Photographic Integrity

[dalethorn]

Good example. The book Ansel Adams at 100 has several versions that Adams created over the years, from the ones with the very pale and nearly white sky to the last ones, and best known, versions with the nearly totally black sky.  Different interpretations of the same original.  It is also worth noting that Adams spent the better part of his later years in the darkroom, creating new photographs in the field only occasionally. In Mary Alinder's biography of Adams she points out that Moonrise was one of, if not the, most difficult of his images to print.

So, are we saying that there's no difference between someone who tries to minimize alterations to their original camera capture and someone who "paints with light" (i.e. anything goes)??  Are we saying that there is no terminology to differentiate between these two ends of the spectrum?  Or are we saying that the latter artist type just doesn't want to be typecast?  In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms.  But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.

[dchew]

So, are we saying that there's no difference between someone who tries to minimize alterations to their original camera capture and someone who "paints with light" (i.e. anything goes)??  Are we saying that there is no terminology to differentiate between these two ends of the spectrum?  Or are we saying that the latter artist type just doesn't want to be typecast?  In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms.  But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.

Dale, I think this is a great point.  We only have two popular terms:  Photojournalist and manipulator.  As Alain points out in his article, Just Say Yes, the general public has not caught up to the idea that digital captures can be / are adjusted in much the same ways film captures were (both by the film and by the photographer).  It's just done with different tools.

Dave Chew

[alainbriot]

In music, we have all kinds of terms to differentiate artist or art types - acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance - many other terms.  But we sure have a lot of resistance to any sort of labeling here.

But music isn't asked to represent reality.  Music is always a creation, a work of art, while photography can be a literal representation (passport photos, some portraits, realty photos of houses, etc.) or a complete interpretation (fine art of various types of subjects).  

I think in photography the type of photography (product, portrait, reportage, documentation, fine art, forensic, judicial, etc.) is used as label while in music the type of performance (acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance, etc.) is used as label.

[Bob Peterson]

I don't buy this assessment.  If I shoot transparencies, drop them off to an E6 lab, retrieve them the next morning and submit selects to an editor, am I not a photographer?

I think this eliminates many successful individuals who would be considered by most to be "photographers."

I realize this interpretation may not have been your intent, but I want to point out that you don't have to do any post processing to be a photographer.

Dave Chew

I responded "Neither" to the following question.

If "Man A" spent all day taking film photographs and dumped off a box of negatives with "Man B," and if Man B spent all night developing the images, which of these men would you call the photographer?

I gave an extreme answer to what I considered an extreme question. I consider the question is extremely polarized and quite incomplete. JohnKoerner and I had already established that our definitions of certain terms differ, and I saw (see) no point in extending that discussion. I just said, "No." (And a tip of the hat to Alain!)

In the context of this discussion, which for a while attempted to narrowly define a "master photographer," I don't consider a person not involved in production of the the final image a "photographer," much less a "master photographer."  My position in no way invalidates others'. I agree with dalethorn: Compared to other artistic disciplines, photography lacks a vocabulary with which to express where in the multidimensional space of photographic endeavor to place an individual practitioner.  We could, perhaps, look to the vocabulary describing painters for queues: realism (obviously!), impressionism, abstract, synthetism, etc.

Is selection from among multiple film exposures a form of postprocessing?  That is, if an employee of National Geographic sends 40 rolls of exposed film to headquarters for processing, and the employee works with the photoeditors to downselect from the hundreds of exposures to the 5 that will be published, some of which are extremely similar, is the selection process a form of postprocessing?  I think so.

Given the breadth of the term and this discussion to date, everyone reading this discussion is clearly not going to agree on a single definition of "photographer," much less "master photographer." I do think the original question has been addressed, although some seem to ignore the consensus.

Bob

[alainbriot]

Compared to other artistic disciplines, photography lacks a vocabulary with which to express where in the multidimensional space of photographic endeavor to place an individual practitioner.  We could, perhaps, look to the vocabulary describing painters for queues: realism (obviously!), impressionism, abstract, synthetism, etc.
Bob

This reflects on the difficulty photography is facing in regards to being accepted as an art form or even to the acknowledgment of the presence of art movements in photography.

