Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 105

Thread: digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

  1. #1
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,693

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Not a troll (because you can go go and duke it out on the blog itself rather than here...)
    But an interesting discussion over on edward winkleman's site looking at Purity In Medium

    http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2005/12/purity-in-medium-open-thread.html

    especially interesting fro the Burtynsky vs. the germans/struthskys aspect

    (thanks joerg)
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    831

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    Is Donald Eugene Camp's recent work considered manipulated?

    I take it to be pure.

  3. #3

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    is putting a 4 filter instead of a 2 in the enlarger manipulating? what about push processing? who decides the rules? kodak?

  4. #4

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    See this is the thing that is always grating....

    however, have very recently begun to sing a slightly different tune, often arguing that when there's no preceptible difference in the final print, and there's a humungeous difference in control and efficiency, the new technology begins to erase any concerns about purity

    Who are these people kidding? I cant speak for anybody else, but I can tell when they are digital prints, at least when it is B&W. Color might be a bit hardly a "not perceptible" difference.

    Anyhow, sorry for the OT rant. IMO photography as art has never relied on presenting the object as it was, but most often than not manipulation of some kind was made to alter tonalities, etc. So this is a non issue for me. I expect all art photography to be manipulated somehow, be it analog or digital.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    823

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    >Who are these people kidding? I cant speak for anybody else, but I can tell when they are digital prints, at least when it is B&W.

    digital b/w print vs traditional print.. yes

    however given that "there's no preceptible difference in the final print", you'd be hard pressed to tell if one of my prints done in traditional platinum (or silver for that matter), was digital or analog capture.

  6. #6

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    however given that "there's no preceptible difference in the final print", you'd be hard pressed to tell if one of my prints done in traditional platinum (or silver for that matter), was digital or analog capture.

    Wanna bet? Now, I dont mean you post a few pics here and ask me if they are digital or analog capture. I have to see the print on paper (no, no loupe used) to be able to tell.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    110

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    You'll have to pardon my ignorance on this - but what is the definition of "purity" in photography? Secondly, why is it so important?

    Either the image is interesting or it's not. What does "purity" have to do with that?

  8. #8
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,774

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    It was a typo, Steve. The issue is whether or not a picture is "purty." I love purty pictures and purty ladies. I also don't know what the fuss is about.

  9. #9

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    I love purty pictures and purty ladies

    Finally, something Paul and I agree on.... :-)

  10. #10
    Scott Davis
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,706

    digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

    When wearing a collector's hat, I care about how an image was made, and what it is made on, because those details greatly influence, to me, how much I am willing to invest in the photograph. Is it all-digital (digital capture, digital manipulation, digital output)? Is it digital-to-analog? is it analog-to-digital? I am willing to spend more for a "pure" traditional photograph because rightly or wrongly I percieve that it will last beyond my lifetime, which may not be true for a digitally produced image. I also value the craftsmanship that goes into a "traditional" photograph, as someone who makes them myself. I also feel that the hands of the artist were actually involved in the making of the actual physical image that I own.

    This is not to say that I don't appreciate images based on their artistic merits. I think, and I suspect that many other people also feel this way, perhaps unconsciously, that because the origins of digital manipulation of images came from the commercial world for advertising and graphic arts purposes, that images that are digitally manipulated are manipulated for the purpose of selling us something, or convincing us of the reality of an unreal. Even when it is something as simple as hyper-saturation of color in an image, for the purpose of exaggerating an emotional response. I think people feel manipulated for a commercial purpose, which they dislike when their intentions are "artistic". Especially in this hyper-modern, post-industrial, supertechnological world, people long for and care about craftsmanship. Why else would people be willing to spend $6000 on a Louis Vuitton handbag when you can get an otherwise identical knockoff made in an assembly-line factory for $50?

    It is a perception of the organic versus the mechanical - this is not to say that there is actually less craftsmanship involved in making a digitally manipulated image. Just the perception of it.

Similar Threads

  1. Mounting Photos
    By cp in forum Business
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 29-Oct-2007, 19:45
  2. Photos in the forum?
    By Henry Ambrose in forum Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-Apr-2004, 11:50
  3. Displaying Photos
    By Don Harpold in forum On Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 1-Mar-2004, 15:20
  4. stacks of old photos
    By tim atherton in forum Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 17-Oct-2003, 15:13
  5. Which is the Best Lense for 1:1 Photos
    By Rainer in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 3-Apr-2002, 20:40

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •