Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on February 19, 2009, 08:56:28 am
-
As a novice just getting into photography, I have been trying to figure out not just which cameras and lenses to try to get, but also which monitors to view my shots through, as well as which software programs to process my shots with. Well, a girlfriend of mine sent me a link to her personal favorite nature photographer, Thomas Mangelsen, who apparently does not digitally-manipulate his images at all. In fact, it even says so on his website:
"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."
http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portra...an_artist?Args= (http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portrait_of_an_artist?Args=)
So my question is, as the Digital Age booms does true photographic integrity become extinct? At this point, I am hardly able to create a great shot with both my camera AND post-processing with digital software, so the thought of my own ability to take a "poster shot," just right out of the box with no manipulation at all, is simply amazing to me. Yet wouldn't this be true photographic talent? Isn't post-processing essentially an admission of inferior skill in taking photos with one's camera? I am curious how most people feel about this subject, philosophically.
Should we embrace the fact this is the "Digital Age," and should we therefore use all the photo-modifying software tools we have to our utmost ability?
Or should we lament the fact that true photographic skill is a dying art, and that all of this digital processing means more mediocre photographers are able to digitally-manipulate their images from so-so to acceptable, only thanks to software?
I would be curious how people felt about this, or if they even thought about it.
Jack
-
This topic has been addressed before. Bottom line:
1) photographs have been manipulated from photography's inception (even by some who may be your heroes.)
2) "pure" is in the eye of the beholder and the heart of the producer
3) take whatever stance you feel comfortable with anywhere along the entire continuum
-
So my question is, as the Digital Age booms does true photographic integrity become extinct? At this point, I am hardly able to create a great shot with both my camera AND post-processing with digital software, so the thought of my own ability to take a "poster shot," just right out of the box with no manipulation at all, is simply amazing to me. Yet wouldn't this be true photographic talent? Isn't post-processing essentially an admission of inferior skill in taking photos with one's camera? I am curious how most people feel about this subject, philosophically.
Should we embrace the fact this is the "Digital Age," and should we therefore use all the photo-modifying software tools we have to our utmost ability?
Or should we lament the fact that true photographic skill is a dying art, and that all of this digital processing means more mediocre photographers are able to digitally-manipulate their images from so-so to acceptable, only thanks to software?
I would be curious how people felt about this, or if they even thought about it.
Jack
Jack,
I'm sure you're going to get the full gamut of responses and each one will be valid to one extent or another. I don't think there is a definitive answer to your questions. I think its a matter of degree and personal opinion. Here's my take on it.
Relatively modern photography started with glass plates and contact prints. At that time one had to be proficient at safeguarding the fragile plates, processing them and them making a contact print.
As we progressed to cellulose film we no longer needed the skill set required for glass plate photography but we developed new skills to deal with the new technology. We could now make projected prints. We had a wider variety of films and papers to choose from and chose the appropriate ones to suit our needs for any particular photo situation. As technology advanced we got new developers to enhance or retard a multitude of characteristics of film and paer and again we made decisions on which process and material to use. Negatives that were not perfect could be "saved" by the use of different chemical processes, burning and dodging in the darkroom and a host of other means.
I honestly don't know if any of the above compromised "photographic integrity" Maybe that's not even the right term to use.
When you shoot a raw image and then start work using software I would argue that you are just using the same philosophy as we did in the past. Choose a "film type" choose a "process" and do things like burn, dodge, tone or crop.
If those things seem innappropriate to you, the answer is simple. Don't do it. No one is going to think any less or more of you regardless of your choice. Your photography is your own.
Photographic skill or talent has many meanings. For some it means composition, for others it means technical skill at focus and exposure, for some it means the ability to control your equipment and process to achieve the results you want. I'm sure there are also more criteria and more combinations of them than I can possibly list here. As I said, in my opinion they are all valid.
As far as I'm concerned you should use any and all tools you have available to you as long as you're happy doing it.
Go take some pictures and have fun
-
I would like to know just what he means by "digital manipulation"
Is he still using film?
If not then he is full of it as the image is manipulated digitally as soon as he takes it off the memory card.
He can't do anything with the raw file unless he "DM"s it and if he shoots JPEG, then it is done for him in the camera.
Digital images by their very nature requires us to manipulate them just to get them onto the monitor and then to adjust them to the final size and so on.
In the "old days" of darkrooms, we manipulated the images even if it was to remove a spot. How about when we changed the time or temperature of the developer? That manipulated the image, also.
Personally, I feel it is just a marketing gimmick to make people think he is some sort of genius at what he does.
He does have nice images on his site but nothing I would consider worthy of being labeled one of the best out there, but I still think it is part of the overall marketing machine he has in place.
By the way... he advertises "Natureview Glass" There is no such thing on the market called Natureview glass. What he was using was Denglas (who never called any of their products Natureview) and the company stopped production a couple of years ago.
This is yet another example of his marketing engine working. He gave it a name as if it was something only he has.
His whole style is quite similar to Thomas Kinkade who makes mediocre paintings and sells tons of them thru an amazing marketing scheme.
Seriously, suggest to your girlfriend that she check out some other photographers websites as there are people ALOT better than he is. My personal opinion. Check out some of the people who post on this site.
I don't have any of my images on my website yet.
-
By the way.. I agree with the other posters, just do what you love and don't worry about it.
-
Photographic skill or talent has many meanings. For some it means composition, for others it means technical skill at focus and exposure, for some it means the ability to control your equipment and process to achieve the results you want. I'm sure there are also more criteria and more combinations of them than I can possibly list here. As I said, in my opinion they are all valid.
As far as I'm concerned you should use any and all tools you have available to you as long as you're happy doing it.
Go take some pictures and have fun
I agree totally with what Joe has to say. In addition, a photographer can (or must, in some cases) consider the purpose of the photograph. Perhaps the most extreme examples are pictures used for evidence (such as crime scenes), science (medical purposes), journalism, and nature photography, where the viewer is led to believe that what is portrayed is an "accurate" representation of a scene the viewer may never get to see.
Perhaps at the other extreme are the images that are shot and manipulated to represent not the "objective, evidential reality" of the scene, but the subjective reality or truth of the interpretive perception of the creator of the image. Beyond that, images subjected to great transformation and abstraction through the use of computers, where the intent might be "art for art's sake," to use a perhaps overworked term, are both equally valid in the minds of many, as well as nothing new in concept (Look up the website of Jerry Uelsmann, who has been producing highly surrealistic and abstract art using film and darkroom only...he has continued to use these techniques while the computer users catch up to him).
Again, I would like to reinforce the idea that you will soon choose according to your own values which path to take as a photographer, and that you will be free to change later on if you so desire. And, please don't find yourself in the self-righteous position of criticizing others who chose different paths.
-
Warning...thread drift.
Can you tell who the Red Sox fan is on this thread? Man, that's pretty funny.
Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
Some opinions on the matter as it applies to Landscape and Nature Photography:
- Great shots always receive some post-processing before printing or display.
- Ask yourself, “Is that what I saw?” not “Is that what my camera caught?” Bend the technology to your will, not the other way around. If your images don’t match your memory, figure out what technique, manipulation or technology will help you capture the image as you remember it. (HDR, panoramic, RAW, polarizer, lighting, whatever)
Some folks get caught-up in some objective reality that the camera is somehow able to capture. This is impossible; the camera makes choices in the tone curve it applies, the color rendition, and the sharpness. When we used film, the grain and color of the scene were modified by virtue of the selection of film.
Were the early 20th century B&W master photographers less pure and truthful because they photographed a colorful world that, because of technology limitations, they only displayed in black and white. Did that make their work any less truthful?
This obsession with truthfulness in landscape photography is largely grandstanding by big egos. (my opinion.)
The simplest guidance that I can give is that when you digitally manipulate an image it should either be subtle (not obvious to the untrained eye) or blatantly obvious that you have manipulated the image. This ensures that you are being virtuous and honest.
Some Caveats:
Lots of this stuff changes when you move into photojournalism and documentary photography. For some really interesting insights on that end of photography see BagNewsNotes (http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/)
I happen to agree with this photographer on game farm photography. See here Game Farm Article (http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/articles/354)
-
This topic pops up every once and a while which is probably a good thing; I see this as a slightly different take on the question/subject.
Here’s a question – has there ever been a form of photography that hasn’t been manipulated? Doesn’t the mere fact of adding a filter to the lens act as a form of manipulation? Doesn’t about the choice of film, chemicals, length of time in the soup verses the type of paper, verses development methods utilized all add up to manipulation of the image? I remember having the ability in a wet darkroom to do dodge and burn and other methods that are all manipulation. The digital darkroom acts the same in many respects as the wet darkroom used to only we can do it better, faster; I rarely use a filter as I can achieve much the same effect in the digital darkroom. Based on the above, I would say that we are not in any danger of loosing this as an art form.
I think I remember a similar thread a couple years ago that questioned the “old rusty can”. Basically it went something like – do you keep the can in your otherwise beautiful landscape image or do you clone it out. I felt then as I do now the question also centered on an individual’s method of setting up the capture; if you take your time in setting up prior to the capture then you can either move around the can or pick up the trash. Of course there’s a lot to be said about the intrusion of trash in an otherwise pristine environment and I have taken the image then picked up the trash.
I think we need to remember that photography is an art form and much like a sculptor “sees” the finished form in the rough form we need to “listen” to our images as we process them. I’ve had some images that that spoke to me after a short time of processing and others that have taken several hours before I knew it was done.
So to answer the question of how digital photography is affecting “true photographic integrity” I would say that it has always been the integrity of the person holding the camera that affects the end result not the technology used.
There have been some very good comments before mine so make up your own mind on how/what you do.
If you are true yourself and what you are attempting to convey then I’d say you’re okay.
Best of luck
don
-
Where does software fit in? About the same place the darkroom fit in, though it is a bit more complicated. With RAW shooting the software also takes the place of film curves, so the line is blurred. I think the other posts in this thread cover things pretty well, I'll just add some thoughts for you to chew on.
- Often people who rail against "digital manipulation" are blind to the very aggressive "manipulation" than many films impart to the image, Fuji Velvia being a classic case of a film that dials saturation up so far you would never dare point it at a human face. And yet I've met photographers who think touching the saturation slider in Photoshop is blasphemy and yet shoot Velvia. Most people who have been at this a long time have a more nuanced view though.
- Ansel Adams used a variety of films, did in camera dodging and burning, used color filters on the camera to alter the tonal representation of the scene, optimized negative development for the scene contrast range (the Zone system), optimized his developer and agitation methods to achieve the level of sharpening he wanted on the negative based on the subject of the shot, chose different contrast papers to print on, and did extensive dodging and burning of his prints. Was that "manipulation"? Is doing the same thing with software any different?
- When color films first became widely available many in the photographic art community didn't think they merited any consideration as "art" precisely because compared to B&W negatives/prints they were so difficult to manipulate! The fact that you were forced to take the image essentially unaltered from the camera made many people in the community consider them not to be "true" photography!
- Besides allowing "standard" B&W darkroom procedures to be easily applied in both B&W and color images (and much more quickly and precisely) Photoshop also now allows much more complicated pixel level manipulation such as complicated composites and cloning. This pixel level tweaking is much more akin to what many would consider "manipulation", but on the other hand composites and air-brushing have always played a role in certain areas of photography.
So, as others said, shoot and process how you feel comfortable. Read and consider other peoples approaches and opinions, but don't let them define your art for you. For every film transparency fanatic who beats their chest and says you should take your images straight from your camera there is a HDRI fanatic who claims that unless you take a 8 stop range of bracketed exposures to capture the full dynamic range of the scene and merge them with HDR software that you haven't actually captured the scene.
To each their own!
Ken
-
- Great shots always receive some post-processing before printing or display.
- Ask yourself, “Is that what I saw?” not “Is that what my camera caught?” Bend the technology to your will, not the other way around. If your images don’t match your memory, figure out what technique, manipulation or technology will help you capture the image as you remember it. (HDR, panoramic, RAW, polarizer, lighting, whatever)
I'm amused with all the explanations of "how it matches my memory" when I'm looking all those seriously overcooked landscape pictures of nowadays. First time any filter gimmick, HDR, vignets, graduations, pumped up saturation, polarizer or like may be looking cool. But after seeing 10.000 more of those manipulations in pictures, slapped up on top of each other, imo, they are only looking boring, very predictable and mainstream. There may even be some idea in picture, but when it is hidden behind dozens of heavy layers, it is not so easy to sort it out anymore.
There is a fine line between "how I remember it" or "how I stuff in all the latest filter gimmicks and also the ones I have been using earlier". Among the nature subjects, landscape is the genre that has been hit hardest with this overdone pp, for some reason I'm not aware of. I predict (or maybe hope) that silly trend will be settling down after a few years.
-
I shoot many of my photographs using a Canon 85mm f 1.2 lens, because I like the contrast, color,sharpness, brokah, and limited depth of field at 1.2. I'm manipulating the heck out of what I'm photographing. The fantasy that I can take a photograph in some purist way is silly.
-
I like Alain Briot's essay, "Just Say Yes", http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml)
-
At this point, I am hardly able to create a great shot with both my camera AND post-processing with digital software, so the thought of my own ability to take a "poster shot," just right out of the box with no manipulation at all, is simply amazing to me.
Get back to us when getting a great shot right from the camera becomes commonplace to you...at this point you are indeed relying on digital imaging to elevate the level of your images and as such, you're prolly feeling like you are cheating or somehow unworthy...get over it. You are judged not by HOW you do something but WHAT it is that you've done. Is the final image compelling? Does it tell a story? Do people enjoy looking at the image? If so, who's to judge how you came about the image unless you've intentionally set about to deceive people or unless you are a photojournalist.
Worry about your images and what they look like and less about what you did or didn't have to do to create them.
-
I won't put words in Jack's mouth (the OP); but I'm guessing he posted this to start a thought provoking discussion, rather than looking for an discrete answer to guide him. That's ok, and it's fun. A lot of time though these Internet forums get folks riled up about one thing or another and these threads which are meant to be "thought provoking discussions" become a bit personal.
I don't believe that there is simply any wrong answer here only opinions; therefore if you are shooting photography as art than it is MY opinion that you should be able to do as little or as much manipulation as you want....as it pleases you. As already mentioned, if you are shooting digital, I believe the moment you press the shutter you've "manipulated" the image (to some extent, even when shooting raw).
As far as making photos the way the photographer remembered it.....that certainly is one take. How about ....how the photog felt it instead? If one Idecides to use some negative clarity and some exposure tweaking on an image of a horse in a field on a cold, wet, overcast day, maybe their trying to convey how they FELT at the time of the image rather than how it actually appeared....maybe the photographer wants you to FEEL the dripping velvet green of the woods accented by the crisp and colorful Autumn leaves with the smell of rain in the air. It's your picture...right?
Cheers...
Todd
-
has there ever been a form of photography that hasn’t been manipulated?
That's exactly the question for me - and (still in my humble opinion) I'd answer that the only unmanipulated view is being there here & now, at the scene, and view it with your own eyes.
Projecting a 3D reality into a 2D support is a gross manipulation, and framing it into a rectangle is no less influent (even if more demanding).
Moreover, compressing the dynamic range of reality onto a paper, or even a backlighted screen or slide, is yet another manipulation.
There ain't any reality in photography beyond conveying that you saw and felt - and this goal makes some manipulations necessary, and some are even inherent to the process.
How much is too much? You'll have probably as many answers as answerers.
-
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]
what is interesting is that he is "vehemently opposed to photographing animal models in game farms" yet he has no problem going to places where animals in the natural world are infringed upon by man for the sake of photography and sightseeing. For example he talks about his most popular shot of a tiger he shot in India on the back of a trained elephant. He almost missed it because other tourists wanted to ride the elephant also. Such places bait and feed wild animals to get them to come in close for the tourists, making the tigers more like pets or farm animals than wild.
Makes you wonder what he is so "vehemently opposed" too?
-
Nicholas....
Even if you and I are standing in front of the same landscape or scene and have used the latest "Eye Calibration software" (to ensure we are both "seeing" the same color), we could very well see the scene differently! LOL.....that's what makes the world great!
I also love your analogy of 3d being projected onto 2d...very good point!
Cheers...
Todd
That's exactly the question for me - and (still in my humble opinion) I'd answer that the only unmanipulated view is being there here & now, at the scene, and view it with your own eyes.
Projecting a 3D reality into a 2D support is a gross manipulation, and framing it into a rectangle is no less influent (even if more demanding).
Moreover, compressing the dynamic range of reality onto a paper, or even a backlighted screen or slide, is yet another manipulation.
There ain't any reality in photography beyond conveying that you saw and felt - and this goal makes some manipulations necessary, and some are even inherent to the process.
How much is too much? You'll have probably as many answers as answerers.
-
You guys are beginning to make me think this isn't real...
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/ktca/americanphotography/features/digital/oswald_big.jpg)
-
You guys are beginning to make me think this isn't real...
It was a dark time in America when this happened, but this "enhancement" gave me a good laugh.
-
What!!?? That's how I remember it!
-
Lack of "image manipulation" is a myth that shows a poor understanding of the photographic process to start with.
1. Freezing motion in time,
2. Selecting a crop from a scene,
3. Hiding a background/foreground with limited Depth of field,
4. Limiting its detail through low resolution film/sensor,
5. Hiding darker parts of the scene in deep shadow with a contrasty curve (whether it is Velvia or digital)
6. Enhancing colors with saturated solutions like Velvia or the saturation slider of ACR...
...are 6 obvious departures from reality that have nothing to do with the usage of digital technologies but that are inherent to the photographic process itself.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is he still using film?
I'm guessing he is still using mostly film, although the D3x may have him trying digital a little more. It seems last time I was in his gallery there was a group of bird photographs that were captured digitally and printed on inkjet, but he does a lot large prints, so I'm not sure Nikon had an option for him until perhaps now.
His statement is probably pointed towards some that use digital manipulation to place wildlife into an image, not the capture medium. I have seen some work by wildlife photographers that seems obviously artificial ... to the point of perhaps even photographing a "stuffed" animal and then using PS to insert them into a scene. This usually is offered without qualification. It doesn't seem inappropriate to inform potential clients if you choose not to do this ... some will appreciate the image for that, some won't care. I suppose the statement could seem condescending and critical of others.
-
Lotsa interesting philosophy (and a bit of comedy too ).
I pondered this question a bit, and here is my view:
1. The reason why photography first came about was to preserve a memory, document an event, or just to create a pleasing image.
2. Since that time, people have forever been trying to create better images, via better cameras, better lenses, better film (B&W to color), etc.
3. The digital age has simply offered yet another way in which to accomplish the original goal.
I do understand the mindset which prompted this post and this subject: which is paying attention to true photographic skill. Strictly-speaking, a person who can consistently choose everything perfectly on the camera-end (position, moment, lighting, settings, etc.) such that he comes out with a "perfect image" more often than not would have to be considered the consummate photographer. By contrast, the person who can only take mediocre photographs, but yet through a deep knowledge of image manipulation he can "doctor them up" nice in Photoshop ... is not really as much a photographer as he is a consummate sofware geek. But in the end, so what?
Capturing workable images is the goal, and proficiency in software manipulation is just another dimension to learn to help a person achieve that goal. While perhaps, strictly speaking, such a person isn't a "pure photographer," in the end he is able to create a fine image ... or perhaps salvage a great image that simply needs work. PRESERVING THE IMAGE is the goal, not necessarily "skill in photography." If a person develops skill in whatever it takes to create and preserve an excellent image, then he has done his job by whatever means necessary to get that job done.
Thus the age-old question of, "Does the end justify the means?" gets raised.
So let's examine the question by first looking at an unrelated exampe where the end does NOT justify the means: If I become a millionaire (my desired end) by robbing 10 people of a hundred thousand dollars apiece (my means), then what I have done is harmed other people to achieve my own end and benefit. And there is no way my "end" of becoming a millionaire can morally or ethically justify my "means" of doing so, because I have violated the sanctity of other people to get there. The means to my riches were simply unethical, to the end does not justify the means here.
Yet such is simply not the case in "photographic talent with the camera" versus "digital manipulation on the computer." No one is "hurt" by my being good with the computer. I would simply be using another skill-set to create fine images. The idea that a person "must" create fine images only through the use of a camera is simply a false premise. No one is harmed if the excellence in the final imaging comes via the computer; therefore the end DOES justify the means in this instance.
That is my personal take on this question.
Truthfully, all of of these are skills that need to be developed by someone serious. But this queston really did stop me in my tracks and make me rub my chin for a moment thinking about it.
Jack
.
-
I do understand the mindset which prompted this post and this subject: which is paying attention to true photographic skill. Strictly-speaking, a person who can consistently choose everything perfectly on the camera-end (position, moment, lighting, settings, etc.) such that he comes out with a "perfect image" more often than not would have to be considered the consummate photographer. By contrast, the person who can only take mediocre photographs, but yet through a deep knowledge of image manipulation he can "doctor them up" nice in Photoshop ... is not really as much a photographer as he is a consummate sofware geek. But in the end, so what?
Well, there's no reason BOTH of those skills can't be applied in the creation of a great print, and in fact, I would argue that they are both necessary. It's always better to get as close to your end goal as possible with the capture of the image, but just because you nail the capture doesn't mean you can't screw the pooch in post processing. If you want top results, you need to nail your exposure AND develop that exposure with the proper chemistry/math. If you want sharp prints you need to know how to use a tripod AND how to sharpen in post. You can't fire your retoucher just because you hired an extra stylist. One skill can't make up for the other. Great photography is a product of manipulating EVERYTHING; optimizing every step of the process. This is equally true of film and digital.
As far as digital somehow degrading the purity/truthfulness/honesty of photography... Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. Digital is just a tool, not really that much different than the tools we had before. It's all about the artist having an idea, and being able to faithfully translate that idea into reality. Digital just helps make that process a little easier than before; it's really nothing worth getting worked up about.
-
Well, there's no reason BOTH of those skills can't be applied in the creation of a great print, and in fact, I would argue that they are both necessary. It's always better to get as close to your end goal as possible with the capture of the image, but just because you nail the capture doesn't mean you can't screw the pooch in post processing. If you want top results, you need to nail your exposure AND develop that exposure with the proper chemistry/math. If you want sharp prints you need to know how to use a tripod AND how to sharpen in post. You can't fire your retoucher just because you hired an extra stylist. One skill can't make up for the other. Great photography is a product of manipulating EVERYTHING; optimizing every step of the process. This is equally true of film and digital.
As far as digital somehow degrading the purity/truthfulness/honesty of photography... Frankly, I think it's ridiculous. Digital is just a tool, not really that much different than the tools we had before. It's all about the artist having an idea, and being able to faithfully translate that idea into reality. Digital just helps make that process a little easier than before; it's really nothing worth getting worked up about.
LOL, I think you yourself got worked up and posted before you read my entire statement ... for we are in agreement
-
I'm guessing he is still using mostly film, although the D3x may have him trying digital a little more. It seems last time I was in his gallery there was a group of bird photographs that were captured digitally and printed on inkjet, but he does a lot large prints, so I'm not sure Nikon had an option for him until perhaps now.
His statement is probably pointed towards some that use digital manipulation to place wildlife into an image, not the capture medium. I have seen some work by wildlife photographers that seems obviously artificial ... to the point of perhaps even photographing a "stuffed" animal and then using PS to insert them into a scene. This usually is offered without qualification. It doesn't seem inappropriate to inform potential clients if you choose not to do this ... some will appreciate the image for that, some won't care. I suppose the statement could seem condescending and critical of others.
Wayne, I don't believe Mr. Mangelsen was being either condescending or critical of others, only definitive of his own ideals. The way I read his bio was that he simply does not manipulate his images after they are taken with his camera. To me it seemed his message was this was "pure, natural photography." A man's own personal ideology doesn't necessarily involve anyone else, or belittle anyone else, it just defines his own scruples as he conducts himself.
