Stu W
Well-known
I was just looking at an issue of Rangefinder Magazine. All of their "Pictures Of The Year" were grossly manipulated-some actually appeared to be from video games. When does a photograph cross the line and become a computer constructed facsimile? I can accept burning and dodging, cropping, adjusting contrast, but that's about it- As all these operations can be done in a darkroom. Stu
Nachkebia
Well-known
I agree, everything that can be done in traditional darkroom is acceptable with me, evertyhing else is also fine but let`s not call it photgraphy, compugraphy perheps? 
fishtek
Don
An age-old question, I'm afraid. The new technology just adds variables to the same old arguments. Difference between documentary and artistic images? Yup. What constitutes a "pure" photograph? Ansel Adams manipulated the hell out of his negatives, and would have done more, if he'd known how. He'd go nuts with computer manipulation. I "clean up" negatives, but try not to produce in the computer what I couldn't produce in the camera. But then...that's just me. YMMV
Happy Holidays, Yall!
Don
Happy Holidays, Yall!
Don
willie_901
Veteran
That category of work is really Pictorialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
Pictorialism began because artists felt restricted by the limitations of early photographic technology. It expanded when artist-photographers felt they had something to prove when the art world doubted that photography was really an art form.
Today Pictorialism has returned with a vengence because digital manipulation is a very convenient way for people to express themselves by enhancing the emotional impact of a photograph.
Rangefinder Magazine should establish a Pictorialism subcategory for each of their current categories.
What disturbs me is: on the rare occasion that everything comes together, and you record a photograph that does not require excessive digital manipulation to have a dramatic effect, people might assume you've used post-processing methods.
willie
Pictorialism began because artists felt restricted by the limitations of early photographic technology. It expanded when artist-photographers felt they had something to prove when the art world doubted that photography was really an art form.
Today Pictorialism has returned with a vengence because digital manipulation is a very convenient way for people to express themselves by enhancing the emotional impact of a photograph.
Rangefinder Magazine should establish a Pictorialism subcategory for each of their current categories.
What disturbs me is: on the rare occasion that everything comes together, and you record a photograph that does not require excessive digital manipulation to have a dramatic effect, people might assume you've used post-processing methods.
willie
DavidH
Overweight and over here
Stu W said:
I tend to restrict myself to what can be done in a darkroom or in camera with filters...but I guess it's "too much when you notice it"...
Have to say it bothers me a lot less that cheating the shot in the first place - eg people shooting captive animals in a setup and then claiming it's 'wildlife' photography...
HAnkg
Well-known
It depends on the context. Photojournalists have a different standard then fashion photographers. Should you airbrush out the distracting object, would it have been OK to remove the object when you took the photo? What if you directed the subjects? Told someone to move out of the frame, is that any different then removing them later? Is real photography only the sort that photo jourmalists and documenty anthropologists supposedly practice. Trying to record the scene without becoming part of it? Is that even possible?
As is typical with any tool that gives a new 'look', various effects are beaten to death to the detriment of the image or in lieu of an actual idea. It not only applies to digital but analog techniques (over the top contrast and grain to make a pedestrian image look cool or scale as in if you can't make it good make it big). Of course all these effects in the hands of a talented individual are great alas there is always a lot more lame imitation then real inspiration. Nothing really changes, the tools change but we are still the same.
As is typical with any tool that gives a new 'look', various effects are beaten to death to the detriment of the image or in lieu of an actual idea. It not only applies to digital but analog techniques (over the top contrast and grain to make a pedestrian image look cool or scale as in if you can't make it good make it big). Of course all these effects in the hands of a talented individual are great alas there is always a lot more lame imitation then real inspiration. Nothing really changes, the tools change but we are still the same.
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I agree with what everyone else above said.
Somehow it steals the magic of the moment when you get an exceptional shot that is able to be replicated with post image technology. Unfortunately that's life.
Perhaps 'old school' photographers had issues with cameras containing built-in light meters too. Where does the image actually begin? Interesting question isn't it.
Somehow it steals the magic of the moment when you get an exceptional shot that is able to be replicated with post image technology. Unfortunately that's life.
Perhaps 'old school' photographers had issues with cameras containing built-in light meters too. Where does the image actually begin? Interesting question isn't it.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
willie_901 said:
You've described my biggest problem with this phenomenon. Perhaps it's just ego, but I'd like to be credited for my abilities as a photographer, not a photoshopper. Pictorialism really is a different animal from photography. It should be treated as such.
