Lenswork - what do you think?

[tim atherton]

We have always held in high regard those photographers who were skilled in dramatically or artfully capturing real events in real time; for example Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Garry Winogrand, and many others. (In fact, Popular Photography and similar magazines used to make much of the "decisive moment" in photography.) The oft-repeated statement that all that matters is the final image is not necessarily true. The real-time butterfly on the boy's nose will always be more highly valued than the digitally imported butterfly on the boy's nose---and rightly so. Think for a moment of Ansel in front of his computer and importing that incredible sky into the image, and then bringing in the moon and placing it just so, and then placing a few extra crosses here and there to fill in some gaps. Think of Cartier-Bresson digitally inserting the man leaping the puddle or the smiling boy with the bottles of wine. Yes they would be beautiful and intriguing images, but I don't think we would honor these made-up images like we honor real photographs. And I don't think Ansel's and Cartier-Bressons reputations would be what they are today if they had produced their images in this way. I believe we will always---should always---put a premium on real time, real subject photography, especially that which demonstrates exceptional skill, or perhaps luck.

hmm... Or Strand removing things (people, manhole covers, gas lamp post etc) from his negatives to "improve" them, or Gene Smith adding things to them.

And is manipulating it before hand okay? Kertesz or Winogrand getting their friends and family to "pose" as the subjects in some of their more well known shots? (or even those who claim Cartier Bresson's man jumping the puddle jumped it several times for him...)

[scott_6029]

Saw I photog's work yesterday who puts flowers into a 'tank' of oil and then does color photographs them ( at least all I saw were color). Intersting colors, and textures with the oil. Very creative. Made the photograph look somewhat like an impressionistic painting...I not only liked the final print, but I thought the WHOLE process was very creative and thus valued it more. Food for thought.

Is there a difference in others minds whether the 'manipulation' is done previsualized or after the fact?

Another question, is there more value to a Jerry Uelesmann print, who does manipulation in a wet darkroom vs. a digital manipulation?

[PViapiano]

Really? Did Strand remove elements of his images from his negatives? I've never read that...so, how did he do this?

I guess I've never delved into pre-PS manipulation of film...interesting subject and painstaking work, I imagine.

[David Luttmann]

And in summary, but not included in my original letter, that is why when I enter a photography show and see "digital pigment print" or "pigmented ink print" or "archival pigment print" or "digital photograph" on the label I generally just walk on by because I am interested in photography, and I don't know, from just the print, how much is photographer and how much is Photoshop.
Wayne Lambert
www.waynelambert.net

And you didn't know what was real with a darkroom print either.

Odd that you'll walk away from a digitally captured image, but maybe won't from a scanned image or darkroom image with the same manipulation applied.

Yup, that's logical and not biased in any way. LOL!

[PViapiano]

...that is why when I enter a photography show and see "digital pigment print" or "pigmented ink print" or "archival pigment print" or "digital photograph" on the label I generally just walk on by because I am interested in photography, and I don't know, from just the print, how much is photographer and how much is Photoshop.
Wayne Lambert
www.waynelambert.net

Wayne, firstly, great images on your site, esp the Mexican portraits...outstanding, and the fact that they're pt/pd puts them over the top...nice work!

Re: the comments above, I don't feel the same way. There are a whole cadre of photographers working in a hybrid fashion - film, scanning, digital output - who use Photoshop only in a manner consisitent with traditional darkroom work - spotting, cropping, dodging & burning, toning - without removal or addition of any elements. Of course, you'll never know for sure in a gallery setting unless a statement is made to that effect and you trust that statement.

There are many well-known photographers such as Penn, Turner and Meyerowitz who are now printing digitally and getting excellent results. The only thing that is possibly bothersome is the fact that prints can be reproduced at the touch of a button, whereas in the past the artist had to have a hand in the reproduction of all pieces. Sure, they weren't all exactly the same and sometimes depended on the mood/creativity of the artist on that day, but that made each one an individual work of art.

It seems in these days of everyone complaining about how no one values photography in relation to arts such as painting, they would realize that the individual work of art always triumphs over the mechanically reproduced one.

[tim atherton]

It's most obvious on some of his pictures from an elevated angle of the streets.

In one, for example, there are patterns of manhole covers (do they still call them that?) down the street. He removes (and, in at least one case, one cases moves) some of them to improve the graphics of the pattern

In some others he removes a person or two to do the same, and in another it's a gas-lamp post - he's playing with the figures and the shadows.

I've seen the negatives of some of these - he did it using the standard retouching techniques of the day (in some cases a bit clumsily). And if you look through the books, in one you'll find one version of a print, and in another you'll find an altered one.

In some of Winogrand Zoo photographs, especially, he sometimes took his children with him - and he'd tell them to go and do something interesting, or go engage someone in conversation, or go make a big noise over there - then photograph - either them or the responses to them.

With Kertesz, some (but not all by any means) of the characters in his more well known photographs of street scenes etc are his friends.

And I have a friend who worked in Magnum Paris who will swear to his dying day that he saw several versions of the man jumping over the puddle - but they were kept under lock and key... (and isn't it odd that that's also the only HCB photograph that isn't a full 35mm frame - as his are nearly always printed with the rebate - and is always oddly cropped...)

[tim atherton]

The only thing that is possibly bothersome is the fact that prints can be reproduced at the touch of a button, whereas in the past the artist had to have a hand in the reproduction of all pieces. Sure, they weren't all exactly the same and sometimes depended on the mood/creativity of the artist on that day, but that made each one an individual work of art.

Though many well known (indeed "great"...) photographic artists virtually never had a hand in the printing of their work - apart from a set of detailed instructions to make the first print. They went to a printer who could repeatedly reproduce exactly what they wanted each time.

Giacometti often didn't actually cast his own sculptures - skilled workmen did it for him in a fairly mechanical, repeatable (even if not 100% so) process. I don't think I'd turn down one of those pieces of second class art if it were offered to me?

[paulr]

And I have a friend who worked in Magnum Paris who will swear to his dying day that he saw several versions of the man jumping over the puddle - but they were kept under lock and key... (and isn't it odd that that's also the only HCB photograph that isn't a full 35mm frame - as his are nearly always printed with the rebate - and is always oddly cropped...)

one of my best friends worked as an archivist at magnum. one of the first things they showed her was robert capa's page of negatives from the famous "moment of death" picture. there were several takes!

some photojournalists will threaten to punch you if you suggest this, citing some kind of anti-capa conspiracy theory, but my friend had no axe to grind. as someone who lectures on staged photography she was fascinated by the whole thing.

[paulr]

Giacometti often didn't actually cast his own sculptures - skilled workmen did it for him in a fairly mechanical, repeatable (even if not 100% so) process. I don't think I'd turn down one of those pieces of second class art if it were offered to me?

Michalangelo too. He basically ran an art factory. It's unknown how many of his famous sculptures he actually put a hand on; all we know is that he was a pretty tough art director.

[darr]

Here is an article from NY Times blogger, Errol Morris about Roger Fenton's Valley of The Shadow of Death and the idea of staging:

http://tinyurl.com/3dr42g