I was at the National Gallery of Art in Wash.D.C. last year and I must say, I think it’s revolting how artist manipulation their paints on canvas. How can anyone tell if it’s real or not? And they call all oil and watercolors art.
I was at the National Gallery of Art in Wash.D.C. last year and I must say, I think it’s revolting how artist manipulation their paints on canvas. How can anyone tell if it’s real or not? And they call all oil and watercolors art.
Digital manipulation isn't bad for photography. It's completely irrelevant. Making pictures by using digitally controlled optical, electronic, and mechanical devices is not "photography" of any kind. "Digital" is a mechanical or robotic version of the traditional painting and drawing that human beings have been doing for thousands of years.
Digital pictures have the same relationship to reality as paintings/drawings. Let us enjoy them for what they are.
Photography, in the true sense, happens when a physical sample of subject matter penetrates a sensitive surface and occasions picture forming marks in it. Photography is a process as purely physical as a footprint on a beach. It employs no sensor/transducer, no data is generated, no memory formed, no processor churns, no output is offered, no mark making device needs to labour. Photography requires no external power source; not food, not electricity.
At a fundamental level photography is very different to the way human beings or machines contrive pictures. It is its own singular thing.
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
The Constitution of the USA affords me the right to be as digital as I wish. Yeah... it's in there somewhere.
IMHO what is bad for photography is the heavily manipulated images being passed as "photographs" instead of "photo illustrations".
Héctor Navarro Agraz
We know that this true because they are carved on the tablets that St. Ansel brought down from Mount Half Dome.Originally Posted by Maris Rusis
Don Bryant
Hmmmmmmmmmmm……….Photography is truth and everything else is a lie? Where have I heard this before. No one as manipulated “true” photographs before?
Hey, it does not have to be real hay stack processed by the real bull - some humans are also really good at producing it out of just about any subject.
The fact that it looks so easy is deceptive, it takes real skill, lots of it, to make it look, feel and smell just like the real thing. The most successful practitioners of the art tend to be lawyers, politicians and some philosophers.
Which proves the fact that it is the end result that matters and not the process...
every time the shutters closes a photographer manipulates reality to his or her own interpretation. Analog or digital it doesn't matter. The photographer controls the information. Maybe it's better that people are starting to realize the level of manipulation in all photography, maybe they will start to see it for what it is. Maybe we are in the mist of a rebirth of Pictorialism. Perhaps the second coming of St. Ansel is not too far off.
No digital manipulation - just 5 overlaid negatives:
Wrong!
Sensor = silver halide
memory = metalic silver (formed from the silver halide by the actions of light and the developer chemicals)
processor = chemical development
output = negative or print
external power source = light (the engergy from which starts the conversion from silver halide to metalic silver)
And both a conventional photographic print and a digital image print are 2D approximations of the 3D scene the photographer saw. They are formed using lenses that are governed by the same optical properties. Neither is more or less "real" than the other. One process might capture more data (detail, resolving power, grain, pixels, whatever), but they both are translations and approximations of the actual physical scene.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks