GSNfan
Well-known
I don't buy the often repeated excuse that b&w is an abstraction of reality, it is not. A b&w picture of a cat is a picture of cat, not a dog, a mouse or a koala, its the description of a cat photographed. The change is merely the appearance, which is of different colors, and since color itself is non existent without light, that makes color a purely superficial aspect of the image anyway.
Sure, it can be... but not always. Many things are distracting in photos if you let them be... but when do the alterations stop? At some point, the photo turns into something else... it wasn't a diss and wasn't from a purist's point of view. I actually like the works I've seen of yours.
I'm an artist, not a journalist and I know enough about the history of photography to know that trying to be 'pure' is idiotic because no such thing exists. As has been pointed out by others, just using black and white film abstracts reality to a considerable degree. So does the common practice of using colored filters for BW work to alter tonal relationships. Using wideangle or tele lenses also departs from how the human eye sees a scene. My photographs are MY representation of my world. You want 'reality'? Go to these places yourself and look with your own eyes
Hey, no problem... do what you want. I just simply said I never remove trash from my photos. Never even though about it. Now, it has me thinking.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hey ... if you must remove trash from your photos at least try and be environmentally responsible and re-cycle.
Please! :angel:
Please! :angel:
Sparrow
Veteran
sometimes, but I feel dirty afterwards ...
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
In a Tom Ang book he shows an photo of a street scene. Then he removes the flat sky and adds a much enhanced sky from another part of the world. Still, he muses there is something missing: Not enough people. He adds people to the street scene. (This was just an exercise.) The reconstructed photo made up of different parts of the world is much better. The question remains: Is this a street scene or a collage? IMHO photoshop and photography (or computer generated images) are not the same thing. Keith provides a good example of another problem or honesty in photography. He took an average photography and by altering it with a computer he enhanced the image thereby making it a much better image. But for what purpose and what skills were demonstrated?
barnwulf
Well-known
I think that removing or adding anything in a picture makes it a bit of a fake. If you don't like some of the things that are in the viewfinder, don't take the picture or move in closer or change your angle to eliminate that which is not wanted. Work the scene and shoot as many shots as you can. You will likely get at least one picture without trash or other undesirable things in the picture. Dodging and Burning are fine I think. I do it sometimes. Just my opinion about how I do my work. Jim
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
What if I didn't see it at time? surely then it would be different to my perceived reality, and therefore give lie to my version of reality whereas removing it would restore my truth, no?
Vilk
Established
just trying to match my wet prints. scanners have loooong way to go
back alley
IMAGES
is a writer allowed to edit his words?
or should it be perfect as first written?
same with composer?
etc?
or should it be perfect as first written?
same with composer?
etc?
thegman
Veteran
I'd say do whatever you want to enjoy your hobby.
Vilk
Established
kbg32
neo-romanticist
It's your vision. Use it when you need it.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah, yes but isn't that just distorting reality but by another method, in fact worse, you're discarding whole frames full of reality whereas in photoshop it may just be one small area that needs correcting
Steven Veit
Newbie
I see the camera as a tool that's great for expressing an artistic vision or idea, and darkroom techniques, whether wet or digital, seem to me perfectly OK extensions of this tool. Sometimes I use them more or less, sometimes not. Sometimes it seems to work well, sometimes not so well. I think we're long past the point in the history of photography, though, where any image alterations should be considered as some sort of inappropriate violation of an objective reality. After all, one person's objective reality is just another's unimaginable dream. At least that's the way it looks in the photos I seem to like the most!
igi
Well-known
You can only photograph scene that happened so cloning is very evil to me.
Cropping... you can always show them the whole photo if you want to. You'd just want them to focus at a certain scene.
Colors... you might be surprised that I can see more saturated colors than you! Or you might be color blind after all!
Cropping... you can always show them the whole photo if you want to. You'd just want them to focus at a certain scene.
Colors... you might be surprised that I can see more saturated colors than you! Or you might be color blind after all!
Yes, but those art forms start from scratch and are not derivative of something else.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sort of. But writing a novel derives from learning to read, then from watching people. Who is to say where you draw the line on after-treatment? Must a novelist's characters always correspond 1:1 with people they know? Should those people be approached to ask what they think they'd say? Who can guarantee that what they think they'd say is what they would say?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
You have to ask yourself what you are trying to do with your image. If it is your intent to document life as you saw it - then how could you possibly justify removing pieces from (or adding them to) the scene you have chosen to depict?
I believe it's dishonest - and I never do it with my documentary work (I include street photography in that). It is my intent to show what happened, not what I wish had happened. If there is trash on the street, then there is trash on the street.
However, if I were shooting something like glamour, art or a portrait, I'd be more inclined to make alterations to the image. (for example, I have no qualms about removing a skin blemish) But with those photos, I'm not documenting anything. I'm trying to create an image that evokes a certain emotion.
I believe it's dishonest - and I never do it with my documentary work (I include street photography in that). It is my intent to show what happened, not what I wish had happened. If there is trash on the street, then there is trash on the street.
However, if I were shooting something like glamour, art or a portrait, I'd be more inclined to make alterations to the image. (for example, I have no qualms about removing a skin blemish) But with those photos, I'm not documenting anything. I'm trying to create an image that evokes a certain emotion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tim,
So... With street photography you're not trying to evoke a certain emotion?
All I'm saying is that street photography does not HAVE to be warts-and-all documentary, and that there is no longer even an implied promise that it is, unless the photographer says it is.
Cheers,
R.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
+1 for that!
In the opinion of Garry Winogrand: "They're just pictures, they're not telling anything!"
Last edited: