The prefect print-analog reality.
fotocord
perfect print", something I've yet to produce from analog photography. I
have had some realy close ones, but there is always something I could
improve on when I look at it later. Like maybe a better positioned cloud, a
person that would be better moved slightly or removed, a distracting shadow
etc. With digital this stuff can be fixed but is this then a realistic
capture of time? What I love about photography is it's ability to capture a
slice of time at a certain place to enjoy looking at later. Whether this is
a person or a place, when it's "enhanced" digitally, it's no longer a
realistic interpritation of our world.
Our world isn't perfect and I like trying to capture as perfect a view of a
scene as I can, even if it's just close to perfect. Personally I feel if I
can 'fix' my screwups later, I'll probably start getting sloppy with my
technique, why wait for those people to move when I know I can crop them
out later? Maybe if someone is trying to produce an artistic
resprensentation of our world they can do it easier with digital but for
the reasons I shoot photographs, I like the "you get what you shot" aspects
of analog.
--
Stacey
Cathy
> Something I was thinking about in relation to digital photography is "The
> perfect print", something I've yet to produce from analog photography. I
> have had some realy close ones, but there is always something I could
> improve on when I look at it later. Like maybe a better positioned cloud, a
> person that would be better moved slightly or removed, a distracting shadow
> etc.
>With digital this stuff can be fixed but is this then a realistic
> capture of time?
Or just our interpretation of time? Or a dream? *Anything* is possible.
Use your Imagination.
>What I love about photography is it's ability to capture
> slice of time at a certain place to enjoy looking at later.
What I enjoy about photography is the speed.
>Whether this is
> a person or a place, when it's "enhanced" digitally, it's no longer a
> realistic interpritation of our world.
So it's alot like a Renoir, or Degas...a Mvnch..Klee... a Harry Roseland
:)xx
>
> Our world isn't perfect and I like trying to capture as perfect a view of a
> scene as I can, even if it's just close to perfect. Personally I feel if I
> can 'fix' my screwups later, I'll probably start getting sloppy with my
> technique, why wait for those people to move when I know I can crop them
> out later?
>Maybe if someone is trying to produce an artistic
> resprensentation of our world they can do it easier with digital
our... perhaps their???
but for
> the reasons I shoot photographs, I like the "you get what you shot" aspects
> of analog.
>
Whatever works to get the finished piece. All of the above and paper
choise-printing technique, imagination, vision la dee da.
spank me.
Cathyxx
The type of photographs you make, the subjects you single out, reveal
the person inside of you. How close you get to your subjects reveals how
close you want to get.
.... __~o
.. \ -\<,
......(_)/(_).......................
Howard Lester
"fotocord" wrote
> but for
> the reasons I shoot photographs, I like the "you get what you shot"
aspects
> of analog.
That's good, Stacey, and so do I. If you ever do manipulate the image by
moving things around, you had better present the image with a clear
statement that "this print has been manipulated by blah blah..." Otherwise,
your integrity will be gone as far as I'm concerned.
Howard Lester
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jeff
that they're digital, but that, when you start "correcting" for bad camera
placement or timing in Photoshop, you aren't creating photos so much as you
are creating digital paintings. As someone who has spent years practicing
to "get it right on the negative", I get really annoyed when someone tells
me that I'm wasting my time worrying about unwanted convergences and the
like when I could just be grabbing a quick snapshot of the scene and fixing
the perspective in Photoshop!
At some point, I hope to purchase a Nikon D100 or similar, and see if
things like the Zone System still can be applied--what's a CCD's response
curve look like, and how can it be manipulated to fit onto paper, etc--and
whether I can use the camera as a true greyscale device with conventional
b&w filtration. So much to learn!
Jeff
Ralph Barker
Howard Lester wrote:
"fotocord" wrotebut for
the reasons I shoot photographs, I like the "you get what you shot"aspectsof analog.
That's good, Stacey, and so do I. If you ever do manipulate the image by
moving things around, you had better present the image with a clear
statement that "this print has been manipulated by blah blah..." Otherwise,
your integrity will be gone as far as I'm concerned.
John Emmons
While I admire your enthusiasm I can't help but question your conclusions.
All photography is interpretation. Not just digital photography. How could
it be anything else?
We live in a 3 dimensional, color world. If you shoot black and white film
you'll be "interpreting" a photograph according to what a film manufacturer
thinks the proper gray tone is for various colors. If you shoot using color
film you'll get different color qualities. Try photographing the same scene
with Fuji Velvia in 4"x5" and then the same scene with Kodak Portra 35mm
film. Which image is reality and which one is interpretation?
Think about what photography is, a means of capturing images on film or on a
CCD. From the moment you open the shutter you're interpreting the world
around you. You're taking a 3 dimensional view and making it 2 dimensional,
you're choosing how much of the scene to include by cropping or zooming or
moving your position, you decide how long to process the film, how dark to
make the print, how to display it. All interpretations. None of it is real
and none of the resulting images reflect reality.
There has been an expectation of photography over time that is only now
being questioned, the use of digital imaging is forcing the world to
reassess it's view of photography and what it all means. I think it's
healthy. Some feel it's ruining classical photography, I think they're
afraid to accept change.
The painter Magritte put it very well in the title of one of his paintings,
"This is not a pipe"
The photographs we take are not realistic, they are not the world, they are
reflections of what we see and feel interpreted into a knowable format.
Nothing more.
Thanks for bringing up this very valuable topic.
John Emmons
"fotocord" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajkqho$1c6qr5$1...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
Leonard Evens
I generally agree with you that the image should be a faithful
representation of the scene. But there are serious questions about what
a "faithful representation" is. Photographic processes necessarily
involved distortions of what the human visual system sees, and a lot of
photographic technique is concerned with correcting for that. For
starters, most of us see in color, so black and white photography
involves making lots of choices to produce some abstraction of the
scene. If you insist on making your verticals parallel, which I
usually go to great extremes to do, then you may introduce perspective
"distortions" at the edge of the field of view, particularly if you use
a wide angle lens, e.g., spheres become ellipsoids.
I've jumped into digital photography with both feet because at my stage
of life, darkroom photography is not too practical for what I want to
do. I feel I am honest as long as I try to produce a plausible image
for what my visual system could have seen under the right circumstances.
So I am happy to manipulate contrast, both globally and locally. I'm
happy to change the brightness or even the color of the sky. Doing this
digitally is no different in principle than doing it in the darkroom,
but it is easier. I've also cloned out unimportant parts of the image
to remove detail or even larger structures that are incidental. For
example, in editing a picture of one of my favorite Evanston houses, I
removed a car which obscured part of the sidewalk in front of the house,
but which easily might not have been there. I wasn't making a picture
of the sidewalk.
Of course, with digital techniques, one can easily go considerably
beyond this. But with some effort many of these things were possible in
the darkroom. So it is not a matter of what the medium is capable of
but rather the intent and philosophy of the photographer.
Right now, I learning how to use a 4 x 5 view camera. I produce film
negatives with as much care as I can, but I scan the results and am
happy to manipulate the image further in a photoeditor. If I live long
enough, inexpensive, easy to use digital backs, may become readily
available for such cameras, and I will be happy to switch from film.
That will only increase one's control in taking the picture since a lot
of the guessing about exposure and related matters will be eliminated.
I see that as a natural extension of what photography has always been about.
There is one thing about the current digital revolution that I regret.
Film photography as it was practiced for most of my lifetime, if done
carefully, teaches you a lot about photographic basics. So much is
automated these days that I wonder how many budding photographers will
learn how to exercise control over what they do.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
fotocord
> Stacey,
>
> While I admire your enthusiasm I can't help but question your conclusions.
> All photography is interpretation. Not just digital photography. How could
> it be anything else?
>
But it is saving a piece of time on film. Once someone starts moving things
around, that moment in time never existed. Analog photography is an
interpretation of that moment in time. IMHO manipulated digital images are
an interpretation of what a "perfect" record of what one would want to see
is.
An example, when shooting a waterfall and later seeing some trash in the
waters edge. If you digitally remove it, then it's no longer reality. The
trash was there at that time. Even if you walked down and removed it before
shooting and then put it back, there was a time when it wasn't there.
Sure one can argue "Do what you need to get the shot", but this -getting a
perfect shot at any cost- isn't what I love about photography.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> I've also cloned out unimportant parts of the image
> to remove detail or even larger structures that are incidental. For
> example, in editing a picture of one of my favorite Evanston houses, I
> removed a car which obscured part of the sidewalk in front of the house,
> but which easily might not have been there. I wasn't making a picture
> of the sidewalk.
>
I guess for me, this ruins what photography is about. The car WAS there at
the time the picture was taken so your shot no longer represents any
specific moment in time. Also at some point the only record of that moment
in time may be that print and someone might find later the car being there
puts a time reference to the print and makes it more interesting?
I also find your statment 'even larger structures that are incidental'
don't fit my ideal of reality either. Nothing wrong with digital but IMHO
it's not a replacement for analog, it's a different thing altogether. Like
your above statment shows, once one starts down this road, very few stop at
simple contrast and color adjustments.
--
Stacey
Francis A. Miniter
Your post and the idea of the "perfect" digital print, infinitely repeatable,
made me think the lovely short story by Hans Christian Anderson, "The Emperor
and the Nightingale" [which he wrote after the singer Jenny Lind rejected his
love]. The nightingale is replaced for a period of time by a mechanical
nightingale, that can produce the same song in exactly the same way over and
over and over again. At first the Emperor views this as a virtue of the
mechanical nightingale, but after a while, it does prove to be tedious, and the
variations produced by the real nightingale are sorely missed.
Francis A. Miniter
Cathy
full of fuzzy globulars.
SO, I re-read your post and felt the need to add this.
In your first paragraph , I get the feeling its about the composition of
the photograph rather than the actual print. Also If I understand -its
the digital manipulation of a photograph and not the actual digital
image from a digital camera that you write about.
Look at Childe Hassam's "Late Afternoon, New York Winter, 1900 oil on
canvas, then look at Arthur Wesley Dow, "Exercise No. 34 and 35,
Landscape Composition (from Composition: A series of Exercises in Art
Structure for the Use of Students and Teachers", New York, 1900, then
look at Alfred Stielgitz, Spring Showers-The Coach 1899-1901.
I would ask myself, would I be able to take a digital photograph
resembling any of the above works that I have studied? Yes. Would I
have to manipulate it in a photo-editing program to make it resemble any
of the above? No. The common element is in the composition.
Now, being skilled in photography, the fine arts and digital
manipulation, would I be able to create a resemblance of the above works
on a computer? Yes. The computer becomes Hassam's paint brush, Dow's
pencil, Stielgitz's camera. How one goes about gathering the necessary
elements to create the digital composition, is a chore/pleasure in
itself. I draw out the basic shape on a piece of paper and scan, draw
directly on a graphics tablet, use other photos as a foundation, use
filters, erasers, I adjust color and saturation, play with light, tones,
dodge and burn. The finished piece is a quilt of different mediums
combined. Do I do this exclusively? No, its just another tool I use in
my unsatiable addiction to create. It's an art form, and right now it is
one of many forms I use to try to capture the time period and interpret
my world that I live in.
It's also ironic how many will criticize the digital art/photography
medium, without ever creating any themselves.
Now for correcting screw ups (an undaunting task when the screwup is
bipodal).. are you sure they are? Stieglitz would return to previous
shot images and re-print them with the people in the photo, the one's he
had originally cropped out. Again it comes back to the composition. I
treat the ground glass/view finder, monitor as a painters blank canvas,
its up to me to decide want I want to include and exclude. I dont
photograph in areas where there are bipodals :), so that doesnt present
a problem for me. Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
see. Im starting to think its a good idear to bring binoculars out to
scour the landscape.
I keep going back and I re-work photos... Maybe a different paper? b/w
instead of color? hand tint with pencils? Maybe find my tripod marks in
the sand and re-shoot? <~~this becomes addictive, because you start
getting a 'series' of the same thing over and over again and its never
the same. (When I die they will be immortalized as my "Empty Lot"
series, and be discussed with great intensity. Philosophical meaning
will be attached to the tilted horizons....."<g>
Paddle, Oar!, hand,
Cathy
fotocord
>
> It's also ironic how many will criticize the digital art/photography
> medium, without ever creating any themselves.
>
Maybe because some people don't see it as "photography" but as an art form
of it's own. Is it really photography or something else entirely? Just
something to ponder.
>Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
>DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
>see.
Which is making a perfect sanitary image of our imperfect, unsanitary
world. Also it is making you a "perfect" photographer instead of realising
that the "perfect" photograph with no problems is very rare and that is
part of photography as well.
Again one of the things that draws me to photography is it is my personal
"time machine" that records a slice of time on film forever. When this
get's chaged from reality, is it still photography or some other art form
like painting? If someone is creating multi
Once the image is changed in any way from reality, I don't feel it is still
photography. Why do people want to cling to the word photography when
talking about these types of images instead of calling it digital art?
>Maybe find my tripod marks in
>the sand and re-shoot? <~~this becomes addictive, because you start
>getting a 'series' of the same thing over and over again and its never
>the same.
A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Like when someone else said
something like "I cloned out a car that just as likely wouldn't have been
there" but there may have been a bicycle leaning against a tree instead.
You have created something that never actually existed and as such, is no
longer a photograph. Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the same thing.
Sure people have done this using multiple negatives etc (the giant fish
filling up the back of the truck?) but I don't consider those a photograph
either.
--
Stacey
Howard Lester
> "fotocord" wrote
> > Cathy wrote:
> >Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
> >DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
> >see.
I prefer to be more careful and get it right the first time. In 4x5 you
won't have that problem if you are examining the ground glass - a process
very different from looking through a 35mm camera.
> Which is making a perfect sanitary image of our imperfect, unsanitary
> world. Also it is making you a "perfect" photographer instead of realising
> that the "perfect" photograph with no problems is very rare and that is
> part of photography as well.
I am proud of a photograph that has 'perfection', where I can say I did
nothing to change the original natural scene.
I am proud to sell a photograph for a lot of money - the buyer bought it
because I used no filters, even though the scene is intensely colored. (She
at first thought I used a filter, and would not buy it if I had done so.)
I could never be so proud displaying a work of something that wasn't there,
or that is missing a piece that *was* there.
The process of photography - of recording what is *there* - is very
different from painting, as we know. So the analogy of a painter painting
clouds that weren't there, or not painting an object that *was* there...
that analogy can't be used here.
A digital camera records an image through a lens the same way a film camera
does. It's what happens *after* that image is recorded is all that is in
question.
Howard Lester
> Again one of the things that draws me to photography is it is my personal
> "time machine" that records a slice of time on film forever. When this
> get's chaged from reality, is it still photography or some other art form
> like painting? If someone is creating multi
>
> Once the image is changed in any way from reality, I don't feel it is
still
> photography. Why do people want to cling to the word photography when
> talking about these types of images instead of calling it digital art?
>
> >Maybe find my tripod marks in
> >the sand and re-shoot? <~~this becomes addictive, because you start
> >getting a 'series' of the same thing over and over again and its never
> >the same.
>
> A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Like when someone else said
> something like "I cloned out a car that just as likely wouldn't have been
> there" but there may have been a bicycle leaning against a tree instead.
> You have created something that never actually existed and as such, is no
> longer a photograph. Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the same thing.
> Sure people have done this using multiple negatives etc (the giant fish
> filling up the back of the truck?) but I don't consider those a photograph
> either.
> --
>
> Stacey
fotocord
>
> A digital camera records an image through a lens the same way a film
> camera does. It's what happens *after* that image is recorded is all that
> is in question.
>
I agree and have no problem with digital cameras and/or digital printing.
I've noticed that most people that start doing "straight" digital prints,
soon say to themselves things like "Wow this would look better if that
cloud was moved over to here and ..........", myself included. It's too
easy to try to "fix" things when the digital environment is used.
--
Stacey
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>It's also ironic how many will criticize the digital art/photography
>>medium, without ever creating any themselves.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe because some people don't see it as "photography" but as an art form
> of it's own.
Until they try it for themselves their opinion on it is not viable.
They don't know what they are talking about because they have not done it.
It would be like me telling a brain surgeon how to do his job.
>>Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
>>DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
>>see.
>>
>
> Which is making a perfect sanitary image of our imperfect, unsanitary
> world. Also it is making you a "perfect" photographer instead of realising
> that the "perfect" photograph with no problems is very rare and that is
> part of photography as well.
Its setting up your composition.
In Imogen Cunningham's "The Unmade Bed", did she alter reality by
placing a hair comb on the bed? Was she the perfect photographer or is
it a perfect photograph? Hard to separate the two.
> Again one of the things that draws me to photography is it is my personal
> "time machine" that records a slice of time on film forever.
Thats fine. I have a time line. If I were to put all my work end to
end, a big piece of my reality would be in front of me. The perfect and
the not so perfect. Its hard to separate the two :)
When this
> get's chaged from reality, is it still photography or some other art form
> like painting? If someone is creating multi
>Once the image is changed in any way from reality, I don't feel it is still
> photography.
Many years ago I work in a portrait photography studio that had me
hand-painting the glare out people eyes and eye glasses, pimples off of
faces, filling in cavities, removing the blemishes of dust on the
negatives, you name it. People still paid for their "altered from
reality photographs."
>Why do people want to cling to the word photography when
> talking about these types of images instead of calling it digital art?
Perhaps all the elements that went into the composition of the digital
piece were photographs. Astro-photographers are taking hundreds of
digital images and stacking them with digital software. Do we call it
digital art or astro-photography?
>>Maybe find my tripod marks in
>>the sand and re-shoot? <~~this becomes addictive, because you start
>>getting a 'series' of the same thing over and over again and its never
>>the same.
>>
>
> A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Like when someone else said
> something like "I cloned out a car that just as likely wouldn't have been
> there" but there may have been a bicycle leaning against a tree instead.
I had a dream. Someone had left on my night stand a very old fragile
large format camera. The wood was weathered and grey. I brought it into
my kitchen. Put it down on the table. The table was up against the wall.
Just above the table were two large windows and morning sunlight was
streaming in. I could see outside the windows the outlines of
buildings. I opened the camera very carefully and noticed the bellows
were made out of birch bark. Like an Indian canoe.
It will take many photographs to re-create this slice of subconscious
time reality.
How will I do it? Cut and paste photos and make a photographic
collage? Scan the photos and put it together with software? Put a
"WANTED" ad in the personals for an apartment with two windows above a
kitchen table, and an old weathered grey birch barked bellowed large
format camera? Hoping a handsome spanking hero will respond and I can
bring my camera over there and shoot? I'm also going to be searching for
a birch forest and I'll probably have to move a stray branch or two.
> You have created something that never actually existed and as such, is no
> longer a photograph.
My dream was very real. Now I have to photograph it. Where it leads me
is anyone's guess. It may bring me back looking for my tripod marks and
re-shooting birch forests...
> Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't the same thing.
Yes, agreed. A photograph of the large photographed fish stuck in the
back of the truck would make it reality.
Have a lovely evening.
My imagination is in overdrive and the meters running.
Cathy
--
Sherman
> Cathy wrote:
stuff snipped....
> Once the image is changed in any way from reality, I don't feel it is
still
> photography. Why do people want to cling to the word photography >when
talking about these types of images instead of calling it digital art?
Do you ever use a filter? Do you ever use Velvia or other super-saturated
film? Do you ever shoot in black and white? In the darkroom do you ever
adjust the contrast of a print? Do you ever dodge or burn when making a
print? All of these things change the image from reality.
This reminds me of a story. Someone once asked Picasso why he didn't paint
things like they really were. He replied he wasn't sure what that was (how
things "really" were). The man then took a photograph of his wife from his
wallet and said "There is my wife as she really is!". Picasso said "She's
rather small isn't she? And flat?"