I disagree with Don regarding his assertion that Ansel Adams would "go nuts with computer manipulation". These kinds of assumptions about dead people's desires and wants are wrong. It's IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW what Ansel Adams or anyone else would do "if they were alive today". Let's agree that Adams, for example, dodged and burned and spotted prints, etc. and leave it at that.
Ron
Stu W
Well-known
I never heard of Pictorialism before, but to me it makes sense to add it as another category. The cover photo of Rangefinder shows the coffin of a Marine being unloaded from an airplane, with the passengers looking on. I question the photo's authenticity simply because of the technology available. Are the passengers just cut and pasted in the windows? For all I know the Marines are added in. You know that the picture of JFK Jr. saluting at his father's funeral was authentic. Stu
fishtek
Don
Touche', Ron. Perhaps Mr. Adams would NOT have embraced computer-aided manipulation, but, given his history of using every tool he could to manipulate images when he printed, my bet is that he would have used current technology. All of us wish to make the best image possible, whatever our pretext or preference, and within the realm of each photographer's world, acceptability is a major variable.
peace!
Don
peace!
Don
Last edited:
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
A spirited, yet polite discussion.
Peace also to you Don.
Peace also to you Don.
Gray Fox
Well-known
How much digital manipulation
How much digital manipulation
A lot of what's in Rangefinder or other similar "pro photo mags" tends to be more along the line of graphic artistry than traditional photography. That having been said, however, similar "artistic" techniques have been with us always. I 've been trying to simplify a lot of what I do lately, and am considering doing my own B&W negs and scanning them. (Living in a home with a septic tank sewerage system is more limiting than I'd imagined.) In that light I was re-reading my dog-eared copy of the 1973 Pertersens Photographic "Blueprint Series" which covered cameras, hand-held meters lighting and both B&W and color darkroom procedures. I bought it in an Army post Exchange book store in Munich, as I recall. It cost $2.00 US or UK 75P--how's that for an exchange rate? I guess I'll have to think twice the next time I think my wife never throws anything away.
Some of the articles describe how to make diffusion filters for portraits and cross screen filters from window screen for night time star effects in camera. Other articles explain darkroom techniques to produce the Sabattier effect, posterized prints and high grain effect (I was always trying to get just the opposite, as I recall), as well as conventional portrait lighting setups.
I'm sure some of you have even earlier examples from photo mags. I also have articles I pulled from Rangefinder during the same period describing many in-camera techniques wedding photogs could use to "wow" their customers. Now they do it more simply and repeatably in the computer.
I suppose it's true that Ansel would be up to his elbows in a computer darkroom right now, too, but I'm sure he'd still be mixing chemicals, just the same.
Happy Hollidays to all and have safe journey's home.
How much digital manipulation
A lot of what's in Rangefinder or other similar "pro photo mags" tends to be more along the line of graphic artistry than traditional photography. That having been said, however, similar "artistic" techniques have been with us always. I 've been trying to simplify a lot of what I do lately, and am considering doing my own B&W negs and scanning them. (Living in a home with a septic tank sewerage system is more limiting than I'd imagined.) In that light I was re-reading my dog-eared copy of the 1973 Pertersens Photographic "Blueprint Series" which covered cameras, hand-held meters lighting and both B&W and color darkroom procedures. I bought it in an Army post Exchange book store in Munich, as I recall. It cost $2.00 US or UK 75P--how's that for an exchange rate? I guess I'll have to think twice the next time I think my wife never throws anything away.
Some of the articles describe how to make diffusion filters for portraits and cross screen filters from window screen for night time star effects in camera. Other articles explain darkroom techniques to produce the Sabattier effect, posterized prints and high grain effect (I was always trying to get just the opposite, as I recall), as well as conventional portrait lighting setups.
I'm sure some of you have even earlier examples from photo mags. I also have articles I pulled from Rangefinder during the same period describing many in-camera techniques wedding photogs could use to "wow" their customers. Now they do it more simply and repeatably in the computer.
I suppose it's true that Ansel would be up to his elbows in a computer darkroom right now, too, but I'm sure he'd still be mixing chemicals, just the same.
Happy Hollidays to all and have safe journey's home.
V
varjag
Guest
Stu, the picture you refer to is a winner of World Press Photo and is believed to be authentic. The issue of truthfullness in photojounralism is not new though: setups and manipulations were common in reportage until the first crop of LIFE photogaphers changed that.
