jana_mullerova

October 27, 1998

I take the advantage of this question being posted and ask a related

one: How do the particular focal distances affect/limit the usage of

the Canon T/S's, and which one do you find most useful? (It is not

easy to rent equipment here in Europe, so I will buy one T/S.)

October 21, 1998

PHOTO = light (Greek), GRAPHEIN = to draw (Greek). By your standards I

may be a troglodyte (a happy one, then:-) but I still believe that

words have meaning and that belief is important. PHOTOGRAPHY is

defined well enough, any adjective (e.g. "analog") is oblivious.

Either do photography and call it photography, or do something else

and call it something else. If you are indeed happy and proud doing

something else, be happy and proud to state it, and leave the

old word to the old thing to which it has belonged 160 years and will

belong many more, as long as anybody does the old thing.

October 20, 1998

As Galen Rowell put it in the April issue of Outdoor Photographer:

"When we alter an image to draw attention to an effect that wasn't

there on the original film or in the eye of the beholder, we are using

the belief system inherent in 160 years of photography to create a

false impression that this unusual image represents something film

recorded in the natural world. To say that somewhere in there remains

a real vision of nature is as bogus as trying to convince someone that

a counterfeit $1000 bill created by adding zeros to a ten-spot is

really okay because the original bill does represent a certain value

held in trust in the national coffers. The operative word here is

greed."

(The article can be found at

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op04.98.html.)

(However, I wouldn't go even as far as Galen Rowell does in using

digital technology.)

October 19, 1998

An example of demand for authenticity: A rather well-paid job is that

of an art expert specialised in identifying falsifications versus

original paintings. Perhaps we will see similar experts identifying

digital manipulations? Or perhaps just officials stamping reverse

sides of photographs with authenticity certificates. (To get one, you

have to provide the negative :-)

October 19, 1998

It seems that some of the people who use digital editing are afraid

that there will be no market, or a very limited market, for digitally

manipulated images of nature, and are nevertheless determined to sell

to the nature photography market. What other reason could anybody have

to conceal having manipulated a photograph? Digital editing as such is

a marketable skill. And so is nature photography. But what could be

the market for digitally manipulated images of nature? Education,

advertising, anything else? It might be to expect that the demand for

such images will not be high.

The easiest development of this issue would be if digital manipulation

of nature images became acknowledged, appreciated and marketable.

People would feel free to join this discipline, which would exist

paralelly with ... well... with natural photography. But if this was

not going to happen, then DM would end up just as another way to fake

photographs of nature (a powerful way). The editors' choices would be

either to let it be or to spend a lot of money on finding out.

Perhaps it is also a fear of this scenario, along with other reasons,

what causes our concern.

October 15, 1998

... Oops, correction: The camera won't allow you to set manuallu both

*appreture* and shutter speed. Exposure is what you get by combining

bothe these.

October 15, 1998

As you say, you need to learn about appreture and shutter speed. You

need to learn the meaning of light for photography. Your camera just

records light on film. The picture you get depends on how light is

recorded: how wide is the lens opened (that's apreture) and for how

long (that's shutter speed).

Have a look at:

http://www.88.com/exposure/

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/nav/takingPics.shtml

or try to get a book for beginners, e.g. the Kodak Photoguide. Once

you have understood the role of light, appreture, shutter speed and

exposure values, you can go further and learn about flash or whatever

you like. By then you will know enough to decide what to learn.

Your camera will make learning a bit difficult for you, because it

will not allow you to set manually both exposure and shutter speed. It

would be better for you to have a fully manual camera to learn.

Perhaps you could borrow one?

October 15, 1998

P.S. As a side-effect, this discussion shows how deeply our life

depends on agreed understanding of words, abstractions, etc - well,

entities; on consensus about meanings. Sometimes it's a hard work but

it's quite worth :-)

October 15, 1998

The points above sound reasonable. There seem to be three basic types

of digital editing:

1. Digital repair (or "retouche"), is still the same common routine

which can be done by a pencil. And removing a scratch from the sky

means indeed getting closer to the "original". (However, some purists

might suggest that this is where skills count: avoiding scratches on

negatives. But this becomes irrelevant as soon as a photolab is

involved, which is mostly the case with colour photo.)

2. Digital improvement, e.g. sharpening lines or softening contrast,

while the image still remains original. (Clearly, it would make life

much easier. We could abandon this website, stop learning, forget

about tripods, sharp lenses, macro rails, etc., get disposables and

make blurry images and then just improve them digitally :-))) Well,

the image remains original, but the picture (the very "photograph",

meaning the "painting by light"), which was taken there and then, is

being altered. So there are some grounds to consider this as

manipulation.

3. Digital altering of the image, e.g. adding or moving subjects.

Clearly, manipulation.

As for the usage (we do not have a strict definition of "nature

photography" here, so I'll use other terms):

a. Documentary photography - for editorial, artistic or any other

purpose, if presumed documentary, i.e., if presumed to show reality.

Digital repair is OK here.

b. Anything else. Well, I don't know. (I admit that I understand

"nature photography" as being "documentary".) Advertisements,

commercials, art experiments, etc. - probably any editing is OK here.

(An ad hardly ever pretends to show reality, and the common

understanding is that ads show a dream world. So images used in ads -

that is not about lies.)

October 14, 1998

Stanley, I like your point. It's fun to be out there (in the wind and

rain, which is steadily the case from now to next April here in

Denmark) and somehow the results are exciting. Why sit indoor and

stare at the screen and produce sunsets which anyway feel as plasticky

as a McDonald hamburger.

October 14, 1998

I'm not saying traditional manipulations are OK. (In fact I quite lost

my respect for Ansel Adams when I found he did these tricks.) But

darkroom manipulation is mechanical. Difficult, clumsy and

recognizable. Using images of things which did really exist. You have

to have some real stuff which you can use. Also, the possibility of

darkroom manipulation does not inspire crowds to do it, or to try to

fool somebody. With computer work, all these aspect are different. The

work itself is much easier, and achieving a "trustworthy" result is

significantly easier. You can just make up all the picture. You don't

need to take any photograph at all. It is widely and easily available.

Also, Rob, I guess it is the definition of photography what is being

discussed here. The scope of photography, defined by the tools used.

Filters, etc., these are tools of photography, if only by tradition.

That's how it is. But are computers? Should they be?

And is there a reson to distinguish? To define the scope of

photography? I believe there is a reason. Photography is understood to

be recording the real world. If we allow the word to be used for

digital manipulation too, what word will we have for this one form of

visual art which is supposed to record the world as it is? And we will

still need such a word, also for practical reasons. (And also because

I want it :-) It's an important part of human culture.)

October 14, 1998

Perhaps we are dealing with a too complex issue in this thread. I

suggest three sub-issues:

1. Should manipulated images be presented as such? Why yes? / Why no?

Can we do anything for it?

2. Should digital imagination be recognized as art?

3. Does digital imagination has anything to do with photography?

Here are my answers:

1. Once National Geographic virtually moved the pyramids without

letting me know. They probably didn't want to inspire me to pay for

the issue with virtual money :-) Since then, NG seems to have returned

to real stuff. So I believe there won't be (at least not in the NGM)

photographs of bamboo woods packed with virtual pandas /Namibia plains

packed with white rhinos /etc. And if there are, we will be told

"Caution: Virtual". Otherwise, panda/white rhino/etc could be - by

mistake - dropped from the red list, and soon become virtual only.

(All our life could become a virtual dream, and the last man to wake

up, please switch off the light - if you find the real switch. That's

why I got creepy feeling even over innocently moved pyramids.)

I do not feel the same about field and darkroom manipulation, because

mechanical tools have limited and detectable usage. (However, I see no

point in using anything more than a polarizer.) Software, or digital,

tools employ so advanced technology that the (virtually :-) only limit

to their usage is the horizon of human fantasy.

A lie is still a lie and is still wrong. Concealing digital

manipulation and presenting a manipulated image as a photograph is a

lie, at least misleading, at worst dangerous. There is also the right

for information. Manipulated stuff should be presented as such. I like

the idea of a mandatory marking similar to copyright clause. "The

image has not been digitally manipulated /has been partly digitally

manipulated /has been entirely digitally created."

(Just a note: I have no intention to become a commercial photographer,

so I speak just out of interest. And I do not suffer from

technophobia, I'm a software professional.)

