Tired of the arguments and complaints about manipulation, not to mention the abuse...

It saddens me to think that some of you cannot keep an open,

artistic mind while critiquing on photo.net. Photography is

manipulation. Manipulation is photography. Photography is art, is it

not? Art is an ever changing entity in my mind, free to evolve, and

free to be "different" and new. Free also then to each artist's

individual expression and interpretation.

 

Welcome to the year 2005. Photography will revolutionize along with

the rest of the world no matter how many times you degrade top rated

manipulated images on photo.net... or how many times you beg for

segregation of manipulated and un-manipulated images on the net. The

sooner everyone realises this, the sooner we can all get along and

further ourselves as open-minded, learning artists.

I want to share with you what <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=888636">John Crosley</a> wrote in a recent <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dj9F">thread</a>:<p>

 

<i>"I have high respect for those who can manipulate images well; it's just that I cannot, and have little desire to. And I get enough viewers and comments, without resorting to manipulation (other than occasional sharpening and/or contrast/brightness adjustment). <p>

 

But who am I to rain on someone else's parade? If Photoshopped images are popular, then they are popular, and why should I denigrate someone else's love, art and aesthete. Doe it somehow make mine 'better?' <p>

 

I think not. <p>

 

I'm happy to post my images, however poorly they sometimes may be received for not being 'manipulated', alongside the heavily manipulated ones, and take my chances. Sometimes I am surprised. <p>

 

I think it's limiting to set one's sights on TRP on this site, when if one goes to a decent bookstore with a good representative selection of photo magazines, one will find a HUGE selection of photographs of quality that never would even make a rating on this site, which eminently are not only publishable but in many instances are collectable and salable. <p>

 

I choose to look at the larger ocean, even if I swim in the aquarium."</i>

Matt, first this will be interesting by tomorrow you are going to get some vicious responses.

 

I have no problem with manipulation digital or wet. I just want to know if it took place, I don?t so much care if it was sharpened or color corrected but when it is clearly not the image taken by the camera anymore I like to know. It really would not be fair to (how can I put this to not offend) To have a photo judged as if it where what was taken by the camera compared to 4 hours of post processing IMO. I congratulate all of the patrons who are talented in Photoshop and the like but I do prefer less post processed pictures. That is not to say I would give low marks on a photo for it. I prefer to pass instead of giving a low score on any photo that isn?t my cup of tea. I actually will rate high in originality for the skill of some photoshoped pictures and aesthetics if warranted.

 

I will admit I wish digital had never been invented even though I use it. I think my phobia about it comes from the fact I know at least 10 ppl at work who do not even know what an F-stop is but own a high end Canon or Nikon Digital SLR and think they are pro's. My boss does weddings with a rebel XT and kit lens and sucks at it but raves all the time about the great photos he takes (He charges flat rate 250.00 and provides a CD). He has never used any mode besides the auto green square. Back to the subject Yes I appreciate art. I own a point and shoot digital and like to use it for some things I am glad people enjoy using there digital SLR's. I just enjoy chemistry and the wet darkroom method. I believe there is room for both and we can appreciate the beauty both can produce. I in no way meant this to offend and if anyone is offend why? Why be offend of an OPINION it happens here way to often you say something someone disagrees with and start a WAR.

 

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

 

He said it I mean it!

 

Everyone have a great week. Grinder

I must say John Crosley is a wise man :) I could not have ever said it better.

Let me quote what Satiago wrote in the other thread,

 

"Santiago Arraga , oct 02, 2005; 10:58 a.m.

If you think it's unmanipulated, check the box. We're not kids that need external prodding/rules/enforcers to do what's right."

 

Simple does it.

Matt, you make statements, true/untrue, which you then answer dogmatically true untrue for yourself. After establishing these fact/nonfacts, those who do not agree appear to be wrong...Not good reasoning for a photographer, but more suited for an AM radio talkshow host who has taken his daily dose of Oxycontin pills, if ya get my drift. I see little degradation in the critique sections of top rated manipulated images. As a matter of fact I see little critique at all. Those who question the manipulation, pro OR Con are virtually non-existent. I think one of the premises being missed is that photography, not manipulation should be part of photo.net's posting philosophy, which goes back to the original Greenspun concepts which places heavy emphasis on photography only. But, you are right photographers should be open-minded..but that extends to the manipulators as well, and often they are NOT open minded, and in some cases actually misrpresent and lie about their images. So..all of this is a 2-way street...<div></div>

This issue has been part of photography for a long time.

 

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." -Edward Steichen

Thanks Donald, I know very well that photo.net is not a forgiving place and I'm opening myself up to attack... but I really wanted to throw my thoughts out there. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I really do think (like you said) there is room for both.

 

I sympathise with your point about the ease of digital these days, even though I think most of the time this is a misconception. Luckily as a student I was exposed to the "real" darkroom and all its techniques and required skills, some of which can be transplanted into the digital realm. But like you hinted, one unfortunate day the "wet" manipulation, as you put it, will be nonexistent... and then...?

 

Thanks for making that point...

 

But as reluctant as some of us are to accept change, I still don't think it is right for anyone to hold a negative attitude towards the photographers who have harnessed the possibilities of digital with their eyes fixed on the future. (not referring to you of course)

Manipulation is here to stay, like it or not.

Amen Gustavo!

I am new at this debate so please understand my ignorancy of the issues. My take on the whole thing is the question at what point does the manipulation make photography into design, what some would argue are two separate arts, that to me is the question. Not that I am for not allowing designed photos being shown on photo.net, but it should not be misrepresented as non-manipulated when it is manipulated. I would think the solution to photo.net's problem, if it really is a problem, would be to represent photos for what they are and not be ashamed if it is heavily manipulated or not.

