Robert Capa makes us look bad.

[peterm1]

...concerning the digital manipulation of Capa's D-Day images in order to sharpen them....

But it would be wrong to do it. I don't mean to sound moralistic, or to treat Capa's work as some sort of religious artifact. But it's Art. You can manipulate it digitally, in order to extract data from it. At that point, you've crossed over into Science. It may be interesting, and you may learn things form it, but it has nothing to do with the Art.

I agree that doing this would be a matter of science not art, but I do not agree that it would be wrong. I am not suggesting it could be done for aesthetic reasons - but for historical research reasons. As to the art - I much prefer Capas original (as they turned out). The blur is a part of history now that adds somehow to the immediacy of the D Day. Never the less it would be good to see the photos how he originally intended them to look.

 

[VinceC]

The original LIFE captions described the D-Day images as "slightly out of focus" with no reference to the bungled darkroom work. Capa used the phrase for the title of his autobiography.

 

[bcostin]

Very interesting thread. I've always loved Capa's work. I think a skilled photographer can wring compelling photos from almost any working camera, especially if he has a little time to become accustomed to its limitations.

I also like the idea of de-blurring his damaged D-Day photos. Capa certainly didn't intend for a technician to melt his negatives, so I don't think I'd personally classify that accident as "art". If such a repair technique had existed in his time I expect he'd have demanded it.

 

[Dogman]

While technology might improve possibilities, I think there is a limit to the ability to make great photos. Over the history of photography, there have been those who stand above others due to their ability, no matter what the level of technology was during their time.

I think that taking 21st Century technology and trying to improve on historical documents like Capa's D-Day photos amounts to revisionism instead of restoration.

 

[varjag]

Fixing what lab technician botched up is not revisionism.

 

[raid]

I'll draw another one of my "flawed analogies"...

Imagine a world where basketballs didn't exist. There weren't any memorable basketball players. Then it caught on. And then there were more basketballs to play and goof around with. There were many many many players without outstanding gifts (ok, let's take the Harlem Globetrotters out of the equation, those guys knew their stuff...) Then there were a few very memorable basketball players. But a heck of a lot more mediocre players.

The availability of more, better and improved basketballs, basketball shoes, and Nike ads does not guarantee every player will give Jordan results. Only a handful will know their stuff. But making it more available increases the chance of someone finding that as their true craft.

I know, I've tried to dunk a few, but the better, improved basketballs and shoes don't get rid of my crappy game.

My basketball game is very crappy even when I put a Leica pin on my shirt. What went wrong?