Am I too much of a purist?
Jason Stephenson
I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
what do you think?
Jason
Annika1980
>Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>
>I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
>what do you think?
Do you use filters or lenses with focal lengths other than 50mm?
What about B&W film?
Isn't that cheating?
Mxsmanic
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
> Or is digitally altering all of your pics with
> high res scans cheating?
If you mean changing the composition of the image, I agree. If you mean
just correcting color balance (globally or in areas where it is off, as
in the case of artificial lighting) or burning and dodging to adjust
exposure, I disagree.
I don't change the composition of my photos in Photoshop (except for a
small amount of cropping, sometimes), but I routinely adjust the color
balance to match reality, and I often adjust curves to help bring out
detail in shadows or highlights. In all cases, I seek to make the
digitized image look exactly as the real scene did (that is, I don't use
false color for skies, or other weird stuff that wasn't there in real
life).
For example, Provia 100F routinely represents the color of mercury-vapor
and sodium-vapor lamps incorrectly, as compared with human perception,
so I often adjust this in images so that the colors look as they do in
real life (orangish-pink for HPS, and bluish for mercury vapor, instead
of yellow and green, respectively).
> I just feel like its stealing something away from
> the art of photography, what do you think?
When it comes to actually modifying the content of a photo, I feel the
same way--if someone feels that inclined to falsify the content, why not
just paint? I think the challenge and art of photography is in finding
real-world scenes that look good as-is, without any need to digitally
modify the composition after the fact. I'll even go so far as to say
that I think that photographers who heavily modify their images
digitally simply lack the talent to compose a decent photographic image
without "cheating."
matt_clara
too. Just because you didn't nail the composition on the first try doesn't
mean you didn't "see" the quality present in a powerful scene, it just means
you weren't able to fully articulate it at that time. Imagine an excellent
artist who simply doesn't focus that quickly in "real time." Are you really
prepared to say that the artist is less of an artist because they took a few
more minutes, hours or days to realize their vision? Isn't that a bit like
ignoring an argument because it wasn't properly framed at the first go, even
though the arguer has now postulated an excellent argument? Isn't it our
job as logicians to pay attention to the argument and not the means by which
it was reached? To do otherwise would be argumentum ad hominem
circumstantial, yes?
Matt
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ayTm8.126307$1g.95...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Andy White
Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote:
It depends on what you do, and what the end use is.
dor...@attglobal.net
"touch them up." Otherwise you are forced to use a custom
lab or print them yourself with wet chemicals.
Meryl Arbing
that picture. It has to be done in that fraction of a second that the
shutter is open.
The guy who sits behind his computer faking a background that he couldn't
never took isn't a photographer at all. If it is all right to take somebody
elses work to cover the mistakes in your own then where is the value in the
photographer's art. Hell, you don't even need a camera... just grab a bunch
of stock photos off a CD and start building pictures...what is the
difference? You wouldn't have taken those shots either and it IS stealing
somebody elses work.
What is the difference between this and using a filter? Only an idiot would
ask that question. If, for artistic reasons, I decide to turn my sunset
green with a filter it is still 100% my work and I have stolen from nobody.
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Mxsmanic
news:3c9bebac$1...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...
> I have to disagree with the "changing the
> composition of the image," part, too. Just
> because you didn't nail the composition on
> the first try doesn't mean you didn't "see"
> the quality present in a powerful scene, it
> just means you weren't able to fully articulate
> it at that time.
In other words, it means that you lack talent.
> Imagine an excellent artist who simply doesn't
> focus that quickly in "real time."
If he is an excellent artist but reacts too slowly for real time, he'll
probably be a poor photographer (at least for many types of
photography--not studio work, of course).
> Are you really prepared to say that the artist
> is less of an artist because they took a few
> more minutes, hours or days to realize their
> vision?
Yes. I can paint or draw beautiful pictures ... given enough time. But
an artist with talent can do the same in a day, or an hour, or even a
few minutes. That's what talent is all about. A thousand monkeys with
a thousand typewriters might duplicate the works of Shakespeare in time,
but that doesn't mean that they have Shakespeare's talent. Time is of
the essence of talent. Anything can be done by anyone, if infinite time
is available, but a non-zero amount of talent is required to do the same
in finite time--and a lot of talent is required to do the same
_quickly_.
> Isn't that a bit like ignoring an argument because
> it wasn't properly framed at the first go, even
> though the arguer has now postulated an excellent
> argument?
Yup. Formulating an excellent argument an hour after the debate ends
isn't much good.
Mxsmanic
news:G3Um8.22584$XN1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> If, for artistic reasons, I decide to turn my
> sunset green with a filter it is still 100%
> my work and I have stolen from nobody.
Actually, I consider the use of "artistic" filters to be somewhat
dishonest as well, as they misrepresent reality. At least for me,
photography means getting as close as possible to what something looks
like in real life, not using a photo as a base for some fanciful and
fictional artistic creation.
Chris Coffin
artists about photography being cheating. to me being able to digitally
enhance photos is a technological step ahead. i dont agree with editing
pictures, but using the levels or contrast controls in photoshop are no
different than prolonging an exposure time or switching your 00 filter for a
5, ya know? photoshop is, literally, the digital darkroom. as long as you
dont add any more information to your original scan / digital capture, its
no different than making the most on the information you have on a neg.
--
- chris
lostinthefilm.com
Larry Miracle
I think you get the image anyway you can.
If it captures what the photographer wants, it will work.
The difference between a good photo and a bad photo has more to do
with the photographer than the technic for getting it on paper.
I think you are failing to grasp what "photography" is all about.
Larr
Tony Spadaro
guy who prints using split contrast filters.
Photography is not reality. The people who insist that altering a
photograph is "cheating" are simply people who don't realise the picture is
NOT the thing. And they usually don't bother to count their own alterations
as cheating --- because there was some "perfectly good reason to do it". Or
they have some arbitrary excuse - "whoa Dude, a filter is not cheating cause
it's used Before the shutter is snapped".
And then there is the old "Lookit that - The cheater is altering someone
else's pictures". What about the guy who stands in the exact spot where
Adams photographed Half Dome? I think there are big camera platforms
permanently placed there, and in Monument Valley, and at the Taj Mahal. Is
it your own work when you copy someone else's photograph, since you do it on
your own film in your own camera? If that's fair then the only difference
between the guy who buys the stock photo and the guy who wastes a week out
in the desert is time.
This does not even take into account that most of those who do their
pictures on a computer, like most of the people who do thier pictures in a
darkroom, never ever use stock photos.
I certainly hope you do all your own processing. I'd hate to think you
were the kind of low beast who depends on a lab to do three quarters of the
work for you.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:G3Um8.22584$XN1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Tony Spadaro
exposures, split contrast, or any of the other forms of cheating.
I certainly hope you aren't one of those foul fiends who uses high
saturation colour film! I woulden't even talk to a man who has a lab do his
printing knowing that they have machinery that is going to cheat all over
the place to make a print.
No siree bub -- none of that dastartly cheating should be allowed.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Godfrey DiGiorgi
documentation... :-)
The fundamental goodness of a photograph is that it looks
good/works/expresses what you want it to. If you want to do it with
manipulation, such things are easily doable in the darkroom as well as
digitally. If you want your work to be "pure" and without manipulation, so
be it ... whatever turns you on and achieves your aim in a given
photograph is good.
Godfrey
In article <a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu>, "Jason Stephenson"
Joseph Meehan
when photography first came in and it added to the work of conventional
canvas artist.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Joseph Meehan
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:G3Um8.22584$XN1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Al Denelsbeck
Jason Stephenson wrote in message ...
Okay, first off, are you asking how we feel about it, or how *you* are
supposed to feel? If the latter, don't bother asking the question - form
your own opinion and/or ethics and be done with it.
Otherwise, bear in mind that taking the photograph is an alteration of
sorts, and scanning it another alteration (often much larger). There hasn't
been a scan that I've done that has reproduced the colors, contrast, or
range of the original slide, and it has nowhere's near the detail. I
*always* alter the original scan in Photoshop, but in most cases it's to
bring it looking most like the original slide as possible.
Then somebody using a different monitor sees it, and disagrees... :-)
Beyond that, it depends on the type of alteration and the purpose behind
it. If I were to dub in an eagle, or a moon, in the sky of an otherwise
boring landscape, I consider this (private ethics mode: on) as cheating - I
was not there, did not achieve this composition, etc. etc., and I take no
pride in it or consider it an acceptable photo. I wouldn't try entering it
in contests, use it on my site or in portfolio usage, and so on.
But if I were offered money by an advertiser to produce a composition
that works well for their project? No problem. Advertisements aren't touted
as 'accurate' by most people anymore, they *know* they're being manipulated,
and in many cases it's more of an art to know what composition, colors, and
image styles will impact someone into buying the product, than in taking a
picture of a little girl with ice cream smeared on her face. As a
photographer, I *could* walk up to a little girl, yank the ice-cream cone
out of her hand, smear it on her face, drop it on the ground, take the
picture as she cries, then use it in an advertisement for golf-club grips,
or whatever. Is *that* a real photo? How about if I release my own eagle
into the sky at sunset? No filters, no sandwiching, no darkroom work, no
Photoshop, what's the problem?