Perhaps Mr. Mangelsen feels any doctoring of the photo "after" the actual taking of it does not constitute "photography," per se, but something else. And he may in fact be right.
The question thus becomes is "perfect photography" the goal or is creating a wonderful image the goal, regardless of the means?
As you pointed out, certain doctorings of images COULD be considered unethical, if the edits are intended to deceive or misrepresent the truth. Many years ago, photographs submitted to a court of law could NOT be digital at all, precisely for this reason. Only film photos would be accepted as evidence. If a digital manipulation of a photograph misrepresents something with an intent to harm, mislead, or lie, this would of course be unethical.
Jack
.
-
As a novice just getting into photography, I have been trying to figure out not just which cameras and lenses to try to get, but also which monitors to view my shots through, as well as which software programs to process my shots with. Well, a girlfriend of mine sent me a link to her personal favorite nature photographer, Thomas Mangelsen, who apparently does not digitally-manipulate his images at all. In fact, it even says so on his website:
"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."
http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portra...an_artist?Args= (http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portrait_of_an_artist?Args=)
Jack
I'm familiar with Mangelsen's work, and have visited his gallery in Jackson a number of times. I enjoy his products, although I own nothing of his that is significant. For quite some time my mouse has run around a pad illustrated with Thomas' "His Majesty" image.
This quote is from the Popular Photography article "King of the Beasts" Thomas publishes on his Web site.
[blockquote]His most successful photo ever -- he says it's earned more than $2.5 million -- is the startling shot of an Alaskan
brown bear nabbing a spawning salmon that serves as this article's opener. This shot is so dead-on that
Mangelsen has been accused of digital fakery. But it was hard-won by previsualization and much waiting. He says
he never manipulates his photos digitally beyond standard darkroom-type controls.[/blockquote]
One of the people in his Jackson, Wyoming, gallery once told me he tried for that shot for 4 months before he got it.
I believe the above is a more accurate description of his process. As others contributing to this thread have pointed out, all photography involves creative choices. Some choices, such as altering an image by inserting or removing an object, seem more significant than selection of a film emulsion, a color balance, or the texture of the paper on which the image is printed.
Then there's the often quoted Ansel Adams position on manipulation.
[blockquote]"The negative is the score, and the print is the performance."[/blockquote]
I understand that of Ansel's famous church prints required huge darkroom effort because he miss guessed the exposure (the light was disappering very quickly) and as a result the negative was very difficult to print.
These days an updated version might be phrased, "The raw image file is the score, and the print is the performance." Is the photographer the composer, the conductor, the performer, or all of these? Playing any or all of these roles is perfectly legitimate.
Another nature photographer with strong views similar to Mangelsen's is Stephen Johnson (http://www.sjphoto.com/). Stephen shoots with a variety of digital cameras, including scanning backs that produce files of 144 megapixels. On his Web site he says (http://www.sjphoto.com/print_qualities.html) the following is one of the attributes that makes his images unique.
[blockquote]Stunningly real color with the restrained pallette of what he saw, rather than what film might have done to the light, or what an image editor might have done to "enhance" the photograph.[/blockquote]
One of the entertaining activities on the recent Antarctica cruise was watching the bank and forth exchanges between Stephen and some of the other workshop leaders on this very point. Always amicable (to my ear, at least), the discussions served to highlight the differing methods and goals of these successful photographic artists.
Integrity as a photographer, to me, centers on being honest about the images you produce. That's equally true for the photographer as artist, as journalist, or as family archivist.
Bob
-
[blockquote]His most successful photo ever -- he says it's earned more than $2.5 million -- is the startling shot of an Alaskan
brown bear nabbing a spawning salmon that serves as this article's opener. This shot is so dead-on that
Mangelsen has been accused of digital fakery. But it was hard-won by previsualization and much waiting. He says
he never manipulates his photos digitally beyond standard darkroom-type controls.[/blockquote]
One of the people in his Jackson, Wyoming, gallery once told me he tried for that shot for 4 months before he got it.
Integrity as a photographer, to me, centers on being honest about the images you produce. That's equally true for the photographer as artist, as journalist, or as family archivist.
Bob
That was a great post Bob!
Some people can dismiss the kind of work and dedication that Manglesen puts in as "mediocre," but to me this is just jealousy. I think there is something to what he says. While I do see the value of digital manipulation, it also struck me that there is something to be said for the man of exceptional patience and professionally-perfected technique. Whom shall we salute as an artist, ultimately? The guy who can fiddle with a so-so image and get it to work in Photoshop? Or the guy who tried for 4 months to get the perfect photo and finally got it?
Thank you also for sharing the website of Stephen Johnson; I have bookmarked it. Let me share one of another great nature photographer I admire, Thomas Marent: http://www.thomasmarent.com (http://www.thomasmarent.com)
Like Manglesen, Mr. Marent made 2 separate trips to Borneo to photograph the rare rafflesia flower, and he likewise made 3 separate trips to Peru to get what he considered to be perfect photos of a very rare bird. That, to me, is dedication and integrity! Mr. Marent has a book out called Rainforest, which represents 16 years of his life traveling to every rainforest on earth, and is a composite pictorial of his finest images. I recommend it highly! This book is supported by The Rainforest Foundation and (to me) is the finest collection of nature photos I have ever seen in a book ... ranging from landscapes, to bodies of water, wildlife, to incredible macrophotograpy. All done in film; no digital manipulation.
It is sad that anyone would call the kind of work Manglesen put into his photograph "fake." Such people cry "fake" only because they themselves can't quite get there. The funny thing about TRUTH is it always contains paradox. On the one hand, digital processing is a great and wonderful tool. On the other, digital manipulation will never be able to capture the purity of a supremely focused and dedicated effort, and an ultimately capable ability, to capture a perfect shot of a breathtaking moment in the field.
Jack
-
Wayne, I don't believe Mr. Mangelsen was being either condescending or critical of others, only definitive of his own ideals.
I agree with this as well, I probably didn't make that clear. Just saying that some may perhaps interpret it differently. Stephen Johnson has a philosophy regarding the removal of things like trash in an image. I have great admiration for the work of both men and have no problem with their personal standards, even though mine are perhaps different.
-
Hi,
These are interesting questions. Let's regard an animal photographed in capture. The image may be as good as one taken in real world, but as a feat it is not very impressive. Let's discuss some issues
1) Photographer removes cage by retouching: to extensive image manipulation.
2) Photographer removes cage by lens choice and vantage point: OK.
3) It's my feeling that the photographer should indicate that image is taken in capture.
4) The animal i not shown in it's natural habitat, that reduces the value of the image for some uses.
5) The documentary value of an image is reduced if the image is modified.
I'd say that Thomas Mangelsen has a point, but I don't think it's about the image manipulation part but more about being truthful about the pictures you take. If you are selling pictures to an agency and the rules are that images shall not be manipulated than the situation is somewhat different, in that case a contract is involved.
On the other hand we have a lot of creative freedom, photographers always had:
Choice of color vs. B&W
Tonality and color (Ektachrome look or Velvia look)
Dark or light copy
Dramatic sky by using red filter or graduated ND
Achieving these digitally may be less of a feat than doing the same in the original image but does not reduce the artistic quality of the image. An image is not going to better just because the photographer was standing knee deep in the mud.
Removing objects is an interesting thing. My feeling is that the photographer should always try to make the best of a situation. Finding a clean and good view of the subject is certainly worth the effort in my view. Modifying the environment either pre exposure (carrying way trash) or post exposure (by retouch) are essentially similar. Some photographers have cut down trees just to get a nice view, I'd say that may be a bit excessive. Taking pictures with retouch in mind is OK. No retouching is preferable, but I would not miss a picture I can take once in a lifetime for something I can adjust after the fact.
So next time you photograph the total eclipse of the sun, just ignore that flying saucer, you can always remove it after the fact! ;-)
Best regards
Erik
As a novice just getting into photography, I have been trying to figure out not just which cameras and lenses to try to get, but also which monitors to view my shots through, as well as which software programs to process my shots with. Well, a girlfriend of mine sent me a link to her personal favorite nature photographer, Thomas Mangelsen, who apparently does not digitally-manipulate his images at all. In fact, it even says so on his website:
"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."
http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portra...an_artist?Args= (http://www.mangelsen.com/store/util/portrait_of_an_artist?Args=)
So my question is, as the Digital Age booms does true photographic integrity become extinct? At this point, I am hardly able to create a great shot with both my camera AND post-processing with digital software, so the thought of my own ability to take a "poster shot," just right out of the box with no manipulation at all, is simply amazing to me. Yet wouldn't this be true photographic talent? Isn't post-processing essentially an admission of inferior skill in taking photos with one's camera? I am curious how most people feel about this subject, philosophically.
Should we embrace the fact this is the "Digital Age," and should we therefore use all the photo-modifying software tools we have to our utmost ability?
Or should we lament the fact that true photographic skill is a dying art, and that all of this digital processing means more mediocre photographers are able to digitally-manipulate their images from so-so to acceptable, only thanks to software?
I would be curious how people felt about this, or if they even thought about it.
Jack
-
I frequently ask my photographic field assistant (my wife) to help me make photographs--though she always refuses to carry one spec of photo gear. One unique way that she helps is to bend a branch out of my way--not break the branch, but gently pull a branch back like a lucky breeze, to reveal a clear view of the scene before me.
To me, digital manipulation should bend the branches back to reveal the truly beautiful scene hidden behind. The branches should never break.
-
By contrast, the person who can only take mediocre photographs, but yet through a deep knowledge of image manipulation he can "doctor them up" nice in Photoshop ... is not really as much a photographer as he is a consummate sofware geek. But in the end, so what?
You are so right..."But in the end, so What?" To me a photograph begins as I prepare my equipment before I depart home, and ends with a framed print. Sometimes I don't finish an image because along the way I discover that it lacks potential. It makes me think of an exposed-to-the-right RAW image that initially looks "mediocre' but after raw processing looks FANTASTIC!
If a person wants to limit their photographic craft to the capture end of the spectrum, that's fine, but they are choosing to limit the potential of their work.
-
Well, Fike, that opens up a whole other subject of integrity: manipulating the environment.
I know in butterflying, for instance, certain species are very fast, very erratic, and very hard to get close to for a shot. An old trick is to catch such a species in a butterfly net, put him in the refrigerator for a bit, cool him down to the point of limited mobility ... and then place him on the prettiest flower (with your gear already set-up), and take a superb photo.
However, this is considered absolutely unethical from a naturalist's point of view. Only if somewhere next to the photo such methods are clearly admitted-to would such a manipulation of environment and subject be considered ethical. Strictly-speaking, however, it is considered far more honorable and far more impressive to put whatever time is required in the field to get such a shot naturally, in the species' own natural habitat, in the position and location that the species itself selected.
Jack
.
-
Well, Fike, that opens up a whole other subject of integrity: manipulating the environment.
I know in butterflying, for instance, certain species are very fast, very erratic, and very hard to get close to for a shot. An old trick is to catch such a species in a butterfly net, put him in the refrigerator for a bit, cool him down to the point of limited mobility ... and then place him on the prettiest flower (with your gear already set-up), and take a superb photo.
...
Jack
That sounds awful. Not my cup of tea.
People talk about the expression 'take only pictures, leave only footprints,' but i wouldn't think that a shivering (possibly dieing) butterfly qualifies. All things exist on a continuum. There may be gray areas in the middle, but as long as you stay clearly back to the conservationist end, I think you are fine.
...and I am not a documentary photographer, so if I can safely, and without harming the environment, remove trash from my picture and the wilderness, I will do it every time.
-
I thnk we are slipping into the realm of photo-fiction with this thread. Exciting as it is, I believe that integrity and photography have only one zone where they might meet, should meet or that it matters a jot if they fail to so do: and that is legal evidence.
Anything else is free country, yours to rape and pillage, sack and burn, embellish and venerate. The world is lying on its back for you: what are you waiting for?
Rob C
-
That sounds awful. Not my cup of tea.
People talk about the expression 'take only pictures, leave only footprints,' but i wouldn't think that a shivering (possibly dieing) butterfly qualifies. All things exist on a continuum. There may be gray areas in the middle, but as long as you stay clearly back to the conservationist end, I think you are fine.
...and I am not a documentary photographer, so if I can safely, and without harming the environment, remove trash from my picture and the wilderness, I will do it every time.
I suppose we agree. For instance, every frog photo I have taken (pretty much) is staged. I do this for my own convenience and I also do it because I am learning how to use/adjust my camera settings properly. I am also considering creating an indoor studio to stage such photos, again only for my own convenience, as well as to achieve perfect lighting, etc., but I would never try to pass these photos off as "field captured."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I thnk we are slipping into the realm of photo-fiction with this thread. Exciting as it is, I believe that integrity and photography have only one zone where they might meet, should meet or that it matters a jot if they fail to so do: and that is legal evidence.
Anything else is free country, yours to rape and pillage, sack and burn, embellish and venerate. The world is lying on its back for you: what are you waiting for?
Rob C
I don't think it's quite that simple Rob. For one's own pleasure, I agree, one can photograph whatever he wants. But when a person is trying to represent something, there is an implied covenant that he do so honestly. For example, if Thomas Marent came out with the book I posted above, Rainforest, but instead of his doing whatever he had to do, and making as many trips as he had to make to capture his desired photos IN the rainforest, to get them naturally, he instead paid someone to send him captive examples of the rare birds he was after ... and then in the convenience of his home he staged the shots ... his work would be a sham IMO. I don't think any honest person could argue otherwise. So it is a far more complex subject than merely "legal or not."
So while I agree that if I personally want to take photos of some rare bird like this, for my own personal reasons (or even just to sell the phots as "art") I can go ahead and do so. But if I slap a title on the work as "Birds of the Rainforest," I become a fraud at that very moment.
Jack
-
As a novice just getting into photography, I have been trying to figure out not just which cameras and lenses to try to get, but also which monitors to view my shots through, as well as which software programs to process my shots with. Well, a girlfriend of mine sent me a link to her personal favorite nature photographer, Thomas Mangelsen, who apparently does not digitally-manipulate his images at all. In fact, it even says so on his website:
"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."
[Jack
This is a marketing decision on Tom Mangelson's part; he's evidently decided that taking the purist tack will help him with his target market, which mostly consists of visitors to his galleries in affluent Western resort towns, many of them tourists looking for an "authentic Western/wilderness experience". Good for him, but that doesn't mean you have to imitate.
There are actually two different issues at play; the first regards photographing captive animals in game farms versus 'free range' wild animals out in the real world. This is not a simple issue! I can respect the immense skill and patience required to capture a beautiful shot of a truly wild animal...but I can also see that given the reality of dwindling pockets of wilderness and growing hordes of eager photographers, pursuing "truly wild" photographs may eventually hound and harrass the remaining wild animals to extinction. "Truly wild" areas like the Yellowstone ecosystem are increasingly hemmed in by humans and increasingly managed like huge game farms anyway. If affluent hobbyists photograph well-treated game farm captives rather than harrassing the national park fauna, I don't see how that's a net loss.
The second issue, that of image manipulation, has its own grammar and history. One can argue that a 2 dimensional rendering on paper is already so abstracted from reality that every photograph is a 'manipulation'. You're choosing what to include or exclude, focal length, perspective, moment of capture...
Which begs the question, I know. So you can choose to try rendering the image as close to visual reality as your memory and printing method permits; or you can make a more interpretive, more pictorialist, less purely representative print. There's nothing new about this in the digital age; Fuji Velvia was the equivalent of cranking in about 30 points of vibrance in ACR, and did Mr. Mangelson use Fuji Velvia? Judging by his recent book of panoramic landscapes, I'd surely bet the answer is yes.
You can try for the most accurate and literal rendition of a scene possible; Stephen Johnson eloquently argues for this artistic approach, noting that digital tools allow for far more accurate and restrained color rendition than traditional darkroom methods. Or, you can knock yourself out and try the most outrageous interpretive approach you can think of. I found it a revelation to see a "straight print" of Ansel Adams' iconic Moonrise, Hernandez NM displayed side by side with the heavily manipulated interpretive print that's far more familiar.
Do whatever you like best, as long as you're not deliberately misleading people.
-
I'm sympathetic to the purist view. I'd like to shoot more and manipulate less. But in my case, manipulation would ideally be directed toward rotation, cropping - perspective corrections. I'd like to be relieved of color/contrast adjustment chores etc. But then, the only sure cure for that is perfect light.
-
This is a marketing decision on Tom Mangelson's part; he's evidently decided that taking the purist tack will help him with his target market, which mostly consists of visitors to his galleries in affluent Western resort towns, many of them tourists looking for an "authentic Western/wilderness experience". Good for him, but that doesn't mean you have to imitate.
Why are you (and so many others) so cynical about this? Could it possibly be that Manglesen simply believes that "pure photography" occurs out in the field and not behind a PC? Must everyone who stands for something always have an "ulterior motive," or can some people actually believe-in and practice what they preach?
There are actually two different issues at play; the first regards photographing captive animals in game farms versus 'free range' wild animals out in the real world. This is not a simple issue! I can respect the immense skill and patience required to capture a beautiful shot of a truly wild animal...but I can also see that given the reality of dwindling pockets of wilderness and growing hordes of eager photographers, pursuing "truly wild" photographs may eventually hound and harrass the remaining wild animals to extinction. "Truly wild" areas like the Yellowstone ecosystem are increasingly hemmed in by humans and increasingly managed like huge game farms anyway. If affluent hobbyists photograph well-treated game farm captives rather than harrassing the national park fauna, I don't see how that's a net loss.
That is an interesting viewpoint, but I just don't think there are "hordes" of photographers out there quite yet. If it came to that, this argument would be more compelling, but I just don't think that the remote areas of the world are teaming with photographers just yet. But still, even if they were, I would much prefer a day and age when African Safaris and such were conducted with "cameras & lenses" over "rifles & bullets" any day ... as a way to bring home trophies.
The second issue, that of image manipulation, has its own grammar and history. One can argue that a 2 dimensional rendering on paper is already so abstracted from reality that every photograph is a 'manipulation'. You're choosing what to include or exclude, focal length, perspective, moment of capture...
Which begs the question, I know. So you can choose to try rendering the image as close to visual reality as your memory and printing method permits; or you can make a more interpretive, more pictorialist, less purely representative print. There's nothing new about this in the digital age; Fuji Velvia was the equivalent of cranking in about 30 points of vibrance in ACR, and did Mr. Mangelson use Fuji Velvia? Judging by his recent book of panoramic landscapes, I'd surely bet the answer is yes.
In any general topic of discussion there are going to be specifics that are hard to define where they should get pigeon-holed into the general scheme of things. To quibble that photography itself is abstracted from reality, however, is completely missing the point of the topic and of the philosophy IMO.
Maybe this is a bad analogy, but I guess it can be likened to a computer geek playing "war games" on his computer versus a true general who became decorated out in the field of battle. The computer geek may have acquired a certain skill set with his mouse, keyboard, and understanding the software he's using ... but even if he has achieved the highest level possible in the game, with piles of dead Xorg bodies everywhere ... should he really be saluted like a true 5-star general, who rose through the ranks by dodging real bullets, saving real lives, giving and taking real orders, and making a real difference in the world?
At the end of the day, one guy used and became incredibly proficient with a real set of tools out there, understanding and interacting with the real world, and in so doing really accomplished something skillful ... and the other guy was "clicking his mouse" behind a computer screen. I realize there are imperfections in this analogy, but the point of it is, a photographer who understands the environment, his subject, and the actual tools in his hands to a degree that he can just take photos and have them be perfect with just that would have true mastery of his craft ... while the guy who hasn't quite got there yet will be spending a lot more time in Photoshop.
This is why I suppose many true master photographers still use film, as for instance both Manglesen and Marent still use.
You can try for the most accurate and literal rendition of a scene possible; Stephen Johnson eloquently argues for this artistic approach, noting that digital tools allow for far more accurate and restrained color rendition than traditional darkroom methods. Or, you can knock yourself out and try the most outrageous interpretive approach you can think of. I found it a revelation to see a "straight print" of Ansel Adams' iconic Moonrise, Hernandez NM displayed side by side with the heavily manipulated interpretive print that's far more familiar.
Do whatever you like best, as long as you're not deliberately misleading people.
Hell, I can't do either one very proficiently right now. But while it is easy to get enamored with the endless digital possibilities, I believe it still is helpful to stay grounded in reality. I don't claim to have all the answers, but while on the one hand there is something to be said for the unlimited creative freedom of digital manipulation, there is also something to be said for the simplicity of being at the right place, at the right time, and have the skill-set such that you are able to take a photograph so well that you can just present the image as-is.
Jack
.
-
This is why I suppose many true master photographers still use film, as for instance both Manglesen and Marent still use.
This is just as "cynical" or snooty as what you are decrying. There are alot of "master photographers" out there who are using only digital. Using only film does not make one a master photographer, it just makes them a photographer who only uses film.
Eventually, they both will have to use digital as film will not be available in the not too distant future. What will they do then?
-
I find it interesting that Mangelsen bills himself as an artist. Exactly what is creative about sitting out in the rain waiting for a Photography 101 composition to form so it can be recorded without further manipulation? Waiting for good light isn't a special talent, it's something we all do. Is he good? Yeah, but if you're going to describe him as a master in his field, you're also going to have to award the same designation to the many others who have demonstrated equal ability. It never hurts to leave a little room at the top.
Peter J
-
This is just as "cynical" or snooty as what you are decrying. There are alot of "master photographers" out there who are using only digital. Using only film does not make one a master photographer, it just makes them a photographer who only uses film.
I didn't mean to be snooty, nor to imply that those who use digital are not master photographers.
I was trying to make a point about mastery at "image making" at the camera end versus on the computer end. I am not trying to downplay anyone else or the techniques they choose. In point of fact, I myself am someone who chose digital, not film, and I need all the post-processing I can get just to make my images look so-so
This discussion should be viewed philosophically, not antagonistically. It was just something I started thinking about and wanted to discuss reasonably.
To be quite honest, I am living proof of my point. I would not feel comfortable going out into the jungle or wilderness with a film camera to shoot images sight-unseen and expect to come home with magazine Cover Shots. Only my ability to view my images digitally, right after a shot, enables me to adjust, and re-adjust, until I can get it halfway right. I couldn't imagine all of the finger-biting I would do if I shot film only, and had to wait for my film to process, only to discard no telling how many useless photos.
To me, only a master photographer (not computer processor) would be confident enough in his skills to go ahead and still use film for something like that today. Again, this is not to imply others who choose digital are not great photographers, I am only stressing a philosophical point.
People who have chosen digital should not feel offended by this question, just introspective, as again I chose digital also ... and yet this subject got me to think about it .. nothing more.
I posted this question not to be contentious, but contemplative.
Jack
.
-
Waaaay back in the god ol' days, all we had was film. I used to go to wildlife refuges in NJ and sometimes had to wait for 15 to 20 minutes for a GB Heron who was waiting at the outflow of a culvert waiting for a fish to pass by. He got the fish and I got the shot. My shooting was all on slide film and I thought of myself as sort of a minimalist in my shooting. Realistic, straight ahead images. (still do.) Only a polarizer filter for me. None of those fancy filters others used!!
I would shoot 5 or 6 rolls (36) in an afternoon and after getting them back I might have only wanted 5 or 6 slides out of the whole bunch. We had to be quite precise in exposure when shooting slides as it wasn't a very forgiving film compared to negative film. I would then go into my darkroom and print Cibachromes of my images where I would do the same thing as a B/W darkroom person would do... I would dodge and burn where it was need to make the image the way I remember seeing it. I considered myself to be a straight forward nature photographer as I didn't change the colors or add anything to the image. I loved playing in my darkroom till the wee hours of the AM. The main difference now is instead of film, it is digital and instead of a "bricks and mortar" darkroom, I have a "virtual" darkroom here in my computer, and now I can shoot the image and as long as my exposure puts the information to the right in the histogram, I can go into the computer and place that info into its' proper position to give me the image I saw.
