Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 7 Apr 2005 at 13:15, Tom C wrote: In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for negative film users. Looking at it another way, suppose your RAW conversion is a fully calibrated hands free process (PS CS can be set up this way), just like calibrated chemistry for film processing. In this case the RAW file could be considered analogous to an unprocessed colour film of any sort. Once the RAW file is processed and saved you have a fixed image file processed via a pre-calibrated system just like a processed film. You can choose to work as if the system is fixed but you also have the option to alter and optimise the process if you wish. This is true too of film but to a lesser degree (in the case of colour films). The thing is that most people working in RAW tend to take advantage of the flexibility most don't when processing films. Does this make any sense? Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) Not at all :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Looking at it another way, suppose your RAW conversion is a fully calibrated hands free process (PS CS can be set up this way), just like calibrated chemistry for film processing. In this case the RAW file could be considered analogous to an unprocessed colour film of any sort. Once the RAW file is processed and saved you have a fixed image file processed via a pre-calibrated system just like a processed film. You can choose to work as if the system is fixed but you also have the option to alter and optimise the process if you wish. This is true too of film but to a lesser degree (in the case of colour films). The thing is that most people working in RAW tend to take advantage of the flexibility most don't when processing films. Does this make any sense? Thats how I see it too. The whole idea of RAW is to process the image after the fact, rather than letting processing happen in camera (TIFF, or the much less flexible JPEG). William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 8, 2005, at 7:40 AM, John Francis wrote: I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I get from monitor adjustments, or switching to a different monitor. My screen is calibrated but I haven't checked for embedded profiles in the photos. All of the altered photos seem to be a little more saturated, but other than that I can't tell any difference in the 2nd and 3rd pairs either. They are pretty small files though and the bright white background isn't helping my shadow perception. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What sort of alterations are you implying? Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in him anyway, or when should we stop believing in him. The world in an interesting place. First, David Ahenekew insists that a speech to 200 people is a private conversation, then Dag insists that changing the content of a picture isn't really changing the content. I'm so confused. Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was sticking out of Clintons mouth. I'm so drunk... That explaines a lot .-) DagT William Robb
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was sticking out of Clintons mouth. Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
ROTFLMAO Shel [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Hi, Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg thanks Rob. Now I have to clean the sprayed coffee off my monitor. Australian politics sure looks like fun. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 7/4/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg LOL! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was sticking out of Clintons mouth. Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg 8-) That's how I imagine our PM and Chancellor function, sometimes Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Herb Chong wrote: but they are not identical, just very close. producing a limited edition set of 25 or 50 that are close to one another isn't good enough. What system do you believe gives you not just similarity but identicality? I bet you a year's supply of Kodachrome 25 that I can find a difference in any pair of prints you care to supply. mike Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:09 PM Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I suppose the answer to your question is yes, although I much prefer other techniques to dodging and burning, where the control can be even more precise at times. Once a print is dialed in, it can be repeated. Dodging and burning are only two ways of adjusting specific areas. When one utilizes all the techniques that are possible to manipulate a print in a chemical darkroom, the amount of control and consistency that can be applied to a print is astonishing.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Brings to mind that there is another meaning of the word congress. John On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:28:02 +0100, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg thanks Rob. Now I have to clean the sprayed coffee off my monitor. Australian politics sure looks like fun. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 06/04/2005
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
fra: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry about that. I'll try an example: If you take a picture of Bush kissing Clinton on the mouth it doesn't really change the picture if you later remove the foot of a bird in the upper left of the frame. It does if the foot was sticking out of Clintons mouth. Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg Exactly! :-) DagT
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The N.C. Press Photographers Association has rescinded three awards given to Observer photographer Patrick Schneider in its 2002 statewide competition. The board ruled that Schneider had altered the editorial content of some photos he entered by overly darkening some portions in the digital editing process. NCPPA president Chuck Liddy said Schneider violated the code of ethics of the National Press Photographers Association. The code says, in part: In documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way (electronically, or in the darkroom) that deceives the public. Said Liddy, a photographer at the News Observer of Raleigh: In photography, we are allowed to de-emphasize backgrounds by a technique called `burning,' but in some cases his backgrounds were completely removed. Patrick Schneider was the featured speaker at the Grandfather Mountain Camera Clinic in August of 2003, just days after all this went down. He was very open and forthcoming about the whole business and it made for some interesting discussion. Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. The calibration issue is a given with all processes. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 6, 2005 8:59 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Tom C wrote: To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density can go all over the place without good machine calibration. Godfrey PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Thanks Mark. I didn't mean to pick on Schneider specifically, his name just came up before anyone elses on a Google search when I went looking for examples, and his manipulations are somewhat less objectionable than others I have seen. Journalistic integrity doesn't stop with the photographer, it goes all the way up the food chain in the industry. It's the industry as a whole that has an integrity problem, not just a few photographers who got caught and then were made examples of. William Robb
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images On 7 Apr 2005 at 8:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even a relatively straight photo can be misleading. The following pic is the Aussie PM (front) and the treasurer in session in the House Of Reps Federal Parliament (not my pic): http://crazney.net/pics/Costello.jpg Wow, and I thought our politicians did some weird things to get budgets passed. William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Thanks Mark. I didn't mean to pick on Schneider specifically, his name just came up before anyone elses on a Google search when I went looking for examples, and his manipulations are somewhat less objectionable than others I have seen. Journalistic integrity doesn't stop with the photographer, it goes all the way up the food chain in the industry. It's the industry as a whole that has an integrity problem, not just a few photographers who got caught and then were made examples of. My impression of Schneider from his talk was that he's definitely a good guy. He was much less angry and much more philosophical than I would have been in his circumstances! (Especially just days after the event.) One thing that *wasn't* mentioned in the article I referenced was that one of the reasons his photos were disqualified from the contest (and this really is all about an awards contest, more than claims of deliberate deception or misrepresentation) was that the prints he submitted to the contest were *different* from the ones actually printed in the newspaper. That is, they were from the same RAW file but had different Photoshop processing. This strikes me as a slightly more legitimate basis for disqualification, but not much: You can't expect realistically the same brightness/contrast/color balance to work for both newsprint reproduction and a gallery print (which is basically what photog's submitted for judging). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 7/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: Patrick Schneider was the featured speaker at the Grandfather Mountain Camera Clinic in August of 2003, just days after all this went down. He was very open and forthcoming about the whole business and it made for some interesting discussion. Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Interesting reading, thanks Mark. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