Matthew Brady, the famous Civil War photographer, had actually dragged
dead bodies into position for some of his photographs, even changing their
jackets (and thus sides). As a documentary-style photographer, this is a
no-no today, but photojournalism wasn't a word then. It wasn't *true*, but
his pictures had a tremendous impact concerning the horrors of war, and some
excellent composition. Their net effect was exactly as he'd intended, and
far more powerful than the engravings normally in use at that time. The
debate rages on today. But it's entirely possible that a lot less people
lost their lives, because the photos brought home what war *really*
accomplished, ripping off the mask of politics.
But as I said, do whatever you want. :-)
- Al.
--
Remove 'less' from address for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck.
David Starr
<NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote:
Cropping, changing color balance, dodging & burning, unsharp masking,
aren't really much different from traditional darkroom work.
The only "problem" I have with digital is the "don't worry about
exposure, composition, etc. I'll fix it in Photoshop" concept that
some seem to follow (no one in this group).
That said, I much prefer the traditional darkroom. I primarily shoot
black & white & can get a good print much easier & faster in a wet
darkroom than in a digital one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 37 years in an auto plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
matt_clara
> <Matt Clara> wrote in message
> news:3c9bebac$1...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> > I have to disagree with the "changing the
> > composition of the image," part, too. Just
> > because you didn't nail the composition on
> > the first try doesn't mean you didn't "see"
> > the quality present in a powerful scene, it
> > just means you weren't able to fully articulate
> > it at that time.
>
> In other words, it means that you lack talent.
>
> > Imagine an excellent artist who simply doesn't
> > focus that quickly in "real time."
>
> If he is an excellent artist but reacts too slowly for real time, he'll
> probably be a poor photographer (at least for many types of
> photography--not studio work, of course).
And not photography where he has time to examine his prints and make
decisions based on that examination. The only type of photography that is
time dependant is photo-journalism, and while there are some great artists
in that field, most are mere hacks who can roughly boil down a scene to its
essence quickly. The idea is that speed and artistic talent are not tied to
eachother.
>
> > Are you really prepared to say that the artist
> > is less of an artist because they took a few
> > more minutes, hours or days to realize their
> > vision?
>
> Yes. I can paint or draw beautiful pictures ... given enough time. But
> an artist with talent can do the same in a day, or an hour, or even a
> few minutes. That's what talent is all about. A thousand monkeys with
> a thousand typewriters might duplicate the works of Shakespeare in time,
> but that doesn't mean that they have Shakespeare's talent. Time is of
> the essence of talent.
I have to disagree with this. A thousand monkeys would never duplicate a
single work of Shakespeare's to the letter; moreover, you have yet to prove
that time is of the essence of talent. Time is important for capitalist
endeavors, but for true art it holds no relation.
>Anything can be done by anyone, if infinite time
> is available,
Absolutely ridiculous. You either have it or you don't. No amount of time
is going to make up for that.
>but a non-zero amount of talent is required to do the same
> in finite time--and a lot of talent is required to do the same
> _quickly_.
What kind of talent are we talking about? The talent to do something
quickly is separate from the talent to do something well. When they come
hand in hand, all the better, and if we're trying to turn a dollar, then,
Eureka, but the two are not inseparable.
>
> > Isn't that a bit like ignoring an argument because
> > it wasn't properly framed at the first go, even
> > though the arguer has now postulated an excellent
> > argument?
>
> Yup. Formulating an excellent argument an hour after the debate ends
> isn't much good.
>
This is where the analogy falls apart. What does the debate (or end of it)
equate in art? There is no deadline for the creation of beauty. If you
have a deadline, then we're back to capitalist endeavors, where one has to
be fast to maximize profits. This does not work when we are talking about
something more abstract such as creating a great work of art. There the end
product speaks for itself.
Imagine that you are in a gallery presented by two photos where one of the
photos is clearly superior (though perhaps marginally so) to the other. You
are sitting there enjoying this masterpiece when along comes the
photographer who reveals that the fine photograph was the result of a final
edit in the lab, a crop, if you will. Would you at that time deem the work
inferior to the other photo? If so, I would have to say that you are more
interested in semantics than aesthetics.
What about the author who writes and rewrites his novel, polishing,
polishing, all the while, changing many elements of composition from plot to
syntax. Let's say that author goes on to win a Nobel prize for his work.
Would you hold up that book against another Nobel prize winner edited one
less time than it and say the second book was a better book without having
read either? If so, I say you've missed the boat.
Sure, the fast author may turn out copy more quickly and may garner more
acclaim because of it, but, work for work, it could still be inferior. This
is where art is like an argument--we must pay attention to the final
analysis and not the circumstances behind its postualtion. To do otherwise
is to commit an ad hominem.
QED
Matt
Charles T. Low
Cast my vote with the "You're being too much of a purist" crowd.
I pretty well view any tool as amoral. It's how we use it that is good or
bad. If you alter photographs to deceive people, then I think that's
generally bad - unless you're deceiving bad people to disable them from
hurting good people - so you see how complicated this can quickly become.
If you alter photographs because you intentionally want them to be more
beautiful, appealing, interesting, puzzling, infuriating, whatever, then
that's your prerogative. I added red to the sky in a photo I published once
(a low-res version of it appears on this book cover:
www.boatdocking.com/Illustrous/BDCov2d.gif - but caution, it has commercial
content), so call me a criminal.
Even at the moment of exposure, you never get exactly what you saw with your
naked eye, no matter how technically proficient you are, so even a
"documentary" photograph cannot be 100% "honest." That's just the nature of
the medium (and of many others). So it's not a question of whether a
photograph represents reality - it's always a question of how closely. And
that decision, like any other an artist makes, is a judgement call.
Sometimes, reality is the last thing you want. Ever heard of abstracts?
Charles
====
Charles T. Low
ct...@boatdocking.com
www.boatdocking.com/Photos/
www.ctlow.ca/Photos/
====
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
jriegle
> an artist with talent can do the same in a day, or an hour, or even a
Quite simply the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. Many of the old
master painters spent months on their works. Some worked off and on with a
painting over the years. Sure there are some artists that complete their
work faster. That in no way makes them any more talented.
>A thousand monkeys with
> a thousand typewriters might duplicate the works of Shakespeare in time,
> but that doesn't mean that they have Shakespeare's talent. Time is of
> the essence of talent. Anything can be done by anyone, if infinite time
> is available, but a non-zero amount of talent is required to do the same
> in finite time--and a lot of talent is required to do the same
> _quickly_.
Give a blind man a gun and he may eventually hit the bull's eye on a target.
Chance. This is a branch of mathamatics called statistics. It has little
relevance in the argument about producing great works of art other than that
there is an infinitesimal chance that throwing "paint darts" at a canvas
will produce a beautiful realist landscape.
John
Meryl Arbing
"Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5aZm8.219280$s43.49...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Meryl Arbing
the tonal properties of an existing image and photo fakery.
How bringing out the shadow details in a shot can be considered the
equivalent of pasting in a fake elements (to manufacture a picture that the
photographer could never take due to lack of skill) is complete foolishness.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KUWm8.6713$a3.33...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Meryl Arbing
primary photographic tool..the camera or the computer?"
"Al Denelsbeck" <denel...@charterless.net> wrote in message
news:u9ot5qb...@corp.supernews.com...
Leicaddict
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Leicaddict
"Artist." And after all, that's where your real talent may lie.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btUm8.49780$Gf.37...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
rich_1297
Marge said, "Like all Americans, fast."
rich
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btUm8.49780$Gf.37...@bin2.nnrp
>
>
Alan Browne
People have been altering the exposed or printed image virtually since
photography began.
Modern photo artists are wizards at manipulating images in the darkroom,
whether it be contrast, color, dodge/burn ...
Doing it in Photoshop (or whatever) is your choice. The degree that you
change things, the degree that you create at this level is your choice.
Some photo contests require that images be non-digitally enhanced.
Using features like Unsharp mask is a neccesity to match the reality of the
random chemical/particle nature of film vs the strict row/collumn nature of
scanning.
So, decide what you want out of your digital scan world and apply
accordingly. The word "cheat" does not apply.
MO
Cheers,
Alan.
Jason Stephenson wrote:
> Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>
> I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
> what do you think?
>
> Jason
--
Lert's live longer.
Be A Lert.
NickC
Much in the field of advertising deals with photographic set-ups.
Negatives as well as prints have undergone touch-up alterations in the
course of professional photographic work. Infrared photography does
not reflect the real world as we see it. Double exposures, portraits
with fuzzy backgrounds, photos containing tell-tale speed streaks,
filter enhanced sunsets and/or embellished cloud formations, montage
exposures, et al, are common practice in the creation of photographic
art. In a manner of speaking (or in this case, viewing) Adams' zone
exposure methods and darkroom work is not in a sense done as to
reflect the work of a pictorial purist. In real life we do not see the
world around us in a gray scale mode. Yet we consider black & white
photography as a pictorial art form.
Photography, as an art field, encompasses the broad range of imaging
ranging from casual snap shots to computer layering photos intended to
display a mental image as seen by the creator of a picture. There are
photographic options that are available to photographers. They range
from having appropriate photographic tools to ones abilities to use
these photographic tools. The camera, film (or pixels), lenses,
filters, darkroom, or computer program are tools to be used by a
person who desires to create an image that may depict an imaginary
scene as seen by the artistic nature of the photographer or reflect
the worlds scenes as they really appear.
Photography is not a contained or restricted discipline to be done in
accordance with established rules. It's a media whose limitations are
bounded by an individuals imagination.
Nick
Tony Spadaro
don't do to be cheating.
Try to comprehend this - I can do the same <<<SAME>>> things on my
computer that I did with my chemical darkroom. I can do them better and I
can make the result re-producable to a degree the chemical darkroom doesn't
have. I spot my files instead of my prints, I dodge and burn my files
instead of each and every print.
If I wished to I could also combine pictures --- just like I've done in
a chemical darkroom, or use someone else's negative to make a print -- for
years I did this in the darkroom, but no one called me a cheater. They
called me their printer. Who's cheating in this case? THe guy who prints or
the lazy photographer who does not do his own finishing?
Photography IS fakery. The photograph is NOT the thing. There is no
such thing as a photo that is not "faked". Furthermore there is no "law"
that says what is a photograph -- is it a Daguerreotype? A single
unreproducable, and therefore unalterable original. Are the pictures in
National Geo photographs? As far as I know they are made up of coloured
inks, and there must be some hanky panky there since photography obviously
doesn't use inks. Is colour photography legit? The colours are Never right,
so it must be fakery. Black and white -- that crap is obviously fake ---
I've been to Half Dome, the sky isn't grey there.
You suffer from what my uncle used to call the pope disease -- a holier
than thou attitude. If you take pictures you are a fake, just like every
other photographer.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:wT0n8.25646$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
David Littlewood
>>
>> Yes. I can paint or draw beautiful pictures ... given enough time. But
>> an artist with talent can do the same in a day, or an hour, or even a
>> few minutes. That's what talent is all about. A thousand monkeys with
>> a thousand typewriters might duplicate the works of Shakespeare in time,
>> but that doesn't mean that they have Shakespeare's talent. Time is of
>> the essence of talent.
>
>I have to disagree with this. A thousand monkeys would never duplicate a
>single work of Shakespeare's to the letter; moreover, you have yet to prove
>that time is of the essence of talent. Time is important for capitalist
>endeavors, but for true art it holds no relation.
>
AIUI, the original proposition was that an infinite number of monkeys
with an infinite number of typewriters would in time be certain to
duplicate the entire works of Shakespeare. This is mathematically
provable, but impossible to do in practice. There is of course an
"infinite" difference between a transfinite number and any finite one,
however arbitrarily large the latter is made.
For the proposition in its finite form, I have seen it said that the
internet has thoroughly disproved it.
--
David Littlewood
Nikkorguy
>equivalent of pasting in a fake elements (to manufacture a picture that the
>photographer could never take due to lack of skill) is complete foolishness.
Does that mean that Jerry Uelesman is a no-talent hack?
Frank
Joshua Hakin
> polishing, all the while, changing many elements of composition from plot
to
> syntax.
As the writer would go back to typewriter to "polish up" so the photographer
is required to go back to the field and reshoot. This is how you learn! One
can't rely on Photoshop to do the work the artist should have done in the
first place, no matter how 'slow' he/she is at noticing the right
composition. Why call yourself a photographer when your real tools are
computer programs?
matt_clara
"Joshua Hakin" <j.h...@odyssey.on.ca> wrote in message
news:u9pofd6...@corp.supernews.com...
While I don't disagree with the idea of going back and reshooting (God knows
I do it enough myself), I often shoot wider than I think I need and then try
various crops in the computer. As for your final comment, I can only refer
you to Tony Spadaro's reply from today given at 2:32 pm. If you choose not
to call it photography, that's your choice.
Tony Spadaro
here.
Of course all painters are cheaters too since they get to pick and choose
what will be on the finished canvas - someone should force that pile of
charletans to stop leaving stuff out - especially those abstract
impressionists guys - - all art should be pop art.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Nikkorguy" <nikk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020323150114...@mb-co.aol.com...
Tony Spadaro
number of the Brady (using the term generically) shots - including the one
titled "A Confederate Sharpshooter In His Home". That was one of the
pictures where O'Sullivan dragged the corpse fifty yards to put it against
the wall.
The famous shot of the women mourning at the deathbed from the "Spanish
Village" of W. Eugene Smith, was a carefully arranged shot -- done almost a
century after the Brady Civil War --- I don't see anyone complaining about
that bit of fakery, or the Minimata bath shot. If this is the standard by
which photography must be judged my shooting is obviously as pure as the
driven snow, even though I use a computer to do my prints.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:QY0n8.25647$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Meryl Arbing
couple of your photos? Don't worry because I used Photoshop to improve the
composition; combine elements and generally improve it quite a bit and so
NOW they are MY work because I did the important stuff and...HEY... this is
ART and it doesn't matter how I got there..it only matters how it ends up!!
Hell!! I didn't even need a camera and I'm a "photographic artiste"!!! WOW!!
If people ask me if I took that picture myself I can say YES...because I
took it from you!!
You can see that all your playing with words doesn't alter the reality. If I
steal from you, even if I make changes that I consider to be "improvements"
then it is still stealing.
There is no deception in the reality that a photograph is a two dimensional
representation of a 3 dimensional world...it is apparent to everybody. Also,
removing dust spots from your pictures!! COME ON!!! How is that the same as
dropping in completely unrelated elements and so creating a phony picture
and claiming that is how you saw it!!
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DL4n8.14879$GI5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Joseph Meehan
other than it is. There was no such indication of that in the original
message.
"Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
"I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
what do you think?"
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:BK0n8.25641$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Lisa Horton
Seems to me it's really a matter of personal taste, like any photo
manipulation. Some people see a piece of film as raw material, others
as a finished product. However you get there and whatever form it
takes, the final product is the art, all that precedes it is craft.
How do you feel about routine darkroom manipulation,
altering/correcting color and contrast, dodging/burning and the like?
If that's ok, then I would think that the digital equivalent would be
as well, just as I don't see anything *inherently* inferior in a
digitally produced print compared to a wet print.
My personal preference is to as much as possible do anything I need to
do in camera. To me it's a higher level of craft to be able to
produce the effects I want with lens, film, focus and exposure
choices. But then I'm looking to produce a kind of simplicity in my
work that is perhaps less likely to need exensive post-exposure
manipulation. I will however freely admit to removing a straw power
line or tower occasionally:)
Lisa
Jason Stephenson wrote:
>
> Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>
> I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
> what do you think?
>
> Jason
Tony Spadaro
sculptor tore off the copyright notice and had an Italian foundry cast a
bronze statue based on the picture. He was sucessfully sued for copyright
violation dispite an defense based on it being a different media and
therefore an original work. So the theft of images is in fact prosecutable.
But we are not talking about theft - we are talking about copying by
standing in the same spot or using stock photography. They are both quite
legal and you can do that all you want. They are not creative. They usually
are not good, but are legal and are done constantly. I feel like I know a
certain slot canyon that I've never been in, better than my own
neighbourhood.
No on to dropping in elements --- You mean like adding clouds to a blank
sky. I first did that in 1967, and there was no digital hanky panky
involved. How about changing the colours --- with filters, either while
doing colour enlarging OR directly in the camera ---- That's another
thing -- I'll bet there is a whole generation of kids growing up who think
the sky in the mid west (out where all those homey old timey farms are) is
tobacco brown fading to pink and clear buy the time its just above the
waving wheat field. I've seen that "trick" on hundreds of still photographs,
several tv commercials and more than one movie. It's a fake. and it's all
done "in camera". This is dropping of unrelated elements and so creating a
phony picture and claiming that is how one saw it -- but there is no digital
involved.
If you can do it with film I can do it with Photoshop. Anyone who
believes a photo is a true representation of anything needs a reality check.
Photography is artificial - 100%. The only time a photographer has to tell
the truth is on the witness stand. The fact that many feel compelled to be
truthful when off the witness stand is commendable but really not necessary
unless one is trying to make a point - Many nature and wildlife
photographers hold themselves (or claim they do) to a set of rules as strict
or stricter than any photojournalists. However some photojournalists (W.E.
Smith for example) find nothing wrong with moving people and lights about to
"document" reality.
Ther is a movie-making credo called "Dogma 95" which essentially
specifies that nothing not found at a location is permissable in the film...
I often wonder how they excuse having the cast in the movie.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1J8n8.27747$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Meryl Arbing
Noel Talley
Meryl Arbing
the photograph to the dimensions that you originally intended. It is like
saying that puting a picture in a frame is some sort of deception because
the "REAL" landscape didn't have a frame around it.
<Matt Clara> wrote in message
Meryl Arbing
techniques or with new digital techniques and then try to claim that it
represents what was in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter then it
is fakery. I don't care if it was done in a darkroom or digitally and I
don't forgive either one.
Both are ways of trying to claim photographic talents that one doesn't
posess!
While the use of stock photographs might be "legal" it is still unethical to
claim it as your own work and those collages can't be called
photographs...at best they are photo-illustrations. They would be excluded
from photo contests except in a specific category of "digital art" or
something.
