Photoshop Navel gazing

[mark_wilson4]

I am pondering a deep-seated prejudice, and these discussions

are quite informative.

 

I was a graphic artist and digital cartographer. We processed

images, often in very complex and technical ways. (This was

on 486 PCs ...so long ago that we called a "pic" a "raster".)

 

In that world, you manipulate. In my new hobby, I capture a

moment. If I want to correct perspective, I use a different

lens, or I deploy my Graphic View with movements. If I want to

manipulate contrast, I read 1950s books on processing

negatives. My post-processing is generally limited to cropping.

Sometimes I stick a filter on the front of the camera.

 

My co-workers photograph their dog unimaginatively over

and over using a new $1000 camera. (The co-worker uses the

camera. Not the dog. Whatever) They then explain to me how

they can "improve" my photography using Photoshop.

 

I rebel against this. A photograph is a contrived enough thing

as it is...I don't want to make it sterile with Photoshop. Maybe

if I were a pro doing a magazine spread, I would.

 

The people in this forum show great restraint and expertise; the

subtle use of image processing enriches the content. However, I

will place myself on the conservative fringe. I want the magic to

happen in 1/100 of a second "in situ". If 10% of my images succeed

rather than 20%, I take the knock.

 

In 20 years, my scans will be in a box on a CD, along with some

Vinyl LPs and a couple of Grand Funk 8-Tracks. But I hope still

to be shuffling through my unaltered B&W prints.

 

 

Just a thought.

 

M.

[charles_stobbs3]

I agree 110%. To me, photography is what can be done with a camera and as a long time Kodachrome user I like to click, mail, and enjoy. And if I didn't do it right the first time maybe I learned something. But to each his own.

[matt_needham]

I love using vintage/classic gear and film too, but I think it's important to remember that there was a time when the introduction of film itself was accused of ruining, or at least cheapening, the art that "real" photographers produced. :)

 

Here's a couple of quotes I like from www.photoquotes.com

 

"Somebody Let the rabble in." -Lewis Carroll, Upon the introduction of negatives and subsequent demise of colliodian plates.

 

"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

 

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

[gib]

I suppose everyone has a view on this question and that they may have a moving opinion depending on their goals in photography. What came to mind when I read your question was from a long time ago I saw a photo in a photography book showing the dodge and burn notes on a bw work print which showed multiple points of manipulation. The print looked like a topographical map with contour lines. This was for use in a wet darkroom so that the photographer could make multiple final print copies. I can't remember whether this was a case where the photographer also printed his own work or whether he worked with a darkroom specialist who did the prints for him.

 

Different situations and needs are likely going to move work choices around the spectrum of artistic and technical choices. It is probably a mix of using available tools to create a satisfying final image and enjoying the process of doing the work with the tools that help us capture the image. But that is certainly not a new idea.

 

I am just beginning a project this week to work with a local artist who is about to celebrate his 80th birthday. He carves wooden masks. he studied for almost 20 years with Haida carvers. We may end up using both digital photographic capture and film SLR capture, but also I am toying with the idea of using a vintage camera like my Rolleicord V. And why not? Since the Rolleicord V is perfect portrait camera and these are faces that this artist wants photographed. He was talking about his experiences learning and that his best teachers were the ones that embodied patience, were not too quick to reject "mistakes". Who seemed to me to be willing to explore possibilities through long, careful effort that is more quiet play than work.

[david_kusner]

My visual experience of the world isn't 2-dimensional monochrome, so your concept of purity seems rather affected and manipulated (he says disingenuously).

 

"A photograph is a contrived enough thing as it is..."

 

Well, my point exactly. In fact it is completely contrived. I don't understand why the moment of pressing the shutter button is the point at which we're supposed to pretend that no more decisions can be made, when all we have at that point is exposed film grain or voltage readouts. There's still an image to create.

 

"unaltered B&W prints"

 

Unaltered from what? The act of making the print is an alteration. You could never make it exactly the same way twice.

