Is post-processing trickery the norm?

[richardsperry]

<p>"never once did I actually see floating grey spots in the sky behind them."</p>

<p>Just to clarify.<br>

There was a pilot back then whose name was Art Scholl, iifc. And he had smoke generators in his plane. He always had some white or grey smoke and spots in the sky behind him. IIRC, the Blue Angels used white smoke.<br>

So I forgot that they did have floating grey spots behind them, but they did not look like your sensor dust spots, in either case.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You know, I spent a lot of money and time learning how to use Photoshop even though I took a couple of courses in Digital Imaging while in school, soon after that I also enrolled into NYIP's(NY Institue of photography) correspondence course in Digitital Photography. It took me a little of a year and a half to complete the entire course.</p>

<p>Was it worth it ? Heck yes, but do I use it ? So far not very frequently, not for the the work that I do. I use Photoshop/Photoshop Elements, mostly to perform enhancements cropping, color correction, color balance sharpening, resizing etc.</p>

<p>Was it a waste of time and money ? Heck no, you never know when you are going to need those skills. I'm not very artistic well maybe just a little, but I dont have those artisitic/creative thoughts floating around in my head before I take a picture. I don't wake up one morning and start rearraging my living room because some strange concept popped up in my head during my dreams and I want to photograph it. I'm sure there are a lot of talented people like that, but I'm not want of them.</p>

<p>Basically, I like to take pictures the way I see them in real life. I often use pictures to relay some type of subtle message. These are my 'Fun' pictures, but I also take pictures to help pay the bills , those pictures I don't have much control over. Once in a while, I might be searching through my archive of photos and say" hey this picture might look better with a little photoshopping" and I get to work.</p>

<p>Creating images is just not my thing, but maybe in the future it might be. I sure would like to learn Compositing such as the beautiful ones I see on this site, but then I would have to change my way of thinking and my entire philosophy of photography, this might take time. One thing about photography is that I wanted to start off on the right foot, that's why got a formal education. I wasn't necessary, but to me it was worth it.</p>

<p>When I was teen-ager I failed my drivers license test 3 times. The reason was that I wanted to do things my way ! I thought I was an expert, before I could even drive and confident enough to skip the rules that were already established. If I had failed that test one more time I would have to wait a long period before trying it again. So what I did was to finally READ the driver-test manual and humbly enroll into a weekend drivers education class. Wow, I finally managed to past that test after 3 tries ! I guess that experience sort of stuck with me.<br>

<br />My point is that for me, there is really no harsh dividing line between whether to perform image retouching/manipulation or not. In school yes, in real life no. It is not a petty Nikon/Canon, Digital/Film Canon 7D/Canon 5D, Black/White, Red/Blue type issue with me. I do what is convenient for me and what I think will make me a better photographer. One thing, I love to Print and I noticed that heavily manipulated pictures are much harder to print than those that are not. Maybe I still don't know what I'm doing yet.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Ditto the position of the mice with respect to the instruments</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are some quite musical mice around at the moment!</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I think its "content" that is the key. As long as the content stays the same, other changes like cropping, color adjustments, sharpening etc are acceptable. </p>

<p>Maybe another way of thinking about it is would the picture be acceptable in a court of law. For example, I'm involved with video surveillance systems that archive the video. These could be used in a court of law as evidence of a crime. However, the camera changes the amount of exposure automatically and the colors as the lighting in the scene changes. Jurors would not be concerned with that because the "content" remains the same. People and objects aren't cloned into or out of the video. I think that's where most people draw the line. Photography used to be thought of as an image of "record". While the colors (or lack of color), sharpness, etc may be unnatural or changed or improved, the image basically represents the original view. It's when "content" is changed or other changes that make it look unreal that people are uncomfortable.</p>

<p>But maybe that's where I draw the line.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

>> Very well stated, Dan. <<

 

 

Thanks, but I think I am going to turn off my iPad's auto-fill spell checker. It added at least one error to each post,

e.g. converting "off" to "of" and "mics" to "mice". Technology at its worst.

