Lenswork - what do you think?

[Brian Ellis]

I was wrong. I apologize.

But I never said I could tell ALL digital from film images. I said it could be done with a small (but growing) subset. Are you really saying you can NEVER tell when a photo has been digitally manipulated?

Of course. But we were talking about images in LensWork. You said " . . . there is a popular subset of photographs that look obviously digitally manipulated (as opposed to wet-darkroom manipulated), which I find myself not enjoying. The number of these images in Lenswork has been creeping up and up." That pretty clearly isn't talking about any image anywhere. It says you're seeing more and more of these digitally manipulated images in LensWork. So it was LensWork images that I asked you about.

I realize that this subject has been beaten to death so I probably should let you off the hook on which you've hung yourself and just drop it. But I'm always amused at the extent to which digiphobes will twist all logic and common sense in an effort to justify their insistence that only traditional darkroom prints are "real" photographs.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to work in a darkroom. Great photographs obviously have been and hopefully will continue to be made that way. It's when photographers who work that way insist that theirs is the only way of making "real" photographs that I get irritated.

[tim atherton]

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to work in a darkroom. Great photographs obviously have been and hopefully will continue to be made that way. It's when photographers who work that way insist that theirs is the only way of making "real" photographs that I get irritated.

along with the "and off course you can always tell the digital photographs" that is, all the "bad" ones. Which is simply bollix

[tim atherton]

BTW, I remember one person (don't think it was here, may have been APUG or pee.net) going on and on about the terrible and obvious digital manipulation in a portfolio in Lenswork - the horribly photo-shopped skies, the obviously bad photoshop masking etc etc all horror of horrors.

Turned out it was all analogue manipulation, done in the darkroom, with just the final prints scanned for publication..

[David R Munson]

I for one think Lenswork is one of the best photo magazines being published today. I buy and enjoy every issue, even when the opinions or photographs aren't quite to my taste. It's all quite well done.

[Daniel Grenier]

QUOTE .... we try to make the focus of LensWork the images, not the gear..... Brooks Jensen Editor, LensWork Publishing.

To which I suggested to Brooks he remove all references to hardware (leaving the digital-analog debate out of Lenswork entirely... wouldn't that be refreshing!) but that has yet to happen.

I use nothing but analog in my personal work & nothing but digital in my day job but I can certainly appreciate a "good eye" whether digital or analog. I suggest the digital vs analog "issue" should only be of concern when it comes time to spend your hard earned cash and actually *buy* someone's work!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I suggest the digital vs analog "issue" should only be of concern when it comes time to spend your hard earned cash and actually *buy* someone's work!

LOL...this is the best suggestion I have read in this thread!

[bsimison]

"I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop."

Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs by Ansel Adams, p.59

[John Voss]

The most obviously manipulated photographs I know of by a well known photographer are those of Clyde Butcher who doesn't try very hard to conceal the dodging and burning interventions he uses, and I believe his are all 'wet' prints. And yet, the most subtle, impossible to detect manipulations I've ever seen are done with PS, and I only know this because I've seen them being done....and they are astonishingly significant while looking utterly natural. If I could do in the darkroom what I'm referring to, I'd be filling big bucks workshops daily. Of course the number of people in the world who actually give a rat's rump anymore would probably only fill up a weeks worth of workshops...

Crass and careless work is anathema by whatever means made.

[David Luttmann]

A 150 year old definition of a technical term is of use only to historians. Language, technologies, and especially language about technologie, all evolve.

Definition of "car": a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. (1301)
Definition of "computer": a person who performs mathematical calculations. (1646)

If you want to know what "photography" means, look at contemporary usage, particularly by authorities in the field. If you favor conservative interpretations, look at conservative intitutions (the Met, SF Moma, etc.).

Darn,

Now not only do I not do photography when I'm using a DSLR, now my Mazda is no longer a car. I wonder what I'm typing on right now as it most certainly can't be called a computer.

[John Kasaian]

I've always thought the pictures in Lenswork were very nice. Like, they're supposed to be, right?