On 6/17/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > IMO, this type of article is a blasphemous shame, and is one of the things > that's destroying photography and making it more about "image processing" > than seeing and creating in the viewfinder. <snip>
Shel, The article which you relate to us, along with your comments, will no doubt generate much controversy, and likely end up as a flame war, or at least will end up being. And, that may be a good thing, I don't know. Some time ago, I would have agreed with you entirely. Now, I'm not so sure what to think. No, my weekend with Cesar's *istD didn't alter my world-view that much! <LOL> I'm just thinking that whatever one does with a photograph or image is fine by me. We simply have to realize that the thought that a photograph is an accurate and honest depiction of the scene before the camera is long gone (if it was ever there at all). If there's one thing that digital (and by digital, I include the scanning of negs and photos with subsequent PS manipulation) has opened our eyes to, it's that photographs may not be documents of events, but are subject to wild and often reality-altering manipulations by the photographer and/or subsequent mouse-jockeys. And, let's face it, as many will no doubt tell us in response to your post, alteration has been going on since nearly the dawn of photography. It's just that we now do it in computers rather than the darkroom. Remember the "fairy photographs" of Victorian times? Because photography was thought by the general public to be an accurate depiction of a split-second (or longer) of time, they convinced many of the existence of wispy fairies, clad in gossamer, floating above staircases and in the corners of grand Victorian mansions. If there's one good thing about our sophisticated and cynical times, such images today would be seen immediately as the hoaxes that they were. But I digress... Hell, manipulation can go on before the photograph even gets into the darkroom or computer! Let's look at a hypothetical example, based on real events, shall we? We've all seen Charles Brazwell's unique nature photos. Some of his photos of flowers and leaves have a backdrop placed behind them. So, let's say that I, as a hypothetical nature photographer, see a pretty flower and take some photos of it. I forgot my backdrop at home, so when I download the image into PS, I remove the ugly green and brown background, and replace it with a nice, velvety, red background. I'm quite pleased that I've now acheived a "Brazwellian" effect which has now improved my photo. Other than the fact that I can't compose flowers worth a crap, it looks like something Charles might have done (remember, this is a hypothetical; you must suspend disbelief if this is going to work <LOL>). Is there a difference between acheiving that effect in the field or in the computer? I think not. The image looks the same to the viewer, one way or the other. No harm, no foul. I think that we have to face the fact that manipulations of photos are routine, and to be expected. I wonder if we can even expect news or PJ photos to be exempt from such manipulations for much longer? I know that it seems to be a holy cow among PJ's that cropping and a bit of dodging and burning are about all you can do and still maintain the integrity of the photo as a depiction of news, but really, why should that be? The news gets spun all the time anyway. We don't so much watch newscasts as we do a series of media releases, lapped up by the networks and passed off as news for our consumption. I think we simply have to face the reality that photos aren't (or at least may not be) real. Or to put it another way, we can no longer (if we ever could) rely on photographs to be a completely accurate portrayal of what they may appear to be. We are entirely reliant on the integrity of the photographer who tells us "I didn't manipulate this photograph". Is all of the above good? Sad? Evil? None of the above? I don't really know, but what's important is that we know it. Now, all of that being said, my personal photographs aren't manipulated in any way. As most of you know, I rarely even crop, let alone clone in or out, or whatever. Whether you believe me or not is of little consequence for me; I shoot for myself as a hobby, of relatively inconsequential little slices of life. Whether they're heavily manipulated or not will not change the world. There may be a few other photographers out there like me, or not - it really isn't important (well, it is to ~me~, but I don't expect it is to anyone else). Remember the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima? One of the great photos ever taken. Some say it lifted the patriotic spirits of every American, both on the front and the home front, at a time when things were looking a bit desparate. You know what? The first shots (taken by another photog) were bland and banal, and Rosenthal went back the next day and re-shot it, exhorting the flag-raisers to make it look good. To me, that's as manipulated as "doing it in PS"... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
