort of thing 30+ years ago.

Popular phraseology often includes looseness of definition, so it still doesn't change the point. And yet by line 3 even you even concede that his work is not really photography, but in fact "digital art" ...

JJJ, the point is, even if no one on earth could "capture an image" in-camera, and print fine prints directly therefrom, without manipulation, the potential for the ability to do so still remains the topic of this discussion. That you keep defaulting to individuals who "don't do this" just shows your inability to stay on topic.

And to repeat what I said above, if you weren't so ignorant of photographic history, you would not make the daft claims you do.

If you weren't so incredibly dense you could stay on topic. (BTW: I get a chuckle every time one of you Limeys uses the word "daft" ... I think it is truly a funny word, even if it is being used to insult me  )

A computer is simply a different tool to achieve the same end result as has been done for years by photographers in the darkroom. Using a computer or darkroom makes no difference to whether something is photography.
The only time a image strays from being 'pure' photography [in darkroom or in computer] is when you incorporate elements that were not captured by a camera/lightsensitive medium.

No, the computer is what we now use to achieve the ends developers did for years in the darkroom, as well as ends they could not do in the darkroom. Using a computer simply is not photography; it is developing. I have a feeling this horse truly is dying again now ...

Oh and demeaning Alain Briot's comments,  who has first hand experience of Mangelson's work, as simply being gossip and not to be trusted is a bit much. And to follow your logic, why then believe anyone's testimony?  Or is it simply that you only acknowlege information that supports your arguments and anything else is dismissed?

With your small mind, you once again default to speaking of individuals. First of all, I did not speak of Mr. Briot at all, let alone demean him, so once again your tendency to lie, exaggerate, and argue like a pettifogger comes into play. Note the root words "petty" and "fog" in the full term "pettifogger." Pettifoggery is what dishonest practitioners of debate resort to (sputtering trivial BS to cloud the issue) when they have nothing valuable to say that is on topic.

Second, for the incredibly slow, I repeat that I could care less what any individual person (Mangelsen, Briot, Brown, you, me, etc.) does or does not do in his image-making. My point was to discuss the concept of "pure photography," not to get into a gossippy bitch-fest over whether some individual person adheres to pure photography or not.

Therefore if, at this point in time, the truth is no camera and software exist to a degree of compatibility to where a photograph can be made in-camera, and the software can then simply generate this perfected image into print, as-is, then that is fine. If that is the truth that exists with respect to technology today, so be it. But it still does not change the concept of being able to exactly manipulate one's camera to perfection as a true photographer, and merely being able to transfer this captured image to print (or computer image) just like that, "as is." That, to me, would be pure photography.

BTW It's easy to beat an MMA if you fight with out obeying the rules of Ultimate Fighting or what ever it is called these days. You simply poke him in the eye with a finger or stick a knife in him, you could even shoot him before he gets near you. It is not what he expects or is used to dealing with, so Game Over.  Cage fighting, like boxing has rules, therefore is still a sport. In real fighting you cheat and do what ever it takes to survive/beat your opponent.
There are also no actual rules in Photography and that is why your analogy is irrelevant. There are only gidelines.

First of all, you said you could beat a MMA fighter in "a fight" with no rules. You have no idea how wrong you are, as you would never get an eye gouge opportunity, and even if you did it wouldn't win you anything but a more brutal ultimate beating (or worse) by the very pissed-off professional whose eye you gouged.

Second, again you have trouble with your definitions, as using a knife is now called "stabbing," and using a gun is now called "shooting," and so you would no longer be fighting.

In the end, it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who always looks for the "differences" upon which to digress, instead of the common elements with which to gain an understanding. If you wish to pick apart my analogy, just to show the differences, well yes MMA is different from photography (duh!). However, the point that you continually miss, even in your own analogies, is different techniques are being used to achieve the same ends. I agree the ends ultimately are the most important. I agree that there is nothing wrong with said "other means." Where we disagree is that "digital post-image manipulation" = "photography" .............. or that "kneebar victory" = "boxing move" ...

Jack



.

[pegelli]

Hi Jack,

Let me ask you a question:

If we follow your logic that pressing the shutter is photography and PP in a computer is developing (and to some extend I agree with those definitions) can you define where your boundary is between developing the latent image (raw file) into a "pure"photograph, a "non-pure"photograph and a digital image. Btw, I currently think "pure" photographs don't exist the way you have described them before, but I'm willing to adapt my thinking based on your response.

[daws]

I would like to hear you explain the logic of how the digital manipulation of 272 photos into one composite image consititutes "a" photograph. If "a" photograph is "a" captured image upon a sensor, and 272 of these things were then clipped, altered, and fused together digitally upon a computer, and not a sensor, then please explain how the final product can be called "a captured image upon a sensor."

Meaning no disrespect, I'm reminded of the 19th century critique that pointillism was not painting.  

[dalethorn]

Hi Jack,
Let me ask you a question:
If we follow your logic that pressing the shutter is photography and PP in a computer is developing (and to some extend I agree with those definitions) can you define where your boundary is between developing the latent image (raw file) into a "pure"photograph, a "non-pure"photograph and a digital image. Btw, I currently think "pure" photographs don't exist the way you have described them before, but I'm willing to adapt my thinking based on your response.

I think one of the previous posts analogizing to music is apt - in a live performance, you get the real deal, and you can't clone out the bird droppings or whatever are there in the orchestra pit.  Not until you get back to the lab with the video and clean it up.  Worse yet, in a recorded performance that has many retakes or even computer-played instruments, added tracks and so on, the music can lose its musicality, so to speak.  Most people have become so accustomed to music manufactured by the big studios that they just wouldn't like the raw stuff, recorded live without retakes.

Taking that concept to photography, and stretching the analogy just a bit more, you can almost see Thomas Kinkade at the end of the tunnel.  Oh, I doubt anyone on this forum would like their work compared to Kinkade.  But just because this clique's members cater to a different group of customers than Kinkade does, doesn't mask the fact that a lot of it has that manufactured (rather than photographed) look to it.  Know what I mean?

[JBerardi]

No, the computer is what we now use to achieve the ends developers did for years in the darkroom, as well as ends they could not do in the darkroom. Using a computer simply is not photography; it is developing. I have a feeling this horse truly is dying again now

Yup... and what developers did for years in the darkroom is commonly referred to by knowledgeable people as "photography". Developing isn't a different thing then photography, it is a PART of photography. As far as doing things that couldn't be done in the darkroom, ok, fine, you can call that digital art if you want. But, there's not that much that people do in PS that can't be done in the darkroom. Removing objects from an image? You can do that in the darkroom. HDR? You can do it in the darkroom. Sharpening? It's a darkroom technique, originally. Cross processing, combining several captures into a single frame.

Check out some of these people: http://www.johnreuter.com/New%20Pages/Links.html

Digital imaging has not enhanced people's ability to dramatically alter photos nearly as much as you think it has. It doesn't really change the possibilities, it's just makes things a little easier, and gives the process some more flexibility. Photographers have been doing this stuff forever.

You're right about one thing though, there's very little blood left in this particular turnip.