Stirling Ranges

[Peter Stacey]

I am simply saying one act is not justified because you can find an example of it being done by a famous person.

No, it's justified whether or not anyone else has done it before.

You can have a preference for realism, or a preference for pictorialism, or a preference for impressionism, etc. But so what? It's just a preference and no better or worse than someone else's.

[Isaac]

Personally, I don't like Adams work. He is really not the standard here. Nor should be set up as such.

Ansel Adams' work was given as an example of well known, widely accepted, landscape photography -- not as the standard. (It's just extra fun that Group f/64 is so often the example of "straight" photography.)

Besides, quoting famous photographers is not really evidence of anything.

What Ansel Adams said about his own work really is evidence of what Ansel Adams thought about his own work!

[Isaac]

I think if I have learned anything about my tastes from this, it's that one can fondly imagine one has principles, then discover unexpectedly that one sometimes one has to admit to bending or ignoring them on occasions in order to accommodate unexpected facts such as finding oneself liking something one is not supposed to...

My favourite example (which I mention too often) is 1857 Gustave Le Gray printing landscapes with the sky of his choice, photographed elsewhere -- there's something about the way that disrupts my preconceived notions of what landscape photography has been, that I find hilarious :-)

(afaik Others at the time made separate exposures for sea and sky, at the same location for technical reasons, but Le Gray went further.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Will you guys stop with this AA nonsense, please? AA is totally irrelevant for this debate, being a b&w photographer, with a higher abstraction from reality built-in. It is much easier for a viewer to accept drastic changes in a b&w photograph, especially the fine art type (as opposed to documentary).

But, if you insist, I do not recall a single case of AA manipulation that resulted in creating something that was not there. Yes, he dodged and burned extensively, but only to enhance what was there, not to create what was not (like a fake light from a non-existing opening in the clouds).

This is not to say that I am against what Peter Eastway does. I actually consider myself his disciple, and have posted here in the past several examples of what I called my homage to him. I often do what he does. That is what I consider fine art photography to be. However, it does not mean I am not, at the same time, ambivalent about it. I realize we are crossing that fine line in the sand between photography and painting, and I am not always comfortable with it. I would rather be Michael Fatali's or Jack Dykinga's disciple (pure, unadulterated images of glorious moments in nature). But I do not have the willpower, the stamina, the dedication they have, so I have to resort to making the best of what I occasionally get, i.e., making a silk purse of sow's ears.

[Isaac]

But, if you insist, I do not recall a single case of AA manipulation that resulted in creating something that was not there.

Monolith, The Face of Half Dome. ... I realized after exposing that the image would not express the particular mood of overwhelming grandeur the scene evoked. I visualized a dark sky, deeper shadows, and a crisp horizon in the distance.
With my one remaining plate I used the #29 dark red filter, achieving very much the effect I wanted.

Yes, the sky was there. Yes, some shadows were there. Yes, there was a horizon in the distance.

No, not that dark dark sky. No, not those additional shadows. No, not that high contrast horizon line.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes, the sky was there. Yes, some shadows were there. Yes, there was a horizon in the distance.

No, not that dark dark sky. No, not those additional shadows. No, not that high contrast horizon line.

Sorry, the hairsplitter-in-chief, there were no additional shadows, just enhanced existing ones. AA wanted "deeper" shadows, not to add non-existing ones.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What I take from the latest round here is that
  ( 1 )  plausibility or believability is what may be most important to many viewers (of photographs), and
  ( 2 )  that quality is harder to achieve in color photography than it is in B&W.

I can accept that.

[Isaac]

Sorry, the hairsplitter-in-chief, there were no additional shadows, just enhanced existing ones. AA wanted "deeper" shadows, not to add non-existing ones.

Does that mean you agree about the sky and horizon? :-)

You seem to be suggesting that using a different filter only made shadows darker but didn't push mid-tones into shadow? I'm just looking at a side-by-side book reproduction of the photos taken using different filters - so what do I know!

I can say that where there are no rock face highlights in print A, there definitely are rock face highlights in print B -- the effect I wanted yada yada.

[prairiewing]

But the spot is clearly not from an opening in the clouds. The day looks evenly overcast, which does not allow for spots of light--I have been outdoors long enough to know that. You get spots of lights when storms break up. Usually under low humidity conditions, which is not what the Eastway image shows. Sorry, there is more to faking images than just adding elements. Besides, this is not Iceland.

