Nh3
Well-known
Here is a scenario:
A photographer using a DSLR shoots RAW, processes the files in photoshop CS3. He makes large prints of his work and goes to a museum curator.
How would the curator respond?
Reject the work outright because of digital manipulation or consider it as he would any other images taken with B&W film?
I basically wish to discuss the ethics of conversion to B&W and digital manipulation and I would like those who're concerned to delve deep into this and lets see if we can come to an equilibrium. I also would like to emphasize that please don't compare digital post processing with darkroom manipulation because in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.
thanks,
A photographer using a DSLR shoots RAW, processes the files in photoshop CS3. He makes large prints of his work and goes to a museum curator.
How would the curator respond?
Reject the work outright because of digital manipulation or consider it as he would any other images taken with B&W film?
I basically wish to discuss the ethics of conversion to B&W and digital manipulation and I would like those who're concerned to delve deep into this and lets see if we can come to an equilibrium. I also would like to emphasize that please don't compare digital post processing with darkroom manipulation because in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.
thanks,
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Ever heard of Panalure? http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g27/g27.jhtml
It was designed to make a B&W print from a colour negative.
Nando
Well-known
In my opinion, if the photographs are excellent, it doesn't really matter how they are made.
I can see rejections made due to the technical limitations of using a digital medium being completely logical. For example, let's say a gallery rejected a digitally-captured, black and white landscape photo because it would look out of place among large Ansel Adams-style, big-camera photographs on display.
I can see rejections made due to the technical limitations of using a digital medium being completely logical. For example, let's say a gallery rejected a digitally-captured, black and white landscape photo because it would look out of place among large Ansel Adams-style, big-camera photographs on display.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nh3, if I were the curator I would note that it was a digital conversion, just like I would note if it were a silver print. So yes, he should accept the image, if it meets the standards of the museum.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
The "art" itself is what matters.
If the image cannot be ignored, it will be shown.
The method is interesting only as the means to an end.
Of course, if the "art" is the method, then the resulting image is only a by-product.
If the image cannot be ignored, it will be shown.
The method is interesting only as the means to an end.
Of course, if the "art" is the method, then the resulting image is only a by-product.
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
Well, assuming the artist isn't trying to mis-represent the work by claiming that it's not manipulated, then I don't see what the problem would be.
Now how would the curator respond?
That's impossible to know... it depends on lots of variables. I believe the work should stand on its own merit.
Is digital manipulation exceptable?
Yes, manipulation of all kinds has been acceptable within the most parts of the photographic world since the beginning. I see no reason to change that view with digital work. Either you except manipulation (digital, darkroom, or whatever) or you don't, I see no valid reason to allow certain kinds but not others. Photography, as a technoolgy will continue to advance, there will allways be new ways to manipulate things in interesting ways.
Matt
Now how would the curator respond?
That's impossible to know... it depends on lots of variables. I believe the work should stand on its own merit.
Is digital manipulation exceptable?
Yes, manipulation of all kinds has been acceptable within the most parts of the photographic world since the beginning. I see no reason to change that view with digital work. Either you except manipulation (digital, darkroom, or whatever) or you don't, I see no valid reason to allow certain kinds but not others. Photography, as a technoolgy will continue to advance, there will allways be new ways to manipulate things in interesting ways.
Matt
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
To the extent that some part of photography is art, I do not see that any questions of ethics are involved; and to the extent that some part of photography is technique, the same is true.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think you're implying that it's "unethical" to convert to B&W because only B&W images taken with B&W film are "ethically B&W".
With which I disagree.
On the other hand, if digital images are passed along as B&W images, *pretending* to have made B&W images from B&W film, when in reality that's not the case, the issue isn't "ethics of digital to B&W conversion", but merely the "ethics of lying".
With which I disagree.
