Does it matter ho a photograph was achievedit is the final results that matter

Gee Allen, if nothing else you sure get people talking!

I have yet to pick up a lens or use a film that actually captures what

I see with my own two eyes. The other day I spent more than an hour

trying to get on film what I saw and I could not with every lens I own

get the perspective I saw with my own two eyes. So guess what? I did

the best I could. After developing the film and scanning, I did the

best I could with the technology that exists today to render the

colors, tones, shadow detail and detail in the sky and clouds to look

as close as I remember seeing it. Did I manipulate the photograph? No,

because I never was able to get what I saw on film in the first place.

Did I get a good useable picture that told a story? Yes. Maybe if I

had to time to use an 8X10 view camera and some good old glass plates?

------------------------------------------------------------

Terms of Context!

<p>

Everyone is getting the terms mixed up. Manipulation is when you make changes in the subjects you are photographing. What is being discussed here is 'interpretation'. You see a scene, you raise a camera , you frame it, you then you reframe it, you are interpreting the scene.

<p>

When you shoot portraits, then you are generally �manipulating' the subject, but even that is a moot point, because that is usually a set piece, acknowledged by both parties, and maybe the subject is manipulating the photographer..

<p>

Or, more to the point is this whole thread a troll, because it is really borders on the inane. On the other hand there is the possibility that a lot of these Leica possessers haven't figured out what the cameras should be used for.

And, Andy, that was hardly manipulation, it was simply seeing (realizing) a telephoto view, which is something that comes with training and experience.

a photograph is alway only a reproduction of reality, never

absolutely true and also always only the subjective way the

photographer saw it.

Ian

<p>

I don't think it is inane. You are also right about what is simply

visualisation and what is real manipulation. Most people here seem to

be of the school that "anything goes". But actually I don't believe

most of them. I doubt Doug Herr would agree to, for example, changing

the color of a bird's eyes, or putting a second lion next to a shot of

a lion if it was not there in the original. The one thing that makes

photography stand out from other forms of visual expression is that it

used to have a direct relationship with reality, simply by the fact

that if it was seen by the lens then it was imaged. A real instant

of time imaged for ever. Now digital manipulation has altered this

and, more to the point, has made it very easy to do. I think this is a

big difference. The digital manipulated images can be real works of

art and wonderful, I am not denying it. But the easier it becomes to

"improve" nature the less effect it will have on its audience and the

less people will appreciate this is being a special characteristic of

photography or indeed that it represents any aspect of reality. If

everything can be faked then nothing is real. The Soviets made a

specialty of retouching their photos to rewrite history - digital

makes this kind of thing very easy, so in terms of what makes

photography unique I do not think it is a positive thing. In terms of

Art with a capital "A" then it makes little difference.

This argument was all hashed out in the 30's and 40's when the photo

realists (Ansel and the rest of the California group) butted heads

with the photo expressionists. My problem is with the thinking that

photography should be this or that - it's a big world folks and

their are as many different tastes as their are camera brands -

horrors, some poeple actually think Nikon is better than Leica - and

they are entitled to their thinking. As far as manipulation goes it

has happened since the first photographs were being taken. Read

some of Ansel Adams books - he was a realist and yet at the same

time an admitted master of darkroom manipulation (look at the

finished Gathering Storm as compared to a 'straight' print). As

someone said Eugene Smith was a master in the darkroom, sometimes

combining two or three negs in a single image. Even our perception

of the guady overdone totem-poles of the west coast Indains is due

in large part to an early 20 century photographer who basically made

them up on the spot to photograph them for his famous history

photos. I would always like to think that documentary photography

is as 'straight' as possible, but when we delve into photography

as 'art' anthing does, and should go. If you don't like it you can

always look at something you do.

<i>Even our perception of the guady overdone totem-poles of the west

coast Indains is due in large part to an early 20 century

photographer who basically made them up on the spot to photograph

them for his famous history photos. </i><p>

It's far more nefarious than that. Curtis faked the outfits of many

of the Indians he photographed, yet they are still

considered "authentic" dress. Contrary to what Robin says, it has

always been easy and always been done. There's a good book about

photo fakery that came out in the 70s (can't remember the name and

it's out of print) that showed fake stuff back into the 1870s. <p>

The fact is that photos can easily be lies, have always easily been

lies, and PS doesn't change that in any way. It just brings it

closer to home.

". The Soviets made a specialty of retouching their photos to rewrite

history"

<p>

Didn't the CIA do that with the Oswald picture? ;-) CIA = Communists

In America, of course.

I looked at a photograph of a holiday villa in France.Guess

what...when i got there it looked just the same as the photograph.

<p>

CIA = Communists In America, of course,What is that all about.

"I looked at a photograph of a holiday villa in France.Guess

what...when i got there it looked just the same as the

photograph. "

<p>

Small and two dimensional? How disappointing.

Artists who take photographs of their subjects to put them on

canvas,and a lot do.We should now call the finished painting a

photograph.Okay it is done with paint,but does it matter.....it is

the final image that matters.

Allen,

Allow me to propose a thought experiment: Think of any photograph of

which you have a very high opinion. Let's say (for example) you

picked the one by HCB of the guy jumping over the puddle. Now (I ask

your indulgence to make a supposition for the sake of argument):

Suppose I go back in a time machine, and arrange it so HCB took the

picture of the scene in 2002, with no person in it, and he added the

puddle jumping guy later, digitally. My question is: Is this image

that we know and love now rendered a lesser work of art because we

know this particular fact about its production? As far as I can

tell, you are saying one of two things - Either: 1.Certain facts

about the production of an image, if known, render it invalid. OR

2.The use of certain techniques are not likely to result in good

art. I disagree completely with statement 1, and believe statement 2

is irrelevent. Statement 1 is preposterous. - What is a photograph

beyond what you are looking at? If you liked it when you thought

that technique "X" was not used in its production, how could you like

it less after finding that "X" WAS used. The photo itself remains the

same. As for statement 2, we each have our ideas about what choices

will lead us to good results, but they are "nobody's business". The

final result remains - regardless of what one did, or did not do, to

get it. Call it "painting", call it "roast beef" if you want to; it

doesn't change the photo one bit!

What I like with Allen is he has a sort of talent to point out

disturbing questions. Some think it is akin what they call �trolls�

I don�t, even when I don�t agree with his persistent and stubborn

attitude of �the older way is the better way�.

<p>

I�m intuitively siding him however when it goes to straight

photography. I say �intuitively� as to this day I can FEEL what is

straight photography but I�m unable to get a definition of it which

should be considered as a generally accepted one.

<p>

First and foremost, I want to point out that I don�t consider things

I feel are out of the field of straight photography are less Art

than a good photography. But to me they simply aren�t Photography

but �photographism� � A different, and equally respectable, kind of

graphic art.

<p>

The point in case is not objectivity versus subjectivity, but the

amount of subjectivity you may consider �acceptable� to qualify an

image originally obtained through a camera (would it be classical or

digital is irrelevant here) a photography.

<p>

Any photography is subjective by essence, thus �manipulated� by the

photographer. Framing is a subjective action, the choice of exposure

parameters is, because the photographic process doesn�t allow the

restitution of the vast amount of contrast our brain is able to

record at the same time, the time you click is a subjective action�

Even before is the choice of the subject (to click or not to click,

that is the question). But one thing remains however which is not SO

subjective: the subject itself. For me, in �straight photography�,

the subject, as framed, exposed, illuminated at the time you shoot

it, should remain what it is in the actual world. So it

is �interpreted� but has a �life� of its own in the actual world.