Beg to differ on this.  Even with a heavy, mostly even overcast sky it's not unusual for the sun to poke through and light up a relatively small area.  If you're in position you can watch it move across the land and wait for it to light up a hillside, farmstead or whatever is in it's path.  This on the northern prairies, not Iceland.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Does that mean you agree about the sky and horizon? :-)

No, it simply means I am not inclined to split further every hair you do

... You seem to be suggesting that using a different filter only made shadows darker but didn't push mid-tones into shadow?...

We are talking about different definitions of "shadow". You seem to have in mind Lighttroom's division of the tone curve into shadows-darks-lights-highlights, while I have in mind the natural phenomenon, i.e., "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface : trees cast long shadows."

[Isaac]

We are talking about different definitions of "shadow".

I think we may be talking from different perspectives - I actually have book reproductions of the photos in front of me. Do you?

[Isaac]

What I take from the latest round here is that
  ( 1 )  plausibility or believability is what may be most important to many viewers (of photographs), and
  ( 2 )  that quality is harder to achieve in color photography than it is in B&W.

And there's nothing new or novel or radical about this --

My basic philosophy is: anything is all right in photography if you get away with it. I have no objections if somebody wants to make prints standing on his head; it's perfectly all right. I don't mind printing in clouds if they can fool me; I accept those clouds.

[Paul Strand] had no interest in color, ... "It's a dye," he said. "It has no body or texture or density, as paint does. So far, it doesn't do anything but add an uncontrollable element to a medium that's hard enough to control anyway."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Beg to differ on this.  Even with a heavy, mostly even overcast sky it's not unusual for the sun to poke through and light up a relatively small area.  If you're in position you can watch it move across the land and wait for it to light up a hillside, farmstead or whatever is in it's path.  This on the northern prairies, not Iceland.

This might make sense had we not seen the original photograph. Once we did, the illusion that the sun might indeed had poked through the heavy clouds is forever shattered.

One might argue that it does not therefore matter for those who only see the end product, they still might believe its real. And there lies the deception part some are talking about.

That is the same type of argument I mentioned before, i.e., why is a perfect Picasso forgery valued in millions while it is believed it is real, and then instantaneously drops to practically zero the moment it is proven fake.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I actually have book reproductions of the photos in front of me. Do you?

No.

You know, I prefer real books, those with a lot of text in it, not the version for blondes, i.e, with lots of pictures

But good for you, I am glad you are so well-read and eager to demonstrate it on every occasion. You are well on your way to become our Quote Generator of the Year.

[AFairley]

My personal preference is for a photograph that shows the scene that was there.  It's easy enough to take a ho-hum image and manipulate it into something visually interesting, but a whole different thing to find the actual naturally occurring magnificence of the world and capture that.  I remember visiting Galen Rowen's gallery, the walls lined with amazing dye transfers.  Here and there in the galley were sheets of Kodachrome outtakes to show that the colors in the prints had not been achieved by photomanipulation in the darkroom.  To me, that's the real deal.  Photoillustration has its place, I guess but it's not my cup of tea. 

[Ray]

Here and there in the galley were sheets of Kodachrome outtakes to show that the colors in the prints had not been achieved by photomanipulation in the darkroom.  To me, that's the real deal.  Photoillustration has its place, I guess but it's not my cup of tea. 

Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type, in conjunction with a specific type of chemical development of the exposed film.

As I recall, the colors of Velvia, Kodachrome, and Ektachrome were all quite significantly different. Which one preferred was a matter of taste, but none of them could be said to be totally accurate.

[Colorado David]

I remember an article years ago, before digital capture was common, that exclaimed that if you were a real photographer who cared about the reality of your representations, you would not shoot Velvia.  It seems that nothing has changed in the intervening years.

[Colorado David]

. . .including most of the top-twenty most poisonous snakes in the world . . .

Are the really poisonous? Or merely venomous?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type...

Oh, Ray, please!

[LesPalenik]

Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type, in conjunction with a specific type of chemical development of the exposed film.

Long time ago, I bought at a great discount a few hundred rolls of Fuji RMS 220 film. The price was good, but the film came with a very deep blue cast. I did a lot of practising with that film.

Now, I don't know whether the film was premanipulated or if it all came from some defective run, but I hated that blue cast.
Nevertheless, quite a few customers complemented me that I successfully captured the typical dark blue color of their favourite lake. I don't even want to think what would they say if I had fixed that blue cast.