That's my general view as well. What I like(d) about transparencies, is that I felt, at least, that I had a tangible viewable standard. The slide was the slide, and if I really liked it, the point was to get the print or digitized version to match as closely as possible to the slide, in tone and color. With digital, I don't have that. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:46 -0400 (GMT-04:00) To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. The calibration issue is a given with all processes. Kenneth Waller
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: To me at least, there seems to be no transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density can go all over the place without good machine calibration. To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. You never see a transparency's rendering change as you move it from projector to projector, light table to light table? or as it ages? or printed? You ONLY ever view your images as a transparency on a specific light table? A RAW file from a digital capture is the equivalent of a transparency, as is a JPEG file if that's how you stored the exposure: both are original captures. A negative is the equivalent of a transparency insofar as being an original capture too. The difference between a JPEG/Transparency and a RAW/negative is that the latter two require rendering (which is a process of interpretation) to achieve a viewable RGB image, not that any of them are less an original capture. A JPEG or Transparency has built into the process of its creation the rendering used. This is done either under your control or under the control of machine automation. They can both be modified post-original capture too ... the transparency by altering the chemical processing, the JPEG by editing afterwards. Of course, negatives can also be modified post-capture by altering the chemical processing before you can evaluate it, so in a sense the RAW file is the most stable expression of an original capture: once the data is captured, it is only changed by direct intent. Godfrey
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Godfrey, this was what I stated - To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. I stand behind that statement. A slide is the first generation and yes given the other variables you mentioned, it can be seen differently. But the fact remains it is the first generation. A print from a negative is second generation and includes its own set of variables (neg development, printing process, paper printed on, light viewed under etc). An unaltered RAW file could be first generation. Within the limitations of jpeg, it too, unaltered could be first generation. It's the rendering that removes the digital images from first generation. When I choose the transparancy film (Velvia vs ?) developing process, I'm basically saying this is the way I want this scene to be recorded in the first place. (I've used the same film and processing outfit for the last 6 to 7 years). I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 7, 2005 2:04 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images On Apr 7, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: To me at least, there seems to be no transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density can go all over the place without good machine calibration. To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. You never see a transparency's rendering change as you move it from projector to projector, light table to light table? or as it ages? or printed? You ONLY ever view your images as a transparency on a specific light table? A RAW file from a digital capture is the equivalent of a transparency, as is a JPEG file if that's how you stored the exposure: both are original captures. A negative is the equivalent of a transparency insofar as being an original capture too. The difference between a JPEG/Transparency and a RAW/negative is that the latter two require rendering (which is a process of interpretation) to achieve a viewable RGB image, not that any of them are less an original capture. A JPEG or Transparency has built into the process of its creation the rendering used. This is done either under your control or under the control of machine automation. They can both be modified post-original capture too ... the transparency by altering the chemical processing, the JPEG by editing afterwards. Of course, negatives can also be modified post-capture by altering the chemical processing before you can evaluate it, so in a sense the RAW file is the most stable expression of an original capture: once the data is captured, it is only changed by direct intent. Godfrey PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. LOL ... I suspect you're right. ;-) Godfrey
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Well put Ken, and I'm not trying to stir up contention. The whole reason I've been a largely transparency shooter, is that the industry, professional photographers, and How-to guides all said 'shooting transparencies eliminates many of the variables from the process as opposed to shooting with negative film', and 'if you want to see your images as captured, and the results of your exposure settings reliably, negative film and processing are too variable to do that'. As a user, I believed and depended on that to be true, and still do. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with using negative film, obviously. For me, however, I don't totally trust my memory when it comes to exactly how the scene looked when I released the shutter vs. the images I may view days or weeks later. I became accustomed to believing that aside from the attributes of the film itself, Velvia vs. Provia, vs. Kodachrome, and the dynamic range of the film to capture the gamut of light to dark, the transparency was a pretty accurate representation of what I saw. So being somewhat a**l, and a stickler for details, I found transparency films fit the bill. I realize this is not the only point of view. The other side is, 'if you're happy with the results, hurrah and if you're not happy, adjust it until you are, hurrah'. I don't have a problem with that, it just hasn't been my modus operandi. In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for negative film users. Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:32:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Godfrey, this was what I stated - To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. I stand behind that statement. A slide is the first generation and yes given the other variables you mentioned, it can be seen differently. But the fact remains it is the first generation. A print from a negative is second generation and includes its own set of variables (neg development, printing process, paper printed on, light viewed under etc). An unaltered RAW file could be first generation. Within the limitations of jpeg, it too, unaltered could be first generation. It's the rendering that removes the digital images from first generation. When I choose the transparancy film (Velvia vs ?) developing process, I'm basically saying this is the way I want this scene to be recorded in the first place. (I've used the same film and processing outfit for the last 6 to 7 years). I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. Kenneth Waller
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Mark Roberts mused: Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Interesting. Thanks, Mark. I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I get from monitor adjustments, or switching to a different monitor. The first one is rather more controversial. I've done similar things myself, but not over so large an area. Does that make a difference? I don't know. Personally, if I'd done that large a modification, I would have made the background transparent (or white, perhaps) to make it obvious to anyone.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