2. I believe that digital imagination has already been recognised as a

form of art. (The "Jurassic Park" even got an Oscar.) Only some people

do not realize it or are shy to openly leave photography for this new

form of art.

3. Digital imagination is a form of visual art by itself, just like

oil painting, watercolours or photography. So here now some of us are

upset because somebody is messing things up. (Presenting digital

imagination as photography, that is. Nobody presents e.g. photography

as oil painting.)... But I admit that the answer to question 3.

depends on the definition of photography. By my definition, a

photographer is the man, or the woman, with the pinhole box. (Possibly

an advanced pinhole box). Not the man, or the woman, with the

computer.

October 13, 1998

There are people who will always consider cheating and lie as a normal

and appropriate thing in life. Ethics (e.g. rules about labelling

pictures) is wasted on them. I observe these don't tend to be creative

individuals, so I hope not many do photography.

The issue of labelling has begun to be addressed rather recently.

Let's give the matter some time. I believe that NANPA and other photo

organizations and institutions will set up standards of labelling, so

that different forms of art can coexist in peace: Photography and

Digital Imagining. (To me, both these sound OK, but something

in-between, when you take a photo and do some digital work on it,

let's call it Digital Manipulation of Photography - well, doesn't it

sound like a bastard?)

I for one believe that real things have value and beauty, and if the

owl's beak is broken, then it's broken, and if there are grass

stalks, well that's how it was and here is the picture... And that's

photography. But somebody may be so gifted and able to create an

entirely digital image of an owl and I'll say "Oh that's the King Of

Owls", hat down. But then the person is an artist and we are merely

talking various tools of art.

There are not many gifted artists around. So, if crowds of Photoshop

fans digitally manipulate photographs without labelling them, they

will end up with more or less the same image of [whatever]. If it's an

owl, it will be the very common idea of an owl, plus the common idea

of perfect composing, plus the common perfect technicals. The ultimate

boredom.

And consider market "laws". Of pictures digitally made looking nicer,

and marketed, most rank as "kitsch"/"schmuck" - perhaps popular with

masses, but only if sold very cheap. Genuine stuff can be sold for any

price, and always stands out.

I still prefer photography :-)

September 28, 1998

I would be happy enough if mandatory quotation marks were introduced.

E.g. digital "natural photograhy", virtual "love", genetically

manipulated "food", etc. I believe this would provide a guideline even

for slower thinkers... As it is, we have to cope with this world

becoming increasingly difficult to navigate through. In my opinion,

many of the fancy new things make this world also cheaper and somehow

thinner. Oh, well. I'm going to stick to photography, and there is

only one thing called photography and it has nothing to do with image

manipulation software.

September 10, 1998

Thank you everybody for the inspiring and reassuring (none of the lenses is a mistake to buy) debate. According to the optical performance graphs in "Lens Work II", the 100 is very good, the 180 is truly excellent. I'll go for the 180, also because it allows a greater distance, has a tripod collar and works directly with the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.

August 18, 1998

I have no experience with a dedicated Macro lens, so it's a difficult decision now when I'm going to buy one. It will be one of the Canon EOS line and I expect to end up with the 100/2.8, but that's more a feeling and theory. I'm also considering the 180/3.5L. It allows a longer distance and it's a L glass - but is the difference in quality significant, compared with the 100/2.8? In fact, is there a difference? The 100/2.8 has such a good reputation. Also, if I have a correct information, the 180/3.5 doesn't work with the ML-3 flash. What other pro's and con's should I consider? Which of these lenses would you recommend from your experience?

August 18, 1998

Wow.. I hadn't expected so many, and so inspiring, answers.

James Tarquin:

Not spoiling the gene pool is a pretty satisfying reason from both the rational and the emotional point of view ... I mean, it's pretty cool;)... I wonder if it comes to peoples minds in practice. One objection could be that natural selection is off trail anyway, as human activities have changed the global environment.

Bob Atkins:

Thanks for pointing out the practical issues, perhaps a more common reason for not interfering than ethics/ideology. That's OK - when you can't help, well you can't. (What upset me was that - certainly in the BBC movie - the explanation why the crew would not help sounded quite ideological.)

Sean Hester:

When a baby born heavily disabled is *maintained* alive, never achieving human consciousness, there is no hope and it's often just for the sake of doctors' vanity. But when a human being or an animal can regain a life of quality, or be prevented from losing such a life, then helping is not immoral.