[CosteaM]

Mark,

I'm with you on this. I know it is hard and not wise to draw lines and borders when you refer to art but this is how people are. I think we are just posessive of something we love dearly. I'm not against the use of PS to enhance a picture but I have a problem calling the result a photograph.

[vivek iyer]

"But I hope still to be shuffling through my unaltered B&W prints."

 

I don't know what kind of photography you think you are doing?!

 

B&W prints (the good ones) are the most manipulated of all photography.

If you do not know how to dodge and burn, you do not know anything about printing. Photography is all about technique. Is your enlarger aligned properly? Is it stable while you print? Have you push processed your negatives? Have you made any addiotional toning?

[don_mckeith]

The early years of photography saw rapid (for those times) changes,from paper negs to wet plate,dry plate,film,roll film.

 

I would imagine digital will go through the same(even more rapid) changes.The $1000 digital camera you buy today,is likely to be tomorrows Com64. Weather using digital or film,I think it's good advice to make a hard copy(print) of anything you want to save.

 

 

OT side note on tech and dogs-

 

 

The tech centers of the West(ie Seattle) are having a difficult time keeping their schools open- licensed dogs outnumber scool age children.- don't be too hard on the co-workers-dogs have a new role to play.If they were baby pictures,you'd take them in stride-

 

 

they are.

[connealy]

It doesn't seem a very useful perspective to me. There's nothing wrong with exercising some skill and rigor in composing at the time of making an exposure. However, you still have to get something on paper and there are a lot of manipulative decisions to make whether you use an enlarger or a scanner and Photoshop. HCB, the ultimate decisive moment guy, is said to have produced rather awful negatives that took a lot of work to salvage by his skilled darkroom assistants. And, how about someone like Jerry Uelsman who developed great skill at combining images using traditional tools?<br>     Once in a great while I take a negative to a custom printer, but I am always unhappy with the results. The print may be technically perfect in terms of tonal range, but it never has the look that I want and can achieve with my scanner and digital printer. If it makes you happy to do things your way and you get results you like, who can dispute the validity of your approach? But, it just doesn't seem a useful criteria to me for judging or achieving excellence on a broad scale.

[grahams]

As far as I am concerned, there are many disiplines of "Photography" just as there are many disiplines of "Art" or "Painting". A photograph is an image produced with a camera. A "Picture" is an image where a camera (if used at all) is only part of the process. Which you prefer to produce, is your personal choice, but there is artistry in both.

[silent1]

My e-mail signature file:<p>

 

<i>"The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions."</i> -- Ansel Adams<p>

 

I don't have a problem with digital photography or image manipulation. I just like using (preferably old) mechanical devices, and cameras pack a lot of mechanics into a very small space. Many classic cameras have the added advantage of being relatively affordable, compared to new equipment. Just before moving from Seattle to North Carolina last year, my wife bought a new digital camera, 5 megapixel with optical and digital zoom, and 128 MB memory card (we couldn't find her 35 mm P&S). She shot a dozen or more images on the trip over, and 4-5 since then. I've shot more with it since we landed than she has since she bought it, and folks on this forum have seen most of what I've shot, images of my classics.<p>

 

I don't use it for recreational or serious photography, though -- it doesn't give me control of focus, the tiny lens and sensor give excessive DOF for many subjects, and 5 megapixel doesn't begin to compete with what I get by scanning even 35 mm, much less 120 or 9x12 cm. If I need a digital image to be good, I'll shoot it on film first -- and if I'm going to shoot film, I'll use a classic, because I like 'em, they do the job well, and I can't afford new equipment.<p>

 

All that said, I also have a 4x5 enlarger behind me, waiting for me to get the bathroom darkened and the rest of the stuff I need to make enlargements...

[neil_parker]

It is the intent of the photograph/photographer that is important, not the tools used to

achieve the end result. I spent a lot of years as a custom printer, and we used some

amazing methods to manipulate prints, long before photoshop. I.e. dodging, burning,

cropping, toning, contrast masking, bleaching, split-toning, hand applying dyes to bring

out colors, etc. etc.

