Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Rob C on December 19, 2015, 03:50:01 pm
-
http://leicaphilia.com/famous-war-photographer-don-mccullin-hates-digital-photography/
Rob C
-
"James Francis "Frank" Hurley, OBE (15 October 1885 – 16 January 1962) was an Australian photographer and adventurer. He participated in a number of expeditions to Antarctica and served as an official photographer with Australian forces during both world wars.
His artistic style produced many memorable images. He also used staged scenes, composites and photographic manipulation".
Yep, Frank Hurley created Photoshop like composites during WW1, it has been possible to manipulate film images for at least 100 years.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Episode_after_Battle_of_Zonnebeke_1918_Hurley.jpg/800px-Episode_after_Battle_of_Zonnebeke_1918_Hurley.jpg)
One of Hurley's "composite" images.
Cheers,
-
… it has been possible to manipulate film images for at least 100 years.
1856-57 same sky used with 3 different seascapes:
"Although Le Gray never publicly acknowledged his method, he did leave some inadvertent clues in the pictures themselves: the same spectacular stormy sky looms above the horizon in at least three different seascapes, providing irrefutable evidence of Le Gray's canny manipulation."
p47 Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop (http://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&lpg=PA22&ots=L2mYNVIZO3&dq=%22the%20same%20spectacular%20stormy%20sky%20looms%20above%20the%20horizon%20in%20at%20least%20three%20different%20seascapes%2C%20providing%20irrefutable%20evidence%20of%20Le%20Gray's%20canny%20manipulation.%22&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=%22the%20same%20spectacular%20stormy%20sky%20looms%20above%20the%20horizon%20in%20at%20least%20three%20different%20seascapes,%20providing%20irrefutable%20evidence%20of%20Le%20Gray's%20canny%20manipulation.%22&f=false)
(Google Books sometimes shows the photos as well as a text snippet so try scrolling down page to see the 3 photos.)
-
You are missing the point.
-
"You are missing the point."
"Don McCullin doesn’t trust digital photography. Calling it “a totally lying experience”, McCullin, famous photographer of war and disaster, says that the transition to digital capture, editing and storage means viewers could no longer trust the truthfulness of images they see."
Yep, that seems to be the point, sure we can trust film images, just ask Frank Hurley (if you could).
Cheers,
-
In my camera club days a visiting lecturer had a nice scene projected of a man in a canoe and some Nepalese mountains in the background. It looked perfectly natural but in fact was two slides jammed together, one for the canoe and the other the mountains. Has McCullin learned how to shoot with a digital camera and the processes involved?
-
Yes, the point is being missed.
Don lived the life, paid the price many times over, and AFAIK has great integrity. You must buy his eponymous book; research several videos of his working lfe, see him saving lives whilst injured... the Observer and Sunday Times weren't into lies, though once Murdoch took over, the good guys left or were pushed.
The sins of the early birds doesn't mitigate the fibs of the newer ones. And tarnishing a hero in generalizations is pretty tawdry treatment. Shit; just look at his UK street if you need convincing of his balls and moral strength.
Re. his shooting of digital: yes, he can shoot it. So can I, but I only use it due to cost and logistical impossibility of staying with film here. Truth to tell, it spawns mediocrity in the amateur. Doing it well needs loadsa loot and/or big clients. And crap, whether film or digital, is still crap.
Rob C
-
Just because a thing is a matter of degree doesn't mean it's unimportant. Please note key words like 'totally' in the man's remarks.
-
...yes, he can shoot it. So can I, but I only use it due to cost... Truth to tell, it spawns mediocrity in the amateur.
Rob,
I think you're wrong in assigning the cause of mediocrity to digital because there's always been, in your words, crap being shot. We're just seeing more of it.
The reasons? The first is in your post; it's cheap to shoot. The second reason that we're seeing more is because it's so easy to distribute.
When film reigned supreme, each press of the shutter was expensive. Even then, the only audience the photographer had, unless it was shot for publication, was the poor guy at the camera store and the photographer's immediate family and friends.
The "artistic" photographer these days can press the shutter, apply a few software filters, click a few more buttons and his great work is spread across the Internet to astonish and amuse us all. The best work get's diluted by the sheer numbers of photographs being shared.
Tom
-
When film reigned supreme, each press of the shutter was expensive.
Only if you paid for film and processing :-)
"In summer 1954, Cartier-Bresson was therefore the first western photographer to obtain a visa for the Soviet Union since the thaw in the Cold War 15 months after Stalin's death. ... He took 10,000 photographs in ten weeks."
p203-4 Henri Cartier-Bresson: A Biography. (http://books.google.com/books?id=_ICFQgAACAAJ)
-
Rob,
I think you're wrong in assigning the cause of mediocrity to digital because there's always been, in your words, crap being shot. We're just seeing more of it.
The reasons? The first is in your post; it's cheap to shoot. The second reason that we're seeing more is because it's so easy to distribute.
When film reigned supreme, each press of the shutter was expensive. Even then, the only audience the photographer had, unless it was shot for publication, was the poor guy at the camera store and the photographer's immediate family and friends.
The "artistic" photographer these days can press the shutter, apply a few software filters, click a few more buttons and his great work is spread across the Internet to astonish and amuse us all. The best work get's diluted by the sheer numbers of photographs being shared.