[JohnKoerner]

altho there's a lot of good info there, you seem a rather selective reader, to be sure, which illustrates my point . . . arrogant & inexperienced to say the least. peace out!

LOL, guilty as charged, I can be very arrogant and I most certainly am inexperienced at photography

But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point. There seem to be two conflicting elements to this discussion, and these are the distinction between "photography" and "image making." I suppose there can be further distinctions made between "creating art" and "capturing a scene."

IMO, the attempt to capture a scene with a camera is qua-"photography." Tinkering with something to "produce an image" after the fact is something else. IMO, there is nothing at all wrong with doing "whatever it is you need to do" to compose and present a salable art image. That includes painting and drawing, hell you don't even need a camera. But yet this is not photography.

All of the post processing you are referring to is part of "image making," yes, but it is not qua-photography. For instance, on another thread I posted a flower photo that I totally blew. However, I post-processed it into looking like kind of a neat little drawing. Perhaps someone could call it "art," but it surely could not be called "good photography." In point of fact it was horrible photography. Yet it was still a pleasing image.

"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.

So while there are many ways to create and tinker with software to get an image, it is only when that excellence is achieved through a camera that it can be properly called "photography." This is why I drew an (admittedly off-the-wall) analogy to boxing: there are many ways to win a fight, but only if you do so with your fists can it properly be called "boxing."

The entire point of this thread was there seems to be a move away from "pure photography technique" and a heavier and heavier reliance on "post processing" to produce a pleasing final image. I don't know if this is good or bad. Honestly, I think a person can do whatever he wants to do in order to create a pleasing and saleable image ... but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.

This was my point I was trying to make.

Jack



.

[dalethorn]

I think in photography the type of photography (product, portrait, reportage, documentation, fine art, forensic, judicial, etc.) is used as label while in music the type of performance (acoustic, electronic, improvisation, live performance, etc.) is used as label.

This is what I was looking for - some rudimentary classification, not so much for style and to be restrictive, but for intent, which allows a lot of flexibility. I expect even a forensics photographer might consider themself an artist, and I don't have a problem with that. So if we're not talking about forensics or reportage, and we are talking about purely personal photography, even Fine Art photography, it should be interesting to see how lines can be drawn within this area.

[Rob C]

Interestng discussion, which has produced at least one confession of arrogance - as if it were required! - along with the flaunting of excellence in one sphere as validation of opinion in another.

What nonsense. Photography is all things to all men, women and children.

There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.

We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.

Rob C

[dalethorn]

There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.
We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.
Rob C

Photo contests may not respect this inclusiveness, and some of those are quite real, for money and notariety.

[pegelli]

"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.

One question on this subject going back to the film days: would you consider the choice of developer, developing method (+1, -1 in AA terms), choice of paper (grade etc), dodging/burning, toning,  .... etc. PP or "in the field" , or where on this scale would you draw the line between "in the field" and "post shot manipulation"

Nowadays you can get sRGB jpg's right for printing from a camera, in those days no camera produced "images ready for printing right from the camera". If I take this logic to the extreme (which I know I shouldn't) the pure "heart and soul" of photography only exists as of when digital entered the arena.

By the way, I enjoy reading everybodies opinion in this thread. It's a very interesting discussion that helps me form my opinion on how far I want to go with adjusting the scene/viewpoint as well as PP on the pictures I want to make.

It is also my opinion for every photographer/artist to determine what he finds acceptable for his means, as long as there is no dishonesty in claiming things that are not true (i.e saying a zoo shot is taken in free nature, cloning out elements and saying unaltered, etc. etc.).

[jjj]

LOL, guilty as charged, I can be very arrogant and I most certainly am inexperienced at photography

But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point. There seem to be two conflicting elements to this discussion, and these are the distinction between "photography" and "image making." I suppose there can be further distinctions made between "creating art" and "capturing a scene."

IMO, the attempt to capture a scene with a camera is qua-"photography." Tinkering with something to "produce an image" after the fact is something else. IMO, there is nothing at all wrong with doing "whatever it is you need to do" to compose and present a salable art image. That includes painting and drawing, hell you don't even need a camera. But yet this is not photography.

All of the post processing you are referring to is part of "image making," yes, but it is not qua-photography. For instance, on another thread I posted a flower photo that I totally blew. However, I post-processed it into looking like kind of a neat little drawing. Perhaps someone could call it "art," but it surely could not be called "good photography." In point of fact it was horrible photography. Yet it was still a pleasing image.

"Getting it perfect in the field," as you say, IS the heart and soul of qua-photography.

So while there are many ways to create and tinker with software to get an image, it is only when that excellence is achieved through a camera that it can be properly called "photography." This is why I drew an (admittedly off-the-wall) analogy to boxing: there are many ways to win a fight, but only if you do so with your fists can it properly be called "boxing."

The entire point of this thread was there seems to be a move away from "pure photography technique" and a heavier and heavier reliance on "post processing" to produce a pleasing final image. I don't know if this is good or bad. Honestly, I think a person can do whatever he wants to do in order to create a pleasing and saleable image ... but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.

This was my point I was trying to make.

And the point you are missing entirely is that all photography is manipulation. Where you stand, when you push shutter release, how you light scene, what film/sensor you use, how long you develop the film, what lens you use  blah, blah, blah.
Plus as  pegelli so astutely points out above, only since digital, has "Getting it perfect in the field". been reality for most of us. Polaroid is possibly the purest form of photography, Take photo, get print. But polaroid tends to be used for more creative endeavours as it's results [nice as they are], are rarely representative/accurate.

Having seen this view that 'digital' manipulation is bad, espoused on numerous ocasions online over some years. I have noticed it is always said by those who are not skilled at digital PPing.
I've seen people rant that a real photographer is a master of lighting and PS is simply evil, when lighting a scene is pure manipulation.
It doesn't matter if you manipulate before or after taking a shot if the manipulation is part of the process of realizing your image. Shooting B+W to me is extreme manipulation as we see in colour and B+W makes things look very, very different, yet rarely is that acknowledged, but boosting colours in your raw developer is somehow seen as horribly manipulative.
As I cannot use B+W film in my camera, I have to manipulate my RAW file to look B+W, whether that be by custom presets for the JPEG or in ACR/LR afterwards. It doesn't really matter when you do this, you are still manipulating scene. I prefer to do it to the RAW files as the camera cannot produce the look I want. I envisaged the scene when shooting, but I can only get a print to look like that if I alter it in my RAW developer/PS and I'm only talking global alterations here.


To my mind a master photographer is one who is not only good at capturing an image, but producing the best version of it out of the camera, whether in a darkroom or lightroom. Even when I shot slide, I would use a specific lab and get images processed in a specific way, using specific films to get the look I wanted. And if you changed any of that, then the images would look different. And subtle differences can make an image look good or simply not very interesting.
Manipulating via compositing or cloning is another area again.

John, the fact that you have studied philosophy is of little relevence, if debating a subject that you are admitedly lacking in experience. As your philosophical viewpoint as is certainly evidenced here, will be coloured by your lack of subject knowledge/understanding.

[Joe Behar]

but regarding the discipline of photography, I think such a shift in focus will come at the expense of developing true photography skills. This is especially true for people like me, just learning.

This was my point I was trying to make.

Jack

Jack,

maybe the issue is that you're trying to think of photography as a single act as opposed to a process.

In order to come to the final image we need to go through a process. Each and every step in the process affects the outcome and each and every step is linked to (if not dependant on) both the previous and following step. To isolate just one step in the process does not have any significant meaning. A stunning capture with horrible processing will result in an image that may be compositionally effective, but nonetheless not pleasing to most. A poorly composed and exposed image with techincally superior processing will, similarly produce an image not pleasing to most.

I think you will go through the same progression as most photographers do and I'll use an anlogy that you may or may not agree with.

I'm an avid flyfisherman and I went through this (like most fishermen do)

Step 1: Try to catch ANY fish...Photo equivalent--Make a good image, of anything

Step 2: Try to catch ALL the fish...Photo equivalent--Make a a lot of good images

Step 3: Try to catch the BIG fish..Photo equivalent--Get people to praise your efforts

Step 4:  Try to catch THAT fish..Photo equivalent--Do everything right from the metering to exposure, to processing to printing and finally to the presentation of your finished image. In other words go through the process and do every step "right". Untill you do that, you'll never be able to catch THAT fish....the one you want.

[Rob C]

Futt Futt

Again, I have to say you are on the money in this one.

Not only is manipulation an unavoidable factor in all forms and decisions concerning the execution of an image, it could be said to start well before any camera is lifted, either in the brief, the self-imposed one or the client´s. Or even in those happy moments of serendipity, for it´s your decision-making mental processes that dictate and manipulate whether or not you recognize the moment for what it is.

Rob C

[JohnKoerner]

Interestng discussion, which has produced at least one confession of arrogance - as if it were required! - along with the flaunting of excellence in one sphere as validation of opinion in another.

This thread is merely an attempt to have a philosophical discussion. Why must you always try to deride everything?

What nonsense. Photography is all things to all men, women and children.

Huh? Photography is "all things to all men, women and children?" Speaking of definitions nonsense, in point of fact you might have just created a new one.

So you're saying photography = water? Photography = car?

I don't think so. The truth is, qua-Photography (to most minds) is pretty much as Todd provided in his quotations: "The process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a sensitive medium, such as a film, or an electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art and pleasure.".

This is the sum and substance of the definition of photography. And the ability to do so well involves a wide variety of skills, judgment calls, perspectives, etc. It is those skills which relate to the camera (and its position and manipulation) that are the subject of this thread.

There is absolutely no need for definitions within the amateur field and within the professional, such definitions are very quickly either assumed, implied or gratuitously bestowed upon the photographer.

No need for definitions huh? This is almost childlike. So I suppose if you were to walk into a store to buy a Nikon D3x, and the shopkeeper brings back a Mikey Mouse watch, "silly you" wouldn't complain as to definitions, eh?  

The fact is, clear definitions are absolutely critical to gain an understanding of concepts and to relate these concepts to others. It can effectively be argued that the definition of "confusion" in any subject is a lack of definition when discussing the subject  

We are but playing a game of semantics for no purpose beyond the game. Enjoy it, but recognize its real value.
Rob C

All of human philosophy and elevated thought comes through such attempts at understanding concepts and arriving at precise definitions that are universally agreed-to. You are the only one playing games and sputtering nonsense in this effort here. If I may digress, I remember reading your efforts to do this on another thread involving Phallic Symbolism. I'd just like to add my $0.02 that IMHO your own arrogance and efforts to trivialize the discussions of others could properly result in you being defined as a "phallic symbol"  


Jack


.

[Rob C]

Jack, reducing everything to the absurd is not a defence; neither is it worthy of your degree. You know perfectly well what I am saying; if you do not, then I´m really quite sorry for you.

Rob C

[JohnKoerner]

And the point you are missing entirely is that all photography is manipulation. Where you stand, when you push shutter release, how you light scene, what film/sensor you use, how long you develop the film, what lens you use  blah, blah, blah.
Plus as  pegelli so astutely points out above, only since digital, has "Getting it perfect in the field". been reality for most of us. Polaroid is possibly the purest form of photography, Take photo, get print. But polaroid tends to be used for more creative endeavours as it's results [nice as they are], are rarely representative/accurate.

I am not missing this point, I am focusing on this point: the art of photography only, the positioning of oneself, one's camera, and the selection of the camera, all of its components, lighting, etc. over the "post process."

Having seen this view that 'digital' manipulation is bad, espoused on numerous ocasions online over some years. I have noticed it is always said by those who are not skilled at digital PPing.
I've seen people rant that a real photographer is a master of lighting and PS is simply evil, when lighting a scene is pure manipulation.
It doesn't matter if you manipulate before or after taking a shot if the manipulation is part of the process of realizing your image. Shooting B+W to me is extreme manipulation as we see in colour and B+W makes things look very, very different, yet rarely is that acknowledged, but boosting colours in your raw developer is somehow seen as horribly manipulative.
As I cannot use B+W film in my camera, I have to manipulate my RAW file to look B+W, whether that be by custom presets for the JPEG or in ACR/LR afterwards. It doesn't really matter when you do this, you are still manipulating scene. I prefer to do it to the RAW files as the camera cannot produce the look I want. I envisaged the scene when shooting, but I can only get a print to look like that if I alter it in my RAW developer/PS and I'm only talking global alterations here.

