Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photographic Integrity  (Read 31570 times)
lensfactory
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #180 on: March 08, 2009, 11:41:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
The only narrow mind here is yours. If a person wishes only to rely on his photography to express the image, it is his choice to do so. To use another analogy, if a person wants to maintain a disease-free life with good eating/living habits to begin with, he might save himself the "after the fact" need for doctors and drugs. This has been the lifelong divergence of medicine: one school searches for ways keep the body free of disease to begin with, while the other school figures ways to treat disease chemically.

In the same fashion, this is merely a discussion of whether it's possible to keep one's photography free of the need for "after-the-fact" intervention to begin with ... and, unfortunately, we have PP junkies like you (and our forum phallic symbol Rob C.) moaning in the background discussing their need to use drugs.

So here's an idea: if the topic of this thread displeases you, did you realize you have the power to make an adult decision and not read it and not participate?

Jack


.

Rely on just their photography? Post-processing always HAS been photography. In it's beginning even MORE so. THe disease/drug analogy is very telling...kind of a fascistic point of view.
The topic thread doesn't displease me.You do though, but I gather you're used to that.
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



WWW
« Reply #181 on: March 08, 2009, 11:42:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Jack,

Thanks for the clarifications and I'm going to join the crowd who doesn't use the same definitions you try to convince us of using.

I would say if it looks, feels and smells like a photograph I'd say it's a photograph (eg. the flower consisting of multiple shots that are digitally blended)

If it looks feels and smells like a digitally painted image I'd say it's a digital image (one where textures or objects are added or that were not in the original shot)

The only thing I'm still pondering is a "pure"photograph, but have come to the conclusion I don't care. The photograph (as defined above) is the result of a process and I don't mind where the different steps in that process took place to produce it. I also would like to minimize PP, but I think in practice very few (if not none) "pure" photographs that are worth looking at do exist.

Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
lensfactory
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #182 on: March 08, 2009, 12:01:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Clarifying my previous post once again:

Photograph - noun or verb.

As a noun, applies to the image, whether undeveloped, developed, or printed. Since all of these can be seen, if the final copy bears little resemblance to the first copy, then logic suggests a new name that means "altered photo bearing little resemblance to original."

As a verb, means "to take the picture." I doubt even the cynical would say "I'm photographing butterflies" when they're actually PS'ing them.

Then it would logically follow that photograms, daguerrotypes,gum-bichromates,cibachromes, cyanotypes, black & white,calotypes,photo-collage,infrared,polaroid,cross-processed films are not photographs at all.

As a verb it would be Photoshopping them as you said. The camera 'makes' a photograph, and the computer 'makes' a photograph.
Here's some examples of NOT photographs as they are post-processed. The least obvious being the famous kent state one...a pole above the anguished lady was removed. They hardly bear any resemblence to reality, unless the man had a 'blown-out' face, the woman is a colourless cello etc.
[attachment=11974:Judging_...__201937.jpg][attachment=11975:IM.jpg][attachment=1
1976:ManRay_XL.jpg][attachment=11977:60s_20kent_20state.gif]

That's where i'm going to leave it. The goading OP seems to get something out of this pedestrian conversation...I just find it irksome.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #183 on: March 08, 2009, 12:06:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lensfactory
Rely on just their photography? Post-processing always HAS been photography. In it's beginning even MORE so.

Here you come back for more "nonsense" I see ... at least you didn't ask "why" the thread keeps growing anymore

Again you miss the point completely. Baseball isn't in your future; perhaps t-ball is more suited to your aim. I never denied post-processing was involved in image making. Could you please cite the reference where I said this? I have merely wondered if less and less could be necessary, the better and better one gets with camera. Why is this so hard to understand?




Quote from: lensfactory
THe disease/drug analogy is very telling...kind of a fascistic point of view.

Telling of what? Whose disease? Whose drugs? That you find this topic so distasteful and/or me so distasteful ... and yet here you are participating again ... would seem to indicate your disease is mental.




Quote from: lensfactory
The topic thread doesn't displease me.You do though, but I gather you're used to that.

Most philosphers are used to arousing the ire of simpletons who aren't used to examining their own beliefs and assumptions carefully. The truth is, most people who lack the wit to debate effectively become angry, but again it is only because of their own inner frustration. In fact, the most famous philosopher ever (Socrates) was literally put to death for doing nothing more than debating the local politicians, making their hallowed belief systems look foolish, and frustrating the bejesus out of everyone in the process. People are insecure like that.

Anyway, I really don't see what there is to get so upset about, actually, the idea of trying to perfect one's photography to a point where the post processing becomes minimized. That so many people are so frustrated by this simple concept is kinda sad really. That a person like yourself would not like me, find the subject to be 'nonsense,' and yet still can't pull himself away is actually quite pitiful.

What is equally pitiful is that the self-appointed embassador for "being civil," Rob C, has done nothing but be uncivil and condescending every step of the way.

I am honestly surprised that more people wouldn't be interested in the idea possibly just getting everything right "in camera" so as to be able to just download a finished product "as is." I don't see how this topic would offend a reasonable, thinking person.

Jack


.
Logged
EasyEd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #184 on: March 08, 2009, 12:10:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey All,

I'll contribute to the growth of this much ado about semantics discussion.

Here is a definition

Quote
pho·tog·ra·phy  (f-tgr-f)
n.
1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A body of photographs.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I vote for number 2 which certainly includes post processing as part of creating a photograph and makes absolutely no reference to the relationship between what is on the final image and what the camera was pointed at. However that number 1 definition is disturbing lets explore further.

Here is a definition of the word photograph

Quote
pho·to·graph  (ft-grf)
n.
An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.
v. pho·to·graphed, pho·to·graph·ing, pho·to·graphs
v.tr.
To take a photograph of.
v.intr.
1. To practice photography.
2. To be the subject for photographs: She photographs well.
photo·grapha·ble adj.
pho·togra·pher (f-tgr-fr) n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Hmm an image recorded by a camera and recorded on a photosensitive surface - sounds like only what is directly captured on either film or within a digital camera sensor is a photograph - but isn't making a print from film also capturing the image on a photosensitive surface? So it seems to me that photographic integrity - if that means as faithful a reproduction of what the camera saw on paper is only possible if we use film unless we have a way to print digital images on photosensitive surfaces using light. Do we have that? If so problem solved! Well almost - there is that niggling little detail of either film development or conversion to RAW changing what the camera saw. If those processes in no way "change" what the camera saw - case closed - if it changes - well then we as humans can never see the actual photograph! There is no integrity possible! This opens the floodgates to human interpretation of what "integrity" really means. Of course a discussion impossible to ever agree on - like this thread. So might as well use the word integrity as a marketing ploy - many do you know.

But wait wasn't photographic integrity an impossibility in the first place? Can a camera or even another human ever see exactly the same thing as one human? Can we superimposed one set of eyeballs on another set of eyeballs assuming identical genetics (as verification) on a camera that operates exactly the same as human eyeballs and "sees" and records exactly the same thing as eyeballs? Unless we can do this photographic integrity in terms of what a human saw was an impossibility right from the start!

So to me photographic integrity is meaningless unless well defined in terms of a standard process. For example there may well be a legal standard for photography used in court - in terms of processing. Anyone know? However I doubt any photographer on earth - unless specifically photographing for that purpose meets or even wants to meet such a standard. So once again photographic integrity is meaningless as there is no other standard that I know of. Do any of you know of one? - other than your own where integrity means - to thine own self be true - thats integrity - of a sort.

So where are we left? Well perhaps photographic integrity is like art or porn - hard to define but most know it when we see it - even if an exact line can never be drawn - and we are free to draw our own definition and use for marketing purposes.

Much ado about semantics.

-Ed-
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



WWW
« Reply #185 on: March 08, 2009, 02:48:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I am honestly surprised that more people wouldn't be interested in the idea possibly just getting everything right "in camera" so as to be able to just download a finished product "as is." I don't see how this topic would offend a reasonable, thinking person.

Jack,

I agree.  In fact this approach has been followed by a number of photographers before.  Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it is certainly a perfectly legitimate approach.  

Have you researched who has followed this approach?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 02:48:42 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #186 on: March 08, 2009, 03:19:59 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='JohnKoerner' date='Mar 8 2009, 05:37 PM' post='265852']
it's a déjà vu experience all over again  



Aha, you enjoy cross-lingual tautology too!

Rob C
Logged

PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1885



WWW
« Reply #187 on: March 08, 2009, 03:47:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.

Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.

This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)

So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental e
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1885



WWW
« Reply #188 on: March 08, 2009, 03:48:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.

Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.

This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)

So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental equivalent of smearing Vaseline on your lens.

Peter
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #189 on: March 08, 2009, 04:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='JohnKoerner' date='Mar 8 2009, 05:37 PM' post='265852']
... and especially please save your overtures of affection for someone who is more receptive ...


There you go again, Jack, jumping to those self-obsessed assumptions.

Rob C
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #190 on: March 08, 2009, 04:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
The fact is, most of the "music" that's been cooked up for popular consumption in the past few decades lacks the necessary "life" to be interesting.
The typical and very foolish response of people getting on in age. " It were better in my day". Nope, it probably wasn't.

