Devaluation of photography?

[woolly1]

For me the advent of digital photography has made making pictures rewarding in

terms of immediately seeing the results of technique modification and improving

my quantity and, by sheer odds, quality of shooting.

I have had my hobby re-invigorated since first picking up a D70 and am turning

out superior results compared to the days of film/paper.

 

My point though is with all the exposure (no pun intended) to great images and

the public's realisation that virtually every photo they see in a magazine is

retouched or 'assembled' to some degree that when I get lucky and produce

something special everyone cries foul and accuses me of cheating and creating

it in the computer, thus reducing it to the level of fake.

 

I find myself defending the image and have to consciously tell them "This is

the shot, take it as you find it and if it's so easy take a camera and knock

one out yourself".

 

Am I a victim of the perceived ease of modern digital photography ...... or

part of the problem?

[machts gut]

Good Photos are not created in the camera/computer/darkroom/slide projector - they are created in your head. Why care about manipulation? This is not science! It's job or art or hobby or fun!

 

Stefan

[pico]

<i>everyone cries foul and accuses me of cheating and creating it in the computer, thus reducing it to the level of fake.</i><p>

Everyone? And they cry and accuse? Find new associations, friends.<p>

You know it is not a fake. More power to your work. Pity them. It's the way of the world.<p>

<b>Stefan Tjarks</b><i> Good Photos are [...] created in your head.</i><p>

I've yet to find how to make a print from a photograph made in my head, and over time the brain tends to delete and modify images. <p>

[matt_needham]

"...thus reducing it to the level of fake."

 

People who equate photography with reality don't know much about photography. Here's a comment from Edward Steichen 75 years before Photoshop.

 

"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."

[Brad_]

<I>...that when I get lucky and produce something special everyone cries foul and accuses

me of cheating and creating it in the computer, thus reducing it to the level of fake.</I><P>

 

Who is everyone? Has <I>never</I> happened to me...

[woolly1]

Come on guys, take a pinch of salt.

 

The bus driver doesn't turn to me at bus-stops and shout "Cheat", neither does the woman serving in the breadshop scream "Photoshop Manipulator" at me as she hurls her baps around. It's the photo non-obsessed lower forms of life (my co-workers) who can't take a shot without punching the button like they're prodding an errant schoolboys shoulder that I speak of, and I do believe they are representative.

 

You follow my point ... the cognicentti here and around know what is possible but the great unwashed either believe that I'm not good enough to snap the images are they are too good to be true.

 

Ergo: Victim of digital photography - or part of the problem?

[ken_jeanette1]

Interesting that you should bring that point up, because sometimes when I look at gallery photos, my inner voice says "but it is SOOOOOO manipulated." My other inner voice then argues "but the artist had the creativity to manipulate it in the right way to make an impact."

I think these inner arguments are a product of the era we are in. This is clearly the decade (or perhaps longer) of immense change in methods and products, and this tug-of-war is just a stage we will have to pass.

[zapata_espinoza]

Unless there is a tool to detect digital manipulation, digital fakery is likely to grow common.

However, considering for example the recent Reuters photoshop debacle one recognizes the fact that people are still shocked by such manipulations. This demonstrates that there is still an expectation of honesty in photography.

Thus, at this point of time digital is tantamount to fake. Not because every shot is faked, but because of eligibility.

[woolly1]

I do have lots of people say "Oh that was just done in Photoshop" (as if successfully doing stuff in Photoshop was easy as pie, eh?). I have given up trying to impress upon antagonists that post processing is no more cheating than developing film in different chemicals of your choice and burning/dodging under the enlarger.

 

When the closest the audience has been to a darkroom is the counter of the photolab then what can I expect.

 

On the other hand, getting great shots nowadays isn't as hard as it once was ..... and if it goes slightly wierd you can always call it Art, Brad.

[woolly1]

I think the outrage in that case (and I assume you mean the enhanced smoke) was that the photographs were supposed to be news reportage.

 

... and we all know journalists are as honest as the day is long. Perhaps not quite the most appropriate metaphore as I speak from north of the arctic circle in December......

 

I liked Matt's contribution and excerpt ..... this is an image, we're not photocopying the horizon.