Now that we have new technology to capture the image, we have new ways to process it and in my mind its a heck of a lot easier now than it was back then. I see no difference between then and now in how i see the world when i'm shooting. I just have kept up with the technology available to me. What i use doesn't matter in deciding whether or not I'm a Master photographer. ( just how crappy the images are!! )
I think we actually are having a discussion here. My thoughts are that it isn't the choice to shoot on film and have to wait for the results that makes him a Master photographer.
He is one to you because you think he is.
We sort of get back to whether you think Ansel Adams was a master photographer or not. As good as he was at previsualizing his images and shooting the right exposure and such, he still danced all over his images in the darkroom to get the images we see from him.
According to Mangelsons definition of himself and your decision that he is a master photographer then Ansel Adams would not qualify.
-
Too much of this discussion sounds like a group of people having a serious talk about the theory of evolution, then somebody comes along and says a "theory" is only a "guess." Well, no.
When most people speak of manipulation, they don't mean pushing contrast or cropping or using reduced depth-of-field. Those are widely accepted as artifacts of the process, that don't much impinge on the reality of the subject being photographed. Even with infra-red, with visions of white trees, people are smart enough to say, "That's the reality of the view taken with film sensitive to a different wave-length of light."
When you're really talking about manipulation, most people mean changing the reality that was in front of the lens in a substantive way -- like the news guy in Iraq who merged two photos to create a third photo of a different reality (which made it look like a US soldier was threatening a young girl and her father) or when National Geographic moved a pyramid to create an impossible view. *That* kind of manipulation has nothing to with over-saturating the colors. 19th century photographers could make portraits of people and then color them, but nobody was shocked when the colors weren't perfect -- they just said, "the colors aren't perfect." They did do some serious substantive manipulation, as when they created fairies with wings, sitting under toadstools, and tried to pass them off as genuine. That kind of manipulation could almost always could be detected, including even those manipulations released by major intelligence agencies (I'm thinking of the KGB, which occasionally "subtracted" people from the review stand on Lenin's tomb.) Now, however, photo manipulation can be done so seamlessly that it changes the nature of the scene in front of the camera. I recently saw, in a photo techniques book, an example of how a boring photo (of a tumble-down barn, IIRC) could be "improved" by dropping in an unbelievable skyscape as a background. This kind of manipulation, when done well, is of an entirely different order than pushing colors or increasing temps. The scene in front of the camera never existed; the elements aren't simply adjusted, they are invented.
In the case of the OP, getting a shot of a fox isn't all that hard, if you know where to find a fox, and getting a compelling background isn't all that hard, either, but getting the two together, in a straight photo, can take forever. In the past, there was no really good solution to that problem -- but now, you can shoot a fox in a zoo, and find a nice backdrop out in the woods, and then skillfully merge the two with Photoshop...and *then* you have an integrity problem. It's not just that the photo is faked, either -- it's that reality is wounded. Since the photographer could pull this off with absolutely no knowledge of foxes, he could place a fox in a habitat in which is absolutely does not exist... If a guy shoots a fox in a compelling background, and then adjusts colors, that doesn't bother me -- I buy the argument that "It's as I remember it." I mean, why should you want everything to look as some guy at the Fuji film works wants to render it? But I don't buy the zoo/forest merger. That's a different order of problem, and one worth arguing about.
-
I believe that part of the problem at least lies in the terminology: Master Photographer.
What a load of old pretensions!
This appellation doesn´t exist in normal, modern professional photographic parlance; it´s a gravitas-borrowing invention of the "art" world. People write about what St Ansel might or might not have been thinking when he snapped his snap or printed his negative - how the hell do they know? Even if the man had written it all down in a huge diary it would still have had to be suspect - he was trying to earn a crust from the medium and anything that could create importance, mystery or even mystique would have been a good thing! Does anybody here imagine that public relations started in 2009?
There is a sense in some posts that shooting film is/was some kind of great mystery, that only the "Master Photographer" could do it: man, everybody did it, some better than others. I don´t know a fellow pro who did not bracket like stink at every opportunity, that didn´t cover his ass the best way he could, and that generally meant shooting as much film as the job could carry. And don´t forget we did utilise hand-held exposure meters, regardless of whatever happened to be added into the camera by thoughtful Mr Maker.
Photography is actually a bloody easy thing to do. What is not so easy to accomplish is the creation of something meaningful, something that holds the attention for a while longer than it takes to recognize the content. Frankly, that such an image might happen is something for which it is not advised that one hold one´s breath. Entire advertising agencies strive to achieve this imagery; some do with repeated success whist others have the light fall on them on very rare occasions. With some of the world´s leading creatives working overtime to get to this point of glory, it should not be thought unusual that the lone soul generally fails. As I wrote - photography is easy but great pictures come rarely.
So whither integrity?
Can it even exist outwith the realm of legal recording; can it even truly exist there, where focal length, lighting, even tone can create its own bias in message? Just think of how magazines have had to comment later on the colour they have printed some cover images of infamous personalities... I really believe that if integrity can be equated with objectivity, then the doubtfulness of true objectivity being possible extends that doubt to the possibility of any integrity beyond the subjective.
Whether your fox, tiger, rabbit or bear was photographed running wild or not, if it turns your otherwise mundane image into something that pleases you, then enough already, you did the right thing! Just don´t try to palm it off as something it ain´t - we have enough silicon to contend with in this world. It should be up to the buyer to decide whether truth is of importance or whether, for him, it is all about image. Or investment. But that´s another thread, possibly leading us back to silicon.
Rob C
-
Rob C and John Camp, you have both put a fine exclamation point on the futility of this circular debate. Jack, your questions are good ones and your interest in seeking resolution on this is a good reflection on your integrity as a photographer. The reality is that it isn't really that complicated, and it has nothing to do with film or masters or photoshop. It has everything to do with you, your integrity, and how you show it with your art, documentary, or journalism photography.
-
Waaaay back in the god ol' days, all we had was film. I used to go to wildlife refuges in NJ and sometimes had to wait for 15 to 20 minutes for a GB Heron who was waiting at the outflow of a culvert waiting for a fish to pass by. He got the fish and I got the shot. My shooting was all on slide film and I thought of myself as sort of a minimalist in my shooting. Realistic, straight ahead images. (still do.) Only a polarizer filter for me. None of those fancy filters others used!!
That is essentially the image I have of the "qua" photographer: a minimalist; one whose camera, patience, perspective, and framing get him the shot ... not his digital manipulation.
I would shoot 5 or 6 rolls (36) in an afternoon and after getting them back I might have only wanted 5 or 6 slides out of the whole bunch. We had to be quite precise in exposure when shooting slides as it wasn't a very forgiving film compared to negative film. I would then go into my darkroom and print Cibachromes of my images where I would do the same thing as a B/W darkroom person would do... I would dodge and burn where it was need to make the image the way I remember seeing it. I considered myself to be a straight forward nature photographer as I didn't change the colors or add anything to the image. I loved playing in my darkroom till the wee hours of the AM. The main difference now is instead of film, it is digital and instead of a "bricks and mortar" darkroom, I have a "virtual" darkroom here in my computer, and now I can shoot the image and as long as my exposure puts the information to the right in the histogram, I can go into the computer and place that info into its' proper position to give me the image I saw.
I guess that is the paradox. The digital darkroom is easier, more expansive, and more forgiving. Thus while it can be a virtually limitless tool for the artist, it can also become a crutch for the photographically handicapped.
Now that we have new technology to capture the image, we have new ways to process it and in my mind its a heck of a lot easier now than it was back then. I see no difference between then and now in how i see the world when i'm shooting. I just have kept up with the technology available to me. What i use doesn't matter in deciding whether or not I'm a Master photographer. ( just how crappy the images are!! )
LOL, true, but again this creates the paradox. Photographers today are more "image-makers" than pure photographers. There is so much "after" the camera that can change the image, that a person who greatly manipulates the image ceases to become a qua-photographer and becomes an image-maker. To me, I will consider myself a "master photographer" upon such time that I can consistently take my camera out into the field, and from that point select the right lens, the right filter, the right angle/perspective, the right lighting, the right ISO/SS, the right WB such that I can then "push my finger down" on the shutter release and get exactly what I wanted to get with my camera.
The more I have to go home and fiddle with it, after the fact, the further away I will continue to be from my goal.
I think we actually are having a discussion here. My thoughts are that it isn't the choice to shoot on film and have to wait for the results that makes him a Master photographer.
He is one to you because you think he is.
We sort of get back to whether you think Ansel Adams was a master photographer or not. As good as he was at previsualizing his images and shooting the right exposure and such, he still danced all over his images in the darkroom to get the images we see from him.
According to Mangelsons definition of himself and your decision that he is a master photographer then Ansel Adams would not qualify.
Well, I hate to talk about specific people, but let's just say my own personal view would be that a man like Ansel Adams would be a Master Artist, and a Master Image-Maker, but that a man like Manglesen would, strictly-speaking, be the true Master Photographer.
Jack
.
-
Too much of this discussion sounds like a group of people having a serious talk about the theory of evolution, then somebody comes along and says a "theory" is only a "guess." Well, no.
When most people speak of manipulation, they don't mean pushing contrast or cropping or using reduced depth-of-field. Those are widely accepted as artifacts of the process, that don't much impinge on the reality of the subject being photographed. Even with infra-red, with visions of white trees, people are smart enough to say, "That's the reality of the view taken with film sensitive to a different wave-length of light."
When you're really talking about manipulation, most people mean changing the reality that was in front of the lens in a substantive way -- like the news guy in Iraq who merged two photos to create a third photo of a different reality (which made it look like a US soldier was threatening a young girl and her father) or when National Geographic moved a pyramid to create an impossible view. *That* kind of manipulation has nothing to with over-saturating the colors. 19th century photographers could make portraits of people and then color them, but nobody was shocked when the colors weren't perfect -- they just said, "the colors aren't perfect." They did do some serious substantive manipulation, as when they created fairies with wings, sitting under toadstools, and tried to pass them off as genuine. That kind of manipulation could almost always could be detected, including even those manipulations released by major intelligence agencies (I'm thinking of the KGB, which occasionally "subtracted" people from the review stand on Lenin's tomb.) Now, however, photo manipulation can be done so seamlessly that it changes the nature of the scene in front of the camera. I recently saw, in a photo techniques book, an example of how a boring photo (of a tumble-down barn, IIRC) could be "improved" by dropping in an unbelievable skyscape as a background. This kind of manipulation, when done well, is of an entirely different order than pushing colors or increasing temps. The scene in front of the camera never existed; the elements aren't simply adjusted, they are invented.
In the case of the OP, getting a shot of a fox isn't all that hard, if you know where to find a fox, and getting a compelling background isn't all that hard, either, but getting the two together, in a straight photo, can take forever. In the past, there was no really good solution to that problem -- but now, you can shoot a fox in a zoo, and find a nice backdrop out in the woods, and then skillfully merge the two with Photoshop...and *then* you have an integrity problem. It's not just that the photo is faked, either -- it's that reality is wounded. Since the photographer could pull this off with absolutely no knowledge of foxes, he could place a fox in a habitat in which is absolutely does not exist... If a guy shoots a fox in a compelling background, and then adjusts colors, that doesn't bother me -- I buy the argument that "It's as I remember it." I mean, why should you want everything to look as some guy at the Fuji film works wants to render it? But I don't buy the zoo/forest merger. That's a different order of problem, and one worth arguing about.
Your speaking of "evolution" is getting us closer to the truth I believe.
If I can draw an analogy to Mixed Martial Arts (and, if you'll bear with me, it will make sense in the end), the same kind of evolution is happening there. When I was in college, I took up boxing. To me, nothing was better than pure boxing. It was tremendously more complicated to become truly skillful than most people realize. A 1/2-inch difference in head movement could mean the difference between being on the floor and slipping-n-countering. With the advent of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), originally these contests were "styles" contests, where wrestlers faced karatekas, which themselves faced grapplers, which in turn faced boxers, etc. ... but ultimately there was an evolution and merger of ALL styles into one style ... which has created a new breed of fighter today: the MMA fighter. Today's current MMA fighters are now fairly skilled at wrestling, at jiu-jitsu, at boxing, at Muay Thai, etc. ... but yet they are MASTERS OF NONE. In truth, because of his roundedness, a MMA fighter can beat a boxer, wrestler, or "pure" stylist at a "no rules" fight, BUT YET he is not as good as they are at their "pure style."
I think this exact same evolution and merger has happened in the photographic world, where computers and cameras are now becoming "one system." Together, these tools can now produce better images artistically, and yet in order to become exceptional, today's photographer has to develop a certain proficiency in both photographic skill as well as software manipulation. AND YET, in doing so, I believe ultiamately pure prowess at photography slips a bit. The software becomes a crutch so to speak. If I can go back to my MMA analogy, MMA fighters have a certain degree of boxing skill, but because they have to learn so many other skills, they do not become as good at qua-boxing as a pure boxer. Because, if they get hurt they are trained so that they can just take the fight to the ground to clear their head. You can't do that in pure boxing
A top champion in MMA may be able to beat a pure boxer with no rules, and he does have a certain degree of boxing skills, but if he were placed in a pure boxing match with a top level boxer, he would be utterly destroyed. The MMA fighter's "crutch" of being able to go to the ground would be gone, and the TRUE MASTERY of the pure boxer would now become crystal clear in that ring.
I guess I am saying the same thing is likely happening in photography. While the combination of software/camera can now create better overall images than ever, strictly speaking pure "photographic technique" is going to suffer because of this crutch that software manipulation offers. As I have taken my own shots, and reviewed them in Live View, I literally think to myself "Well, I could lighten that up in Photoshop," or, "I can get it sharper in Photoshop," and it is my opinion that these very thoughts are my own admission of weakness and my own use of Photoshop as a crutch to supplement my lack of photographic skill.
I am like the MMA fighter who takes a punch, and whose pure boxing skills aren't sufficient to deal with it, and so tries to take the fight somewhere else. I can't get my lighting right, or my focus right, so I take my "image" somewhere else (to Photoshop) to see if I can "get it right" there. Thus the paradox I am trying to express here is, YES, the digital age creates many more means and many more options for us all to salvage and to create better and more diverse images, but IMO it also does so at the expense of pure photographic skill.
So what I mean by a "master photographer" is the person who, with his camera, takes the perfect image, not with his software.
Jack
.
-
Jack,
No disrespect intended at all here, but I think you want to apply "rules" where non exist.
Photography is not a contest where there is a winner or loser, nor are there "crutches"...only tools.
-
Jack,
No disrespect intended at all here, but I think you want to apply "rules" where non exist.
Photography is not a contest where there is a winner or loser, nor are there "crutches"...only tools.
Hi Joe;
No disrespect taken, but please don't take offense to my counter: you're completely missing my point.
I am not suggesting that photography is a "contest" (though photography contests do exist).
My point is that getting "the perfect image" by one's software means that said perfection was not achieved in-camera. Therefore, the degree to which one achieves his desired end in post-process is the degree to which he is unable to do so in-camera, and therefore is not perfecting his photography skills to achieve his ends. I am not saying this is "bad" either; it just IS.
If there are means to get one's end in-camera, but a person is not able to do so, then he is wanting in photography skills. If his default solution to this is to go to Photoshop, then he is not developing his photography, but rather his software manipulation.
I understand that all digital cameras require digital manipulation, but the focus on the digital manipulation over photographic technique makes one more of a software guru than a photographer. Again, I am not saying this is "bad," only that can we call such a person a "photographer" anymore ... or is he simply an "image designer?"
If I win a MMA fight with an ankle lock, I am glad I still won the fight, but can I properly be called a boxer?
Jack
-
I think you are missing the point, Jack. Most of us agree that the dividing line between shooting in the field and manipulating afterward is, at best arbitrary, and at worst, non-existent.
Remember that every digital camera and every film has different color, sharpness, luminance, and contrast properties (to name just a few). Furthermore, every lens also affects most of the same properties. And don't forget the dreaded flash. That certainly manipulates reality. How about reflectors? Yikes. There are a lot of ways to manipulate reality at the time of capture.
You are considering a person a master photographer because they shoot the perfect shot in the field, but you need to remember that they have already made choices (deliberate or not) of how to manipulate the image by virtue of the camera, film, lens, flash, or filter they use.
Human manipulation of the photography tools presented to us is all part of one discipline of photography. Someone's choice to eschew a particular technique or method doesn't make them a master (or inferior). It just makes them unique. There is no enhanced virtuousness, quality, integrity, to their work. It is just how they choose to work.
-
I think you are missing the point, Jack. Most of us agree that the dividing line between shooting in the field and manipulating afterward is, at best arbitrary, and at worst, non-existent.
I am not missing any point; we simply disagree. The dividing line is actually quite clear. If the results of your finished image were obtained through film, and simple development, then photography is what generated your image. If the results of your finished image were obtained digitally, and all you did was transfer your image to your computer, and print, then photography is what generated your image.
But if your image was unsuitable "as captured," to where major refinement was required, then "image processing" created your image as much or more as photographic skill. This is not arbitrary, this is simply where most of the effort came from.
Remember that every digital camera and every film has different color, sharpness, luminance, and contrast properties (to name just a few). Furthermore, every lens also affects most of the same properties. And don't forget the dreaded flash. That certainly manipulates reality. How about reflectors? Yikes. There are a lot of ways to manipulate reality at the time of capture.
"At the time of capture" = Photography
"Post process" = Image Manipulation
Whatever the peculiarities of your particular photographic tool is are irrelevant. Your mastery of your own camera is still part of photography. Manipulating images is no longer part of the photographic process, so it cannot be called photgraphy. It is image enhancement. My point is simply the better your image comes out from photography, the better your photographic skill. Flashes, reflectors, filters, etc. are all part of photography. Once the finger gets pushed (or the remote shutter released) any further image manipulation is no longer photography.
You are considering a person a master photographer because they shoot the perfect shot in the field, but you need to remember that they have already made choices (deliberate or not) of how to manipulate the image by virtue of the camera, film, lens, flash, or filter they use.
You are the one missing the point good sir. It is the choices in the field-and-camera which constitute photography. Again, if I get hit with a punch, and decide to clinch, pivot, and break I am still boxing ... there are many elements to boxing .. but if I decide to do a double-leg takedown, I may still be effective, but I am no longer a boxer. Therefore, if you decide to get your lighting and sharpness right in Photoshop, you may still be effective, but you are not being an effective photographer, but an effective image processor.
Human manipulation of the photography tools presented to us is all part of one discipline of photography. Someone's choice to eschew a particular technique or method doesn't make them a master (or inferior). It just makes them unique. There is no enhanced virtuousness, quality, integrity, to their work. It is just how they choose to work.
I respectfully disagree. Human manipulation of the software makes one an effective image processor, but one who relies on post-processing has to do so because he was an ineffective photographer to begin with. My going for a double-leg takedown to gain advantage may make me an effective overall fighter, but I was forced to do so because I was not skillful enough in boxing to deal with your punches. Had I been a better boxer, I would not have been hit in the first place, and would have had an answer for your moves if I had. It was because I was ineffective standing up that I was forced to go to the ground as an alternative to my lack of boxing skills. Nothing wrong with this, hey a win is a win, but while you can call me a good all-around fighter, you certainly couldn't call me a "master boxer."
In the same fashion, I may be able to digitally-manipulate a raw image into excellence, that was lacking in certain original elements, but while the superb finished product was a testimony to my overall skills, strictly-speaking my photography wasn't up to snuff and only my skill in another discipline pulled the image out of the water.
Again, I am not saying this is bad, per se, and I am saying that I may still be viewed as a "great overall artist," but I still have not yet perfected my photography.
I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about this basic truth.
I guess where we disagree is that software manipulation = photography. You're saying it's part of the term; and I'm saying the two are mutually-exclusive skill sets.
Jack
-
...
But if your image was unsuitable "as captured," to where major refinement was required, then "image processing" created your image as much or more as photographic skill. This is not arbitrary, this is simply where most of the effort came from.
...
Jack
Sure, I can agree to disagree. But we can also continue discussing to try to gain a better understanding of one another and hopefully learn...so here goes.
Your quote above is where I think we fundamentally diverge. I don't think that any image that is poorly captured can ever be made great, no matter how much post processing is done. Post processing makes good images great and great images epic. Post processing cannot make mediocre images into anything other than slightly less mediocre images.
P.S. I have never known anyone to use fighting analogies as a way to understand photography, much less landscape photography. Haha.
-
There ain't any reality in photography beyond conveying that you saw and felt - and this goal makes some manipulations necessary, and some are even inherent to the process.
+1 on this, and -- for me -- discussions on the "reality" of photography always brings to mind Rene Magritte's "The Treachery of Images (This is not a Pipe):"
-
Once the finger gets pushed (or the remote shutter released) any further image manipulation is no longer photography.
Using that definition would disqualify everything beyond a latent image on film from being described as a photograph.
I'm sure you will agree that we can take two sheets of film exposed identically and simultaneously on two identical cameras at the exact same location and come up with two completely different prints without doing any burning, dodging or manipulation other than choosing paper type, film/paper developer type, time, agitation, temperature and maybe other "non manipulative" factors.
Has one of us practiced photography and the other not?
Which one of us is the master?
-
LOL, true, but again this creates the paradox. Photographers today are more "image-makers" than pure photographers.
Pure photography! When you start using terms like that, you start to sound pompous and elitist.
I understand the general point you are making, but that sort of line is nonsense as a photographer is an image maker, always has been.
-
Sure, I can agree to disagree. But we can also continue discussing to try to gain a better understanding of one another and hopefully learn...so here goes.
Your quote above is where I think we fundamentally diverge. I don't think that any image that is poorly captured can ever be made great, no matter how much post processing is done. Post processing makes good images great and great images epic. Post processing cannot make mediocre images into anything other than slightly less mediocre images.
Very clearly stated.
My point, I suppose, could best be illustrated thus: (1) If I spent 100% of my time taking photographs, and at the end of the day I dumped my memory chips off with a software expert, one million out of one million people would still call me a "photographer"; (2) however, not one person out of that same million would call the guy working on my images for me post-process a "photographer."
Therefore, the aftermath, though important, has nothing to do with photography really. It is merely image enhancement.
I was essentially thinking out loud in this thread topic. While I need to become proficient in color management post-process, this essentially has nothing to do with photography. Just as if I were an MMA fighter who had to work on takedowns and submissions to be a better fighter, this still has nothing to do with boxing.
IMAGE-MAKERS is what we are now in the digital age, not so much "photographers" anymore. Photography is only one of many elements that we need to do at least fairly well. I was just thinking that as such pure photography skills might begin to become antiquated.
I don't know what this has to do with anything really, LOL, but it just struck me when I read about a particular man (Manglesen) who decided to stick to "pure photography" to capture his images. I was thinking of purely the craft of photography and trying to become as proficient as possible in that skill set over all others. In my mind, I had been trying to compensate digitally for my lacking of my skills, but really I need to do the opposite. I simply admire those whose skill allows them to shoot film and achieve the kind of quality images of the above artists, without digital manipulation.
Anyway, I believe I have clarified my point in my own mind, though of course anyone is free to disagree.
P.S. I have never known anyone to use fighting analogies as a way to understand photography, much less landscape photography. Haha.
LOL, well, I was just thinking about the convergence of many skills into one new skill. Of how these new athletes are Jacks of All Trades, yet Masters of None. I am wondering if this same phenomenon will happen to photgraphers, as automated camera features replace individual choice, and as software manipulation replaces getting it perfect to begin with.
The same images may be created, perhaps even better images, but at what cost to the development of personal human skills in the original vocation of photographer?
It was just a philosophical musing I had ...
-
If I can draw an analogy to Mixed Martial Arts (and, if you'll bear with me, it will make sense in the end),
Actually it doesn't at all. The only thing that counts in a fight is winning, introducing arbitrary rules which prohibit certain skills one opponent has that can aid winning does not make the the boxing [in your example] superior. To my mind it simply underlines boxing's weaknesses, if you hacprohibit useful defenses/attacks against boxers.
Also there's no reason why an MMA may not have been a boxer to start with and still box as well as do other matial arts.
Doing other MAs only makes you better overall. Just like learning photography techniques outside of the specific area you may be interested in. Most of the better Martial artists are usually good at lots of different MAs. Besides, if you have abilty to master one, then most of the time you have the ability to master a number of others. It's not mutually exclusive. Same in dancing, the more dances types you do, the bettter a dancer you to tend to become. Those who only practice one style of MA or dance tend to be less proficient, not more proficient. And many of the best dancers have a background in martial arts too and vice versa, Bruce Lee was a Ballroom champion. And Jeet Kun Do the MA he formulated was an MMA, before the term MMA was concocted.
-
Your quote above is where I think we fundamentally diverge. I don't think that any image that is poorly captured can ever be made great, no matter how much post processing is done. Post processing makes good images great and great images epic. Post processing cannot make mediocre images into anything other than slightly less mediocre images.
Depends on what you mean by poorly captured. RAW images shott ETTR will look to most people, poorly captured as they are 'overexposed', yet those who use this technique do so to obtain the best quality.
Some shots may look awful straight out of camera, but once developed/processed look great. Lots of my shots look crap as RAW images, but once I've developed them they look great, as for example a low contast image with flat colours, may look great once turned into a contrasty B+W. I don't like any of my RAW files if truth be told, as to my mind they are simply a work in progress. Particularly if you shoot with PPing in mind, such as ETTR or B+W conversion.
Everytime I come across people who decry post processing, I am tempted to assume they do so as they are not very good at darkroom/lightroom skills, as if they were, they wouldn't deride it so.
-
I was trying to make a point about mastery at "image making" at the camera end versus on the computer end.
So one stops being a photographer ("with light" + "draw") at the point the negative is exposed or the raw sensor data written to a file. Everything after that is not "drawing with light"? That is, a master photographer never produces a visible image representing the scene s/he wanted to capture? As I understand you, the position you've taken leads to exactly this end.
If so, we disagree. IMHO, "drawing with light" ends not when the image is captured, but when a final image is delivered to a viewer. A "drawer with light" envisions a final product that is then delivered in a visible form, not a latent image (undeveloped file or unprocessed raw file). When capturing using digital sensors, software and decisions about processing the sensor data (the raw file) begin when the person holding the camera perpares by choosing camera settings before the image is captured, if the product of the camera is a JPG file. These choices mirror the choice of film type made by a photographer using film.
Those equivalent decisions must be deferred to postprocessing if the camera produces only a raw file. That the same decisions fundamental to the appearance of the final image can be made either in camera, if producing JPEG files in camera, or on the computer during post-processing, if producing raw files in camera, leads me to the conclusion that the role of photographer ends well after the shutter is pressed.
Post-processing a raw image file is, to me, directly comparable to developing the exposed film. Both processes produce a foundation from which the final product is produced. Longer time in developer lightens the negative, and temperature of the chemical baths influences color balance of the developed negative, just as applying a tone curve to the raw file influences contrast and brightness, and selecting a color temperature determines how to map the binary value to a point in the color space. That operating on digital files enables an infinite number of retries rather than the chemical development process being a one-time event does not, IMHO, change the equivalence of the digial and chemical darkrooms.
I intend the above to illustrate that the differences between chemical and digital means to achieving the foundation from which a final image product is produced is a very large grey area, not a bright line.
So what I mean by a "master photographer" is the person who, with his camera, takes the perfect image, not with his software.
By that definition there are no "master photographers." As we've seen, even Tom Mangelson has been quoted as saying he does manipulate what comes out of his his camera when he prints. We all know that Ansel Adams spent many hours in the darkroom drawing with light to produce a single print. Steve Johnson carefully sets the white balance while processing the raw file so that the image colors match the colors of the original scene. All those generally considered great photographers manipulated their images.
I choose a definition of photographer at a different point in that grey area between pressing the shutter button and laying on the table a drying print. I draw with light at several points in the journey to a print. Does that mean I surrender integrity? Not according to those who view my images.
Do I manipulate my images? Yes (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml), in exactly the same manner that Ansel Adams, Tom Mangelson, Steve Johnson, Michael Reichmann, Seth Resnik, Alain Briot, Richard Avedon, Ctein, and Henri Cartier-Bresson manipulated theirs.
Bob
-
Actually it doesn't at all. The only thing that counts in a fight is winning, introducing arbitrary rules which prohibit certain skills one opponent has that can aid winning does not make the the boxing [in your example] superior. To my mind it simply underlines boxing's weaknesses, if you hacprohibit useful defenses/attacks against boxers.
Also there's no reason why an MMA may not have been a boxer to start with and still box as well as do other matial arts.
Doing other MAs only makes you better overall. Just like learning photography techniques outside of the specific area you may be interested in. Most of the better Martial artists are usually good at lots of different MAs. Besides, if you have abilty to master one, then most of the time you have the ability to master a number of others. It's not mutually exclusive. Same in dancing, the more dances types you do, the bettter a dancer you to tend to become. Those who only practice one style of MA or dance tend to be less proficient, not more proficient. And many of the best dancers have a background in martial arts too and vice versa, Bruce Lee was a Ballroom champion. And Jeet Kun Do the MA he formulated was an MMA, before the term MMA was concocted.
My analogy was perfect, and your "bottom line assessment" was also perfect.
For everything you said is true: The #1 goal in a fight is to win. The #1 purpose of photography is to capture the best images. And whatever tools you require to do each of these tasks to their uttermost should be employed. Boxing is not a complete art, and you are right, the multi-dimensional nature of MMA underscores this fact and demonstrates the value of cross-training. Taking pictures is not the complete story to image-making either, post-processing elevates the image still further also, thus "cross-training" here too simply means being skilled at producing a better overall outcome.
Yet that said, I guess I still am partial to pure boxing. Even Bruce Lee ultimately dismissed Wing Chun in favor of boxing-type hand strikes. Boxing may not be the complete story to a fight, but there is something about perfecting that skillset in particular that still captures my fancy. Likewise, I am still partial to the idea of having my strong point to image-making be photography, rather than software. Taking the pictures might not be the whole story to image-making either, but I want this to likewise be my main skill focus. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy, and won't try to develop roundedness, in other aspects of the whole process; it just means I have a preference as to where to make my majority focus.
-
Post-processing a raw image file is, to me, directly comparable to developing the exposed film. Both processes produce a foundation from which the final product is produced. Longer time in developer lightens the negative, and temperature of the chemical baths influences color balance of the developed negative, just as applying a tone curve to the raw file influences contrast and brightness, and selecting a color temperature determines how to map the binary value to a point in the color space. That operating on digital files enables an infinite number of retries rather than the chemical development process being a one-time event does not, IMHO, change the equivalence of the digial and chemical darkrooms.
If "Man A" spent all day taking film photographs and dumped off a box of negatives with "Man B," and if Man B spent all night developing the images, which of these men would you call the photographer?
-
If "Man A" spent all day taking film photographs and dumped off a box of negatives with "Man B," and if Man B spent all night developing the images, which of these men would you call the photographer?
Neither.
Bob
-
This simple question has become quite the discussion! Jack.....were you really looking for an answer or simply looking for a discussion? ;-)
BTW....I really enjoy your analogies with the martial arts....strange juxtaposition indeed (but one I can relate to...UFC 95 was pretty good btw).
Maybe this discussion is simply a matter of semantics......what IS photography?
I looked for the answer on Wikipedia and obtained this:
"is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a film, or an electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.".
I looked on Websters.com and obtained this:
"the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays."
These are both much broader definitions that our group here requires for the discussion at hand; or it could be that "Photography" is simply the art of capturing the image and that the art of "Developing" is taking the negative and doing ANYTHING with it.
I wonder (or if anyone here knows could chime in) if Tom Mangelson develops his own prints....if he does.....where does one draw the line? If his craft were absolutely pure...he could drop his film off at Costco and the results would be no less stunning....right? And I'm not knocking Costco here.....
If "Photography" can be defined here as the use of a camera system to capture an image, then perhaps someone who does ZERO work in the darkroom (digital or otherwise) but could simply pass along their "negatives" to anyone to print perhaps can be considered a master of their craft.
If "Photography" can be defined here as the use of a camera system in conjunction with the craft of development to produce the best possible image......well then....well I think you see where I'm going with this.
Perhaps you could aid this discussion by provinding a very clear, and very strict definition of "Photography" as you see it. I think this has been a very fun theoretical discussion but most likely will not change the way anyone is currently operating; those who chill butterflys in a fridge to slow down movement, those who shoot "wild" game in preserve, or those who simply take snapshots on a crowded street.
:-) All in good clean fun!
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
If "Man A" spent all day taking film photographs and dumped off a box of negatives with "Man B," and if Man B spent all night developing the images, which of these men would you call the photographer?
-
...
Depends on what you mean by poorly captured.
...
You are definitely right. Exposures that are ETTR as you mentioned may not look well-captured, but to the trained eye, they are.
-
Everytime I come across people who decry post processing, I am tempted to assume they do so as they are not very good at darkroom/lightroom skills, as if they were, they wouldn't deride it so.
Everytime I run across people who type their "opinions," without actually having read the thread first, I think "What an egocentric fella!"
JJJ, I never decried post processing. Never derode it either. If you would have taken the time to actually read my posts, you would have made these comments.
-
Neither.
Bob
We disagree. And I would be willing to wager, if you asked a thousand random people my question, all 1000 would choose "Man A" as the photographer and "Man B" as the film developer.
Jack
-
Todd in Chicago
Todd, I just spent about 40 min responding thoughtfully to your post, but when I hit "enter" my computer froze ... and I backspaced into a clear screen again.
At this point, I am going to resist the temptation to smash my computer to pieces and try to address your points again tomorrow
Jack
-
Everytime I run across people who type their "opinions," without actually having read the thread first, I think "What an egocentric fella!"
JJJ, I never decried post processing. Never derode it either. If you would have taken the time to actually read my posts, you would have made these comments.
I did read posts unlike you obviously, as my reply was not to a post of yours, but someone else's.
-
You are definitely right. Exposures that are ETTR as you mentioned may not look well-captured, but to the trained eye, they are.
And seeing as various pping treatments I use depend on how image was exposed/captured and you do not know my methods, your eye will be just as untrained in judging my images, as they will be for anyone elese who shoots with PPing in mind.
So the idea of being able to completely judge an image's worth at the RAW/undeveloped stage is bogus.
not to mention, people have varying tastes, so a great image to one person is boring to another.
-
Todd, I just spent about 40 min responding thoughtfully to your post, but when I hit "enter" my computer froze ... and I backspaced into a clear screen again.
At this point, I am going to resist the temptation to smash my computer to pieces and try to address your points again tomorrow
Jack
One of the many benefits of using Opera as a browser is that you can type one's replies in your notes panel [or copy reply and save to notes] and even if computer has mains plug yanked out, you lose nothing and can even restore all tabs and browsing history too when restarting.
-
I´m happy to see that we have moved away from martial arts and are back, safely, insulting one another in the most polite manner that we can muster. The martial arts analogy was a crock-full anyway, a totally false analogy because martial arts, other than shadow-boxing, demand an opponent if to be more than onanism. On the other hand, photography is of itself the perfect onanistic shining path: you do it better on your own. The timing can usually be perfect even if the exposure might be a little adrift.
Rob C
-
all good and great film photographers post-process. not a one that you would see published in a magazine, consider buying their book, or deem a "master" ever simply drops off their film for developing.
they sharpen them using unsharp masks (yes, the very same name given to "digital" edge accuity enhancement; check the history of that evolution for an eyeopener). and this after using the highest resolution capture mediums possible (large format film) and the sharpest lenses money can buy in the field.
to heighten contrast, they use contrast masks, dodge & burn, and higher contrast film stocks to increase black levels and micro-contrast, very similar to digital darkroom techniques designed for the same end result.
as an earlier poster noted, choosing velvia as a film stock (virtually the industry standard in landscape for over two decades) is no different than pushing saturation and vibrance sliders in the digital darkroom but with far less control over amount, with a narrower color gamut, and a preset daylight white balance. color manipulation from the very moment the purist loads the film!!
post-processing ideas didn't start with digital; virtually every digital enhancement technique (sharpening, saturation, contrast enhancement/recovery, etc.) has an antecedent in film darkrooms, which all good and great film photographers have always employed!! many of these techniques were first innovated to solve the technical inadequacies of cameras, film and memory card in reproducing what the finest optical instrument known to man (your eye) can see.
look at the earliest prints of ansel adams' "monolith, the face of half dome:" blocked up face of half dome, not remotely the fully realized (and real looking) print of twenty years later. only his artful processing of the negative, and innovation of darkroom techniques allowed the real masterpiece to come thru. and for this, you deem him not a pure photographer, rather "a Master Artist, and a Master Image-Maker," instead suggesting that a man like Manglesen would, "strictly-speaking, be the true Master Photographer." the height of arrogance and inexperience, if you ask me.
like it or not, the "no digital manipulation" claim is, as another noted insightfully, disingenuous at best and, at worst, purely hypocritical marketing hype at its most cynical. it seems retail photographers can't get the words out of their mouth fast enough these days claiming, even those working exclusively in digital (!), that their processing is purely natural, nothing but natural light, no manipulation, exactly as i saw it, and please buy my one of a kind, completely pure, limited edition (one of only two hundred . . . until i reach 199, and need to sell some more while still hoping to appeal to society's wise investors with that truly pure baseball card collecting, art treasure, appreciation [$$$!!!]-minded mentality) . . .
it seems the public is suspect of manipulation, tired of being faked, and almost uniformly uninformed enough to go hook, line and sinker for the "no digital manipulation" ploy.
real photographic integrity would be to simply state your philosophy, transparently and honestly discuss your process, and let the work stand as it might.
or we can simply use your definition and categorically state the only master photographers are those that do nothing but shoot in the field, get it perfect (which, don't get me wrong, is still the very heart and soul of great nature & landscape photography!!), and then drop it off at the local walmart for some cheap but 'pure' hack-level post-processing.
and just so you don't get all a-twitter, tom mangelsen is one heck of a fine photographer, doing it right, no matter what his claims and however he manipulates his images. his patience, photographic knowlege, understanding of animal behavior, perserverence, and fine artistic sense are what make him a true 'master.'
www.dvbphotography.com (http://www.dvbphotography.com)
-
For the person who reads all of this and does some of the research, they will learn a lot and appreciate what's involved. That's good. But do we have any common terms or definitions now that can shorten some of this redundant verbiage, so we can get to the point in our discussions, with fewer misunderstandings?
all good and great film photographers post-process. not a one that you would see published in a magazine, consider buying their book, or deem a "master" ever simply drops off their film for developing.
they sharpen them using unsharp masks (yes, the very same name given to "digital" edge accuity enhancement; check the history of that evolution for an eyeopener). and this after using the highest resolution capture mediums possible (large format film) and the sharpest lenses money can buy in the field.
to heighten contrast, they use contrast masks, dodge & burn, and higher contrast film stocks to increase black levels and micro-contrast, very similar to digital darkroom techniques designed for the same end result.
as an earlier poster noted, choosing velvia as a film stock (virtually the industry standard in landscape for over two decades) is no different than pushing saturation and vibrance sliders in the digital darkroom but with far less control over amount, with a narrower color gamut, and a preset daylight white balance. color manipulation from the very moment the purist loads the film!!
post-processing ideas didn't start with digital; virtually every digital enhancement technique (sharpening, saturation, contrast enhancement/recovery, etc.) has an antecedent in film darkrooms, which all good and great film photographers have always employed!! many of these techniques were first innovated to solve the technical inadequacies of cameras, film and memory card in reproducing what the finest optical instrument known to man (your eye) can see.
look at the earliest prints of ansel adams' "monolith, the face of half dome:" blocked up face of half dome, not remotely the fully realized (and real looking) print of twenty years later. only his artful processing of the negative, and innovation of darkroom techniques allowed the real masterpiece to come thru. and for this, you deem him not a pure photographer, rather "a Master Artist, and a Master Image-Maker," instead suggesting that a man like Manglesen would, "strictly-speaking, be the true Master Photographer." the height of arrogance and inexperience, if you ask me.
like it or not, the "no digital manipulation" claim is, as another noted insightfully, disingenuous at best and, at worst, purely hypocritical marketing hype at its most cynical. it seems retail photographers can't get the words out of their mouth fast enough these days claiming, even those working exclusively in digital (!), that their processing is purely natural, nothing but natural light, no manipulation, exactly as i saw it, and please buy my one of a kind, completely pure, limited edition (one of only two hundred . . . until i reach 199, and need to sell some more while still hoping to appeal to society's wise investors with that truly pure baseball card collecting, art treasure, appreciation [$$$!!!]-minded mentality) . . .
it seems the public is suspect of manipulation, tired of being faked, and almost uniformly uninformed enough to go hook, line and sinker for the "no digital manipulation" ploy.
real photographic integrity would be to simply state your philosophy, transparently and honestly discuss your process, and let the work stand as it might.
or we can simply use your definition and categorically state the only master photographers are those that do nothing but shoot in the field, get it perfect (which, don't get me wrong, is still the very heart and soul of great nature & landscape photography!!), and then drop it off at the local walmart for some cheap but 'pure' hack-level post-processing.
and just so you don't get all a-twitter, tom mangelsen is one heck of a fine photographer, doing it right, no matter what his claims and however he manipulates his images. his patience, photographic knowlege, understanding of animal behavior, perserverence, and fine artistic sense are what make him a true 'master.'
www.dvbphotography.com (http://www.dvbphotography.com)
-
... blah-blah-blah ... only master photographers ... do nothing but shoot in the field, get it perfect (which, don't get me wrong, is still the very heart and soul of great nature & landscape photography!! ... blah-blah-blah ...)
Hi Dabreze;
What I got from your diatribe was that, buried within your 625+ words of useless rhetoric was the heart of my point, which was your own admission that the heart and soul of Master Photography is to get it perfect in the field, to remove the excessive need for post process.
Thank you for illustrating my point,
Jack
.
-
Hi Dabreze;
What I got from your diatribe was that, buried within your 625+ words of useless rhetoric was the heart of my point, which was your own admission that the heart and soul of Master Photography is to get it perfect in the field, to remove the excessive need for post process.
Thank you for illustrating my point,
Jack
.
altho there's a lot of good info there, you seem a rather selective reader, to be sure, which illustrates my point . . . arrogant & inexperienced to say the least. peace out!
-
You might want to read about Ansel Adams' "Moonrise Hernandez", arguably one of his best
http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/ansel...s/moonrise.html (http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html)
-
You might want to read about Ansel Adams' "Moonrise Hernandez", arguably one of his best
http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/ansel...s/moonrise.html (http://www.hcc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/moonrise.html)
Good example. The book Ansel Adams at 100 has several versions that Adams created over the years, from the ones with the very pale and nearly white sky to the last ones, and best known, versions with the nearly totally black sky. Different interpretations of the same original. It is also worth noting that Adams spent the better part of his later years in the darkroom, creating new photographs in the field only occasionally. In Mary Alinder's biography of Adams she points out that Moonrise was one of, if not the, most difficult of his images to print.
-
Neither.
Bob
I don't buy this assessment. If I shoot transparencies, drop them off to an E6 lab, retrieve them the next morning and submit selects to an editor, am I not a photographer?
I think this eliminates many successful individuals who would be considered by most to be "photographers."
I realize this interpretation may not have been your intent, but I want to point out that you don't have to do any post processing to be a photographer.
Dave Chew
-
Good example. The book Ansel Adams at 100 has several versions that Adams created over the years, from the ones with the very pale and nearly white sky to the last ones, and best known, versions with the nearly totally black sky. Different interpretations of the same original. It is also worth noting that Adams spent the better part of his later years in the darkroom, creating new photographs in the field only occasionally. In Mary Alinder's biography of Adams she points out that Moonrise was one of, if not the, most difficult of his images to print.
So, are we saying that there's no difference between someone who tries to minimize alterations to their original camera capture and someone who "paints with light" (i.e. anything goes)?? Are we saying that there is no terminology to differentiate between these two ends of the spectrum? Or are we saying that the latter artist type just doesn't want to be typecast? In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms. But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.
-
So, are we saying that there's no difference between someone who tries to minimize alterations to their original camera capture and someone who "paints with light" (i.e. anything goes)?? Are we saying that there is no terminology to differentiate between these two ends of the spectrum? Or are we saying that the latter artist type just doesn't want to be typecast? In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms. But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.
Dale, I think this is a great point. We only have two popular terms: Photojournalist and manipulator. As Alain points out in his article, Just Say Yes (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml), the general public has not caught up to the idea that digital captures can be / are adjusted in much the same ways film captures were (both by the film and by the photographer). It's just done with different tools.
Dave Chew
-
In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms. But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.
But music isn't asked to represent reality. Music is always a creation, a work of art, while photography can be a literal representation (passport photos, some portraits, realty photos of houses, etc.) or a complete interpretation (fine art of various types of subjects).
I think in photography the type of photography (product, portrait, reportage, documentation, fine art, forensic, judicial, etc.) is used as label while in music the type of performance (acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance, etc.) is used as label.
-
I don't buy this assessment. If I shoot transparencies, drop them off to an E6 lab, retrieve them the next morning and submit selects to an editor, am I not a photographer?
I think this eliminates many successful individuals who would be considered by most to be "photographers."
I realize this interpretation may not have been your intent, but I want to point out that you don't have to do any post processing to be a photographer.
Dave Chew
I responded "Neither" to the following question.
If "Man A" spent all day taking film photographs and dumped off a box of negatives with "Man B," and if Man B spent all night developing the images, which of these men would you call the photographer?
I gave an extreme answer to what I considered an extreme question. I consider the question is extremely polarized and quite incomplete. JohnKoerner and I had already established that our definitions of certain terms differ, and I saw (see) no point in extending that discussion. I just said, "No." (And a tip of the hat to Alain!)
In the context of this discussion, which for a while attempted to narrowly define a "master photographer," I don't consider a person not involved in production of the the final image a "photographer," much less a "master photographer." My position in no way invalidates others'. I agree with dalethorn: Compared to other artistic disciplines, photography lacks a vocabulary with which to express where in the multidimensional space of photographic endeavor to place an individual practitioner. We could, perhaps, look to the vocabulary describing painters for queues: realism (obviously!), impressionism, abstract, synthetism, etc.
Is selection from among multiple film exposures a form of postprocessing? That is, if an employee of National Geographic sends 40 rolls of exposed film to headquarters for processing, and the employee works with the photoeditors to downselect from the hundreds of exposures to the 5 that will be published, some of which are extremely similar, is the selection process a form of postprocessing? I think so.
Given the breadth of the term and this discussion to date, everyone reading this discussion is clearly not going to agree on a single definition of "photographer," much less "master photographer." I do think the original question has been addressed, although some seem to ignore the consensus.
Bob
-
Compared to other artistic disciplines, photography lacks a vocabulary with which to express where in the multidimensional space of photographic endeavor to place an individual practitioner. We could, perhaps, look to the vocabulary describing painters for queues: realism (obviously!), impressionism, abstract, synthetism, etc.
Bob
This reflects on the difficulty photography is facing in regards to being accepted as an art form or even to the acknowledgment of the presence of art movements in photography.
-
altho there's a lot of good info there, you seem a rather selective reader, to be sure, which illustrates my point . . . arrogant & inexperienced to say the least. peace out!
LOL, guilty as charged, I can be very arrogant and I most certainly am inexperienced at photography
But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point. There seem to be two conflicting elements to this discussion, and these are the distinction between "photography" and "image making." I suppose there can be further distinctions made between "creating art" and "capturing a scene."
IMO, the attempt to capture a scene with a camera is qua-"photography." Tinkering with something to "produce an image" after the fact is something else. IMO, there is nothing at all wrong with doing "whatever it is you need to do" to compose and present a salable art image. That includes painting and drawing, hell you don't even need a camera. But yet this is not photography.
All of the post processing you are referring to is part of "image making," yes, but it is not qua-photography. For instance, on another thread I posted a flower photo that I totally blew. However, I post-processed it into looking like kind of a neat little drawing. Perhaps someone could call it "art," but it surely could not be called "good photography." In point of fact it was horrible photography. Yet it was still a pleasing image.
"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.
So while there are many ways to create and tinker with software to get an image, it is only when that excellence is achieved through a camera that it can be properly called "photography." This is why I drew an (admittedly off-the-wall) analogy to boxing: there are many ways to win a fight, but only if you do so with your fists can it properly be called "boxing."
The entire point of this thread was there seems to be a move away from "pure photography technique" and a heavier and heavier reliance on "post processing" to produce a pleasing final image. I don't know if this is good or bad. Honestly, I think a person can do whatever he wants to do in order to create a pleasing and saleable image ... but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.
This was my point I was trying to make.
Jack
.
-
I think in photography the type of photography (product, portrait, reportage, documentation, fine art, forensic, judicial, etc.) is used as label while in music the type of performance (acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance, etc.) is used as label.
This is what I was looking for - some rudimentary classification, not so much for style and to be restrictive, but for intent, which allows a lot of flexibility. I expect even a forensics photographer might consider themself an artist, and I don't have a problem with that. So if we're not talking about forensics or reportage, and we are talking about purely personal photography, even Fine Art photography, it should be interesting to see how lines can be drawn within this area.
-
Interestng discussion, which has produced at least one confession of arrogance - as if it were required! - along with the flaunting of excellence in one sphere as validation of opinion in another.
What nonsense. Photography is all things to all men, women and children.
There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.
We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.
Rob C
-
There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.
We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.
Rob C
Photo contests may not respect this inclusiveness, and some of those are quite real, for money and notariety.
-
"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.
One question on this subject going back to the film days: would you consider the choice of developer, developing method (+1, -1 in AA terms), choice of paper (grade etc), dodging/burning, toning, .... etc. PP or "in the field" , or where on this scale would you draw the line between "in the field" and "post shot manipulation"
Nowadays you can get sRGB jpg's right for printing from a camera, in those days no camera produced "images ready for printing right from the camera". If I take this logic to the extreme (which I know I shouldn't) the pure "heart and soul" of photography only exists as of when digital entered the arena.
By the way, I enjoy reading everybodies opinion in this thread. It's a very interesting discussion that helps me form my opinion on how far I want to go with adjusting the scene/viewpoint as well as PP on the pictures I want to make.
It is also my opinion for every photographer/artist to determine what he finds acceptable for his means, as long as there is no dishonesty in claiming things that are not true (i.e saying a zoo shot is taken in free nature, cloning out elements and saying unaltered, etc. etc.).
-
LOL, guilty as charged, I can be very arrogant and I most certainly am inexperienced at photography
But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point. There seem to be two conflicting elements to this discussion, and these are the distinction between "photography" and "image making." I suppose there can be further distinctions made between "creating art" and "capturing a scene."
IMO, the attempt to capture a scene with a camera is qua-"photography." Tinkering with something to "produce an image" after the fact is something else. IMO, there is nothing at all wrong with doing "whatever it is you need to do" to compose and present a salable art image. That includes painting and drawing, hell you don't even need a camera. But yet this is not photography.
All of the post processing you are referring to is part of "image making," yes, but it is not qua-photography. For instance, on another thread I posted a flower photo that I totally blew. However, I post-processed it into looking like kind of a neat little drawing. Perhaps someone could call it "art," but it surely could not be called "good photography." In point of fact it was horrible photography. Yet it was still a pleasing image.
"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.
So while there are many ways to create and tinker with software to get an image, it is only when that excellence is achieved through a camera that it can be properly called "photography." This is why I drew an (admittedly off-the-wall) analogy to boxing: there are many ways to win a fight, but only if you do so with your fists can it properly be called "boxing."
The entire point of this thread was there seems to be a move away from "pure photography technique" and a heavier and heavier reliance on "post processing" to produce a pleasing final image. I don't know if this is good or bad. Honestly, I think a person can do whatever he wants to do in order to create a pleasing and saleable image ... but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.
This was my point I was trying to make.
And the point you are missing entirely is that all photography is manipulation. Where you stand, when you push shutter release, how you light scene, what film/sensor you use, how long you develop the film, what lens you use blah, blah, blah.
Plus as pegelli so astutely points out above, only since digital, has "Getting it perfect in the field". been reality for most of us. Polaroid is possibly the purest form of photography, Take photo, get print. But polaroid tends to be used for more creative endeavours as it's results [nice as they are], are rarely representative/accurate.
Having seen this view that 'digital' manipulation is bad, espoused on numerous ocasions online over some years. I have noticed it is always said by those who are not skilled at digital PPing.
I've seen people rant that a real photographer is a master of lighting and PS is simply evil, when lighting a scene is pure manipulation.
It doesn't matter if you manipulate before or after taking a shot if the manipulation is part of the process of realizing your image. Shooting B+W to me is extreme manipulation as we see in colour and B+W makes things look very, very different, yet rarely is that acknowledged, but boosting colours in your raw developer is somehow seen as horribly manipulative.
As I cannot use B+W film in my camera, I have to manipulate my RAW file to look B+W, whether that be by custom presets for the JPEG or in ACR/LR afterwards. It doesn't really matter when you do this, you are still manipulating scene. I prefer to do it to the RAW files as the camera cannot produce the look I want. I envisaged the scene when shooting, but I can only get a print to look like that if I alter it in my RAW developer/PS and I'm only talking global alterations here.
To my mind a master photographer is one who is not only good at capturing an image, but producing the best version of it out of the camera, whether in a darkroom or lightroom. Even when I shot slide, I would use a specific lab and get images processed in a specific way, using specific films to get the look I wanted. And if you changed any of that, then the images would look different. And subtle differences can make an image look good or simply not very interesting.
Manipulating via compositing or cloning is another area again.
John, the fact that you have studied philosophy is of little relevence, if debating a subject that you are admitedly lacking in experience. As your philosophical viewpoint as is certainly evidenced here, will be coloured by your lack of subject knowledge/understanding.
-
but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.
This was my point I was trying to make.
Jack
Jack,
maybe the issue is that you're trying to think of photography as a single act as opposed to a process.
In order to come to the final image we need to go through a process. Each and every step in the process affects the outcome and each and every step is linked to (if not dependant on) both the previous and following step. To isolate just one step in the process does not have any significant meaning. A stunning capture with horrible processing will result in an image that may be compositionally effective, but nonetheless not pleasing to most. A poorly composed and exposed image with techincally superior processing will, similarly produce an image not pleasing to most.
I think you will go through the same progression as most photographers do and I'll use an anlogy that you may or may not agree with.
I'm an avid flyfisherman and I went through this (like most fishermen do)
Step 1: Try to catch ANY fish...Photo equivalent--Make a good image, of anything
Step 2: Try to catch ALL the fish...Photo equivalent--Make a a lot of good images
Step 3: Try to catch the BIG fish..Photo equivalent--Get people to praise your efforts
Step 4: Try to catch THAT fish..Photo equivalent--Do everything right from the metering to exposure, to processing to printing and finally to the presentation of your finished image. In other words go through the process and do every step "right". Untill you do that, you'll never be able to catch THAT fish....the one you want.
-
Futt Futt
Again, I have to say you are on the money in this one.
Not only is manipulation an unavoidable factor in all forms and decisions concerning the execution of an image, it could be said to start well before any camera is lifted, either in the brief, the self-imposed one or the client´s. Or even in those happy moments of serendipity, for it´s your decision-making mental processes that dictate and manipulate whether or not you recognize the moment for what it is.
Rob C
-
Interestng discussion, which has produced at least one confession of arrogance - as if it were required! - along with the flaunting of excellence in one sphere as validation of opinion in another.
This thread is merely an attempt to have a philosophical discussion. Why must you always try to deride everything?
What nonsense. Photography is all things to all men, women and children.
Huh? Photography is "all things to all men, women and children?" Speaking of definitions nonsense, in point of fact you might have just created a new one.
So you're saying photography = water? Photography = car?
I don't think so. The truth is, qua-Photography (to most minds) is pretty much as Todd provided in his quotations: "The process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a film, or an electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.".
This is the sum and substance of the definition of photography. And the ability to do so well involves a wide variety of skills, judgment calls, perspectives, etc. It is those skills which relate to the camera (and its position and manipulation) that are the subject of this thread.
There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.
No need for definitions huh? This is almost childlike. So I suppose if you were to walk into a store to buy a Nikon D3x, and the shopkeeper brings back a Mikey Mouse watch, "silly you" wouldn't complain as to definitions, eh?
The fact is, clear definitions are absolutely critical to gain an understanding of concepts and to relate these concepts to others. It can effectively be argued that the definition of "confusion" in any subject is a lack of definition when discussing the subject
We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.
Rob C
All of human philosophy and elevated thought comes through such attempts at understanding concepts and arriving at precise definitions that are universally agreed-to. You are the only one playing games and sputtering nonsense in this effort here. If I may digress, I remember reading your efforts to do this on another thread involving Phallic Symbolism. I'd just like to add my $0.02 that IMHO your own arrogance and efforts to trivialize the discussions of others could properly result in you being defined as a "phallic symbol"
Jack
.
-
Jack, reducing everything to the absurd is not a defence; neither is it worthy of your degree. You know perfectly well what I am saying; if you do not, then I´m really quite sorry for you.
Rob C
-
And the point you are missing entirely is that all photography is manipulation. Where you stand, when you push shutter release, how you light scene, what film/sensor you use, how long you develop the film, what lens you use blah, blah, blah.
Plus as pegelli so astutely points out above, only since digital, has "Getting it perfect in the field". been reality for most of us. Polaroid is possibly the purest form of photography, Take photo, get print. But polaroid tends to be used for more creative endeavours as it's results [nice as they are], are rarely representative/accurate.
I am not missing this point, I am focusing on this point: the art of photography only, the positioning of oneself, one's camera, and the selection of the camera, all of its components, lighting, etc. over the "post process."
Having seen this view that 'digital' manipulation is bad, espoused on numerous ocasions online over some years. I have noticed it is always said by those who are not skilled at digital PPing.
I've seen people rant that a real photographer is a master of lighting and PS is simply evil, when lighting a scene is pure manipulation.
It doesn't matter if you manipulate before or after taking a shot if the manipulation is part of the process of realizing your image. Shooting B+W to me is extreme manipulation as we see in colour and B+W makes things look very, very different, yet rarely is that acknowledged, but boosting colours in your raw developer is somehow seen as horribly manipulative.
As I cannot use B+W film in my camera, I have to manipulate my RAW file to look B+W, whether that be by custom presets for the JPEG or in ACR/LR afterwards. It doesn't really matter when you do this, you are still manipulating scene. I prefer to do it to the RAW files as the camera cannot produce the look I want. I envisaged the scene when shooting, but I can only get a print to look like that if I alter it in my RAW developer/PS and I'm only talking global alterations here.
Again you misquote me and misunderstand my thread. I never said post process is bad or evil.
To my mind a master photographer is one who is not only good at capturing an image, but producing the best version of it out of the camera, whether in a darkroom or lightroom. Even when I shot slide, I would use a specific lab and get images processed in a specific way, using specific films to get the look I wanted. And if you changed any of that, then the images would look different. And subtle differences can make an image look good or simply not very interesting.
Manipulating via compositing or cloning is another area again.
John, the fact that you have studied philosophy is of little relevence, if debating a subject that you are admitedly lacking in experience. As your philosophical viewpoint as is certainly evidenced here, will be coloured by your lack of subject knowledge/understanding.
You see, the truth is simply this: capturing and producing an image requires more effort than mere photography. Your message is (and I understand this) that post process is required and part of the deal. And really, nowadays, it also involves the "pre-process" of AWB, AF, and everything automated.
The point I am trying to make is the more I get sidetracked and try to rely on these other elements to produce my images, the less and less the art of "pure photography only" I am focusing on.
I would simply like to polish my craft and skills at the camera end more than anything else. It is my belief that if I do so, and if I really do become truly proficient in operating my camera, that my "computer end" time will be minimized. This does not mean I don't wish to become proficient in my software, or that I believe software manipulation is "bad," far from it. It is simply a personal goal to try to create images that need little or no work, which can only come from perfection of skill in photography.
I am now shooting my camera only in full "M" mode, just so I can try to learn and do as much as I can on my own. Perhaps my beliefs are naive.
Jack
-
Jack,
maybe the issue is that you're trying to think of photography as a single act as opposed to a process.
In order to come to the final image we need to go through a process. Each and every step in the process affects the outcome and each and every step is linked to (if not dependant on) both the previous and following step. To isolate just one step in the process does not have any significant meaning. A stunning capture with horrible processing will result in an image that may be compositionally effective, but nonetheless not pleasing to most. A poorly composed and exposed image with techincally superior processing will, similarly produce an image not pleasing to most.
I think you will go through the same progression as most photographers do and I'll use an anlogy that you may or may not agree with.
I'm an avid flyfisherman and I went through this (like most fishermen do)
Step 1: Try to catch ANY fish...Photo equivalent--Make a good image, of anything
Step 2: Try to catch ALL the fish...Photo equivalent--Make a a lot of good images
Step 3: Try to catch the BIG fish..Photo equivalent--Get people to praise your efforts
Step 4: Try to catch THAT fish..Photo equivalent--Do everything right from the metering to exposure, to processing to printing and finally to the presentation of your finished image. In other words go through the process and do every step "right". Untill you do that, you'll never be able to catch THAT fish....the one you want.
I am not sure about your fish analogy ( ), but I do understand that photography is but one act (several combined acts, really) and but part of the whole process of image-making. I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.
This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself
.
-
Jack, reducing everything to the absurd is not a defence; neither is it worthy of your degree. You know perfectly well what I am saying; if you do not, then I´m really quite sorry for you.
Rob C
Did I reduce things to the absurd?
Or could it be you are being defensive for saying the absurd things to begin with?
-
I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.
This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself
A noble intention, to be sure, and I would be silliy to discourage it, but I don't see any reason that you can't hone your skills at all aspects of image making simultaneously. I think you'll benefit more from that than isolating a specific step, "perfecting" it and then going on the next step only to realize that the previous one needs modification to fit in the process.
-
I am not sure about your fish analogy ( ), but I do understand that photography is but one act (several combined acts, really) and but part of the whole process of image-making. I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.
This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself
A fine goal. Just keep your eye on the prize. Unless you're shooting Jpegs or Slides your images are going to be input to whatever process, exaggerated or limited, that creates your output. So whatever your post processing is going to be make sure your images are optimized for it.
-
Did I reduce things to the absurd?
Or could it be you are being defensive for saying the absurd things to begin with?
Yes, I do think you are reducing to the absurd; no, I do not think my views were absurd any more than I think that you really so think them.
But I tire of your efforts to exercise your imaginary superiority and so I leave you to enjoy the attempts on your own.
Buenas noches
Rob C
-
I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.
This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself
Hi Jack,
I don't want to repeat my post from earlier (somewhere on page 5) but I'm still intrigued by the question where in the film era you draw the line between "pure photography" and "post processing". No film camera (except maybe polaroids) ever produced a pure image w/o manipulation only concentrating on "patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end. Only when we got digital we started producing in camera jpg's that this can be done with. Even the choice of Velvia vs. Kodachrome can be seen as moving the saturation slider in a computer program.
Btw I have as much admiration for people who can get an in camera jpg fully right the first time w/o any post processing (like Mangelson) as I have for people who can pre-visualise their PP process, shoot a picture and create their vision afterwards by using the PP tools. If I could achieve either one I'd be very happy, allthough I would personally more err to the latter.
-
Btw I have as much admiration for people who can get an in camera jpg fully right the first time w/o any post processing (like Mangelson) as I have for people who can pre-visualise their PP process, shoot a picture and create their vision afterwards by using the PP tools. If I could achieve either one I'd be very happy, allthough I would personally more err to the latter.
I agree, but I'd go further even a little further with that and say that if you're NOT pre-visualizing your post during a shoot, you're not really at the highest level of photography, even if your plan for post is to not do any. Using an in camera JPEG or even a Polaroid is still a plan, and you still have to anticipate the consequences of that plan and shoot accordingly.
I'll be brave and throw some of my work (http://jeffberardi.com/windows_gallery/index.html) out there as an example. Shooting into windows often compresses the dynamic range of a scene, especially if the contrast in the scene isn't high to begin with. A lot of those images showed up on the camera histogram as a single spike of luminance. So what I do is, push that spike as far to the right as possible, and then in post I work to spread that information out into a proper distribution of tones. Without pushing the tones back down where they belong, the images don't look like hardly anything at all-- no saturation, no detail, just a big blurry high-key wash. But let's say I'm shooting JPEG instead. If that was the case, I wouldn't try to expose all the way to the right, because JPEGs don't react the same way as RAWs when you try to pull more out of them. I'd expose as close to the final product as possible (at the shots would suck, but that's neither here nor there.)
Now, none of this is to diminish the importance of getting the right exposure while you're shooting. Just the opposite-- I don't want to spend all my time polishing turds in post, and I doubt there's many who do. Shot discipline, to borrow a term from Thom Hogan (I think), is critically important to top-quality photography. What I'm trying to get at though, is that the relationship between shooting and post is highly intertwined, and in fact, the intended post-processes actually dictates what the proper capture is. To put this in real terms: hand the world's most technically skilled shooter a film body, tell him it's loaded with T-Max 3200, and actually load it with Velvia 50. See how good the shots come out.
Ok, so what's my point with all this then? It's that you can't separate capture from post. They're just two parts of the same processes, the heart and the brain. One can't exist without the other. Together, they form a functioning body, and we call that body Photography.
-
Yes, I do think you are reducing to the absurd; no, I do not think my views were absurd any more than I think that you really so think them.
But I tire of your efforts to exercise your imaginary superiority and so I leave you to enjoy the attempts on your own.
Buenas noches
Rob C
Rob, what you got tired of was your own unsolicited attempts to demonstrate "imaginary superiority" being turned on their head.
Nighty-night
-
A noble intention, to be sure, and I would be silliy to discourage it, but I don't see any reason that you can't hone your skills at all aspects of image making simultaneously. I think you'll benefit more from that than isolating a specific step, "perfecting" it and then going on the next step only to realize that the previous one needs modification to fit in the process.
You are probably correct. There is no getting around some sort of post-process with a digital camera, so it only makes sense to learn how to do it well.
A fine goal. Just keep your eye on the prize. Unless you're shooting Jpegs or Slides your images are going to be input to whatever process, exaggerated or limited, that creates your output. So whatever your post processing is going to be make sure your images are optimized for it.
Thanks.
-
Hi Jack,
I don't want to repeat my post from earlier (somewhere on page 5) but I'm still intrigued by the question where in the film era you draw the line between "pure photography" and "post processing".
Hello Pegeli;
IMO, the line is drawn after your finger pushes the shutter release button.
No film camera (except maybe polaroids) ever produced a pure image w/o manipulation only concentrating on "patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end. Only when we got digital we started producing in camera jpg's that this can be done with. Even the choice of Velvia vs. Kodachrome can be seen as moving the saturation slider in a computer program.
It is my opinion that a "pure photographer," after he pushes the button, can take his film (disc) and give it to someone else to process. The man who worked the camera is the photographer. The man who deals with post-process is the developer. The consensus is to become proficient in all aspects. The advantage to this is clear, but my hope is to get everything else right beforehand so I don't have to spend as much time fiddling with it.
Btw I have as much admiration for people who can get an in camera jpg fully right the first time w/o any post processing (like Mangelson) as I have for people who can pre-visualise their PP process, shoot a picture and create their vision afterwards by using the PP tools. If I could achieve either one I'd be very happy, allthough I would personally more err to the latter.
I do admire both as well. Both are necessary skills that must be present. My primary interest is in photography, however, yet I grudgingly acknowledge that I must learn to become at least decently competent in software manipulation to get the most of my images. It is something that does not pique my interest though, so my goal is to become proficient enough on the camera-end to make the other efforts minimal.
Jack
.
-
JBerardi says you can't separate the capture from the PP. But that's like saying "business is business", which implies something not stated. The implication being that because you have to PP, therefore intent doesn't matter - it's all the same no matter what you do or how you do it.
One of the ways LF and MF bests most small cameras is the ability to capture with minimal distortions with camera movements. Correcting distortions from little cameras is certainly OK, but not arguable as the "right" way just because anything goes.
Are people here arguing that because I have to PP for convenience, because I want to use a little 3-lb camera instead of a Big Rig, that that equates to the "right" way, due to choices on the capture end that limit the quality of my results?
I know what a big camera can do, and I want as much of that as I can get, along with the convenience of using a small camera, so I'm not forced into so much lab work, and into justifying it.
I'm not arguing against anything goes art, just that it's reasonable to call it what it is.
-
It is my opinion that a "pure photographer," after he pushes the button, can take his film (disc) and give it to someone else to process. The man who worked the camera is the photographer. The man who deals with post-process is the developer. The consensus is to become proficient in all aspects. The advantage to this is clear, but my hope is to get everything else right beforehand so I don't have to spend as much time fiddling with it.
Hi Jack,
I don't agree with this for film processing. After the shutter is pushed there are still a lot of variables to set to get the latent image on the film transferred to paper/slide. Eg. choice of developer, developing time, choice of paper grade (and it's developer) etc. etc. In my mind all very equivalent to PP we do in a computer these days.
Secondly I also don't agree there is a difference (now I'm talking digital) in photographic "pureness" between for instance choosing vivid picture style in a camera and using the saturation or vibrance slider in a picture editing program. Also in your definition someone who shoots raw can never be a "pure photographer". I think there is nobody shooting raw and then trusting a raw converter default settings to produce his pure photographic masterpiece.
Obviously you are free to use your definition of "pure photographer" that way, but if you do the term has no relevance for me.
-
JBerardi says you can't separate the capture from the PP. But that's like saying "business is business", which implies something not stated. The implication being that because you have to PP, therefore intent doesn't matter - it's all the same no matter what you do or how you do it.
One of the ways LF and MF bests most small cameras is the ability to capture with minimal distortions with camera movements. Correcting distortions from little cameras is certainly OK, but not arguable as the "right" way just because anything goes.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's absolutely the last thing I was trying to imply. Quite the opposite, in fact.
To use your example: correcting geometric distortions in PS certainly not the optimal way to do things, so those who need non-distorted images tend to do it in the capture. I doubt people like running more complicated cameras and more expensive lenses, but the lack of a good post production solution to the problem necessitates that it be solved during capture. It's a relationship; one directly effects the other and you have to consider what you're going to be able to/need to achieve in post before you can optimize your capture. You can't shoot film at it's regular ISO and then decide you want to push it in post, that ship has sailed. If you expose for a JPEG and your camera's JPEG engine clips highlights... even if you shoot a raw along with the highlights, it's going to be somewhat underexposed. Etc. The two processes don't exist in isolation from each other, and intent absolutely matters, because it's not the same no matter what you do or how you do it.
-
You know, the image is the thing, not the process. You don't really get any points for trying hard, if the photo is a piece of crap.
So you could get everything perfectly set up, take the perfect shot, and still have a piece of crap because even *no* post-processing can screw things up. In fact, *no* post processing can probably screw things up as much as post processing can.
If you take the perfect shot, pop it into the computer, and run it out the Epson, there's very little chance that it'll look like you want it to, or like the actual scene, or anything except like the Epson engineer wanted it to look. If you like Porta and the Epson engineer liked Velvia, you're screwed. Excellent post processing can make an optimally exposed photograph *better* when the camera is unable to completely deal with the conditions of the shot -- and when you're shooting outside, in my experience, that's better than half the time.
Ansel Adams had other people print for him, but he knew exposure and he knew what could be done with the neg, and what his printers should be able to get, and he supervised the production of his images. Judging from the books he wrote, I don't think he really believed the shooting and the processing could be separated from each other - after all, that's what the zone system was all about.
JC
-
Ansel Adams had other people print for him, but he knew exposure and he knew what could be done with the neg, and what his printers should be able to get, and he supervised the production of his images. Judging from the books he wrote, I don't think he really believed the shooting and the processing could be separated from each other - after all, that's what the zone system was all about.
JC
I used the Zone system, and I can tell you that there's a huge difference between it (a simple calculation with no 'diddling', object replacement, color adjustments, etc.) and the PP that "artists" do in PS. These arguments that equate minimal adjustments to correct problems with "anything goes" are specious at best.
-
I used the Zone system, and I can tell you that there's a huge difference between it (a simple calculation with no 'diddling', object replacement, color adjustments, etc.) and the PP that "artists" do in PS. These arguments that equate minimal adjustments to correct problems with "anything goes" are specious at best.
I haven't seen anybody say "anything goes" in this thread, and it's more about the boundaries between no or modest PP after pressing the shutter that is at stake here.
Look here what I said about overdoing PP (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20686&st=140&p=264607&#entry264607)
-
I used the Zone system, and I can tell you that there's a huge difference between it (a simple calculation with no 'diddling', object replacement, color adjustments, etc.) and the PP that "artists" do in PS. These arguments that equate minimal adjustments to correct problems with "anything goes" are specious at best.
Well, that's a strawman if I ever saw one. No one is using the zone system to justify overdone PS hackery.
The zone system is, in fact, a system of optimizing your capture in order to achieve a desired result in post-production. My whole point is that shooting that way is not only valid, but admirable and in fact necessary to get the best possible result.
-
I haven't seen anybody say "anything goes" in this thread, and it's more about the boundaries between no or modest PP after pressing the shutter that is at stake here.
Look here what I said about overdoing PP (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20686&st=140&p=264607&#entry264607)
Actually, Pegelli, our forum phallic symbol said exactly that:
I thnk we are slipping into the realm of photo-fiction with this thread. Exciting as it is, I believe that integrity and photography have only one zone where they might meet, should meet or that it matters a jot if they fail to so do: and that is legal evidence.
Anything else is free country, yours to rape and pillage, sack and burn, embellish and venerate. The world is lying on its back for you: what are you waiting for?
Rob C
-
Hi Jack,
I don't agree with this for film processing. After the shutter is pushed there are still a lot of variables to set to get the latent image on the film transferred to paper/slide. Eg. choice of developer, developing time, choice of paper grade (and it's developer) etc. etc. In my mind all very equivalent to PP we do in a computer these days.
Well, but aren't all of these things part of "developing" and "printing," but not the actual photography.
The traditional concept of "Photography" is the act of image capturing, not the act of post-processing. This is why the people we call "photographers" can drop-off their negatives to the people we call "developers." I actually think the definitions are pretty clear.
Secondly I also don't agree there is a difference (now I'm talking digital) in photographic "pureness" between for instance choosing vivid picture style in a camera and using the saturation or vibrance slider in a picture editing program. Also in your definition someone who shoots raw can never be a "pure photographer". I think there is nobody shooting raw and then trusting a raw converter default settings to produce his pure photographic masterpiece.
Obviously you are free to use your definition of "pure photographer" that way, but if you do the term has no relevance for me.
Well, I do see your point, but I also respectfully disagree with it. There is a difference. One technique is part of the capturing process and the other is part of the editing process, post-capture. Stricktly-speaking, the accepted definition of photography has been stated a few pages ago by Todd, and can be found in most dictionaries. Photography is the art of capturing the image, not processing it afterward. The latter skillset is developing the captured image.
Jack
.
-
You know, the image is the thing, not the process. You don't really get any points for trying hard, if the photo is a piece of crap.
Good point. And in the end I have to agree with you. Still, no one was really arguing that "trying hard" is where it's at. I believe the discussion was in mastering photographic technique, which involves more than just "trying," but actually getting to that point.
So you could get everything perfectly set up, take the perfect shot, and still have a piece of crap because even *no* post-processing can screw things up. In fact, *no* post processing can probably screw things up as much as post processing can.
If you take the perfect shot, pop it into the computer, and run it out the Epson, there's very little chance that it'll look like you want it to, or like the actual scene, or anything except like the Epson engineer wanted it to look. If you like Porta and the Epson engineer liked Velvia, you're screwed. Excellent post processing can make an optimally exposed photograph *better* when the camera is unable to completely deal with the conditions of the shot -- and when you're shooting outside, in my experience, that's better than half the time.
JC
Another good point. But is this true with film or only digital?
Ansel Adams had other people print for him, but he knew exposure and he knew what could be done with the neg, and what his printers should be able to get, and he supervised the production of his images. Judging from the books he wrote, I don't think he really believed the shooting and the processing could be separated from each other - after all, that's what the zone system was all about.
JC
But in delegating the processing of his images, and in merely supervising same, is not Mr. Adams in point of fact bifurcating the distinction between "photographer" and "developer?"
Jack
.
-
But in delegating the processing of his images, and in merely supervising same, is not Mr. Adams in point of fact bifurcating the distinction between "photographer" and "developer?"
Not as long as the minion does things to AA's specs. Seems like an effective way of doing post.
-
Well, I do see your point, but I also respectfully disagree with it. There is a difference. One technique is part of the capturing process and the other is part of the editing process, post-capture. Stricktly-speaking, the accepted definition of photography has been stated a few pages ago by Todd, and can be found in most dictionaries. Photography is the art of capturing the image, not processing it afterward. The latter skillset is developing the captured image.
Jack
In regards to setting saturation in-camera versus setting it in "post", I'll respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement, and here's why:
Just because an adjustment is being made in-camera, doesn't mean it's not part of the post processes. The camera captures the image, then it adjusts the raw file to produce a JPEG. Your RAW file remains unchanged. I mean, if you could fit a tiny little lab tech into a film camera*, and he processes your film before you ever took it out, would that somehow make the development of the film NOT count as post-processes? Because that's essentially what setting your saturation (or whatever else) in-camera is doing.
*This has sort of happened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/011120.htm), actually.
-
Well, but aren't all of these things part of "developing" and "printing," but not the actual photography.
The traditional concept of "Photography" is the act of image capturing, not the act of post-processing. This is why the people we call "photographers" can drop-off their negatives to the people we call "developers." I actually think the definitions are pretty clear.
Just capturing a latent image is only the first step, developing and printing are the part that makes this captured latent image visible is integral to the process. As lang as there are decisions to be made in those next steps that change the rendering of the latent image there is in my mind no distinction between that and moving a few sliders "dilligently" in a PP software program.
Well, I do see your point, but I also respectfully disagree with it. There is a difference. One technique is part of the capturing process and the other is part of the editing process, post-capture. Stricktly-speaking, the accepted definition of photography has been stated a few pages ago by Todd, and can be found in most dictionaries. Photography is the art of capturing the image, not processing it afterward. The latter skillset is developing the captured image.
.
I knew you would, otherwise I wouldn't have written it this way. I'm only surprized by the addition of "respectfully"
OK let me say again that I respectfully allow you your definition of a "pure photographer". I would say you'll find very few, if not none that meet that definition.
-
Hmmm ... somewhere between all of this vigorous hair-splitting, the respectful-respecting (and the disrespectful-disrespecting) ... I think an original basic point has been lost
I do appreciate most of the input, but it seems to me this horse isn't going anywhere anymore, so I think I am going to dismount
Thanks,
-
I do appreciate most of the input, but it seems to me this horse isn't going anywhere anymore, so I think I am going to dismount
Hi Jack, agree and I'll dismount as well. I've also never seen a thread where so many times there was agreement to disagree on items people actually agreed on (respectfully or disrespectfully)
By the way, I liked the discussion as well and also pointed me to a website (Mangelson's) that I didn't know but really like the pictures on.
-
I think this discussion has potential, mostly unrealized because people are trying hard to say that there's no significant difference between processing in-camera and post processing, and/or no significant difference between minimizing post processing versus maximizing it, as long as you're satisfied with your own rules.
So I though I'd add one more perspective. I consider myself to be a purist, yet I do some PP that other purists may find objectionable. Instead of spending a lot of time composing, I just try to get to an interesting place to shoot a photo, then bracket as best I can for the frame and the exposure, allowing extra around the edges for rotate and crop. Then back in the lab, I experiment with whatever small rotation is needed to get it right (minimal), then crop to the final frame, then whatever other minor adjustments need to be made due to camera limitations, do as few as are needed.
I did a lot less of this with film, due partly to the more cumbersome methods of rotating and cropping, and partly due to the film usually giving a better look than what I get with digital, which is less predictable.
But the basic intent is exactly the same, despite the different approaches - to try to capture an image, rather than create it. And I don't have a problem with creating, I'd just prefer it be labeled.
-
ALL images are created, not captured. In dutch me actually say "make" a picture not "take" a picture.
ALL images are created and a distortion of any objective viewpoint. To say one is a purist in this is to say you are fundamentally holding on to a subjective viewpoint and calling it something of more value than another viewpoint. It is to say a human sees better than a bee, or a wide angle is a better representation of 'reality' than a telephoto...and on and on...
It IS obvious that we represent ideas more than anything actually material or physical when we take a photograph. And though I DO think the universe itself is composed of ideas, as to what they are, if they can be quantified, or where they reside is probably unanswerable.
I suppose you could argue that the status quo defines what this idea of 'more pure' photography is. But otherwise I would be hard pressed to be able to come up with a definition of it, so how could using photoshop NOT just be just another part of this process, like using a Skylight Filter or a certain Film Type.How could it be otherwise?
-
I think this discussion has potential, mostly unrealized because people are trying hard to say that there's no significant difference between processing in-camera and post processing, and/or no significant difference between minimizing post processing versus maximizing it, as long as you're satisfied with your own rules.
Not to be rude, but who exactly is saying that? I'm not seeing it.
-
ALL images are created, not captured.
False on its face. Many people pick up a camera and snap and that's it. Files *captured* are displayed on the monitor - not even printed.
You could say that digital images are an interpretation of whatever, but they're still captures until you do something besides capture (press the shutter).
Why would you insist on "made"? To then jump to the next point, that the shooter intends to "create"? Sure, you can argue semantics, but demonstrate how a person who snaps only is the same as a person who also post processes. Not just two different concepts - two different worlds.
-
False on its face. Many people pick up a camera and snap and that's it. Files *captured* are displayed on the monitor - not even printed.
You could say that digital images are an interpretation of whatever, but they're still captures until you do something besides capture (press the shutter).
Why would you insist on "made"? To then jump to the next point, that the shooter intends to "create"? Sure, you can argue semantics, but demonstrate how a person who snaps only is the same as a person who also post processes. Not just two different concepts - two different worlds.
They aren't captured at all...but made by all the technical instruments and evaluations (and there are many), by the camera that is being used. Printing is hardly the bifurcation point of something becoming 'more real', it is just derivative of the initial process. The initial process always being pre-visualisation...what one 'decides' to capture,take,make,whatever... in the first place. That is the territory of ideas..whether they be subconscious or intentional. The 'post-processing' is everything that happens after that. The amount of post-processing makes no difference to this fundamental idea.
-
One of the underlying faults of this discussion is the idea that what the camera captures is a neutral "reality," when, in fact, it's not. If you shoot under florescent lights, the shots will be green, even though your eyes didn't see the environment as green, because your brain adjusted its white-point. So when you post-process your images to a better white point, what you're doing is struggling to adjust a machine capture to a brain capture. There's nothing fake about that.
I agree with Jack about at least one thing: the person who does the capture is the creative one, the artist, the journalist, whatever, when the intention is "straight" photography. The function of the post-processor is essentially technical, in the sense that he is making adjustments to fit a particular straight vision. You can see this in an interesting way in the relationship between James Nachtwey and his darkroom man in the film "War Photographer."
But then there's the other side, in which the capture may be essentially irrelevant, compared to what was done later. Andy Warhol looked for certain kinds of photographs of Marilyn, Mao, Jackie Kennedy, etc., and then, through selection, post processing, and conversion to a different form of printing (silk screen) he turned them into art. The same is true in this recent controversy about the Obama poster image -- the original photographic image showed little imagination, little technique, little of anything creative -- the creative work was what happened when the artist re-processed the image.
There's a mistake in arguing that these two things are the same, or even similar, or that one necessarily follows the other. They may be quite distinct. Or, they may not be. Jack's problem is that he apparently believes that the camera is a neutral arbiter, and if he adjusts it correctly, it'll do all the work. Well, no. He's got the raw material, but then he needs to make the print, because there are a million ways to make the print, and if he's not involved in that, then the final work will be as much a product of the printer's imagination as it is of his.
-
I agree with Jack about at least one thing: the person who does the capture is the creative one, the artist, the journalist, whatever, when the intention is "straight" photography. The function of the post-processor is essentially technical, in the sense that he is making adjustments to fit a particular straight vision. You can see this in an interesting way in the relationship between James Nachtwey and his darkroom man in the film "War Photographer."
That's probably true in most cases, but what about, say, W. Eugene Smith (http://www.ralphmag.org/BK/man-on-street-smith290x817.gif). I'd consider his stuff "straight" photography, but there's no way he could ever have just handed his negatives off to another printer and achieved the same results. His creative process did not end until he had the final print... and designed his own layouts... and wrote his own captions.... and quit whatever publication he was working for in disgust over their meddling with his work in any way. Point being, the creative processes does not stop with the capture for some photographers, regardless of how "straight" the photography in question might be.
-
I am an artist and I use the camera to make my initial sketch. As such I'm far closer to the accepted definition of art than perhaps the bastard art form known as photography. You either want to call photography art - in which case anything goes - or you call it a new definition 'photography' which you have to define. Given that most photographers are desperate to consider their work an art form, why on earth would they limit it within boundries non existent in any other creation of art? I personally would hate for my work to be defined as simply captured rather than created as that says a lot about whether what I have produced is art. Between what I have in my mind and the finished image presented to the public - everything in between - is just an annoyingly necessary process. I refuse to let that process define my presentation of the image I had in my thoughts. You don't call that photography? Fine, but it is art. I know what I prefer. Believe me that if I could draw or paint or sculpt to express my thoughts and emotions I wouldn't bother with the machine known as a camera. Either photography is art or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.
Brings to mind Alain's new series. Pure Art. His expertise makes it objectively good art. If he had painted it to express the same vision, that vision would have been expressed just as well. He used a camera as his paintbrush, the results - magnificent.
You can almost always tell the difference between someone taking a good 'photograph' and someone trying to express a vision through photography. I believe the latter is art, the former is just knowing when to press a button and usually does not invoke emotion or connection upon viewing.
-
I am an artist and I use the camera to make my initial sketch.invoke emotion or connection upon viewing.
pom
I am not certain what you mean: are you saying that you take a photograph as an aide memoire (ironically, can´t depend on my own to know whether that takes a hyphen) from which you paint, or are you saying that your original photo is later manipulated into something else but still in photographic form? If you mean simply that you paint from photos, so do millions of other artists; if you make highly altered photos from your first shot then you are still a photographer, I guess.
But I love the upfront: I am an artist, even if, obviously, I can´t understand what that currently means.
I have a question of my own for you. As you may or may not have gathered over the years via posts here, my professional life was within the world of model photography; now retired and unwilling/unable to pay big bucks to these girls, I have two options: stop altogether or find a pasture new. Recent very painful personal events have pushed me into realising that sanity consists of, or might be found in, keeping busy, so I have turned the quest for that pasture into this, and hence the question for you, two, in fact, for the price of one: I make a painting, which I then photograph in sections, and from the files I produce digital colour prints. Once I have the stuff on file I delete the original painting and create a new one in its physical space/place and the process start again with fresh material. So, is that art, photography or possibly both at the same time? And where stands its integrity?
Rob C
-
pom
I have a question of my own for you. As you may or may not have gathered over the years via posts here, my professional life was within the world of model photography; now retired and unwilling/unable to pay big bucks to these girls, I have two options: stop altogether or find a pasture new. Recent very painful personal events have pushed me into realising that sanity consists of, or might be found in, keeping busy, so I have turned the quest for that pasture into this, and hence the question for you, two, in fact, for the price of one: I make a painting, which I then photograph in sections, and from the files I produce digital colour prints. Once I have the stuff on file I delete the original painting and create a new one in its physical space/place and the process start again with fresh material. So, is that art, photography or possibly both at the same time? And where stands its integrity?
My view is that it is indeed art. You just happen to be using a camera for part of it. Plus, using a camera does not disqualify the end result from being art. The lack of creative process is the disqualifier.
Integrity in art? Unless you are trying to deceitful, why would it not have integrity. Deceitful could mean for example - selling prints as limited, when you are not limiting them.
-
You argue well. You could do a part on Boston Legal. Unfortunately, you're wrong here. Way wrong. I know the meaning of 'capture', and what the meaning of the word is is. And 'capture' describes the full essence of what my camera does. Perhaps your camera is different. Good for you. The smile lives on after the cat is gone. Not only does my camera capture scenes, it captures souls. Just ask any of many aboriginal peoples around the globe. They know what capture means, instinctively even. Enough of these semantics. Back to capturing a few more souls. Perhaps your camera *makes* souls, like a god. Wow!
They aren't captured at all...but made by all the technical instruments and evaluations (and there are many), by the camera that is being used. Printing is hardly the bifurcation point of something becoming 'more real', it is just derivative of the initial process. The initial process always being pre-visualisation...what one 'decides' to capture,take,make,whatever... in the first place. That is the territory of ideas..whether they be subconscious or intentional. The 'post-processing' is everything that happens after that. The amount of post-processing makes no difference to this fundamental idea.
-
pom
I am not certain what you mean: are you saying that you take a photograph as an aide memoire (ironically, can´t depend on my own to know whether that takes a hyphen) from which you paint, or are you saying that your original photo is later manipulated into something else but still in photographic form? If you mean simply that you paint from photos, so do millions of other artists; if you make highly altered photos from your first shot then you are still a photographer, I guess.
Hi,
I meant that I paint using a camera instead of a brush. Just as an artists sketch serves as the base for the final painting, the camera's RAW image is just the very beginning of the transition from the idea I had in my mind when I stood there to the final 'painting'. The idea that a pure capture defines the medium of photography as art is an utter hypocrisy.
-
Given that most photographers are desperate to consider their work an art form, why on earth would they limit it within boundries non existent in any other creation of art?
Brings to mind Alain's new series. Pure Art. His expertise makes it objectively good art. If he had painted it to express the same vision, that vision would have been expressed just as well. He used a camera as his paintbrush, the results - magnificent.
You can almost always tell the difference between someone taking a good 'photograph' and someone trying to express a vision through photography. I believe the latter is art, the former is just knowing when to press a button and usually does not invoke emotion or connection upon viewing.
Yes.
-
His statement is probably pointed towards some that use digital manipulation to place wildlife into an image, not the capture medium.
Precisely. There are books by artists who duplicate animals in the shots to create a larger herd etc. This is what Mangelsen is opposed to,
Mapping a slide onto paper requires some adjustments to look good, that's a whole separate issue.
-
Given that most photographers are desperate to consider their work an art form, why on earth would they limit it within boundries non existent in any other creation of art?
But other art forms DO place such restrictions upon themselves. That's why some actors prefer live theater, while others prefer working in movies or television. Or why some musicians' recordings are better than their live shows. That's how I view this "straight vs processed" discussion. One is not automatically better than the other. They're just different.
-
'capture' describes the full essence of what my camera does.
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. It makes data bytes from pixels on the sensor. The light is captured on the sensor pixels, but the light is not made. Someone can say that the image is made, but that's just someone's imagination. The light is converted to pixels, and then to computer data bytes. If the image (data bytes) were truly made by the camera, we would never know
what we're capturing. A large part of what the photographic industry is dedicated to is similar to what the high-end audio industry was dedicated to in the 1970's - reproduction of a scene. The more closely or "accurately" the recording machine can capture the scene, the more consistent will be the results, and that's what pro photographers are looking for on the capture (camera) end - more consistency, more faithfulness to the original scene.
Nobody I know wants their camera to make "artistic" decisions on capture - they want those decisions to be made in the lab. In the 1970's, many critics and manufacturers argued for audio hardware to "interpret" sound, to be like a fine musical instrument. That notion was universally rejected by better thinking people. I don't see any difference with cameras. Cameras should get out of the way as much as possible, and pass the original light straight to the data file with as faithful a capture as possible. Fortunately, that's the direction we are actually going.
-
I don't consider a person not involved in production of the the final image a "photographer,"
One might consider the process of making the image with a camera on slide film photography, and the reproducing the image on a magazine or in a poster the act of making copies. There may be artistic judgment involved in the latter part (since the media are different, some judgment is involved) but only if its made with light in the darkroom is the making of the print photography; if it is done in photoshop it is digital image editing - no light is involved so it can't be photography.
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.
-
Wow, those last two posts by Dalethorn and Inissila hit the bullseye.
Thank you for articulating what I myself couldn't quite put into words ...
.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
May be i missed something in this thread, but why not ask Mangelsen what he means with not manipulating his images.
Regards,
Jan R.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
.
-
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?"
-
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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?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
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?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 (http://www.uelsmann.com/) or Hag (http://www.hagsphotography.com/WebImages/index.htm). 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.
-
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 (http://www.uelsmann.com/) or Hag (http://www.hagsphotography.com/WebImages/index.htm). 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."
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/rofl2.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
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
.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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 (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.
-
Photographers have been doing this stuff forever.
You're right about one thing though, there's very little blood left in this particular turnip.
Not a very interesting subject when you state the obvious. Finding truth requires more effort. People calling themselves artists when what they do is manufacture and remanufacture their "art" for clients who are too burnt out or jaded to be able to appreciate unvarnished art - they are artists of a sort, just not that interesting.
-
Not a very interesting subject when you state the obvious. Finding truth requires more effort. People calling themselves artists when what they do is manufacture and remanufacture their "art" for clients who are too burnt out or jaded to be able to appreciate unvarnished art - they are artists of a sort, just not that interesting.
It's not very a very interesting subject when people keep redefining the subject to suit their own purposes. I wasn't arguing that darkroom/digital photo manipulations count as art, just that they count as photography under our shared nomenclature. But, I can address the artistic issue as well.
Let me quote something else you said:
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.
Your attitude, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that art that isn't "raw" or "unvarnished" is automatically inferior to art which is. To me, this is lazy thinking. Live recordings aren't automatically good or bad, neither are studio albums with a billion overdubs. They are simply two different mediums/methods, with their own advantages and drawbacks. Some musical compositions are better performed live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjRdKxYYv44) and/or raw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss-AUjwHD_Y), some work better recorded in studio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTjsOzeIpc0) with absolute precision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh4wR0gzbrc). The responsibility lies with the musician to invent an original concept, and then decide what the best way of realizing that concept would be. Sometimes the best way is to play the songs going to be live, sometimes they'll requires intensive, maticulous studio recordings. Real artists, to me anyway, don't cling to one arbitrary way of working as being the most "pure"; rather, they're able to adapt and choose exactly the right tools for the job, no more and no less.
-
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.
Okay, let me try to clarify what I am imagining, and maybe this will help. To illustrate, let me use the following image:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Exhibition/ess.jpg)
I took this at the "Butterfly Rainforest" today. Let's pretend this is a perfect image (I am not saying it is, I am saying let's pretend it is). Okay, my Canon 50D has many, many settings from which I as a photographer must choose to get my desired end. I chose the settings I thought would be best for this photograph ... from my shutter speed, my ISO, my WB selection, my f/stop, and even a -2/3 brightness on my macro ringlight flash, to say nothing of my attempt to manually focus. These are all photographic considerations that I, as a fledgling photographer, attempted to make in order to "capture the light" onto my digital sensor to perfection.
Then of course I converted my RAW image to .tiff, from which point I (1) placed a tonal curve, (2) tried to reduce some excessive yellow cast, (3) sharpened a bit, and finally (4) added a touch of saturation.
The conversion of RAW to .tiff I am not really calling "digital processing" (even though technically it is), I am considering the RAW image to be the unaltered data of light that I recorded onto my sensor. I am considering the transfer to .tiff as "not manipulating" either, as I changed nothing of the quality with any intent. However, steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 I consider digital manipulation. I am not saying this is wrong or anything, it is just what I consider it to be because that is what it is.
My original thought process was, what can I do as a photographer to eliminate those 4 steps? Capturing a RAW image is photography. Transferring it to .tiff or .jpg is developing to a usable form. But those 4 subsequent steps of digital manipulation were necessary because I failed on 4 different levels as a photographer. The original question that came to my mind which prompted this inquiry was what can I do with the tool in my hand, namely the camera, to perfection, to eliminate the need for those 4 steps of subsequent digital manipulation?
I don't know if this is possible, I just was "thinking out loud" seeking answers. Is there a point where the camera as a tool, I as a photographer who has learned everything about this tool, and the basic processing software can all work together seamlessly to produce a perfect image right out of the camera, after simply transferring my RAW data from the camera, with no other manipulation required?
The way my mind was thinking (and I again concede this may simply be naive), was that my need to digitally process is simply affirmation that either (a) my photographic technique is still lacking or ( b ) my photgraphic instrument is imperfect, or both. I was merely considering an effort to work so hard on my photography whereby I might be able to eliminate any post-processing manipulation beyond simply tranferring my captured data from my camera to my computer. If I could ever get my handling of the camera and all of its settings to this point of perfection in-camera, I would consider myself a master photographer.
This may just be a pipe dream, but those were my thoughts.
Jack
.
-
It's not very a very interesting subject when people keep redefining the subject to suit their own purposes. I wasn't arguing that darkroom/digital photo manipulations count as art, just that they count as photography under our shared nomenclature. But, I can address the artistic issue as well.
Let me quote something else you said:
Your attitude, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that art that isn't "raw" or "unvarnished" is automatically inferior to art which is. To me, this is lazy thinking. Live recordings aren't automatically good or bad, neither are studio albums with a billion overdubs. They are simply two different mediums/methods, with their own advantages and drawbacks. Some musical compositions are better performed live (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjRdKxYYv44) and/or raw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss-AUjwHD_Y), some work better recorded in studio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTjsOzeIpc0) with absolute precision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh4wR0gzbrc). The responsibility lies with the musician to invent an original concept, and then decide what the best way of realizing that concept would be. Sometimes the best way is to play the songs going to be live, sometimes they'll requires intensive, maticulous studio recordings. Real artists, to me anyway, don't cling to one arbitrary way of working as being the most "pure"; rather, they're able to adapt and choose exactly the right tools for the job, no more and no less.
Both of these assertions are ridiculous, pardon the bluntness, no insult meant. I wasn't arguing that manipulations were intended as art and that's wrong - on the contrary I argued that counting them as photography is wrong. And saying that "my attitude ..... is automatically inferior" is also way off the mark. I explained the differences so people could *understand* what I was saying rather than jump to conclusions as you did. The fact is, most of the "music" that's been cooked up for popular consumption in the past few decades lacks the necessary "life" to be interesting. And so it goes with art. Most of it is mediocre to execrable, with so-called photography as art at the bottom of that heap. I've seen quite a few good images here on LL, and of those that are highly manipulated, very few are interesting beyond a first-look curiosity. Genuinely interesting images created mostly in PS require a lot of talent and luck. Those don't grow on trees, any more than $100 bills. Good luck with your manipulations, and BTW, while you may consider the average person in the unwashed masses to be a poor judge of photographic "art", you might want to run some of those manipulations past a few of those people on occasion. You might be surprised how perceptive some of those folks are.
-
My original thought process was, what can I do as a photographer to eliminate those 4 steps?
Jack
Just my 2 cents - I think eliminating those steps, or minimizing the amount of change, is desirable. Makes perfect sense. But in my case with my photos, I don't have any desire at present to eliminate the steps of rotate and crop, since those two manipulations don't really change the character of the image as I see it, and because trying to get the rotation and frame perfect on the capture is, in my opinion, an inefficient use of my time that has no advantage for the end result.
-
Why the hell has this nonsense post gone on so long?
Of course post-processing is 'part' of photography. Think Ansel's "The negative's the score, the print's the performance...".
The OP seems to suggest that it is possible to somehow 'cheat' or make up for the weaknesses of the initial snapped image. This is so rarely the case, the post processing either enhancing the image, ir it becoming something completely different. What does it matter ?It is all the art of photography? Some may not be open-minded to it...but it doesn't mean it's any less photography.
Man Ray's Photograms? Photography. Strips of exposed film ,grey and imageless, mounted and hung in a frame? Photography. (They had some selling for quite a bit at a local fine-art photography gallery btw).
If one feels compelled to say one type of photography is more pure than another...I guess your entitled to your narrow minded opinion. I don't see it's meaningful to put value judgements on the different forms and shapes of art/photography.
I think those that have to pronounce 'what they do' by telling us 'what they don't do' is not a very insightful view into their creative process. The photographer mentioned in the OP "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."
Why? If he's so skilled, I wonder how much more refined his images could be with some advanced post-processing.
-
Why the hell has this nonsense post gone on so long?
Some of us like to talk about things that you consider nonsense. Who died and made you king? Or Ansel or Man Ray for that matter? Sure the lab work is part of the photographic process, as tuning a piano is part of the music process. But tuning a piano is not music, and lab work is not photography. Now do you get it?
-
Why the hell has this nonsense post gone on so long?
Because, my man, the name of the game is Dog with a Bone.
I remember it well from kindergarten days; the only slight difference today, in this arena, is that the words chosen are a grade or two above kgn level but much of the sentiment, the pointless I say yes and you say no of the verbal technique remains the same. Almost nostalgic, in its way, but impossible to love.
Impossible, too, to imagine much of value coming out from this (if any ever could), since the entire concept is built on lukewarm air and however it might or probably might not be resolved, it will make not one iota of difference to the way in which the world and, particularly, photography carries on. Sadly, it turns the experience of this normally progressive forum into a slow walk past an open cesspit of pretension.
But hey, it takes all kinds, even the walking dead.
Rob C
-
Why the hell has this nonsense post gone on so long?
I haven't read any forum rules that obliges people to read or contribute to threads they don't think are worthwhile.
Or are you one of those people who finds it his moral obligation to walk to the next table in a restaurant and lecture the people on the nonsence they're discussing
-
lecture the people on the nonsence they're discussing
Dear lol
What did you say they were discussing?
Rob C
-
Because, my man, the name of the game is Dog with a Bone.
I remember it well from kindergarten days; the only slight difference today, in this arena, is that the words chosen are a grade or two above kgn level but much of the sentiment, the pointless I say yes and you say no of the verbal technique remains the same. Almost nostalgic, in its way, but impossible to love.
Impossible, too, to imagine much of value coming out from this (if any ever could), since the entire concept is built on lukewarm air and however it might or probably might not be resolved, it will make not one iota of difference to the way in which the world and, particularly, photography carries on. Sadly, it turns the experience of this normally progressive forum into a slow walk past an open cesspit of pretension.
But hey, it takes all kinds, even the walking dead.
Rob C
We have a saying at work, if you've got nothing to do pls. don't do it here.
Maybe the internet equivalent should be: if you've got nothing to say pls. don't do it here
-
I took this at the "Butterfly Rainforest" today. Let's pretend this is a perfect image (I am not saying it is, I am saying let's pretend it is). Okay, my Canon 50D has many, many settings from which I as a photographer must choose to get my desired end. I chose the settings I thought would be best for this photograph ... from my shutter speed, my ISO, my WB selection, my f/stop, and even a -2/3 brightness on my macro ringlight flash, to say nothing of my attempt to manually focus. These are all photographic considerations that I, as a fledgling photographer, attempted to make in order to "capture the light" onto my digital sensor to perfection.
Then of course I converted my RAW image to .tiff, from which point I (1) placed a tonal curve, (2) tried to reduce some excessive yellow cast, (3) sharpened a bit, and finally (4) added a touch of saturation.
The conversion of RAW to .tiff I am not really calling "digital processing" (even though technically it is), I am considering the RAW image to be the unaltered data of light that I recorded onto my sensor. I am considering the transfer to .tiff as "not manipulating" either, as I changed nothing of the quality with any intent. However, steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 I consider digital manipulation. I am not saying this is wrong or anything, it is just what I consider it to be because that is what it is.
My original thought process was, what can I do as a photographer to eliminate those 4 steps? Capturing a RAW image is photography. Transferring it to .tiff or .jpg is developing to a usable form. But those 4 subsequent steps of digital manipulation were necessary because I failed on 4 different levels as a photographer. The original question that came to my mind which prompted this inquiry was what can I do with the tool in my hand, namely the camera, to perfection, to eliminate the need for those 4 steps of subsequent digital manipulation?
I don't know if this is possible, I just was "thinking out loud" seeking answers. Is there a point where the camera as a tool, I as a photographer who has learned everything about this tool, and the basic processing software can all work together seamlessly to produce a perfect image right out of the camera, after simply transferring my RAW data from the camera, with no other manipulation required?
The way my mind was thinking (and I again concede this may simply be naive), was that my need to digitally process is simply affirmation that either (a) my photographic technique is still lacking or ( b ) my photgraphic instrument is imperfect, or both. I was merely considering an effort to work so hard on my photography whereby I might be able to eliminate any post-processing manipulation beyond simply tranferring my captured data from my camera to my computer. If I could ever get my handling of the camera and all of its settings to this point of perfection in-camera, I would consider myself a master photographer.
This may just be a pipe dream, but those were my thoughts.
Jack
Hey Jack,
If I understand you correctly you would say the generated tiff is a "pure" photograph which you turn into a photograph by the 4 steps you describe ?
If that's indeed the case I've got two follow-up questions (again seeking clarity to understand your definitions):
What if you do the 4 steps you describe in the raw converter and then convert it to a tiff (many raw converters have all the utilities to do that, and even much more things that used to be "photoshop only"territory is now built into raw converters). I would say it has lost your definition of "pure" since it's manipulation after pressing the shutter.
Secondly what additional steps would turn the photograph into a digital image in your definition, you didn't get into that in your story above.
Nice picture btw, a good one for the Macro Junkies thread !
-
Clarifying my previous post once again:
Photograph - noun or verb.
As a noun, applies to the image, whether undeveloped, developed, or printed. Since all of these can be seen, if the final copy bears little resemblance to the first copy, then logic suggests a new name that means "altered photo bearing little resemblance to original."
As a verb, means "to take the picture." I doubt even the cynical would say "I'm photographing butterflies" when they're actually PS'ing them.
-
Why the hell has this nonsense post gone on so long?
Because incredibly-intelligent people like you come here, contribute & add to the growth, and then ask "Why does it grow?"
Of course post-processing is 'part' of photography. Think Ansel's "The negative's the score, the print's the performance...".
The OP seems to suggest that it is possible to somehow 'cheat' or make up for the weaknesses of the initial snapped image. This is so rarely the case, the post processing either enhancing the image, ir it becoming something completely different. What does it matter ?It is all the art of photography? Some may not be open-minded to it...but it doesn't mean it's any less photography.
Man Ray's Photograms? Photography. Strips of exposed film ,grey and imageless, mounted and hung in a frame? Photography. (They had some selling for quite a bit at a local fine-art photography gallery btw).
You've either not read the entire thread carefully, or you are as slow to understand the concepts being discussed as you are to understand the hilarity that your own contribution slapped your first line of prose in the face.
If one feels compelled to say one type of photography is more pure than another...I guess your entitled to your narrow minded opinion. I don't see it's meaningful to put value judgements on the different forms and shapes of art/photography.
I think those that have to pronounce 'what they do' by telling us 'what they don't do' is not a very insightful view into their creative process. The photographer mentioned in the OP "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."
Why? If he's so skilled, I wonder how much more refined his images could be with some advanced post-processing.
The only narrow mind here is yours. If a person wishes only to rely on his photography to express the image, it is his choice to do so. To use another analogy, if a person wants to maintain a disease-free life with good eating/living habits to begin with, he might save himself the "after the fact" need for doctors and drugs. This has been the lifelong divergence of medicine: one school searches for ways keep the body free of disease to begin with, while the other school figures ways to treat disease chemically.
In the same fashion, this is merely a discussion of whether it's possible to keep one's photography free of the need for "after-the-fact" intervention to begin with ... and, unfortunately, we have PP junkies like you (and our forum phallic symbol Rob C.) moaning in the background discussing their need to use drugs.
So here's an idea: if the topic of this thread displeases you, did you realize you have the power to make an adult decision and not read it and not participate?
Jack
.
-
Hey Jack,
If I understand you correctly you would say the generated tiff is a "pure" photograph which you turn into a photograph by the 4 steps you describe ?
I don't actually consider a .tiff a pure photograph, but merely the conversion from RAW to usable form, much as the simple and required process of turning film into useable form.
If that's indeed the case I've got two follow-up questions (again seeking clarity to understand your definitions):
What if you do the 4 steps you describe in the raw converter and then convert it to a tiff (many raw converters have all the utilities to do that, and even much more things that used to be "photoshop only"territory is now built into raw converters). I would say it has lost your definition of "pure" since it's manipulation after pressing the shutter.
If you mean knowlingly alter the image in the raw converter, then this is a bit of digital manipulation. If you mean by the very conversion of raw to .tiff, then this is simply the way things have to be to use the image.
Secondly what additional steps would turn the photograph into a digital image in your definition, you didn't get into that in your story above.
It could be my flash was slightly too bright which caused the yellow cast, or it might possibly have been my WB selection, or both. My focus had to be slightly off to require the PP sharpening, etc. I am simply hoping that my understanding of my tool, namely the camera, gets to the point where I set everything right to begin with to eliminate (or at least drastically-minimize) the need for after-the-fact correction.
Nice picture btw, a good one for the Macro Junkies thread !
Thanks. I have a bunch of new butterfly photos in the landscape/nature section
Jack
.
-
Because, my man, the name of the game is Dog with a Bone.
I remember it well from kindergarten days; the only slight difference today, in this arena, is that the words chosen are a grade or two above kgn level but much of the sentiment, the pointless I say yes and you say no of the verbal technique remains the same. Almost nostalgic, in its way, but impossible to love.
Impossible, too, to imagine much of value coming out from this (if any ever could), since the entire concept is built on lukewarm air and however it might or probably might not be resolved, it will make not one iota of difference to the way in which the world and, particularly, photography carries on. Sadly, it turns the experience of this normally progressive forum into a slow walk past an open cesspit of pretension.
But hey, it takes all kinds, even the walking dead.
Rob C
Speaking of prentension and walking ... you are a walking, talking paradigm of the word pretentious ... or is it hypocrisy? ... I can't be sure.
Oh, and speaking of valueless, you have made not one valuable contribution here.
Jack
-
I am simply hoping that my understanding of my tool,
Jack
Jack, baby, you are letting this "phallic symbol" thing confuse your writings... it´s clear the obsession has zilch to do with Rob C and everything to do with you! Maybe it´s just a Floridian thing; you know, in the same way that the biggest hero there is that short guy in the suit who stands sideways, constantly removing and replacing his sunglasses. Love the culture; maybe get a doctorate in it some day. Seems easy enough.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Okay, let me try to clarify what I am imagining, and maybe this will help. To illustrate, let me use the following image:
)
Through the ages "Master Photographers" knew all aspects of photography, and manipulated them to achieve the desired outcomes. They used the processes that suited the situation.
Adrian
ps. "whatever the artist says is art, is art, and everyone is an artist" Not sure who said that, but he/she was a great person
-
Jack, baby, you are letting this "phallic symbol" thing confuse your writings... it´s clear the obsession has zilch to do with Rob C and everything to do with you! Maybe it´s just a Floridian thing; you know, in the same way that the biggest hero there is that short guy in the suit who stands sideways, constantly removing and replacing his sunglasses. Love the culture; maybe get a doctorate in it some day. Seems easy enough.
Ciao - Rob C
Rob, your overtures and use of the word "baby" in my direction concern me. Please desist.
Just so you know, my obsession isn't with phallus at all, nor with phallic symbolism. The only reason I, ahem, brought it up at all was because of how, ahem, hard I laughed at the fact 'you' were posting on a thread involving phallic symbolism, when you are a veritable 'phallic symbol' yourself. This irony still has me chuckling every time I see your name, and more precisely every time I read the tone of your posts: it's a déjà vu experience all over again
At this point, however, I do agree I have taken it too far and I regret arousing in you a desire to create more word play, with tool in hand. Please understand the tool I was speaking of was a camera ... and especially please save your overtures of affection for someone who is more receptive ... such as the self-loving fella you see in your mirror daily. I am sure you and he find fulfillment together daily.
-
Some of us like to talk about things that you consider nonsense. Who died and made you king? Or Ansel or Man Ray for that matter? Sure the lab work is part of the photographic process, as tuning a piano is part of the music process. But tuning a piano is not music, and lab work is not photography. Now do you get it?
My point os photography encompasses post-processing. You just won't accept that it seems, even when the simple facts speak otherwise.I would say John Cage using alternate tunings is DEFINATLEY music,and yes...lab-work IS photography. I mean does anyone here actually know any photography,art,music history...lol. This argument has been clearly laid out before.
-
The only narrow mind here is yours. If a person wishes only to rely on his photography to express the image, it is his choice to do so. To use another analogy, if a person wants to maintain a disease-free life with good eating/living habits to begin with, he might save himself the "after the fact" need for doctors and drugs. This has been the lifelong divergence of medicine: one school searches for ways keep the body free of disease to begin with, while the other school figures ways to treat disease chemically.
In the same fashion, this is merely a discussion of whether it's possible to keep one's photography free of the need for "after-the-fact" intervention to begin with ... and, unfortunately, we have PP junkies like you (and our forum phallic symbol Rob C.) moaning in the background discussing their need to use drugs.
So here's an idea: if the topic of this thread displeases you, did you realize you have the power to make an adult decision and not read it and not participate?
Jack
.
Rely on just their photography? Post-processing always HAS been photography. In it's beginning even MORE so. THe disease/drug analogy is very telling...kind of a fascistic point of view.
The topic thread doesn't displease me.You do though, but I gather you're used to that.
-
Hey Jack,
Thanks for the clarifications and I'm going to join the crowd who doesn't use the same definitions you try to convince us of using.
I would say if it looks, feels and smells like a photograph I'd say it's a photograph (eg. the flower consisting of multiple shots that are digitally blended)
If it looks feels and smells like a digitally painted image I'd say it's a digital image (one where textures or objects are added or that were not in the original shot)
The only thing I'm still pondering is a "pure"photograph, but have come to the conclusion I don't care. The photograph (as defined above) is the result of a process and I don't mind where the different steps in that process took place to produce it. I also would like to minimize PP, but I think in practice very few (if not none) "pure" photographs that are worth looking at do exist.
-
Clarifying my previous post once again:
Photograph - noun or verb.
As a noun, applies to the image, whether undeveloped, developed, or printed. Since all of these can be seen, if the final copy bears little resemblance to the first copy, then logic suggests a new name that means "altered photo bearing little resemblance to original."
As a verb, means "to take the picture." I doubt even the cynical would say "I'm photographing butterflies" when they're actually PS'ing them.
Then it would logically follow that photograms, daguerrotypes,gum-bichromates,cibachromes, cyanotypes, black & white,calotypes,photo-collage,infrared,polaroid,cross-processed films are not photographs at all.
As a verb it would be Photoshopping them as you said. The camera 'makes' a photograph, and the computer 'makes' a photograph.
Here's some examples of NOT photographs as they are post-processed. The least obvious being the famous kent state one...a pole above the anguished lady was removed. They hardly bear any resemblence to reality, unless the man had a 'blown-out' face, the woman is a colourless cello etc.
[attachment=11974:Judging_...__201937.jpg][attachment=11975:IM.jpg][attachment=1
1976:ManRay_XL.jpg][attachment=11977:60s_20kent_20state.gif]
That's where i'm going to leave it. The goading OP seems to get something out of this pedestrian conversation...I just find it irksome.
-
Rely on just their photography? Post-processing always HAS been photography. In it's beginning even MORE so.
Here you come back for more "nonsense" I see ... at least you didn't ask "why" the thread keeps growing anymore
Again you miss the point completely. Baseball isn't in your future; perhaps t-ball is more suited to your aim. I never denied post-processing was involved in image making. Could you please cite the reference where I said this? I have merely wondered if less and less could be necessary, the better and better one gets with camera. Why is this so hard to understand?
THe disease/drug analogy is very telling...kind of a fascistic point of view.
Telling of what? Whose disease? Whose drugs? That you find this topic so distasteful and/or me so distasteful ... and yet here you are participating again ... would seem to indicate your disease is mental.
The topic thread doesn't displease me.You do though, but I gather you're used to that.
Most philosphers are used to arousing the ire of simpletons who aren't used to examining their own beliefs and assumptions carefully. The truth is, most people who lack the wit to debate effectively become angry, but again it is only because of their own inner frustration. In fact, the most famous philosopher ever (Socrates) was literally put to death for doing nothing more than debating the local politicians, making their hallowed belief systems look foolish, and frustrating the bejesus out of everyone in the process. People are insecure like that.
Anyway, I really don't see what there is to get so upset about, actually, the idea of trying to perfect one's photography to a point where the post processing becomes minimized. That so many people are so frustrated by this simple concept is kinda sad really. That a person like yourself would not like me, find the subject to be 'nonsense,' and yet still can't pull himself away is actually quite pitiful.
What is equally pitiful is that the self-appointed embassador for "being civil," Rob C, has done nothing but be uncivil and condescending every step of the way.
I am honestly surprised that more people wouldn't be interested in the idea possibly just getting everything right "in camera" so as to be able to just download a finished product "as is." I don't see how this topic would offend a reasonable, thinking person.
Jack
.
-
Hey All,
I'll contribute to the growth of this much ado about semantics discussion.
Here is a definition
pho·tog·ra·phy (f-tgr-f)
n.
1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A body of photographs.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I vote for number 2 which certainly includes post processing as part of creating a photograph and makes absolutely no reference to the relationship between what is on the final image and what the camera was pointed at. However that number 1 definition is disturbing lets explore further.
Here is a definition of the word photograph
pho·to·graph (ft-grf)
n.
An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.
v. pho·to·graphed, pho·to·graph·ing, pho·to·graphs
v.tr.
To take a photograph of.
v.intr.
1. To practice photography.
2. To be the subject for photographs: She photographs well.
photo·grapha·ble adj.
pho·togra·pher (f-tgr-fr) n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Hmm an image recorded by a camera and recorded on a photosensitive surface - sounds like only what is directly captured on either film or within a digital camera sensor is a photograph - but isn't making a print from film also capturing the image on a photosensitive surface? So it seems to me that photographic integrity - if that means as faithful a reproduction of what the camera saw on paper is only possible if we use film unless we have a way to print digital images on photosensitive surfaces using light. Do we have that? If so problem solved! Well almost - there is that niggling little detail of either film development or conversion to RAW changing what the camera saw. If those processes in no way "change" what the camera saw - case closed - if it changes - well then we as humans can never see the actual photograph! There is no integrity possible! This opens the floodgates to human interpretation of what "integrity" really means. Of course a discussion impossible to ever agree on - like this thread. So might as well use the word integrity as a marketing ploy - many do you know.