In your opinion was Ansel Adams a photographer? I recently saw a contact
print of AA's "Moonrise" negative. It is almost unbelievable the amount of
changing of reality he did. The sky is very light with clouds visible all
the way to the top of the image. He didn't want them there and he printed
them out. The foreground is also much lighter contains a great deal of
detail and looks somewhat cluttered. He wanted it simpler and printed down
the detail. Reality just didn't suit him I guess.
The word photography means "light writing". The image is captured using a
device that allows a measured amount of light to strike a light sensitive
surface to capture an image. Whether the light sensitive surface is
chemical or electrical doesn't matter much to me (except that I have yet to
see a digital capture system that I can afford that would give me the detail
I get from 4x5 film which is why I use it).
Sherman
Cathy
> Do you ever use a filter?
No.
Do you ever use Velvia or other super-saturated
> film?
Yes.
Do you ever shoot in black and white?
Yes
>In the darkroom do you ever
> adjust the contrast of a print? Do you ever dodge or burn when making a
> print?
In the past I have. I dont have a darkroom as of yet. Presently I have
to try very hard to get to the closest to perfect while shooting LF.
All of these things change the image from reality.
Thats right.
> In your opinion was Ansel Adams a photographer?
Yes.
I recently saw a contact
> print of AA's "Moonrise" negative. It is almost unbelievable the amount of
> changing of reality he did. The sky is very light with clouds visible all
> the way to the top of the image. He didn't want them there and he printed
> them out. The foreground is also much lighter contains a great deal of
> detail and looks somewhat cluttered. He wanted it simpler and printed down
> the detail. Reality just didn't suit him I guess.
He was a master at composition and a master magician in a darkroom. One
of the many reasons why Stieglitz decided to show his work.
> Whether the light sensitive surface is
> chemical or electrical doesn't matter much to me
Me neither.
Cathy
--
Cathy
>
>>>Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
>>>DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
>>>see.
>>>
>
> I prefer to be more careful and get it right the first time. In 4x5 you
> won't have that problem if you are examining the ground glass
Yes Yes...... And when you get it right, the Lab messes up!
But I also have a digital out there with me, so all is not lost.
- a process
> very different from looking through a 35mm camera.
Ive forgotten what thats about. I havent used 35mm since Jan. I still
have film and pics in the camera.
>
> The process of photography - of recording what is *there* - is very
> different from painting, as we know. So the analogy of a painter painting
> clouds that weren't there, or not painting an object that *was* there...
> that analogy can't be used here.
The simularity between painting and photography is composition.
The photographer behind the camera is much like the catcher behind home plate.
They both call the game.
1 hr to Saturn.
--
fotocord
> fotocord wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe because some people don't see it as "photography" but as an art
>> form of it's own.
>
>
> Until they try it for themselves their opinion on it is not viable.
> They don't know what they are talking about because they have not done it.
What makes you believe this? Because someone doesn't like something means
they've never done it? I've created several digital "perfect" prints and
something about them bothers me. That's what prompted this post.
>
>>>Its the out of place branch, or petal off an out of
>>>DOF flower, or the piece of trash someone left behind, and that I didnt
>>>see.
>>>
>>
>> Which is making a perfect sanitary image of our imperfect, unsanitary
>> world. Also it is making you a "perfect" photographer instead of
>> realising that the "perfect" photograph with no problems is very rare and
>> that is part of photography as well.
>
>
> Its setting up your composition.
It's fixing something I didn't do right the first time, IMHO of course.
>
> In Imogen Cunningham's "The Unmade Bed", did she alter reality by
> placing a hair comb on the bed? Was she the perfect photographer or is
> it a perfect photograph? Hard to separate the two.
No because in reality the comb WAS on the bed when she tripped the shutter.
I think you're missing my point. There is a difference in setting up a
scene and creating it inside a computer. The one created inside a computer
never actually existed.
>
>
>>>Maybe find my tripod marks in
>>>the sand and re-shoot? <~~this becomes addictive, because you start
>>>getting a 'series' of the same thing over and over again and its never
>>>the same.
>>>
>>
>> A perfect example of what I'm talking about. Like when someone else said
>> something like "I cloned out a car that just as likely wouldn't have been
>> there" but there may have been a bicycle leaning against a tree instead.
>
>
> I had a dream.
Which the image of never existed..
>Someone had left on my night stand a very old fragile
> large format camera. The wood was weathered and grey. I brought it into
> my kitchen. Put it down on the table. The table was up against the wall.
> Just above the table were two large windows and morning sunlight was
> streaming in. I could see outside the windows the outlines of
> buildings. I opened the camera very carefully and noticed the bellows
> were made out of birch bark. Like an Indian canoe.
>
> It will take many photographs to re-create this slice of subconscious
> time reality.
> How will I do it?
Maybe with paint or digitally "paint" it? What you create isn't going to be
a photograph but another art form.
Why do people need to call this "photography"?
--
Stacey
Jeff
> John Emmons wrote:
>
>> Stacey,
>>
>> While I admire your enthusiasm I can't help but question your
>> conclusions. All photography is interpretation. Not just digital
>> photography. How could it be anything else?
>>
>
>
> But it is saving a piece of time on film. Once someone starts moving
> things around, that moment in time never existed. Analog photography is an
> interpretation of that moment in time. IMHO manipulated digital images are
> an interpretation of what a "perfect" record of what one would want to see
> is.
>
> An example, when shooting a waterfall and later seeing some trash in the
> waters edge. If you digitally remove it, then it's no longer reality. The
> trash was there at that time. Even if you walked down and removed it
> before shooting and then put it back, there was a time when it wasn't
> there.
>
Well put, thanks for stating it more clearly than I have.
> Sure one can argue "Do what you need to get the shot", but this -getting a
> perfect shot at any cost- isn't what I love about photography.
Agreed: I don't like to see Photoshop used as a crutch! Seeing distracting
power lines and trash while viewing the scene on the groundglass-that's
called "learning to see", and I think the photographer who attempts to skip
this lesson is shortchanging him/herself. "Okay", I hear someone saying "I
see the power lines in my composition, but I can't avoid them; Photoshop's
cloning tool is the only way to get rid of them". But to that I say "Get
rid of them?! How's about thinking of a new composition that works with the
power lines just as they are?". Let the dog wag the tail, not the other way
around!
Jeff
John Emmons
You and Cathy have both gotten the point I was making. Nothing about
photographs is real, other than the fact that they exist at all.And a Zen
buddhist could easily make the case that they don't exist for that matter.
They've never been anymore than a 2 dimensional representation of a 3
dimensional world. And there's nothing wrong with that, as there is nothing
wrong with so-called perfect digital images.
As usual the problem lies with the people not with the technique.Read John
Loengard's story about photographing a famous negative that belonged to
Yousef Karsh and you'll get it, photographs don't lie, people lie about
photographs. If someone purports to tell me that her photograph is more real
than someone else's or that their photograph represents more truth than mine
than I know where the problem lies. And it's simple and easy to solve, let
the image stand alone. Let it explain itself to the world and let the world
draw it's own conclusion as to what real is or isn't. If reality is the
dividing line, I'd rather fall on the side of Wynn Bullock than the so
called realists.
I'd urge anyone who thinks that their photographs are "real" to read some
Bertrand Russell. Or some Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith for that matter.
I find it interesting that "traditional" photographers are still fighting
this battle, it started about what, 70, 80, years ago? The f64 gang vs the
pictorialists only now it's the silvers vs the pixels. And what was true
then is true now, it's the image that counts, not the method employed in
creating it.
The latest issue of "Lenswork" tells it like it is, digital imaging is a
tool, and only a tool. Like a Wisner and a Plasmat or an Omega and a dip n
dunk line or a DCS 560 and a Macintosh G4. Just tools, no truths, none more
honest than another.
"and what is good and what is not good, need we ask anyone to tell us these
things...?"
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
Great thread so far.
John Emmons
Roger N. Clark
the exact same color response or contrast as the human eye. They do
not have the same optical distortion. So nothing records "reality."
Exposure time too can significantly distort reality.
For example, have you ever seen a waterfall with "cotton candy" looking
water? Those long exposure (~second) exposures of waterfalls are not
what we see. It is not a record of a "moment in time" but a smeared
or distorted representation of time.
I try and image animals with large format photography. That usually
is not possible because of exposure times. With small f/stops for
depth of field and second long exposures, animals move and
don't look on film like what I see. So sometimes I shoot 4x5
of the scene and 35mm of the animals at the same time and
digitally merge the two.
Here is one example (I hope the URL doesn't wrap when I send this):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/c071200_L4_01_600-mt_evans_goat.html
The goat was imaged with 35mm before the 4x5. It is reality because
this is what I saw an instant in time, or for the final image, two
instants in time. The static scene was imaged a few minutes later
is also a reality. Thus the two images are like a longer time
exposure, but in a different way than we're used to.
So this merged image represents what I saw, but was technically
impossible with one camera. Is it not still photography?
I explain more of this on my photo ethics page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
I drum scan my 4x5s at about 3300 dpi (650 megabyte files) and
scan the 35mm to match the 4x5. I use the same film type for
both 4x5 and 35mm. Doing a digital merge of two such
images is not easy, even when done within a minute or so
from the same position. Alignment of the two images is
never perfect as it is done with 2 optical systems, which each
distort reality in their own way. It is FAR easier to do the
shot correctly in the first place than fix it digitally later.
For another example, the elk at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/c071798_aL4-1.html
would make a better image if they were reversed in position
so the elk on the left were looking into the scene. But I chose not
to do that move. I waited, but they never moved into "better"
position. So this image is not manipulated by moving subjects,
but it is manipulated because of optics and film, in this case
velvia. (On the 4x5 of this image, you can see detail in eyes of
the elk, but one needs at least a 24x30 inch print to see it.)
So technically it is not reality, but is it not photography?
Moving subjects around or adding subjects takes hours, even tens
of hours of work in photoshop when using large format images (yes
probably easy with screen size images). However, such added elements
have lighting inconsistencies that usually make it obvious to me.