"It really would not be fair to ...have a photo judged as if it were what was taken by the camera compared to 4 hours of post processing IMO."

 

That's the part I don't really get...looking at this as a "fair/unfair" game. I may point out that it is HIGHLY unfair that professional photographers with umpteen thousand dollars of LF equipment can come here and post alongside my K1000/ Wallyworld shots! That just ought not be allowed, right? It's also unfair that other people can go take photos in the Himalayas while I'm stuck here in Dallas! But the point is, it is not a competition with set rules where you can use this and can't use that, and shoot this way and not that way, etc. I think the final picture should be judged on its merits, not on how you think it was produced. (Reminds me of a photo writer, maybe Bob Shell, who was criticised for overuse of a polarizer, on shots that he hadn't even used a polarizer on!)

 

By the way- I don't use (or own) PS...and am working on getting my darkroom set up- but doesn't make me criticize folks that do things differently.

I take great pride in the fact that all photo's I submit are totally unmanipulated and that they can hold there own in the world of unlimited manipulation, However I see nothing wrong with the practice. Ansel Adams without a doubt manipulated in the dark room so I see no problem with it, What I do find a problem with is creating a photograph that is a total manipulation that the "photographer" has only pictured in there mind and has never actually existed. Ok , my spleen is vented, I hope my comments have not offended anyone as no offense was intended,

Matt, before going into this, it seems to me that you arehere refering to the thread I posted a couple of days ago. Are you not ? If you are, I would really love to understand where you got the idea that I might have "segregated" PS works, or that I don't realize that the world is changing, and so on ! As a reminder, I'm a heavy PS user myself ! Could we please clarify how you understood the intro comment in this other thread ?

Hi Marc, I was in part referring to your post where you stated <i>"What needs to be done is just this: SEPARATE MANIPULATED IMAGES AND STRAIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY."</i> (all caps in original post). But I am not attacking you personally, when I wrote "you" aboce I was trying (but failed miserably) to be general and I'm really only referring to the people who take issue with manipulation and demonstrate the attitude I mentioned etc.

This thread is a bit different; I know you were referring to the issue with originality... so what you said shouldn't apply here I guess, sorry about that.

Matt, this discussion is useless in the abstract. I would suggest you refer us to a specific image, as Marc did, which you think reflects the need for some sort of change in attitude or behavior. You might look for one that has something photographically to show us, as opposed to the manipulation itself, like ridiculous colors or a gimmick filter.

Ok, Matt. Good to have this out of the way. That said, you can't really take that sentence of mine - "SEPARATE..." etc - out of context. What I was saying was that PS works scored higher in originality than traditional photography, whereas it shouldn't be the case. Simply because making something look un-real is not, in itself, something difficult nor particularly interesting once you can do it with PS. And because the originality of UN-realistic results just can't be compared to the originality of a realistic photograph. That's all I was saying. And to help the site be fair with both parties, I think we should not compare both sides: meaning we should SEPARATE VIEWING and SEPARATE TRPs. I am not saying PS effects are always bad, and I do love, on this site, many of the manipulated works posted by Dominic Rousse orby Pavel Kaplan, or by NathalieShau, etc. But as carl said, the reason why I posted an exemple was to show, that the originality of some PS which, imo, were much less interesting, still could reach weird heights that no traditional portrait would ever reach. That is UNFAIR to traditional photographs imho.

 

Then something else might be unfair to PS works as well sometimes. For example, I noticed that some people would simply rate a 2 any manipulated image. It shouldn't be the case. People who can rate a PSed image a 2 should be able to show at least one PSed image that they'd rate a 7; or else it's the entire genre that being judged - not the picture itself.

 

As for the 2/2 "abuses" you are refering to... Well, I do commit such "abuses" myself, and I do it gladly, because I am convinced itis NOT abuse or any sort of segregation - unless you call abuse when people segregate the good and the bad while critiquing. Many times, I have rated very weak PS images a 1 or a 2, but there are many manipulated images that I rated 7/7 as well.

 

So let's not call the skies for help too fast here. Photoshop is fine. Photography is very fine too ! Both need not to be competing against each other, and as I said, the best way to put an end to segregation is to live side by side, rather than competing under a necessarily unfair rule against each other.

 

I believe we must learn how to appreciate different things differently, that's all.

Matt,

Sometimes I even argue with myself over which is best...<div></div>

Or...<div></div>

For me the impetus for manipulating an image is the story. I will stare at the image to see if the original shot is clear in its ability to tell the story I wish it to tell. If not I will Manipulate color and light and perspective to bring you to "my place".

 

Hmm, I Think I'm babbling....

Sorry,

Jay

Don't confuse open-minded with a sieve.

Conni

I think it is a stretch to think that if you change the forms and shapes in the captured photo using PS, the result is a "photograph". It is a mix of photography and computerized drawing. Photography means drawing with light, not with a mouse or by hand. Hence, you can not call it a photograph any more than you can call a pure photograph a drawing.

Look up the definition of photography in any reference and you'll see that it doesn't include drawing and general mucking about of the pixels in photoshop. Photography is "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light "

Someone here complained about the pro photographer with his expensive equipment. Speaking only as a semi-pro, I'll note that some of my best pictures were taken on my $160 1952 Rolleicord and the film developed at home in my $50 developing setup. The image quality that results is better than anything but the over $20,000 digital cameras.

 

The problem is, with the limitations you get displaying images 650x650 on a computer screen, most (but not all) of the difference can't be seen. I suspect that if you printed just about any digital image on this site 20x24 inches and compared it to a similar print on my old, cheap camera, you would be shocked by the difference. And yes, my camera produces images that print just fine 20x24 or even larger.