A begrudging nod to new technology

[albert_smith]

This might be of interest to some here. It is the story of how the

daughter of a photographer that had shot many photos of JFK in the

1960s used digital technology to �recover� those photos via digital

scanning and Photoshop after the original negatives were lost in the

WTC on 9/11.<P>

 

This is not a digital versus traditional thing, but Just a nod to new

technology that can rescue what use to be unsalvageable work.<P>

 

From the NY Times, which requires registration:<a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/technology/15book.html?

ex=1074747600"> Link</a>

[christopher_junker]

Read the article. Raises the question as to who is now the photographer, Lowe(deceased)or the techies. Sort of like RCA digitally remastering Enrico Caruso's earliest recordings.

[Spearhead]

What's more important - that the photographs have been recovered or some stupid internet debate about who the photographer is? Get real, as the article points out, historical work has been recovered.

[michael s.]

I don't agree, Christopher. Certainly Mr. Lowe is no longer the printer (if ever he was), but in my view, he's unquestionably the photographer.

 

The dodging, burning, dust and scratch removal, and other restorative work done digitally from the contact sheets doesn't change that for me.

 

Incidentally, I've seen the book, but didn't know the story behind the publishing until this article was pointed out. Thanks, Albert.

[gerald_widen]

Lucky that the images were taken with a 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 medium format camera. The same process from 35mm contact sheets probably would not be possible.

[m_.]

Photographers hardly ever were the ones to make prints, that's the fact. It doesn't make a good photographer any less if the prints are done by someone else.

[jay_.]

O/T but some of this high-tech stuff is a little over the top. My wife and I were at a performance by Natalie Cole a while ago, and at one point they lowered a rear-projection screen and she sang a perfectly-synced duet on "Unforgettable"...with her father Nat, who died I think in 1966. It was meant to be touching I'm sure, but more than a few people found it maudlin and some even thought it was a shameless effort to give her career a leg up by cashing-in on her father's fame (though as a parent I'm sure he wouldn't feel that way at all).

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/

Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2004-01-16%2001.41.01%20-0800/Image-

BEE51ACA480711D8.jpg"><br>

<i>Banana - Sony U60</i><br>

</center><br>

 

I'd love to see what was done, but I get very irritated when people send a link to

something that requires yet another sign up authorization and distribution of my

personal information.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[michael_matsil]

Christopher....please tell me you really don't think such an issue was raised

by this article. Your analogy compounds my disbelief: Is RCA now one of the

great tenors in operatic history? Yes, the techies have contributed to the

perpetuation of the work, and we're happy for it, but they simply cannot take

authorship as you state. Yes....to ask, "who is the photographer, x or y" IS

questioning authorship. I'm sorry to say that the internet, as one of its

negatives, has trained a new generation to not respect creative rights or even

recognize their origin.

[dennis_couvillion]

I find that using a Leica film camera and intentionally keeping things low-tech, one does not encounter these deep philosophical questions. <sigh>

[neil_baylis]

Oh, it's Auteur theory all over again. Who is the "author" of a movie, where the

creative contribution of so many people is involved?

 

It's perfectly possible and common for there to be multiple authors of a work. This

applies to media other than movies as well. In the current case, a purist might want to

say that it is now a different work, with more authors than before. Why would that be

a problem?

[jim_a]

NYTs login and PW for our use: openphoto

 

cheers,

jim

[christopher_junker]

No question that Lowe is the photographer and the technical effort to reconstruct a valuable JFK presidency photo archive is important. I have no issue with the NYT story as to who is the photographer. To me movie production is not a valid analogy as it is recognized in the main as being a collobrative effort. Not so with a photographer's work as he or she may have a distinctive look that digital or darkroom manipulation by others may unfairly distort absent oversite by the photographer. I hope Lowe's daughter was able to have a say in how her father's work was presented in the book.

 

My understanding is that the RCA digitalization of Caruso attempts to present his voice clean from background interference, not enhanced, just so you get a clear idea of how great he was. I've heard original RCA record recordings of Caruso and IMHO due to RCA restaint, their digital work fairly presents the earlier recordings.

[michael_matsil]

It's no problem at all, Neil. I agree with your outlook entirely. That's why I

object to Christopher's narrow statement: "....raises the question as to who IS

NOW the photographer, Lowe....OR the techies." I'm only given one choice

here: Is Lowe the photograher or are the scanning and photoshop artists 40

years later the photographers? Either/Or. Its not inclusive, as you are saying.

I wish Christopher could have used similar language to your's and it would

have been seen differently by me. Anyone else?

[michael_matsil]

Hi Christopher....you snuck that post in before my response to Neil;-) Your

second set of thoughts here, IMHO, are a lot more inclusive than your first

remark and reflect Neil's attitude about authorship. I think we're all in

harmony on this now....ohmmmm!

[melvin_bressler]

I hadn't thought about it before, but Wentong is right when he says "Photographers hardly ever were the ones to make prints" Years ago I worked for two Agencies, Modern Age, and then Graphic House. I don't think either exists today. My job was to devleop the roll film, 120 and 35 mm, and make contact prints. Then, the contacts would come back, with crop markings, and instructions, such as "blow up, long side = 3.5 inches, kill background." Those pictures were usually of celebrities and appeared in magazimes, similar to "People" today, but the photographer got the line credit, not me.

IMO,the 'photographer' is the one who creates the image, and directs its presentation, not the technician who follows the photographer's instructions.

[will_perlis]

"... movie production is not a valid analogy as it is recognized in the main as being a collobrative effort."

 

Unless you're a media twinkie (or director), in which case it's obvious the director is the fount where all goodness on the screen arises. William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screen Trade" and his later book on the same subject are instructive. ;)

[Alex_Es]

I've seen the book and there is nothing to begrudge. Modern digital

technology did for the JFK photographs in a big way what it is doing

more modestly for us here on this Forum. Think of it, when another

technological breakthrough occurred, the M6, something like this

Forum was beyond most imaginations.

 

I've seen the JFK book. The results, considering the circumstances,

are amazing. But had the negatives survived the prints would have

been better. It is a pity that this book was not brought out years

ago. I wonder why it wasn't.

 

An exciting aspect of this book is the unfinished, in-progress

feeling it gives. The photographer circled the photos he liked best

and this is left in. While there is a lot of enhancement the book

still leaves the impression that what we are seeing are not finished

photographs but notes. There is an energy in this that is unique to

so-called coffee table books.