vertigoclimb

Hey Carl,

 

I just looked though your list of highest rated photo's. There are a lot of very manipulated images. Even many landscapes. Maybe Mr. Adams was right when he said; "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance."

Carl,

 

Nice to see you. I've not been posting too much in these forums lately. Carl, not only do I work as an artist and a photographer but, I've worked for years as an IT Consultant. I use object mapping and built databases. I'm very well versed in catagorizing. That was one of my points.

 

"You're implying that unmanipulated photography lacks life and interest. It would be more accurate to say that of many of the photographs taken by people who end up resorting to heavy handed manipulation."

 

Silliness. How about something like this: There are photographers who are masters with a camera. There are also photographers who aren't. Some photographers use darkrooms, some do not. Some photographers use digital software, some do not.

 

Some photographers can afford lenses, filters, classes, etc..., have the required skills, and know all the manipulation techniques possible with the camera. Some photographers can afford a darkroom, have the required skills, and know all the manipulation techniques possible within a darkroom. Some photographers can afford digital software, have the required skills, and know all the manipulation techniques possible with digital software. Some photographers posess all the above mentioned. Some do not. Some photographers use all the resources and tools available to them. Some do not.

 

This is not implying that any photographer is better or worse than any oher. Each uses their set of skills to the best of their ability to capture images that appeal to them.

 

"This is where it gets tricky. Manipulation, pre-, post-, or PS, looks best to many people if you retain a reasonably accurate sense of place (assuming the viewers are reading it as a photograph.) If you want to create something fantastical, that's fine, but it no longer has any reasonable connection to what the camera saw and what a camera does best - record a moment in time. I noticed that you haven't attempted to address cases where the purpose of manipulation is to fool the viewer, fake reflections being a good example."

 

This is your opinion. Yes, manipulation has ALWAYS had an air of "fantastical" (even 50 or more years ago). I've seen many b&w'landscapes that are very nice. They are far and away not what the photographer saw, unless he/she is completely colorblind. Then there are those pesky filters.... I could go on and on. reducing glare, adding mood, etc... oh, my... let's not forget film. So many types to manipulate my photography with, so little time. etc... you get it I hope.

 

I do agree that one shouldn't be dishonest and try to state that a manipulated image hasn't been. But, there is a hazy line here. Who will set the guidelines as to what is manipulated? Should we use the standards of 100 years ago? 50? 10? 5? today?

 

"My primary photographic efforts are not focused on light painting or the need for any other pre- or postprocessing, either traditional or digital."

 

So? Mine should be too? Should we take a vote? Who votes for NO manipulation raie your hand... raise your hand if it's ok to burn and dodge... use filters... use darkroom manipulation... add a border... ect.

 

I have much experience submitting my work to venues that require categorization. "Landscape" is very broad. It's a catagory for good landscapes, bad landscapes, dodged landscapes, burned landscapes, landscapes that were taken with the use of filters, landscapes that were "made" using Multiple Exposures, Zooming, Panning, Bulb Photography, Light painting, Slide Sandwiching, Cross Processing, Toning, Split Toning, Hand Coloring, Negative and Slide Sandwiching, Diffusers and Texture Screens, and Uneven Development. That is just the tip of the manipulation iceberg. It would be very hard to find any photo's if we had to weed through all the variables.

 

Oh, one other thing... If I were to sandwich two slides or two layers... like say... add a moon to one of my black and white photo's... would my photo be of no further use to anyone?

 

"Of course, Adams then had to complete the process by printing the image--a process during which he could considerably alter the overall light or detail that emerged in the final print. Such alterations would usually affect the entire image uniformly (as demonstrated in Ansel Adams at 100 by different prints from a single negative of Mount McKinley and Wonder Lake, Alaska) For Moonrise, according to an account by the Getty Museum, Adams apparently manipulated the image more selectively than was usual for him, by printing the sky black and the foreground dark.

 

According to Brower, Adams himself would often say: "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." In that case, one should conclude that the real artist is Nature itself, while Adams's role as photographer is mainly that of an interpreter (Szarkowski observes, for example, that the last third of Adams's life was devoted to the "reinterpretation" of negatives made years before). --Michelle Marder Kamhi

There are artists. There are photographers. And there are people who are both.

