Would you process a photograph to this degree?

[richardsperry]

"I want the viewer to feel a sense of trust that what they see is an accurate representation of what their eyes would have

seen had they been standing beside me at the time of capture."

 

 

I glad that I am removing this silly notion from my mindset. It takes work, though.

 

 

"Would you process a photograph to this degree?"

 

Yes. If it made or produced the image that I wanted to produce. More, actually. I have a dream I want to photograph.

Planning and executing all of the parts to combine into that image,,,much more complex than the castle image.

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't see anyone changing any of their opinions because of this thread. I don't like deep fried food but I don't run around the web posting about it, I eat something else. It's pretty simple.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nudge nudge, wink wink.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I may be the only moderator on today, so I'm reading everything. And figure I would point out the value, or lack thereof, of a thread about what one doesn't like.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'm just glad I'm too lazy to go to the trouble Peter Eastway took on to arrive at the results he did.</p>

<p>I find it hard to understand why or how a photographer would walk around looking for things to shoot like that castle and already have a preconceived vision of having it look totally different as it appears in that tutorial. Where is HIS story originating from?</p>

<p>I wouldn't think I was being honest with myself in appreciating the subject the way it is. When I trip the shutter I can't put in my mind another vision of something that scene isn't or can't be. I can't make it what it isn't at the time I shoot it. I have enough trouble trying to find scenes to inspire me without having to put pictures in my head that I hope will match up with whatever I find walking around to shoot. What am I? A photographer? or an image constructor? What story am I capturing that I don't already see in the scene as it is? If I doctor it up to look nothing like it actually is, whose story am I telling? Am I just entertaining/pandering to future viewers? Giving them the story they like and not what's there?</p>

<p>If I had come across that castle as it appears in the before pre-composite stage I wouldn't have thought to add trees while I took the shot. I would find other ways of telling <strong>its</strong> story. Not my story.</p>

<p>When I painted pictures of landscapes, portraits or found objects in a former life, I didn't have in my mind at the time I saw these scenes that I would change it that much. Express an impression? Yes. Exact replica? No, mainly due to technical limitations. That scene was telling me its story, though and I liked its story, otherwise I wouldn't have went to the trouble of painting it. I was inspired by its story. Why would I want to give it a complete face lift and turn into something its not?</p>

<p>That's like the groom marrying his bride and then telling her to head to the plastic surgeon for a complete make over because the groom already had something in mind on how she should look when they first met. Who did the groom fall in love with then, some vision of another woman she's not?</p>

[richardsperry]

Dan,

 

On your smugmug page you have some night photos of the Golden Gate Bridge. You used a long shutter speed, longer

than 30 seconds, maybe a minute or two from the looks of it.

 

The car light trails as you photographed them do not look that way with my eyes. The color of the bridge is different in real

life. Even the color of the sky does not look that way in real life. If I stood next to you while you took that image, what I

see would look very different.

 

How do you consolidate or reconcile these two opposing things?

 

I've just ordered up a bunch of infrared film. I don't plan on photoshopping any of the prints I make. But would you regard these film and unretouched images the same as you do of stiched photoshopped images. Are they the same trickery and frauds to you? My eyes don't see infrared light, at the very least the photos will look different than I see them with my eyes.

[AlanKlein]

<p>There's a line in the movie <em>"Dirty Harry"</em> when Clint Eastwood admonishes the crook who's gone too far, <em>"A man has to know his limits."</em></p>

<p>I think it comes down to this. I've gone too far when I change the picture more than my internal compass allows me too so I no longer feel comfortable with myself. If people say, "Nice shot." and I feel queasy about what I constructed, that's when I've gone too far. </p>

<p>Now everyone is different. But, try not to run yourself with other people's compasses, or corrupt your own for fame, or money, or ego. That won't work either. I've tried that as I suppose we all have in different areas of our lives, and it doesn't work. In the end, my compass made me feel crappy when I violated what it was telling me to do. It may be cliche, but you have to be true to yourself. None of this is to say that my compass is right or wrong, or yours either. It's just that we all have to figure out what makes each of us tick and then stick to that standard.<em><br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It's just that we all have to figure out what makes each of us tick and then stick to that standard.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And then, almost ironically, maybe figure out creative and meaningful ways of breaking the very standards we've set for ourselves.</p>

[richardsperry]

Tim,

 

"I didn't have in my mind at the time I saw these scenes that I would change it that much"

 

You didn't paint things that didn't or don't exist? How limited a painter is if he or she is only a Xerox machine of what is

there.

 

I don't think I have ever heard(read) a painter or artist put that limitation on their art work before. I don't think I can think

of many valuable artists who hold or held your opinion. Just off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, I don't feel so much that I change scenes even when I heavily post process what comes out of the camera. It's more realizing a scene's potential to be the basis for the vision I have for a photograph. It's not the scene I'm altering. It's the grammar or language it speaks with. I'm not making a scene, I'm making a photograph. I don't see like a camera and the camera doesn't see like me. I see like a human. I see with my humanity and imagination. I may see more than what's there. And I may see what's there in many different ways. The camera doesn't use me to take a picture. I use the camera.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>If you don't post process are you not just a slave to the machine?</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

Tim, you have imply that all photographers heve a story! I don't agree with you, sometimes the journey of photography

is the story, that includesbhow to present it, where to hang it etc. That story is not always present when the shutter is

pushed. Some may not even have a story, some may just take pictures for the sake of taking pictures, and treat them

how ever they feel at the time. When we think from our own viewpoint and ignore the viewpoint of others, well, we start

implying a position of superiority. Not that I am implying that about anyone here, but a few good points have been

made. Like why is it ok to complain about a thread and tell the person to move on, yet it's not ok to tell a person to

move on if they don't like the thread. Different viewpoints make for good discussion, and diversity.

[luis_g]

<p>"To me this image goes beyond the bounds of photography."</p>

<p>Only because you are oblivious to the history of the medium. People were moving, removing and inserting trees, skies, hills, people, etc. in prints in the mid 1800's. Some of the most famous images of the era were composites. It was photography then, and why should it not be now?</p>

<p>http://www.codex99.com/photography/images/rejlander_lg.jpg</p>

<p>The camera is more than a reality Xerox machine. The malleability that is available is there for those who wish to use it. It does not confer or take away anything. If you want to stay close to the scene, do so. If not, go right ahead. Great, boring or schlock pictures can be made either way.</p>

<p>____________________________________________________</p>

<p>"It's just that we all have to figure out what makes each of us tick and then stick to that standard."</p>

<p>No, we don't.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>People were moving, removing and inserting trees, skies, hills, people, etc. in prints in the mid 1800's.</em></p>

<p>Really? And how common was that? Could you show some examples of landscapes with added trees published in e.g. Newsweek, Time, New York Times (Magazine or Newspaper), The Times, or National Geographic? What about travel magazines? Do you think the town where the castle in Eastway's image will use the image to promote travel to the castle? I think not, if they have some good sense.</p>

<p><em>The camera is more than a reality Xerox machine.</em></p>

<p>It isn't anything like a Xerox machine. A Xerox machine copies an image of a two-dimensional object, usually a piece of paper, on another two-dimensional object. A camera (typically) projects a three dimensional array of objects on a two-dimensional sensor. That difference is crucial, as you can find a million different ways to make a photograph of a scene with a camera and typically no two photographers will prefer the same viewpoint and composition. Thus there is a lot of creative possibilities just in the way the camera is positioned, lens, exposure, and timing are selected. That's the photography part (drawing with light). When people reproduce the image on paper in the darkroom (even with editing) it still is photography since the image is projected by light (there might be obstacles on the way altering exposure of parts of the print) whereas the digital version of making a print is a new process - call it digital print making or whatever you prefer (the editing is digital image processing). Calling it photography is like saying you're filling up your car with gas when it's really an electric car and you're charging its batteries. It makes no sense, unless of course you're trying to deceive and ride with the reputation of photography for authenticity.</p>

<p><em>If you don't post process are you not just a slave to the machine?</em></p>

<p>No, you aren't. There is plenty of space for creativity and expression without adding objects that weren't there in the scene, to the image. Of course, some people are unable to express themselves that way, i.e. they can't find interesting subject matter so they prefer (have to?) manufacture it digitally.</p>

<p><em>I don't think I have ever heard(read) a painter or artist put that limitation on their art work before. I don't think I can think of many valuable artists who hold or held your opinion. Just off the top of my head, I can't think of one.</em></p>

<p>It's easy enough to find documentary photographers and nature photographers who would not feel comfortable adding stuff to their images. In fact, this includes almost all of them. Generally both communities (and their readership) shun such editing; people can get fired or lose their reputations by adding stuff to images, and sometimes have. What the so called artists here fail to see is that this is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint.<em><br /></em></p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ilkka bristled - "</strong>Really? And how common was that?"</p>

<p>Quite common in art circles, the sky in particular. TIME, Newsweek, etc. Weren't around then. Ilkka, the OP was not about the authenticity or potential labeling of a digital composite. It was a lot simpler than that, though now it has drifted into other arenas entirely. If it was used in an ad as something you can expect to see on your vacation there, it would be fraud, of course. Compositing has, as I mentioned and linked to for illustrative purposes, been around for over 150 years. It's nothing new in photography. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>By the way (just so that there is no misunderstanding) I have no problem with digital art, or digital editing of photographs; I do prefer such creations to be disclosed as what they are instead of passing them off as straight photography (not in all contexts, for example in an art gallery it's fine not to say how it was made, but in many contexts disclosure is a good thing e.g. if promoting travel to the castle, or in a newsmagazine, it should be said that this isn't really what the castle looks like; otherwise it can be seen as deception). I don't have any issue with the existence of digital art or the preference of some people to practice it, just as I don't have any issue with painting or other fields of visual expression. Like the OP, I would never do such modifications - it isn't to my taste.</p>

<p>I find the suggestion that extensive modifications are somehow necessary for artistic expression is ridiculous. Photographic expression can be creative in so many other ways.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>It's nothing new in photography.</em></p>

<p>I am not suggesting that it is new (limited to digital), but if you look at photography as practiced by common people, or by documentary photographers, instead of the art community, adding objects in the darkroom was never common. And in the eyes of many ordinary people, the knowledge that something was added to the image will lead to rejection and loss of respect. The art community has a life of its own, of course, but it constitutes a very very small percentage of the photographs seen by the public. To the ordinary man, photography is not regarded so much as art, but as having a direct relationship with reality and the exclamations that may occur when viewing an extraordinary photograph relate to the rarity and remarkability of the event that <em>must have been </em>behind the making of such an image, because the projection relationship is assumed. Of course, today people are much less naive as they're aware that it could all have been made-up by computer, and often is. But many people hold special value to an image if it depicts something real (in the sense of an optical projection from 3D space to 2D) yet is still extraordinary. That includes myself, and I would guess the OP also feels that way. I don't care if the art community resents this relationship and fails to see its value.</p>

[dan_south]

Ilkka, thanks for the thoughtful and detailed comments. You've added a lot to the discussion.

 

Luis, I'm not oblivious. I've been around a long time. We used to call it "trick photography.". But I've also been around

long enough to have appreciated the documentary approach of Life and National Geographic. Their honest, open

approach to photography has always meant a lot more to me than manipulated contrivances. Just because one CAN

place virtual trees into a scene doesn't mean that one SHOULD.

[dan_south]

>>> Richard Sperry

 

On your smugmug page you have some night photos of the Golden Gate Bridge. You used a long shutter speed, longer

than 30 seconds, maybe a minute or two from the looks of it.

 

The car light trails as you photographed them do not look that way with my eyes. The color of the bridge is different in real

life. Even the color of the sky does not look that way in real life. If I stood next to you while you took that image, what I see

would look very different.

 

How do you consolidate or reconcile these two opposing things?