[DickArnold]

Richard. The floating grey spots behind the blue angels were actually emissions from the smoke generators they use in their shows. I am an 8000 hour pilot so I know what I am looking at. I could have taken them out but they were actually part of several photos I took always trailing behind the airplanes no matter where they were in the frame. Apparently the generators fart little puffs of smoke when they are turned off. Sensor spots don't move around. Those puffs look a little odd I admit because I was shooting against strong back light and they stand out. Just looking at a large print I did of that Blue Angels picture and somehow the ones I posted got oversaturated to my taste as they were posted on PN. I think selected the wrong setting in CS5 when I converted to jpeg. Other than that I march to my own drummer and my exposure to Jackson Pollack was looking at his pictures in person at the Rijks museum on my way to view the Van Gogh collection. Some curator thought something of his work. Frankly I don't understand his message but apparently somebody did. I guess I must ask, Richard are you one of those who being always right sets themselves up to set standards for other people's tastes? That goes really to my objection about establishing some set of standards for what is and what is not manipulation. I would then have to rely upon someone else's biased tastes rather than my own biased tastes. I happen to really like Pieter Bruegel for realistically portraying a somewhat wanton dutch life style in the 16th century. It is almost cartoonish and overstated but to me it conveys a ribaldry that is exciting. But that is just my taste. I don't expect anyone else to like Bruegel because I do. I have already been categorized out of art competitions after winning awards because the judges did not think a photograph of any kind was art. The attached picture is over saturated to my taste and an example, IMO, of being somewhat over done. It does show the smoke.<div></div>

[DickArnold]

No picture (above) is useless. You can always point to it as a bad example (of over manipulation).

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>While the colors (or lack of color), sharpness, etc may be unnatural or changed or improved, the image basically represents the original view. It's when "content" is changed or other changes that make it look unreal that people are uncomfortable.<br />But maybe that's where I draw the line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, I think this is indeed where many people become "uncomfortable". In any discussion along these lines, Ansel Adams is usually mentioned, as is the case in this thread. The average person on the street whose total experience with photography is taking family snapshots and buying AA calendars for Christmas presents doesn't have a clue that Adams' pictures are highly manipulated. They believe that what they're viewing is what the photographer saw as he snapped the picture. If we choose to characterize "manipulated" photographs as being a "lie"...then while Adams might not have been the "biggest liar"...(since some would reserve that designation for PS users) he'd surely be in the running for the "best liar". Adams pushed the boundary of what is believable...to it's limits. If what he produced were "lies"...one thing's for certain: they were some damn good lies!</p>

<p>Long before I did any reading about Adams, and before I had any discussions with photographers who were knowledgable of the man and his work...what little I had heard was stories of how he camped out in the Sierras for days at a time, in one location...waiting for the perfect moment to take the "perfect" picture. I had no clue as to all of the dodging and burning he was doing (and/or any other form of manipulation he may have utilized)...and in fact, I'd never heard the term ...and of course, had no idea what it even meant. I just thought that he had incredible patience and camera skills. Well, I got it partly right. But...the missing part, the manipulation in the developing process...is a key component in his achieving that near "unearthly" look that so many of his photographs portray, that so many of us enjoy and admire, and that has made him the most popular and well know photographer in history.</p>

<p>Photographs such as "Winter Sunrise" and "Moonrise-Hernandez" come to mind. What a remarkable range of greys, and black, and whites! What incredible shadows and beautifuly darkened skies! Who has actually witnessed scenes such as this, much less photographed them? All I know is that Adams didn't..at least not with his natural eyes. But in his mind's eye, these photographs recorded exactly what Adams "saw", or envisioned, if you like. But back to my point. If we want to talk about lies...which is the bigger lie: a) Adams' photographs that leave a vast number of his admirers believing that what they're viewing is actually "real"...or b) some guy from Des Moines that posts HDR images that have been so drastically manipulated that even a 5 year old would see that they look as much like a cartoon as a photograph?</p>

