Paul

Paul,

 

Everything you say I agree with: from the ease of Photoshop vs. Darkroom, to that "line in the sand". But we still have a point of contention...

 

Where is the proper place for manufactured images?

 

First let me say that I don't have any problem, in principle, with manufacturing a digital image. I'd do more of it, if I could draw (which I can't really). I have done some of it for fun (and it can be a lot of fun). But I don't think this work, even if derived from or based on a photograph, can properly be called "photography". If not, then I don't think it should be put alongside real photography on a basis of synonymy.

 

I know what you mean and I agree when you say that both are just different aspects of the more general field of "imaging". And that exponents of both are truly "imagists". And that the line between them can be blurred at times. But photo.net is not an "imaging" site. It's a photographic site, but one where, more and more, general or manufactured imaging seeks to be judged in photographic terms.

 

Let's go back to another music analogy: it seems to me that you're saying, "I want to bring my synth and its canned rhythm programs to your symphony orchestra. The stuff we play is genuinely creative, just different from yours. But hey! It's all music, isn't it? In return, I'll let you play at my electronic gigs with your Strad violin". Who's being generous with who? What if the symphony orchestra doesn't want canned rhythms in its percussion section? Why must the offer, undoubtedly "generous" as it is, be accepted in the first place?

 

Another analogy. A distant relative you've never met bangs on the door to your 5th Avenue apartment. He says, "We've come to stay for a month", and ushers wife, six kids and two dogs and a pet iguana into the room. In response to your surprise at this announcement he says, "It's OK... next time you're in Pokahokey, come stay with me! Bring your iguana if you like!". You don't have an iguana, you never want to go to Pokahokey and you don't want to associate with the distant relative (or his menagerie). The "generous" offer is beside the point if all you want to do is keep yourself to yourself.

 

It seems to me that the digital imagists are like the relatives you don't really want to know. Nothing against them... they're just not your "type". Now this might seem like snobbery, but is it?

 

Don't the orchestra, the 5th Avenue citizen and the conventional photographer all have the right to decline the offer of co-habitation? For no other reason than they don't care to expand their horizons (no matter how limiting that may appear to be?).

 

Why should digital imagists feel that it is their right to move right in on already established territory, especially when those already there might not want to share it in the first place?

 

The points above are purely personal on my part. They are put solely in an attempt to rebut your argument that somehow I, and others who share my views on the distinction between "imaging" and "photography", have an obligation to accept manufactured imaging onto photo.net, just because "it's there" and the imagists don't mind sharing. Don't the photographers have a say in this too?... and before the peanut gallery starts hooting, why is this necessarily snobbery?

 

If you want to know where my personal line in the sand is, it's at about that point where the principle originating medium departs from the side of the camera onto the side of the computer (and these things should be judged on aesthetics and process, not simply on time spent at a keyboard or clicking a mouse).

 

If someone came along, toting their Yamaha guitar synth to jam with Clapton I'm sure he'd show them the door, no matter how convincing it sounded.

Tony, I've checked my lineage and we're cousins. So, I guess I can't stay with you???

 

Very good points about letting the "Digi's" into our established space uninvited. It was not so long ago that photographers were accepted as bona-fide artists by the paint and turpentine crowd. What to do? I have no answer.

 

I think the turmoil over this image lies in the fact that it was "burned-in" in the shadows behind the subject (the very handsome and masculine, sensual subject) via digital methods. Question to ponder: "Is it ok for us to burn, dodge, flash, or vignette a photograph (in a wet darkroom or at the lab) and submit that image to this forum?"

 

We are faced with a dilemma that isn't going away in our lifetimes.

I agree with Paul. The line in the sand is not so easy to draw universally. Whilst Tony for example may draw it 'here' others may draw it 'there'. I also question the territorial approach. I mean exactly whose 'house' is it? It's not strictly photography's house. It's Philip Greenspun's, and until he says he doesn't want particular forms of 'digital imaging' here, and draws his line in the sand, then we should all feel welcome. The house and relative analogy is inappropriate to my mind. A house is much more personal and private so territorial feelings are justified. A portal of webspace offered to the public, with no published or established restrictions regarding these distinctions, is quite another matter altogether. I appreciate Tony is saying these distinctions ought to be made, but at this stage in the development of newer technology I think it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Dear Cousin Paul,

 

I am in receipt of your invitation of the 10th instant. Unfortunately, Deidre and I are unable to make it down to Pokahokey this summer. What with the repainting of the doors to remove the spaniel scratches from off of the back of them and the expermientation required to find just the best solvent for iguana guano (it seems dimethyl tin dilaurate works fine... pity about the sores that have sprung up all over my my left arm), why time seems to have evaporated altogether.

 

Diedre tells me that her therapy is going fine and she expects to be able to lead a normal life any year now.

 

Of course we had to get rid of the bed you and Tessy slept in. It was on its last legs anyhow and Tessy's 350 pounds were obviously the final straw (why, it was as if the bedframe was made of balsa wood once she "tested it out", wasn't it?). The urine stains just confirmed in our minds that it was time to get a new mattress (and to re-paint the room as well). As for the skid marks in the bathroom, they came off with a bit of soaking in antiseptic and a vigorous application of the wire brush.

 

By the way, that reminds me, we must send your golf shoes back to you sometime (no, no... there's no need for you to come back and fetch them). We were both impressed with your ability to drive a golf ball three hundred yards... straight through the wall of the master bedroom (we didn't mind sleeping in the bathtub at all). Hope your practicing with the 9-iron up against the living room divider improved your game (the craters were easy to fill in, once we cleared away the chandelier fragments).

 

How are the kids? Have they finished their sentences yet? We're sorry we had to call the police, but when little Annie-Lou pulled a gun on the elevator attendant (and actually shot his dog) we thought things had gone a teensy bit too far ;). I hope Paul Jr. will be out of the "Big House" by the time he reaches his forties. It's not fair that such a young person should attract a 20 year stretch for arson. I thought 5 to 10 would have been sufficient.

 

All in all we enjoyed your two year stay with us in New York. We wish you could come back, but as we are selling the apartment and moving into a trailer, it might be difficult for you to reach us (at least we're hoping it is).

 

In the meantime, all the best and keep on truckin' (heh, heh - just not in the foyer of our apartment block... replacing that Italian marble cost us a fortune),

 

All the best,

 

Your cousin,

 

Tony.

 

P.S. Say hello to Lizzy The Lizard for us. My, she does have sharp teeth, doesn't she? And I never knew iguanas liked live rats every night for dinner. We always thought they were vegetarian! We still think of her, every time we crunch a dead rodent's rib cage under our slippers in the mornings.

 

Kiss-kiss,

 

xxx,

 

i just found this

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/images/20011222-1.jpg

spooky :))

Your photo exemplifies the reason I joined this site: To learn something.

 

Thank you.

All the energy and time I spent here has convinced me not to bother again.

 

Ninety percent of what was said was "listen to me and honor my words because I did not get the Honor of the Week". The people who came on most are those with tremendous recognition needs that could never be filled with a POW or #1 rating in any case for the truth known by Buddha and all wise philosopers is this:

 

HONOR IS NOT IN BEING HONORED. HONOR IS IN ACTING WITH HONORABLE INTENTIONS AND CREATIVE INTELLEGENCE FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS NOT YOURSELF.

 

I CONGRATULATE PETER!!!YOUR SELF CONTROL AND THAN ATTEMPT TO AID SOMEONE BEING BULLIED SHOWS YOU WERE THE MOST HONORABLE MAN HERE. CONTINUE IN THIS HONORABLE PATH AND WHATEVER HONOR THAT COMES YOUR WAY MAY OR MAY NOT REFLECT THAT YOU ARE HONORABLE.

MARAVILLOSA!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!

Outstanding. All the more so because you did NOT include the window!

"Impressionism"!!!

I love the way this photo tells a story not with detail but by omission. It really reminds me of the way men from my Great Grandfathers era would communicate. Excellent. It is difinitely better without the window by the way.

...tomatoe.

In spite of all the classes, reading and personal study I've invested into both the "art" and "photography" worlds (and still consider myself a novice in both), it would almost seem that the more one considers themself a critic, the less likely that person is to compliment someone's work. If being in Universe #2 (U2) means condemning Universe #1 (U1) work based on some arguably vague criteria as to what puts you in either of these Universes, then almost nothing from U2 can be considered based on anything more objective than what U1 might be using. After all, if photography is an artform, U2's might claim to be more sophisticated and understand the artform better, but if the majority of the people seem to identify with the work, doesn't that mean U2's are simply too removed from emotion or appreciation of that style of work? Perhaps in order to seem like a professional critic, one must appear cold and detached from the possibility that a U1 might occasionally snap off a U2 worthy shot. If that is the case, then maybe I'm in bliss, but it is not an ignorance from my lack of trying to understand the artform regardless of what others may think. Personally, if after a life long pursuit to be highly regarded in photography and I was ever found worthy of becoming a member of Universe #2, I'd stick with Mr. Marx's philosophy: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."

 

For the record, I am an engineer by trade. I rue the day when i cannot judge the work of an engineer "less experienced" than me who found a different way to design something than I might have used and not appreciate the work for what it is. I've been in this profession for 15+ years and still learn things everyday that can improve my work. Of course, unlike engineering, in photography, I feel there are no wrong answers. or bad pictures. Just bad critics. Photos, after all, are just manipulations of reality and with 6+ billion people in this world, that leaves a lot of possibilities out there for some interesting and exciting photos.

 

Oh, and incidentally, I like the picture.

 

Great work. In answer to the original question, leave the window out.

 

A couple of quick responses to some of the ongoing discussion. What's with the hat comments. People do wear hats - I never go outside without one. Although I would normally want to see the man looking into the blank space, in this case what's been done works. I'm ambivalent on digital manipulation. At some point an image crosses the line from photo into digital artwork that isn't a photo any longer. I can't necessarily describe that line, but this image doesn't cross it, maybe because nothing was done digitally that couldn't have been done with traditional lab techniques, or maybe just because it still looks like a straight photo.

 

As for all of the ongoing discussion about ratings and such, I wish people would confine comments to the photo at hand.

 

Great work.

i like it, i see hundreds of photos by "artist", everyday, most are far from art and a waste of film (i hope they can recycle) I don't see just a picture of a man here, it tells me something about him and the photographer, but i will keep that opinion to myself. wouldn't want to start a riot. laura

Another fine example of "Less is Better".

Stunning Photograph and excellent work!

Lesa Fine

After long minutes of admiring this picture : to balance the red hat, I need to see a tight dark blue shadow on the shoulder. The line in not enough.

Breaking rules and making it work, I love it. Great shot.

To the esteemed Mr. Dummett (et al):

 

I read your musical analogy with interest, but it seems you've never been to a "Pops" concert where Strads and Yamahas and Peavys and flat tops and tympani and trap sets all work together harmoniously and the "serious" musicians don't look down on the Claptons but enjoy their work.

 

You and I are pretty close in age and I too started with film. The difference I think is that I've always seen myself capturing "images". Whether I do so to film or to digital media seems irrelevant. Light still bounces off that which is "real", travels through the lens and is captured either in a layered emulsion or in discrete values of ones and zeros. What we "capture" are images of the reality, not the reality itself (well, there was that one time when I captured a young lady with my camera strap, but I had to let her go).

 

As long as what is done in Photoshop is analagous to a wet darkroom process I don't see a problem. I'm sure you'd agree that there are images that have been processed more traditionally that have just been fiddled with (to carry on with your Strad analogy I suppose) too much to be considered more photographic than some images that were digitally captured (by scanning a slide perhaps) and posted as-is without manipulation of any sort.

 

What I see in this discussion is more like an artist taking another to task because they used masonite rather than canvas and acrylics rather than oils. Give me a stand-out medium format camera with a killer lens and rock-solid tripod and I'll likely take better pictures in one respect because I'm using better equipment. But my composition isn't likely to improve even a smidgen and I may not know how to take full advantage of the technology in newer film-based cameras while the lens is going to be as sharp as it can be barring just not getting the thing focused or hand-holding after my body gets too weak to hold steady through the exposure.

 

Have you seen the Pepsi commercial where the simple choice of softdrinks leads a young Jimi Hendrix to a guitar rather than an accordion? I think it's funny, but do you really think the kid would have chosen to be an acid trippin' polka king if he'd have had a Coke instead?

 

In short, I think Da Vinci would have embraced the use of computers to get from point A to point B more efficiently while holding on to traditional things for certain aesthetic qualities the technology just didn't allow him to evoke.... yet.

 

I still enjoy my pen-and-inks and there's a sense of reward when finishing a picture that is, in many ways, superior to what I feel when I capture a good shot in-camera (whether digital or film). I suppose that's the Blood, Sweat and Tears factor at work. But all the same I'm having a ball learning to use the computer to fine tune what I was able to capture in-camera and I feel no sense of shame in calling the prints that roll off my Epson printer "photos" or "images". When I listen to some of the comments here I feel like I'm supposed to be ashamed of my work simply "because" it's digital.

Sorry Peter,

 

What drew me to this discussion in the first place was seeing your (insert preferred noun describing "Paul") among many that had been rated and commented on by certain of the "top" (whatever that may mean) commentators on the site here.

 

For what it's worth, I liked the composition and I clicked on it before viewing a lot of the others. However, I must say that I thought the "pimp hat" comments were based on the supposed "red" color of the hat which I thought was really a brown fedora with warm light (or filtration) making it look a bit reddish.

 

In short. Your image caught my eye and drew me in.

The rules are there to be broken and you have done it very well here. The end result is what matters, excellent work.

Two-three lines, and in a magic way it's excactly him, nobody else.

That's an artistic portrait. Congratulations, this is a masterpiece.

Sculped with light... I was amazed to read you took it in a church, my first thought was that it was a shot taken in a studio with carefully calculated lighting. All the better. A prize-winner.