A particular dim attitude, as very probably their elders in their turn said exactly the same thing about the music + art they liked.
My mum is a bit atypical as at her 25th wedding aniversay I was asked to tell the DJ not to play so much boring old music and play some contemporary tracks instead.
All new art and music get slagged off by those of a certain age and then a few years later it becomes mainstream and the people who liked the radical new stuff of their time are now the new fuddy duddies, talking about the good old days.  Plus ça change.

Swing, Ballet Russe, Impressionism, Bauhaus, Rock + Roll, Rock, OpArt, Punk, Hip Hop, House - all radical art/music forms once and scaring the silly old folks. Yet, all very mainstream now.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #191 on: March 08, 2009, 04:19:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Popular phraseology often includes looseness of definition, so it still doesn't change the point. And yet by line 3 even you even concede that his work is not really photography, but in fact "digital art" ...
This is the problem with you. A complete inability to read a post correctly. I do not say his work is digital art. I said many people looking at it would consider it that.  Wrongly in fact,  as his work predates PS by 20+ years. And that was the point - it was photography then and it is photography now, tools changing make no difference whatsoever.
So little point in addressing the rest of your responses as yet again you didn't even correctly read the post you were reponding to in the first place.


Quote
First of all, you said you could beat a MMA fighter in "a fight" with no rules. You have no idea how wrong you are, as you would never get an eye gouge opportunity, and even if you did it wouldn't win you anything but a more brutal ultimate beating (or worse) by the very pissed-off professional whose eye you gouged.
Second, again you have trouble with your definitions, as using a knife is now called "stabbing," and using a gun is now called "shooting," and so you would no longer be fighting.
Duh! So are you trying to demonstate even further your lack of understanding of the English language, even for an American?    You've obviously not come across the very common phrases - knife fight and gunfight then?  If I had the unfortunate problem of dealing with someone armed with knife I would call the incident a fight, if I also have a knife, then it's a knife fight.
Stabbing is the action of a knife penetrating flesh, point first and shooting is simply firing of a gun in any context, whether a fight on a shoting range or for 21 gun salute.
And your comments I would never get to beat an MMA assumes I do not know how to fight. Making assumptions only makes you look foolish as you have no idea whether I'm a fighter or not. Not that that was entirely relevent anyway as if I have a weapon that I know how to use, the advantage is now mine.  BTW if your eye has been gouged, you are not in any fit state to beat anyone up until after you leave hospital, no matter what your training, as that is not something you can condition yourself against. And why it is not allowed, same goes for all the effective strikes one would use in a real fight.
There's a long list here of what you are not allowed to do in so called 'ultimate' fighting.  This one is particularly amusing  22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. - not really fighting then is it.  If I was fighting someone, I would make sure I injured them to save myself if that's what it took to stop them hurting me.



Quote from: JohnKoerner
But I do have a degree in philosophy, and I do understand philosophical concepts, and you are completely missing my point.

Which packet of cereal did you get your Philosophy degree in? Frosties, Cornflakes or more likely Graham's Crackers as you certainly seem to be.
If you really want to be a philosopher, I suggest you bone up on reading and writing first, then once you've mastered that basic skillset, try learning something about the subject you are debating before talking about it. Oh and ignoring any evidence that contradicts your ignorant assertions is not something that gets taught in philosophy I imagine.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #192 on: March 08, 2009, 04:44:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alainbriot
Jack,
I agree.  In fact this approach has been followed by a number of photographers before.  Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it is certainly a perfectly legitimate approach.  
Have you researched who has followed this approach?


I think this is probably because we are both trying to achieve different ends: I am simply trying to document an image of a small creature as perfectly detailed as possible, while you are an artist expressing a multitude of your own ideas and vison as art.

I haven't followed any particular photographer, no, I am just studying basic macrophotography and trying to apply what I've learned at this point. Other than Mangelsen's website I hadn't really thought about it much, to be honest. This thread was my first attempt to sort that out and see what others thought.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #193 on: March 08, 2009, 04:48:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Aha, you enjoy cross-lingual tautology too!
Rob C


LOL, I guess so ... almost as much as you enjoy wasting your time, returning here again and again, telling others not to waste their time here.

Also, I am curious: if you consider this topic to be a "cesspool" what is your motivation to return continuously and dive-in?
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #194 on: March 08, 2009, 05:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
This is the problem with you. A complete inability to read a post correctly. I do not say his work is digital art. I said many people looking at it would consider it that.  Wrongly in fact,  as his work predates PS by 20+ years. And that was the point - it was photography then and it is photography now, tools changing make no difference whatsoever.