All of what you say is true. I've worked in the ad biz for most of my life, and the shooters we hired always worked with transparency film. In terms of my own photography, I've done a lot of magazine work and again transparencies were the standard. The reason was just as you suggest: It provided a record of the colors as recorded by the film, which were very close to the actual colors. The color separators and the art directors didn't have to guess. However, in recent years, all of this -- advertising and magazine photography -- has gone over to digital. Now it's possible to look at the results while the subject is still in front of the camera. So color matching isn't a problem. This makes a RAW image the practical equivelant of a transparency with a much faster turnaround. Reshoots are now a thing of the past. I frequently process some of my RAW images in the studio before I take down the camera. I've even processed RAW images in the field on location shoots. Trnsparency fi! lm was once the standard but its day is gone. In some venues, such as automotive advertising photography, digital is now being partially replaced by CGI. CGI reproductions create a digital image of a vehicle direct from the engineering CATIA files. Graphic artists enhance the vehicle image and paste it into an appropriate background. The background is sometimes totally CGI as well. In other words, even digital photograph is in danger of becoming yesterday's technology in some photographic fields. Transparency films have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Well put Ken, and I'm not trying to stir up contention. The whole reason I've been a largely transparency shooter, is that the industry, professional photographers, and How-to guides all said 'shooting transparencies eliminates many of the variables from the process as opposed to shooting with negative film', and 'if you want to see your images as captured, and the results of your exposure settings reliably, negative film and processing are too variable to do that'. As a user, I believed and depended on that to be true, and still do. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with using negative film, obviously. For me, however, I don't totally trust my memory when it comes to exactly how the scene looked when I released the shutter vs. the images I may view days or weeks later. I became accustomed to believing that aside from the attributes of the film itself, Velvia vs. Provia, vs. Kodachrome, and the dynamic range of the film to capture the gamut of light to dark, the transparency was a pretty accurate representation of what I saw. So being somewhat a**l, and a stickler for details, I found transparency films fit the bill. I realize this is not the only point of view. The other side is, 'if you're happy with the results, hurrah and if you're not happy, adjust it until you are, hurrah'. I don't have a problem with that, it just hasn't been my modus operandi. In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for negative film users. Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:32:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Godfrey, this was what I stated - To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. I stand behind that statement. A slide is the first generation and yes given the other variables you mentioned, it can be seen differently. But the fact remains it is the first generation. A print from a negative is second generation and includes its own set of variables (neg development, printing process, paper printed on, light viewed under etc). An unaltered RAW file could be first generation. Within the limitations of jpeg, it too, unaltered could be first generation. It's the rendering that removes the digital images from first generation. When I choose the transparancy film (Velvia vs ?) developing process, I'm basically saying this is the way I want this scene to be recorded in the first place. (I've used the same film and processing outfit for the last 6 to 7 years). I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. Kenneth Waller
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts mused: Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Interesting. Thanks, Mark. I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I get from monitor adjustments, or switching to a different monitor. The first one is rather more controversial. I've done similar things myself, but not over so large an area. Does that make a difference? I don't know. Personally, if I'd done that large a modification, I would have made the background transparent (or white, perhaps) to make it obvious to anyone. What makes it more difficult for newspaper editors is that different departments may have different standards. The national news desk may be very strict, while the Weekend Entertainment (or whatever) section may quite understandably permit much more latitude. At the Charlotte Observer, where Patrick Schneider works, they keep a permanent archive of every photographers RAW files (they are required to shoot RAW) so they can always go back to the original. I expect most other major newspapers do likewise but I wouldn't be surprised if some don't. If there's no original RAW file to compare things can become quite murky. The latest version of DxO Optics Pro can alter images (though only correcting for lens distortions) and save the altered file again as a RAW file. This won't be the first image application that has this capability. Who knows what others may do? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Interesting... Thanks Paul. Also interesting that the results are are compared while still in front of the subject. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 19:40:36 + All of what you say is true. I've worked in the ad biz for most of my life, and the shooters we hired always worked with transparency film. In terms of my own photography, I've done a lot of magazine work and again transparencies were the standard. The reason was just as you suggest: It provided a record of the colors as recorded by the film, which were very close to the actual colors. The color separators and the art directors didn't have to guess. However, in recent years, all of this -- advertising and magazine photography -- has gone over to digital. Now it's possible to look at the results while the subject is still in front of the camera. So color matching isn't a problem. This makes a RAW image the practical equivelant of a transparency with a much faster turnaround. Reshoots are now a thing of the past. I frequently process some of my RAW images in the studio before I take down the camera. I've even processed RAW images in the field on location shoots. Trnsparency fi! lm was once the standard but its day is gone. In some venues, such as automotive advertising photography, digital is now being partially replaced by CGI. CGI reproductions create a digital image of a vehicle direct from the engineering CATIA files. Graphic artists enhance the vehicle image and paste it into an appropriate background. The background is sometimes totally CGI as well. In other words, even digital photograph is in danger of becoming yesterday's technology in some photographic fields. Transparency films have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Well put Ken, and I'm not trying to stir up contention. The whole reason I've been a largely transparency shooter, is that the industry, professional photographers, and How-to guides all said 'shooting transparencies eliminates many of the variables from the process as opposed to shooting with negative film', and 'if you want to see your images as captured, and the results of your exposure settings reliably, negative film and processing are too variable to do that'. As a user, I believed and depended on that to be true, and still do. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with using negative film, obviously. For me, however, I don't totally trust my memory when it comes to exactly how the scene looked when I released the shutter vs. the images I may view days or weeks later. I became accustomed to believing that aside from the attributes of the film itself, Velvia vs. Provia, vs. Kodachrome, and the dynamic range of the film to capture the gamut of light to dark, the transparency was a pretty accurate representation of what I saw. So being somewhat a**l, and a stickler for details, I found transparency films fit the bill. I realize this is not the only point of view. The other side is, 'if you're happy with the results, hurrah and if you're not happy, adjust it until you are, hurrah'. I don't have a problem with that, it just hasn't been my modus operandi. In my mind a developed transparency is still more of a standard of sorts, then a RAW file. The RAW file still requires additional processing. Digital seems to be more of a paradigm shift for slide shooters than it is for negative film users. Anyway, I suspect I've beaten the horse enough... :) Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:32:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Godfrey, this was what I stated - To me the point is that the transparency is the first (and for me the last) generation of the image as I saw it captured it, whereas the print digital RAW are starting points. I stand behind that statement. A slide is the first generation and yes given the other variables you mentioned, it can be seen differently. But the fact remains it is the first generation. A print from a negative is second generation and includes its own set of variables (neg development, printing process, paper printed on, light viewed under etc). An unaltered RAW file could be first generation. Within the limitations of jpeg, it too, unaltered could be first generation. It's the rendering that removes the digital images from first generation. When I choose the transparancy film (Velvia vs ?) developing process, I'm basically saying this is the way I want this scene to be recorded in the first place. (I've used the same film and processing outfit for the last 6 to 7 years). I have a feeling the two camps in this issue will not be changing sides. Kenneth Waller
