till_kuehner Posted September 28, 1998 Share Posted September 28, 1998 What is so natural about a photo? You change the depth of field bychanging the aperture of your lense. This has nothing to do with theway you would see with your bare eye. Take a picture of a humming birdat 1/1000s. The resulting photo is quite different from what you sawthrough your viewfinder. Similar arguments hold for very long or shortlenses. Not to mention the use of filters. Or flash.You want to take a photo and some blades of grass are in the way -what's the difference between bending them away and removing themdigitally on the finished photo?A photo is never just what you saw. I cannot see the differencebetween changing certain things by using different lenses or filters,and changing similar things by using a computer. For wildlife photos it depends on how they are used. If the photo isfake (digitally altered) and someone puts it on his wall because helikes it, there is no problem. But if some magazine takes digitallyaltered photos of animals in context with an article that does notmention that the pictures are faked, it is a problem. But there havebeen many such examples that were done without digital imaging. Takingphotos of trained animals without labeling the photo such is oneexample. <p> A photo has a an art component, where the photographer takes a photo(or modifies it later) in a special way to create a certain impressionon the viewer. For some types of photography this is what it is all about, but fornature photography the documentary aspect is most important. If thedocumentary content is altered, it might be a better photo from anarts perspective, but it completely lost its value as a nature photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
till_kuehner Posted September 28, 1998 Share Posted September 28, 1998 P.S. I am not using a computer to alter my photos, but if I was, I wouldn't be very happy about being called a geek or four-eyed computer freak. <p> If you just suffer from computer-phobia, don't blame it on others. It actually is YOUR problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_creech1 Posted September 28, 1998 Share Posted September 28, 1998 Accusing someone of being afraid of the computer really isn't much different than calling them a four eyed computer geek now is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drc Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 Rich, the majority of hunting magazines for years have been stocked with photos of huge monster rentabucks, and believe me, the editors are sick of em, they want quality photos of wild (freeranging) deer, period. Some editors will only buy deer pictures from my files as a last resort because they feel the location i photograph them in is'nt "wild enough", yet the deer are free to leave their sanctuary(and move through hunting areas) any time they want. The point is, if these buyers are picky about the degree of wildness of their photo subjects, then they're never going to look at digital composites to grace the covers etc of their publications. And once the general public become educated or streetwise(and it might take a while), they,ll demand the good stuff, WILD SILVERHALIDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_repp Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 I've been taking photos of nature since I got a Nikkormat for graduation in 1967. I've always shot slides because I seeing the slide show years after the photos were taken. I have some great memories from over the years , all the better because I can view my slides. There are some great photos amongest the bunches but I've never tried to make any money from them. I do wish I had realized the potential from my earliest days as I visited most all of the so called hot spots of the great West. I really wish the interest in photography had'nt grown so over the years caus it really getting crowded out there. I think this digital thing is just one more result of the money to be made by getting everyone interested in as many different angles as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_dickson1 Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 I started a thread in a similar vein a while ago. Search "wistful" in this forum and you'll find it. The only reason I'm chiming in again is because I was recently fooled by the cover of "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature," by Mr. Fitzharris. I thought the cover was a photograph of a wonderful situation found in nature. I learned later (in a Popular Photography article) that it is a digital composite. I've never seen the book, so I don't know if it's revealed that the cover is not a photograph, but I've seen the image in several places and was mislead by my own naivete. All I can do is sigh because counterfeits dilute the value of the genuine article. I can no longer admire wonderful nature images and wish I was there, because there may very well be no such THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley_mcmanus Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 In the long run it is the Painters who need to fear digital imaging the most. A creation of a pure or nearly pure digital image using digital drawing tools is much nearer to what a painter does that what a photographer does. But will a digital drawing really replace a painting that has that wonderful 3D texture that is produced by paint? I doubt it. So I guess that not even the painters need to fear digital after all. Unless they pretend that digital drawins are the same as a real painting. That makes as much sense as pretending that a digital image is the same as a photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley_mcmanus Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 One more