Comments on: preying http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/ is really sick of PB&J Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:39:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: xmasberry http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2285 xmasberry Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:17:04 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2285 I think for documentary purposes, honesty has to be the 'best' policy. Even there, as Rineke points out, a photographer crops, zooms, uses a specific lens, camera, etc. We probably all remember the fiasco over a photographing compositing two images together to make it look like a marine was pointing his weapon at a child, but that's obviously not what i meant to question. Using photoshop is definitely a skill, but i think any photographer will tell you that your options in photoshop, or any imaging oftware application, increase if you are skilled with your photographic equipment as well. If you haven't mastered exposure enough to get the data recorded, be it on film or a chip, you are going to be severely handicapped in your work. I wonder more and more if it was the photographer hiding he made changes, or just that the ease of changing some things in photoshop compared to in the darkroom, make those changes trivial to him. I lean toward the latter. Just as dodging and burning and using contrast filters are part of the day-to-day in a darkroom, upping saturation (to colors that rarely exist in nature) is day-to-day for him. I do have to say that I tend to know what I have dodged, burned, etc in the darkroom and would mention that i had done so if someone had asked. But does it matter? That i don't know. I think for documentary purposes, honesty has to be the ‘best’ policy. Even there, as Rineke points out, a photographer crops, zooms, uses a specific lens, camera, etc. We probably all remember the fiasco over a photographing compositing two images together to make it look like a marine was pointing his weapon at a child, but that’s obviously not what i meant to question.

Using photoshop is definitely a skill, but i think any photographer will tell you that your options in photoshop, or any imaging oftware application, increase if you are skilled with your photographic equipment as well. If you haven’t mastered exposure enough to get the data recorded, be it on film or a chip, you are going to be severely handicapped in your work.

I wonder more and more if it was the photographer hiding he made changes, or just that the ease of changing some things in photoshop compared to in the darkroom, make those changes trivial to him. I lean toward the latter. Just as dodging and burning and using contrast filters are part of the day-to-day in a darkroom, upping saturation (to colors that rarely exist in nature) is day-to-day for him. I do have to say that I tend to know what I have dodged, burned, etc in the darkroom and would mention that i had done so if someone had asked.

But does it matter? That i don’t know.

]]> By: k http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2284 k Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:57:41 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2284 The point of this particular discussion is more one of honesty, than of "which means is better." (Staying off my soapbox.) Most artists will tell you exactly what they've done to create an image (or, if they're like me, throw their hands up in the air and go, "Just lucky, I guess"). This photographer, by not originally admitting he had used Photoshop to alter the image, was sort of pretending that he was something he wasn't. And I still (back on soap box here) insist that film and digital are two separate and distinct media, much as oil and watercolor are distinct. The point of this particular discussion is more one of honesty, than of “which means is better.” (Staying off my soapbox.) Most artists will tell you exactly what they’ve done to create an image (or, if they’re like me, throw their hands up in the air and go, “Just lucky, I guess”). This photographer, by not originally admitting he had used Photoshop to alter the image, was sort of pretending that he was something he wasn’t.
And I still (back on soap box here) insist that film and digital are two separate and distinct media, much as oil and watercolor are distinct.

]]> By: rineke http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2283 rineke Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:22:59 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2283 mhm. I am not a photographer, so maybe my 2 cents are really naive. The first thing that came to my mind was: Does it matter? Is photography supposed to image something as if it was seen with the naked eye? Is not photography to start with manipulating with wat is in front of the camera (by zooming, focussing, choosing an angle and whatnot you can do with a camera - or even by choosing a specific camera over an other)? Is there an objective reality out there anyway that is to be photographed or should we rather see photography as a creating art? Is it the process that counts or the product? And is it more skillful to be able to handle a camera than to handle photoshop? mhm. I am not a photographer, so maybe my 2 cents are really naive. The first thing that came to my mind was: Does it matter? Is photography supposed to image something as if it was seen with the naked eye? Is not photography to start with manipulating with wat is in front of the camera (by zooming, focussing, choosing an angle and whatnot you can do with a camera - or even by choosing a specific camera over an other)? Is there an objective reality out there anyway that is to be photographed or should we rather see photography as a creating art? Is it the process that counts or the product? And is it more skillful to be able to handle a camera than to handle photoshop?

]]> By: k http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2281 k Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:29:36 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2281 Yes. In a standard color photo lab, color images can only print decently within a certain very narrow range of color and saturation, making color actually easier to print than B&W. Some manipulation is easy by choosing different contrast grades or brands of paper, and color can be manipulated in the enlarger head, but it does affect all colors and densities to some degree. I think there are highly specialized photographic processes that involve exposing the three colors separately, but I don't have experience there. I think the problem I have with photoshop, and to some extent, digital photography, is what it is not. One can pick the film type, alter the exposure with aperture and length of exposure, veer from recommended development times and chemicals, flash the film or the paper, manipulate the paper exposure, merge more than one element on film or paper, on and on, to somewhere near infinity. But at some point, there was an exposure, a moment that happened, where light was wed with film. Time is captured, I've read. Manipulating an image in photoshop breaks that chain of *physical* contact, making it to me a different art form. Having worked as long as I did in custom photo labs and on the edges of the art world, I feel I can easily recognize what has been done to an image through the whole process and can say what is real and what is effect, and that most artists will readily explain what they have done to achieve a specific effect. I have run into photographers that have said they didn't manipulate the image at all, only to find out *whatever*, and called them liars, even if under my breathe after they've turned away. It seems to be a matter of feelings of inadequacy. And I thought Adams denied manipulating his images in any way? Oh, I remember. He said he didn't do any burning or dodging, when in fact he did it all in that magic enlarger head. I know that whole cutting down of trees to get a perfect picture and then saying that he captured the image as it was annoyed the heck out of me. And now, I'll admit that I tweak contrast and brightness in my images pretty regularly, and get off my soapbox. But I've never cut down a tree, I swear. Yes. In a standard color photo lab, color images can only print decently within a certain very narrow range of color and saturation, making color actually easier to print than B&W. Some manipulation is easy by choosing different contrast grades or brands of paper, and color can be manipulated in the enlarger head, but it does affect all colors and densities to some degree. I think there are highly specialized photographic processes that involve exposing the three colors separately, but I don’t have experience there.
I think the problem I have with photoshop, and to some extent, digital photography, is what it is not. One can pick the film type, alter the exposure with aperture and length of exposure, veer from recommended development times and chemicals, flash the film or the paper, manipulate the paper exposure, merge more than one element on film or paper, on and on, to somewhere near infinity. But at some point, there was an exposure, a moment that happened, where light was wed with film. Time is captured, I’ve read. Manipulating an image in photoshop breaks that chain of *physical* contact, making it to me a different art form.
Having worked as long as I did in custom photo labs and on the edges of the art world, I feel I can easily recognize what has been done to an image through the whole process and can say what is real and what is effect, and that most artists will readily explain what they have done to achieve a specific effect. I have run into photographers that have said they didn’t manipulate the image at all, only to find out *whatever*, and called them liars, even if under my breathe after they’ve turned away. It seems to be a matter of feelings of inadequacy.
And I thought Adams denied manipulating his images in any way? Oh, I remember. He said he didn’t do any burning or dodging, when in fact he did it all in that magic enlarger head. I know that whole cutting down of trees to get a perfect picture and then saying that he captured the image as it was annoyed the heck out of me.
And now, I’ll admit that I tweak contrast and brightness in my images pretty regularly, and get off my soapbox. But I’ve never cut down a tree, I swear.

]]> By: xmasberry http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2280 xmasberry Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:50:20 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2280 I think the thing that i find interesting, is that when asked directly, the photographer said that the image WAS NOT photoshopped. By this, he meant it had not been composited and apparently did not view the alteration of contrast and saturation as manipulation. These are all musings on my part, but i do wonder if the ease of manipulating things like contrast and saturation in photoshop makes people forget that these things still change the image. K, you can correct me if i am wrong, but isn't it quite difficult to adjust saturation and color balance in a color darkroom because of the shift in all colors? Yes, Ansel manipulated many of his images drastically, the most well-known (at least to me) manipulation probably being <a href="http://www.afterimagegallery.com/featureadams.htm" rel="nofollow">Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico</a> which, as i understand it, could not have been printed in its final form before multi-graded papers. With the amount of work he had to put into the image, however, i wonder if he would have replied that it has not been manipulated in any way. There are many ways to manipulate a photographic image, from the speed at which you shoot, your f-stop and lens length to how you print the image. Many of these we wouldn't even think of requesting that the photographer indicate manipulation, so what makes certain things different? I think the thing that i find interesting, is that when asked directly, the photographer said that the image WAS NOT photoshopped. By this, he meant it had not been composited and apparently did not view the alteration of contrast and saturation as manipulation. These are all musings on my part, but i do wonder if the ease of manipulating things like contrast and saturation in photoshop makes people forget that these things still change the image.

K, you can correct me if i am wrong, but isn’t it quite difficult to adjust saturation and color balance in a color darkroom because of the shift in all colors?

Yes, Ansel manipulated many of his images drastically, the most well-known (at least to me) manipulation probably being Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico which, as i understand it, could not have been printed in its final form before multi-graded papers. With the amount of work he had to put into the image, however, i wonder if he would have replied that it has not been manipulated in any way.

There are many ways to manipulate a photographic image, from the speed at which you shoot, your f-stop and lens length to how you print the image. Many of these we wouldn’t even think of requesting that the photographer indicate manipulation, so what makes certain things different?

]]> By: k http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2279 k Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:53:48 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2279 Yeah, and Ansel Adams didn't manipulate his images either. He just varied the individual intensities of the nine bulbs he used to expose the prints. We all have our little stories. One of mine is that I'm coming to hate what people are doing with Photoshop. But is it really so different from darkroom tricks? Yeah, and Ansel Adams didn’t manipulate his images either. He just varied the individual intensities of the nine bulbs he used to expose the prints.
We all have our little stories.
One of mine is that I’m coming to hate what people are doing with Photoshop. But is it really so different from darkroom tricks?

]]> By: Carey http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2278 Carey Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:50:04 +0000 http://littlemissmessyhair.xmasberry.com/2007/09/15/preying/#comment-2278 I think the photographer shouldn't say that he "only" photoshop's a little, because there are definite differences between your original and the "little" changes he usually makes. I personally don't have a problem with photoshopped images, as long as the photographer doesn't hide the fact that he/she has used it. I think the photographer shouldn’t say that he “only” photoshop’s a little, because there are definite differences between your original and the “little” changes he usually makes.

I personally don’t have a problem with photoshopped images, as long as the photographer doesn’t hide the fact that he/she has used it.

]]>