Photoshopping Street Photos Yes/No?

[anitasanger]

You have no idea what you're talking about. At all. I can make a neg with a UFO added quite easily. The fact that you don't know how doesn't mean it cannot be done. As for the rest of what I've said, I have a formal education in art history, which you would do well to acquire. Instead of attacking someone who is trying to help you, you should try reading what I wrote. It wasn't meant as an attack on you personally, but a reaction to all the hardcore purists here and an attempt to make them think about something that they don't understand. I'm not the pope giving infallible truth; you can disagree, and I may be wrong, but think about what I said first.

Check out the photographers I referenced. Adams did the least manipulation of them, but his work was not pure at all. I've seen more than his books, I have seen a few hundred of his prints in real life. Moonrise is a perfect example. The most famous version, which is printed in the books you have, shows a black sky (in the original print. I think it looks slightly lighter in the book) with bright clouds. I have seen prints he did soon after making the photograph and the sky is totally different. The early prints are more closely aligned to the negative, with a lighter sky and less dramatic look to the clouds. He burned in the sky considerably in the later versions of that print, which gave a completely different look. The experience of seeing and getting to know original prints is the foundation of scholarship in art history, and it is very eye-opening. Adams' reputation an a straight photographer is a manufactured one having little to do with the reality of an incredibly gifted artist who used every tool and technique available to manipulate his prints to produce images that were often quite different than the negative. He also manipulated the negatives considerably, which I'll talk about because you referenced the neg being something sacrosanct and infallibly true to the scene photographed. It is not. Adams used a dark red filter on "Monolith, the Face of Half-Dome" to darken the sky and increase contrast in the tones on the side of the mountain. That manipulation was built into the negative, an untruthful rendering of the scene.

I'm not objecting to you choosing to do unmanipulated work. That's fine. What I object to is the notion that its immoral to do anything but unmanipulated work. That is clearly false, at least if the history of the medium is a guide. I used to feel just like you did, and I looked down on anyone who retouched photos or did stuff like Uelsmann does (this was way before photoshop, though Uelsmann is still doing all darkroom work, no computers!). I worshipped Adams. I still love his work, but studying him seriously and studying the history of photography as a whole in a scholarly manner for so many years opened my eyes. I lost that slavish worship of the straight, unmanipulated photograph as a documentation of absolute truth because I learned that there is no such thing in photography.

Christopher,

In this thread (among others) you've demonstrated an uncanny fondness for insulting people, telling them what to do and suggesting that your opinions are the only correct ones. I'm not quite sure why you have these delusions of grandeur, or feel the need to talk down to others. I've taken the time to view some of your work and came to the conclusion that you are in no position to assume the role of infallible Photographic God. Accept the fact that everyone does not agree with your personal convictions and philosophies. Deal with it and go on.

In response to your rant, yes, I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. It appears that you're incapable of comprehension and I can't help that. Your responses are rambling diatribes that are in no way connected to the previous thought. I don't care that you have a formal education in art history, I'm not impressed. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I follow in your steps and acquire one as well, but no thanks. I've not suggested ways to live your life and I would appreciate your reciprocation. I have never attacked you as you've stated. You sir are the one who launched a self-righteous, incoherent attack on my proclamation that film is "pure and true." Why this inspired so much rage within you, I'll never know.

My initial post clearly disclosed that this was my PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY. I simply stated my personal point of view per the OP's request. I never asked you to help me or attempt to alter my preferences for a photographic work flow. STOP telling me what to do. All of the photographers you're telling me to study are completely irrelevant to my post that inspired you to take the juvenile approach of cursing and petty insults.

I also don't know why you insist on giving examples of photographers who've manipulated the camera in order to create a desired result. OF COURSE THEY DO. I've never suggested otherwise. You're making irrelevant points completely unrelated to anything I've said. It's as if you have nothing logical to say in response to my statements, so instead - type a bunch of nonsense completely unrelated.