 

If manipulation is used to enhance or emphasize, that is good IMO, part of the craft of

photography. If it is used to create a lie, then that is a different story.

[mskovacs]

I use a digital printing workflow from film out of necessity. I would kill to have space for a B&W printing darkroom.

 

<p>I'm middle of the road on this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that digital scans of film need to have their colour, contrast and unsharp masking adjusted, to even begin to match the fidelity of a colour slide proof. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know any better IMO. I posted a perspective corrected photo today in another thread. I didn't own a view camera, I didn't have one with me, but I "saw" an image, and had no bones about using some perspective correction in Photoshop to produce my vision.

 

<p>Pretty much the same for B&W. What is the difference between adjusting contrast in photoshop vs printing on different grades of paper? Not every negative is perfect, nor needs to be perfect to extract a top quality print. There are limits though; the old "sow's ear" addage fits well. The fact is that a scanner does not capture a negative in the same way as an enlarger. Its the nature of the medium.

 

<p>I have done only a little bit of "photo art" where things are manipulated heavily and make no attempt to hide this. Its really not for me, though it was fun for some photo art forums I posted to. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2436205">This example</a> took an editors pick in its category, though the unmanipulated version is what hangs in my stairwell.

[wigwam jones]

Anything you did not witness personally is an interpretation.

 

In the strictest sense, there is no 'straight photography'. Nothing is 'real' except what exists, at the moment it exists, and everything that touches or observes it, changes it. Any after-the-fact interpretation or recording cannot be 'real' - it is not the actual experience, but a more-or-less accurate representation of it.

 

The question is not 'should we stick with straight photography' but rather 'to what degree do we feel comfortable deviating from what was visible at the moment the photo was taken'?

 

This is core around which the ancient question about photography being an art form has always revolved. If the photographer is presenting their point of view by manipulating reality, to whatever small extent - intentionally - then it may (IMHO) properly be called 'art'. It is 'art' even if it is photojournalism - and it is still an interpretation, however slight and however much the photographer attempts to be objective and present the image 'as it was' at the time.

 

But nothing is as it was - indeed, it cannot be so. The human eye sees so much more in terms of light and color; and discriminates so much more with the aid of the other senses and the mind - the photographer must rely on his or her ancient arts to interpret what is important about the photograph and press this forward so that the human mind will (hopefully) accept the photograph in lieu of actually having been there themselves, and feel, grasp, or understand what the photographer did at the moment the photograph was taken.

 

And what is ANY ART, except the deliberate attempt to persuade someone else to accept the artist's 'vision'? Art succeeds if you, the audience, are able even for a moment to step into the artists perception of what the image represents and grok it to whatever level you are willing or able. Art fails when you cannot connect or when you draw a conclusion other than what the artist intended.

 

Traditionally, this persuading is done with the use of the camera - aperture, focal length, shutter speed, framing, selective focus, flash, and so on. Later on, it is done again in the darkroom, with the aid of the enlarger and dodging/burning, paper contrast, toning, and more. Is this *honest?* Is this *real?*

 

NO - It cannot be. But it *is* honest and real in the sense that that the photographer's senses and perceptions are real and honest to him or her - and they are trying to convey that to the viewer of the ultimate photograph or print.

 

And now, times are changing and new tools are emerging. And like the tools traditionally used, these are first used clumsily and taken to extremes. Like traditional tools when they were new - people object to them and harrumph and decry the loss of elder times passing away (I am not suggesting you are one of these - indeed your post seems most gentle).

 

What *is* different, I believe, is that this is a new generation of technology that is readily affordable and accessible to the middle classes nearly from the beginning. There is little that only the professional or well-heeled can afford in the way of imaging software, although digital hardware remains expensive for the very best of it. This allows the hoi-polloi to get their grimy mitts on the new tools and make a mess of things in a much shorter period of time than was known previously - perhaps this makes the hue and cry of the illuminati that much more shrill to my ears.