Robert Henriksen:

Just in case you need a supporting voice... It is known and officially acknowledged that human overpopulation is *the* problem on our Earth, with a long list of acknowledged consequencies ranging from hunger and poverty to increasing waste production and land degradation. (I wonder how about increase of violence, nationalism, etc., as another consequence - like too many rats in a lab cage?) However, overpopulation is also *the* touchy political and social issue.

David Parrish:

Another sad example of the gap between authorities and common sense. Nothing wrong if you act as a guerilla warrior then. (And you get a story to impress girls with;)

Thank you everybody for your answers.

August 17, 1998

Joe:

We humans change our world by our mere existence, our knowledge, technology, industry, etc. (E.g,, some pollution travels worldwide.) Considering this, I can't help seeing the rule of not interfering as - at least - outdated. And a film crew's attitude appears in media, i.e. it is promoted. (Admittedly, in both cases the narratives clearly indicated that the crew indeed did not enjoy the animal's suffering and were rather distressed by it.)

I am not sure that we humans are essentially alien to nature.

Steve:

You are right with the practical questions. (Some are being solved by wildlife conservationists, e.g. transporting animals without actually touching them, etc.) It's interesting that you don't mind taking birds for treatment, but not predators. Breaking the rule of not interfering seems to be a common practice, so again, isn't it outdated...?

Thank you both for your answers.

August 17, 1998

I have recently watched several documentary movies where The Rule Of Not Interfering played a role. I'll give two examples:

The first one was a Discovery Channel documentary about "everyday life" of a family of meerkats in the Kalahari desert. One evening, a young female meerkat got stranded by a jackal. The film crew left the site, and the narrative went like "This is a bad situation. We will see in the morning." And see they did. The meerkat was back with her family, but sufferend from an internal wound. She tried to chew some insects, but gave up - apparently because of pain. The other family members tried to comfort her, licked her blood-stained fur, curled up at her. Finally, the meerkat crawled away and died, slowly, in pains. (The film crew was sympathetic, but this probably didn't ease the animal's suffering.)

Another example was a BBC documentary about lions. A female lion died of starvation and wounds. Her three little cubs tried to wake her up, but found it impossible and crawled away. The narrative went "They have no chance to survive. We [the crew] would like to help, but we can not interfere - we are here to make a documentary." (Perhaps, if somebody else had been there besides the crew, he/she could have taken the cubs to a wildlife refuge.)

These (and other) documentaries left me puzzled over the rule of not interfering.

Where does the rule come from?

Is it considered natural not to help? (When helping is what you, naturally, want to do?)

How about endangered species? Does this rule apply, too?

For that matter, how about human? (Imagine somebody shooting a documentary on traffic accidents. And never interfering.)

(So, where is the line?)

Thank you for any comments, opinions and enlightment on the rule.

July 30, 1998

I was there in Nov/Dec, that's similar weather to Feb/Mar. Pretty cold in Jerusalem, even colder and some snow in the north, mild (22-27 C) in the south. In the north, you can photograph mountain landscape with some snow, I don't think very spectacular. Landscape around Jerusalem is quite specific - white stony hills, you'll go "Oooooh just like pictures from the Holy Bible" - so take some films there (BTW a 36f Kodak costs about 25 shekel; and Israel must be one of the world's most expensive countries.) You can get special pictures around the Dead sea (e.g. cliffs of salt). In the nearby hills there is a valley which is a natural reserve. The Negev Desert is also quite spectacular, and so are the coral reefs along the coast between Eilat and the Egypt border (a waterproof cam is a good ieda). There is also an underwater observatory there. However, for me, by far the most impressive place visited during this holiday was one outside (but accessible from) Israel: The Petra Valley in Jordan. Certainly go there, you won't regret. Trips can be arranged from Eilat, ask any travel agency there. On the other hand, never succumb to ads like "Jeep safari - unique experience [- don't forget your driving licence]". Lastly, I would advise buying the Lonely Planet tourist guide to Israel. If you want more info (particularly on southern Israel), please e-mail me.

June 11, 1998

Hello Amrit,

if your intends to buy only one of those lenses, I suggest the Canon 300/4.0 USML IS. The IS is a major advantage, it allows you handheld pictures. (Not only from an elephant's back, but also from the ground, when you don't have time to set a tripod). I use this lens with my Canon ElanIIe (the body doesn't matter that much, but the lens does), and I am very happy with it.

However, if your friend plans to photograph a lot at low light, then the f4.0 would not be enough, I believe. One of the faster lenses (they are both excellent) would be better. This could be the case - animals are active mostly at dawn or dusk, aren't they?

These are just points to consider. I won't give you any advice - I wouln't know myself which lens to choose of these three, and if I could afford it, I would end up with the two Canons... And a longer telephoto, perhaps a 600mm...

Good luck, fun and success to your friend.

Regards,

Jana

April 23, 1998

I agree with Mark: don't buy a "safari trip", and add: don't even buy a holiday at a "package" tourist agency - the kind which collect a pack of three hundred tourists at the home airport, dump them in a Mombasa hotel, collect theme there after two weeks and dump them at the home airport. (And offer optional trips like a one-day "Jeep Safari - Unique Experience!" etc. Beware of these!) As you'll be carrying some photo gear, don't go as a backpacker either - guarding the gear would drive you mad. (But do buy a backpacker travel guide - I strongly recommend a Lonely Planet guide, always reliable, packed with useful informatin; see "http://www.lonelyplanet.com"). So, what with the trip? The only really working option for a photographer (or a tourist keen on photography) is going with photographers. I recommend Voyagers International, see "http://www.voyagers.com/voyagers.htm", but see more choices at "http://www.gorp.com/gorp/trips/main.htm". The trip's price will probably be somewhat higher, but it will save you plenty of time and money (and enthusiasm!) which you would certainly waste if trying something on your own there. Hope this helps. Enjoy your travel and put some pictures on Internet when you're back:-)

April 17, 1998

I have insyinctively drawn a line at a ND filter. It's the most manipulative technique I would use. So, in this mental duel, I'll join the "dinosaur" party. (Reminds me of James Thurber's fable "A Man and a Dinosaur", a conflict between something Great Fancy New against something Pathetic Old, ending with: And the Man said: "In a few eons, you'll extinct". And the Dinosaur said: "I'll rather extinct than be like you." - I'm just teasing you modernists, no offence meant.)

I want sugar in my coffee, no chemical sweetener, thank you. I want real night sky with stars, no fancy ceiling pattern, thank you. I want people smile or frown, but not wear a "say cheese" mask.

If you find the Cokin website, you'll see what I mean. Fancy ... but a foul taste, just like a chemical sweetener.

I observe that social demand for genuine quality, and nostalgia, too, has recently returned to the market. (In Europe, that is.) Rationally, I wish this trend continued, simply because altering reality can be lethal. Manipulation as such can be lethal, and it often smells of a rat. (Or, even worse, of plastic.) Emotionally, I wish this trend continued, too.

Also, I observe that people can tell a fake. There is something, perhaps very very slightly, wrong. The shadow is slightly too dark. Slightly out of place. Slightly bizarre. And people can be educated, when they are interested.

April 17, 1998

BECAUSE I CAN'T HELP IT.

This is my most honest and elaborated answer to your question, Bob. The question is familiar to me, now and then I wonder what is driving me.

Why can't I help it?

Nature is something I need an love, so I'm struggling to HAVE MORE.

When I love something I want it LAST FOREVER. (Photography does not really preserve anything but a passing image, a moment of feeling, but it's enough to fool me. Of course I'm trying to help to preserve nature in practical ways.)

I want to SHARE.

These are the major points. Perhaps there is something more, I don't know.

April 16, 1998

Buy the Canon with the Image Stabilizer.

I am NOT an advanced photographer. Despite this, the Image Stabilizer allows me to get sharp pictures handheld. (Sometimes I can't shoot e.g. a flying seagull from a tripod.) The quality of the 300 IS lens is excellent. There are 15 optical elements compared to, I guess, nine in the non-IS version, but I haven't experienced flare problems.

The IS lens' manual says the IS won't work e.g. from a boat. In fact, it depends. I have seen images taken from a boat, which would not have been possible without the IS.

Anyway I am glad that I have bought the IS lens.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jana_mullerova