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Oh well, we live in a time when one is likely to be strongly punsished for what one might possibly do at some time, while people are let go for what they have definately done. Pat gave a presentation about this whole thing at GFM Camera Clinic year before last. It was clear then that he was being made a scapegoat of, because some editors were not willing to take the heat for they own actions. Though he never said that. I can only say that I was impressed at Pat's ability to maintain his cool. If this had happened to me they would have had to pry me off the ceiling. Where I would have been screaming vituperations at all and sundry. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Francis wrote: Mark Roberts mused: Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html Interesting. Thanks, Mark. I took a quick look at the images. On my (uncalibrated) notebook LCD screen, it's really difficult to see much of a difference in the 2nd and 3rd image pairs - there's certainly less variation there than I get from monitor adjustments, or switching to a different monitor. The first one is rather more controversial. I've done similar things myself, but not over so large an area. Does that make a difference? I don't know. Personally, if I'd done that large a modification, I would have made the background transparent (or white, perhaps) to make it obvious to anyone. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. Agreed. First hand experence. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
fra: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. Agreed. First hand experence. So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? DagT
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Hi, What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image. Ansel Adams said (quite a long time ago) almost exactly the same thing about printing his picures in the darkroom. Ansel Adams thought presentation was more important than content. Some people think content is more important than presentation. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
fra: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image. Ansel Adams said (quite a long time ago) almost exactly the same thing about printing his picures in the darkroom. Ansel Adams thought presentation was more important than content. Some people think content is more important than presentation. And some think that content is what is presented. DagT
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Paul On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:06 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. CNN might change your mind about that. William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I have experienced the same situation. Some negatives are very difficult to print, and the best sample can be extremely hard to repeat. As Shel said, dodging and burning isn't the only technique that can be employed, but for a given negative, it is sometimes absolutely necessary. And the nature of the beast is that it's difficult to control. Paul On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:09 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images That's a ridiculous statement ... Not really. I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. It happens William Robb [Original Message] From: Herb Chong also, in the wet darkroom, getting the perfect print from a negative once doesn't mean you will ever get it again.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
We're talking about printmaking here. Temperature and agitation are only critical in the film development stage. You're not going to vary the look of your prints significantly with a few degrees of temperature or a change in agitation. On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:31 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Well, maybe I should amend that statement. It is difficult in that you have to pay careful attention to details, such as times, temperature, agitation, enlarger setup, chemical strength, and a myriad of other things. But it is doable if you've got the temperament and the technique. Shel [Original Message] From: Shel Belinkoff Herb's comment was quite broad and very general. I stand by my comment that once you get the photo dialed in it's not at all difficult to get repetitive results. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images That's a ridiculous statement ... Not really. I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. It happens William Robb [Original Message] From: Herb Chong also, in the wet darkroom, getting the perfect print from a negative once doesn't mean you will ever get it again.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
That's a ridiculous statement ... WR Not really. WR I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, WR at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my WR dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. WR It happens But that's the ART of it ;-) Every print is HAND MADE - individual art piece. I wonder how could you do that with Inkjet, heh. Good light! fra
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Temp and agitation are not as critical in printmaking, but I like to maintain those things as precisely as possible. The truth is, when printing, a lot of time my prints are physically out of the developer as i work on small areas with Q-tips and hot developer, massaging certain areas, and so on. But I prefer all the critical processes to be standardized as a reference point, as a point of beginning. However, I believe that temp and agitation, as well as time, should be standardized in order to establish the basic print. Once that's known, it's easier (for me) to move on to the finer aspects of print making. As for varying the look significantly, well, it is a matter of degree, wouldn't you say. We're talking about repeatability here, and so, to get two or more prints as close to identical as possible I've always worked at keeping the process itself as close to identical as possible for each print made. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist We're talking about printmaking here. Temperature and agitation are only critical in the film development stage. You're not going to vary the look of your prints significantly with a few degrees of temperature or a change in agitation.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Yes, the affect of temperature and agitation is a matter of degree but that degree is minimal. And I've resorted to things like the local application of high strength developer and even blowing on a portion of a print to warm it, but, unlike film, prints reach full development rather quickly at which point development stops almost completely. So again, those strategies only work when a print is pulled from the soup before it reaches full development. That of course is possible, but difficult to replicate on subsequent prints. Of course I think we'd all agree with what Frantisek said. The artistic value of handmade prints lies partly in the fact that no two are identical. Each is an individual work, however closely it might resemble its peers. Paul On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:50 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Temp and agitation are not as critical in printmaking, but I like to maintain those things as precisely as possible. The truth is, when printing, a lot of time my prints are physically out of the developer as i work on small areas with Q-tips and hot developer, massaging certain areas, and so on. But I prefer all the critical processes to be standardized as a reference point, as a point of beginning. However, I believe that temp and agitation, as well as time, should be standardized in order to establish the basic print. Once that's known, it's easier (for me) to move on to the finer aspects of print making. As for varying the look significantly, well, it is a matter of degree, wouldn't you say. We're talking about repeatability here, and so, to get two or more prints as close to identical as possible I've always worked at keeping the process itself as close to identical as possible for each print made. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist We're talking about printmaking here. Temperature and agitation are only critical in the film development stage. You're not going to vary the look of your prints significantly with a few degrees of temperature or a change in agitation.