You stated that you "object to the notion that its immoral to do anything but unmanipulated work." Well first off, I never mentioned the topic of morality. Secondly, I ONLY engage in photography that is not digitally manipulated outside of the parameters priorly disclosed. So freely object my friend. Your objections to aspects of my artistic life are completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure why you feel the need to inform me of your objections. I never knew you cared so much about my personal photography. I suppose I should be flattered.

In regards of your ability to convincingly add a UFO to an exposed and developed negative - well that is just preposterous. There is no way you could superimpose an object upon a piece of exposed celluloid in a manner that wouldn't be painfully obvious to anyone who's ever handled a negative. Then again, I'm nothing more than an ignorant Padawan when compared to your infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Lastly, for the sake of this great webforum's class and integrity, I will not engage you any more in this particular thread. It's a beautiful community comprised of well-behaved, well-mannered gentlemen who have a reputation of refraining from personal attacks and general rudeness. For the duration of this thread, I will have to agree to disagree with you and enjoy the rest of it silence. You will never change my mind and frankly, I have no desire to change yours.

Luke

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

In response to your rant, yes, I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about. It appears that you're incapable of comprehension and I can't help that. Your responses are rambling diatribes that are in no way connected to the previous thought. I don't care that you have a formal education in art history, I'm not impressed.

I'm sure what was rambling or incoherant about what I said. I wrote in plain English. You're uneducable, and I'm sorry I wasted time trying to help you. Only a fool has no respect for those who can teach him something. You have no clue what you're talking about, as evidenced by your continued insistence that I can't make a negative with a UFO on it.

In regards of your ability to convincingly add a UFO to an exposed and developed negative - well that is just preposterous. There is no way you could superimpose an object upon a piece of exposed celluloid in a manner that wouldn't be painfully obvious to anyone who's ever handled a negative. Then again, I'm nothing more than an ignorant Padawan when compared to your infinite knowledge and wisdom.

Once a negative is exposed and developed, you can't add something fake to it, but you can add it before its developed by means of double exposures (making off the area you don't want affected by the second exposure). Done right, it makes a negative that looks like it was a photograph of a real scene, such as a landscape with a UFO in the sky. If you accept a negative as a genuine, unimpeachable document of the real world that was in front of the lens, then such a negative would seem to be proof that aliens have visited us. Problem is, it wouldn't be any such thing! Just because a negative shows something does not mean it was real. That's what I've been trying to get you to see. My references to the history of photography are relevant because if you study it, you see that in the past it was quite common for photographers to make prints by combining negs (example, landscape with a different sky added in. 19th century materials were too sensitive to blue, so skies were often blown out to pure white if the negative was exposed properly for the rest of the landscape. So, photographers made negs of just skies that they added in the darkroom). Double exposures like what I described to add a UFO were common too, though of course people back then weren't faking extraterrestrial visitations, lol

You will never change my mind and frankly, I have no desire to change yours.

That's sad. I met students like you when I was an undergrad. Professors would ask them what, exactly, they were doing in school if they came with closed minds and a refusal to learn or consider that someone more knowledgeable might have something to offer them. They were there simply to get the piece of paper (a degree) that employers demand, so that they can get good jobs. I realize that you're not a university student, but those of us in this forum, which you have not belonged to long, do try to learn from each other and teach each other. We're also adult enough not to fly off the handle because someone said a curse word. Seriously. Me saying that your assertion in an earlier post was horse**** just wasn't that big of a deal. I'd hate to think what you'd do if someone said something truly offensive to you (like calling you an offensive name or using a racial slur).

 

[Pablito]

do it but say you didn't

 

[igi]

I've never seen that term used in galleries or museums, and I spent A LOT of time in the big Santa Fe galleries like Andrew Smith and Photo Eye during the years I lived out in Santa Fe. They just called them Silver Gelatin Prints, the same name used for any black and white print done on commercially produced silver-based paper in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Saying they're silver gelatin prints is a reference as to what kind of print they show, not to what kind of image they are showing. If they say that that what they're showing are photographs, I'd by left asking how did they took that image and they're likely be saying that it is a composite of more than one photograph.


On Uelsmann's work, he does not manipulate images to correct a wrong technique or replace reality with a more beautiful and less distracting scene... he tries to show a different "reality" that he thought of.