 

There are those who paint... they paint houses, fences, etc. They use one color to coat the surface and are called painters. Then there are others who use paint to paint walls, fences, canvas, etc... They dont just use one flat color. They use many different colors to paint scenes. They are called painters.

 

There are people who use camreas who are a lot like the first painter. They are photographers and use just one method, adhereing to what they were taught is good wall painting (if you've ever painted your house you know that there are certain techniques to follow for good results).

 

Then there are people who use a camera and like the second painter don't stop with just flat or glossy color. They use their skill like the second painter to bring life and interest(if you've ever painted a scene you know there are certain techniques to follow). They are photographers.

 

If I use paint to cover a wall I'm a painter. If I use many colors of paint to paint scenes on a wall I'm a pianter. If I use a camera to shoot photo's, I am a photographer. If I use a camera to shoot photo's and also use other pre or post processing techniques, I am a photographer.

 

If I were to dress my dog like a ballerina is he now a ballerina or still a dog? If I dress my son like a policeman is he a policeman or still my son? If I take a photo and pre or post process it, is it now just a process devoid of the photo I took or any other merit?

 

If I were to paint my house one lovely flat color, I'd surely not alienate or disregard those who's talents are far above mine and are able to paint scenes. Just because I think walls should be one color with no more effort put into them, doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

 

Frankly, I say get over it. A nature or landscape photo that has been pre or post processed can and many times are very beautiful. If adding color is out... then subtracting it should be out too. No more b&w's. It's not exactly true to what the photographer saw. No filters, Multiple Exposures, Zooming, Panning, Bulb Photography, Light painting, Slide Sandwiching, Cross Processing, Toning, Split Toning, Hand Coloring, Negative and Slide Sandwiching, Diffusers and Texture Screens, or Uneven Development. All of these are done in a darkroom but, are manipulation.

 

I for one would hate to have to weed through many nature sub catagories (pre manip, post manip, too much manip, too little manip, added color, burned and dodged, b&w, etc... the number of sub catagories could go on and on) just to see a few nature shots.

we all know my hands are clean in this situation. my photo's are Never manipulated. Only bad photo's need manipulation to make them look good. A good photographer / artist need never manipulate. He / she should have a full grasp of all technical and artistic technique at his / her disposal. Lighting should always be perfect and the scene composed exactly right. nah, I'm joking. I'm the worst about manipulating photo's. But, I think it's fun and it provides a wonderful income. Doing this for a living and knowing many people who do... has led me to the realization that many very good photographers manipulate. I'm not sure I can think of too many professionals who don't. so, this being a learning site... it would be wise that all of the many facets of learning photography be allowed. from the ruff draft all the way to the touched up final image. just because you don't want to learn how or to see the "finished product" (what it's called in the industry lol)doesn't mean no one else does. but, that's just my two cents.

I've been around here long enough to have seen many things done to try to prevent this. Here's the problem... abusive people find a way to cheat the system, they are hunted down and stopped, and the way to cheat the system is eliminated... then other/ or the same abusive people find a way to cheat the system, they are hunted down and stopped, and the way to cheat the system is eliminated... then other/the same abusive people find a way to cheat the system, they are hunted down and stopped, and the way to cheat the system is eliminated... repeat this over and over.

 

kind of like the flu... there are ways to slow it's spread but, we can't prevent it. We have to dread it's arrival every year. everything is being done to prevent it but it's adaptable and persistent nature keeps it around.

 

Bet you didn't realize you'd have this much problem with with some of these great folks when you signed on with photo.net did you Brian. whew...

The upolad many photo's at once feature ROCKS! Thank you.

 

Many Smiles,

Lisa

<div></div>

I'd just like to add that I feel for you Brian. Keeping up with all the riff-raff must be daunting. You're certainly a hard working man. This is a chronic problem. whew...

yes, it seems that some things never change. This has been an issue for so long that it's passed being redundant. just asked for a critique request... same image that was very highly rated, got 3's.... whatever. just look though my folders if you'd like to leave a real rating or critque. this is the only way I can find to get noticed here on photo.net. I stopped posting in hopes that silliness would stop. it hasn't.

yes, it seems that some things never change. This has been an issue for so long that it's passed being redundant. just asked for a critique request... same image that was very highly rated, got 3's.... whatever. just look though my folders if you'd like to leave a real rating or critque. this is the only way I can find to get noticed here on photo.net. I stopped posting in hopes that silliness would stop. it hasn't.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>