Again you misquote me and misunderstand my thread. I never said post process is bad or evil.

To my mind a master photographer is one who is not only good at capturing an image, but producing the best version of it out of the camera, whether in a darkroom or lightroom. Even when I shot slide, I would use a specific lab and get images processed in a specific way, using specific films to get the look I wanted. And if you changed any of that, then the images would look different. And subtle differences can make an image look good or simply not very interesting.
Manipulating via compositing or cloning is another area again.

John, the fact that you have studied philosophy is of little relevence, if debating a subject that you are admitedly lacking in experience. As your philosophical viewpoint as is certainly evidenced here, will be coloured by your lack of subject knowledge/understanding.

You see, the truth is simply this: capturing and producing an image requires more effort than mere photography. Your message is (and I understand this) that post process is required and part of the deal. And really, nowadays, it also involves the "pre-process" of AWB, AF, and everything automated.

The point I am trying to make is the more I get sidetracked and try to rely on these other elements to produce my images, the less and less the art of "pure photography only" I am focusing on.

I would simply like to polish my craft and skills at the camera end more than anything else. It is my belief that if I do so, and if I really do become truly proficient in operating my camera, that my "computer end" time will be minimized. This does not mean I don't wish to become proficient in my software, or that I believe software manipulation is "bad," far from it. It is simply a personal goal to try to create images that need little or no work, which can only come from perfection of skill in photography.

I am now shooting my camera only in full "M" mode, just so I can try to learn and do as much as I can on my own. Perhaps my beliefs are naive.

Jack

[JohnKoerner]

Jack,
maybe the issue is that you're trying to think of photography as a single act as opposed to a process.
In order to come to the final image we need to go through a process. Each and every step in the process affects the outcome and each and every step is linked to (if not dependant on) both the previous and following step. To isolate just one step in the process does not have any significant meaning. A stunning capture with horrible processing will result in an image that may be compositionally effective, but nonetheless not pleasing to most. A poorly composed and exposed image with techincally superior processing will, similarly produce an image not pleasing to most.
I think you will go through the same progression as most photographers do and I'll use an anlogy that you may or may not agree with.
I'm an avid flyfisherman and I went through this (like most fishermen do)
Step 1: Try to catch ANY fish...Photo equivalent--Make a good image, of anything
Step 2: Try to catch ALL the fish...Photo equivalent--Make a a lot of good images
Step 3: Try to catch the BIG fish..Photo equivalent--Get people to praise your efforts
Step 4:  Try to catch THAT fish..Photo equivalent--Do everything right from the metering to exposure, to processing to printing and finally to the presentation of your finished image. In other words go through the process and do every step "right". Untill you do that, you'll never be able to catch THAT fish....the one you want.

I am not sure about your fish analogy (  ), but I do understand that photography is but one act (several combined acts, really) and but part of the whole process of image-making. I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.

This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself




.

[JohnKoerner]

Jack, reducing everything to the absurd is not a defence; neither is it worthy of your degree. You know perfectly well what I am saying; if you do not, then I´m really quite sorry for you.
Rob C

Did I reduce things to the absurd?

Or could it be you are being defensive for saying the absurd things to begin with?

[Joe Behar]

I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.

This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself

A noble intention, to be sure, and I would be silliy to discourage it, but I don't see any reason that you can't hone your skills at all aspects of image making simultaneously. I think you'll benefit more from that than isolating a specific step, "perfecting" it and then going on the next step only to realize that the previous one needs modification to fit in the process.

[DarkPenguin]

I am not sure about your fish analogy (  ), but I do understand that photography is but one act (several combined acts, really) and but part of the whole process of image-making. I was simply moved to begin this thread by Mangelsen's claim that he relies on nothing but patience, timing, light, and settings selection at the camera end to create his work, not any exaggerated post-processing.

This is the craft I wish to develop excellence at myself

A fine goal.  Just keep your eye on the prize.  Unless you're shooting Jpegs or Slides your images are going to be input to whatever process, exaggerated or limited, that creates your output.  So whatever your post processing is going to be make sure your images are optimized for it.