thought. If the upcoming "glorious digital revolution" (quoated from our beloved Mr. Greenspun) reduces the need for these folks to be out taking pictures, then that will mean a much less crowded environment for the rest of us. GREAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robd Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 What I don't understand is why many people seem to think that digital imaging and traditional photography can't both exist. I enjoy doing both. They are 2 separate things. Why do you "fear digital imaging" (to borrow Stanley's phase) and believe anyone who scans pictures into a computer and manipulates them is in some way bad or phony? I have said here before that trying to pass of a digital composite as a "I was there, this is how it was" photograph is wrong. But to generalize all of us who do digital work as dishonest and trying to kill photography is also wrong. <p> Take the tools and use them to your advantage. Take them to whatever level you see appropriate. (Foundview recognizes digital color correction etc. And let those who want to take it further do so. Like Bob said in his original post "There's no way you'll ever take images like these". So why not create them some other way. Digital is here. <p> God Bless <p> Let's all get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_fletcher Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 Those of us who are disgusted by digital data manipulation in the nature photography field are not merely computer phobes. There is a corruption going on here as this new technology gets itself sorted out. As many have said, it will get sorted out, but in the meantime there will be problems. A case can be made that digital manipulation and imaging are really a kind of painting/drawing. That by itself is harmless, but the problem lies in the fact that, perhaps for the first time, we have a medium that specifically mimicks other media, actually passes itself of as them, and this confuses me. <p> Some people enjoy taking photographic prints and coloring them with ink by hand. I feel that pursuit is dull and useless myself, but at least the results of such work are clearly identifiable for what they are. Similarly, when I produce a document on a word processor, it will never be confused with a hand-written note (which is becoming highly prized these days as a rare indication of personal committment). Now, we all know that digital imaging or alteration produces a fundamentally different end product than photography (which despite the protests of someone above, does not significantly alter the data being recorded no matter what lenses you use, only the method of recording is altered -- we're not necessarily trying to reproduce the scene our eye saw, rather we want to show the reality of nature). The problem is, digital stuff sometimes tries purposfully to fool us the way printing machines produce fake hand writing and signatures on ad copy we get in the mail, to make us think we got a letter signed personally by the company president. Same kind of fakery, in my view. <p> Eventually they'll be able to fake signatures so well they will appear genuine, but we'll know they aren't from context (why would the company president be sending me mail!??). But, with digital images, context can be harder to establish, so spotting fakes is a real worry. Bottom line -- don't be fooled into thinking digital imaging and photography are related. They are not, but for various irritating reasons, one of them pretends to be the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_hallett1 Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 As an additional thought, my greatest fear is that this digital mania may eventually lead to a photomarketing revolution in that we may only see digital products sold and advertised. No 35 film or 35mm products available except on the used market where collectors/purists will gobble these remaining items up. I am not saying that this will happen but think about if it did!! This country is very fickle and has the marketing strategy and technology to change the face of photography. Whatever becomes the most popular and in demand will dominate the market.The least so....discontinued, maybe forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremiah_boucher Posted September 29, 1998 Share Posted September 29, 1998 In reference to the cover of Fitzharris' book, on page 101 of the text he describes how he "scanned on a Polaroid desktop scanner and then combined to form a single image". Virtual wilderness images aside, I think the book is a useful look at close up photography and how to use various lenses/exentsions/teleconverters/flashes and even bellows. Especially for canon junkies. Anybody think that if you spent a day, or week, or month (maybe even from a blind) watching a lily covered, frog infested pond, you would happen across the photo op...only to miss it because the frog disappeared before you could compose and focus? Obviously this does not apply to all phony pictures, but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 29, 1998 Author Share Posted September 29, 1998 Yes you do. You draw it at faking an image, even if you admit toit (on page 101...). I'm certain that Tim Fitzharris has many, manyREAL images good enough to be book covers!