JatinderKeith

<p>Thank you all for some useful tips. I am based in India where pre-used photo equipment is not easy to get. I do not prefer buying a scanner as it will be of no use afterwards. With diopter advised against by Edward, I have two options, an 85mm with extension tube or 100mm macro. I could use these subsequently for portraiture and indulge in macro photography which I have not tried as yet. I shall appreciate advise on these two options or any other suggestion.</p>

<p>I have a very large collection of negatives and slides that I have been clicking since 1960. Now with Canon 5D MKIII, I thought of digitizing them by photographing them backlit. I considered Canon 100 mm F2.8 macro lens. Then the thought went to acquiring Canon 85 mm F1.8 lens with a close up diopter or extension tubes.<br>

I shall greatly appreciate any tips on photographing backlit negatives and slides and advise on the lens to use. I am not a professional and the only return on my investment I seek is the versatility of equipment and satisfaction to my creativity.</p>

<p>Jeff, I took time to research on the net and googled ‘Colorized Photographs’. Wikipedia calls the process ‘Hand-Coloring’, ‘Hand Painting’ and ‘Over-painting’; popular before the invention of color photography. In another article, the term used for those coloring photographs digitally is ‘Colorizing Photoshoppers’, distinct from photographers. I did not find any reference that calls handwork or digital work on photos as photography.</p>

<p>Virginia there is no doubt about what you say. The camera only documents the image that the photographer sees through it. If those images provoke any human thought or arouse an emotion, it is to the credit to what lies between the ears. I am however still seeking the answer to my question.</p>

<p>The question that I have raised is not about art but nomenclature.<br>

I grew up with perception that Photography is the art of creating images that the eye can or could have seen, using the photographic technology. Any processing of the photographic image is to overcome the limitations of the technology. The dictionary meanings support this perception. Encyclopedias tell, “The word photography comes from Greek words and means ‘drawing with light’.” There is no dispute that such photography, beyond being a documentary work can be highly sophisticated work of art.<br>

I know an artist who using pencils and charcoal can produce images that look ditto of the person or object in front. There are master painters whose paintings visually cannot easily be distinguished from photographs. Will these ever qualify to be photographs? And will these qualify to be photographs if they are created using software and not pencils and brushes or if some photographic process was used to aid the drawing or sketching work?<br>

Jeff I have not researched references on the net to photo coloring. Yes photos colored with water or oil colors were called ‘colorized photos’. But the process of coloring was not called photography. In the limited literature that I ready on photography there were never any lessons or discussions on water or oil coloring of photos because the authors did not consider such processes as photography. Choosing between obsessing about labels and enjoying art, I certainly would prefer the later. But at this site members discuss even business of photography. Simple question on the nomenclature of art forms should not be called ‘obsession’.<br>

Tim and Louis ‘Photo Illustration Composite’, ‘Photo Composite’ and ‘Photo Illustrations’ are very apt phrases for such work rather than calling them 'Photos' . It is using photography for a purpose which can be great art. But it is not photography as I perceive and as dictionaries and encyclopedias define it. There has to be line where such work ceases to be photography and begins to be artwork.I have often read critiques where members admire a photo and its capture with a rider that they hope it is not a manipulation. If some member can lead me to the definition or explanation that includes such uses of photography as a photographic processes, I shall greatly appreciate and will be better enlightened. Till then I do feel that the community should draw a distinction between photography and its use for what I would call Photo Art. I would strongly urge the PN editors and moderators to give it a thought.</p>

<p>I have often come across very realistic looking and compelling photographs on this site only to discover later that they were digital manipulation and often of non-existing objects and/or situations. The ‘Photo of the Day’ for Sep 12 by Bela Laszlo Molnar is one such photo where I have raised a question as a critique. Later I realized that I raised the question at the wrong place and that it should have been raised here. I reproduce it verbatim here:-</p>

<p>“Bela, it is too good a digital manipulation work to look unrealistic. I also admit my lack of digital manipulation skill and its appreciation. This is not the first time I feel mislead by such highly skilled craft. I have a question for the PN community and particularly the editorial staff.<br>

<br />In 1960s I used to color photos with transparent water colors. Pros did it with oils. I read that some master painters of 19th century used pinhole cameras and camera lucida to capture the image outlines and as drawing aids. It all involved use of photographs, photographic tools and technology to create or modify images of things that existed. No one called it photography. Today the software technology has replaced painting brushes, pencils, chalks and charcoal. It has even replaced scissors and gum for cut and paste job to create collages with far greater efficiency. What should we call the images of non-existing objects and situations, created with photographic technology and software substitutes of painting material, photos or something else? PN editors, is it a 'Photo Of The Day' or a 'Technical Painting Of The Day'?”</p>