Photographic Integrity

[dalethorn]

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.

[JBerardi]

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 and/or raw, some work better recorded in studio with absolute precision. 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.

[JohnKoerner]

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:





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




.

[dalethorn]

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 and/or raw, some work better recorded in studio with absolute precision. 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.

[dalethorn]

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.

[lensfactory]

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.

[dalethorn]

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?

[Rob C]

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

[pegelli]

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  

[Rob C]

lecture the people on the nonsence they're discussing  

Dear lol

What did you say they were discussing?

Rob C

[pegelli]

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

[pegelli]

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 !

[dalethorn]

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.

[JohnKoerner]

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


.

[JohnKoerner]

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



.

[JohnKoerner]

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

[Rob C]

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

[AGphoto]

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

[JohnKoerner]

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.

[lensfactory]

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.