Photographic Integrity

[dalethorn]

My point os photography encompasses post-processing. You just won't accept that it seems, even when the simple facts speak otherwise.I would say John Cage using alternate tunings is DEFINATLEY music,and yes...lab-work IS photography. I mean does anyone here actually know any photography,art,music history...lol. This argument has been clearly laid out before.

You have some sort of detail deficit.  Here again: If someone calls me and asks what I'm doing and I say "photographing a butterfly", that *always* *always* *always* means I'm taking the photo with the camera.  If I say "I'm working on a butterfly photo", that could mean any of several things.

So yes, the rest of us here DO understand what "the photographic process" is, and when we say "I'm photographing something", it *never* means doing the lab work.  Do you understand that?  Photographing is using the camera, the lab work is not photographing, it's "photo-related".

[lensfactory]

You have some sort of detail deficit.  Here again: If someone calls me and asks what I'm doing and I say "photographing a butterfly", that *always* *always* *always* means I'm taking the photo with the camera.  If I say "I'm working on a butterfly photo", that could mean any of several things.

So yes, the rest of us here DO understand what "the photographic process" is, and when we say "I'm photographing something", it *never* means doing the lab work.  Do you understand that?  Photographing is using the camera, the lab work is not photographing, it's "photo-related".

Dude....I never said photographing, no detail deficit here. I said it's photography.

[JohnKoerner]

Well...you may be all polite and duplicitous with alan, but it's there in your post. You DID imply that the other means were bad. And by using the word "integrity" , well that by definition hardly means "strict adherence" to anything.
Your "concept" is easily received, as it is simplistic and pedantic. Sorry, but you're not onto anything vaguely interesting as a discussion topic.
The camera itself is 'post-processing' so your hardly making any point at all except showing your biases and point of view. That post -processing is cheating or somesuch.
Of course that just raises the ire of creative professionals...it's insulting!
Seems your just a shit-disturber, eh?

Your allegations are flatly false. The last thing on this earth I am is duplicitous or two-faced. I simply treat others in the same tone as they treat me. Mr. Briot, even though he has infinitely more experience than I on this subject, still treats my questions with respect and consideration so it is only natural that I respond to him in kind.

Meanwhile you, and others like you, have come at me very rudely and so you have likewise been treated in kind. Emerson once said, "The secret to education lies in respecting the student," and yet you come at me sideways trying to demean my questions.

Finally, if you think that I am a "shit-disturber," and you find yourself disturbed, perhaps this can serve as a self-revelation as to your basic identity


.

[JohnKoerner]

That's a good point.  In my teaching I found that wildlife photographers (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) rarely engage in complex post processing.  I think the reason is that there is a desire to keep the colors, contrast, appearance etc. of the wildlife "as is", that is the way it is in nature.  Any change in the colors for example, besides proper color balancing, will make identifying a specie more difficult (very much the case with birds for example) or plain off the wall (with mammals for example).   When there is a desire to depart from reality (always talking of wildlife photography) then most turn to black and white since it is so clearly a departure from reality (we don't see in B&W and the world is not B&W).

Thank you. I think this distinction sums it all up as well as identifies the divergence: photography as art and personal expression vs. photography being used to capture as lifelike an image as possible.

I am trying to simplify my efforts into securing as exact an image of nature as possible, in as few steps as possible, while a person like yourself is trying to express himself and his artistic vision in as many ways as possible. While I am looking for simplicity of tools and process, a person like yourself welcomes as many different tools and options as possible, because they give an artist virtually unlimited creative potential.

I do belive this is the clarification.

[TaoMaas]

There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph".  They're both photography, but they're different.

[dalethorn]

There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph".  They're both photography, but they're different.

A photo is a photo (captured image) whether latent, developed, or printed.  Since (with digital tech) *all* of those can be seen, if they can also be compared, it's easy to see how much alteration took place between step A and step Z.

[TaoMaas]

A photo is a photo (captured image) whether latent, developed, or printed.  Since (with digital tech) *all* of those can be seen, if they can also be compared, it's easy to see how much alteration took place between step A and step Z.