<p>In one sense both are offering "lies", but neither are attempting to "decieve". Every movie, every play that has ever been produced is a dramatization of real life. And if all the components that are necessary to produce a quality end product come together successfully ...we come away entertained and feeling we've gotten our money's worth. So why do so many of us take issue with photographs that suspend reality through some degree of manipulation? If John Q. Public "has a cow" over AA burning a quarter mile long shadow onto a mountain side, it's easy enough to chalk it up to ignorance of the craft. I can at least understand the attitude of some painters who not only resent any type of manipulation of a photograph, but resent photography itself and consider it to be an inferior medium because of the use of a "mechanical device". I chalk that up to ignorance, jealousy, arrogance...and/or any combination of the three. But what I find to be extremely perplexing is how those who aren't just patrons of photography, or those who have no interest in photography other than for investment purposes...but those who actually call themselves photographers... can be so dogmatic about what "is" photography", or is not...or what is acceptable, and what is a "bastardization" of the craft. If "real" photography had been limited over the years to the strict parameters that some would like to put in place even now...I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Photography as an art form would likely have ceased to exist...or at the least, would be boring as hell.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>From the moment light enters a lens, isn't the image "manipulated", either due to distortions, compressions, saturations, contrasts, T/S, lens quality etc.? All Digital imagery, because of AA filters and the use of RAW, requires at least some level of manipulation to render it acceptable. That said, we all decide on what level of manipulation we consider acceptable for our own work and vision, and shouldn't worry about what someone else is doing, unless those images are to be used for evidence or represent historical fact, etc. Jm2cw. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"If we choose to characterize "manipulated" photographs as being a "lie"...then while Adams might not have been the "biggest liar"...(since some would reserve that designation for PS users) he'd surely be in the running for the "best liar". Adams pushed the boundary of what is believable...to it's limits."<br />==============================================================================<br />John I think you are exaggerating a little bit here. Adams pushed the resources he had to work with to the limit, resources being film, chemicals, technique whatever to bring out the best that those resources had to offer. I'm not an expert on Adamas and have not followed him like you maybe, but I attended many of his galleries and have read some of his books on B&W film development and there is nothing to suggest that he in anyway manipulated his images.</p>

<p>Sure he might have used filters here and there to bring out the sky and clouds, Sure he used the Zone System theory to expose his films, sure he used allot of dodging and burning, but those things were done to bring out the best in a picture. Not unlike what we are doing now in photoshop with Levels and Curves. In his earlier years he did use allot of double exposures(which allot of photographers did in those days) to bring out the skies, because film back then had a very short dynamic range much less than the films of today.</p>

<p>However, he did not not hire a bunch of Retouchers, as far as I know to manipulate or change what was already there in a scene. As long as this guy took to hit the shutter I'm sure he rarely had to remove unwanted items or add external items to a frame . Adamas pictures are incredible, because of their Realism. People who view his images ussually say "wow these are so life like, it is like if I'm there" ! Like any photographer he used exposure to create a mood and to bring out the feelings. This has been established practice in painting and photography since the begining.</p>

<p>As far as not caring what people think which some people mentioned. I care allot of what people think. Photography especially the wedding an portrait business is all word of mouth. If you don't care what other people think especially your fellow photographers you are in for a long ride !</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p> Adams pushed the resources he had to work with to the limit, resources being film, chemicals, technique whatever to bring out the best that those resources had to offer</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just as photographers do these days in Photoshop.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>there is nothing to suggest that he in anyway manipulated his images.<br>

sure he used allot of dodging and burning, but those things were done to bring out the best in a picture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, With all respect, dodging and burning <em><strong>is </strong></em>a form of manipulation. If as I alluded to earlier...a photographer burns in a non-existent shadow over a quarter mile long stretch of mountains that eliminates most if not all of the detail...or burned in an almost black sky which was by no means even close to black before he applied his masterful touch to it...that's not bringing out the best in a picture". You can't "bring out" something that wasn't already there. He enhanced the picture, most certainly. But he often did so by partially or even totally changing certain elements of the scene as it would have been viewed by the naked eye. Don't misundersand me. I love his work. I wouldn't change a thing about his pictures. But if you've ever seen some of the versions of (for instance) Moonrise -Hernandez...you'd see something starkly different in his first printing than in the latter versions which were much, much darker and more contrasty. Adams didn't just bring out the best in his pictures...he changed them...and that's just another way of saying he manipulated them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sure he used the Zone System theory to expose his films, sure he used allot of dodging and burning, but those things were done to bring out the best in a picture. Not unlike what we are doing now in photoshop with Levels and Curves</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, you're making my point for me! ;) Just as you said, he did in the wet darkroom with film...what we now do in the digital darkroom. I don't intend to sound rude...but you say that "those things were done to bring out the best in a picture". So what's the difference if a photographer uses PS to do the same thing. You can't very well stick a camera card in a batch of chemicals to develop a set of photographs, right? :) </p>