Most of the so-called digital art that I have seen is crap!
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_j9n8.16506$GI5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
stki...@duke.edu
> legal and you can do that all you want. They are not creative. They usually
> are not good, but are legal and are done constantly. I feel like I know a
> certain slot canyon that I've never been in, better than my own
> neighbourhood.
Lord, that is the truth. Nothing to add to the thread, beyond this,
but now the damn canyons are showing up in TV ads.
Steve
matt_clara
make a buck off it. This has been done already in the world of music by the
avant-garde rock/rap band The Beastie Boys. Their second album is original
music made entirely of samples of other artist's music. They were sued and
had to pay, but the critics all agreed that what they did was revolutionary
art of the post modern variety. They continue to make albums using sampling
but they now create their own samples. Another musical trend of the same
circumstances is that of the Techno DJ style. Paul Oakenfold is considered
the master of this art form and he pays the artists he samples up front.
You can't listen to his music and accuse him of being unoriginal.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong ;^)
Matt
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1J8n8.27747$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Beelzebub
> Obviously -- an amazingly good no talent hack but that isn't what matters
> here.
> Of course all painters are cheaters too since they get to pick and choose
> what will be on the finished canvas - someone should force that pile of
> charletans to stop leaving stuff out - especially those abstract
> impressionists guys - - all art should be pop art.
>
Hope you made this statement tongue'n'cheek.
I was more or less in agreement with you so far. But you realize that
by making that statement you fall into the same trap you are trying
others to get out of. Namely, imposing your own set of prejudices (as
valid they may be in your own frame of reference) as some form of
inviolable ideal.
More specifically, painting like photograph, has nothing to do with
reality. The same way a photographer moves her viewfinder to eliminate
the lightpost and defocuses the ugly wall that contends with her
subject, the painter chooses to paint in or eliminate the elements
that interests her; to make her own visual statement.
Al Denelsbeck
Meryl Arbing wrote in message ...
>If you take a picture and alter the contents by either traditional darkroom
>techniques or with new digital techniques and then try to claim that it
>represents what was in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter then it
>is fakery. I don't care if it was done in a darkroom or digitally and I
>don't forgive either one.
Excellent argument! It's just too bad that nobody actually made such a
claim anywhere within this thread.
Anyone can win an argument where they make up the opposing viewpoint.
Generally it's called "hyperbole". Do you have anything to say about what
the rest of us are actually talking about?
Jason Stephenson
see a mountain of posts. Glad I got to let everyone vent for a while ;).
Nah, my original question was pointed at the fact that for me, photography
is something that takes skill, time, and having the photographer be a part
of his work. Its something like a science as someone earlier suggested, and
as i cruise through photo.net pictures its sad to see how people have turned
much of photography into computer drafting.
Sure people will see this as just another way of expressing their ideas on
prints or digital images, but once that occurs i find it hard to accept an
image as a true "picture".
Let the camera be your tool. Youll be a better photographer if you do.
Jason
IMHO
"Al Denelsbeck" <denel...@charterless.net> wrote in message
news:u9ot5qb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
>
> Jason Stephenson wrote in message ...
> >Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
> >
> >I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
> >what do you think?
> >
> >Jason
>
>
matt_clara
> WOW. I posted this thread and have been gone a couple days to come back
and
> see a mountain of posts. Glad I got to let everyone vent for a while ;).
>
> Nah, my original question was pointed at the fact that for me, photography
> is something that takes skill, time, and having the photographer be a part
> of his work. Its something like a science as someone earlier suggested,
and
> as i cruise through photo.net pictures its sad to see how people have
turned
> much of photography into computer drafting.
>
> Sure people will see this as just another way of expressing their ideas on
> prints or digital images, but once that occurs i find it hard to accept an
> image as a true "picture".
>
I have to assume you don't mean "picture" 'cause a picture is simply an
image including anything from a watercolor to a 3D rendering to a
photograph. If you really can't accept it as a true "picture" then you are
redefining the term and you need to explain. I assume you mean "true
photograph," and then I have to ask if you feel that darkroom dodging and
burning techniques, or solarization, would also constitute a false
photograph. Would you?
> Let the camera be your tool. Youll be a better photographer if you do.
>
That is most likely so, but this is not to say that mucking about in the
digital darkroom will teach you nothing about composition--it will, and your
photography will be better for it.
Matt
matt_clara
wrong Mr. S!
"Beelzebub" <tachy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed948a4d.02032...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
he is as much of a "cheater" as everyone else who ever put a yellow filter
on a camera loaded with Tri-X. By constantly skipping out to build another
straw man he avoids the ugly truth: Photography is all fakery. The only true
picture is through a window - preferably one without glass.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Al Denelsbeck" <denel...@charterless.net> wrote in message
news:u9qqun1...@corp.supernews.com...
Tony Spadaro
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3C9D1E9E...@lisahorton.net...
Tony Spadaro
made by anyone who was serious about.... on the other hand this whole thread
is just that.
To re-state the theme of the thread:
Some people say:
A photograph is a photograph only when it meets MY criteria. I can do
whatever I want to make the image come out the way I want it to, so long as
I don't use any nasty dirty low down foul tricks like a high res scanner or
an inkjet printer.
Other people say:
Oh, come now. If trick "A" is cheating, so is trick "B". Get a life.
I consider myself to be an "other people".
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Beelzebub" <tachy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed948a4d.02032...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
and no doubt Adams (who used red filters), where are your pictures? How many
are hanging in museums, or even a professional gallery? Have you sold
thousands of your pure prints? After all you are the only real photographer
anyone knows - you should be wildly succesful --- or is the public a bunch
of Phillistines so jaded by the fakes that they no longer can even recognise
the "true" picture?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:au9n8.27767$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Jason Stephenson
> image including anything from a watercolor to a 3D rendering to a
> photograph. If you really can't accept it as a true "picture" then you
are
> redefining the term and you need to explain. I assume you mean "true
> photograph," and then I have to ask if you feel that darkroom dodging and
> burning techniques, or solarization, would also constitute a false
> photograph. Would you?
Alright, what i mean by the term picture in the area of photography is what
happens when light shines on light sensitive paper through a processed
negative. And Im not saying that all digital work is bad, heck ive even
adjusted a few contrast levels in my pictures as well. But even when I do
that simple modification my gut tells me thats not the real picture of what
I took... OR maybe its just the fact that it came to easy and that im
cheating myself out of a wonderful hobby. Take that same picture and
develop it yourself in a makeshift darkroom, do the modifications yourself
by burning and dodging, and thats something to be proud of, something that
takes skill and talent and more than any 3rd grade knowledge on how to jack
with photoshop.
And now you will say that no matter what media you use to edit your
negative, it must be considered cheating if any of it is. But i guess it
just depends on what your conscience will let you get away with!
Jason
Tony Spadaro
arbitrary set of rules laid down by some invisible presence on the internet
who may never have taken a worthwhile picture in his life?
If you're so good you can dictate to us on what is and is not
photography you had better be able to prove it. I'm calling - Show us your
cards. Where are your pictures? Can I buy them at a gallery or museum shop?
Are they in the latest issue of Vogue? Do you have a web site? How about a
page on photo.net?
You can see a sample of my work at.
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
Except for "Area 53" the pictures on that site were all taken with film and
scanned. The post production work consisted of colour correction spotting
and "toning" - all practices common in chemical darkrooms - I might be wrong
though, I heven't been there myself in a while, but any image you have
questions on you can ask and I'll be able to tell you exactly what sort of
"fakery" I pulled including "in camera" fakery.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7jrjb$3bf$1...@news.tamu.edu...
Mxsmanic
> A thousand monkeys would never duplicate a
> single work of Shakespeare's to the letter ...
Actually, it is not only perfectly possible for them to do so, but
effectively inevitable, if infinite time is available.
> Time is important for capitalist endeavors,
> but for true art it holds no relation.
I'm sure that many musicians and dancers will be surprised to learn
this.
Ron Bean
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> writes:
>And Im not saying that all digital work is bad, heck ive even
>adjusted a few contrast levels in my pictures as well. But even when I do
>that simple modification my gut tells me thats not the real picture of what
>I took...
"All photographs are lies, but some lies are better than others."
[I wish I knew who to attribute that to...]
Try to find a copy of "The Reproduction of Color" by R. Hunt, for
a discussion of the inherent compromises in traditional (color)
photography. It was written when scanners cost many thousands of
dollars and were only used in commercial printing.
>OR maybe its just the fact that it came to easy and that im
>cheating myself out of a wonderful hobby.
Ahh, now we see the real problem. It sounds like you've barely
scratched the surface of what's possible with Photoshop.
OTOH, if you *like* messing around with chemicals, IMHO that's
justification enough, without inventing other reasons.
It's like the ham radio guys who like to see how far they can
transmit with a 9v battery-- they aren't necessarily "purer" than
the guys with the 1Kw transmitters, they just prefer to do it a
different way.
>...something that
>takes skill and talent and more than any 3rd grade knowledge on how to jack
>with photoshop.
It is possible to apply skill and talent to Photoshop.
There's a *lot* more to it than levels.