On the other hand, if digital images are passed along as B&W images, *pretending* to have made B&W images from B&W film, when in reality that's not the case, the issue isn't "ethics of digital to B&W conversion", but merely the "ethics of lying".
robert blu
quiet photographer
Probably I make it too simple, but on one side I have "the subject" lit by more or less light, reflecting colours. On the other side I have a print, with black, whites and intermediate greys. If in between the light was captured by a film or by a sensor is for me just an intemediate, practical point and should not have too much influence on the evaluation of the final item, the print itself. Just my opinion, even if I like film.
robert
PS it s difficult for me to find the correct words in english, sorry.
robert
PS it s difficult for me to find the correct words in english, sorry.
tripod
Well-known
B+W film converts images to B+W.
It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is.
It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is.
Last edited:
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I convert almost everything I shoot to B&W. I do not try to pass it off as anything. It is what it is. If someone asks me how it is shot, I tell them. Most of the time, no one does and I have had a few things shown here and there, and not once has anyone asked me how it was shot or what method I used to acheive the final print.
vrgard
Well-known
I rather like the way you put this, Robert. Following this line of reasoning it would make little difference whether the final b&w image was due to using b&w film to capture the image or, alternatively, color conversion of a scanned color negative or a digitally captured color image. As long as there is no misrepresentation then I see no problem with either scenario.
-Randy
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
"It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is."
I must disagree, Tripod. A finished print is an artifact and stands on its own merits. There is no doubt, of course, that other photographers (like us) will want to know how it was made: but the creator is free to not give details.
I must disagree, Tripod. A finished print is an artifact and stands on its own merits. There is no doubt, of course, that other photographers (like us) will want to know how it was made: but the creator is free to not give details.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
it does not need to be stated anything. I agree with the sloppy pudding above.
An image in a museum is an image in the museum. Does it look interesting enough for the museum?or does it not.
An image in a museum is an image in the museum. Does it look interesting enough for the museum?or does it not.
R
ruben
Guest
I seem to perceive that Gabriel is saying that for Nh3, digital is somewhere unethical, per se and not only in the conversion case.
I am not sure. In any case Gabriel, would you like to translate for me "Ich bin ein jelly" ?
Cheers,
Ruben
peterc
Heretic
I can't see how ethics would enter into it.
A print from a negative is an interpretation of that negative.
A print from a RAW file is an interpretation of that digital negative.
Both are manipulations to achieve a desired result.
A print from a negative is an interpretation of that negative.
A print from a RAW file is an interpretation of that digital negative.
Both are manipulations to achieve a desired result.
dexdog
Veteran
I don't see any ethical problems, as long as the photographer does not try to misrepresent the product. Other than that, I can't see why the museum director would care.
BillP
Rangefinder General
Okay, I have taken this seriously.
I went out today and found a museum curator. I asked him the question.
He said, and I quote verbatim:
"Who are you and why are you asking me such a daft question?"
I explained who I was, but was unable to answer his second query in any meaningful or sensible way.
Regards,
Bill
I went out today and found a museum curator. I asked him the question.
He said, and I quote verbatim:
"Who are you and why are you asking me such a daft question?"
I explained who I was, but was unable to answer his second query in any meaningful or sensible way.
Regards,
Bill
Thardy
Veteran
Oh, I see this is the "Philosophy of Photography" forum.
willie_901
Veteran
They're All Manipulated
They're All Manipulated
Unless you blatantly misrepresent how the photograph was produced I can't see how there is any ethical issue.
Lens selection manipulates the light before it strikes the sensor or film.
All photographs from a digital camera are manipulated. The data recorded by the sensor is processed by proprietary algorithms to produce am image with minimal manipulation (RAW) or one with much more manipulation (JPEG). The data recorded by the sensor is always processed mathematically by a process known as demosaicing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing). The result is a RAW image which may, or may not be subject to further manipulation (besides compression) to produce a JPEG. Cameras with Foveon sensors do not use demosaicing, but a RAW image must still be computed from data recored by the sensor. It may be that Foveon sensor images are subject to much less image processing than Bayer sensor images. The point is: all images recorded with digital sensors are manipulated to some degree by strangers and the photographer's results are affected by these decisions.