<p>I think what you're saying (whether you realize it or not)...is that you accept certain types of manipulation, e.g. dodging, burning and so forth...but you reject other types of manipulation. Where you draw the line I don't know, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you care to share them. Harry, I'm not saying that we can't have our opinions about what is good or bad, right or wrong...I just think we need to realize that opinions aren't necessarily truths that should govern how others produce their art. I could just about barf every time I see what I often refer to as "cartoonish HDR " images. I think they're ugly, garrish, tasteless...and that's being kind. However...that just means that's how I see them. I may ruffle the feathers of a bunch of my peers if they should read what I'm about to say...but although comparing painting and photography is in many ways an "apples to oranges" deal...most anyone can produce a good photograph from time to time...and they might even luck themselves into producing a great image. Right time, right place, right light, right camera settings (although it might be quite by accident)...and for at least a moment they might produce a photographic masterpiece. No one is going to <em>accidentally</em> paint a masterpiece. Hand a chimpanzee a camera, teach him to click the shutter release and he might just get a good photo. Hand him a brush, some paint, and a canvas...and see what you get. (of course, as someone pointed out earlier...Pollock became a legend with his drip painting.!..lol) </p>

<p>All I"m saying is that I have some strong opinions about art and photography, as do most if not all of us. I'm sure that there are probably lots of people who think my photographs are crap. In fact, I think some of them are crap. I have no objection to strong opinions...I'm just not fond of people making declarative statements about what is photographic gospel...and then trying to impose that gospel on others when that book hasn't been, and will never be written.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't know that anything Adams did is really relevant here. I have seen the evolution of the Moonrise image, for instance, and what most people know as the image is a far cry from his first prints of it. In fact, the original prints are pretty lackluster--very gray sky and nowhere near the pop of the image we see today. Over the years, it went through various stages with contrast increasing as it went along and probably about 1974 or so the most accepted rendition of it was produced--and probably the most plentiful as he fulfilled his last orders. Over time, his vision for the image changed--or maybe what was available to him to extract his vision changed. If you see a version of the print made more near his death, much of the magic is lost to a bit too much contrast--older eyes with less innate contrast--which is pretty much true of most of those late prints.</p>

<p>But the bottom line with all of this really just seems to be that you have to remember that photography is not just one thing. It is many things and many different things to different people. While I fully expect that an image presented to represent a historical event to be unaltered as to content (I could care less about contrast and such as long as it is still pleasing to look at) but when I am looking at a piece of art I don't care really care what has been done. It isn't my norm to change things, but I have no issue with those that do it but, most importantly, do it well. The work should then be judged on its own merits and not just the process. For many, the process is part of the image and relished not loathed.</p>

<p>Susan Sontag wrote in her "On Photography", which was written in the 70's, way before digital, that photography had already lost its innocence and was not to be believed even then. The power of photography has been manipulated since its inception.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"Harry, With all respect, dodging and burning <em><strong>is </strong></em>a form of manipulation."<br />================================================<br />I'm having trouble trying to swallow that one John. Dodging and burning are often used because of film's limitations. It is mostly used to correct and enhace, or bring an image closer to what the photographer saw with their own eyes. I think the motive is different here. Manipulation on the other hand changes the scene all together. More like changing the color of a subjects eyes from Brown to Blue, or their hair from Blond to Brunette. I'm not sure if Adams went that far.<br /><br />This does not mean I have anything against retouching, or manipulation, I mean how is somebody involved in the Restoration business going to earn a living if they can't manipulate an old scratched, dirty and faded image ? I actually bought a book on Retouching & restoration. Image manipulation is here to stay just as it allways has.<br /><br />I have a friend who is a make-up artist for a Mall studio not too far from here, she tells me on a typical Saturday they do close o a hundred+ portraits. She applies the make-up, the photographer poses the subject and takes the picture, and the boss runs the picture through some portrait enhancement software and that's it. Beleive it or not people pay to have their portraits done that way and there are hardly any complaints about the image being manipulated.<br /><br />For weddings I like to use Soft filters rather than PS. Soft filters depending on their strength, soften a persons skin, or can change a scene into a dreamy landscape. Nobody complains about that either, because that is what is expected. You can consider this another form of photo manipulation.<br /><br />I cropped out many a picture to remove extraneous, or busy backgrounds, although lately I have been trying to pay closer attention to what is inside the view finder before I hit the shutter. Is this manipulation ?<br /><br />Again nothing wrong with photo manipulation if done properly to fix or enhance an image. Come to think about it, I have been trying to offer Special Effects in some of my wedding/portrait packages for the longest. Virtual backgrounds, Infrared, textured prints, Toning, Double exposure, Collage, Pencil Drawings these all can be done and have been done with film by the way.<br /><br />So why am I bothered when I see an image of a model with a plastic looking face, or some HDR image that looks like a cartoon ? Not sure on that one, maybe I'm biased.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>However, he did not not hire a bunch of Retouchers, as far as I know to manipulate or change what was already there in a scene.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know how many people it would take to qualify as "a bunch"...but Adams had assistants throughout the years and they not only were hands on in the development process, but at least one that I know of ( a young woman with whom he got a bit too attached to and whose name I can't recall) influenced Adams on a print-by-print basis as to (for instance) just how much he should burn/dodge a photograph. Every print that is considered to be an Ansel Adams "original", is not necessarily ...an Ansel Adams original.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as this guy took to hit the shutter I'm sure he rarely had to remove unwanted items or add external items to a frame .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps not. I don't really know. But it sounds as though you think that the occasional removal of unwanted items is acceptable?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adamas pictures are incredible, because of their Realism. People who view his images ussually say "wow these are so life like, it is like if I'm there" !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once again, we disagree. They look realistic enough to believable...in the sense that you don't see Saturn floating in the sky ...so large that you feel you could touch it. But if you go to Yosemite for instance, you're not going to see Monolith looking anything like Adams' print...unless you put red filters over both eyes...and your genetics are such that you only see in black and white. As I said earlier...the iniital versions of Moonrise-Hernandez look nothing like the later prints that we know see most often...and none of the versions looked like what Adams actually saw when he took the pictures. The prints are there as proof...and Adams confirms it in his own words.</p>