Roger Clark
http://www.clarkvision.com
Jeff
> Film, or digital sensors, do not have the dynamic range, nor
> the exact same color response or contrast as the human eye. They do
> not have the same optical distortion. So nothing records "reality."
> Exposure time too can significantly distort reality.
> For example, have you ever seen a waterfall with "cotton candy" looking
> water? Those long exposure (~second) exposures of waterfalls are not
> what we see. It is not a record of a "moment in time" but a smeared
> or distorted representation of time.
>
> I try and image animals with large format photography. That usually
> is not possible because of exposure times. With small f/stops for
> depth of field and second long exposures, animals move and
> don't look on film like what I see. So sometimes I shoot 4x5
> of the scene and 35mm of the animals at the same time and
> digitally merge the two.
Roger,
If I were to put myself in your position, might I not go further and ask
whether:
If I were a master digital artist, and I created a landscape entirely on my
computer--say, a wonderfully accurate rendition of Yosemite, with detail
down to individual veins in the leaves, and fully raytraced lighting--in
short, indistinguishable from a photograph even when viewed through a
loupe, but impossible to create by other means because the vantage point
was in midair, could I call it a photograph? This would genuinely be a
"light drawing", the only difference would be that my light came, not from
the sun, but from a set of computer routines which faithfully replicated
the sun's effects!
Or what if, frustrated that my photos of animals in the wild were always a
bit blurry, I went to a zoo and made excellent photos of animals there,
without a hint of their cages. If these photos conveyed a sense of what I
felt when I was in the field, could I sell these alongside the works of
wildlife photographers without including some sort of disclaimer?
> Here is one example (I hope the URL doesn't wrap when I send this):
>
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/c071200_L4_01_600-mt_evans_goat.html
>
> The goat was imaged with 35mm before the 4x5. It is reality because
> this is what I saw an instant in time, or for the final image, two
> instants in time. The static scene was imaged a few minutes later
> is also a reality. Thus the two images are like a longer time
> exposure, but in a different way than we're used to.
> So this merged image represents what I saw, but was technically
> impossible with one camera. Is it not still photography?
I'd call that a composite image, based on photographs.
>
> I explain more of this on my photo ethics page:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html
>
> I drum scan my 4x5s at about 3300 dpi (650 megabyte files) and
> scan the 35mm to match the 4x5. I use the same film type for
> both 4x5 and 35mm. Doing a digital merge of two such
> images is not easy, even when done within a minute or so
> from the same position. Alignment of the two images is
> never perfect as it is done with 2 optical systems, which each
> distort reality in their own way. It is FAR easier to do the
> shot correctly in the first place than fix it digitally later.
>
I don't see how ease, difficulty, or expense figures into this discussion:
The fact still remains that your Mt. Evans photo contains an arrangement of
objects which never existed. If sufficiently well done, the composite image
may fool even careful observers, but then, so can a really well-done
example of simulated wood grain finish.
> For another example, the elk at:
>
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/c071798_aL4-1.html
> would make a better image if they were reversed in position
> so the elk on the left were looking into the scene. But I chose not
> to do that move. I waited, but they never moved into "better"
> position. So this image is not manipulated by moving subjects,
> but it is manipulated because of optics and film, in this case
> velvia. (On the 4x5 of this image, you can see detail in eyes of
> the elk, but one needs at least a 24x30 inch print to see it.)
> So technically it is not reality, but is it not photography?
A photograph is not reality, just as Magritte's painting of a pipe is not a
pipe. But I'd regard your elk photo as being more of a "straight"
photograph in the sense that you've captured an arrangement of objects as
they existed for a moment in time. The choice of framing, exposure, optics,
filtration and film all alter "reality", but it's still a depiction of a
scene which actually existed.
> Moving subjects around or adding subjects takes hours, even tens
> of hours of work in photoshop when using large format images (yes
> probably easy with screen size images). However, such added elements
> have lighting inconsistencies that usually make it obvious to me.
>
> Roger Clark
> http://www.clarkvision.com
Jeff
Cathy Sienko
>I've created several digital "perfect" prints and
> something about them bothers me. That's what prompted this post.
Ok. You are not satisfied with your digital prints. In time and with
trial and error (the greatest learning tool of all) you may be fortunate
to arrive at a digital print that meets or exceeds your expectation.
There is also the possibility *you may not*, and will continue with the
trial and error of perfecting your analog path. I wouldnt dismiss all
digital printing and/or experimentation with other photographic
techniques in any way, shape,or form-because you are not comfortable
with, have not experienced it yourself.
> Why do people need to call this "photography"?
Is a picture of a cow, a cow? Why or why not?
fotocord
> fotocord wrote:
>
> >I've created several digital "perfect" prints and
> > something about them bothers me. That's what prompted this post.
>
>
> Ok. You are not satisfied with your digital prints.
No, the "results" were great why assume that is the reason? Can't it be
something about it besides "sour grapes"?
An example: a perfect waterfall scene except for one thing, there was a
couple sitting on a rock halfway up the falls and they wouldn't leave. I
waited about 45 minutes but the light was changing and I knew I had to go
ahead and snap it. When I printed it analog I was wishing they had left,
but it was still a nice print. Later I scanned it, cloned them out and
digitally printed it and it looked great. I was happy that I was able to
fix this into a "perfect print". But when I looked at it later it bothered
me that what I was looking at was a "created" image instead of a record of
the day I spent there. The people sitting there were part of the scene as I
saw it and removing them removed part of the experience. They need to be
there because they WERE there. See my point yet?
>I wouldnt dismiss all
> digital printing and/or experimentation with other photographic
> techniques in any way, shape,or form-because you are not comfortable
> with, have not experienced it yourself.
I've got nothing against the digital process itself, it's when the image
get's changed into something that didn't exist that it is changed from
being photography into digital art.
>
> > Why do people need to call this "photography"?
>
> Is a picture of a cow, a cow? Why or why not?
>
A picture of a cow in a field is a picture of a cow in a field. A picture
of a cow upside down in a green sky is something someone created.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> fotocord wrote:
>
>> Sure one can argue "Do what you need to get the shot", but this -getting
>> a perfect shot at any cost- isn't what I love about photography.
>
> Agreed: I don't like to see Photoshop used as a crutch! Seeing distracting
> power lines and trash while viewing the scene on the groundglass-that's
> called "learning to see", and I think the photographer who attempts to
> skip this lesson is shortchanging him/herself. "Okay", I hear someone
> saying "I see the power lines in my composition, but I can't avoid them;
> Photoshop's cloning tool is the only way to get rid of them". But to that
> I say "Get rid of them?! How's about thinking of a new composition that
> works with the power lines just as they are?". Let the dog wag the tail,
> not the other way around!
>
Or if you don't want them there, call it "digital art" instead of
photography!
--
Stacey
fotocord
>
>> For another example, the elk at:
>>
>
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/c071798_aL4-1.html
>> would make a better image if they were reversed in position
>> so the elk on the left were looking into the scene. But I chose not
>> to do that move. I waited, but they never moved into "better"
>> position. So this image is not manipulated by moving subjects,
>> but it is manipulated because of optics and film, in this case
>> velvia. (On the 4x5 of this image, you can see detail in eyes of
>> the elk, but one needs at least a 24x30 inch print to see it.)
>> So technically it is not reality, but is it not photography?
>
> A photograph is not reality, just as Magritte's painting of a pipe is not
> a pipe. But I'd regard your elk photo as being more of a "straight"
> photograph in the sense that you've captured an arrangement of objects as
> they existed for a moment in time. The choice of framing, exposure,
> optics, filtration and film all alter "reality", but it's still a
> depiction of a scene which actually existed.
>
>
Exactly! The scene did exist in that moment in time but if the elk had been
reversed, that moment in time never existed.
I feel that photography as a way of recording history is going to be lost
due to "digital art" creating images that never existed.
--
Stacey
Howard Lester
"fotocord" wrote
> The people sitting there were part of the scene as I
> saw it and removing them removed part of the experience. They need to be
> there because they WERE there. See my point yet?
Give it up, Stacey. Those who don't want to get your point won't - and don't
care to. They'd rather tell you it's ok to digitally eliminate people and
powerlines that you saw through the lens. They skirt the issue and try to
compare that to Velvia, burning and dodging, and artificial lighting. They
want to tout their latest exploits in *digital* work, rather than to allow
you the satisfaction that you got the scene you wanted *in-camera*, which
takes work and a good eye! I'm with you -- in-camera work is far more
satisfying at least because it takes an artistic eye to make "order out of
chaos" right there in the real scene.
Howard Lester
remove the z's for my email
Cathy
> Cathy Sienko wrote:
>
>
>>fotocord wrote:
>>
>> >I've created several digital "perfect" prints and
>> > something about them bothers me. That's what prompted this post.
>>
>>
>>Ok. You are not satisfied with your digital prints.
>>
>
> No, the "results" were great why assume that is the reason? Can't it be
> something about it besides "sour grapes"?
My misunderstanding. I thought you had the perfect photograph and then
made the perfect digital print. I would not have taken the photograph
if I did not want the people in it. Apparently they were very obvious,
unlike the blade of grass, piece of trash, stray branch I did not see. I
would have returned at another time and shot it. Again its about
composition.
>
> An example: a perfect waterfall scene except for one thing, there was a
> couple sitting on a rock halfway up the falls and they wouldn't leave. I
> waited about 45 minutes but the light was changing and I knew I had to go
> ahead and snap it.
That was your choice. You made a photograph you did not like to begin with.
>When I printed it analog I was wishing they had left,
> but it was still a nice print.
Yet you were not satisfied and you....
>Later I scanned it, cloned them out and
> digitally printed it and it looked great. I was happy that I was able to
> fix this into a "perfect print". But when I looked at it later it bothered
> me that what I was looking at was a "created" image instead of a record of
> the day I spent there. The people sitting there were part of the scene as I
> saw it and removing them removed part of the experience. They need to be
> there because they WERE there. See my point yet?
