Fotoshop by Adobé

[Justinr]

Get with modern tech: a QR code next to each image, delivering the "less unreal" image to your phone or computer. And slightly less flippantly, it would be easy to do with online advertising.

Sometimes I wonder if the enthusiasm for QR codes is more to do with them being cheap space fillers or badges of a company's tech saviness rather than fulfilling a cost effective role.

[BJL]

Sometimes I wonder if the enthusiasm for QR codes is more to do with them being cheap space fillers or badges of a company's tech saviness rather than fulfilling a cost effective role.

We are getting way off-topic, but that is what Coffee Corner is for, so here goes.

QR codes seem to be languishing, and maybe are often used as a stunt. Yes, many people do want to use their mobile phones to instantly follow a linkmto a website or discount coupon or such, but my guess is that soon enough, camera phones will be able to simply read the URL or company and product name in an ad. and find where to go.

[Justinr]

My guess is that 75% of domestic internet use around these parts strays no further than Facebook and Donedeal (A sort of Irish Craig's list) so much of the effort put into internet marketing by companies here is pretty much wasted. QR codes very much fall into that pit of general apathy towards being sold to over the web which may sound backward but I have come to regards as quite a healthy attitude. As for marketing via social networks show me the figures that it actually works for the majority of businesses, but that's even more off topic. 

[Justinr]

A photograph never shows "reality," GR. Reality is infinite. A photograph is finite. The photographer always decides what to include and, even more importantly, what to leave out. The only time an accurate representation of a scene -- or, more precisely, part of a scene --  should be considered to be a reflection of anything like reality is when a photojournalist claims it's accurate. Are people concerned about "ethical" questions when they look at a painting by Gauguin? He included what he wanted to include, left out what he wanted to leave out, and invented what he wanted to invent. The idea that a photograph is different from what we all call a "picture" is an invention of the twentieth century.

It was Strand who observed that -

Objectivity is the very essence of photography, it's contribution and at the same time it's limitation.

But this was in the pioneering days of the modern craft as the world of  art was trying to make sense of this new upstart. The distinction between a clear record of a scene and a modified representation of the same view was far more distinct even though Strand himself had a taste for manipulation in the form of soft focussing in his earlier days. Wholesale manipulation using the original capture merely as a starting point is a much more recent development and I think we have not yet come to terms with it's place in decent society, or even if it has a place at all. Picture manufacture on this scale is unavoidable given that means to do so is so readily available and the advantageous to the many sections of the media so great. Those that hope to contain it by legislation are waist deep in the briny insisting that the tide should please go away.

General awareness that pictures purporting to be straight photographs may not be genuine is the key to accepting PS'd images as a legitimate purveyor of dreams and aspirations with the problems encountered in erecting a framework of disapproval being  a) How do you define or measure image manipulation accurately enough to satisfy a court of law that a set of standards has been breached and b) those vulnerable to such images will no doubt be just as swayed by oil paintings of thin young things leading an imagined life of bliss. When it comes to influencing the young to aspire to what is often unobtainable the telly is far more the guilty party with it's ugly preoccupation with the shallow and the rich, over prettified 'photo's may reinforce the message but they are not the the root cause.

[Rob C]

Get with modern tech: a QR code next to each image, delivering the "less unreal" image to your phone or computer. And slightly less flippantly, it would be easy to do with online advertising.

Thank you, but no.

I just wrote to a friend today remarking that I honestly wish that I had kept at least one of my late 'blads. Why? Because of the effect that digital capture has had on my photography and on my mind.

It's often said or, at least, it was often said, that 35mm shooters were of the machine gun mentality. I question that, having used it extensively to make my living (35mm, not the weapon), but since coming to digital capture I have lost that concern with excellence that remained from professional days, and given way to the intent/focus on catching anything that moves or has colour. In other words, it has become a matter of shoot now and think later. In practice, that means that I have to edit through tons of crap in order to discover something that might approach a pearl. Those pearls have become pretty damned rare!

I suspect that had I still retained a 500c/m, I would have saved a fortune in digital camera stuff and been able to furnish myself with a quality 120 scanner instead, at once cutting down on the crap volume and keeping true to the notion of thought before finger.

Yes, I know people here are given to pointing out all sorts of ‘facts’ about digital’s superiority to film; however, I can only believe the evidence of my own eyes when I look at my own stuff: the work I was doing with film had/has more value to me than the work I do now. Photographs are not all about technical measurements: they are about how they look. One easily forgets that on the Internet where the focus is far too inclined to rest upon ‘facts’ and figures derived from charts and clinical tests. These things are sterile bullshit: great photography has been made for decades; what’s better today? We passed the point of really poor lenses (in prime stuff at least, and that’s all I consider matters) years and tears ago; the only thing still causing poor images is poor ability and that includes imagination.

What’s been gained from the freedom to shoot at zero raw materials cost? Look at most of the stuff on the web and it’s a load of rubbish. All that’s increased is the traffic. The good stuff is as rare today as ever it was; in fact, proportionally, perhaps much more so because one is forced to trawl through so much more crap in order to find those few images that really are worth the looking. It seems to me that the number of really great shooters has not increased at all, just that the great number of lousy ones has suddenly found a public gallery.

Rob C

[Justinr]

Thank you, but no.

I just wrote to a friend today remarking that I honestly wish that I had kept at least one of my late 'blads. Why? Because of the effect that digital capture has had on my photography and on my mind.

It's often said or, at least, it was often said, that 35mm shooters were of the machine gun mentality. I question that, having used it extensively to make my living (35mm, not the weapon), but since coming to digital capture I have lost that concern with excellence that remained from professional days, and given way to the intent/focus on catching anything that moves or has colour. In other words, it has become a matter of shoot now and think later. In practice, that means that I have to edit through tons of crap in order to discover something that might approach a pearl. Those pearls have become pretty damned rare!

I suspect that had I still retained a 500c/m, I would have saved a fortune in digital camera stuff and been able to furnish myself with a quality 120 scanner instead, at once cutting down on the crap volume and keeping true to the notion of thought before finger.

Yes, I know people here are given to pointing out all sorts of ‘facts’ about digital’s superiority to film; however, I can only believe the evidence of my own eyes when I look at my own stuff: the work I was doing with film had/has more value to me than the work I do now. Photographs are not all about technical measurements: they are about how they look. One easily forgets that on the Internet where the focus is far too inclined to rest upon ‘facts’ and figures derived from charts and clinical tests. These things are sterile bullshit: great photography has been made for decades; what’s better today? We passed the point of really poor lenses (in prime stuff at least, and that’s all I consider matters) years and tears ago; the only thing still causing poor images is poor ability and that includes imagination.

What’s been gained from the freedom to shoot at zero raw materials cost? Look at most of the stuff on the web and it’s a load of rubbish. All that’s increased is the traffic. The good stuff is as rare today as ever it was; in fact, proportionally, perhaps much more so because one is forced to trawl through so much more crap in order to find those few images that really are worth the looking. It seems to me that the number of really great shooters has not increased at all, just that the great number of lousy ones has suddenly found a public gallery.

Rob C

Mostly agree and I would certainly support your contention that it is the web that has encouraged the machine gunning approach rather than just digital cameras themselves. However, the role of photography has also been subtly changed, the consumer (a word used to represent the spectrum of viewers outside of the truly appreciative) has come to expect galleries rather than single representative shots of event's and happenings and I like to think that by providing a series of images that are generally of a quality above that of the average snapshot then a certain amount of 'photography' has taken place. There is still room for some skill and knowledge in this brave new world and I find a small demand for my abilities in this area although I have yet to discover how to effectively transform such base metal into gold.

[Rob C]

I have yet to discover how to effectively transform such base metal into gold.

Relax and don't worry, it's never yet been done by anyone, alchemists notwithstanding!

I secretly suspect that it was also a hidden agenda with NASA, but that when they discovered that the Moon really was made of green cheese, they abandoned further flights. Of course, this does require that one accept that the reported and much photographed Moon wasn't actually part of the Arizona desert or even of the African Maghreb. Were it the latter, then it goes far to explain the current unrest within the region: everything has its responsibility in terms of an equal and opposite reaction (on a kind day), as every schoolboy used to learn at the knee of his tutor, now a most unwise position to adopt for either pupil or master.

Where, oh where does responsibility for 'our' actions ultimately reside?

;-(

Rob C

[Chris Pollock]

Stand in any square in any town or city and the sights you see will make you wish that Reality-PS was available on the National Health in a handy size that fitted into the traditional shirt pocket.

Actually I think Reality-PS may already be on sale in Japan. I tried to buy a copy the last time I was there but couldn't find it in stock anywhere.

[Chris Pollock]

We are not far from that: "...feminist legislators in France, Britain and Norway... want digitally altered photos to be labeled.

Personally I'd prefer legislation to require that surgically altered people be clearly labeled. Never mind photographs - it's getting hard to tell how much of what you see on the street is real.

[Rhossydd]

Personally I'd prefer legislation to require that surgically altered people be clearly labeled. Never mind photographs - it's getting hard to tell how much of what you see on the street is real.

:-))
Aren't they usually orange though ?

[Rob C]

:-))
Aren't they usually orange though ?

Some actually are, but that doesn't even begin to advise you on the credibility of their bulges. Perhaps a retired chicken sexer (whatever that might be) could help us here?

Rob C

[Chris Pollock]

This thread got me thinking. It's apparent that the editors of certain types of magazines don't like the look of natural human bodies. They therefore select models with naturally unusual body shapes, which have often been rendered even more unusual by surgery. They then digitally manipulate the photographs of their models in an attempt to get the look that they want.

The whole process seems rather inelegant, however. The way I see it, if you're going to use partially artificial images of partially artificial models, you may as well just use entirely artificial images. With modern computer generated imagery, it should be possible for a few computer experts to produce exactly the look that the editors desire, free from the limitations of human anatomy. There would be no more need for photographic studios or on location shooting, models, photographers, cameras, or lenses. The expensive and temperamental artistic types could be replaced by a few nerds in a basement somewhere.

[Tony Jay]

Chris, you really knock me out sometimes.

Be careful, someone might decide to seriously adopt this.

Regards

Tony Jay

[Chris Pollock]

Be careful, someone might decide to seriously adopt this.

I'm afraid it looks like somebody already has.

http://jezebel.com/5865114/hm-puts-real-model-heads-on-fake-bodies

Apparently they still use real faces, for the time being. I guess a face is a lot harder to render realistically than a body. No doubt a few more years of technological advance will do away with the need for face models.

[Rob C]

And much more of that will do away with the wish of anyone to look at them...

Give less - gain less.

(This is based on the well-known principle that one often reaps what one sows. Or sews, sometimes.)

Rob C

[Chris Pollock]

And much more of that will do away with the wish of anyone to look at them...

Give less - gain less.

I'd like to think that you're right, but I'm not so sure. So far the magazine buying public don't seem to mind heavily modified images of partially artificial models. It remains to be seen whether or not they'll draw the line at entirely synthetic images of models who only exist inside computers.

[Rob C]

I'd like to think that you're right, but I'm not so sure. So far the magazine buying public don't seem to mind heavily modified images of partially artificial models. It remains to be seen whether or not they'll draw the line at entirely synthetic images of models who only exist inside computers.

Well, you may be right: nobody seemed to mind the beautiful Vargas paintings/illustrations/dreams in Playboy, and that was with the immediate comparison with 'reality' available on the next page. Even then, illustration was able to cut to the chase in a faster and more targeted manner than was photography. Of course, that's the dilemma: do you want to cut to the chase or does your life allow for a little romance first?

We guys have a lot for which to answer.

Rob C