Right.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with the alteration that takes place between the latent image and the printed image, but the two ARE different.

[Rob C]

Also, I am curious: if you consider this topic to be a "cesspool" what is your motivation to return continuously and dive-in?

Simple, really: I pass by in the wan hope that it, the cesspool, has dried up and the air is once again clean. Somebody has to test it, but diving in is not an option as you should have noted. Why would I dive into a topic that has long ceased to maintain its relevance? It´s over, dead in the water, resolved but only you fail to see that, as you apparently fail to see that the topic is not what is being replied to, that it is your wilful blindness that is the pebble in the shoe. And yet, and yet, perhaps amusing to see you clutch at thinner and thinner straws. But no, you´re right, it really is a waste of my time.

A shame, really, since your butterflies are really quite pretty.

Rob C

[dalethorn]

Right.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with the alteration that takes place between the latent image and the printed image, but the two ARE different.

When you say *the* alteration, do you mean *any* alteration, no matter what the circumstance?  If I'm Life magazine, running a "backyard photo" of Oswald in early 1964, is any alteration I do OK?  And you should note that in the various journals that ran those photos then, there were lots of "alterations".

But I wasn't referring to what you were thinking of.  I was saying that an image can be an undeveloped RAW, developed, printed, etc.  And it's possible for me to put all three in front of a jury of reasonable people, who can see which "alterations" were the required changes to get from latent to print, and which were the "optional" alterations you might excuse for artistic reasons.

And those are the *real* different things. The required changes and the optional changes. Arguing that the image at latent, developed, and printed stages are different is a diversion away from the stated issue of this thread.

[dalethorn]

There is no conclusion to this discussion because, in essence, it's trying to determine whether the negative or the print is the "true photograph".  They're both photography, but they're different.

I'm doing a presentation today on photo fixes/alterations. I would guess by your definition that what I'm doing is photography. In fact, by your definition, my participation in this discussion is also photography.

The failure of some participants here to distunguish between what I just mentioned and actual photography (i.e. taking a photo with a camera and performing the *necessary* steps to make the photo presentable) is a sign of a muddled mind. I can't imaging working with people who can't make distinctions between things that are obvious to ordinary people. Such thinking usually doesn't last long when it comes down to delivering a product for pay.

[jjj]

You "do" not say or you did not say? If you're going to criticize others' writing at least try to make sure your own isn't wanting. You still haven't correctly-read the definition of photography, which is creating the image on a sensor not fiddling with it later.

A. That's a nonsensical definition as it ignores 150yrs of photographic history and precedent. And that defines taking a photograph, not photography, there is a big distinction.
B. Running away from the debate yet again - this time using a typo of mine to avoid the facts.

 

Yes, if someone else has a knife then it's a fight, but that is not what you said. If two people have guns and agree to a duel it's a gunfight. If one coward (this would be your cue to take a bow) ran and got a gun because he was ill-equipped to deal with a consummate fighter, and shot the fighter, this would not be a "fight" but rather a coward shooting someone he was scared of.
I can tell you don't know how to fight because you conduct yourself like a flustered woman. If you were a talented, schooled fighter yourself you wouldn't automatically default to talking about knives and guns at the thought of facing a pro, you would simply meet them on their own terms, because they would be your terms also. The reason you visualize scrambling for a knife or a gun at the though of facing a MMA fighter is because of the "bitchassness" that is in you, rather than any kind of self-confidence being in you. With a weapon is the only way you could have an advantage

Remember what I said about making assumptions tends to make you look foolish. And you couldn't even see the big hole being dug right in front of you before you jumped straight into it.  
As it happens I am in fact a ''talented and schooled fighter'' and also taught MAs for many years. I have an extensive background in martial arts and spent a lot of time learning how to defend against armed people, emptyhanded. And we used real knives, chains, swords, coshs etc to train realistically. Blood would get spilled if you weren't good, so you had a real incentive to be excellent.  
Using a gun or knife was simply to illustrate, how when there are no rules as in a real fight, an MMA can be easily beaten.  
Anyway you are the one who seems to be the real coward, as you run away from all facts that contradict your silly assertions.