<p>

Then, what should be considered �acceptable� in the dark room (would

it be a classical �wet� one or a modern �dry� one) is any action

which is necessary to better translate what was originally seen in

the viewfinder. Nothing less, nothing more. Adding or suppressing

elements in the original image makes it went out of straight

photography to the world of �photographism�. Using techniques which

modify the image into something other than an as accurate as

technically possible translation of the original gray scale or color

range has the same �philosophical� effect.

<p>

This is at least MY definition of straight photography.

<p>

Now is their something special with digital versus silver based

photography ?

<p>

Yes and no� The definition is still valid. But the tricks used to

make a �photographism� from a Photography might be totally

undetectable. So you can easily fool people pretending the result is

akin what you saw through the viewfinder.

<p>

Then, as far as Art is concerned, this is apparently of mean

importance, the example one of us gave regarding one of Cartier-

Bresson most famous picture is revealing. As far of course you

consider Art on the rather limited perspective of aesthetic only, of

course! � But if you add the original Cartier-Bresson picture was an

image of a special moment, a visual witness of a reality now long

gone, it means something very important.

<p>

Let�s now quit the realm of �pure� Art, and examine the fact

photography is not only Art, but also conveys information and you�ll

realize the danger of having techniques which permit to modify

reality and alter it the way you please without possibility to

detect it! �

<p>

But does digital has created such problems or simply rendered easier

the manipulation ?

<p>

I�m sorry to say it is simply a way to do the things more �cleanly��

<p>

For example manipulated photographs has circulated in newspapers and

in general public for years without any possibilities for the public

to realize it. Simply because the sources, the original documents,

were beyond its reach.

<p>

Moreover, it is rather easy to manipulate things when you take a

picture to give the public false sensations. Here is one which is

(and was) practiced for years by photo reporters to please their

customers.

<p>

Suppose you have a demonstration and you work for a paper which

orientation is against the demonstrators�opinion. Unfortunately for

the side your employer is supporting, this demonstration is a real

success, numerically speaking. Just have a wide angle and use it

carefully and the crowd will appear meagre and scattered� Then the

title will be something like �Not so successful� � Now take just the

opposite hypothesis, the crowd is actually meagre and you work for

the side of the demonstrators. Just take a long tele-lens and

isolate a group of people and presto, by the trick of perspective

you�ll get an image which give the impression of a dense crowd� Then

add a title like �success� and the manipulation is here. Unless your

reader had personally witnessed the demonstration in both cases, he

won�t be able to know the right from the wrong ! �

<p>

So what does that mean? Manipulation is something which was ever

practised and though digital imagery permits it more easily, it is

not the technology that creates manipulation but the men behind it !

�

<p>

And to finally answer what Allen asked, Yes it means something to

know how an image was obtained. Not precisely through what technical

process, but how this process was used and to what extent. Both in a

purely artistic point of view and as an issue about truth or lie.

<p>

Friendly

<p>

François P. WEILL

<p>

<i>Let�s now quit the realm of �pure� Art, and examine the fact

photography is not only Art, but also conveys information and you�ll

realize the danger of having techniques which permit to modify

reality and alter it the way you please without possibility to

detect it! </i><p>

As I said above, photography will never cbe considered art if your

definitions apply. From Man Ray to Helmut Newton to Misha Gordin,

to countless numbers of people who have made photography more than

just snapping what's around, photography has always been made by

manipulators, not by snappers trying to do the ridiculous, duplicate

reality. This kind of idea is the death of photography, the victory

of the pointless snapshot.

So sorry, I'm confused. How many angels did you guys say can

sit on the head of a pin? Or was the argument about whether

a tree makes a noise when it falls if a Leica user isn't there to

hear it.

Well Jeff,

<p>

Quoting the names of Ansel Adams (landscape photography), Margaret

Bourke-White (Reporter), HCB (Reporter), Doisneau (Reporter) and

more recently the work of Sebastiao Salgado (Reporter, still alive

and well), and I can add many others, suffices to annihilate your

argument� Photographers they are and Artists they are.