<p><em>Note: this and the previous post are in reference to "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature", not to "Virtual Wilderness"</em> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_creech1 Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 For those of us to whom photography is a passion, an artistic outlet, and sometimes a way to make a little money too, digital imaging conjurs up a new sort of political correctness...if we are uninterested, unwilling, or don't wish to take the time away from what we really love to participate in the "digital revolution" we are Computer phobes. If we feel that labeling images that owe more to the computer than they do to the camera as photographs is dishonest, then we are dinosaurs, who refuse to get with it. If we point out that in camera and darkroom manipulations are vastly different than Photoshop manipulations/creations then we are argumentative. The basic truth here is that computer generated/enhanced/manipulated images are not photographs...they may have started as photographs (which is where some of the very convenient confusion is created) but once they go into the computer and emerge as something entirely different than when they went in, they are no longer a photograph. Photography consists simply of making images on light sensitive material....anyway that you can do that is a photograph....making images with electronic pulses is not, cannot be, and will never be photography. It isn't just nature photography either, we need to support our brothers and sisters in art photography and photojournalism, and any other area of photography, we are all under attack. Why do you think there is such a tremendous argument here? It is simply because the digital imagers wish to coopt photography...why pay dues and do the work to create your own acceptance, when someone else has already spent 150 years doing it for you. Digital imaging is no more photography than digital drawing is painting...If you do digital imaging, have the courage and faith in your craft to call it what it is....quit trading on the blood, sweat, and tears of another art form...One final word...would anybody respect the work of Robert Capa now if he had gone to Omaha Beach with a laptop rather than a Leica? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_francey Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 There is exactly one question: Is the image being offered asdocumentary evidence that some event took place? <p> If the answer is "yes", and the image was manufactured (by any means,be it analog or digital), then the photographer has done a Bad Thingand should be Punished. <p> If the answer is "no", then who the bloody heck gives a flyin'bleepity bleep how the image came to be? <p> It would appear that the book in question was upfront about the sourceof the images; Fitzharris would (and probably did) answer "no" to theabove question. <p> So here we have a photographer/illustrator being honest with his work-- perhaps even more honest than a typical analog photographer -- andyet photo.net regulars are popping gaskets. Reading some of thevitriol above ("dishonest" digital photographers, current digitalphotography a "corruption", etc), one could almost believe Fitzharrishad stamped a FoundView logo on his book or something... <p> This leaves me <b>really wondering</b>: what is the <i>real</i>problem here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 Tim certainly is a credible nature photographer. I think he must have more than 20 books, and more than 30 calendars to his credit. If you would like to see some of his work wiithout springing for a book, he has some contributions in the issue of Nature's Best that just arrived in my mail this week. Incidentally, this is another great issue. Hardly any advertisements. A lot of great photographs. <p> Frankly, I admire the fact that Tim is continuing to grow by pushing beyond what he has clearly already mastered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 30, 1998 Author Share Posted September 30, 1998 I don't think any criticism of Tim Fitzharris himself was implicit in myquestion. It's the use of digital composition images which is in question. For example, another participant in this thread pointed out that the cover of his macro book (which I assume contained real macro shots, not digital composits), was, in fact, a digital composition! Nowit seems this fact was revealed on page 101, but still you wonder whya real image wasn't chosen for such a book. It's the acceptance ofsuch images as valid for nature work that's the potential problem.Today you mention it on page 101. Maybe tomorrow you don't mention itat all. If you want an art book, maybe you don't care. If you want anature photography book, I hope you do. Otherwise you might as wellbuy a book of nature paintings. <p> With nature photography (as opposed to art), it's NOT the imageon the page that's the "product". It's the real (not realistic!) representation of naturethat gives it its value, not the way the ink drops are arranged onthe paper (which IS what art is about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloyd_nakatani Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 Comparing fishing to photography may tell us what the future holds. Pixography (my word for digitally created images starting from actual photographs) is comparable to commercial fishing. In both, the goal is the product. I think pixography will come to dominate "arty" nature photography with no journalistic content. Conventional nature photography is comparable to fishing as a hobby. In both, much of the satisfaction is gained from the process, although a good product is appreciated. Nature photographs will continue to sell for its journalistic content primarily; aesthetics will be important but secondary. Fantastic pictures of places that actually exist, and interesting pictures of wildlife engaged in revealing behavior will continue to sell, but the market for merely pretty pictures will be taken over by pixography. Both will continue to exist to for different reasons and selling into different markets. Most of the readers of this forum won't be attracted to pixography, just as most hobby fisherman aren't attracted to commercial fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted September 30, 1998 Author Share Posted September 30, 1998 The fishing analogy holds to a point, but I don't think "Field and Stream" (or whatever the angling magazines are called) is runningarticles on how to turn your kayak into a trawler, or how to adda power winch and drift nets to your rowboat. On the other hand,certain "photography" publications seem to love articles on howto digitally "improve" your nature images! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_johnson Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 I didn't read any criticism of Fitzharris into your question. I thought your question's purpose was just to raise awareness by citing a specific example. <p> Let's face it. The world is moving very quickly. It is natural, I suppose, for some groups to cling to old ways. It is natural for some groups to define their field in a narrow way that that would exclude new ideas, or new approaches. This is just human nature. Its a legitimate activity, and I'm not criticising it, but just observing it. <p> In my view, the act of observing the nature is very likely to modify the behavior that is being observed - and recorded on film. In the end, nature images have value for two reasons... First, they provide some documentation about how things were at some point in time, and in this application, post exposure manipulation would seem like a bad thing in the interest of documenting "truth," but maybe it would be ok if the post exposure manipulation were used to enhance the view or show a greater truth that was too elusive to capture on film. Second, they provide visual stimulation, which hopefully leads to emotion and thought on the part of the viewer. This is really the classical purpose for art, and in this context, there is no reason to dismiss post exposure manipulation. <p> The truth is, post exposure manipulation has been with us ever since folks first went into the darkroom, including multiple exposures, montage techniques, and other non-digital manipulations that lead to stunning results. Consider all the "set up" and contrived shots that pass acceptably among nature purists. Everyone isn't sitting in a blind by their 600 f/4 waiting for just the right moment. There are a lot of folks out there moving stuff, baiting stuff, catching stuff, drugging stuff, and what have you. <p> In any event, Fitzharris seems like a neat guy, and, as Bob points out in his question, Fitzharris certainly has nailed a few things when it comes to creation of beautiful images using natural subjects. <p> This is one of those pointless, endless arguments. No one will ever convince a single person from the other side to defect and join the "good guys," whoever they are. I suppose I really shouldn't even ad my two cents in light of the fact that I don't consider myself to be a nature photographer, even though I have shot natural subjects for over 30 years. <p> I thought the fishing analog was good. The magazines may not be telling you how to convert your small boat into a commercial fishing vessel, but there are plenty of articles and advertisements telling you how to use technology to enhance your catch. Its basically similar, even if not identical. The hobbiest brings different baggage to the activity than the guy who is trying to pursue the activity as a livelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_fletcher Posted September 30, 1998 Share Posted September 30, 1998 >>In my view, the act of observing the nature is very likely to modify the behavior that is being observed - and recorded on film. <p> There's no requirement that the animals in nature be uninfluenced by us. Everything is influenced by everything else. Remember the field of ecology? <p> >> In the end, nature images have value for two reasons... First, they provide some documentation about how things were at some point in time, and in this application, post exposure manipulation would seem like a bad thing in the interest of documenting "truth," but maybe it would be ok if the post exposure manipulation were used to enhance the view or show a greater truth that was too elusive to capture on film. <p> There's a word for this: Painting. Those of us on this forum are currently discussing photography, the capture of reflected visible EM photons (within the limits of our technology) that actually existed in the real world to form an image. <p> >>The truth is, post exposure manipulation has been with us ever since folks first went into the darkroom, including multiple exposures, montage techniques, and other non-digital manipulations that lead to stunning results. <p> But these things have, for the most part, been recognizable as such. That's one major difference. Another is, who said all photographers approve of heavy handed dark room manipulation? Airbrushing out details of an image is just as repugnant to me as altering it digitally. <p> >> There are a lot of folks out there moving stuff, baiting stuff, catching stuff, drugging stuff, and what have you. <p> But all this stuff is still photography. What you are describing here is merely the criteria for differentiating good nature photography from from poor. <p> >>This is one of those pointless, endless arguments. No one will ever convince a single person from the other side to defect and join the "good guys," whoever they are. <p> Probably true. But, we photographers don't want digital imagers to join us, we want them to go away and leave us alone. If I join a car racing club because I love to race cars, I don't expect a motorcycle racer to come to our meetings and berate us for being unwilling to "grow with our medium" and try bike racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich_furman Posted October 1, 1998 Share Posted October 1, 1998 As a four-eyed computer geek getting back in touch with my inner photographer, I find this all very interesting. The best point made is that these guys should stand up for their art, because it is not photography. Photography and Digital Imaging are not different enough for a photographer to take a self-righteous stance merely because silver halide is the imaging agent throughout the process. A lot that is done digitally can be (and has been) done in the darkroom. Sandwiching negatives and masking prints can all be used to make a picture of an elephant fighting a polar bear in a snowscape with penguins looking on. Silver Halide can lie too. <p> Digital imagers are fairly typical examples of a postmodern aesthetic, where existing images are drawn together into a single work that may show a jarring juxtaposition, or else may be a simulacrum of reality. <p> Photographers are fairly typical examples of a modern aesthetic, where images are created and manipulated technologically. It is the absence of the act of creation that divides the postmodern from all else. <p> Postmodern art is derivative. Photography will never die (though silver halide might) because a derivative art form needs a creative art form as a source of material. The number of original photographic images in the world, though vast, is finite. And a consumer may realize that the bear fighting the elephant is the same pose of the same bear catching a salmon in another picture. <p> The answer: This isn't a fight. It is a new medium. It does need to identify itself as such, both to protect photographer and to highlight the skills of digital imagers. They are not are friends, they are not our enemies. They are the people we will need to seek as allies in the face of issues like censorship and copyright. We should encourage them to distinguish themselves, not by saying "Hey, you're not one of us," but rather "Hey, that's really cool let the world know how you did it." <p> Remember that to the artificer, the "hand of man" is a value-added feature. A "Found View" will never be more than a snapshot to an artificer, because hey, you didn't MAKE that image, you just found it and took a picture. <p> The real danger, I suppose, is that images that are art and images that are portrayals of reality can become conflated. But that is something that has always been possible with the photographic medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted October 1, 1998 Author Share Posted October 1, 1998 The danger lies in the word "possible" in "<em>The real danger, I suppose, is that images that are art and images that are portrayals of reality can become conflated. But that is something that has always been possible with the photographic medium"</em> <p> It's always been "possible" to climb Everest without oxygen, but only recently has it been possible to pay someone $60,000 to drag you up there on the end of a rope! Maybe in a few years it will be possible to hire a super-helicopter to take you up? <p> Similarly, while it may have been "possible" to have an elephant fighting a polar bear done by conventional darkroom work, it's been so difficult that such images are rare, and really good images even rarer still. Now it's a lot easier and getting easier every day, so the supply of such images has probably increased by several orders of magnitude in the last few years. <p> The danger lies not in digital illustrations, but in the potential confusion between digital illustrations and photographs, and the passing off of one as the other to an uneducated public, who by and large <em>expect</em> a photograph to be a record of an actual event, not a "virtual happening". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_su Posted October 1, 1998 Share Posted October 1, 1998 This whole thread is getting to be almost as tedious as Nikon v. Canon debates. I don't see that we're covering anything new here. <p> For the record, I agree with Mr. Johnson the most, and while I disagree with most of what Mr. Creech has to say, I do agree that having the digital artists stand for their own ground would be productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piaw Posted October 2, 1998 Share Posted October 2, 1998 I can't resist... Here's another analogy. Once upon a time, printing presses were expensive, and it was difficult to get anything published, so there was a natural assumption that "if it's in print it must be true." As time went on, the prices went down, and nowadays anybody can "print." (Put up a web page, or post in a web forum) Then it became clear that "if it's print, it's not necessary true." What did the public use to tell whom to believe? The answer: the author of the text. For instance, anything Bob Atkins, Glen Johnson, or Philip Greenspun carries a lot of weight with me --- they've demonstrated that they know enough to be authorities. Someone with a moniker like, "Nikon Guy" has absolutely no credibility with me.<p>I think that with time, the public will eventually learn to do the same to photographs. A photo credit that says, "Photo by Galen Rowell" means, "this scene existed, and any manipulation of the medium was done to bring the image on film closer to what I actually saw." A photo credit that says, "Photo by Art Wolfe" or "Photo by Tim Fitzharris" would mean, "Warning: do not take for granted that this scene actually appeared anywhere in the real world." And you know what? I have no doubt that high-credibility photographers will eventually have a marketing edge over low-credibility photographers, no matter what the claims about art will be. Who would the public believe? The New York Times, or Matt Drudge? (I am well aware that this might be a controversial example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now