Sorry clown. A true pro who had his eye gouged would just handle it as an injury.

     And if there was any doubt about how little you know, now there isn't. Being blinded is not an inconvienience you fight through.

He wouldn't soil himself (as you would) and reach out to dial 911. The only reason eye gouging isn't allowed, genius, is because it can be a permanent debilitating injury, and the idea of MMA is to be as real as possible, but withOUT permanent injury. Same with biting and nutshots. As for "all the strikes" that are not allowed, LOL, all of the strikes are allowed in certain circuits. The UFC used to allow even nutshots, headbutts, etc. Things have softened now, due to regulations, but in many areas they still go on.
See, again you give away your bitchassness. "Save myself" ... LOL ... like a damsel in distress

Not very bright are you and an old fashioned sexist to boot it seems.
If I'm in a fight [where to repeat myself, there are no rules of any kind], I will simply want to defend myself. And I will use any technique that does the job. That's not cowardice, that's common sense. If someone is bigger and stronger than you [which does make a vast difference, despite the idiot claims by most MAs], you don't think let's play fair and let the best man win, you look after yourself as best you can. Self defence is about being smarter than your opponent and if running away is your best chance of saving yourself do so, particulary if knives are involved. Doing MA only gives you a better chance in a fight, it does not ensure a win. If blinding someone is your only option of surviving, do it. Only a brain dead moron would think otherwise and if you want to be a macho fool who would rather be dead/beaten to a pulp than thought a coward, be our guest. Fighting is what you do when you have no other recourse. Or if you are an  agressive idiot.
I have zero interest in fighting other than from a technical/intellectual/practical point of view and do martial arts for the same reason I do dancing [which you may also think of as being a girly pursuit] I enjoy learning physical skills, though the prettier women in dancing compensate for the lack of adrenaline rush in MAs.  

I got my degree in UCLA and I can read and write just fine, thanks. I originally didn't post this thread here to argue but to discuss concepts and get feedback from those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. I appreciate many of the responses I've got, it's just unfortunate that so many are insecure little pissants like you have to keep chiming-in.

Insecure! Anything but I'm afraid.    Plus I know a lot about photographic history, which actually tends to contradict your 'concepts', yet you always ignore facts that don't fit with your preconceived notions. Anyone who contradicts you is simply dismissed - Socrates would have been sooooo  unimpressed.
Quite frankly I simply do not believe you have a degree in philosophy [from a decent University anyway], as you are appaling at debating, your analogies are not even analogous and you ignore any facts that are inconvienient. You are forevever misreading posts, getting wrong end of stick, losing your temper and being aggresive. You admit you are ignorant about photography and yet seem to have spent a lot of time refusing to learn more about it. You will never learn anything if you keep your eyes shut as you do.

This is about your philosophical level

[jjj]

The way my mind was thinking (and I again concede this may simply be naive), was that my need to digitally process is simply affirmation that either (a) my photographic technique is still lacking or ( b ) my photgraphic instrument is imperfect, or both. I was merely considering an effort to work so hard on my photography whereby I might be able to eliminate any post-processing manipulation beyond simply tranferring my captured data from my camera to my computer.

That's like transfering your shot taken on film to a 16x20 print without developing it Polaroid excluded.
 A RAW image is exactly like a film image, it is latent and needs developing to be used. And if developed at a flat/neutral setting it won't look good as it needs processing just to be 'normal' in quality.
And all cameras shoot RAW, though most process them into JPEGs for you, which means they have been post processed by the camera.
Naive? Yes. It's the most sensible thing you've said in entire discussion.



 

If I could ever get my handling of the camera and all of its settings to this point of perfection in-camera, I would consider myself a master photographer.

Being considered a master photographer by others, means producing great images, not producing technically 'perfect' shots but possibly quite dull shots. Many of the greatest shots are poor technically, particularly by todays standards. But that is of so very little importance compared to getting a good photo.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Time to move on?