Photoshop is often used to correct mistakes, which is important
in the printing industry where you're forced to use whatever the
customer provided. But the same skills can be applied to images
that weren't screwed up to begin with, it's just more obvious
when the original has some glaring flaw in it. It may seem
"easier" when the corrections are more subtle, but you still have
to know what to do and how much, just like in a darkroom. In some
ways it's harder to make that last adjustment on an image that
already looks good, without going too far.
Charles T. Low
correct because the mathematical model for this is only a model. And it
ignores entropy.
I've often compared it to bouncing a tennis ball and recording how high each
bounce goes. Having done that, you could come up a statistical probably for
how many attempts it would take until it bounced high enough to reach the
moon. It's awa-a-a-ay out there under one tail of the bell curve, but it's
there, on paper. Nonetheless, it would never happen.
Charles
====
Charles T. Low
ct...@boatdocking.com
www.boatdocking.com/
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26/
====
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dAhn8.64818$Gf.55...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
RDKirk
denel...@charterless.net says...
>
>
>
>
> Meryl Arbing wrote in message ...
> >If you take a picture and alter the contents by either traditional darkroom
> >techniques or with new digital techniques and then try to claim that it
> >represents what was in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter then it
> >is fakery. I don't care if it was done in a darkroom or digitally and I
> >don't forgive either one.
>
> Excellent argument! It's just too bad that nobody actually made such a
> claim anywhere within this thread.
>
> Anyone can win an argument where they make up the opposing viewpoint.
> Generally it's called "hyperbole". Do you have anything to say about what
> the rest of us are actually talking about?
>
> - Al.
That's called a "strawman" argument.
Hyperbole is a statement of extragant exaggeration: "You've wasted
millions of dollars on camera equipment and haven't won a Pulitzer
in a hundred years!"
--
RDKirk
"It's always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." -- RAH
matt_clara
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dAhn8.64818$Gf.55...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Only for ones who have deadlines that, if not met, will mean they don't get
paid. A capitalist endeavor. Please, offer a counter example if you can.
David Littlewood
<ct...@boatdocking.com> writes
>Are you sure about the monkeys/Shakespeare thing? I don't think that's
>correct because the mathematical model for this is only a model. And it
>ignores entropy.
>
>I've often compared it to bouncing a tennis ball and recording how high each
>bounce goes. Having done that, you could come up a statistical probably for
>how many attempts it would take until it bounced high enough to reach the
>moon. It's awa-a-a-ay out there under one tail of the bell curve, but it's
>there, on paper. Nonetheless, it would never happen.
>
>Charles
>
broadly thus: The number of letters (and we count spaces, punctuation
marks etc as "letters" for this purpose) in the complete works of
Shakespeare (CWOS) is finite. The number of ways of arranging this
number of letters is also finite, though of course astronomically large.
An infinitely large number of randomly chosen arrangements (whether by
one monkey doing it an infinite number of times, or an infinite number
doing it at the same time is immaterial) is bound to encompass all the
possible arrangements. In fact a proper analysis will reveal that each
such arrangement, including the one which represents the CWOS, must also
be produced an infinite number of times. This is because any transfinite
number (and BTW there is not just one, but a whole family of them) when
divided by any finite number, however large, gives as the answer the
original transfinite. In fact it will be produced an infinite number of
times in all the languages currently known to man, and all those which
are extinct (assuming the typewriter is capable of accommodating them).
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
<rb...@shell.core.com> writes
>
>It's like the ham radio guys who like to see how far they can
>transmit with a 9v battery-- they aren't necessarily "purer" than
>the guys with the 1Kw transmitters, they just prefer to do it a
>different way.
>
club called the "million miles per watt" club, for those who had managed
to transmit a long distance on small power. The story I particularly
recall was where someone (or a group) managed to bounce a signal off the
moon and receive it back on some remote location on earth, with a signal
strength of about 1mW (I may be misremembering here, it might have been
several mW). Pretty impressive.
--
David Littlewood
Jason Stephenson
Jason Stephenson
your request, my photo.net site is
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=184179 where you will see some
use of filters used on camera and adjustments of levels. HOWEVER, on the
pics i used the levels adjustments, I still plan on taking them again and
doing it right from the beginning.
btw, Ive been only taking pictures for a couple years so dont expect pics
that will knock your socks off :)
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LGgn8.13331$a3.52...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
rich1297
pseudo-random monkeys can really throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
rich
matt_clara
attempt, then, given a sufficient amount of time, Shakespeare's work would
be rewritten; however, each attempt is independent of other attempts and
therefore, there's no reason given infinity and beyond that they would
necessarily come up with Shakespeare's work.
What was it we were arguing again?
;^)
"David Littlewood" <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tLSA+UBR...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk...
Charles T. Low
Thanks for answering. You haven't convinced me. You've fallen back on the
mathematical model, which I rather suspect doesn't apply at the extremes of
probability. I think it's only an approximation which works well for the
middle range of probability. I don't have enough theoretical knowledge to
back this up, but I suspect it has something to do with what another
responders have called pseudo-randomness. Hard to find something that is
truly and completely utterly and inexorably random.
Charles
====
Charles T. Low
ct...@boatdocking.com
www.boatdocking.com/
www.ctlow.ca/Trojan26/
====
"David Littlewood" <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tLSA+UBR...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk...
Pat Chaney
>Hard to find something that is
>truly and completely utterly and inexorably random.
You've obviously not spent much time travelling on British trains :)
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Alan Browne
Sheesh!
Alan
"Charles T. Low" wrote:
--
Lert's live longer.
Be A Lert.
David Littlewood
writes
>
>David Littlewood wrote:
>
>>> Not so. Without wishing to get into too much detail, the argument is
>>>broadly thus: The number of letters (and we count spaces, punctuation
>>>marks etc as "letters" for this purpose) in the complete works of
>>>Shakespeare (CWOS) is finite. The number of ways of arranging this
>>>number of letters is also finite, though of course astronomically
>>>large. An infinitely large number of randomly chosen arrangements
>>>(whether by one monkey doing it an infinite number of times, or an
>>>infinite number doing it at the same time is immaterial) is bound to
>>>encompass all the possible arrangements. In fact a proper analysis
>>>will reveal that each such arrangement, including the one which
>>>represents the CWOS, must also be produced an infinite number of
>>>times. This is because any transfinite number (and BTW there is not
>>>just one, but a whole family of them) when divided by any finite
>>>number, however large, gives as the answer the original transfinite.
>>>In fact it will be produced an infinite number of times in all the
>>>languages currently known to man, and all those which are extinct
>>>(assuming the typewriter is capable of accommodating them).
>>
>pseudo-random monkeys can really throw a monkey wrench into the whole
>thing.
>
*not* produce the CWOS, would that be the same as them "knowing" it.
Yes, I suppose they could be programmed to only use the top row or
something, but that is *much* less fun.
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
<ct...@boatdocking.com> writes
>David,
>
>Thanks for answering. You haven't convinced me. You've fallen back on the
>mathematical model, which I rather suspect doesn't apply at the extremes of
>probability. I think it's only an approximation which works well for the
>middle range of probability. I don't have enough theoretical knowledge to
>back this up, but I suspect it has something to do with what another
>responders have called pseudo-randomness. Hard to find something that is
>truly and completely utterly and inexorably random.
>
possible arrangements to be produced, and even an aleph-null (the lowest
order of transfinite numbers) number of monkeys would not even break
sweat to do it. Or if it were 10^999^999 arrangements for that matter.
That's what infinity means. There is no such thing as an extreme of
(finite) probability when set against an infinite number of tests. Just
get me an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of
typewriters and I'll show you :-)
As to "pseudo-randomness", see my other post.
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
writes
>If each attempt at arranging the letters was dependent on the previous
>attempt, then, given a sufficient amount of time, Shakespeare's work would
>be rewritten; however, each attempt is independent of other attempts and
>therefore, there's no reason given infinity and beyond that they would
>necessarily come up with Shakespeare's work.
>
that involves bias against CWOS would give the same result, unless it
was engineered to make it physically impossible (like the bouncing ball
example someone mentioned). I think you need to reflect on the meaning
of transfinite numbers and the workings of random sampling.
--
David Littlewood
Tony Spadaro
a scanner?
Before you start huffing and puffing -- this is what I mean by arbitrary.
I can state that a scanned photo -- no matter what it's origins is breaking
the rules. The thing is THERE ARE NO RULES except the ones you impose upon
yourself.
If you want to write poetrt you could choose to do so in a very exacting
format like the Haiku, or the Sestina, or you could choose to do free verse,
or blank verse, or whatever --- no one is going to accuse you of breaking
the "rules" of poetry.
Photography is, like every other art, the same. The rules that exist are
personal. Galen Rowell will not combine two shots to get a better moon in a
picture even when they are two frames from teh same roll of film -- in fact
were brackets taken of the same place, with the moon in the same position in
each. He was perfectly willing to spend a fair amount of time getting the
original moon to look good in the shot --- digitally! But his personal rules
don't allow for compositing in a moon, even directly over the original under
any circumstances.
That's his rule - for him. Most wildlife shooters have similar personal
rulse as they consider themselves to be as much photojournalist as artist -
some even consider themselves as Completely photojournalist, only presenting
nature as they find it - This is a legit field in art too - the
photo-realists working with either paint or pixels strive for the look of a
photograph. But like Rowell -- it's personal.