 

There was a time when every technological advance in photography was greeted with enthusiasm, joy, and a great deal of awful experimentation. Each new invention promised to make photography easier, better, cheaper, and more accessible to the masses (which was seen as a good thing, believe it or not).

 

What happened? Photography matured, several generations of photographers lived and died, and slowly we began to resist change.

 

Modify Tri-X? Sacrilege! Get the pitchforks, boys, we're storming the castle!

 

Some changes were resisted at first, but then more readily accepted. Auto-exposure, auto-focus, auto-winders...and most recently, digital. You'll note that some people still resist the use of these devices, while others rush to embrace them (or they are already old sombrero to them and the argument ended decades ago). Your author is one who still clings tenaciously to manual-focus, manual-exposure, auto-nothing pre and post-WWII era cameras, lenses, and B&W film. I don't even trust coated lenses - I suspect a commie trick.

 

I use The Gimp (Linux's free attempt at Photoshop) and I like it. I am no expert, but I try to do a few things with it, and it is helpful in many ways.

 

I should *always* attempt to expose my negatives properly - but Gimpy helps me when I don't. Funny, just like Farmer's Reducer or long exposure times in the enarger, or dodging/burning, etc.

 

I should use film that balances colors well - but Das Gimpster helps me fix that, too. Funny, just like filters and enlarging head color mixers and so on.

 

Long and short - the new tools are just tools. Better in some ways, easier in some ways. And just as prone to abuse, misuse, and general uglification by ignoramuses (and I are one, and a cheerful one at that).

 

We can choose not to use the tool - hey, I don't use auto-focus. We can choose to embrace the tool - I scan all my negs after I soup 'em.

 

But they ain't going away - and some of the elder ways are. Oh, nobody is shoveling dirt on their faces just yet - but the plot has been reserved, and the headstone ordered.

 

I've got older relatives who refuse to use a computer. They have no email address, they decry the internet as an evil that infests our society (well, they may have a point there, LOL), and they have no intention of learning. I have other older relatives who have made themselves at home - take the time to learn - and enjoy the advantages it brings immensely.

 

Which one do you suppose *I* want to be some fine day?

 

And to sum it all up with an even scarier thought - the pace of technological advances is increasing - the future is coming at us faster and faster. If you don't like Photoshop...

 

"B-b-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet." - Bachman Turner Overdrive. Which is what's on MY 8-Track Tapes, Mark. But I turned them into MP3's and now I listen to them on a CD-ROM in my car. BTO had it all over GFR (grin).

 

Smooches,

 

Wigwam Jones

Fine Dreams Sold Here, Inc.<div></div>

[brian_southward]

<P>I don't know that this forum is the most appropriate for this question, but at least you'll get a better-tempered set of replies than in other parts of photo.net.</P><P>Your point is interesting, but for most of us it isn't either one or the other. I shoot color slide film for slide competitions, and the basis there is that the image straight out of the camera is what you present. Post-exposure manipulation is out of the question.</P><P>Then I also make prints, for exhibition or competition. The end product is the print on paper, and it can be a long way from the raw neg, slide or jpeg to the print.</P><P>These are different photographic disciplines, both have their attractions, and I see nothing wrong in either. Don't limit yourself.</P>

[paulh]

I think it depends on each person. Some prefer to get it right in the camera, some have a vision in their head and use the camera and then processing to achieve the desired look, some just shoot and hope.

 

I prefer to get things right in the camera if possible. When I crop a picture, it is usually because that is how I pictured it when I took the shot, but for whatever reason (format, location restriction etc.) I couldn't do it when I took the shot.

 

With my classic camera shots, I like to restrict myself to the basics of cropping, sharpening, levels and contrast. Occasssionally I'll play around with an image further, but that is the exception.

 

I even have some sympathy for the shoot and hope approach. It is certainly useful for motorsports, and this is one place a DSLR is useful - fire off a few as the car/bike approaches the corner, then delete the missed shots. Beats burning through rolls and rolls of film.

 

Whatever approach you take is fine in the end, as long as you're honest with yourself.