 

I've just ordered up a bunch of infrared film. I don't plan on photoshopping any of the prints I make. But would you regard

these film and unretouched images the same as you do of stiched photoshopped images. Are they the same trickery and

frauds to you? My eyes don't see infrared light, at the very least the photos will look different than I see them with my

eyes.

 

<<<

 

Richard, you raise very good points. Our eyes don't see light trails, because we perceive each moment uniquely (as

video does) rather than accumulating time and movement within a single image as still cameras do. That said, our eyes see motion that

the still camera cannot express other than by sandwiching instants of time into a composite. The light trails signify the

motion that our eyes would have perceived naturally and effortlessly. They are not suggesting something that wasn't

present at exposure time. I didn't paint in light trails to make stationary vehicles appear to be moving.

 

With regard to colors, I didn't change anything. They human eye, as you know, does not perceive color well in low light.

The camera has the ability to capture those low light colors accurately. The human eye also filters and alters color in almost every kind of light. The camera needs to apply white balance or external filtering to match this behavior. If we control the white balance, we end up with a different color rendition than they eye saw, and in fact the colors are more accurate.

 

You've got me on infrared, UV, Gamma rays, X-rays or any other extra-visible radiation source. I can't see them. But I've

seen photos of most of them, and my expectation is that those photos represent reality, even when it's inconvenient as

when I saw the chest X-ray of my collapsed lung. Personally, I'm glad that the radiologist didn't modify the image in

Photoshop to make my lung appear to be healthy. That would have done me and a couple of surgeons a disservice. If you want to alter your Infrared photos for creative purposes, that's

entirely up to you.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ilkka - "</strong>I find the suggestion that extensive modifications are somehow necessary for artistic expression..."</p>

<p>I never made that statement or suggested it.</p>

<p><strong>Ilkka - </strong>"Of course, today people are much less naive as they're aware that it could all have been made-up by computer, and often is."</p>

<p>True. Specially those under 40. We are leaving out context, which I believe makes all the difference, in this off-topic foray. The same picture on a museum wall is looked at differently than in National Geo, or Flickr.</p>

<p><strong>Ilkka - "</strong>The art community has a life of its own, of course, but it constitutes a very very small percentage of the photographs seen by the public."</p>

<p>...and it remains one of the few photographic experiences (outside of outright purchase) that the public <em>will pay money to see.</em></p>

<p>I do not feel like the unasked for, self-appointed Truthiness Steward for all those people who still believe that a photograph is a simple window upon the world, or that what they see in a photograph is replicated reality. <em>Caveat Inpectoris.<br /></em></p>

<p>[Frankly, we have this same argument here every few months, with the usual results. It should be under the FAQs. ]</p>

<p>Dan, it wasn't referred to as "trick photography" back then, just photography. And it wasn't put down or exalted all that much at the time. It was all normal, everyday.</p>

<p>I cannot help but get the distinct feeling that specific photographers are defending their turf and market from the compositors. Words like "honest", "manipulated contrivances" etc. speak volumes.</p>

<p>Ever use Velvia, Dan? Was that truth, dishonest, contrived, or what? Did it really look like that in real time when you were there? It didn't to me.</p>

<p>It is clear where you, Ilkka and others are on this question, which is quite different from the original post.</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>I like to push the limits of the potential of the system. Sometimes it produces a good result, but like everything else, most is not.</p>

[dan_south]

> If you don't post process are you not just a slave to the machine?

 

Are the folks who photograph sports and upload the images instantly for web publication slaves to their cameras? No,

they are MASTERS of their cameras, which is why they can produce nearly perfect images without any post processing.

 

I'm not knocking post processing; I do some amount of PP on most of my images. But in documetary situations with timelines that don't account for any PP, that doesn't meant that the photographer is a slave to anything or anyone. On the

contrary, perhaps those who rely on PP to make an image appealing are slaves to their own chosen set of tools. "Sure, it looks bland now, but just wait until I get it into Photoshop!".

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I find the suggestion that extensive modifications are somehow necessary for artistic expression is ridiculous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, you're being intellectually dishonest and have given us a straw man argument, that is you have created an argument that's simplistic for you to argue against but one that was never stated here. No one suggested <em>"extensive modifications are somehow <strong>necessary</strong>."</em> We're saying they are <em>possible</em> and very <em>acceptable</em>, even if we don't like the ones made in the photo linked to in the OP. We haven't been proclaiming the SHOULD and SHOULD NOTS here. </p>

<p>Tim had said this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I trip the shutter I can't put in my mind another vision of something that scene isn't or can't be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And in response, Richard said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I have ever heard(read) a painter or artist put that limitation on their art work before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You then bring in photojournalism and documentary work, which is not what we were talking about. The photographer who was linked to in the OP was not claiming to be a pj or documentarian and that wasn't the subject at hand. Of course we know that there would be restrictions in those arenas.</p>

<p>I agree with Richard. I can understand why Tim, a NON-DOCUMENTARY and NON-PJ photographer, might want to put any limitation on himself he wants. I can't understand why he'd want to put those limitations on others. I can't understand why he can't understand that others see the world differently and see the photographic process very differently from him.</p>

<p>______________________</p>

<p>In answer to Tim's question:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Where is HIS story originating from?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>His mind's eye, his unique vision, his imagination . . . Consider that when he looks at the same scene as you and is behind the lens of the camera, he's not seeing even close to what you're seeing. </p>

[dan_south]

Luis, good point. I prefer Velvia 100 because the colors look more accurate to me than the hyper saturated 50.

 

Slide film is also an extremely high-contrast medium. It renders many scenes with Rembrandt-like shadows. That's part

of the look and the appeal. But for that matter every film that you or I have ever used had/has its own unique look. So

whether it's Velvia or Kodachrome or Tri-X or TMax 100 or Kodak drugstore print film, the film is making its own particular

set of adjustments to the light provided by the lens and shutter.

[richardsperry]

<p>"But I've seen photos of most of them, and my expectation is that those photos represent reality,"</p>

<p>I don't expect reality from photos like you, it seems. Do you want to know what he first thing that popped into my head when I saw your castle example?</p>

<p>Terry Gilliam as Patsy from Holy Grail, (Camelot, Camelot, Camelot)...."It's only a model". I had expected to see just a stitched photo, it was immediately apparent that it was manipulated far more for the photographer's vision.</p>

<p>It's not real, and that is why even models are called models.</p>

<p>It's an illusion. And you are just an illusionist as a photographer. Please don't really believe in magic, it's not real. You can if you want to, I can't change your opinion on the matter. Please don't try and convince us that it is really magic.</p>

<p>I can give you example after example of film and print manipulation that is analogous to some PS technique that is used trying to convince you that it was all done before a PC or Mac built. But you can find those examples yourself, and you're not going accept the examples anyway. So this is the part of this post where I would place links to those examples....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>the film is making its own particular set of adjustments to the light provided by the lens and shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's one of the many reasons why a photograph is DIFFERENT FROM the subject photographed. Though there is often a referential connection between a photo and the scene photographed, there is not as often a representational connection. I usually have very different expectations from a PHOTO of a scene and a SCENE, except for situations like where I'm checking out photos of houses I want to buy, and even then I'm more often surprised when I show up at the actual house. Sometimes the "accuracy" of a photo can be exciting and sometimes the "inaccuracy" of a photo can be exciting. I consider context, intent, and the finished product in assessing what level of accuracy works in what situations. In a lot of photographic contexts, considering "accuracy" doesn't even occur to me.</p>

[richardsperry]

Funny,

 

I hadn't read the last three sentences of your first post before I made the illusionist analogy. Really, I didn't.

 

You really do believe it is real.

 

No matter how well the illusion is performed, the lady is not really sawed in half or is really levitating. It is a trick. And the

measure of how good it is, is how well it is performed.

 

The sky over the Golden Gate was not that blue, and there were no streaks of light where the cars were that night you

photographed it. It is as fake as anything else that is manipulated photographically, and it is still a good photograph. You

just used time(a long shutter speed) to do your manipulating. For it is the vision that you had, the illusion you wanted to

perform.