You can adopt (or adapt) any rule you like for your own shooting -- I
operate under several different sets of rules according to what "series" I'm
working on. But when you say that there are rules that destroy the artistic
value of photography --- thems fightin' words. Don't expect peaceful
acceptance.
BTW - I liked the last two in your scenic section, and all your shots
indicate that you have the most important tool of the visual artist -- an
eye.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7l2d1$6g8$1...@news.tamu.edu...
matt_clara
a BS in Philosophy and an {} in Mathematics, and that I will not, therefore,
be reflecting on transfinite numbers without some help in that department):
If I roll a die once, the chances are one in six it will come up with a
four. If I roll it again, chances are still one in six. This is true
through infinity. There's no reason for the four to ever come up, or, it
could come up every time. It's unlikely, but still, it's statistically
possible.
Matt
"David Littlewood" <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hZUjapmL...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk...
Jason Stephenson
Jason
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AJtn8.14519$a3.65...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Lewis Lang
>From: "Jason Stephenson" NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 3:55 AM
>Message-id: <a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu>
>
>Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>
An image is an image is an image - no matter how you get there (altered by hand
&/or chemical or by digitally or not) its still an image.
>I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
>what do you think?
>
>Jason
Jason:
I thinky your feeling is stinky and stealing away your (one of many) creative
options through false guilt - if you let ity.
A picture (in this case a photograph) doesn't tell a lie or the truth it merely
conveys it - should a writer not be allowed to edit his draft, should
Picasso/Van Gogh/Edvard Muench (or any other artist) not be allowed to make
numerous studies in preparation for a finished masterpiece or do different
altered versions of that same masterpiece?
Its either art or it ain't.
Purists need a creative enema.
If people/purists want to hold hostage the art and/or craft of photography by
making it conform to their twisted standards that's literally their problem.
Don't fall for purists self-imposed anal "crap."
Art doesn't tell you what to do, you tell it.
Do things your own way and don't be a slave to the anal opinions of others or
even yourself.
Make good images however you want and let the punches (insults) fly wherever
they're going to - purist can kiss my non-diamond sealed non-dolphin tight *ss.
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>From: MattClara
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 4:41 AM
>Message-id: <3c9bebac$1...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com>
>
>I have to disagree with the "changing the composition of the image," part,
>too. Just because you didn't nail the composition on the first try doesn't
>mean you didn't "see" the quality present in a powerful scene, it just means
>you weren't able to fully articulate it at that time. Imagine an excellent
>artist who simply doesn't focus that quickly in "real time." Are you really
>prepared to say that the artist is less of an artist because they took a
>few
>more minutes, hours or days to realize their vision? Isn't that a bit like
>ignoring an argument because it wasn't properly framed at the first go,
>even
>though the arguer has now postulated an excellent argument? Isn't it our
>job as logicians to pay attention to the argument and not the means by which
>it was reached? To do otherwise would be argumentum ad hominem
>circumstantial, yes?
>Matt
>
Well said Matt, I agree (like) totally (dude)!
Mixedupmaniac said:
I'll even go so far as to say
>> that I think that photographers who heavily modify their images
>> digitally simply lack the talent to compose a decent photographic image
>> without "cheating."
B*llsh*t! Many photographers (Nick Vedros? is one of them and there are
probably plenty of others too that I'm not yet up on) who can run rings around
you photographically and artistically can do both or either (conventional
photography well and/or digitally altered photography well) - its not the
method its the man. If Jerry Uellsman (sp?) or W. Eugene Smith can do it in a
convenetional dark room why slam others who do it well in a digital darkroom w/
Photoshop. An image is either good or bad, the only "cheater" is the one who
wont accept an image as "real" or worthy because of their own anality about
digital manipulation (or whatever other means of future image manipulation).
Usually (but not always) those who go on about "purity" and "digital
manipulation" and "cheating" are the ones w/ small minds and even smaller
talents. Wake up Mx!
>
>"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ayTm8.126307$1g.95...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>> "Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>>
>> > Or is digitally altering all of your pics with
>> > high res scans cheating?
>>
>> If you mean changing the composition of the image, I agree. If you mean
>> just correcting color balance (globally or in areas where it is off, as
>> in the case of artificial lighting) or burning and dodging to adjust
>> exposure, I disagree.
>>
>> I don't change the composition of my photos in Photoshop (except for a
>> small amount of cropping, sometimes), but I routinely adjust the color
>> balance to match reality, and I often adjust curves to help bring out
>> detail in shadows or highlights. In all cases, I seek to make the
>> digitized image look exactly as the real scene did (that is, I don't use
>> false color for skies, or other weird stuff that wasn't there in real
>> life).
>>
>> For example, Provia 100F routinely represents the color of mercury-vapor
>> and sodium-vapor lamps incorrectly, as compared with human perception,
>> so I often adjust this in images so that the colors look as they do in
>> real life (orangish-pink for HPS, and bluish for mercury vapor, instead
>> of yellow and green, respectively).
>>
>> > I just feel like its stealing something away from
>> > the art of photography, what do you think?
>>
>> When it comes to actually modifying the content of a photo, I feel the
>> same way--if someone feels that inclined to falsify the content, why not
>> just paint? I think the challenge and art of photography is in finding
>> real-world scenes that look good as-is, without any need to digitally
>> modify the composition after the fact. I'll even go so far as to say
>> that I think that photographers who heavily modify their images
>> digitally simply lack the talent to compose a decent photographic image
>> without "cheating."
Lewis Lang
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 8:28 PM
>Message-id: <u9pofd6...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>> What about the author who writes and rewrites his novel, polishing,
>> polishing, all the while, changing many elements of composition from plot
>to
>> syntax.
>
>As the writer would go back to typewriter to "polish up" so the photographer
>is required to go back to the field and reshoot. This is how you learn!
>One
>can't rely on Photoshop to do the work the artist should have done in the
>first place, no matter how 'slow' he/she is at noticing the right
>composition. Why call yourself a photographer when your real tools are
>computer programs?
Joshua:
If that photographer is an artist who does good or great work why should it
matter what he uses or what he calls himself, what matters is whether the work
is good. Why should it matter whether a photographer's main tools are actual
physical compositting masks in a real darkroom or alpha channel masks in
Photoshop?
Photogography (in any form, digital or analog or otherwrise) is not "the/actual
reality" it is merely a window to or a reflection of _their/a_ reality (a
person's vision/perception).
I have been accused of being one, the other or both (an artist and/or a
photographer), and while I prefer to get it all in front of the camera at the
time I take/make the shot, in the end it really doesn't matter to me or "art"
or the finished image how I get there (to the final image). All this
labelling/categorizing in the end is a bunch of b.s. if it interferes w/ our
appreciation and/or willingness to understand an image. A work of art (whether
it be conventional photography, digitally manipulated photography or merely
drawn in the computer and what's depicted never having seen the "real" light of
day by using only a graphics design drawing/painting program) doesn't lose its
value just because a few pixels have been pushed around, juggled, cut, pasted,
cloned and/or had different coats of paint applied to them. What counts is the
work, not how you get there.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Mar 24, 2002 1:05 PM
>Message-id: <k9kn8.137$UG.33...@news.ripnet.com>
>
>Are you sure about the monkeys/Shakespeare thing? I don't think that's
>correct because the mathematical model for this is only a model. And it
>ignores entropy.
SNIP
A thousand monkeys typing to the end of eternity couldn't even write an N70
pictogram much less one sentence of the quality and insight of an idiot much
less a Shakespeare - "writing" and "typing" are two enirely different things,
the former implies intent (and sensitivity to a subject, insight,
grammatical/etc. skills) and the latter implies an ability to punch keys in no
particular meaningful order. It is far easier for a monkey to (mechanically
learn how to) take a picture w/ a camera than to "make" a picture w/ real
intent and communicative power - until apes rule the planet I think Sebastio
Selgado is safe for the moment in being capable of being replaced by a monkey,
other photojournalists (and some usenet posters) I'd have to think about... ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 5:06 AM
>Message-id: <G3Um8.22584$XN1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>The skill of the photographer is in seeing the picture and then capturing
>that picture. It has to be done in that fraction of a second that the
>shutter is open.
>
No, it doesn't.
"Photography" merely means writing or drawing w/ light, how you achieve that
and whther it happens in front of a camera or ina computer and/or both is
entirely irrelevant except as a way of fullfilling your own definition of what
a photographer is or should be.
>The guy who sits behind his computer faking a background that he couldn't
>never took isn't a photographer at all.
He's bot a photographer and better than many photographers because he has found
a way that works better w/o the hassle or the photographic knowledge of how
to/having to physically set it up.
If it is all right to take somebody
>elses work to cover the mistakes in your own then where is the value in
>the
>photographer's art.
Same place its always been, in the man that's creating the finished work, not
the means. Its the (wo/)man not the means.
Hell, you don't even need a camera... just grab a bunch
>of stock photos off a CD and start building pictures...what is the
>difference? You wouldn't have taken those shots either and it IS stealing
>somebody elses work.