<p>On a lighter, but still serious note...I would compare Adams pictures to an episode of Seinfeld. The show portrayed everyday things that can and do happen to each of us...but do any of us ever experiene even one half hour period in our lives in which everything we say, and everything that's said to us is hillarious? Of course not. It's theater....and not in all, but in many genres of photography, it's theater as well. One reason I like Adams work so much is because there is a degree of realisim in his photographs. But...many of his pictures has aspects of surrealism. Enough realism that they're plausible...but simultaneously, not scenes we'd see with the naked eye. That's where the art comes in!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as not caring what people think which some people mentioned. I care allot of what people think. Photography especially the wedding an portrait business is all word of mouth. If you don't care what other people think especially your fellow photographers you are in for a long ride !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you weren't directing the comment to me, Harry...and I think that as much as we might deny it, we all care to some degree what others think of our work, even if it's born of sheer arrogance. If we didn't care at all what others think...we'd never show our photographs to anyone. We'd just said and stare at them all by ourselves. I won't try to speak for others, but I know that for myself...the part of me that <em>doesn't care </em>about others think has to do with not being willing to allow outside influences to compromise my work. You're not going to find me taking Easter portraits of children dressed in bunny costumes in front of Walmart type backdrops. I'll find another job before I'll do that kind of photography. Most of the "greats of photography", including Adams did work that I'm sure wasn't particualrly their cup of tea...but I'm sure they all had their line in the sand as to what they would shoot and what they woudn't. I was talking to someone earlier about the painter, Mark Rothko. He accepted a commission from the Seagram family for a series of paintings that were to adorn the 4-Seasons Restaurant that was then under construction in NYC. After painting over 40 pieces, he suddenly decided to refund the advance payment he had been given, and refused to complete the work. Of course, Rothko was eccentric, had mental issues, and eventually committed suicide...but although his reasons for quitting the job have never been fully substantiated, it was known that he expressed displeasure with the luxurious opulence of the restaurant and it's future "upper class" patrons. From all info that can be gathered, it appears that he sacrificed a huge sum of money in order to not compromise his principles. That's the kind of "not caring what others think" that I truly appreciate. We should by all means "care" about the clients who put food on our table and help to pay our bills, but sooner or later many photographers find themselves put in a place in which they need to just say "no".</p>

<p>p.s. - Harry, I hope I'm not wearing you out with all this jibber jabber. It's just that I haven't really "talked photography" with anyone in a good while and i know from reading your posts many times that you're a true gentleman who is quite capable of having an honest discussion with others...whether there be agreement, or disagreement on the topic at hand! Gotta go...have a great Easter and hope to speak with you again soon!</p>

<p> </p>

[jgalyon]

<p>John A. - You offered a great response that I truly appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>John G. I looked at your photos and I don't think they're "crap". You do use a lot of artistic editing. <a href="../photo/12798454">http://www.photo.net/photo/12798454</a></p>

<p>I have absolutely no problem with that because it is obvious what you are doing - changing a photograph to a piece of art that takes on the characteristics of art. That kind of heavy manipulation is OK to me. </p>