Yes. You were not happy with the people being there, not happy that you
took a photograph of them being there, not happy that you digitally
altered the photograph to represent what you had originally hoped to
shoot. You were not happy with the COMPOSITION. But you are happy with
the quality of the prints.
>> > Why do people need to call this "photography"?
>>
>>Is a picture of a cow, a cow? Why or why not?
>>
>>
>
> A picture of a cow in a field is a picture of a cow in a field. A picture
> of a cow upside down in a green sky is something someone created.
You're adding elements that were not presented with the original
question. Think about it and try again. Im not being sarcastic, there
are no sour grapes at my table under the windows with the bright light
shining through ( I couldnt possibly add them into the composition , as
they were NOT there in the dream...I would be altering reality :).
John Emmons
thing. I take Stacey's point. She takes pleasure in creating what to her is
a perfect photograph because it captures a moment in time. That's great.
Except that it doesn't cause it can't.
Photography is not and has never been about capturing reality. It's
impossible to do so. Once you open the shutter you imposed very real
physical limitations on what you're looking at. Now if you want to think
that exposing film to photons is capturing reality you're welcome to, I'd
rather think of it as creating art and not bother trying to rationalise what
I do.
Photography doesn't need to be explained or rationalised, nor does so called
digital imaging. Unless a person tells you that what you're seeing is in
fact a factual recreation of something one should always assume that it's a
created image. To do less is simply laziness.
The real problem with digital imaging, like in silver based photography is
people. When we insist that our view is real and other's is not. When we
insist that our prints somehow purport to be an accurate record of a reality
and other's do not. When we're told that a picture of an animal behind bars
is wildlife it's not the image lying, it's the person doing the explaining.
Images are what they are, images. They're no more real than the pixels
you're possibly reading now.
Look, there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to recreate in
photographs what you observe in the world, we just shouldn't fool ourselves
into thinking that's it's possible to do so. Cause it ain't. And no amount
of wishing will make it so.
Go into the world and make some photographs, they don't have to be real just
good. And don't lie about them.
This is still a very interesting thread, I'd guess it will take another day
or so for the ugly, personal attacks on unknown people to start.
John Emmons
"Howard Lester" <heyzl...@dakotazcom.net> wrote in message
news:3d5ff...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Leonard Evens
As long as we are engaging in thought experiments, let me propose one of
my own. Suppose I take a picture of a building in which I point the
lens upward to include the whole facade with the film plane
perpendicular to the lens axis. On the other hand I could also have
taken a picture from the same point of view with the same relative focal
length using a view camera with the back vertical and the front raised
to include the top of the building. Now I can prove mathematically
that it is possible digitally to alter the first image so it is
identical to the second image, at least as far as ray tracing is
concerned. Do you claim that the view camera image would be real and
the digitally altered image from the camera pointed up would be constructed?
I find this example useful because it helps explore what we mean by
reality. I think it is clear there is nothing special about what is
literally recorded on the film when the picture is taken. There are
many steps between that and the final image, say as a print. For
example, the same perspective correction could have been done with an
enlarger by tilting the easel and doing some dodging/burning.
I've recently tried this experiment with an actual building, taking the
picture both ways. Note that despite talk of slices or instants of
time, at the same time of day at the same time of year with the same
lighting in the sky, the building yields essentially the same picture.
An "instant" for such a picture extends over many days if not weeks.
That is one of the points that Roger Clark made about many pictures made
with a view camera. Note also that none of the intermediate steps is a
completely accurate rendition of the "reality" I see when look at the
building. When I look up, I don't see converging verticals. I also
don't see the perspective distortion of the urnlike adornments on the
top of the building which is apparent in both the view camera and
digitially corrected photograph. I can't see that because I can't see
the ornaments without looking straight at them.
By the way, with the current state of technology, I certainly prefer the
view camera approach. First, I can see what is on the ground glass and
visualize the picture before I take it. Second, accurate digital
perspective correction is not easy, and with extreme corrections, the
image gets slightly degraded. And finally it is just much more fun
fiddling with a view camera. But if the digital technology were
advanced enough, it is possible that with a digital back one could do it
either way right there in the field with the camera. In that case, it
wouldn't really make any difference. It would be just the same as
lowering the back versus raising the front or otherwise fiddling with
camera movements to produce the same image.
>
> Or what if, frustrated that my photos of animals in the wild were always a
> bit blurry, I went to a zoo and made excellent photos of animals there,
> without a hint of their cages. If these photos conveyed a sense of what I
> felt when I was in the field, could I sell these alongside the works of
> wildlife photographers without including some sort of disclaimer?
That is not at all what he did. If he had had sufficiently fast film,
there was a picture there he could have taken with one camera and with
sufficient depth of field. He just took it with two cameras. The
problem was that the time scale for the background scene was very long
while the time scale for the goat was very short, and the time scale for
his visual appreciation of the scene somewhere in between.
Roger N. Clark
constitutes a modified image. Of course any measurement
of the photons from a scene through an optical system
distorts spatially and in intensity. But that is accepted
as photography. Moving, removing, or adding elements
to the scene, in "traditionalists" minds is not acceptable.
So the difference is that in one case, we accept the physical
limitations and modifications our technology gives us
(e.g. camera and film), and in the other case the "photographer"
chooses to modify the image that the technical system delivered.
But here we also get into subtleties. The photographer
post-processes his/her image, whether in the darkroom or in
the computer by changing contrast, color balance, etc.
This is by choice by the photographer. So changing
contrast, dodging, burning, etc is accepted photography
and has been for decades. It would be no different with
digital manipulation.
For some, and I think the main point of this thread, is when
something is changed in the scene that was not there (e.g.
removing people or a power line). They say it is not
photography. While I would argue it is still photography, one
may still oppose the practice or not like images done that way.
There have been threads like this before. Some have pointed out
that the "masters" of yesteryear did manipulations often.
For example, landscapes often had clouds added to give a more
dramatic effect. (It would actually be interesting to see
references to a couple of prints where the clouds are the same.)
Photographers have been adding, removing, modifying photographs
for decades. It just took a lot of skill. Computers simply make
it easier. Its still photography, just a modified photograph, like
it has been done for a long time.
Roger Clark
Roger N. Clark
> I feel that photography as a way of recording history is going to be lost
> due to "digital art" creating images that never existed.
>
> Stacey
It's no different with traditional photography.
It just took a master in the darkroom to do it, or
later with an airbrush.
Roger
Roger N. Clark
> Roger N. Clark wrote:
>
> > Here is one example (I hope the URL doesn't wrap when I send this):
> >
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.nature-1/web/
> c071200_L4_01_600-mt_evans_goat.html
> >
> > The goat was imaged with 35mm before the 4x5. It is reality because
> > this is what I saw an instant in time, or for the final image, two
> > instants in time. The static scene was imaged a few minutes later
> > is also a reality. Thus the two images are like a longer time
> > exposure, but in a different way than we're used to.
> > So this merged image represents what I saw, but was technically
> > impossible with one camera. Is it not still photography?
>
> I'd call that a composite image, based on photographs.
>
> The choice of framing, exposure, optics,
> filtration and film all alter "reality", but it's still a depiction of a
> scene which actually existed.
The scene actually existed. The goat was photographed on that
rock. That background was really there. Those flowers were really
there. The fly on the flowers was really there (too small in the
web image but really cool in the full resolution image, and I saw
the fly on the flower).
The goat was not a zoo shot or other image placed in the
scene. I agree that it is a digital composite, but not in the
traditional sense. I could show the 35mm frame only that shows
the field, mountains in the background, the goat (in slightly
different position because the wide angle was taken at a different
time), etc. But the 35mm image doesn't show the detail I could see
with my eye and that is what the 4x5 of the scene and 35mm
telephoto of the goat (at about the same focal length as the
4x5) images do. So this composite is a closer rendition of
what I saw than any other image I took that day.
Is that not what you are arguing for: a realistic
rendition of what you saw?
Roger
fotocord
> fotocord wrote:
>
>> Cathy Sienko wrote:
>>
>>
>>>fotocord wrote:
>>>
>>> >I've created several digital "perfect" prints and
>>> > something about them bothers me. That's what prompted this post.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok. You are not satisfied with your digital prints.
>>>
>>
>> No, the "results" were great why assume that is the reason? Can't it be
>> something about it besides "sour grapes"?
>
>
> My misunderstanding. I thought you had the perfect photograph and then
> made the perfect digital print. I would not have taken the photograph
> if I did not want the people in it. Apparently they were very obvious,
> unlike the blade of grass, piece of trash, stray branch I did not see. I
> would have returned at another time and shot it. Again its about
> composition.
No, they weren't obvious at all. Anyone who has seen the print had to have
them pointed out... It didn't ruin the print, it just wasn't pefect.
>
>
>>
>> An example: a perfect waterfall scene except for one thing, there was a
>> couple sitting on a rock halfway up the falls and they wouldn't leave. I
>> waited about 45 minutes but the light was changing and I knew I had to go
>> ahead and snap it.
>
>
> That was your choice. You made a photograph you did not like to begin
> with.
Nope I still like it, it just isn't "perfect". but neither is our world.
>
>
>>> > Why do people need to call this "photography"?
>>>
>>>Is a picture of a cow, a cow? Why or why not?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A picture of a cow in a field is a picture of a cow in a field. A picture
>> of a cow upside down in a green sky is something someone created.
>
>
> You're adding elements that were not presented with the original
> question. Think about it and try again.
But your question doesn't have anything to do with my point? Of course a
picture of a cow isn't a cow. But a "straight" print of a cow is a picture
of a cow that actually existed. A digitally manipulated cow with human
feet, never existed.
--
Stacey
Roger N. Clark
Nice post. I agree.
Roger
fotocord
> Interesting that in commenting on missing the point you've done that very
> thing. I take Stacey's point. She takes pleasure in creating what to her
> is a perfect photograph because it captures a moment in time. That's
> great. Except that it doesn't cause it can't.
