A Photographer or a Graphic Artist?

[tim atherton]

"Pixelography automatically creates the presumption that the picture is a lie"

on the contrary, pixolography has finally demolished the presumption that photographs tell the truth.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I never had any particular interest as a child in painting or sculpture or chainsaw bears. To me photography was and is the most powerful artistic medium available. Why? Would the Zapruder film be more effective as animation?



You may never have had the interest, but someone who had might be able to produce a striking picture. IOW, have you ever stopped and seen a picture and say to yourself: "gosh, I wish I had taken that!" A perfect example more than Weston's pepper is his lettuce (cabbage?) leaf shot. A perfectly ordinary subject seen and photographed in an exquisite way. This talent will express itself with an in camera negative or a PS manipulated image, the "process" does not matter. What I think bothers you and I agree with you is the "sloppiness" approach some take with PS and the "I will fix it later" way to approach photography. While I agree that this could be detrimental to the "art" of photography I think this is nothing new. Look at the thousands of people looking for the "magic bullet" developer or the magic bullet printing workshop, or perhaps this newfangled expensive camera will produce the magic that will make master pieces of my work.



Every time I see a post on developers I rarely see anybody saying "stick with it until you know it back and forth" most of the time is "yes, that developer is no good you should try.....(fill in your favorite developer)"....Why should we berate those who say I will fix it later in PS when our own approach has been one of finding the one developer/paper/workshop/guru that will allow us to make masterpieces with the minimal of effort?



Photoshop is only the symptom of what has not been said or is rarely said and that is that photography will take commitment to excellence, endurance, patience, practice, practice, practice to refine your talent and find your own "style." Wether this is done in PS or an in camera negative it is still true.



I prefer the in camera approach and as such I welcome the work done by those doing crappy PS work, it only makes my work look better. OTOH I look forward to see the new work from those who choose to use PS as just another tool to create stunning work. They are few and far between, but they are out there.

[Graeme Hird]

I agree with Frank on this one - I've very rarely seen any photographs that one could say "This is exactly how it was", and those that I have seen were were boring reproduction work (copy work).

Do you really believe that any B&W film captures exactly what was there? Surely, by taking out colour, you've already manipulated the image (and the viewer) from the very first instant the image was captured?

By selecting a lens which does not match the human field of view, you've once again manipulated the scene recorded.

Artistic pursuit implies the artist has put something of himself or herself into the piece. Artistic photos are rarely meant to look exactly as found (those that do are record shots - copy work if you like).

Photography, by its very nature, is a deceptive art form. Personally, I don't add that blue sky in PS, or remove the telephone pole in PS. But I don't feel deceived by PS work any more than I would when I look at an AA print of a clearing storm over Yosemite NP.



Digitally manipulated or darkroom manipulated: neither image is exactly how the scene looked - it's art!

Cheers,

[Duane Polcou]

The public's impressions of imagery has evolved from a place of truth and certainty ("picture's don't lie) to a gray area of falsehood and suspicion. Brett Weston was my all time favorite photographer, but I found it irksome that he felt it unnecessary to title his photographs. He thought the image should speak for itself. Perhaps. Who am I to argue with a Weston. But for many laypeople, their enjoyment and eventual appreciation of a medium is contingent upon their understanding of details that we as photographers may consider unnecessary. Location. Subject Matter. Date. Manipulation. I think now, perhaps more than ever, visual works should be prefaced with explanations as to how they were created. I would like to let the viewer then decide what is and what isn't truthful, and let their appreciations and/or dismissals fall where they may. Kirk - Chaco Body is on my top ten list!!

[Tony_5130]

I take it from the above comments you are all purists in as much that the only thing of any importance is the final image.
If you are not careful this forum will cease to be of any use to anyone, and, the inevitable migration of interest will move to Adobe's online help facility where the most likely topic for conversation will be "which button do I press to remove red eye?".
The very title of this website; Largeformatphotography.com infers sectarianism yet people feel they can condone the use of methods and techniques which are, and should remain, alien to the fundamentals of photography.
Digital imagery may be an art form but should not be confused with traditional photography.

Note to self:

"Make website entitled, Largeformatdigitalredeyeremoval.com

[Graeme Hird]

Tony,

I love my LF camera and don't own a digital camera.

I choose to print digitally because it is probably the most efficient way to print colour photos.

The people who buy my prints every day aren't confused about digital or traditional photography: they simply want beautiful photographs to hang on their walls.

Cheers,

[Graeme Hird]

Oh, and to go back to the original question regarding "photographer or graphic design artist": I see far to many "photographers" who would benefit enormously from studying graphic design and applying it to their own work!

[Frank Petronio]

I think Kirk may be upset because he spent a lot of money on Center Filters and Polarizers when he could have "just Photoshopped it in" and saved alot of time and money... ;-)

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank, Upset is not the word perhaps dismayed is better. Actually I have never owned a center filter, but I could have bought quite a few with the money I have invested in digital darkroom equipment.

Jorge, I appreciate the philosophical discussion. Explain to me though the aesthtics of the Contact Print Guild? Sorry I may have the name wrong. I actually think these discussions are important and I don't get enough. It helps me sort out my own aesthetic. I spend too much of my time with editors, writers, architects and chefs, but that is another story.

Duane, Thanks for the kind words about Chaco Body. That has always been a hard act to follow. If for some odd reason you are in New Mexico in September thru November, it will be rehung in its entirety at the Albuquerque Museum as part of a 30 year retrospective show and book entitled "Shelter from the Storm: The Photography of Kirk Gittings". And yes it will be a mix of traditional silver and inkjet prints, the "tradigital" approach to "straight" photography.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, I appreciate the philosophical discussion. Explain to me though the aesthtics of the Contact Print Guild? Sorry I may have the name wrong. I actually think these discussions are important and I don't get enough. It helps me sort out my own aesthetic. I spend too much of my time with editors, writers, architects and chefs, but that is another story.



While I dont belong to the guild anymore, the idea is to sell prints that were contact printed and hand crafted. But many of the members use digital negatives to make the prints. Nothing wrong with that. I have one of the members visiting right now who uses digital negatives and his prints are absolutely beautiful, but of course, he beleives that the best approach is to have a good in camera negative to beguin with.