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. And photographers of fine art images are..? Kenneth Waller -Original Message- On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
For every print you start from scratch with the original RAW file :-) Dave S On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a ridiculous statement ... WR Not really. WR I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, WR at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my WR dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. WR It happens But that's the ART of it ;-) Every print is HAND MADE - individual art piece. I wonder how could you do that with Inkjet, heh. Good light! fra
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Agreed. First hand experence. So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? What sort of alterations are you implying? William Robb
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Ken asked: And photographers of fine art images are..? Artists, whose goal is to interpret the world in a fresh and interesting way. Reality isn't always an important consideration. Paul
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
PS difficult to replicate on subsequent prints. Of course I think we'd all PS agree with what Frantisek said. The artistic value of handmade prints PS lies partly in the fact that no two are identical. Each is an PS individual work, however closely it might resemble its peers. LOL :) I just wish that my printing technique was better, that my prints weren't _so_ artistic handmade ;-) (i.e. a bit more identical) Good light! fra
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
That's not necessarily a smile. I frequently start over with the RAW and sometimes end up with something very different. For every print you start from scratch with the original RAW file :-) Dave S On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a ridiculous statement ... WR Not really. WR I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, WR at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my WR dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. WR It happens But that's the ART of it ;-) Every print is HAND MADE - individual art piece. I wonder how could you do that with Inkjet, heh. Good light! fra
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005 6:00 PM, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: WR Not really. WR I have a few negatives that I have managed to make, if not a perfect print, WR at least a very good one, and even with careful notes and diagrams of my WR dodging and burning routine, have not been able to repeat the best print. WR It happens But that's the ART of it ;-) Every print is HAND MADE - individual art piece. I wonder how could you do that with Inkjet, heh. Good light! fra Having just read Shel's thread i thought i would answer this post. I agree with the quoted writer said, except the part about maybe not caring so much how he shot it in the field. I think one should care as the final result depends on this i feel. I manipulate pictures in PS and in the darkroom.Dodge and burn, crop etc. Rarly can i print with out some sort of minor tweak at best,and a crop to fit the printer.:-) But i wanted to reply to the above. I to keep notes in the darkroom ,for times, head heights,filters,paper dodge and burn,etc. If i try the same photo the following week at school, it usually comes out a tad different. Not that i mind,sometimes its for the better,making each print unique. My 2c DAVE
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Agreed. First hand experence. So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? What sort of alterations are you implying? Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in him anyway, or when should we stop believing in him. DagT
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Quoting John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: William Robb mused: I've noticed quite a trend over the past couple of decades in the media. A lot of what can be described kindly as opinion pieces, or unkindly as outright propoganda is finding it's way into the news and being presented as news, rather than what it really is. Ain't that the truth. Except for the implication that this is something new.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I guess you're being facetious. But I think most photojournalists are quite dedicated to truth. There are always violators but by and large I think photojournalists are a noble and honest lot. Agreed. First hand experence. On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or she presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, if necessary. The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would be a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences in terms of credibility and commercial viability. Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot of a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low have standards! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Challenge: take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one from the BBC. Report back. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I've watched BBC coverage of events right alongside the coverage of US networks. The footage is generally similar, the reporting of events can vary greatly, pariticularly in situations of a political nature. (This is also true from one US network to another.) What each network reports is generally factual, but the facts that they choose to present are shaped by their philosophical and political predispositions. That will be my only comment. To discuss this in more detail on-list could get us into dangerous waters. On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Challenge: take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one from the BBC. Report back. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
På 6. apr. 2005 kl. 17.58 skrev Cotty: On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or she presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, if necessary. The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would be a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences in terms of credibility and commercial viability. Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot of a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low have standards! So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no point of view? I don´t believe you. I still ask if we should stop believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without removing it from his interpretation of the truth. Of course the news organization plays a similar part and the same question applies to them. DagT
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Cotty mused: On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Challenge: take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one from the BBC. Report back. CNN like to use ITV stringers?
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mused: fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Agreed. First hand experence. So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? What sort of alterations are you implying? Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in him anyway, or when should we stop believing in him. DagT I really don't see any point in thrashing this out yet again. The last time was only, what, a couple of months back? It's obvious that there are some people on the list for whom even as trivial an alteration as removing a grass stem would be totally unacceptable. Equally, there are also people who have no problem removing what they consider to be irrelevant background details. No matter how many posts are made, I don't see much chance of anyone (in either camp) changing their position as a result. So let's just drop it now, before someone gets overheated.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Dag wrote: So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no point of view? I don´t believe you. I still ask if we should stop believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without removing it from his interpretation of the truth. Of course the news organization plays a similar part and the same question applies to them. The one difference is that everyone realizes the viewfinder/lens itself limits what can be shown in a single shot and therefore people intuitively know there's more than meets the eye when shown a photograph. On the other hand, people in general expect to be told the *whole* truth (as far as known) when it comes to news reporting. Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Shel Belinkoff quoted someone from the Luminous Lanscape who wrote: I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field - I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. then Shel asked for comment: Any comments on this? I'm writing without first reading the other responses so I'm probably repeating others. The author apparently likes Photoshop more than he does photography. There's nothing wrong with that but it's not for me. I'd rather spend my time trying to take good pictures than trying to fix bad ones. I'm a slide shooter and I try to get the shot right before I press the button. I wonder how cheap digital photography would be if the digiphiles counted all the hours they spent fooling with Photoshop. Tom Reese
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Tom Reese wrote: I'd rather spend my time trying to take good pictures than trying to fix bad ones. I'm a slide shooter and I try to get the shot right before I press the button. Amen. That's where I'm coming from too. Not that there's anything wrong with manipulation and adjustment after the fact... It somehow strikes me as odd, that in the film world, (at least for nature/landscapes) transparencies are predominantly viewed as the medium of choice because among other things, they are basically a WYSIWYG medium, boast enhanced color over negative film, are a 1st gen image, and they eliminate the 'guesswork' interpretation aspect of negative film processing. Now in the digital world, RAW is all the rage, but precisely for many of the opposite reasons transparency was predominantly viewed as good. Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Now in the digital world, RAW is all the rage, but precisely for many of the opposite reasons transparency was predominantly viewed as good. In truth, RAW is all the rage for many of the same reasons that transparencies are embraced. The RAW image is your basic unadulterated information. Digital jpegs or tiffs are processed by the camera software to default standards. It's something like having your negatives processed in a mini-lab that never tweaks the settings on the machine. Paul
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:57:41 + Now in the digital world, RAW is all the rage, but precisely for many of the opposite reasons transparency was predominantly viewed as good. In truth, RAW is all the rage for many of the same reasons that transparencies are embraced. The RAW image is your basic unadulterated information. Digital jpegs or tiffs are processed by the camera software to default standards. It's something like having your negatives processed in a mini-lab that never tweaks the settings on the machine. Paul
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even the lowest of the low have standards! grin -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: To discuss this in more detail on-list could get us into dangerous waters. Agreed ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6/4/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed: So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no point of view? I don´t believe you. I'm sorry, but I did not write that. This is what I wrote: The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. He or she presents their work to be published by a news organisation. It is up to the integrity and honesty of that news organisation to be questioned, if necessary. When I write The honest and noble photojournalist doesn't tell you anything. I mean - he or she does not tell you anything, because they are not present while you are viewing the picture. They do not tell you anything as in they are not there to speak to you and say 'Don't worry mate, this picture is not altered in any way' (in response to your original question: So, if this honest and noble photojournalist tells you that the pictures shows the truth as he understood it, does it matter if the picture is altered? which was in an earlier post). The photographer cannot be there to tell you anything. It's up to you as the viewer to interpret the image and see what you will, I'm only referring to the informational integrity of the pic now, nothing else. I further went onto write: The profession is dedicated to providing visual actuality for reproduction. It would be very easy for any link in that chain to be corrupted and misrepresent the facts as they were witnessed. In my experience, this would be a very rare occurrence, and the result would be a disgraced and unemployable individual. Most people working in news pride themselves in their work (I do) and strive to excel in being the first and the best. Reputations stand or fall on this, and any hint of tampering with the truth would invite the most serious of consequences in terms of credibility and commercial viability. Look at the paps - how easy would it be to superimpose a library shot of a semi-naked actress on a few different beach scenes? Yet the paps are out there stalking their prey (much as I personally disagree with such activity) in new and different situations. Even the lowest of the low have standards! ...which to me does not in any way seem remotely similar to what you now ascribe: So the photographer never adds anything personal, no subjective choice, no point of view? I don´t believe you Of course the photographer can slant a picture with any spin he or she likes. Most do, and with varying degrees of tilt - pro-this, neutral, pro-that. Like I wrote, it's the publisher who determines which picture is used, which slant is prescribed, which 'angle' is published. Finally, you write: I still ask if we should stop believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without removing it from his interpretation of the truth. I'm sorry but I don't understand the statement. best, I still ask if we should stop believing the honest photographer when he changes the picture without removing it from his interpretation of the truth. Of course the news organization plays a similar part and the same question applies to them. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even the lowest of the low have standards! grin LOL. I'm obviously at my best with a bug up my ass. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote: I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general. That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively liberating. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005 12:00 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Challenge: take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one from the BBC. Better yet, take one from Foxnews and the BBC. Or anyone else... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote: I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general. Rob S. wrote: That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively liberating. It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film. To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
but they are not identical, just very close. producing a limited edition set of 25 or 50 that are close to one another isn't good enough. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:09 PM Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I suppose the answer to your question is yes, although I much prefer other techniques to dodging and burning, where the control can be even more precise at times. Once a print is dialed in, it can be repeated. Dodging and burning are only two ways of adjusting specific areas. When one utilizes all the techniques that are possible to manipulate a print in a chemical darkroom, the amount of control and consistency that can be applied to a print is astonishing.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film. I consider the digital image processing stream far less burdensome than what I had to deal with to produce images from film so I guess that taints my perspective too. To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. To my mind the in camera JPG/TIFF is the equivalent of the transparency, the options that you can alter to affect the post processing in camera offer no more variability than selecting different transparency films. I don't perceive any explicit truth in film images over digital captures. In fact given that it's a far less linear process than digital capture it captures the light in way that's not so true. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I replied to Cotty's message. That will be the extent of my comments. You're fishing, Frank. On Apr 6, 2005 12:00 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/4/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. Challenge: take a major international news event and view a report from CNN, and one from the BBC. Better yet, take one from Foxnews and the BBC. Or anyone else... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing with a light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be post-processed as well. Paul On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote: I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general. Rob S. wrote: That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively liberating. It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film. To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Herb said: but they are not identical, just very close. producing a limited edition set of 25 or 50 that are close to one another isn't good enough. For what purpose are they not good enough? The galleries I've visited that sell BW prints take great pride in the fact that each print is unique in that it was created by hand. That's part of what makes wet prints more valuable to art collector's Each print has a personality and a history of its own. They are not merely clones. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the digital workflow and inkjet printing, but I appreciate the artistry of the darkroom. Paul