>
>
Well I'm not going to give it up! <G>
"Straight' photography does capture a moment in time. Whether it's a
portrait or a landscape, it's still a "copy" of what was there to the best
of our technology. I'd LOVE to be able to capture this reality in a true 3D
type electronic holographic imaging system to make it even closer to what
was really there, but that's in the future. Even shooting in B&W is a copy
of that point in time, just a visual interpritation of something that did
exist. A digitally altered photograph is something that only existed inside
a computer chip and has no place in time/space that it ever actually
existed.
Here's one more example. One foggy winter morning I shot this scene at our
lake house. The fog was real, the lake was real as was everything in the
scene. I always loved their old boat house and worked to print this so it
"felt" like it did when I was there. Now the boat house is gone and a huge
double deck monster in there with floral landscaping etc. That print is the
only record of what it was like at the lake front in that "simple" time
period. If I had removed the canoe because I thought it was distracting, it
wouldn't be a record of what that boat house looked like that winter day
years ago.
http://miss_stephe.tripod.com/fog.htm#fog
I'm glad I shot this on medformat with APX25 as any grain would have ruined
the smooth fog effect and printing on matt finish fiber paper gives it the
same look it had while I was standing there. Part luck and part craft
recreated what I saw and felt that winter morning.
Again I personally for myself don't mind digital imaging or printing to get
the "feel" of the print right and I'm not going to argure that photography
is aq perfect medium for recording "reality". It is a representation of how
we saw that space in time and the feeling we had.
But for myself changing an image into something that never realy existed
defeats my reason for shooting. Of course YMMV.
--
Stacey
fotocord
But these too aren't a record of what was really there. I think given the
ease of doing this digitally and the number of altered digital images being
produced is going to ramp up this loss of history.
--
Stacey
fotocord
>
> As long as we are engaging in thought experiments, let me propose one of
> my own. Suppose I take a picture of a building in which I point the
> lens upward to include the whole facade with the film plane
> perpendicular to the lens axis. On the other hand I could also have
> taken a picture from the same point of view with the same relative focal
> length using a view camera with the back vertical and the front raised
> to include the top of the building. Now I can prove mathematically
> that it is possible digitally to alter the first image so it is
> identical to the second image, at least as far as ray tracing is
> concerned. Do you claim that the view camera image would be real and
> the digitally altered image from the camera pointed up would be
> constructed?
I think either of these are "real" as what you phtographed was actually
there, just the craft of getting a correct view of it is different. I have
no doubt that I'll be doing digital photography at some point, but I need
to "control" how much I alter a photograph to feel it is still photography
to me.
>
> I've recently tried this experiment with an actual building, taking the
> picture both ways. Note that despite talk of slices or instants of
> time, at the same time of day at the same time of year with the same
> lighting in the sky, the building yields essentially the same picture.
But then again maybe not. there might be a bird sitting on a window ledge
or a plane flying by in the sky. Might be stormy clouds or open windows
that day. It is a "slice of time" when the shutter is open recording that
image.
>
> By the way, with the current state of technology, I certainly prefer the
> view camera approach. First, I can see what is on the ground glass and
> visualize the picture before I take it. Second, accurate digital
> perspective correction is not easy, and with extreme corrections, the
> image gets slightly degraded. And finally it is just much more fun
> fiddling with a view camera. But if the digital technology were
> advanced enough, it is possible that with a digital back one could do it
> either way right there in the field with the camera. In that case, it
> wouldn't really make any difference. It would be just the same as
> lowering the back versus raising the front or otherwise fiddling with
> camera movements to produce the same image.
I agree totally with this, it's just different "craft".
>
> That is not at all what he did. If he had had sufficiently fast film,
> there was a picture there he could have taken with one camera and with
> sufficient depth of field. He just took it with two cameras. The
> problem was that the time scale for the background scene was very long
> while the time scale for the goat was very short, and the time scale for
> his visual appreciation of the scene somewhere in between.
>
That is a tough one and is in a grey area IMHO. If both were shot at the
exact same time and mearged later to get a sharper image of the animal,
that isn't "digital imaging" but if there was a time lapse between the
exposures, it's not the same as if they were shot at the same instant.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> The choice of framing, exposure, optics,
>> filtration and film all alter "reality", but it's still a depiction of a
>> scene which actually existed.
>
> The scene actually existed. The goat was photographed on that
> rock. That background was really there. Those flowers were really
> there. The fly on the flowers was really there (too small in the
> web image but really cool in the full resolution image, and I saw
> the fly on the flower).
> The goat was not a zoo shot or other image placed in the
> scene. I agree that it is a digital composite, but not in the
> traditional sense. I could show the 35mm frame only that shows
> the field, mountains in the background, the goat (in slightly
> different position because the wide angle was taken at a different
> time), etc.
But was the fly on that flower when the goat was in that position? I doubt
it and as such that image never really existed in any slice of time. If
both shutters were fired together, you would have recorded an image that
existed in that slice of time.
See what I'm saying? It isn't how the image is recorded, depicted or
adjusted to represent how it looked to the photographer or what technology
is used, but that it is no longer something that existed in any point in
time. nothing wrong with doing that and people have done it with analog
photographs as ell, but it isn't the same thing as straight photography.
--
Stacey
Brian Ellis
looked like on that winter's day ears ago." It's (1) a representation of
what (2) some portion of the boat house looked like (3) to you, (4) from the
vantage point you selected, (5) using the equipment you chose to use to
produce (6) your representation, and (7) (most importantly) excluding from
the photograph everything you chose to exclude.
John Szarkowski made the interesting point in one of his essays in the book
"One Hundred Photographs" (hope I've got the title right, I'm too lazy to
get up and search for my copy) that literally millions of different
photographs could be made even of something like the interior of a small
room. Which one would be "reality?" Which one would show us "what the room
looked like?"
"fotocord" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajpt4q$1cuc6b$1...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
Chris Ellinger
wrote:
>I feel that photography as a way of recording history is going to be lost
>due to "digital art" creating images that never existed.
I agree. I think that, because of our experience with our own family
snapshots, most people think of photographs as records of people,
places, and things that existed, and events that happened. With the
advent of Computer Aided Imaging, many people will have first hand
experience with image manipulation. The first time someone "fixes" a
family snapshot, is the last time they will think of a photograph as a
record of a "real" person or event.
Perhaps that experience will create a distinction between photography
and CAI in popular culture.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Ralph Barker
fotocord wrote:
>[Description of combined images deleted]
>
>See what I'm saying? It isn't how the image is recorded, depicted or
>adjusted to represent how it looked to the photographer or what technology
>is used, but that it is no longer something that existed in any point in
>time. nothing wrong with doing that and people have done it with analog
>photographs as ell, but it isn't the same thing as straight photography.
>
So, would the combination of images, or manipulation of an image beyond
a certain (arbitrary?) point be called "curved photography"? ;-)
I've been following the discussion with some interest, and find it
mentally stimulating as are many good debates. It seems to me, however,
that the discussion is less about what "photography" is than about
variations in personal tolerance levels for tinkering with what we think
is reality.
As others have mentioned, even a "straight" photograph is filtered
through the perception of the photographer, and his or her personal
preferences have a profound effect on what is presented as reality -
both in terms of what is included in the composition and the techniques
used to represent those compositional elements first on film and then on
paper. Thus, it would seem to me that any photograph, even one devoid of
overt or excessive manipulation, is a representation of the
photographer's reaction to reality, rather than a representation of
reality itself. I suspect there is not one universally acceptable level
of "interpretation" associated with the image creation process.
As such, perhaps the question should be at what point does "editorial
integrity" require us to add a footnote explaining what we've done when
we present an image for public view?
Leonard Evens
Your emphasis of "what was really there" suggests that the two sides in
the debate have real epistemological differences. Your position is
certainly a respectable one. It presumes that physical reality is
pretty close to what we see. My position on the other hand is that what
we see is also only a rough representation of reality, and the
photographic process necessarily departs from it in significant ways.
Take the example of the power lines. Mea culpa! I have removed power
lines digitally from an image. According to my epistmelogical point of
view, the power lines were certainly there that day. But the question
is whether or not I saw them when I looked at the scene. They were in
the picture because I was somewhat limited in my point of view. If I
had gotten close enough to the subject to avoid them, I would have been
in the middle of a highway and risked losing my camera not to speak of
my life. The wires were visible on the ground glass but very easy to
miss. (I using my Horseman Technical Camera with a 6 x 9 ground glass.)
When I scanned the scene with my eye, I may have seen the wires but not
really seen them as part of the scene. After all, there were lots of
things present there that day, including cars down the road which had
just passed. You apparently want to restrict manipulation to setting up
the image in the camera and you want to accept whatever picture elements
the camera catches in the configuration it is in. You are willing to
change things like contrast and maybe even color balance afterwards, but
you don't want to add or remove objects like power lines. That is a
reasonable point of view, but it seems too restrictive to me given the
possiblities inherent in modern technology.
I think actually we all prefer "honest" photographs which involve as
little manipulation as possible. But some of us are willing to go a bit
further than you are in doing that. You see that as a slippery slope
which can lead to something completely different from conventional
realistic photography, and you want to set a clear bright line of
demarcation. Those of us debating with you see more a continuous
spectrum of possibilities and think we can keep honest while still going
beyond what was possible with conventional methods.
The issue of color balance is also informative in this discussion. I
used to do my own color darkroom work. No matter how hard I worked at
it, the colors were never really right. When I started digital
photography, I found it much easier to control color than in the
darkroom, but I still found I couldn't get it right. Then I read Dan
Margulis's "Professional Photoshop", which showed me the way. The point
is that it is impossible with current technology to get really close to
the actual colors one sees in a typical scene, particularly a natural
one. So in choosing color balance, it is a question of what you
consider important and want to get right and what you are willing to
sacrifice. You necessarily have to fake some of it, and the problem is
how to do it while still maintaining an illusion of reality.
Leonard Evens
> Leonard Evens wrote:
>
>
>
>>That is not at all what he did. If he had had sufficiently fast film,
>>there was a picture there he could have taken with one camera and with
>>sufficient depth of field. He just took it with two cameras. The
>>problem was that the time scale for the background scene was very long
>>while the time scale for the goat was very short, and the time scale for
>>his visual appreciation of the scene somewhere in between.
>>
>
>
> That is a tough one and is in a grey area IMHO. If both were shot at the
> exact same time and mearged later to get a sharper image of the animal,
> that isn't "digital imaging" but if there was a time lapse between the
> exposures, it's not the same as if they were shot at the same instant.
>
It is worth noting that the idea of a photograph as catching an instant
of time is something that developed long after the invention of
photography. Early photography involved quite long exposures.
Portraits required subjects to be held still by mechanical devices.
Today, there is still a difference in time scales depending on what kind
of camera you use. A 35 mm camera in bright light or with flash
involves very short time intervals and for all practical purposes you do
catch an "instant" of time. As Roger Clark pointed out, with a view
camera, it is not always so simple. In order to get sufficient depth of
field, you need to stop down significantly and long exposures are more
common. And people who make 20 second exposures of waterfalls in the
early morning are hardly catching an "instant" of time.
Cathy
view-finder or the ground glass, and what you do there, is what you are
going to get. You have to be somewhat psychic to pre visualize what
*you* want the finished piece to look like. You have to take into
consideration all the variables that come into play.
For example:
If you want to create the feeling of vertigo, you set your camera up on
the downward spiral of staircase of a lighthouse. You DON'T want it in
focus (like you could focus anyway, since you ARE experiencing vertigo).
You want movement. Your intention is to make viewing the photographic
print as uncomfortable for the viewer as it was for you making the photo.
When folks look at the photograph and state "Ugh! that gets me dizzy.",
you know your composition *in camera* and *behind the camera* has
succeeded. You didn't need to manipulate it in a darkroom, or use
computer software. You don't need to show them the "picture perfect
boring calendar art" prints that you took of the outside of the
lighthouse on a wintery, rainy, sleety, February day (no people). You
dont need to tell them they are inside of a lighthouse. They ask _you_
"is that a lighthouse?"
Not long ago I had the privilege of viewing a few photos that friends
have taken.
One is of dandelions. B/W. The composition of the photo is outstanding.
The dandelions dance around the print. The fuzzy heads sparkle. It is
reminiscent of a Jackson Pollack painting or notes on classical sheet music.
Another is a bad digi-cam of a new beagle puppy "daisy mae." What a
cutie! The composition is good. Daisy Mae was centered and looking
right at the camera. Its a good photograph.
Another is a very long exposure on film taken of the Pleides. The
composition is excellent, color is good, it sparkles and dances much
like the dandelions. I have it as the wallpaper on the monitor.
Another is a close-up of weeds. The composition is perfect. The colors
are serene and aquatic, easy on the eyes and the soul. I have lost
myself for eternity here. I can close my eyes and see it. The colors
wash over me and when I open my eyes, I feel at peace and renewed and
focused. *This* is the image, that I take with me, in my mind, when I
shoot LF. I must remain conscious. Examine everything. Mistakes are
expensive. Concentrate.
Im not happy with a photograph being just a photograph. It has to be more.
My own work at the present time is with 4x5 polaroid transfers. I only
have one "shot" at getting it right. There are no negatives to work with
in a darkroom, there is NO WAY I can correct anything digitally. There
is only one print. They are 'one of a kind.'
The most rewarding comment I have received on the polaroid transfers has
been, "They took me back in time to when I was a child, playing in my
grandmothers garden. There is a vintage quality to the prints. They are
warm and earthy. The prints show a maturity and the experience of the
photographer. Well done. Don't stop."
I cant remove/add powerlines, cars, people, wild animals from
photographs. Im not that strong.
It's about composition. If you dont want something in the photo (as in
fotocord's case), don't take the photograph. If you didnt get something
in the photo, dont add it in later. Either way--- return, find your
tripod marks and try again.
Jeff
visual power by creating altered images of nature that never were before
their eyes. As [Col. William Anders's Apollo 8 earthrise] straight-image
success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature photograph is
irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than whooly
rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and
members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to
this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully
represents a "real" event witnessed by another human being.
-Galen Rowell
"The Most Power Nature Photograph Ever Made"
Brian Ellis wrote:
> Interesting idea, but your photograph isn't a record of "what the boat
> house looked like on that winter's day ears ago." It's (1) a
> representation of what (2) some portion of the boat house looked like (3)
> to you, (4) from the vantage point you selected, (5) using the equipment
> you chose to use to produce (6) your representation, and (7) (most
> importantly) excluding from the photograph everything you chose to
> exclude.
Yes, exactly, but if we get back to the subject of Photoshop and it's
cloning tool, we run into a situation where we're not reflecting any sort
of physical reality, we're creating something new, and to me, this enters
the realm of painting or photo-collage.
>
> John Szarkowski made the interesting point in one of his essays in the
> book "One Hundred Photographs" (hope I've got the title right, I'm too
> lazy to get up and search for my copy) that literally millions of
> different photographs could be made even of something like the interior of
> a small room. Which one would be "reality?" Which one would show us "what
> the room looked like?"
In straight photography, we're not worried about finding the one-and-only
Reality (is that possible?), and neither are we necessarily concerned about
simply "showing what a place looked like". But even the most abstract
straight photos have their roots in a (single) real place and time.
Jeff
Jeff
Roger N. Clark wrote:
No, I'm not arguing for more "realism" per se: I'm looking more for an
authentic "decisive moment" rather than a best-of compilation!
Jeff
Cathy
As [Col. William Anders's Apollo 8 earthrise] straight-image
> success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature
photograph is
> irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than whooly
> rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and
> members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to
> this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully
> represents a "real" event witnessed by another human being.
>
Agreed. I love this photo. It was the first view of the blue/green
planet EARTH.
Apollo 12, was the photographers dream. They stayed an extra day just to
take photos. ahh..They sailed upon a Yankee Clipper into The Sea of Storms.
fotocord
>
> I think actually we all prefer "honest" photographs which involve as
> little manipulation as possible. But some of us are willing to go a bit
> further than you are in doing that. You see that as a slippery slope
> which can lead to something completely different from conventional
> realistic photography, and you want to set a clear bright line of
> demarcation. Those of us debating with you see more a continuous
> spectrum of possibilities and think we can keep honest while still going
> beyond what was possible with conventional methods.
>
So where does it end? Today you feel it is OK to remove these power lines.
In a few years will it be OK to add flowers in the forground for interest
and maybe a waterfall on the side and it still be considered a photograph?
What will the viewer think when they see a real photograph after are used
to seeing these 'perfect" scenes? Should all of these be called photographs
and where should the line be drawn between phtographs and digital art?
--
Stacey
fotocord
> And people who make 20 second exposures of waterfalls in the
> early morning are hardly catching an "instant" of time.
>
Depends on that you are comparing that 20 seconds against! <G>
I do think you understand that I mean it is recording something that
actually existed.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> As such, perhaps the question should be at what point does "editorial
> integrity" require us to add a footnote explaining what we've done when
> we present an image for public view?
I think this is the point. If we call all of this 'photography' how is the
viewer to know if what they are looking at really exists? If we can crop
out power lines and it's still photography, what about a scene of a new
england hillside that have some big native african flowers added to the
forground for interest and a waterfall added to the side to make it a
little prettier. Is this still photography? Where is the line drawn and
when should the viewer be told what he is looking at isn't real?
--
Stacey
fotocord
> Interesting idea, but your photograph isn't a record of "what the boat
> house looked like on that winter's day ears ago." It's (1) a
> representation of what (2) some portion of the boat house looked like (3)
> to you, (4) from the vantage point you selected, (5) using the equipment
> you chose to use to produce (6) your representation, and (7) (most
> importantly) excluding from the photograph everything you chose to
> exclude.
>
>
You're right but everything in that photograph was there just as it was
that day when the shutter was open, nothing added or removed.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> Jeff wrote:
>
> As [Col. William Anders's Apollo 8 earthrise] straight-image
> > success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature
> photograph is
> > irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than whooly
> > rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and
> > members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to
> > this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully
> > represents a "real" event witnessed by another human being.
> >
>
> Agreed. I love this photo. It was the first view of the blue/green
> planet EARTH.
>
>
The question is would it have the same impact if photographs were thought
of as created works of art? My concern is the future decline of impact that
other photographs like this will have if "digital images" are continued to
be called photographs.
--
Stacey
Brian Ellis
philosophical issue of "what is reality" or suggesting that the
manipulations possible in Photoshop are just another form of traditional
darkroom techniques like dodging and burning as so many Photoshop apologists
wrongfully claim. I was responding only to Cathy's statement that her
photograph showed what the boat house looked like one morning. I don't think
it did for the reasons stated.
I particularly agree with the statement by Galen Rowell that you quoted. I
think that digital imaging has already had a profound effect on our belief
in, and appreciation of, photography. For myself, when I now see a
spectacular photograph in a magazine or newspaper I always wonder whether it
represents something that was in fact before the camera lens or whether it
was done in Photoshop. If the latter then, like you, I think I've seen
nothing more than a new form of painting or collage.
"Jeff" <four_sea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajs7mh$bsn$1...@apollo.csd.net...
Brian Ellis
the picture was there also, which is part of the reason why I took issue
with Cathy's statement that her photograph showed us what the boat house
looked like.
"fotocord" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajsp4n$1dqe4k$4...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>> As [Col. William Anders's Apollo 8 earthrise] straight-image
>> > success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature
>>photograph is
>> > irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than whooly
>> > rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and
>> > members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to
>> > this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully
>> > represents a "real" event witnessed by another human being.
>> >
>>
>>Agreed. I love this photo. It was the first view of the blue/green
>>planet EARTH.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The question is would it have the same impact if photographs were thought
> of as created works of art?
Many photographs are created works of art. Many are not, cause the
composition stinks.
Leonard Evens
At the risk or repeating myself (and others), I can only point out that
the ability to "fake" it has been with us for a long time, certainly
over 100 years. And "straight" photography is doing fine. So
apparently that slippery slope is rougher than you fear after all.
Digital techniques make it easier, but not inevitable.
Leonard Evens
I think there is a clear difference. For example, I could have removed
the power lines by changing my camera position or by cropping the image.
If I had used a wider angle lens, there would have been more in the
image, but I chose not to include it. That material was there of
course. In Roger Clark's example, the goat was also there and he did
want it in the scene. He just couldn't record it while also keeping the
details of the scene sharp. The point I've been making is that what you
see with your eyes/brain is very different from what you can record in
the camera using a specific configuration. To me, realistic
photography should aim at reproducing what you see when you look at the
scene. But you can't really do that, so you have to try for an illusion
of the same thing by how you manipulate the image. As long as your
manipulations are aimed at that end, you are engaging in what I would
call realistic photography.
Howard Lester
"fotocord" wrote
Stacey, do you notice that few have any idea what you're talking about and
would rather make excuses?
Howard Lester
Ralph Barker
For me, the manner and locale of presentation is the deciding factor in whether I expect to see qualifying footnotes on an image, and the source of the image also has a bearing. For example, if I'm looking at what appears to be a photograph in an art gallery, I expect to see something like "digital composite rendering" on the card if the image is not a "straight" conventional photograph. In contrast, if I'm looking at an image in a product ad, I don't believe anything - partly due to the suspension of belief that you mentioned elsewhere. In an ad, I expect that the image has been digitally altered for the purpose of getting the marketing message across, so I don't believe any of it - image or text.
Further, if a space image comes from NASA, I expect it to be a representation of reality (within the limits of conventional image-capture technology). The same image, coming from a different source, probably wouldn't get the same level of trust from me personally.
Honesty, both when making the photograph and when presenting it, is a question that I think we all have to struggle with on an individual basis. I don't think we'll ever get universal agreement on any particular approach, but discussing the differences in philosophy probably helps everyone to further refine their individual positions on the question.
Perhaps we could refer to all of these digitally-fabricated images as Enronography. ;-)
Sandorm Mathe
this discussion is what is the purpose of the particular image?
If it is scientific, forensic, and so on then it is critical that it be as
close to the original scene as possible. If it is for art or entertainment
then who cares what manipulation was done to it and how, if the artist
acheives their intended emotional impact and response in the viewer.
If the artist's intent includes the "virgin, straight photography" approach
and they live up to their goal, fine.
If the photographer's intent is to show nature in state that they saw it, then
many of these manipulations become dishonest, deceiveing, and disgraceful.
--
Sandor Mathe
san...@ca.ibm.com
Cathy
This particular photograph of the Earth was NOT included on the
Voyager's Golden Record. Go figure.
http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/images.html
Perhaps the moon landings and the Apollo missions are all a hoax!
Cathy
.....Johnnie...tsk tsk B. Goode <chuckles>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>> As [Col. William Anders's Apollo 8 earthrise] straight-image
>>> > success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature
>>> photograph is
>>> > irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than whooly
>>> > rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and
>>> > members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public
>>> response to
>>> > this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully
>>> > represents a "real" event witnessed by another human being.
--
Cathy
I was responding only to Cathy's statement that her
> photograph showed what the boat house looked like one morning. I don't think
> it did for the reasons stated.
I never said that! I said it's all about COMPOSITION!
http://www.geocities.com/cfs121/222.html
Cathy
Chris Ellinger
wrote:
>While photographers may argue over what "photography" is (e.g. "it has
>to be manual" [the Leica argument] or "real" photography can only be
>done in large format), I'm not sure the average person on the street,
>or even the above-average person on the street, makes those
>distinctions. For most, I suspect that if a camera of some sort, as
>opposed to a brush or a pencil, was used to create the result, it is
>considered photography. Whether it's "honest" photography or not is a
>different question.
My guess is that the "average" person's concept of photography is
formed by their direct experience of family snapshots: that
photographs are records of real people, places, and events. As
computer manipulation of images becomes more widespread, so that the
average person has personally created an image that began as a
photograph, the concept of photograph as "record of reality" will be
replaced with "creation based on reality".
Brian Ellis
with most of what he's been saying.
"Howard Lester" <hle...@thanksmmto.org> wrote in message
news:ajtl5u$a50$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
fotocord
>
> This particular photograph of the Earth was NOT included on the
> Voyager's Golden Record. Go figure.
>
> http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/images.html
>
> Perhaps the moon landings and the Apollo missions are all a hoax!
>
Given todays "digital imaging" I don't think anyone today would believe it..
--
Stacey
fotocord
> I agree with your responses to my message. I wasn't arguing the broader
> philosophical issue of "what is reality" or suggesting that the
> manipulations possible in Photoshop are just another form of traditional
> darkroom techniques like dodging and burning as so many Photoshop
> apologists wrongfully claim. I was responding only to Cathy's statement
> that her photograph showed what the boat house looked like one morning. I
> don't think it did for the reasons stated.
>
Actually that was my picture.
I sure looks just like it did when I was standing there with nothing added
or removed that wasn't in the view capable of being included with the lens,
which was a normal one at that! How is it different from what was there?
--
Stacey
fotocord
> I agree. What is in the picutre is what was there. Of course what isn't in
> the picture was there also, which is part of the reason why I took issue
> with Cathy's statement that her photograph showed us what the boat house
> looked like.
>
It was my picture but as far as your statment.
Photography has ALWAYS been about composition and framing. Digital
manipulation is about adding or removing items from an image. What was
recorded in that shot was what was there as well as the medium of
photography can allow.
I still don't follow how that photograph doesn't show you what that boat
house looked like that morning? Given it was shot with a normal lens,
looking at that boat house you wouldn't have seen anything different than
the lens did other than your periphrial vision. It IS a record of what was
there that morning, nothing added or removed. What is outside of the frame
is irrelevant.
--
Stacey
fotocord
>>
> While photographers may argue over what "photography" is (e.g. "it has
> to be manual" [the Leica argument] or "real" photography can only be
> done in large format), I'm not sure the average person on the street,
> or even the above-average person on the street, makes those
> distinctions. For most, I suspect that if a camera of some sort, as
> opposed to a brush or a pencil, was used to create the result, it is
> considered photography. Whether it's "honest" photography or not is a
> different question.
>
Something people might consider is actually asking the average person. I
did this today and asked about a dozen people "Do you think a photograph
that has had items digitally added or removed is still a photograph?"
evenone I asked this simple question said "No". All considered pictures
taken with a digital camera or printed on a computer still a photograph as
long as it wasn't changed in this way.
I don't think I'm in the minority, it seems the people doing this
manupulation are the ones who believe this?
--
Stacey
Brian Ellis
could have been made of the boat house that morning, each of which would
have equal claim to showing us "what the boat house looked like?" I'm sure
you understand that. We all make a series of decisions when we make a
photograph - where to stand, what lens to use, where to aim the lens, etc.
etc. Those decisions result in a photograph that tells us one way, but only
one way out of millions of other possible ways, that the subject or scene
looked. That was the only point I've been trying to make about your boat
house photograph.
My point has nothing to do with digital manipulation. I agree that digital
manipulation can be (isn't necessarily) about adding or subtracting things
from an image and, as I've said before, I agree with your idea that the
ease and ready availability of the ability to digitally manipulate a
photograph has made a fundamental change in how we look at photographs. Why
don't we just leave it at that?
My apologies to Cathy. I thought she made the statement about the boat
house.
"fotocord" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ajumob$1elfh5$3...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
Howard Lester
what I wrote below.
Howard Lester
"Brian Ellis" wrote
> I understand his point and in fact I've sent two messages saying I agreed
> with most of what he's been saying.
>
> "Howard Lester" wrote
> > > > Brian Ellis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Interesting idea, but your photograph isn't a record of "what the
boat
> > > > house looked like on that winter's day ears ago." It's (1) a
> > > > representation of what (2) some portion of the boat house looked
like
> >
> > Stacey, do you notice that few have any idea what you're talking about
and
> > would rather make excuses?
> >
> > Howard Lester
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
fotocord
> Those decisions result in a photograph that tells us one way, but
> only one way out of millions of other possible ways, that the subject or
> scene looked. That was the only point I've been trying to make about your
> boat house photograph.
Sure but if I cloned out the canoe, would any other photographs of that
side of the boat house not contain it? That's the point I'm trying to make,
only a digitally manipulated one wouldn't have it on the side of the boat
house.
>
> My point has nothing to do with digital manipulation. I agree that digital
> manipulation can be (isn't necessarily) about adding or subtracting things
> from an image and, as I've said before, I agree with your idea that the
> ease and ready availability of the ability to digitally manipulate a
> photograph has made a fundamental change in how we look at photographs.
> Why don't we just leave it at that?
>
I just want to add that my opinion isn't about using digital to adjust a
photograph or that only film is the "real deal", that isn't my point. I
sure don't find anything diffeent about using a computer instead of a
darkroom to adjust a print to one's vision of what was there. For my own
"photographs" I can't add and remove things and not consider it now digital
art.
--
Stacey
Cathy
But Ansel Adams was.
fotocord wrote:
--
Cathy
*sigh* the message has been received and understood. COMPOSITION!!!
"The *art* of composing by mental or artistic labor."
Stay conscious, examine everything.
Cathy
fotocord wrote:
> Photography has ALWAYS been about composition and framing. Digital
> manipulation is about adding or removing items from an image. What was
> recorded in that shot was what was there as well as the medium of
> photography can allow.
>
> I still don't follow how that photograph doesn't show you what that boat
> house looked like that morning? Given it was shot with a normal lens,
> looking at that boat house you wouldn't have seen anything different than
> the lens did other than your periphrial vision. It IS a record of what was
> there that morning, nothing added or removed. What is outside of the frame
> is irrelevant.
>
An elephant? ...not in this courtroom!