<p>

Now you can quote me the names of many people like the ones you

quoted, artists they are

(or at least can legitimately pretend to be) but photographers they

ain�t, as far as I�m concerned, they are �photographists�

making �photographisms�� No judgement in value here, just a question

of definition. They invented their �world� like a painter do. A

painter can use many techniques to paint from oils to acrylics not

felling to mention water based colors. He can also paint with a

brush or paint with an airbrush too. He is still a painter doesn�t

he ? And in my humble opinion �photographists� are more akin

painters than photographers, the tool is different and they use

light, cameras and all the tools a photographer uses but they are

nearer to painters than to photographers. Man Ray often used this

saying �Je suis un faute-ographe� a game of words in French

language: the word �faute� in French meaning errors, mistakes� So he

considered his work as the result of photographic mistakes judged by

photographic rules and I think he is entirely right and honest in

his judgement. Does it make him less an artist for acknowledging he

is not a good photographer in fact ?

<p>

There always had been, since photography had existed, a tendency of

some people to make photographically obtained images look like

paintings. History has amply demonstrated as long as these attempts

were kept in the "realist" way they obtained no valuable results,

artistically speaking. Most of the painters took notice the

photography has taken away from them any real interest to reproduce

the reality with a �photographic precision� that they must adopt a

more intimate and more subjective way to convey their emotions and

subjectivity. And it has a deep and lasting influence in the

evolution of painting through the past century. Photographers took

the vacant place and expressed the two-dimensional transposition of

reality and entirely assumed the documentary aspect once in charge

of the painter. And some of them succeeded in so doing as far as to

be considered real artists, despite your bias against �snapshots�.

<p>

Some other people wanted to use photographic techniques to do the

same painters do and push subjectivity as far as the painters do. So

fine for me, I�ve nothing against it but as I see no difference in

using an airbrush or a more classical brush, oils or acrylics to the

fact the users of them are called painters, I see no more difference

in using the photographic techniques instead for the same purpose.

But neither the painters, nor those people are what I

call �photographers�.

<p>

Lately, we saw a movement relayed by some medias toward using

overexposed, color unbalanced, out of focus pictures� And call

it �modern photography� (or else with the word photography). Sorry,

some may consider this art but as far as you call that photography

it is nothing more than a piece of crap. As a piece of crap of a

painting is some Sunday painters�work trying to imitate the pre-

photographic masters in slavishly, but laboriously, trying to

represent the �Sacre Coeur� church in Paris as it is, without any

talent or imagination.

<p>

François P. WEILL

Now (I ask your indulgence to make a supposition for the sake of

argument): Suppose I go back in a time machine, and arrange it so HCB

took the picture of the scene in 2002, with no person in it, and he

added the puddle jumping guy later, digitally. My question is: Is

this image that we know and love now rendered a lesser work of art.

<p>

The original was a photograph,not a work of art.It was a

photograph.If it had been created by manipulation it would not have

been.Yes that simple.

<p>

A few years ago i saw a picture of a women carrying a man without

legs to a fishing boat.That man had lost his legs in a accident.The

family who lived in a poverty striken area of the world,ever fished

or died ,that simple.Each day she carried him to his fishing boat,and

in the evening stood by the sea shore waiting for his return.That

picture will be in me for ever.No artist will ever create such a

powerful image.Why because it reality,the truth.The Artist in

capitals is very much the poor relation of the photographer.We record

the world,and life, and no human mind will ever improve on that.

Allen Herbert wrote: "The original was a photograph,not a work of

art.It was a photograph.If it had been created by manipulation it

would not have been.Yes that simple"

<p>

You are simply making up definitions. I say that a photograph

made "with manipulation" (They ALL are, btw) must be called an

Ishkabibble, whereas a photogtraph made "without manipulation" must

be called a Flapdoodle!

I don't feel capable of contributing anything of value to this

thread. I would like to say, though, that, as a result of reading the

foregoing, this forum and its members have gone up several notches in

my estimation. Those Leicas are definitely in the right hands!