The situation in analog photography is similar. Different film emulsions and dye granule technologies are also create different types of images and the photographer has no little over how the film responds to light. Of course it is easy to use to different film and impractical to use a different Bayer demosaicing algorithm (unless you use a different camera) – and most people could care less An analog print is effected by the type of paper used and by dodging, burning or numerous other techniques. A film transparency is usually not manipulated when viewed with an analog projector.
In my view, the main difference is: the analog print is manipulated by the photographer with full knowledge of the process. By contrast, in-camera digital manipulations are decided by software engineers, product developers and marketing types who decide what kinds of manipulated images might sell more cameras.
The photographer can consciously affect how the JPEG looks in most cameras by selecting options (sharpening, saturation, etc) before the photo is recorded. Photographers who use RAW images make similar decisions with more flexibility during the post-processing phase of their work. So, producing a photograph from a RAW image is more similar to production an analog print.
Many digital cameras let us select B&W as an option for in-camera JPEG images. This means the color information is destroyed and a color image is not available. Some cameras let the photographer select options that will effect how a RAW image is processed (automatically) by the vendor's proprietary RAW processing software, However the original data is not modified so the photographer can access the unmolested RAW image if needed.
In the example you cite it would be useful to say something like: a giclée print made from a RAW (or JPEG) image converted to B&W during post-processing production (or converted to B&W in-camera).
As others have posted, what really matters is the end result and how other judge the photograph's aesthetics.
They're All Manipulated
Unless you blatantly misrepresent how the photograph was produced I can't see how there is any ethical issue.
Lens selection manipulates the light before it strikes the sensor or film.
All photographs from a digital camera are manipulated. The data recorded by the sensor is processed by proprietary algorithms to produce am image with minimal manipulation (RAW) or one with much more manipulation (JPEG). The data recorded by the sensor is always processed mathematically by a process known as demosaicing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing). The result is a RAW image which may, or may not be subject to further manipulation (besides compression) to produce a JPEG. Cameras with Foveon sensors do not use demosaicing, but a RAW image must still be computed from data recored by the sensor. It may be that Foveon sensor images are subject to much less image processing than Bayer sensor images. The point is: all images recorded with digital sensors are manipulated to some degree by strangers and the photographer's results are affected by these decisions.
The situation in analog photography is similar. Different film emulsions and dye granule technologies are also create different types of images and the photographer has no little over how the film responds to light. Of course it is easy to use to different film and impractical to use a different Bayer demosaicing algorithm (unless you use a different camera) – and most people could care less An analog print is effected by the type of paper used and by dodging, burning or numerous other techniques. A film transparency is usually not manipulated when viewed with an analog projector.
In my view, the main difference is: the analog print is manipulated by the photographer with full knowledge of the process. By contrast, in-camera digital manipulations are decided by software engineers, product developers and marketing types who decide what kinds of manipulated images might sell more cameras.
The photographer can consciously affect how the JPEG looks in most cameras by selecting options (sharpening, saturation, etc) before the photo is recorded. Photographers who use RAW images make similar decisions with more flexibility during the post-processing phase of their work. So, producing a photograph from a RAW image is more similar to production an analog print.
Many digital cameras let us select B&W as an option for in-camera JPEG images. This means the color information is destroyed and a color image is not available. Some cameras let the photographer select options that will effect how a RAW image is processed (automatically) by the vendor's proprietary RAW processing software, However the original data is not modified so the photographer can access the unmolested RAW image if needed.
In the example you cite it would be useful to say something like: a giclée print made from a RAW (or JPEG) image converted to B&W during post-processing production (or converted to B&W in-camera).
As others have posted, what really matters is the end result and how other judge the photograph's aesthetics.