Rowell Museum Photographs: Are the colors modified?

[robb_reed]

Hi there all...

 

I stopped in at the Rowell Museum in Bishop several weeks ago for the

first time. It is really difficult to believe, as the staff claim,

that his and his wife's images haven't been tinkered with digitally,

beyond just enlarging them. Anyone else take that impression away

with them?

 

Cheers,

 

Robb Reed

[michael gordon httpwww]

No. Unless it's changed, there used to be a lightbox out with some of the original chromes on it for viewing.

 

Those who tend to view Rowell's images and others digital enlargements/prints with such a level of skepticism have just spent too long looking at mediocre prints and accepted them as good and right.

 

FYI, Rowell only shot in 35mm and unless this too has changed, it's just a gallery, not a museum.

[georges_pelpel]

Most of Rowell's images were shot with Velvia and a lot of them using Graduated

Neutral density filters.

[mark_erickson]

I'll add a bit to Georges' statements, too. Rowell shot lots of stuff in remote locations, at high altitudes, or with clear on-shore ocean breezes. Such clear air yields really pure sunrise and sunset colors. It doesn't hurt that Rowell pretty much wrote the book(s) on capturing such colors on film.

[john_burnley1]

Don't underestimate the intensity of light in high mountain regions. A lot of Galen's work was shot on Kodachrome (up to the past ten years or so) and those - I'd venture - probably look every bit as intense color-wise as his more recent Velvia work. It is the surroundings (and light thereof) more than the film that accounts for the striking light in his images.

[jim_galli4]

"...Anyone else take that impression away with them?.." Yes. I live near Bishop and must admit that my thoughts when I first walked in the door were "WOW" and by the time I walked out the door were "Hell, I know where the hue saturation slider is in Photo Shop too."

[doug_meek1]

Chromes don't lie. Next time you're at the gallery take a look at the chromes on a light table. It's simply a matter of understanding light, how film reacts to light, and knowing how to properly use grad nd's and polarizing filters. Galen had a God-given talent for all of the above.

[stephen hazelton]

I think his older stuff was all shot on Kodachrome 25 (as I seem to recall from reading "Mountain Light" several years back. Based on that book, I don't think his images needed any tinkering digitally.

[rw_hawkins]

<p>I find this cynicism worrisome that so many can look at perhaps

some of this generations finest color works and doubt their

credibility!</P>

<p>This is my big concern about digital imaging, if a viewer can no

longer take the leap of faith that the picture represents an actual

moment of time as interpreted by light sensitive materials then we

might as well all become painters.</P>

<P>For those that argue they are above this because they don't use

digital, my experience has been the average viewer will lump all of

photography together.</P>

<P>I would urge photographers to educate others that not everything

in this modern world is a lie, a cheat or deception. And for

heaven's sake, as a photographer, have a little trust in a fellow

artist.</P>

[tim_atherton2]

"This is my big concern about digital imaging, if a viewer can no

longer take the leap of faith that the picture represents an actual

moment of time as interpreted by light sensitive materials then we

might as well all become painters."

 

I'm not sure I see the difference between using an "unnatural" film like Velvia or even K25 (and of course they are all unnatural or unreal in one sense of another) or using ND filters or polarizers (or in B&W using softer or harder grade papers or fiddling mightily with obscure ultra-dilute developers or dodging and burning in a grand opera Adamsesque way) and doing any of the above in Photoshop?

 

Rowell's images (from what I know) may well not have been manipulated at the printing stage, merely at the taking stage, in terms of film choice or polarizers (but even then, different choices in colour paper give different results).

 

A photograph isn't a "truthful" (or even factual) duplicate of the scene, whatever we might like to think - it's the photographers interpretation of that scene. The materials and techniques they chose reflect the way they see that scene and wish to present it.

 

There is (and never has been) a direct path - scene to film to paper. There have always been interpetive choices along the way. But in the past, photographers have often liked to pretend this wasn't the case.

[michael gordon httpwww]

<b>There is (and never has been) a direct path - scene to film to paper. There have always been interpetive choices along the way. But in the past, photographers have often liked to pretend this wasn't the case.</b>

 

<p>This is an important statement. I think more 'consumers' and viewers now understand the nature of an expressive print and thus question the 'realism' of the photography more. I think Tim is right in suggesting that in the past people were more in the dark about the process.

[rw_hawkins]

<p>I disagree, in the past there has been a "nature photography

contract" between photographer and viewer which said "this

happened/existed and I was there to record it". Nature photographers

did not misrepresent a scene by pasting extra zebras into a shot.

Their chosen medium and approach conveyed this unspoken contract,

and viewers trusted this because they were not constantly lied

to.</P>

 

<p>Maybe we are so close to the process that we don't notice the

inherent differences between photographically (and here I refer to

the Webster's definition "The art or process of producing images of

objects on photosensitive surfaces") recording versus digitally

sampling, bit fiddling, bit copying, converting again to ink being

dispensed from tiny jets etc. These are a world apart, although the

end results strive to be the same. Digital imaging is unfortunately

often used as a immitative medium that tries to look like something

it is not.</P>

 

<p>Throwing away the rules in art is good, unfortunately it

undermines the very basis of the "nature photography contract". As

viewers are exposed to digital lies they become jaded and assume if

some do it then all must. Gone is the ability to look at a print and

imagine what it was like to experience the scene.<p>

 

<p>Don't assume I am an old timer longing for the days of old, I

have used Photoshop my entire adult life. I am just interested in

how this new technology affects perceptions. <B>There will always be

a direct path from scene to paper/film restricted by "photographic"

laws that most understand of film and light response, and this art

will continue to be practiced by "traditional" photographers</b></p>

[paul_coppin]

"Nature photography contract"? Who you kidding? There's never been a contract of belief between nature photographers and their audience. I'd hazard a guess that most nature photography is contrived at some level or another. There are some nature photographers who will tell you when a picture has been manipulated (Rowell believed in this), but many more won't. You might be surprised at the lengths some very prestigious organizations have gone to obtain a publishable nature print. This isn't an indictment of nature photographers or photographers in general, but nature photographers aren't any closer to sainthood than any other photo shooter category.

[michael gordon httpwww]

<b>I disagree, in the past there has been a "nature photography contract" between photographer and viewer which said "this happened/existed and I was there to record it". Nature photographers did not misrepresent a scene by pasting extra zebras into a shot. Their chosen medium and approach conveyed this unspoken contract, and viewers trusted this because they were not constantly lied to.</b>

 

<p>I've never seen nor signed a copy of that contract :)

 

<p>I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, but I think you've twisted the topic a little in that this topic is about color and light, not compositing. AFAIK, Rowell never composited. The concern here is whether the light and color are 'real', and I will still contend that both light and color have been manipulated by photographers and printmakers since the beginnings of the darkroom.

 

<p>Photojournalism and documentary work is a seperate issue. IMO, compositing should be disclosed, and as seen recently with the termination of an LA Times photographer, compositing is not and should not be tolerated in journalism.

 

<p>If Ansel dodged and burned the hell out of Hernandez and Rowell used Velvia and stacked grad ND filters, the public doesn't need to know that. It's the photographers interpretation of the scene. Either you like the photograph and buy the print, or you don't. Artists should make art, and journalists should make honest journalism.

[gwrhino]

Not really wanting to get involved in the old digital/ analog debate, I will add this. "Chromes do lie"..... (with the caveat of possibly EPN which studio shooters use for faithful color rendition, when "Marlboro Red" must be rendered exactly) colorwise, most every other film is an interpretation of a given scene.

 

I find it difficult to believe that Galen left original chromes on his light table in the gallery for examination. More likely, he left dupes on the table, to minimize the chance of someone walking off with valuable originals. There is always a contrast gain in the use of duping film, and of course the colors can be manipulated during the duping process just like they can (be manipulated) in camera. Pure and simple, transparency film changes color with exposure.

 

It was always my impression that Galen exposed his film for maximum saturation, and used things like the NDGrads (which he invented) to allow him to do just that with consistency, creating his personal style.

 

http://georgestocking.com

[rw_hawkins]

<p>In the original question, notice that Robb did not say "I do not

accept Rowell's interpretation of that scene" instead he made some

interesting assumptions. He correctly surmised that Rowell was

somehow saying that this light/scene WAS real (the unwritten

contract), but did not accept this reality and instead assumed it

was digitally manipulated. Would he have made the same assumptions

of a Black & White print, or a Cibachrome, or the original

transparency?</p>

<p>I tend to avoid digital/traditional debate as I find it largely

irrelevant, but I do find viewer's psychology very interesting,

which is why I replied to this post. If we as photographers cannot

accept the concept of an expressive print how can we expect our

viewers to?</p>

[dave_henry1]

The slides you refer to are not dupes in the traditional sense but

are instead slides generated from the digital file on an 8000 line

Lasergraphics film recorder.

[squareframe]

this sounds like a bunch of sand-lot playing teenagers sitting in the bleachers critiquing Babe Ruth's swing.

[doug_meek1]

George Stocking -

 

Hi George - It looks like you misred Robb's original post. Robb's question was simple - he wanted to know whether or not Galen's photos had been digitally manipulated. As we all know, digital manipulation occurs from the chrome to the final print. It does not occur between the scene and the chrome when shooting with film. Like I said in response to Robb's original post, "chromes don't lie".

[gordonr]

Galen's (last?) published article appears in the April 2003 National Geographic, and those photos appear normal due to the nature of the subject and lighting. I agree that at first glance some of his other photos appear oversaturated, but the above answers about film and light explain most of that. My own humble portfolio includes a few photos that are hard to believe (unless you were there).

[ken_schroeder]

A number of years ago, Galen Rowell was a McKinley Scholar. (A program shared by three colleges in the Canton, Ohio area. The program lasts several days, during which the scholar speaks numerous times at the three colleges.) I attended almost all of the lectures, and had lunch with him and a group. He was a very likable man, and a very knowledgable photographer. He had a strong background in physics which gave him a definite edge with light. He knew that rainbows occur at "the anti-solar point". (180 degrees from the sun) He knew where to look. Using the old expression, "chance favors the prepared mind", he had a very prepared mind, and body too. He jogged regularly.

 

We all manipulate images. Film/developer/development method/paper/filters/etc. Galen talked about one of his images. It was a hut late in the day. He was with a climbing party and the party was celebrating a birthday. The group happened to be all male. A liquor company bought some rights to the image, and substituted a man and a woman into the hut window instead of his climbing group. This bothered him; it didn't seem like his image any more. I would be very surprised if his images were not the genuine articles.

[ken_hughes4]

there is nothing wrong with radically changing the scene to fit your vision, in art everything is on the table. as for rowell, however, I find his work very garish and common, you see one oversaturated color nature shot, you've seen them all. so few photographers around doing any color nature worth looking at in my opinion.