<p>On another thought is something a little off-based. Actually the photo isn't real anyway even it if is real. By that I mean the view is in the mind's eye made up of nerves and synapses and chemical reactions in our brain that our conscious interprets. So what actually is the real subject anyway. What is the actual "view". Is it similar to the silver halide on the negative or the ones and zero bits of a pixel? How do you explain the color green to a blind person? I think it was Galen Rowell the admired photographer who use to have a column in Outdoor Photography Magazine. He was killed in a small plane crash with his wife. Anyway, he wrote a column once describing why color isn't real. Maybe someone can point us to it.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Is post-processing trickery the norm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all! My personal goal is to do as little post-production as possible, other than: 1.) Color correction, if needed. 2.) Noise-reduction, if needed. 3.) Adjustments to the characteristic curve, when desired. Which follows my initial goal: to get as much in-camera as possible. This is not to demean the hugely artistic post-process works of others in any way--these are just my goals.</p>

<p>This is basically the file just as it came out of the camera; however, I did "auto-level" the luminance values to maximize my represented brightness range. Aside from that, it's an uncropped, unmanipulated image:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/virgin700.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[bmm]

<p>I've read this thread carefully a couple of times now and am struck that a basic question has not been explored more.</p>

<p>What truth?</p>

<p>By chance, two of the three images randomly displayed right below where I am typing are the following:<br>

<a href="../photo/12798916">http://www.photo.net/photo/12798916</a><br>

<a href="../photo/12756481">http://www.photo.net/photo/12756481</a></p>

<p>Both to me are entirely truthful, just in very different ways.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Both to me are entirely truthful, just in very different ways.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you mean?</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Dick Arnold,</p>

<p>"Richard are you one of those who being always right sets themselves up to set standards for other people's tastes?"</p>

<p>Nope.</p>

<p>I just don't like it when people try and sell me poop.<br>

Poop sellers, like your Pollack curator, are motivated to sell more poop. They have bills to pay, and mouths to feed just like everyone else. If you appreciate poop, and want to buy poop, go right ahead; that's your right. It keeps the poop makers and poop sellers in business; and the poop buyers too, because almost always they are speculators, buying low priced poop now, and selling high priced poop later.</p>

<p> </p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Dick,</p>

<p>With your permission, I will try and post the images with the sensor dust spots circled in red.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>.</p><div></div>

[richardsperry]

<p>,</p><div></div>

[richardsperry]

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>"and there is nothing to suggest that he in anyway manipulated his images."<br /> "and have read some of his books on B&W film development"<br /> There is a dissonance with these two statements. They do not come together.</p>

<p>In his Camera, Negative, and Print series, he is explicit in that not only did he manipulate his images; but goes on to teach how we can do the same as well. He manipulated them to be something other than what was real. And definitely differently than what we see, or would see if we were there when the photograph was taken.</p>

<p>In interviews, he has stated this as well. Completely unabashed, completely unapologetic. He PhotoShopped everything he did, he had a huge photoshop in the back of his house.</p>

<p>He has even said in videoed interviews, available on YouTube, that after his death, that he bequeathed his negatives for future talented and responsible photographer printers, that they could and would have the right to print his negatives, manipulating them as they wish. To produce the images that they wanted from them, and that he expected them to be different than his prints.</p>

<p>I don't think you have read or studied Adams, Harry. If you had, you would know this already.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Alan - glad you asked.</p>

<p>In relation to the pictures that I chose (again by chance, they were the ones at the bottom of the page when I wrote yesterday):<br>

- the first is a literal image of a duck drinking - its 'truth' is to communicate an event, an instant in time that happens to have some interest and aesthetic quality.<br>

- the second is an expressionist image of a late afternoon in a forest - its 'truth' is to communicate a feeling of the light, the shade, the solitude, the warmth, the splendour.</p>

<p>I'm picking a third image that again - by chance - has appeared just under this thread. Another one that I think is beautiful, like the others. http://www.photo.net/photo/3936224</p>

<p>Is it even important whether an image like this is 'manipulated' or not? Does it detract from what the 'truth' is that the photographer is trying to convey, which is a relatively abstract one in this case?</p>

<p>For the majority of photographic styles, I do have some sympathy for your view about 'content' expressed above, within reason (after all 99.9% of images taken are not for evidentiary or forensic purposes). While I don't care about small detail fixes, I do think that part of the photographic art/craft is composition of a subject - or set of subjects - through a viewfinder or off an LCD.</p>

<p>Interesting discussion.</p>