digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos

[tim atherton]

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)

[John_4185]

Is Donald Eugene Camp's recent work considered manipulated?

I take it to be pure.

[adrian tyler]

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

[kjsphotography]

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

What you are forgetting. One you are doing in a software the other is done by mastering a craft. There is a lot more to a traditional print than just adding a filter.

[Al Seyle]

This goes hand-in-glove with the "Does the world need another aspen tree photo?". It's all been done before and I want my shot to look different. Manipulation is the only thing left (ouch!). It's my edge. After all, anyone who has taken a painting class has put a tree where there isn't one. C'mon, every artist in history has manipulated--it's one of the things that makes them an artist.

[paulr]

What you are forgetting. One you are doing in a software the other is done by mastering a craft.

I spent years learning how to print in a darkroom and years learning to print digitally. They both felt like trying to master a craft, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure which was easier to learn.

In both cases the decisions you make ... the creative parts ... are the same. all that changes are the tools.

[David Luttmann]

I spent years learning how to print in a darkroom and years learning to print digitally. They both felt like trying to master a craft, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure which was easier to learn.

In both cases the decisions you make ... the creative parts ... are the same. all that changes are the tools.

Agreed Paul. There seems to be a fair bit of this unintelligent snobery that goes on from people thinking that somehow dodging and burning in the darkroom is magical craft done by brilliant artists....and doing the same in Photoshop requires no eye, skill or intelligence.

This of course, seems to only come from people who have done one....but not both.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This of course, seems to only come from people who have done one....but not both.

Well, Kevin is a programmer and has done both, so you can call it snobbery, others call it as they see it.

[David Luttmann]

Well, Kevin is a programmer and has done both, so you can call it snobbery, others call it as they see it.

Yes of course....waiving a piece of cardboard over a print to dodge it is "craftsmanship" and "art"....doing the same with a mouse is just goofing around in software.

Yes, most definitely call it as you see it.....the double standard is amusing, if not a pathetic piece of straw grasping.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes of course....waiving a piece of cardboard over a print to dodge it is "craftsmanship" and "art"....doing the same with a mouse is just goofing around in software.

Yes, most definitely call it as you see it.....the double standard is amusing, if not a pathetic piece of straw grasping.

That must be the reason why manufacturers try to come up with papers that look just like silver prints and people doing digital buy them....if there is no difference why not come up with your own look?....

In the end, a 15 year old with enough practice in PS can do what other people in PS do....not many can do what I and other people doing darkroom work do...must be a reason for that, could it be that learning PS is easier? Nahhh.....