Photographic Integrity

[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?

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

[pegelli]

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.

[JBerardi]

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 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.

[JohnKoerner]

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

[JohnKoerner]

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.

[JohnKoerner]

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



.

[dalethorn]

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.

[pegelli]

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]

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.

[John Camp]

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

[dalethorn]

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.

[pegelli]

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

[JBerardi]

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.

[JohnKoerner]

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

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

[JohnKoerner]

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



.

[JohnKoerner]

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




.

[DarkPenguin]

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.

[JBerardi]

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, actually.

[pegelli]

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.

[JohnKoerner]

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,