 

Paul

[jonathan_stark]

Mark, if you're not already familiar with the Analog Photography User Group (<a href="http://www.apug.org">APUG</a>), you might enjoy meeting some folks with sympathetic / complementary points of view.

[mark_wilson4]

Heck, all the stuff written above is so good it should be turned into a series of essays. In my opinion, Matt Needham made the most striking points in one of the shortest contributions.

 

Anyway, I can add no insight of adequate quality at the margin, and thus resort to trivialities:

 

1.) I saw BTO in Saint John, N.B. so many years ago that they were warmed up by the unknown "Bob Seeger and the Silver Bullet Band". Both bands kicked heavy-duty butt.

 

2.) It is humbling how the proud owner of the family hound gazes at his picture, rotated 90 degrees and with doggie facial features wiped

out by flash, and still finds it far more valuable than any of my carefully composed photos of old houses made with the finest of 1950s German optics.

 

3.) When I last rambled on about this subject to some work colleagues, one guy said, "What are you doing when you put a filter on the camera?" It's hard to show how this different from applying a correction through software. It was at that point that I realised I was being reactionary for the sake of it.

 

My hat is off to the forum.

 

M.

[todd_evans]

I'd like to bring a different perspective to this discussion.

 

I read so often on photo.net things like "it's about the image, not the tools" and "a camera is just a light-tight box." Not to mention "digital is here to stay and film is dead - get used to it."

 

Here's my situation. I like the TOOLS. I like cameras and film. That's my passion. Sure I try to get the best images I can, but for me it's all about the cameras and film. That's my hobby. I cringe when I hear people say things like "digital cameras are great - you never have to buy film." Don't HAVE to buy film? That's the FUN PART! How different films have different characteristics is the part I like best. I even collect old film boxes.

 

The experience of setting f/5.6 on my Olympus C-5060 digital camera is NOTHING like the experience I have with turning the dials and knobs of my film cameras - even the autofocus ones. I use my digital camera to take pictures of film cameras so I can sell them on eBay to finance the purchase of more film cameras. The "shutter" on a digital camera doesn't even really make a noise. It's a fake noise based on - guess what - the sound of a film camera!

 

When I print B&W in the darkroom, I never dodge and burn. I know how because I used to work in a custom lab, but it's just not important to me. I want to know how the film worked and how the camera and lens worked. I want the print to turn out nice, but I like to see how it turns out without the manipulation. Some would say that by not dodging and burning that I am turning out inferior work, and my answer to that would be "I don't care."

 

I do this hobby for myself and my own satisfaction. If an image turns out really nice and others enjoy it then that's just gravy. I'm finished apologizing for enjoying the mechanics of photography more than the art.

[hil3]

Our eyeballs and our brains do a pretty good job of manipulating all those photons, even before we apply our biases, preferences, and emotions, let alone our tools.

 

If it works for you to call some things manipulations and others not, go ahead. If you need to accumulate a particular set of rules or limits to regard yourself as honest to yourself, there are a of lot of them out there to choose from, and even more you can create on your own. Define your own creative process. You will even find some people that will agree with you on some things, myself included.

[mark_wilson4]

Oh Golly...I'd had my valium and now Todd Evans has hit

on another of my fun things. I'll bet it strikes a chord on

this particular forum.

 

The process is half the fun. I sit and carefully select

from 50 old beaters before I accompany my wife to the

mall...what WILL I use today?

 

I remember photographing a street performer with a

6x9 cut film Agfa. The sound of the Compur was delicious.

I think one of the accoutrements is called a "dark

slide". I'd pull this out with a flourish and

replace it with deliberate motions. Hell, I barely

cared if the photo was a crackerjack.

 

On her website junkstorecameras.com, Marcy Merrill says:

 

"It's not the photographer. It's the camera."

 

Of course, many of the things on her website are tongue

in cheek, but I know what she means.

 

I have "cheat cameras"...Canon FTb, original Canonet,

Mamiya TL500...almost everything turns to magic from those

cameras...but I rarely pick them for an outing. Enough

raving. I wanna post some snaps.

 

M.

[kin_lau]

Just a thought... the only "unaltered B&W prints" that I can think of, is either to shot paper negatives, or polaroids. Everything else is altered, whether it's using graded paper, filters with RC paper, even just choosing a different developer can make a great difference.

 

I've been reading thru Ansel Adam's "The Print", and "The Negative", and I'm amazed to see all the different manipulation tools and techniques that have been used for decades before Photoshop (and it's not just changing contrast). So it's helpful to know that photography and manipulation have gone hand in hand for a long time, just that Photoshop opens it up to the masses. Traditional darkroom printing is quite an art in itself.

 

But I do understand what you're getting at. Just enjoy what you're doing. If you end up with more interest in darkroom work, either digital or traditional wet/chemical, then it'll just be a new horizon to explore at that time. We can all enjoy photography in our own way.

[jeff bishop]

This is going to be a hot topic, in fact is already! My two cents...

 

If I were a purist (as they say), I think I would use a pin-hole camera and expose paper rather than film. I would contact print from that for a positive. Even then, how long does one leave that light on???

 

Art is creation. We create the final image, whether in the darkroom or sitting at the computer.

 

Honestly, I have great respect for someone creating "un-manipulated" photographs (if there is such a thing). I don't have the time for that, and somethings are near impossible to capture without some type of editing.

 

Case in point, the only photograph I've ever sold was a waterfall. It was the sum of 6 different exposures to capture everything from the water blur to detail under the outcropping rocks. In my opinion, it's as close to what I was seeing. End result, total manipulation resulting in accurate results.

 

We also manipulate by how we photograph, the perspective we choose, as well as the film, filters, and lenses employed.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "purist." Everything gets altered somewhere along the line.

 

For those who choose the 'purist' approach, rock on. I'm lacking in either patience or skill for that road.

[wigwam jones]

<blockquote><i>

Honestly, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "purist." Everything gets altered somewhere along the line.

 

For those who choose the 'purist' approach, rock on. I'm lacking in either patience or skill for that road.

</blockquote></i>

<p>Sure, there's a purist approach. See, what you do is, you pick the level of technology you feel most comfortable with. Probably what you were taught and cut your teeth on. You proclaim *that* to be *real* photography, and everything else to be dreck, dishonest, cheating, or just (sniff) not 'real' photography.</p>

<p>It stops being about the photos you make, and starts being about the authenticity of your 19th-century albumin coatings, or how much Metol p-Methyl Aminophenol Sulfate with how much Hydroquinone to make 'real' D76, or if you should say "Depth of Field" or "Depth of Focus" and if the 'Circle of Confusion' really means anything or if Irwin Puts is a God, a Devil, or an idiot.</p>

<p>Now, when we're talking about collecting and camera fetishism over photography, then I take a back seat to no man (a cheaper seat, perhaps) - and yes, I'll take photos that make no sense and serve no purpose other than to make this old camera fondler happy. But then, I don't claim what I do when I fondle my old glass-n-steel is photography, either; it's just fun.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Wiggy</p>

[davidv1]

PhotoShop isn't evil, but putting a polar bear on a sand dune sure is. We're seeing more radical manipulation now because the tools are more accessible than they had been. The question is: Does this look real? Does it seem authentic? Margaret Bourke-White did a very realistic composite of a plane flying over New York for an airplane company advertisement. Was this a bad thing? I'm sure she didn't think so, since she got paid to create the image. She wasn't pretending that it was journalism. It was a darkroom technique used to solve a logistical problem. Is it still a photo?

 

There's no escaping the fact that a photo is not reality. A picture of a dog is not a dog, and won't fetch the paper or lick your hand. That's a conceit we've all accepted. To my mind, photo manipulation is acceptable to the extent that it doesn't cross over into lying. Remember Forrest Gump? You, too, can appear in an image with President Kennedy, if you've got the time and PhotoShop skills. I'll accept an image as a photo if it represents a scene with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Beyond that, well, it's just not a photo. It might still be art, but please don't call it a photo.