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Uh oh... My paradigm has been changed. Just when I was getting the hang of it. :( Damn digital. Tom C. From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:24:02 +1000 It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film. I consider the digital image processing stream far less burdensome than what I had to deal with to produce images from film so I guess that taints my perspective too. To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. To my mind the in camera JPG/TIFF is the equivalent of the transparency, the options that you can alter to affect the post processing in camera offer no more variability than selecting different transparency films. I don't perceive any explicit truth in film images over digital captures. In fact given that it's a far less linear process than digital capture it captures the light in way that's not so true.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Yes, your point? ;) Tom C. Of course you're ignoring the fact that for anything other than viewing with a light table and a loupe or projecting, a transparency must be post-processed as well. Paul On 6 Apr 2005 at 15:06, Tom C wrote: I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general. Rob S. wrote: That's how I perceive RAW files too, and that's why I prefer negative film, transparency film was so constraining, working with RAW files is creatively liberating. It's funny, so far I find it a pain in the neck, though I realize it has benefits. I liked the fact that I got no reinterpretation of the image when using transparency film (other than the aspects of the particular film itself). I felt my results were somehow 'truer or purer' as opposed to using negative film. To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Tom C wrote: To me at least, there seems to be know transparency equivalent in the digital world. All images receive post-exposure digital manipulation. It's just a factor of how much is done where and when. Transparency films require processing after exposure too. Calibration of the processing machine is critical ... color balances and density can go all over the place without good machine calibration. Godfrey
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
only because there was such a large loss going from the original slide to any other format. direct positives like Cibachrome added contrast and you were stuck with its color renditions. copy slides at their best are good, but not great. scanning has its own problems, the most important of which was that a slide frequently would have more density than the scanner could deal with. you can tell by looking at a slide and the scan whether it was an accurate scan. you can't do it with negatives, yet a nice slow color negative film is arguably sharper under many conditions. it certainly has more dynamic range. when you can't fix it, feature it. Herb... - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I understand what your saying, but RAW is also euphemistically referred to as a digital negative, and futher processing is implicit, where the same is not true of transparencies, in general.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
that's what individual art buyers want, i guess, but i don't. that what Galen Rowell called Dead Guys Who Shot BW the ultimate limited edition. being identical means they are exactly what i want someone to see and not just my best effort, or whoever did the printing. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images For what purpose are they not good enough? The galleries I've visited that sell BW prints take great pride in the fact that each print is unique in that it was created by hand. That's part of what makes wet prints more valuable to art collector's Each print has a personality and a history of its own. They are not merely clones. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the digital workflow and inkjet printing, but I appreciate the artistry of the darkroom.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005 8:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I replied to Cotty's message. That will be the extent of my comments. You're fishing, Frank. No I'm not. Okay, yes I am. vbg I was going to make a further comment about FoxNews, but due to your (implied) exhortation to let it drop, I will. List decorum must be paramount. I was just poking a bit of fun, but if I offended you, Paul, or anyone else, my apologies. Let's talk cameras! cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005 11:07 PM, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No I'm not. Okay, yes I am. vbg I was going to make a further comment about FoxNews, but due to your (implied) exhortation to let it drop, I will. List decorum must be paramount. I was just poking a bit of fun, but if I offended you, Paul, or anyone else, my apologies. Let's talk cameras! Besides, Cotty started it. g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images We're just gonna have to disagree. I know it's possible ... as I said, one must pay attention to a myriad of details. Surprisingly, some of what I learned that has helped me get repeatable results I learned from you, Bill, both wrt technique and equipment. Other things I learned from other printers. Remember, Bill, my original mentor was Ray Belcher LOL You just haven't run into a neg that has left you totally bamboozled the second time around. I've only had it happen a couple of times, both times when using specialty papers that may not have had the best QC regarding their curves. The temperature of my house might vary more than yours too. I'm pretty anal in the darktomb about making notes, especially when I am running a neg that is both a bugger to print, and one that I want to be able to get a repeatable result from. Mostly, it works out, but there are no absolutes in this world. William Robb I'm going to have to agree with both of you on certain points. With a good negative and little manipulation in the darkroom results should be reasonably repeatable using good darkroom techniques. The more difficult the negative and/or elaborate the darkroom manipulation, the more difficult (though not impossible) it will be to exactly match the original. My PUG this month is a good example. The original took me 25 sheets of paper to get right. The shadow was exposed for about 6-7 seconds, the highlight for about 3 minutes. If I still had the negative I would be hard pressed to duplicate the result, even though I'm a better technician now. The original post talked about the perfect print. I could probably turn out very acceptable prints, but if you looked hard enough you would find differences. My 2 Butch
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 6, 2005 1:42 PM, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really don't see any point in thrashing this out yet again. The last time was only, what, a couple of months back? It's obvious that there are some people on the list for whom even as trivial an alteration as removing a grass stem would be totally unacceptable. Equally, there are also people who have no problem removing what they consider to be irrelevant background details. No matter how many posts are made, I don't see much chance of anyone (in either camp) changing their position as a result. So let's just drop it now, before someone gets overheated. Then delete the thread. Don't read the posts. I don't see anyone getting steamed or hot under the collar. This doesn't seem to be pointing anywhere in the direction of a flame war. It's a legitimate topic for a photography list. New people join the list. Maybe some people who didn't participate last time (as they weren't interested at the time, or didn't have time) may want to express an opinion this time 'round. Maybe someone changed or modified their opinion (even intelligent people do that sometimes). There are plenty of threads that I don't read because I'm not interested. Many of them re-hash old material. So what? The participants enjoy a particular discourse, so they engage. I agree with you that what we're talking about here is mostly a matter of faith. And, yes, it's pretty hard to sway others on such matters. That's one reason that I haven't participated much (ar at all?) in this thread. I for one have enjoyed reading it, though. Anyway, it rather looks like this thread will soon be dying a natural death anyway. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Anyway, it rather looks like this thread will soon be dying a natural death anyway. cheers, frank No way man. It ain't and I ain't gonna let it! It'll fill your inbox for hours! :) Tom C.
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I'm speaking of still photographers. Television news is another story altogether, and one that I will not comment on here. The N.C. Press Photographers Association has rescinded three awards given to Observer photographer Patrick Schneider in its 2002 statewide competition. The board ruled that Schneider had altered the editorial content of some photos he entered by overly darkening some portions in the digital editing process. NCPPA president Chuck Liddy said Schneider violated the code of ethics of the National Press Photographers Association. The code says, in part: In documentary photojournalism, it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way (electronically, or in the darkroom) that deceives the public. Said Liddy, a photographer at the News Observer of Raleigh: In photography, we are allowed to de-emphasize backgrounds by a technique called `burning,' but in some cases his backgrounds were completely removed. Shall I go on? William Robb
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What sort of alterations are you implying? Anything that according the honest photographer does not change the content of the picture. It could be a plastic bag, some garbage, a lamp post, a fellow photographer etc. We have to belive in him anyway, or when should we stop believing in him. The world in an interesting place. First, David Ahenekew insists that a speech to 200 people is a private conversation, then Dag insists that changing the content of a picture isn't really changing the content. I'm so confused. I'm so drunk... William Robb
Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images I really don't see any point in thrashing this out yet again. The last time was only, what, a couple of months back? .. So let's just drop it now, before someone gets overheated. You are such an old poop. b...
Taking, Making, Creating Images
The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Shel Belinkoff wrote on 4/5/2005, 11:24 AM: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? The first comment is: The same could be said about film and the wet darkroom. The second is: Having shot 99% slides before going 100% digital, my workflow has changed considerably. In shooting slides with very little fix it in the processing leeway, I had to nail exposures in the field. Now, shooting digital, exposure is not as critical (as long as I don't blow out highlights) because I can fix it in photoshop Finally, I still try my best to get the right exposure, composition, and focus in the camera to make my post processing easier and faster. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Shel Belinkoff wrote: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? The postproduction stage in digital photography can be likened to the processing and printing stages in film photography. There are many parallels, and a few things unique to each medium. What is fortunate in the digital age is that the costs to accomplish all this post production trickery are relatively low. It's not like you have to go out and buy a roomfull of darkroom equipment, and waste a box of paper experimenting to get your desired result. But keep in mind that people in the darkroom can modify contrast, exposure, can dodge and burn, can tilt, defocus, double-expose, colorize, posturize, desaturate, and do a million other tricks. It's just more work, harder to visualize until its completed, and arguably harder to learn. That's not to say that there aren't some things achievable in a digital darkroom that could never be done purely with film. But with enough work, most digital tricks can be replicated opto-chemically too (new word?).
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Well, that sounds like a statement true for everyone shooting negative film as well, if you substitute computer with darkroom. The only difference is that more people today have access to computers than to darkrooms. Jostein - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:24 PM Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field - I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all - it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
I agree completely. Photographers have always tried to enhance their work as best they can in processing and printing. Now, we have tools available that allow much more control. Using them as well and as completely as one can is appropriate. Photography that records no more than what is actually there is something akin to a xerox machine. Photography that incorporates the photographers vision in what that photographer chooses to include in the frame, in how he exposes that frame, and in what he does with it afterward is an art. I don't believe that my work will ever rise to the level of art, but I will pursue all means at my disposal to make it as good as it can be. Paul On Apr 5, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel
RE: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Well, he had to think of something to write, this came to mind, and he wrote it. It's a basically meaningless statement in my opinion. What is the 'power of photography'? I thought it was (if I ever thought about it before) the power to convey and communicate through visual images and to evoke a response from the viewer. Not 'using the computer in making an image'. To say I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field contradicts Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field. I know what he was trying to say... it was said rather poorly, and I disagree totally with the notion (reading between the lines and contradictions) that being sloppy in the field and fixing it on the computer can constitute 'good' photography (whatever I mean by good). See, I'm leaving myself plenty of wiggle room. Once again it brings up the issue Is photogaphy truth?. In my mind, no, it's not the whole truth. It's a rendering. But I would feel somehow guilty if I adopted his attitude. It probably comes from shooting predominantly transparencies. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:24:04 -0700 The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Hi, Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 4:24:04 PM, Shel wrote: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? it depends what he wants to use his images for. If he's supposed to be reporting something then I'd feel somewhat uncomfortable with him 'making an image'. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
This sounds like it's coming from a computer guru rather than a photographer. I heard things like this a lot in early Photoshop classes I attended that were taught by graphic artists. They simply wanted material to work with to exercise the abilities of Photoshop.. Upon reading the entire article in Luminous Landscape, I get a more balanced view of what the author is trying to bring across. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field #151; I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all #150; it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Good point. After reading the entire article, I tend to agree with most of what he says. Alot of it depends on personal tastes and preferences. Tom C. From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:10:50 -0400 (GMT-04:00) This sounds like it's coming from a computer guru rather than a photographer. I heard things like this a lot in early Photoshop classes I attended that were taught by graphic artists. They simply wanted material to work with to exercise the abilities of Photoshop.. Upon reading the entire article in Luminous Landscape, I get a more balanced view of what the author is trying to bring across. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Shel PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Quoting Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image. Ansel Adams said (quite a long time ago) almost exactly the same thing about printing his picures in the darkroom. The only difference I see is that this sort of post exposure creative work is now simpler and more accessible for people, and that errors can be fixed with Ctrl-Z, instead of binning the print and starting again. This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 5, 2005 11:24 AM, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Not really. He and I have such different philosophies WRT photographs and photography (at least so it would seem from that quote) that we might as well be in different universes. I'd say we're talking apples and oranges - there's no possible discussion. Obviously we're photographing for different purposes (like, he's doing it for money LOL). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Taking, Making, Creating Images The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field - I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all - it's a beginning. Any comments on this? It's the way it has always been. All the computer has done is make very real looking manipulations easier. William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images The only difference I see is that this sort of post exposure creative work is now simpler and more accessible for people, and that errors can be fixed with Ctrl-Z, instead of binning the print and starting again. The big difference is that now, because manipulation can be done so seamlessly and so easily, it is far easier for real dishonesty to slip past peoples conciousness, and be mistaken for truth. Image manipulation isn't just about removing a few blemishes from a face, or cleaning up a stray beer can that some pig left in your landscape scene, it can also be about manipulating the reality that people see, quite often for less than seemly reasons. William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: RE: Taking, Making, Creating Images But I would feel somehow guilty if I adopted his attitude. It probably comes from shooting predominantly transparencies. It probably comes from being predominantly honest. William Robb
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
KnarF, I think you need to read the full article to get what he is about. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Apr 5, 2005 6:49 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images On Apr 5, 2005 11:24 AM, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Luminous Landscape has an article by Pete Myers on the value of post-production editing for photographers: What I am suggesting is that the real power of photography in our modern digital age is in using the computer in making an image... I really don't care all that much about what the picture looks like that I took in the field ? I care about what I can make of the image in postproduction. Certainly that does not excuse me from doing my best in taking a picture in the field, but the point is what happens in the field is not an end all ? it's a beginning. Any comments on this? Not really. He and I have such different philosophies WRT photographs and photography (at least so it would seem from that quote) that we might as well be in different universes. I'd say we're talking apples and oranges - there's no possible discussion. Obviously we're photographing for different purposes (like, he's doing it for money LOL). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
Bill Robb noted: The big difference is that now, because manipulation can be done so seamlessly and so easily, it is far easier for real dishonesty to slip past peoples conciousness, and be mistaken for truth. Agreed. But that's only a problem for photojournalism. As far as fine art photography is concerned, truth is irrelevant. Paul
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images
On Apr 5, 2005 7:31 PM, Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: KnarF, I think you need to read the full article to get what he is about. Which is why I noted, so it would seem from that quote. I'll do that (read the article, that is), to get a better feel for what he's about. thanks, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