Tom
Yes, that's so, but here we are talking about professional photographers - such as DM - and published work. Amateur stuff can be good as it can be bad, but that's another argument than this one. However, the fact that the amateur can shoot freely now does certainly raise the numbers doing rubbish. I think the good ones would always have produced work in whichever medium, and at existing costs of the day, film days included. If anything, the financial responsibility would help the individual get smart quicker! Did it for me!
Rob C
-
I belong to a photo club mainly of retired folks who used film for much of their younger lives. Today, with their digital cameras and post processing software, they think nothing of cloning in stuff, erasing other stuff, as if it's as natural as drinking orange juice for breakfast.
But I can assure you that none of these guys ever modified a film shot in their younger lives. They either shot and projected slides or had the local one-hour processor develop their film and provide 4" x 6" prints.
The point is that many, maybe most people don't believe the "honesty" of pictures today. They're always asking if you Photoshopped it especially if it's a nice shot. That wasn't true years ago.
-
Quote from Leicaphilia
Don McCullin doesn’t trust digital photography. Calling it “a totally lying experience”
Quote from The Telegraph UK
Don McCullin: 'Digital photography can be a totally lying experience'
Similar, but not exactly the same meaning. Which one did Don McCullin say? Your guess is as good as mine, unless you were there.
Yes, it is very easy to alter a digital image, but implying that you cannot do it with film is naive.
-
Here we go again...
OK, I won't belabor the point of image manipulation in film days; enough had been said here already. But take a minute and think about the other side of things.
Look at the article itself, for instance. First paragraph:
Calling it “a totally lying experience”, McCullin, famous photographer of war and disaster, says
Then, in third paragraph (which BTW can be totally missed by people who only have a brief look at it and then rush discussing in on a forum):
digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience
See? To say the least, not exactly the same, aren't they? A bit less words, a bit more controversy (which sells).
The same applies to PJ: speaking of the information it conveys, the difference it makes, even simple framing (i.e. picking the subject, selective inclusion/exclusion, etc.) is so much more powerful than image manipulation in post, that there's IMHO no comparison. Let alone I'm yet to see a photojournalist who has only seen the picture from only one side of the thin red line and provided an "objective" report.
My favorite example is this: whenever BBC documents elections in Russia, on their English web site I almost invariably see images of soldiers (young conscripts) or elder women casting their votes. Interestingly, on their Russian site you wouldn't see this sh!t: there are images of young happy families and such. But for a Western reader the picture is "clear": only the military and elder people still support those who, unfortunately, usurped the power.
I have every bit of confidence that BBC adheres to the highest standards, and holds highest possible moral ground when it comes to [digital] image "manipulation", but does it help?? Nope, not even a wee bit.
So... I'm sure (based on comments made here by Rob et. al.) that Don McCullin is a great person and photojournalist of even greater integrity. But his blank statements like "the inherent truth of photography" make backlash not only inevitable, but IMHO deserved.
-
I belong to a photo club mainly of retired folks who used film for much of their younger lives. Today, with their digital cameras and post processing software, they think nothing of cloning in stuff, erasing other stuff, as if it's as natural as drinking orange juice for breakfast.
But I can assure you that none of these guys ever modified a film shot in their younger lives. They either shot and projected slides or had the local one-hour processor develop their film and provide 4" x 6" prints.
The point is that many, maybe most people don't believe the "honesty" of pictures today. They're always asking if you Photoshopped it especially if it's a nice shot. That wasn't true years ago.
If it's art we are producing, why do we care about honesty and cloning etc... You either like the art or you don't...bottom line. I can see if we were are journalists trying to show reality in our photos, but I'm sure those people in the camera club just shoot to create a nice photo.
We use slow Shutter to depict motion or smooth out some flowing water. We all seem to be ok with this, but is that also not manipulation of the scene? After all when I look at the ocean, I don't see a dreamy smooth surface. We've been manipulating photos forever... Why are some techniques ok, but cloning out a distracting branch not ok. Would it be better to just go into the scene and cut out the branch with a saw?
-
There's nothing wrong with art. However, unlike a painting, a camera is catching a real moment in time. And no one today believes that the final image reflected the reality of what was photographed.
The argument that dreamy oceans and smoothing water flow are "normal" manipulations are different than cloning. The final image that's smoothed looks manipulated. The viewer is not fooled that what he sees on the print is what actually exists in nature. The photo looks like art. That's different then replacing a drab gray sky with a nice blue sky with puffy white clouds. In this case, the scene looks un-manipulated but in fact does not reflect what the photographer saw at all. The sky could have come from a different continent. It's these latter manipulations that makes people question the reality of so much of photography today.
-
There's nothing wrong with art. However, unlike a painting, a camera is catching a real moment in time. And no one today believes that the final image reflected the reality of what was photographed.
The argument that dreamy oceans and smoothing water flow are "normal" manipulations are different than cloning. The final image that's smoothed looks manipulated. The viewer is not fooled that what he sees on the print is what actually exists in nature. The photo looks like art. That's different then replacing a drab gray sky with a nice blue sky with puffy white clouds. In this case, the scene looks un-manipulated but in fact does not reflect what the photographer saw at all. The sky could have come from a different continent. It's these latter manipulations that makes people question the reality of so much of photography today.
But does it matter if what you are producing is wall art? Somehow we feel it's ok to exaggerate water movement, ok to exaggerate a sunset, even ok to merge two shots into one...but to clone out a distracting branch...taboo. Who decided on these boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not in art?
I sell my art and not one single time has my integrity been questioned... They just accept the final product for what it is, art!!!
-
I've cloned out a branch myself on occasion. But mostly I limit my edits to crops and adjusting the exposure and contrast values. I was just trying to explain why many viewers question today whether a picture has been photoshopped when years ago everyone took a photo at face value - that it recorded what the photographer saw. Today those same people are photoshopping a sky from one picture into another and never questioning what they're doing. With a painting, everyone acknowledges that the picture is filtered through the artist's mind and does not reflect exactly what he saw. Photography use to be different in that respect.
I guess it comes down to being happy with what you're doing. But if I feel queasy as I do when I have to stop and think about answering honestly if someone asks me if I cloned in or deleted things in the picture from what I saw, then I have to change how I handle edits. I have to be true to myself.
-
IMO it's in the nature of things for old(er) folks to complain about "how it is now" just as it is for young(er) folks to ignore 'em and go their own way. The past was never what we now tell ourselves it was. And the future is never the present extended…it's always a different thing.
-Dave-
-
And the future is never the present extended…it's always a different thing.
"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be."
;)
-
I think that McCullin is against the digital photography only because he is afraid of the manipulation of the photos, that kills the documentary photography, the only legitimate kind of photography, according to him. He is particularly hostile to photography as "art" (an american invention, according to him).
Here is a more articulated summary of his position:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images
-
I think that McCullin is against the digital photography only because he is afraid of the manipulation of the photos, that kills the documentary photography, the only legitimate kind of photography, according to him. He is particularly hostile to photography as "art" (an american invention, according to him).
Here is a more articulated summary of his position:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images
That's his problem to over come. I wonder if he did any burning or dodging to emphasize his photo...sort of like what some landscape photographers do with colour to emphasize the sunset.
Have no time for narrow close minded people.
-
It is not his problem at all.
This is reality: People no longer trust photographs as they once did.
That's a problem. That's my problem, it's your problem. If you use a camera with intent, it's your problem too.
-
At most his point is that it is easier to manipulate digital images than film ones, and I add amolitor's corollary that people trust photographic images less than they used to.
Some counterpoints:
1) The long history of film image manipulation (already much discussed) suggests that it might actually be a good thing for people to have become less trusting of photographs: they never were throughly trustworthy, it is just that people are less gullible now.
2) For evidentiary photography like police work, there are specially modified cameras that provide authentication that "what you see is what the sensor saw" (tricks of perspective, lighting and such still apply though!) . Digital images from these devices are more trustworthy than ones on film, so perhaps he should get one for his documentary/reporting work, and encourage his peers to do so as well.
3) This line is particularly absurd to anyone familiar with the color inaccuracy of films like Velvia and many photographers' choice if it partly for the sake of that color distortion: "McCullin particularly dislikes how digital cameras allow manipulation of color."
4) His Hadrian's Wall example is also ironic both about accuracy and whether his photography is art: the advantage he claims for Tri-X or HP5 over digital comes down to making a film choice for the sake of manipulating the image to suggest a certain mood (partly by removing color: see item 3!) whereas a "straight" digital image is probably more accurate. And I would say that he made this choice of medium for the sake of "art".
-
Andrew,
This is reality: People no longer trust photographs as they once did.
That's a problem. That's my problem, it's your problem.
How do you propose to solve the problem?
-
There isn't any solution, that ship has sailed. Make of the new world what you will.
-
Andrew,
There isn't any solution...
A problem without a solution? That sounds rather defeatist.
-
The world is filled with problems that do not have solutions. Each of us, one day, will die. Space is too big for humanity to ever leave this solar system. The teacup, once dropped, will hit the floor and shatter before you can snatch it. The plant has died from lack of watering.
These things are all a shame, but one just soldiers on anyways.
-
At most his point is …
afaict we're looking at a few out-of-context quotes and speculating about what they might mean :(
I would be interested in reading a full Don McCullin interview, but these "articles" are just scratching around for soundbites.
This is reality: People no longer trust photographs as they once did.
Perhaps that is your reality.
Meanwhile, a multitude gulp down photographic images in-wonder without question; a multitude have their trust in photographs personally re-affirmed by their own use of phone photography; a multitude understand that their kids photo-shopped granny's head onto a donkey, and yet still trust the photos from their acquaintances to be what they seem.
-
It is not his problem at all.
This is reality: People no longer trust photographs as they once did.
That's a problem. That's my problem, it's your problem. If you use a camera with intent, it's your problem too.
It's his problem if he thinks only journalism is "true" photography...too full of himself.
As far as what the public thinks...I make photographic art and use whatever is at my disposal to create it. If someone asks me if I "photoshopped" my print...I gladly tell them the laborious process I had to go through to make the image. They typically are very impressed at the amount of work required to create the art.
I see nothing wrong with this. Historically the public was ignorant to the work that was done in the darkroom to enhance the image. Now at least the public understands there is manipulation and we as photographers don't need to lie about how real a print is.
-
As I and many others have said, repeatedly, that basic trust that people have is a large part of what makes a photograph a photograph. I've probably said it in this thread, I dunno.
Painting, digital or otherwise, is a lovely thing. I have no objection to it. But it isn't photography. And photography loses much of what it is, what makes it itself, when trust is lost. If the default reaction anything visually interesting is "nice photoshop work" then we're all painters, whether we like it or not. If you're OK with that, well, great. Have you heard of these "brush" things? I hear they're pretty great too. Me, I'm not a painter.
This is basic stuff, I'm not making it up, I'm not some lone voice in the wilderness screaming crazy rantings. Everyone who bothers to think much about photography and how it fits in to society gets here pretty quickly, and then, often, they say "Oh Dear". Because it's an Oh Dear sort of observation.
-
As I and many others have said, repeatedly, that basic trust that people have is a large part of what makes a photograph a photograph. I've probably said it in this thread, I dunno.
Painting, digital or otherwise, is a lovely thing. I have no objection to it. But it isn't photography. And photography loses much of what it is, what makes it itself, when trust is lost. If the default reaction anything visually interesting is "nice photoshop work" then we're all painters, whether we like it or not. If you're OK with that, well, great. Have you heard of these "brush" things? I hear they're pretty great too. Me, I'm not a painter.
This is basic stuff, I'm not making it up, I'm not some lone voice in the wilderness screaming crazy rantings. Everyone who bothers to think much about photography and how it fits in to society gets here pretty quickly, and then, often, they say "Oh Dear". Because it's an Oh Dear sort of observation.
I contend photographs have always been manipulated, whether it's the choice of film, paper, developer, dodging & burning, shutter speed and so on. It's just the public was ignorant on all this and we photographers duped them. Now they have caught on in the digital age and it becomes a big issue with you?
I feel better that the public understands what goes into a print rather than being duped into thinking otherwise. Even if you just make contact prints, you still influence the image by the film, developer, paper choices. Sure this is not like adding a 2nd head to a body...but none the less what happened in the darkroom by the masters was to change the image that was captured on film to what was displayed on the print.
-
The point isn't whether or how someone burns and dodges. The point is whether people tend to default to believing in some indexical quality of the picture or not.
I'm not talking about technique or methods, I'm talking about society. Digital has wrought shattering changes and we have not the faintest idea what, if anything, will remain.
-
The point isn't whether or how someone burns and dodges. The point is whether people tend to default to believing in some indexical quality of the picture or not.
I'm not talking about technique or methods, I'm talking about society. Digital has wrought shattering changes and we have not the faintest idea what, if anything, will remain.
Outside of journalism...why does it matter? What is this purity you are trying to hang onto with film and darkrooms?
Are the beautiful landscape images we see with digital with obvious exaggerated sunsets any different than the florescent green images we saw with Velvia or the glowing red images we saw with Kodachrome? The only difference today is people understand digital manipulation and yesterday they were ignorant what occurred in the darkroom. We as photographers were not anymore pure back in those film days than we are today with digital. The only difference is the public is starting to understand that photography does not tell the truth.
-
I'm not trying to hang on to anything. There's nothing to hang on to, it's gone. You've got me confused with some darkroom curmudgeon waving his cane at these damn kids with their PhotoMarket or whatever it is.
At this point I'd just be repeating myself, so go back and look at what I said about the difference between painting and photography.
You should be able to pretty much have the whole debate by yourself at this point.
-
I contend photographs have always been manipulated, whether it's the choice of film, paper, developer, dodging & burning, shutter speed and so on. It's just the public was ignorant on all this and we photographers duped them. Now they have caught on in the digital age and it becomes a big issue with you?
The very act of framing a photograph is manipulating the image. Truth? If I photograph is a group of 8 people fighting, they fill the frame, and I call it a riot, is it? If the camera were turned anther way, what would it see? Are they eight of 800? Or are they just eight people going at each other? Everywhere you turn a camera, you exclude other information that would be available if one were there. But they're not, so we, the photographers decide what they'll see.
It's manipulative. It's always been so. It may be the truth from your point of view, but it's only your point of view.
-
I think the difference people see or when they know you "Photoshopped" it is like the difference of going to Alaska to flyfish for salmon in the wilds or going to a local fish farm stocked with your fish. In both cases you come home with a fish. But there's something different about the way you caught it. Average people usually don't apply the same value of work on the farm fish. They think somehow your cheated or at a minimum that it's not real fishing. Well. I think viewers look at photos the same way. Photoshop has taken something away from photography.
The argument that film was modified before doesn't fly for most people who photographed with film. For them, they either shot chromes and projected them with no modification at all. Or they shot negative film and sent it out to a lab that printed the pictures on 4"x6" paper, also with no modification by the photographer. So along comes PS which they now use. They know the edits they can and do make. So they understand it's not the same as film was years ago. It's not the same as going to Alaska to fly fish.
-
2) For evidentiary photography like police work, there are specially modified cameras that provide authentication that "what you see is what the sensor saw" (tricks of perspective, lighting and such still apply though!) . Digital images from these devices are more trustworthy than ones on film, so perhaps he should get one for his documentary/reporting work, and encourage his peers to do so as well.
I can tell you how this works in Italy for all police work.
Up until 10 years ago (in some places even less), police used to have Nikon FM2n cameras. The only kind of authentication was putting identification signs in the pictures themselves. All processing was later done at the internal lab of the police station by officers specialized in processing and printing using standardized processes so all pictures look the same (or close).
The transition to digital wasn't done in one single swoop, so some places still use Nikon D50 and D100, while others may have a D300s. Regardless of the actual model, none of those cameras are modifyied in any way. The pictures have to be taken by officers and they have to be certified, but they can be tampered just as much. Well, actually they do not shoot RAW, they only shoot JPG because it is harder to post process and gives a final image ready to print, so there's that.
I had the pleasure to talk directly with two police officers recently about this stuff, as they brought cameras for repair at my usual shop. They also explained to me that they give away their old cameras to charities, and this is how I managed to get my hands on a cheap and perfect FM2n last year.
-
The pictures have to be taken by officers and they have to be certified, but they can be tampered just as much.
Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)
-
Est modus in (photographicis) rebus...
-
Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)
Both Canon and Nikon have a certification software. Which has been already cracked (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/29/nikon-image-authentication-software-cracked-rendered-useless/) by a Russian company (who else ;) )
-
I think the difference people see or when they know you "Photoshopped" it is like the difference of going to Alaska to flyfish for salmon in the wilds or going to a local fish farm stocked with your fish. In both cases you come home with a fish. But there's something different about the way you caught it. Average people usually don't apply the same value of work on the farm fish. They think somehow your cheated or at a minimum that it's not real fishing. Well. I think viewers look at photos the same way. Photoshop has taken something away from photography.
The argument that film was modified before doesn't fly for most people who photographed with film. For them, they either shot chromes and projected them with no modification at all. Or they shot negative film and sent it out to a lab that printed the pictures on 4"x6" paper, also with no modification by the photographer. So along comes PS which they now use. They know the edits they can and do make. So they understand it's not the same as film was years ago. It's not the same as going to Alaska to fly fish.
We aren't talking about people who owned instamatics and sent their rolls into the drugstore and purchased 4x6 prints...these same people take photos with their phones and post directly to the net without any modifications...nothing changed here.
We are talking about people that would work for hours in the darkroom manipulating their prints using various techniques to enhance their photo....modify it from what the negative captured. This same process happens today with a computer replacing the darkroom. Sure you can merge two photos very simply with the computer...but this same merging occurred in the darkroom.
If you think projected slides are pure...what about those neon green Velvia scenes everyone was so excited about...is that not the same as the glowing red digitally manipulated sunset?
The difference is that in the film days...we duped the public into thinking photography was pure whereas in the digital world the public has caught on.
-
...these same people take photos with their phones and post directly to the net without any modifications...nothing changed here...
Riiiight. Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.
The usual advice applies here: when in a hole, stop digging.
-
Riiiight. Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.
The usual advice applies here: when in a hole, stop digging.
Sure there are examples of manipulation everywhere...but then there are 100x ( maybe more ) photos being taken today...
I'm just saying people are naive to think there has been no manipulation in the darkroom.
And thanks for your enlightened comment. Maybe just sit back next time to keep things civil.
-
chez,
...in the film days...we duped the public into thinking photography was pure...
Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?
-
chez,
Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?
It was a team effort...
-
chez,
Did photographers dupe the public, or did the public dupe itself?
Does it matter? Were we honest with the public when we emerged from the darkroom holding the print? The darkroom was a mystery to the public...work hidden behind closed doors. The public was ignorant on what occurs behind these closed doors.
-
chez,
Does it matter? Were we honest with the public when we emerged from the darkroom holding the print?
Perhaps the public did not consider photography to be art.
As far as what the public thinks...I make photographic art and use whatever is at my disposal to create it. If someone asks me if I "photoshopped" my print...
Perhaps the public does not consider photography to be art.
Zorki5,
It was a team effort...
Apparently some team members have lost faith in their teammates.
-
The MOMA considered photography to be Art, starting from their inception in 1929.
They didn't consider it to be painting, however.
-
Which explains Instagram's (and its filters) user base of 300+ millions and valuation of $35-40 billions.
"One of the main motivations for filter use is to enhance a photo and correct for brightness, saturation, contrast and focus. … The filters that are used for enhancement are usually milder in the effect intensity and are applied to enhance the photo while keeping the main imagery or the subject with minimal alterations. … casual photographers who do not have much knowledge of photography as an art, described the filters primarily as tools that make the photos more special … There are a lot of cases when users prefer to share the photo without filtering it."
pdf Why We Filter Our Photos and How It Impacts Engagement (http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/icwsm15.why.bakhshi.pdf)
-
Apparently some team members have lost faith in their teammates.
Which is IMHO a good thing.
-
chez,
Perhaps the public did not consider photography to be art.
The people who buy my prints to hang in their living rooms definitely consider them as art.
-
The MOMA considered photography to be Art, starting from their inception in 1929.
They didn't consider it to be painting, however.
Funny you say that. One of my most popular prints is an image of a group of Sockey salmon which I put through Corel Painter using a heavy oil brush printed onto canvas. People love it...have it hanging in a lodge printed at 6'x4'
-
Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)
Basically write down that they took the pictures and they have not be tampered with in any way. They put their names on it and will be held accountable in a courtroom if they turned out to be staged or edited. There is no software involved, just plain old trusting people.
-
Can you please elaborate on that? Especially what you meant by "certified" (officers have to be certified to take pictures, or pictures have to be somehow certified?)
The way it used to work in Australia was that you needed an evidentiary chain. It didn't depend on the equipment, but you needed the photographer to get on the stand and swear that the photo was a true representation of the scene. If the photographer was not available (suppose you found a canister of film on a body), then the person who developed and printed the film would need to testify.
You can always modify images, but the law works according to the magic thinking that people will not lie under oath (although there is at least a risk they'll be thrown in jail for perjury), or that the jury will recognise that they are lying. It's not really any different to eg DNA evidence.
-
The way it used to work in Australia was that you needed an evidentiary chain. It didn't depend on the equipment, but you needed the photographer to get on the stand and swear that the photo was a true representation of the scene. If the photographer was not available (suppose you found a canister of film on a body), then the person who developed and printed the film would need to testify.
You can always modify images, but the law works according to the magic thinking that people will not lie under oath (although there is at least a risk they'll be thrown in jail for perjury), or that the jury will recognise that they are lying. It's not really any different to eg DNA evidence.
Pretty much this. Like with any other type of evidence it can be forged and you rely on a trust system.
The only way I can think of to properly authenticate a picture via software would be to encrypt the content with a public/private key pair at high bits (512+) so that it would be near impossible to decrypt in a short time span. Obviously you'll need to keep the private key in a safe place, because if it gets out in the wild then you can't trust those pictures any more than you can trust someone under oath.
-
The only way I can think of to properly authenticate a picture via software would be to encrypt the content with a public/private key pair at high bits (512+) so that it would be near impossible to decrypt in a short time span. Obviously you'll need to keep the private key in a safe place, because if it gets out in the wild then you can't trust those pictures any more than you can trust someone under oath.
This is essentially what Canon's and Nikon's image authentication systems are doing. Unfortunately, it was proved to be possible to extract private keys from their FW, so...
-
Nikon's software solution was compromised back in 2011. It was available on the D200, D2, D3, D300 and D700 models. Most recent models lack the option and I can confirm that my D200 with the latest firmware has the Image Authentication setting in the setup (wrench) menu, while my D7000 with the latest firmware does not have the option. I've found on a website that the D7000 had this option at launch, but Nikon may have removed it in one of the firmware releases. The software itself is no longer being sold nor supported.
-
Both Canon and Nikon have a certification software. Which has been already cracked (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/29/nikon-image-authentication-software-cracked-rendered-useless/) by a Russian company (who else ;) )
Probably the same guys who darkroomed (a primitive form of photoshopping) Trotsky out of the picture.
-
Solutions of this sort merely present a sort of "low wall" that must be consciously hopped over.
You can't accidentally, or in a moment of poor judgement, modify a picture. You have to go ahead and make an effort. So it always is. Much of the protocols of police work, as well as other lines of work in all walks of life, is to keep basically honest people honest. The profoundly dishonest cannot, really, be stopped, they can only be caught (sometimes) and punished.
-
In various kinds of documentary photography it's of course important that the image is not manipulated to show some other event. The largest "manipulation" is usually in what you leave outside the frame though, and you can always arrange the scene.
Today when film is scanned and post-processed digitally it's so easy to clone out stuff that I wouldn't trust it more than any digital image.
What can be boring with digital is the "digital look" which is due to popular poor tastes in pushing saturation and clarity and tonemap (you can indeed do that with scanned film too, but few do it). It doesn't have to be that way though.
In landscape photography "manipulation" is much about manipulating colors, and if we look at film like Fuji Velvia they where not exactly designed to make a realistic image, but to make something look more spectacular than the real scene through high contrast and saturated tinted colors. With digital it's much easier to make a realistic representation if you want to. Few want that though, and apply various kinds of post-processing. In the best cases the post-processing is about strengthening the message of the image, in the worst cases it's just mindless "reality improvement" to get more likes on the social networks.
I don't think it's necessarily better to use a fixed post-processing recipe like film represents compared to being able to design it more precisely according to your own ideas.
I shoot my landscapes digital, and my method is to never use manufacturers default color but to make my own camera profile designed for as realistic colors as possible (which for many light conditions is not 100% possible of course), and then with that as a baseline I modify the colors to taste to create atmosphere much like cinema grading, but trying to keep it "within reason".
If the documentary aspect is important or not in your landscape photography depends on what you want to convey. In my own photography the documentary aspect has some importance as one of my messages to the audience is to have their eyes open and "see what's around you" there are hidden gems, and if I pull colors too much I show something that couldn't be seen and then I break that message.
I've attached one of my own as an example. The first shot is the plain "out of camera" (ie my own color profile and flat-field corrected), and the other is how it looks after my post-processing. The "manipulations" I've done is cropping from 4:3 to 4:5, increased luminance contrast (which has a desaturation look as side effect), applied a small vignette, added a color grade with a tiny amount of cyan via RGB curves. I try to have a reason for the changes I do and by having a finely tuned digital original with good realism rather than some poppy film I feel more confident that I'm in control from start to end.
-
torger,
I try to have a reason for the changes I do...
What was the reason(s) for the changes you made to the example image you posted?
-
torger,
What was the reason(s) for the changes you made to the example image you posted?
There's always that lazy top level reason "make things look nicer", and well, that is what I eventually fall back on, but the definition what "nice looking" is certainly not some absolute truth. Here it's important to me to not bring things too far away from realism, and that's why I like to have an a good realistic starting point (with the usual photographic limitations). The reason for that is as described I want to show the audience than an inconspicuous place or object can be turned interesting just through viewpoint and framing. So that explains why I don't make pictures to "pop" as much as possible.
I know a thing or two about color science and I'm totally aware that there is no such thing as a 100% realistic original, so I see no point in not making any post-processing at all. The overall reason to make post-processing for me is to create atmosphere, tie together images in a series and make a personal look, and it must connect back to the documentary aspect meaning that it cannot be too extreme.
I'm generally not turning too intellectual about about every post-processing modification, I do think a lot about art and there's all sorts of loose reasons flying around that shapes an aesthetic and then I do things to the image that "feels right". Especially when it comes to possible color grading, why did I add cyan rather than say yellow? I typically test through a few and pick what I like the most, and trust my intuition that if I follow that it will be good in the end. I do make the color gradings subtle, typically less than a film stock affects color. Sometimes there may be a reason to think about "warm"/"cool" tints for creating a feel/atmosphere in a more cinematic way but this image was neutral in that regard. In general my subjects are quite neutral and it's a deliberate stylistic choice I've made, my images are not so much about dramatic clearing storms or morning fog coming in and that type of stuff it's not where I've chosen to put my focus, at least not now.
Then I also have to factor in keeping a consistent style, and certainly when I present a series of images they must be processed in a similar fashion. If I present two images side by side, the grading may also be slightly affected by that to make them match better.
Changing from 4:3 to 4:5 in this particular image I think gave a clearer structure of the pine background. This is from a series I'm currently doing called "geometric chaos" (working name), and the pine background is the key "geometric" element. The vignette of 0.3 stop is a default thing in my reference look which adds depth to an image, and I always include it unless there's some particular reason not to, some images may become more graphic without a vignette, this was not one of them. In a very messy image I sometimes strengthen the vignette to make it look less messy if I think that is closer to my desired aesthetic.
The luminance contrast curve is my "clarity" tool to take down some of the fogginess originals often have. It's also a part of my consistent look, I generally use this first before I would try local contrast enhancements or clarity tricks.
Having "a reason" is in the end as fuzzy as "the message" (or rather "messages") you try to convey, it's after all art and it's supposed to be a bit fuzzy, so perhaps I was using the wrong word. Perhaps I should have instead said that I try to not post-process for "the wrong reasons", where the wrong reason is for example to make the image as likely as possible to get to 500px.com/popular (which my images really aren't suitable for anyway).
-
Well, got babbling away there, but I guess the point is "it's not that it's digital, it's how you choose to handle it".
-
... I've attached one of my own as an example...
For what it's worth, I prefer your original. The more contrasty one could work in b&w though.
-
In various kinds of documentary photography it's of course important that the image is not manipulated to show some other event. The largest "manipulation" is usually in what you leave outside the frame though, and you can always arrange the scene.
If you are documenting a political riot, for example, taking architectural pictures of the buildings around the square instead is not "manipulation", it is incompetence. Any idiot with WA lens and spirit level can take architectural photos, but documenting something requires reflexes and guts and fast eye.
"You can always arrange a scene"? You wish… Many "documentarists" have done that, sure (W. Eugene Smith for one), but thinking that you can stop a riot or war to arrange things for a more pleasing composition is quite far fetched.
-
For what it's worth, I prefer your original. The more contrasty one could work in b&w though.
I generally don't ask for opinions (there's a reason I don't post images in user critiques) as most, even experienced highly skilled photographers like you, typically just convey their personal taste and style without even trying to understand my personal goals and style. What people actually say is basically "if you shoot/process more like me it would be better", which actually could be true, but it would not be me. If someone shares style similar to mine and share their opinions I'm more likely to listen.
My processing often ends up with lower saturation and higher contrast than the out-of-camera. The in-fashion style (at least in America) today ends up with higher saturation and higher contrast, and then some clarity on top and perhaps some serious shadow pushing. So I'm not in fashion. Fortunately, as only being "enthusiast amateur artist" I don't need to make money from my images so I'm free to do it the way I like, and believe me I have searched quite while and tried many ways before coming to what my current method of post-processing is.
The interesting part of my method in the context of this thread is not really what end look I prefer, but that I start with a calibrated starting point which is more realistic than film ever could be.
-
If you are documenting a political riot, for example, taking architectural pictures of the buildings around the square instead is not "manipulation", it is incompetence. Any idiot with WA lens and spirit level can take architectural photos, but documenting something requires reflexes and guts and fast eye.
"You can always arrange a scene"??? You wish… Many "documentarists" have done that, sure (W. Eugene Smith for one), but thinking that you can stop a riot or war to arrange things for a more pleasing composition is quite far fetched.
I'm not thinking so much about the political riot, but say shooting "wildlife" in the zoo, or as a landscape photographer you can sometimes give the impression of untouched nature while you're standing on a parking lot on the highway. In war photography there are examples of arranged scenes, not all photos are of ongoing chaos. It can also be as simple as pressing the shutter when a person happen to smile or not, there's an incredible power in changing story only in the way you select images and how you choose to point the camera and when you press the shutter.
That the photographer can affect the story I'm not seeing this as something negative, but it is a big responsibility just as when you're a journalist writing about an event.
-
... What people actually say is basically "if you shoot/process more like me it would be better"..
No, that is not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that for me, as a viewer/consumer/potential buyer (even if your intention is not to sell), I would go for the first one, but not for the second one.
In addition, if your goal is, as you stated;
I want to show the audience than an inconspicuous place or object can be turned interesting just through viewpoint and framing. So that explains why I don't make pictures to "pop" as much as possible.
then the first one is closer to that goal (imho, of course).
The interesting part of my method in the context of this thread is not really what end look I prefer, but that I start with a calibrated starting point which is more realistic than film ever could be.
And my comments are not meant to demonstrate what end look I prefer either, or to criticize your approach, but to indicate why film (or, in your case, something even "more realistic") is often valued higher by the public (hint: precisely because it is more realistic, more believable, more authentic, than those that "pop" digitally).
Just to make sure: none of what I said is meant to be critical of your style or methods. It was simply a feedback from the audience you are trying to show something.
-
Thanks for clarifying. You're making a perfectly fair and interesting point.
I have indeed identified this tension/conflict between documentary realism and the desire to make an appealing/personal look. I have considered trying to as a part of the artistic concept do it so close to realistic reproduction I could. As I do know a bit color science and write own processing software I'm probably better off than most to pull it off, but it would be quite a bit of guesswork still as there's not enough tools or information in the raw image to do this well.
I ended up with that it's lot of work, won't be entirely reliable, and not really any big point with that, so I settled with a "reasonable" amount of post-processing (which I also happen to like in terms of look), plus that I will in this series show the "out of camera" version (in the image info view in the web presentation). The thing is noone is going to thank me for making an image as realistic as possible, and I think throwing away the ability for subtle personalization of the look is not worth it.
You can see post-processing as a part of the art, and I tend to do that. That's also interesting to relate to film where you get a finished recipe decided by someone else. With digital you are in control, perhaps we get more control than many of us can handle which is the scary part. But anyway, depending of what you want to achieve you can do strong effects, or keep it more subtle. I try to find a balance, and what you say is that for the documentary aspect goal I have pushed it too far.
I don't think I have, my post-processing is much less than you would get from a slide film, and color is more neutral than most negative films, but it's of course a matter of taste. If the goal is maximum realism the original is closer to the target than my version, and I know that. The thing is that it's not too far off. What's too far? I try to think like this: would a layman that was together with me at the scene when shooting and then see my finished image consider it to be "reality improvement" or not?
I see "reality improvement" as something different from "personalization" of the look. When you do reality improvement you make changes to make the illusion that the original scene was more conspicuous than it actually was. If you personalize the look you may change the look so it's less realistic and more personal, but not really changing the connection to the real scene. Tonemapping and saturation pushing easily gets into the reality improvement category, while color grading/tinting is more about personalization. That's at least how I see it.
Another aspect of this particular image to defend the contrast difference is that my "memory/feel" of the scene is that it should be a bit more contrasty than the "standardized" out-of-camera version. In a low contrast light condition the eye/brain tends to adapt a bit at the scene and not see the scene as low contrast as when we see it in the image afterwards. So the maximum realistic version would have a tad bit more contrast than the original, although still less than my finished version. It's a mess and unreliable to try to do such things by memory though so I've chosen to have the fixed reference and live with its limitations.
(Note that I'm not suggesting that my way is the only rightful thing to do, not at all, it's just one way to see it of many and it's suiting the type of work I do. If I do other type of work later on I may change the method.)
-
There's always that lazy top level reason "make things look nicer", and well, that is what I eventually fall back on, but the definition what "nice looking" is certainly not some absolute truth.
I find this example very interesting.
It seems like the reason for your post processing was to make the image prettier, but I'd argue that the first image, straight out of the camera, is more aesthetically pleasing, and it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so.
On the other hand, the tree you photographed is a dead one, and the mods you applied made it look much more, unmistakenly dead, esp. because of whitening of the branches. So it is, in a way, better as a "documentary" image.
-
To make the image prettier sounds all too trivial. I'd say the reasons are to create atmosphere and adapt a personal look, and also to unify a series of images. In lack of experience discussing these aspects I did the mistake to use "make things look nicer" when I was referring to the parts in look design that's not intellectually decided but based on your intuition and taste. There's a coarse set of ideas in the background (which I indeed think is important to have, at least for me) but I certainly don't intellectualize every post-processing detail.
Discussing what's more aesthetically pleasing I don't find particularly meaningful. I shouldn't have used "look nicer" because it's not that my intuition works, "look right" would have been a better choice of word. It should feel right for the context, subject and personal style. My intention is not to maximize pretty, but to make all those pieces in the puzzle just align as a whole and that is to a large extent an esoteric process.
The tree is actually not dead, it's only the branches that are. When the tree grows (a pine) the lower branches dries and dies. In forestry you cut off those branches as the quality of the trunk becomes better then. This is shot in an untouched forest though so the dry branches are left sitting.