My personal opinion is while it is debateable where photography ends, it is obvious where kitsch begins. If you stive for wide popularity you might choose to do painted postards, but if you maintain high standards for yourself there is a much smaller but more sophisticated group of peers who will appreicate that.
My personal opinion is while it is debateable where photography ends, it is obvious where kitsch begins. If you stive for wide popularity you might choose to do painted postards, but if you maintain high standards for yourself there is a much smaller but more sophisticated group of peers who will appreicate that.
back alley
IMAGES
darkroom or photoshop, it's all manipulation.
why not shoot 8x10 and contact print only if you want 'pure photography'.
to call one photography and another something else is narrow minded and lacks a sense of history.
when 35mm hit the scene it was scoffed at too as the miniature format.
why not shoot 8x10 and contact print only if you want 'pure photography'.
to call one photography and another something else is narrow minded and lacks a sense of history.
when 35mm hit the scene it was scoffed at too as the miniature format.
Stu W
Well-known
Photograph or scene from Myst?
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
In general, it is my opinion that for something to be called a photograph, that digital manipulation only becomes "too much" if it becomes obvious that it has been doctored.
Beyond that, I believe that is up to the individual artist to decide how much is too much depending on their goals for an particular image.
I often take the liberty to occasionally airbrush (aka clone) out distracting elements from prints that I make. Or isolating the foreground from the background and blurring the background if the original image has too much depth of field. Or using Levels/Curves on the foreground object to make it stand out more clearly from the background.
The result is still my photograph so far as I'm concerned and I don't feel that there is any deception going on.
Exceptions always apply. If, for example, the print was destined for a show or competition where such manipulation was banned then I wouldn't do it -- even if it was undetectable.
Beyond that, I believe that is up to the individual artist to decide how much is too much depending on their goals for an particular image.
I often take the liberty to occasionally airbrush (aka clone) out distracting elements from prints that I make. Or isolating the foreground from the background and blurring the background if the original image has too much depth of field. Or using Levels/Curves on the foreground object to make it stand out more clearly from the background.
The result is still my photograph so far as I'm concerned and I don't feel that there is any deception going on.
Exceptions always apply. If, for example, the print was destined for a show or competition where such manipulation was banned then I wouldn't do it -- even if it was undetectable.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I personally have the opinion that anything I can do in lightroom ... is enough
Although the touchup tool in CS or Elements is totally acceptable
Anyone knows their photographical history knows how much controversy W.Eugene Smith's photographs were because of his use of bleaching and extreme contrasts ... often using cloning as well
The picture of the family funeral in Spain was especially controversial as he completely changed the direction of the eyes for two of the women morning over their father/husband
Although the touchup tool in CS or Elements is totally acceptable
Anyone knows their photographical history knows how much controversy W.Eugene Smith's photographs were because of his use of bleaching and extreme contrasts ... often using cloning as well
The picture of the family funeral in Spain was especially controversial as he completely changed the direction of the eyes for two of the women morning over their father/husband
amateriat
We're all light!
You've pretty much nailed it for me here: I (and, doubless, most everyone here) have images where just about everything "clicked", where, no matter ho many times you look at it, you say "yeah, this one really came together". Whether by luck, painstaking attention, or (usually) a combination or both, the picture Just Works. Ten years ago, you would have people looking at such pictures, and the worst thing that could be asked was how expensive a camera you used to make that shot (besides the usual shop-talk questions about lenses, film et al). Now the main question revolves around how much diddling was done in Photoshop to get such an "effect", as if such an image could only come from Industrial Light and Magic. Yuck. (Note: as one might imagine, Jerry Uelsmann has to put up with this too, big-time; he still kicks it old-school, too, although he's not a stranger to the Mac, either.)willie_901 said:
And, for the record, I have little against photo-manipulation, be it chemically or electronically rendered; I can't say I've a seen a hell of a lot of compelling examples of it, though.
I was flattered when Washington Post photography columnist Frank Van Riper quoted me (at length, surprisingly) in a column about the idea of using Photoshop as a transcription device for my photography – essentially extracting all I could from what was actually on that little chip of film, nothing more, or less. Beyond being my favorite creative medium, photography is a document to me, and, Van Riper also quoted from me, these images are likely to memorize places, people, and events better than I likely will as the years pass. That's as important to me as the "art" part, and the two needn't conflict.
- Barrett