>
Not if you pay for the rights to use those CD stock images in your work and its
also _IS NOT_ stealing if those are your own photos or photos that someone gave
to you that they took and scanned to CD to use.
>What is the difference between this and using a filter? Only an idiot would
>ask that question. If, for artistic reasons, I decide to turn my sunset
>green with a filter it is still 100% my work and I have stolen from nobody.
>
If you have used someone else's image w/ permission and colored it green in the
computer it is also stolen from nobody.
>
>"Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
>news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>> Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>>
>> I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of photography,
>> what do you think?
>>
>> Jason
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <BK0n8.25641$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>Yes, a "con artist!!"
Betterthan being a b*llsh*t artist w/ all this false crap about "purity" (and
"photography" and "reality").
>"Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5aZm8.219280$s43.49...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
>> Not at all. He is also an artist, just not the same kind.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph E. Meehan
>>
>> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Lewis Lang
>Photography is not a contained or restricted discipline to be done in
>accordance with established rules. It's a media whose limitations are
>bounded by an individuals imagination.
...or bound by the purist's anality ;-)
Well said Nick!
>
>Nick
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <wT0n8.25646$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>You obviously lack the ability to understand the difference between altering
>the tonal properties of an existing image and photo fakery.
>How bringing out the shadow details in a shot can be considered the
>equivalent of pasting in a fake elements (to manufacture a picture that
>the
>photographer could never take due to lack of skill) is complete foolishness.
>
The only phot fakery is the photographer who fails to utilize all means
necessary in order to make a great image whether w/ or w/o digital manipulation
because in the end he only fools him or herself out of a great image. And that,
sir, is complete foolishness.
>"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:KUWm8.6713$a3.33...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> Then I hope you don't alter your pictures with dodging and burning, double
>> exposures, split contrast, or any of the other forms of cheating.
>> I certainly hope you aren't one of those foul fiends who uses high
>> saturation colour film! I woulden't even talk to a man who has a lab do
>his
>> printing knowing that they have machinery that is going to cheat all over
>> the place to make a print.
>> No siree bub -- none of that dastartly cheating should be allowed.
>>
>> --
>> http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>> The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> a Radical approach to photography.
>> A few pictures are available at
>> http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
>>
>> "Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>> > Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans cheating?
>> >
>> > I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of
>photography,
>> > what do you think?
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Regards,
dor...@attglobal.net
But would you represent a print from a greatly altered
negative or slide as being the product of your photographic
talents or your computer skills? I'm sure there is no
"bright line" here.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Tony Spadaro" tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 8:19 AM
>Message-id: <KUWm8.6713$a3.33...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>Then I hope you don't alter your pictures with dodging and burning, double
>exposures, split contrast, or any of the other forms of cheating.
> I certainly hope you aren't one of those foul fiends who uses high
>saturation colour film! I woulden't even talk to a man who has a lab do
>his
>printing knowing that they have machinery that is going to cheat all over
>the place to make a print.
> No siree bub -- none of that dastartly cheating should be allowed.
LOL Tony... I guess all of those who write here on usenet are all (tele)phonies
because we type on keyboards that go out over phone (or cable lines) instead of
writing on papyrus w/ quills and ink and sending our messages in a bottle or by
messenger on foot. Ray bradbury typed Fahrenheit 451 on typewriters at the
public library for a dime an hour I guess that makes him a phony too.
In much less than a 100 years this argument will be as much of a joke as can
color photographs be considered real photography or real art.
I am no great fan of digital photography or digital manipulation but (to
Meryl), its here, its a viable alternative, so get used to it.... your choice.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Mar 24, 2002 12:03 AM
>Message-id: <1J8n8.27747$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>Oh by the way Tony. What would you say if I told you that I downloaded a
>couple of your photos? Don't worry because I used Photoshop to improve the
>composition; combine elements and generally improve it quite a bit and so
>NOW they are MY work because I did the important stuff and...HEY... this
>is
>ART and it doesn't matter how I got there..it only matters how it ends up!!
>Hell!! I didn't even need a camera and I'm a "photographic artiste"!!! WOW!!
>If people ask me if I took that picture myself I can say YES...because I
>took it from you!!
>
>You can see that all your playing with words doesn't alter the reality.
>If I
>steal from you, even if I make changes that I consider to be "improvements"
>then it is still stealing.
Not if he gives you and/or allows you to use his work, also depends on whether
the finished appropriated work significantly differs from the original, how
much of Tony's work you appropriated, and/or is used for
non-commercial/non-trade fine art usage and/or is a parody of the original work
(look up the factors which are incorporated into "FAIR USE").
>There is no deception in the reality that a photograph is a two dimensional
>representation of a 3 dimensional world...it is apparent to everybody. Also,
>removing dust spots from your pictures!! COME ON!!! How is that the same
>as
>dropping in completely unrelated elements and so creating a phony picture
>and claiming that is how you saw it!!
Stop being so physically limited in your "vision". How you saw it, more
importantly than how a scene appeared through an actual camera is how you see a
picture and create/express it from that other eye - "vision" in its truest
sense - the minds eye. "Vision" and photography are more than just the
unaltered outer world recorded, it is the expression of the heretofore unseen
inner world expressed by and through any and all means possible. Many people
(photographers, digital manipulators, painters, whatever) have "vision" but
lack a "vision" - if a computer or a pair of tapdancing shoes or
cutting/pasting/cloning in a computer will alow you to convey/communicate your
"vision" then what's the difference. In the end its just an image, one that
works and conveys the photographer's intent well and powerfully/emotionally or
one that doesn't.
>
>"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:DL4n8.14879$GI5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> And you obviously consider whatever you do to be legal and whatever
>you
>> don't do to be cheating.
>> Try to comprehend this - I can do the same <<<SAME>>> things on my
>> computer that I did with my chemical darkroom. I can do them better and
>I
>> can make the result re-producable to a degree the chemical darkroom
>doesn't
>> have. I spot my files instead of my prints, I dodge and burn my files
>> instead of each and every print.
>> If I wished to I could also combine pictures --- just like I've done
>in
>> a chemical darkroom, or use someone else's negative to make a print --
>for
>> years I did this in the darkroom, but no one called me a cheater. They
>> called me their printer. Who's cheating in this case? THe guy who prints
>or
>> the lazy photographer who does not do his own finishing?
>> Photography IS fakery. The photograph is NOT the thing. There is
>no
>> such thing as a photo that is not "faked". Furthermore there is no "law"
>> that says what is a photograph -- is it a Daguerreotype? A single
>> unreproducable, and therefore unalterable original. Are the pictures in
>> National Geo photographs? As far as I know they are made up of coloured
>> inks, and there must be some hanky panky there since photography obviously
>> doesn't use inks. Is colour photography legit? The colours are Never
>right,
>> so it must be fakery. Black and white -- that crap is obviously fake ---
>> I've been to Half Dome, the sky isn't grey there.
>> You suffer from what my uncle used to call the pope disease -- a
>holier
>> than thou attitude. If you take pictures you are a fake, just like every
>> other photographer.
>>
>> --
>> http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>> The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> a Radical approach to photography.
>> A few pictures are available at
>> http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
>>
>> "Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:wT0n8.25646$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > You obviously lack the ability to understand the difference between
>> altering
>> > the tonal properties of an existing image and photo fakery.
>> > How bringing out the shadow details in a shot can be considered the
>> > equivalent of pasting in a fake elements (to manufacture a picture that
>> the
>> > photographer could never take due to lack of skill) is complete
>> foolishness.
>> >
>> > "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:KUWm8.6713$a3.33...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> > > Then I hope you don't alter your pictures with dodging and burning,
>> double
>> > > exposures, split contrast, or any of the other forms of cheating.
>> > > I certainly hope you aren't one of those foul fiends who uses high
>> > > saturation colour film! I woulden't even talk to a man who has a lab
>do
>> > his
>> > > printing knowing that they have machinery that is going to cheat all
>> over
>> > > the place to make a print.
>> > > No siree bub -- none of that dastartly cheating should be allowed.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>> > > The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> > > a Radical approach to photography.
>> > > A few pictures are available at
>> > > http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
>> > >
>> > > "Jason Stephenson" <NOSPAMst...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
>> > > news:a7gub9$e8o$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>> > > > Or is digitally altering all of your pics with high res scans
>> cheating?
>> > > >
>> > > > I just feel like its stealing something away from the art of
>> > photography,
>> > > > what do you think?
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Regards,
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <VF9n8.27769$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>If you take a picture and alter the contents by either traditional darkroom
>techniques or with new digital techniques and then try to claim that it
>represents what was in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter then
>it
>is fakery.
Who said it was being claimed that the digitally altered image was in the
viewfinder? The image just _is_ unless a photographer or the medium the
photograph is in (ie. a magazine) makes such a claim otherwise.
I don't care if it was done in a darkroom or digitally and I
>don't forgive either one.
>
Ooooooooooooo you don't forgive, I'm sure many photographers and digital
manipulators are heartbroken over your non-forgiveness of their techniques.
>Both are ways of trying to claim photographic talents that one doesn't
>posess!
>
No person is claiming anything about reality, possesing photographic talents,
etc., photographer or not, this claiming stuff is all in your mind. No
photograph claims anything, and unless a photographer actually says otherwise,
no photographer is claiming anything - anybody who believes a photograph
(manipulated or not) is "reality" is full of crap!