But wait wasn't photographic integrity an impossibility in the first place? Can a camera or even another human ever see exactly the same thing as one human? Can we superimposed one set of eyeballs on another set of eyeballs assuming identical genetics (as verification) on a camera that operates exactly the same as human eyeballs and "sees" and records exactly the same thing as eyeballs? Unless we can do this photographic integrity in terms of what a human saw was an impossibility right from the start!
So to me photographic integrity is meaningless unless well defined in terms of a standard process. For example there may well be a legal standard for photography used in court - in terms of processing. Anyone know? However I doubt any photographer on earth - unless specifically photographing for that purpose meets or even wants to meet such a standard. So once again photographic integrity is meaningless as there is no other standard that I know of. Do any of you know of one? - other than your own where integrity means - to thine own self be true - thats integrity - of a sort.
So where are we left? Well perhaps photographic integrity is like art or porn - hard to define but most know it when we see it - even if an exact line can never be drawn - and we are free to draw our own definition and use for marketing purposes.
Much ado about semantics.
-Ed-
-
I am honestly surprised that more people wouldn't be interested in the idea possibly just getting everything right "in camera" so as to be able to just download a finished product "as is." I don't see how this topic would offend a reasonable, thinking person.
Jack,
I agree. In fact this approach has been followed by a number of photographers before. Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it is certainly a perfectly legitimate approach.
Have you researched who has followed this approach?
-
[quote name='JohnKoerner' date='Mar 8 2009, 05:37 PM' post='265852']
it's a déjà vu experience all over again
Aha, you enjoy cross-lingual tautology too!
Rob C
-
I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.
Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.
This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)
So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental e
-
I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.
Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.
This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)
So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental equivalent of smearing Vaseline on your lens.
Peter
-
[quote name='JohnKoerner' date='Mar 8 2009, 05:37 PM' post='265852']
... and especially please save your overtures of affection for someone who is more receptive ...
There you go again, Jack, jumping to those self-obsessed assumptions.
Rob C
-
The fact is, most of the "music" that's been cooked up for popular consumption in the past few decades lacks the necessary "life" to be interesting.
The typical and very foolish response of people getting on in age. " It were better in my day". Nope, it probably wasn't.
A particular dim attitude, as very probably their elders in their turn said exactly the same thing about the music + art they liked.
My mum is a bit atypical as at her 25th wedding aniversay I was asked to tell the DJ not to play so much boring old music and play some contemporary tracks instead.
All new art and music get slagged off by those of a certain age and then a few years later it becomes mainstream and the people who liked the radical new stuff of their time are now the new fuddy duddies, talking about the good old days. Plus ça change.
Swing, Ballet Russe, Impressionism, Bauhaus, Rock + Roll, Rock, OpArt, Punk, Hip Hop, House - all radical art/music forms once and scaring the silly old folks. Yet, all very mainstream now.
-
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" ...
This is the problem with you. A complete inability to read a post correctly. I do not say his work is digital art. I said many people looking at it would consider it that. Wrongly in fact, as his work predates PS by 20+ years. And that was the point - it was photography then and it is photography now, tools changing make no difference whatsoever.
So little point in addressing the rest of your responses as yet again you didn't even correctly read the post you were reponding to in the first place.
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.
Duh! So are you trying to demonstate even further your lack of understanding of the English language, even for an American? You've obviously not come across the very common phrases - knife fight and gunfight then? If I had the unfortunate problem of dealing with someone armed with knife I would call the incident a fight, if I also have a knife, then it's a knife fight.
Stabbing is the action of a knife penetrating flesh, point first and shooting is simply firing of a gun in any context, whether a fight on a shoting range or for 21 gun salute.
And your comments I would never get to beat an MMA assumes I do not know how to fight. Making assumptions only makes you look foolish as you have no idea whether I'm a fighter or not. Not that that was entirely relevent anyway as if I have a weapon that I know how to use, the advantage is now mine. BTW if your eye has been gouged, you are not in any fit state to beat anyone up until after you leave hospital, no matter what your training, as that is not something you can condition yourself against. And why it is not allowed, same goes for all the effective strikes one would use in a real fight.
There's a long list here (http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules)of what you are not allowed to do in so called 'ultimate' fighting. This one is particularly amusing 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. - not really fighting then is it. If I was fighting someone, I would make sure I injured them to save myself if that's what it took to stop them hurting me.
But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point.
Which packet of cereal did you get your Philosophy degree in? Frosties, Cornflakes or more likely Graham's Crackers as you certainly seem to be.
If you really want to be a philosopher, I suggest you bone up on reading and writing first, then once you've mastered that basic skillset, try learning something about the subject you are debating before talking about it. Oh and ignoring any evidence that contradicts your ignorant assertions is not something that gets taught in philosophy I imagine.
-
Jack,
I agree. In fact this approach has been followed by a number of photographers before. Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it is certainly a perfectly legitimate approach.
Have you researched who has followed this approach?
I think this is probably because we are both trying to achieve different ends: I am simply trying to document an image of a small creature as perfectly detailed as possible, while you are an artist expressing a multitude of your own ideas and vison as art.
I haven't followed any particular photographer, no, I am just studying basic macrophotography and trying to apply what I've learned at this point. Other than Mangelsen's website I hadn't really thought about it much, to be honest. This thread was my first attempt to sort that out and see what others thought.
-
Aha, you enjoy cross-lingual tautology too!
Rob C
LOL, I guess so ... almost as much as you enjoy wasting your time, returning here again and again, telling others not to waste their time here.
Also, I am curious: if you consider this topic to be a "cesspool" what is your motivation to return continuously and dive-in?
-
This is the problem with you. A complete inability to read a post correctly. I do not say his work is digital art. I said many people looking at it would consider it that. Wrongly in fact, as his work predates PS by 20+ years. And that was the point - it was photography then and it is photography now, tools changing make no difference whatsoever.
You "do" not say or you did not say? If you're going to criticize others' writing at least try to make sure your own isn't wanting. You still haven't correctly-read the definition of photography, which is creating the image on a sensor not fiddling with it later.
Duh! So are you trying to demonstate even further your lack of understanding of the English language, even for an American? You've obviously not come across the very common phrases - knife fight and gunfight then? If I had the unfortunate problem of dealing with someone armed with knife I would call the incident a fight, if I also have a knife, then it's a knife fight. Stabbing is the action of a knife penetrating flesh, point first and shooting is simply firing of a gun in any context, whether a fight on a shoting range or for 21 gun salute.
Yes, if someone else has a knife then it's a fight, but that is not what you said. If two people have guns and agree to a duel it's a gunfight. If one coward (this would be your cue to take a bow) ran and got a gun because he was ill-equipped to deal with a consummate fighter, and shot the fighter, this would not be a "fight" but rather a coward shooting someone he was scared of.
And your comments I would never get to beat an MMA assumes I do not know how to fight. Making assumptions only makes you look foolish as you have no idea whether I'm a fighter or not. Not that that was entirely relevent anyway as if I have a weapon that I know how to use, the advantage is now mine.
I can tell you don't know how to fight because you conduct yourself like a flustered woman. If you were a talented, schooled fighter yourself you wouldn't automatically default to talking about knives and guns at the thought of facing a pro, you would simply meet them on their own terms, because they would be your terms also. The reason you visualize scrambling for a knife or a gun at the though of facing a MMA fighter is because of the "bitchassness" that is in you, rather than any kind of self-confidence being in you. With a weapon is the only way you could have an advantage.
BTW if your eye has been gouged, you are not in any fit state to beat anyone up until after you leave hospital, no matter what your training, as that is not something you can condition yourself against. And why it is not allowed, same goes for all the effective strikes one would use in a real fight.
There's a long list here (http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules)of what you are not allowed to do in so called 'ultimate' fighting. This one is particularly amusing 22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. - not really fighting then is it.
Sorry clown. A true pro who had his eye gouged would just handle it as an injury. He wouldn't soil himself (as you would) and reach out to dial 911. The only reason eye gouging isn't allowed, genius, is because it can be a permanent debilitating injury, and the idea of MMA is to be as real as possible, but withOUT permanent injury. Same with biting and nutshots. As for "all the strikes" that are not allowed, LOL, all of the strikes are allowed in certain circuits. The UFC used to allow even nutshots, headbutts, etc. Things have softened now, due to regulations, but in many areas they still go on.
I was fighting someone, I would make sure I injured them to save myself if that's what it took to stop them hurting me.
See, again you give away your bitchassness. "Save myself" ... LOL ... like a damsel in distress
Which packet of cereal did you get your Philosophy degree in? Frosties, Cornflakes or more likely Graham's Crackers as you certainly seem to be.
If you really want to be a philosopher, I suggest you bone up on reading and writing first, then once you've mastered that basic skillset, try learning something about the subject you are debating before talking about it. Oh and ignoring any evidence that contradicts your ignorant assertions is not something that gets taught in philosophy I imagine.
I got my degree in UCLA and I can read and write just fine, thanks. I originally didn't post this thread here to argue but to discuss concepts and get feedback from those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. I appreciate many of the responses I've got, it's just unfortunate that so many are insecure little pissants like you have to keep chiming-in.
Jack
-
After getting home last night after dancing , I chilled out in front of TV whilst other half showered and discovered I'd missed an evening devoted to photography on BBC4.
But I did catch the last show which was about the photographs W. Eugene Smith took in South Wales as an aside whilst covering the 1950 General Election for Life magazine .
What was most interesting and so very germane to this discusion was when another Life Photographer [who had been taught by Smith] came in to look at hte contact sheets of these images and discuss how they were taken. The photographer [whose name sadly escapes me] talked very clearly about how photography is manipulation. He showed an image that was chosen by Life and the images leading up to it. Earlier shots in same sequence told a very different story.
This very famous image, iconic of its time, was also manipulated acording to Smith's protege, he was not being critical, just explaining how it was cropped to remove shkline.
(http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/smith/smith_miners.jpg)
The Lost Pictures of Eugene Smith (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074rsh) was the programme in question is is well worth watching as it delves into the editorail policies of why certain images were used to try + tell a story that Life wanted to tell.
To go back to the flower image referenced earlier in thread. 272 [IIRC] images were taken to get the desired image. How is that any different from someone shooting loads of shots before getiing the single image that worked. One dumps 271 images and uses one, one uses parts of 272 shots. Both took 272 shots to produce one image. Don't really see much difference if you look at it like that.
-
That could very well be. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud seeking feedback. I did not mean to insult anyone else's practices at all.
-
I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.
Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.
This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)
So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental equivalent of smearing Vaseline on your lens.
Peter
Thanks for your post. By "integrity" I meant strict adherence to working with the camera as a way to master the output, rather than rely on other means. I did not mean to imply that those other means were bad, only that relying on them so much might cause the photography to become not quite as perfect as it otherwise might be, if someone focused only on that.
You are right, though, the use of the word "integrity" could have been re-worded and the concepts might have been better-received.
-
I think this is probably because we are both trying to achieve different ends: I am simply trying to document an image of a small creature as perfectly detailed as possible, while you are an artist expressing a multitude of your own ideas and vison as art.
I haven't followed any particular photographer, no, I am just studying basic macrophotography and trying to apply what I've learned at this point. Other than Mangelsen's website I hadn't really thought about it much, to be honest. This thread was my first attempt to sort that out and see what others thought.
That's a good point. In my teaching I found that wildlife photographers (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) rarely engage in complex post processing. I think the reason is that there is a desire to keep the colors, contrast, appearance etc. of the wildlife "as is", that is the way it is in nature. Any change in the colors for example, besides proper color balancing, will make identifying a specie more difficult (very much the case with birds for example) or plain off the wall (with mammals for example). When there is a desire to depart from reality (always talking of wildlife photography) then most turn to black and white since it is so clearly a departure from reality (we don't see in B&W and the world is not B&W).
-
By "integrity" I meant strict adherence to working with the camera as a way to master the output, rather than rely on other means. I did not mean to imply that those other means were bad, only that relying on them so much might cause the photography to become not quite as perfect as it otherwise might be, if someone focused only on that.
You are right, though, the use of the word "integrity" could have been re-worded and the concepts might have been better-received.
Well...you may be all polite and duplicitous with alan, but it's there in your post. You DID imply that the other means were bad. And by using the word "integrity" , well that by definition hardly means "strict adherence" to anything.
Your "concept" is easily received, as it is simplistic and pedantic. Sorry, but you're not onto anything vaguely interesting as a discussion topic.
The camera itself is 'post-processing' so your hardly making any point at all except showing your biases and point of view. That post -processing is cheating or somesuch.
Of course that just raises the ire of creative professionals...it's insulting!
Seems your just a shit-disturber, eh?
-
My point os photography encompasses post-processing. You just won't accept that it seems, even when the simple facts speak otherwise.I would say John Cage using alternate tunings is DEFINATLEY music,and yes...lab-work IS photography. I mean does anyone here actually know any photography,art,music history...lol. This argument has been clearly laid out before.
You have some sort of detail deficit. Here again: If someone calls me and asks what I'm doing and I say "photographing a butterfly", that *always* *always* *always* means I'm taking the photo with the camera. If I say "I'm working on a butterfly photo", that could mean any of several things.
So yes, the rest of us here DO understand what "the photographic process" is, and when we say "I'm photographing something", it *never* means doing the lab work. Do you understand that? Photographing is using the camera, the lab work is not photographing, it's "photo-related".
-
You have some sort of detail deficit. Here again: If someone calls me and asks what I'm doing and I say "photographing a butterfly", that *always* *always* *always* means I'm taking the photo with the camera. If I say "I'm working on a butterfly photo", that could mean any of several things.
So yes, the rest of us here DO understand what "the photographic process" is, and when we say "I'm photographing something", it *never* means doing the lab work. Do you understand that? Photographing is using the camera, the lab work is not photographing, it's "photo-related".
Dude....I never said photographing, no detail deficit here. I said it's photography.
-
Well...you may be all polite and duplicitous with alan, but it's there in your post. You DID imply that the other means were bad. And by using the word "integrity" , well that by definition hardly means "strict adherence" to anything.
Your "concept" is easily received, as it is simplistic and pedantic. Sorry, but you're not onto anything vaguely interesting as a discussion topic.
The camera itself is 'post-processing' so your hardly making any point at all except showing your biases and point of view. That post -processing is cheating or somesuch.
Of course that just raises the ire of creative professionals...it's insulting!
Seems your just a shit-disturber, eh?
Your allegations are flatly false. The last thing on this earth I am is duplicitous or two-faced. I simply treat others in the same tone as they treat me. Mr. Briot, even though he has infinitely more experience than I on this subject, still treats my questions with respect and consideration so it is only natural that I respond to him in kind.
Meanwhile you, and others like you, have come at me very rudely and so you have likewise been treated in kind. Emerson once said, "The secret to education lies in respecting the student," and yet you come at me sideways trying to demean my questions.
Finally, if you think that I am a "shit-disturber," and you find yourself disturbed, perhaps this can serve as a self-revelation as to your basic identity
.
-
That's a good point. In my teaching I found that wildlife photographers (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) rarely engage in complex post processing. I think the reason is that there is a desire to keep the colors, contrast, appearance etc. of the wildlife "as is", that is the way it is in nature. Any change in the colors for example, besides proper color balancing, will make identifying a specie more difficult (very much the case with birds for example) or plain off the wall (with mammals for example). When there is a desire to depart from reality (always talking of wildlife photography) then most turn to black and white since it is so clearly a departure from reality (we don't see in B&W and the world is not B&W).
Thank you. I think this distinction sums it all up as well as identifies the divergence: photography as art and personal expression vs. photography being used to capture as lifelike an image as possible.
I am trying to simplify my efforts into securing as exact an image of nature as possible, in as few steps as possible, while a person like yourself is trying to express himself and his artistic vision in as many ways as possible. While I am looking for simplicity of tools and process, a person like yourself welcomes as many different tools and options as possible, because they give an artist virtually unlimited creative potential.
I do belive this is the clarification.
-
There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph". They're both photography, but they're different.
-
There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph". They're both photography, but they're different.
A photo is a photo (captured image) whether latent, developed, or printed. Since (with digital tech) *all* of those can be seen, if they can also be compared, it's easy to see how much alteration took place between step A and step Z.
-
A photo is a photo (captured image) whether latent, developed, or printed. Since (with digital tech) *all* of those can be seen, if they can also be compared, it's easy to see how much alteration took place between step A and step Z.
Right. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the alteration that takes place between the latent image and the printed image, but the two ARE different.
-
Also, I am curious: if you consider this topic to be a "cesspool" what is your motivation to return continuously and dive-in?
Simple, really: I pass by in the wan hope that it, the cesspool, has dried up and the air is once again clean. Somebody has to test it, but diving in is not an option as you should have noted. Why would I dive into a topic that has long ceased to maintain its relevance? It´s over, dead in the water, resolved but only you fail to see that, as you apparently fail to see that the topic is not what is being replied to, that it is your wilful blindness that is the pebble in the shoe. And yet, and yet, perhaps amusing to see you clutch at thinner and thinner straws. But no, you´re right, it really is a waste of my time.
A shame, really, since your butterflies are really quite pretty.
Rob C
-
Right. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the alteration that takes place between the latent image and the printed image, but the two ARE different.
When you say *the* alteration, do you mean *any* alteration, no matter what the circumstance? If I'm Life magazine, running a "backyard photo" of Oswald in early 1964, is any alteration I do OK? And you should note that in the various journals that ran those photos then, there were lots of "alterations".
But I wasn't referring to what you were thinking of. I was saying that an image can be an undeveloped RAW, developed, printed, etc. And it's possible for me to put all three in front of a jury of reasonable people, who can see which "alterations" were the required changes to get from latent to print, and which were the "optional" alterations you might excuse for artistic reasons.
And those are the *real* different things. The required changes and the optional changes. Arguing that the image at latent, developed, and printed stages are different is a diversion away from the stated issue of this thread.
-
There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph". They're both photography, but they're different.
I'm doing a presentation today on photo fixes/alterations. I would guess by your definition that what I'm doing is photography. In fact, by your definition, my participation in this discussion is also photography.
The failure of some participants here to distunguish between what I just mentioned and actual photography (i.e. taking a photo with a camera and performing the *necessary* steps to make the photo presentable) is a sign of a muddled mind. I can't imaging working with people who can't make distinctions between things that are obvious to ordinary people. Such thinking usually doesn't last long when it comes down to delivering a product for pay.
-
You "do" not say or you did not say? If you're going to criticize others' writing at least try to make sure your own isn't wanting. You still haven't correctly-read the definition of photography, which is creating the image on a sensor not fiddling with it later.
A. That's a nonsensical definition as it ignores 150yrs of photographic history and precedent. And that defines taking a photograph, not photography, there is a big distinction.
B. Running away from the debate yet again - this time using a typo of mine to avoid the facts.
Yes, if someone else has a knife then it's a fight, but that is not what you said. If two people have guns and agree to a duel it's a gunfight. If one coward (this would be your cue to take a bow) ran and got a gun because he was ill-equipped to deal with a consummate fighter, and shot the fighter, this would not be a "fight" but rather a coward shooting someone he was scared of.
I can tell you don't know how to fight because you conduct yourself like a flustered woman. If you were a talented, schooled fighter yourself you wouldn't automatically default to talking about knives and guns at the thought of facing a pro, you would simply meet them on their own terms, because they would be your terms also. The reason you visualize scrambling for a knife or a gun at the though of facing a MMA fighter is because of the "bitchassness" that is in you, rather than any kind of self-confidence being in you. With a weapon is the only way you could have an advantage
Remember what I said about making assumptions tends to make you look foolish. And you couldn't even see the big hole being dug right in front of you before you jumped straight into it.
As it happens I am in fact a ''talented and schooled fighter'' and also taught MAs for many years. I have an extensive background in martial arts and spent a lot of time learning how to defend against armed people, emptyhanded. And we used real knives, chains, swords, coshs etc to train realistically. Blood would get spilled if you weren't good, so you had a real incentive to be excellent.
Using a gun or knife was simply to illustrate, how when there are no rules as in a real fight, an MMA can be easily beaten.
Anyway you are the one who seems to be the real coward, as you run away from all facts that contradict your silly assertions.
Sorry clown. A true pro who had his eye gouged would just handle it as an injury.
And if there was any doubt about how little you know, now there isn't. Being blinded is not an inconvienience you fight through.
He wouldn't soil himself (as you would) and reach out to dial 911. The only reason eye gouging isn't allowed, genius, is because it can be a permanent debilitating injury, and the idea of MMA is to be as real as possible, but withOUT permanent injury. Same with biting and nutshots. As for "all the strikes" that are not allowed, LOL, all of the strikes are allowed in certain circuits. The UFC used to allow even nutshots, headbutts, etc. Things have softened now, due to regulations, but in many areas they still go on.
See, again you give away your bitchassness. "Save myself" ... LOL ... like a damsel in distress
Not very bright are you and an old fashioned sexist to boot it seems.
If I'm in a fight [where to repeat myself, there are no rules of any kind], I will simply want to defend myself. And I will use any technique that does the job. That's not cowardice, that's common sense. If someone is bigger and stronger than you [which does make a vast difference, despite the idiot claims by most MAs], you don't think let's play fair and let the best man win, you look after yourself as best you can. Self defence is about being smarter than your opponent and if running away is your best chance of saving yourself do so, particulary if knives are involved. Doing MA only gives you a better chance in a fight, it does not ensure a win. If blinding someone is your only option of surviving, do it. Only a brain dead moron would think otherwise and if you want to be a macho fool who would rather be dead/beaten to a pulp than thought a coward, be our guest. Fighting is what you do when you have no other recourse. Or if you are an agressive idiot.
I have zero interest in fighting other than from a technical/intellectual/practical point of view and do martial arts for the same reason I do dancing [which you may also think of as being a girly pursuit] I enjoy learning physical skills, though the prettier women in dancing compensate for the lack of adrenaline rush in MAs.
I got my degree in UCLA and I can read and write just fine, thanks. I originally didn't post this thread here to argue but to discuss concepts and get feedback from those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. I appreciate many of the responses I've got, it's just unfortunate that so many are insecure little pissants like you have to keep chiming-in.
Insecure! Anything but I'm afraid. Plus I know a lot about photographic history, which actually tends to contradict your 'concepts', yet you always ignore facts that don't fit with your preconceived notions. Anyone who contradicts you is simply dismissed - Socrates would have been sooooo unimpressed.
Quite frankly I simply do not believe you have a degree in philosophy [from a decent University anyway], as you are appaling at debating, your analogies are not even analogous and you ignore any facts that are inconvienient. You are forevever misreading posts, getting wrong end of stick, losing your temper and being aggresive. You admit you are ignorant about photography and yet seem to have spent a lot of time refusing to learn more about it. You will never learn anything if you keep your eyes shut as you do.
This is about your philosophical level
-
The way my mind was thinking (and I again concede this may simply be naive), was that my need to digitally process is simply affirmation that either (a) my photographic technique is still lacking or ( b ) my photgraphic instrument is imperfect, or both. I was merely considering an effort to work so hard on my photography whereby I might be able to eliminate any post-processing manipulation beyond simply tranferring my captured data from my camera to my computer.
That's like transfering your shot taken on film to a 16x20 print without developing it Polaroid excluded.
A RAW image is exactly like a film image, it is latent and needs developing to be used. And if developed at a flat/neutral setting it won't look good as it needs processing just to be 'normal' in quality.
And all cameras shoot RAW, though most process them into JPEGs for you, which means they have been post processed by the camera.
Naive? Yes. It's the most sensible thing you've said in entire discussion.
If I could ever get my handling of the camera and all of its settings to this point of perfection in-camera, I would consider myself a master photographer.
Being considered a master photographer by others, means producing great images, not producing technically 'perfect' shots but possibly quite dull shots. Many of the greatest shots are poor technically, particularly by todays standards. But that is of so very little importance compared to getting a good photo.
-
Time to move on?