[jmoody]

I think the "problem's" always been there. I remember often hearing in the largely pre-digital era... "Is that (effect) from a filter?" or "What filter did you use?" as if everything beyond a snapshot had to have some sort of witchcraft behind it.

 

I get the same thing now from those who either know nothing about photography and/or from those who "think" they know something (usually regarding something impossible to do in photoshop like slowed down wave action in coastal shots to get blurred water and misty looks).

 

I would guess that there was only one real "sweet spot" as far as valuing photography (in the really early days it wasn't considered an "art" vs. painting etc... and lately it's an anyone-can-do-it mentality, so somewhere in the middle maybe) Tough question overall. Just know your abilities and defend your work and ability. If they still don't go for it, ask to see their stuff :-)

[archie_alcantara1]

Manipulation is part of photography. I've done countless hours in a traditional darkroom 'manipulating' my b/w images to what I had perceived in my head on how the final print should look like. Digital photography makes this process easier. Sure, there would be folks that would add subjects into photos, but some discplines of photography could also be referred to as art.

[klix]

Unless you're passing off your work as documentary/photojournalism, then Photoshop tweaking IS part of digital photography; i.e., it is the darkroom of digital photography.

 

None of your co-workers would dare say that Ansel Adams was not a good photographer even though he did his fair share of "touching up" in the darkroom, would they?

 

KL

[dave_powell2]

And some Boston-area photographers I have met claim a slightly different type of "devaluation"...a growing perception among potential buyers of prints that anyone who owns a digital camera can make the same kinds of images on their own. "So why buy someone else's print?"

 

This argues (in a way) for even more expert manipulation...to make images that are so jaw-droppingly unique and unusual that even other pros ask "How the heck was that done?"

 

Two people I know (who had specialized in "straight" prints of landscapes and flower/bird closeups) said that this perception has moved the bulk of their sales activity to small prints and note cards at craft fairs.

 

Just another angle, for what it's worth...

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[john_h.1]

Someone posted a thread essentially complaining that PS creations made to appear as Polariod transfers were an affront to his dignity because of all the effort and learned skill that he employed to make polaroid transfers. I suppose some such disappointment is natural. We often feel bad when others don't appreciate the effort or talent that is involved with creating something. If I make a grand meal from scratch, I would likely tell the diners about that lest they think I merely heated up some pre-made mixes. But in the end, they will enjoy it based on its quality and their own personal tastes.

 

Digital manipulation is just another newer means to accomplish something. Some may think its easy to produce nice images now and they are probably right to some extent since major alterations are easier to make digitally. We can be proud of our work by the results, however, because our photograpghy is not deemed worthy by equipment and technology alone. Art succeeds if its expression brings a emotional response from its observer. Photoshop can't take that away.

[les]

Clive,

 

We live in times when ignorance and stupidity reign supreme. This may sound a bit paradoxical, since everyone has access to all kind of information at his/her fingertips. But, because of that, knowledge, skills and talent seem to depreciate - at least in the minds of uninformed and uneducated. After all, it is so easy to do a search on the Web and find solutions to lots of problems, pictures, information and opinions.

 

Let's not be mistaken - availability of all this good stuff does not make it any "cheaper" or easier to create. It is just a false impression because of unrestricted and abundant access. How long would it take you to find an image of Mona Lisa on the net today? How long would it take you to see the same painting say 200 years ago, with all the travel and expenses included ? We tend to value things which come to us with some degree of effort. Most people does not have a clue how much effort it sometimes takes to actually create something - but the widespread availability of the result of such efforts makes most people think that it must have been something really easy and cheap. It does not surprise me that people criticise things: what pisses me off that they criticise from a position of ignorance, lack of knowledge, and misunderstanding.

 

They haven't tried anything, can't do it themselves - but have very strong opinions of what is right and what is wrong, how things should be done etc. etc. There is a lot of self-acclaimed experts on every subject and matter. 99% of them do not have a clue what they are talking about.

 

Do not worry, it is normal.

End of rant. :D

[studor13]

I get this as well and it ranges from plain annoying to plain stupid.

 

One guy said that my photos are only good because I was good at cropping!

 

One way that I have been able to put some sense back into their heads is when I show them photos I took with a simple Point and Shoot in both BW and in color. Nothing fancy but something they've seen with their eyes but not in a photo.

 

It not only devalues my work (I consider my images "work" rather than just photos) but they devalue what I say.

 

The other problem is that some people just don't understand computers, so to them anything and everything that comes out of one needs to be put down. If I say to them "Is a carpenter only good because he has a good hammer?" they look at me as if I came from out of space. This is because everyone understands a hammer, but a computer?

[woolly1]

Being able to use MSWord might make you a typist ... but it doesn't tell an author what to write.

Efficient use of Photoshop obviously now qualifies us as darkroom printers ... but it does show you where to point the lens.

You have to feel for the photog/printer of 50 years hard-won experience now being challenged by young spunkers who've never picked up a camera before last year.

 

That's the nub of the point I'm making .... in today's environment of software for everything the average guy in the street thinks that a computer, a digicam and a program is all it takes.

Just ask the film industry - Blair Witches, Jackass, Shithead, Pammy & Paris .. no skill req'd. No value endowed.

 

So I end up defending an honestly hard-earnt great shot that others think has just been 'stuck together'.

[les]

Every great image starts with a great shot. Post-processing is secondary (although extremely important). If it can lend the picture more appeal/aesthetic value - it is great, but it can NOT replace a great shot or produce a great image from a poor photo.

 

So, you do not need to defend "hard-earnt great shot" - it defends itself, no matter what amount of post-processing is applied.

To those who scorn processed images - you can always tell them "here is the camera, here is the software, please produce something similiar". I bet there wouldn't be many takers - smart asses are just that: mouth full of criticism and "expertise", and nothing of substance to support their opinions.

 

As the saying goes: "a mathematician is somebody whom other mathematicians consider a mathematician". Same goes for photography, I guess :D.

[wispos]

Well, at least I can show someone an original 8x10 transparency on a lightbox. Will you show someone your RAW file if they asked?

[Spearhead]

It's great that you can do that. It has nothing to do with the saturation of images. And I don't have a lightbox, so it seems like a pointless point to me.

[woolly1]

Well that's the answer then, I am both the victim and the problem.

 

Because I would struggle to regain my old level of wet photography and choose output over difficulty I demonstrate the ease of the task thus downgrading the whole perception of the Art.

 

The Art - there is the real hurdle that the critics are turning a blind eye to, the rest is mechanics. In the very act of dismissing an image as constructed the viewer is acknowledging it's value, it's impact. It's envy of a mysterious world of light and form - Art.

 

Quote - When one of my colleagues has a triumph a little part of me dies.

[studor13]

Rory, how does your 8x10 look when viewed without a lightbox? Could you or anyone see all the wonderful textures and details hidden inside?

 

Looking at a RAW file without adjustments is the same deal. Everything is there, you just can't see it. Instead of a lightbox, you need a computer.

[gaetan balbo]

Clive, remember that most of your coworkers never had any experience of "processing" or

"post-processing" before the digital age. They sent their film to the lab and what came back

was "the photo." Most of them probably had instamatics and didn't even think about

manipulating exposure. Now it's gone to the other extreme; they know everything is

"processed" to some degree or other. So it seems to devalue the skill of the photographer. It's

an unfair bias, but I don't think there's anything to to be done about it.

[pico]

Digital photography and also the ease of which almost anyone can make a photograph has

<u>liberated</u> photography in many ways. It has raised the bar so that one is no

longer guaranteed to make a living or an impression simply because he can make a picture

"come out" which was the standing question until around ten years ago.<p>

That's a good thing. Persons like yourself, Clive, are struggling to find how their personal

vision fits within the field of their concern. Struggle is good. It means working it out,

thinking of how to speak within or above the din. <p>

As mentioned above, the 'net - modern visual and factoid transport (communication,

not) has made the commons much greater in number, but no wiser. Facts are not

knowledge. Knowledge is not Wisdom.<p>

But it is a lot noiser.<p>

Push yourself away from the computer. Turn off the TV. Enjoy life.