The difference between Uelsmann's work and street photography is that street photography has a real world context. You can't say a scene happened when you removed an object that is physically existing. Looks at Capa's The Falling Soldier (which I know is not street but...). Even "those who matter in the art and photography world" have problems with whether the scene happened or not. Why would they debate about this photo if the "happening" of a scene isn't important?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Saying they're silver gelatin prints is a reference as to what kind of print they show, not to what kind of image they are showing. If they say that that what they're showing are photographs, I'd by left asking how did they took that image and they're likely be saying that it is a composite of more than one photograph.


On Uelsmann's work, he does not manipulate images to correct a wrong technique or replace reality with a more beautiful and less distracting scene... he tries to show a different "reality" that he thought of.

The difference between Uelsmann's work and street photography is that street photography has a real world context. You can't say a scene happened when you removed an object that is physically existing. Looks at Capa's The Falling Soldier (which I know is not street but...). Even "those who matter in the art and photography world" have problems with whether the scene happened or not. Why would they debate about this photo if the "happening" of a scene isn't important?

The debate about Capa's Falling soldier is because he lied about how it was made and what it depicted. For journalists, there is an expectation of minimum manipulation that doesn't apply to artists like me or to amateurs like most of the RFF members who have been most vocal about defending some notion of 'truth' in photographs.

In the end, I don't think that it will make a real difference. The famous photo of the Marines raising the American Flag on Iwo Jima during World War II was staged too, but it is still regarded as a powerful war image, and it was used as the basis for a memorial to U.S. Marine Corp. veterans in Washington DC. Photographers get far more worked up about this stuff than the real world outside the 'camera club' does.

 

[Sparrow]

I think we aren't communicating. If you re-read my earlier posts, you'll see that we agree on this. I've argued that objectivity is something we strive for - knowing that our own backgrounds and experiences color our views. It's impossible to be truly objective.
But that doesn't mean we don't try.

Objectivity, in practice, doesn't mean you give equal weight to everything you see or hear.
But you must always question whether you might be letting your own feelings get in the way. As was the case with Hitler (Time Magazine's man of the year in 1939) there's just no way to know how things are going to go.
Still, it wasn't necessarily a lack of objectivity that led some elements of the press (and politicians) to support Adolph Hitler. It was also a lack of information and understanding of what this man was about.

I thought we were communicating very well actually. We agree that true objectivity is impossible but, you believe that one should strive for objectivity whereas I believe history tells us one should approach everything from a position of bias.

In the 1930's the dominant news-media of the era was the "Picture Post or Sports Illustrated" type newspaper, its images came from that original bunch of photojournalists. At that time there were no rules on anything. That disparate group Capa, Seymour, Cartier-Bresson and Rodger et al were a bunch of socialist, communists and Jewish subversives. This insistence on objectivity has it's origins in the US government's attempts to control the media during the wars in SE Asia.

Someone mentioned a flying saucer landing earlier... what would the objective press make of that?

Alien support Cameron's cuts; The Times,
EU flying saucer plot; The Express,
Diana! alien abduction?; Daily Mail,
Muslim saucer threat; The Star,
Alan saucer lends; The Guardian,

 

[jsrockit]

There is never only one way to do things.

 

[igi]

The famous photo of the Marines raising the American Flag on Iwo Jima during World War II was staged too, but it is still regarded as a powerful war image, and it was used as the basis for a memorial to U.S. Marine Corp. veterans in Washington DC. Photographers get far more worked up about this stuff than the real world outside the 'camera club' does.

Not to start another debate here (I do agree that journalist need to maintain that rigid standards regarding manipulation while the rest of us can do what you want... what I'm entirely after is the correct definition of a photograph) but just a correction, Joe Rosenthal says that the Iwo Jima photo is not staged and backed up by the man who said the photo was staged (who later corrected his mistake)...

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html

 

[Turtle]

do whatever you want. Just don't claim to be real those aspects which are not. I don't think the question is any more complex than one's own subjective verdict on what is honest and reasonable for the purpose it is used for. Adding large amounts of additional smoke to a burning city is one example where it is plain dishonest....