>While the use of stock photographs might be "legal" it is still unethical
>to
>claim it as your own work and those collages can't be called
>photographs...at best they are photo-illustrations. They would be excluded
>from photo contests except in a specific category of "digital art" or
>something.
>
>Most of the so-called digital art that I have seen is
>crap!
Unfortunately so is most of the conventional photography I've seen!
crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap
!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!cra
p!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!cr
ap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!c
rap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!
crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap
!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!cra
p!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!cr
ap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!
>"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:_j9n8.16506$GI5.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> There was a rather famous case involving a picture called 9 puppies.
>A
>> sculptor tore off the copyright notice and had an Italian foundry cast
>a
>> bronze statue based on the picture. He was sucessfully sued for copyright
>> violation dispite an defense based on it being a different media and
>> therefore an original work. So the theft of images is in fact
>prosecutable.
>> But we are not talking about theft - we are talking about copying by
>> standing in the same spot or using stock photography. They are both quite
>> legal and you can do that all you want. They are not creative. They
>usually
>> are not good, but are legal and are done constantly. I feel like I know
>a
>> certain slot canyon that I've never been in, better than my own
>> neighbourhood.
>> No on to dropping in elements --- You mean like adding clouds to a
>blank
>> sky. I first did that in 1967, and there was no digital hanky panky
>> involved. How about changing the colours --- with filters, either while
>> doing colour enlarging OR directly in the camera ---- That's another
>> thing -- I'll bet there is a whole generation of kids growing up who think
>> the sky in the mid west (out where all those homey old timey farms are)
>is
>> tobacco brown fading to pink and clear buy the time its just above the
>> waving wheat field. I've seen that "trick" on hundreds of still
>photographs,
>> several tv commercials and more than one movie. It's a fake. and it's
>all
>> done "in camera". This is dropping of unrelated elements and so creating
>a
>> phony picture and claiming that is how one saw it -- but there is no
>digital
>> involved.
>> If you can do it with film I can do it with Photoshop. Anyone who
>> believes a photo is a true representation of anything needs a reality
>check.
>> Photography is artificial - 100%. The only time a photographer has to
>tell
>> the truth is on the witness stand. The fact that many feel compelled to
>be
>> truthful when off the witness stand is commendable but really not
>necessary
>> unless one is trying to make a point - Many nature and wildlife
>> photographers hold themselves (or claim they do) to a set of rules as
>strict
>> or stricter than any photojournalists. However some photojournalists (W.E.
>> Smith for example) find nothing wrong with moving people and lights about
>to
>> "document" reality.
>> Ther is a movie-making credo called "Dogma 95" which essentially
>> specifies that nothing not found at a location is permissable in the
>film...
>> I often wonder how they excuse having the cast in the movie.
>>
>> --
>> http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
>> The Camera-ist's Manifesto
>> a Radical approach to photography.
>> A few pictures are available at
>> http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
>>
>> "Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1J8n8.27747$mZ3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> > Oh by the way Tony. What would you say if I told you that I downloaded
>a
>> > couple of your photos? Don't worry because I used Photoshop to improve
>the
>> > composition; combine elements and generally improve it quite a bit and
>so
>> > NOW they are MY work because I did the important stuff and...HEY...
>this
>> is
>> > ART and it doesn't matter how I got there..it only matters how it ends
>> up!!
>> > Hell!! I didn't even need a camera and I'm a "photographic artiste"!!!
>> WOW!!
>> > If people ask me if I took that picture myself I can say YES...because
>I
>> > took it from you!!
>> >
>> > You can see that all your playing with words doesn't alter the reality.
>If
>> I
>> > steal from you, even if I make changes that I consider to be
>> "improvements"
>> > then it is still stealing.
>> > There is no deception in the reality that a photograph is a two
>> dimensional
>> > representation of a 3 dimensional world...it is apparent to everybody.
>> Also,
>> > removing dust spots from your pictures!! COME ON!!! How is that the
>same
>> as
>> > dropping in completely unrelated elements and so creating a phony
>picture
>> > and claiming that is how you saw it!!
>> >
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Mar 24, 2002 6:37 AM
>Message-id: <iuen8.13293$a3.51...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
> I don't think he wants to. To do that he would have to either admit that
>he is as much of a "cheater" as everyone else who ever put a yellow filter
>on a camera loaded with Tri-X. By constantly skipping out to build another
>straw man he avoids the ugly truth: Photography is all fakery. The only
>true
>picture is through a window - preferably one without glass.
I occaisionally photograph through the window of my soul but often get too much
spectral chromatic aberration ;-)
Tony Spadaro
Would you represent a greatly altered chemical print as being the product
of your photographic talents or your darkroom skills?
If you present someone with a book of Ansel Adams prints do you feel it
is necessary to explain that Adams did not actually make these prints, but
they were reproduced on a web press?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
<dor...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3C9EB20F...@attglobal.net...
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <LGgn8.13331$a3.52...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>How about letting all your tools be your tools instead of living by some
>arbitrary set of rules laid down by some invisible presence on the internet
SNIP
Amen!
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 4:09 PM
>Message-id: <mN1n8.53723$Gf.43...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>
>What ever floats your wagon, baby!
Is that like what ever rolls your boat? ;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2002 6:56 PM
>Message-id: <N5Toi0BX$Mn8...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <3c9c6572$1...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com>,
>
>>>
>>> Yes. I can paint or draw beautiful pictures ... given enough time.
>But
>>> an artist with talent can do the same in a day, or an hour, or even a
>>> few minutes. That's what talent is all about. A thousand monkeys with
>>> a thousand typewriters might duplicate the works of Shakespeare in time,
>>> but that doesn't mean that they have Shakespeare's talent. Time is of
>>> the essence of talent.
>>
>>I have to disagree with this. A thousand monkeys would never duplicate
>a
>>single work of Shakespeare's to the letter; moreover, you have yet to prove
>>that time is of the essence of talent. Time is important for capitalist
>>endeavors, but for true art it holds no relation.
>>
>AIUI, the original proposition was that an infinite number of monkeys
>with an infinite number of typewriters would in time be certain to
>duplicate the entire works of Shakespeare. This is mathematically
>provable, but impossible to do in practice. There is of course an
>"infinite" difference between a transfinite number and any finite one,
>however arbitrarily large the latter is made.
Who's going to clean up the transfinite amount of monkey muffins these
collective transfinite monkeys cum Shakespears make - a transfinite amount of
animal trainers w/ a transfinite amount of poopy scoopers? and wont we need a
transfinite amount of monkey toilets or a transfinite amount of dump trunks to
deposit these contributuion? Perhaps we can find a transfinite amount of
planets that need a transfinite amount of monkey poop - then again, perhaps all
we really do need is about 15 minutes on the internet to prove all this ;-)
:-).
>
>For the proposition in its finite form, I have seen it said that the
>internet has thoroughly disproved it.
>--
>David Littlewood
Regards,
Tony Spadaro
Underwood is the preferred instrument of Charlie's Angels.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020325002506...@mb-mi.aol.com...
Tony Spadaro
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020325010630...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Tony Spadaro
where a man wanted to see if this would work, but lacking funds he could
only afford six monkeys - they produced Hamlet on the first day, Macbeth on
the second etc. Must have been Brown - Or Sheckley, or maybe it was written
by a seventh monkey!
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
<Matt Clara> wrote in message news:3c9e7ba7$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Mar 24, 2002 3:00 PM
>Message-id: <MPG.1707a5f7...@news.verizon.net>
>
>In article <u9qqun1...@corp.supernews.com>,
>denel...@charterless.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Meryl Arbing wrote in message ...
>> >If you take a picture and alter the contents by either traditional darkroom
>> >techniques or with new digital techniques and then try to claim that
>it
>> >represents what was in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter then
>it
>I
>> >don't forgive either one.
>>
>a
>> claim anywhere within this thread.
>>
>> Anyone can win an argument where they make up the opposing viewpoint.
>> Generally it's called "hyperbole". Do you have anything to say about what
>> the rest of us are actually talking about?
>>
>> - Al.
>
>That's called a "strawman" argument.
>
>Hyperbole is a statement of extragant exaggeration: "You've wasted
>millions of dollars on camera equipment and haven't won a Pulitzer
>in a hundred years!"
>
You've always going on about hyperboles for the last million years haven't you
now? ;-)
>
>
>
>--
>RDKirk
Lewis Lang
>broadly thus: The number of letters (and we count spaces, punctuation
>marks etc as "letters" for this purpose) in the complete works of
>Shakespeare (CWOS) is finite. The number of ways of arranging this
>number of letters is also finite, though of course astronomically large.
>
>An infinitely large number of randomly chosen arrangements (whether by
>one monkey doing it an infinite number of times, or an infinite number
>doing it at the same time is immaterial) is bound to encompass all the
>possible arrangements.
SNIP
Asuming a monkey could live long enough to do this experiment (also an
impossibility) don't you think that even a monkey would have more sense than a
human in not wanting to attempt such a feat in the first place (not even for a
transfinite amount of bananas as a reward)?
Regards,
Lance-O-lot Link Secret Chimp