You "do" not say or you did not say? If you're going to criticize others' writing at least try to make sure your own isn't wanting. You still haven't correctly-read the definition of photography, which is creating the image on a sensor not fiddling with it later.




Quote from: jjj
Duh! So are you trying to demonstate even further your lack of understanding of the English language, even for an American?    You've obviously not come across the very common phrases - knife fight and gunfight then?  If I had the unfortunate problem of dealing with someone armed with knife I would call the incident a fight, if I also have a knife, then it's a knife fight. Stabbing is the action of a knife penetrating flesh, point first and shooting is simply firing of a gun in any context, whether a fight on a shoting range or for 21 gun salute.

Yes, if someone else has a knife then it's a fight, but that is not what you said. If two people have guns and agree to a duel it's a gunfight. If one coward (this would be your cue to take a bow) ran and got a gun because he was ill-equipped to deal with a consummate fighter, and shot the fighter, this would not be a "fight" but rather a coward shooting someone he was scared of.




Quote from: jjj
And your comments I would never get to beat an MMA assumes I do not know how to fight. Making assumptions only makes you look foolish as you have no idea whether I'm a fighter or not. Not that that was entirely relevent anyway as if I have a weapon that I know how to use, the advantage is now mine.

I can tell you don't know how to fight because you conduct yourself like a flustered woman. If you were a talented, schooled fighter yourself you wouldn't automatically default to talking about knives and guns at the thought of facing a pro, you would simply meet them on their own terms, because they would be your terms also. The reason you visualize scrambling for a knife or a gun at the though of facing a MMA fighter is because of the "bitchassness" that is in you, rather than any kind of self-confidence being in you. With a weapon is the only way you could have an advantage.




Quote from: jjj
BTW if your eye has been gouged, you are not in any fit state to beat anyone up until after you leave hospital, no matter what your training, as that is not something you can condition yourself against. And why it is not allowed, same goes for all the effective strikes one would use in a real fight.
There's a long list here of what you are not allowed to do in so called 'ultimate' fighting.  This one is particularly amusing  22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. - not really fighting then is it.

Sorry clown. A true pro who had his eye gouged would just handle it as an injury. He wouldn't soil himself (as you would) and reach out to dial 911. The only reason eye gouging isn't allowed, genius, is because it can be a permanent debilitating injury, and the idea of MMA is to be as real as possible, but withOUT permanent injury. Same with biting and nutshots. As for "all the strikes" that are not allowed, LOL, all of the strikes are allowed in certain circuits. The UFC used to allow even nutshots, headbutts, etc. Things have softened now, due to regulations, but in many areas they still go on.




Quote from: jjj
I was fighting someone, I would make sure I injured them to save myself if that's what it took to stop them hurting me.

See, again you give away your bitchassness. "Save myself" ... LOL ... like a damsel in distress  




Quote from: jjj
Which packet of cereal did you get your Philosophy degree in? Frosties, Cornflakes or more likely Graham's Crackers as you certainly seem to be.
If you really want to be a philosopher, I suggest you bone up on reading and writing first, then once you've mastered that basic skillset, try learning something about the subject you are debating before talking about it. Oh and ignoring any evidence that contradicts your ignorant assertions is not something that gets taught in philosophy I imagine.

I got my degree in UCLA and I can read and write just fine, thanks. I originally didn't post this thread here to argue but to discuss concepts and get feedback from those more knowledgeable on the subject than I. I appreciate many of the responses I've got, it's just unfortunate that so many are insecure little pissants like you have to keep chiming-in.

Jack
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #195 on: March 08, 2009, 05:15:15 PM »
ReplyReply

After getting home last night after dancing , I chilled out in front of TV whilst other half showered and discovered I'd missed an evening devoted to photography on BBC4.  
But I did catch the last show which was about the photographs W. Eugene Smith took in South Wales as an aside whilst covering the 1950 General Election for Life magazine .
What was most interesting and so very germane to this discusion was when another Life Photographer [who had been taught by Smith] came in to look at hte contact sheets of these images and discuss how they were taken. The photographer [whose name sadly escapes me] talked very clearly about how photography is manipulation. He showed an image that was chosen by Life and the images leading up to it.  Earlier shots in same sequence told a very different story.

This very famous image, iconic of its time, was also manipulated acording to Smith's protege, he was not being critical, just explaining how it was cropped to remove shkline.


The Lost Pictures of Eugene Smith was the programme in question is is well worth watching as it delves into the editorail policies of why certain images were used to try + tell a story that Life wanted to tell.


To go back to the flower image referenced earlier in thread. 272 [IIRC] images were taken to get the desired image. How is that any different from someone shooting loads of shots before getiing the single image that worked. One dumps 271 images and uses one, one uses parts of 272 shots. Both took 272 shots to produce one image. Don't really see much difference if you look at it like that.


Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #196 on: March 08, 2009, 05:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply

That could very well be. Like I said, I was just thinking out loud seeking feedback. I did not mean to insult anyone else's practices at all.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #197 on: March 08, 2009, 05:25:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
I have been following this thread with interest, and feel obliged to chime in for the first time. As I see it, the fundamental problem here is the use of the word "integrity" because it is loaded with value judgements. Thus, many of the posts here have implied (or in some cases, said outright) that people who do more post-processing have less integrity. So, of course people get hot under the collar defending themselves! I would prefer to use the term "purist" so that using more or less post-processing makes you less or more of a purist - and, to me anyway, this term is not value-laden but simply describes an individual's personal approach to photography.
Back in my film days, I used to wander around with a Leica taking B&W pictures and fantasizing that I was the new Cartier-Bresson. I did, in fact, get particular satisfaction from images that turned out great without cropping and without any dodging or burning. So, I was a purist - but not in any sense more of a photographer than someone who did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom.
This notion that what goes on with the camera is "photography" and what happens after is not is about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Yes, what goes on with the camera is the core of photography - you can't call anything photography without this part (aside perhaps from a few specialized situations) but, if you limit yourself to that all you end up is with some exposed film or full SD cards. "Gee, I am a real photographer who doesn't manipulate my images, so I can't show them to you or anyone else." (Never mind the fact, as has been mentioned by others, that the mere choice of camera, lens, viewpoint, etc. already constitutes manipulation of the image.)
So, taking the picture is indeed photography, and that's all some people do (besides taking the SD card to a lab, perhaps, but whoops, that's another choice as to how the final viewed image will look, more manipulation by golly!). Some people Photoshop their images to death, and that too is photography - or, to be more specific, part of it. The post processing BY ITSELF should not be called photography (if you process someone else's images, for example), but if you process your own images it is most certainly part of the photographic process. From the moment you see a scene that you want to see hung on the wall, everything you do from deciding where to set the tripod to making the final print is part of the process and is legitimately called "photography." Thinking otherwise is, IMO, the mental equivalent of smearing Vaseline on your lens.
Peter


Thanks for your post. By "integrity" I meant strict adherence to working with the camera as a way to master the output, rather than rely on other means. I did not mean to imply that those other means were bad, only that relying on them so much might cause the photography to become not quite as perfect as it otherwise might be, if someone focused only on that.

You are right, though, the use of the word "integrity" could have been re-worded and the concepts might have been better-received.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 05:26:34 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



WWW
« Reply #198 on: March 08, 2009, 05:33:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I think this is probably because we are both trying to achieve different ends: I am simply trying to document an image of a small creature as perfectly detailed as possible, while you are an artist expressing a multitude of your own ideas and vison as art.

I haven't followed any particular photographer, no, I am just studying basic macrophotography and trying to apply what I've learned at this point. Other than Mangelsen's website I hadn't really thought about it much, to be honest. This thread was my first attempt to sort that out and see what others thought.

That's a good point.  In my teaching I found that wildlife photographers (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) rarely engage in complex post processing.  I think the reason is that there is a desire to keep the colors, contrast, appearance etc. of the wildlife "as is", that is the way it is in nature.  Any change in the colors for example, besides proper color balancing, will make identifying a specie more difficult (very much the case with birds for example) or plain off the wall (with mammals for example).   When there is a desire to depart from reality (always talking of wildlife photography) then most turn to black and white since it is so clearly a departure from reality (we don't see in B&W and the world is not B&W).
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
lensfactory
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #199 on: March 08, 2009, 09:33:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
By "integrity" I meant strict adherence to working with the camera as a way to master the output, rather than rely on other means. I did not mean to imply that those other means were bad, only that relying on them so much might cause the photography to become not quite as perfect as it otherwise might be, if someone focused only on that.

You are right, though, the use of the word "integrity" could have been re-worded and the concepts might have been better-received.

Well...you may be all polite and duplicitous with alan, but it's there in your post. You DID imply that the other means were bad. And by using the word "integrity" , well that by definition hardly means "strict adherence" to anything.
Your "concept" is easily received, as it is simplistic and pedantic. Sorry, but you're not onto anything vaguely interesting as a discussion topic.
The camera itself is 'post-processing' so your hardly making any point at all except showing your biases and point of view. That post -processing is cheating or somesuch.
Of course that just raises the ire of creative professionals...it's insulting!
Seems your just a shit-disturber, eh?
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad