digitally manipulated photos vs. "pure"photos [Archive]

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Dec-2005, 13:24

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.

Jim collum

15-Dec-2005, 13:40

>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.

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Dec-2005, 14:00

steve_782

15-Dec-2005, 14:00

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?

paulr

15-Dec-2005, 14:18

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.

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Dec-2005, 14:21

I love purty pictures and purty ladies

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

Scott Davis

15-Dec-2005, 14:27

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.

John_4185

15-Dec-2005, 14:50

Believe me, the following is not the heart of the arguments I will give later, but this exchange:

love purty pictures and purty ladies

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

Let's take this to the "only the final look counts" people: Does it apply if the women in question are largely silicone and surgically enhanced and spend two hours in front of the mirror every morning?

Jorge Gasteazoro

15-Dec-2005, 14:55

Does it apply if the women in question are largely silicone and surgically enhanced and spend two hours in front of the mirror every morning?

To some people this is attractive......once again we fall in the beauty is in the eye thing..... Thankfully Paul did not specify....so, your example while not my cup of tea might be ambrosia to some.. :-)

John_4185

15-Dec-2005, 15:13

Especially in this hyper-modern, post-industrial, supertechnological world, people long for and care about craftsmanship.

Not enough care about craftsmanship, and darned few can afford it even if they do care.

The majority want flash-plated bling, sweet calories, plastic women, free music, TV 'novels', and a 5-cent cigar.

paulr

15-Dec-2005, 15:23

"The majority want flash-plated bling, sweet calories, plastic women, free music, TV 'novels', and a 5-cent cigar."

what are you saying, jj ... the party's at your place??

Jonathan Brewer

15-Dec-2005, 16:19

'Let's take this to the "only the final look counts" people: Does it apply if the women in question are largely silicone and surgically enhanced and spend two hours in front of the mirror every morning?'......................................................................If it makes a difference 5 minutes after you turn the lights out, you're with the wrong woman.

scott_6029

15-Dec-2005, 16:21

There is the aesthetic quality (the image) , the craft (analog, digital, wet, dry, plat. silver, other methods etc and their associated skill sets necessary to give the craft its proper respect) and the historical factor (i.e when in history it was made based on methods available, etc.) that for me combines to formulate the 'value' - if indeed there is an agreeable one....

Brian Ellis

16-Dec-2005, 04:45

I don't think it's any great achievement to make a digital print (by "digital" I mean a print from a negative that has been scanned) that can't be differentiated from a traditional darkroom print. In other words, I don't think that should be the objective of digital printing. However, while I can't speak for others I know that my tastes and values in printing were shaped by years of darkroom work so most of my digital prints tend to look like traditional darkroom prints.

I've exhibited both types of prints together framed and under glass and haven't had anyone notice (as far as I know) that some were digital and some were traditional. Of more significance for purposes of this group, I've also shown both types of prints together in portfolio critiques at workshops conducted by well known b&w photographers and neither the instructors nor the other participants realized that some were digital until I pointed that out. Maybe that proves that it's possible to make digital prints that are basically indistinguishable from traditional prints. More likely it just shows that when people are looking closely at the image as an image and aren't thinking about the techniques used to make the image the differences aren't as apparent as some seem to think (or, more accurately, aren't apparent at all).

paulr

16-Dec-2005, 09:03

"More likely it just shows that when people are looking closely at the image as an image and aren't thinking about the techniques used to make the image the differences aren't as apparent as some seem to think (or, more accurately, aren't apparent at all)."

which says you must be doing something right ... if people looked at my work and start asking questions about cameras and computers, it would tell me there isn't enough substance to hold their attention. or that all my friends are nerds.

Steven Barall

16-Dec-2005, 10:30

It took many many years for photography to recover from that "Art vs. Craft" argument. Now it begins again with the Craft being the "pure" photos and the Art being the "digital" photos ( I'm talking process here and not content ), as if one group has a more rightous purpose for photography than the other.

The thing is that the photographers are supposed to stay out of it and just do the work and hope for the best. It seems that when photographers talk about this subject there is a lot of hostility and resentment which I think comes from jealousy and competitiveness. Who cares if you can tell a piece of film from a digital file in a finished print? Don't you have something else to do? Does anyone remember laughter?

It's hard enough to get by in this business so why heap problems on top of problems when all of this discussion is really just artificial. Any problems that the curators and collectors have seem to have been resolved for the most part and besides, what they think has no affect on the actual quality of the work anyway.

If anyone here got a book deal from Abrams or Taschen they would take it. Would anyone turn the deal down because they couldn't make each image in all copies of the book by hand in the darkroom and tip them into the books themselves? Of course not. That book would be printed on a press somewhere in China at the rate of a hundred pages a minute. At that point photographers seem to realize that they have to hope for the best and that the goal is for as many people to see the photos as possible ( which then leads to more shows and sales ).

My overall point is that you should just hope that as many people get to see your photos as possible. If someone gives you a monetary pat on the back along the way, great. All photography is contrived anyway so in the end why does it matter if it's a wet print of a dry print? I love the hobby aspect as photography as much as the next person, like reading about lenses and cameras that I'll never use much less buy, but when it comes down to the work, there is a bigger picture.

Jeffrey Sipress

16-Dec-2005, 10:45

Electron or molecule, who really gives a damn? They're all just tools we use to end up with a pretty picture on a piece of paper. Get over it, people, and get back to imagemaking.....

John_4185

16-Dec-2005, 10:59

Electron or molecule, who really gives a damn?

In my experience, people who say that care a whole lot because they are promoting digital.

Jeffrey Sipress

16-Dec-2005, 11:38

Why do you say that that phrase promotes digital? There's clearly no preference stated or implied. Would it have made a difference to you if it were 'Molecule or Electron'??

Jan Callier

17-Dec-2005, 03:37

I don't think we are talking about the wright kind of purity here. It's no use defining the purity of a picture in the mechanical way(s) to take it, they change all the time. The history of photography is a constant renewal of technology. One might argue that digital technology gives you a different kind of esthetics than analogue. (a) Black and white photography is definitely to be done analogue, for density reasons. (b) In difficult circumstances I only use film. I sometimes work as a nightlife photographer. Almost all my fellow photographers use digital cameras, resulting that they all take pictures that have the same esthetic qualities. And (c) digital cameras take out the 'bad' shots. Experimenting (ie crossprocessing) is 'not done' these days... (I'm also a very big fan of Lomography, they are all true experimentors).
The real issue is wether or not the image itself pure. Ever since photography arose, people have been 'editing' their shots (starting with Timothy O'sullivans civil war shots). I have several books on 'how to manipulate your negatives'. So there's nothing new to that.
I usually work analogue and I scan the negatives. And I don't hesitate to take out some trash to make the image better. The only thing that's not permitted (in my analyses), is 'restyling'. If your shot is bad, try harder next time.
Greetz,
Jan

www.lomohomes.com/callier

Walt Calahan

17-Dec-2005, 07:09

personal expression is always pure

dodging and burning?

bleaching shadow details?

changing paper grades?

toning prints?

masking and layers?

LAB color?

telephoto or wide angle lenses when we only see in "normal" focal length?

very few of us see in true B&W?

what is one interpretation of red, green or blue isn't another person's!

so what is pure? not technique or technology.

pure is your heart's message

John_4185

17-Dec-2005, 08:45

pure is your heart's message

Pure relativism?

Anywho, how much manipulation is acceptable depends upon the stakes.

If I were to take a picture of our beautiful Mississippi River-front with the exhaulted bluffs behind it, but replace the snow and ice with sand and water, field and flower and put bodacious clouds in the sky, then use it to advertise a Minnesota Winter Workshop, methinks you would agree that sentiment bedamned.

It really is about stakes.

photo grapher

17-Dec-2005, 15:37

There is no "pure photography" that is more important than other kinds of photography, art does not actually have rules that matter. Rules are usually crutches for poor vision. Recall that in the 19th century sharp focus in photography was considered to be un-artistic and impressionist painting was considered to be junk. Obviously both ideas were just ignorance with a lack of insight. How an image came into being is meaningless if it is any good.

The fundamental problem in photography as art is that everyone has a camera and only about 5% of people have any vision worth making serious images with. We are awash in crap images and everyone is too pc to speak up about it. A good example is the current Popular Photography magazine. The thing is full of puppies, kittens, insects on flowers, and sunsets - utter crapola. The average vision skill is quite low, art doesn't even enter into the equation, it's all pure though.

John_4185

19-Dec-2005, 09:15

There is no "pure photography" that is more important than other kinds of photography, art does not actually have rules that matter.

The statement above is a good example of muddied thinking; it commingles the word 'art' and 'photography' in the same run-on sentence.

Cleaning up the sentence, I read: "pure photography is not more important than other kinds of photography". Would the author like to tell us what pure photography is?

Next the statement, "art does not have rules that matter" is Pure Relativism, Nihilistic.

So nothing whatsoever was said.

Rules are usually crutches for poor vision.

They certainly can be. You use the qualifier "usually", so given your first completely unqualified statement, you really should give some idea of rules that are not crutches (for whatever you think art is.)

Recall that in the 19th century sharp focus in photography was considered to be un-artistic and impressionist painting was considered to be junk. Obviously both ideas were just ignorance with a lack of insight.

Twenty-twenty shortsighted hindsight is also "poor vision", or more accurately fishing for red herrings with dynamite. Foolish. One cannot remove the medium from the history in which it occured and compare it to today.

How an image came into being is meaningless if it is any good.

Intention is a very large part of human expression. By your logic, fossils can therefore be Art. So can fortuitously shaped feces.

Marko

19-Dec-2005, 13:16

Gentlemen, could someone please explain why exactly the act of framing the photograph is NOT considered manipulation? Aren't we manipulating the content by deciding what to include in the photo and what to exclude from it?

And what of using filters? Is altering color interpretation of the scene manipulation or not?

How about changing perspective by selecting focal lenght?

And all of this after we have already chosen the capturing medium, which could be a topic of its own in this context...

We all make these choices before we even trip the shutter. And yet nobody here seems to call that manipulation. How come?

Regards,

John_4185

19-Dec-2005, 13:53

Gentlemen, could someone please explain why exactly the act of framing the photograph is NOT considered manipulation?

There's manipulation and then there is selection. A photograph's particular, and singular virtue is the photographs place in the stream of time, so selection is necessary - except to the digital anythinggoes who can make a picture from virtually nothing, at any time, and change it later if it suits him, or have the whole friggin thing scripted to change like a mood-ring.

Photography is to manipulated images as hokku is to haiku.

Walt Calahan

19-Dec-2005, 13:54

What's impure relativism? HA!

jj I take it from your comments that "relativism" has pejorative meaning. Oh well, I guess my ability to know what's being said is due to the limits of my mind.

I will continue to follow my bliss by attempting to photograph what my heart feels and not what my mind thinks of what I'm seeing. It's the purest way I know to live, but I'll never say anyone else has to live by my rules.

Or as Bill Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true, then thou cannot be false to any man."

John_4185

19-Dec-2005, 14:11

Take heart, Walter. Rather than quoting the Bard, try Blaise Pascal: "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." Ignoring the Christian reference, it's a rather heartening (oops) saying.

Me thinks that anyone who wants to follow his bliss should do so with joy, reckless abandon and never look back ... cause if he does look back he will see a locked, padded door. Again, B. Pascal: "All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone." That means no internet, either!

Pax,
seriously

Wayne

19-Dec-2005, 14:19

Why do you say that that phrase promotes digital? There's clearly no preference stated or implied.

Because it can be statistically proven that when that phrase is issued, the issuer is a digital practitioner, is promoting digital as "just another tool", and that it is never issued by analog purists (who use all sorts of tools too).

Marko

19-Dec-2005, 14:30

jj: There's manipulation and then there is selection. A photograph's particular, and singular virtue is the photographs place in the stream of time, so selection is necessary - except to the digital anythinggoes who can make a picture from virtually nothing, at any time, and change it later if it suits him, or have the whole friggin thing scripted to change like a mood-ring.

That's about framing. But what about my other questions? Filters? Perspective? Capture media?

Is loading Velvia and then using polarizer to saturate colors even more not manipulation of sorts? And if not, why using raw digital and than boosting saturation in Photoshop is? Ditto for filters.

Why is N+/- not manipulation and adjusting curves in Photoshop is?

Mind you, I am not advocating either digital or analog, for I am using both. I am simply trying to delineate "manipulation" from "craft" and why should choice of workflow qualify as either one or the other? And how about mixed workflow?

John_4185

19-Dec-2005, 14:56

Marko That's about framing. But what about my other questions? Filters? Perspective? Capture media?

Pardon, but I must be serious for a moment.

Framing, the moment and the thing itself together make the singular virtue of photography.

Accurate representation of tones, colors and perspective-via-correction are, strictly speaking, add-ons. Whether the add-ons (newer film, digital capture, whatever) enhance the accuracy or not is a separate issue that doesn't speak to photography, but it does speak to picture making.

You see, I am not saying that only essentials are good or bad, just qualifying the difference between photography and picture making. ANYTHING goes for picture making, but as one moves to the fundamentals, then limits have to be realized as the necessity of discourse.

Okay, I've removed my scholar's cap. Back on with the Dunce Cap. (which is a grave thing if you know from what it is derrived.)

John_4185

19-Dec-2005, 15:25

Must clear up the "Dunce Cap" comment. I was referring to the use of a pointed cap during certain years of the Spanish Inquisition to indicate persons who have gone through routine intimidation and then capitulated. The cap was an indication of tentative conversion, to be worn for an undetermined time (probably until they left town.) At least, that's my understanding of it. Now I'll leave town. Happy Holidays, all.

Walt Calahan

19-Dec-2005, 16:17

Hitler was untrue to all of humanity. A monster like he never had a prue heart.

Looking back from my padded 8x10 film holder case, peace to all this Holiday Season and throughout the New Year, however you make your prints. :-)

Marko

20-Dec-2005, 10:55

jj: You see, I am not saying that only essentials are good or bad, just qualifying the difference between photography and picture making. ANYTHING goes for picture making, but as one moves to the fundamentals, then limits have to be realized as the necessity of discourse.

This is precisely what I wanted to hear from you. Photography (old Greek for "writing with light") is exaclty that: making pictures with light. It could be presented "straight" with only tonal and framing changes, or it could be heavily manipulated (as in "altered with the intention to change"). One could accomplish both ends using either traditional or digital means. It is the intention that defines the result, not the craft used.

Can we agree on that?

Regards,

John_4185

20-Dec-2005, 12:03

It is the intention that defines the result, not the craft used.

Can we agree on that?

We are speaking of two things, intention and craft. I interpret the craft to mean the materials used to make the photograph.

Intention is part of imaging, but not all of it. Intention is a slippery thing; some people who cannot craft or previsualize an image might be perfectly happy with outcomes that would be purely incidental to another practitioner. One can intentionally or unconsciously revise his recollection of intention to suit the moment of reflection, while in contrast time, the moment the photo was made tightly coupled with the reality of materials distinguish the image forever. Pictures can look alike, but the moment is never the same, be it from the moment the photograph was made or the moment from which one perceives the print; time and materials are combitorial.

Moments are as fundamental as light to photography. You paint with light and time. All photography is about a moment in the arrow of time, evinced by light, made so by materials. We cannot recapitulate time or uncouple it from what brought it to a print.

Now this nitpicking might sound elitist, or overly sophisticated, but it is a necessary part of the discourse you, as a reader, are experiencing at this very moment.

Even the purely visual, the highly intuitive, the blessed illiterate, all those persons driven by something they cannot put into words can know this truism by the same intuition that drives them. Those who make pictures "from the heart" know they are pursuing something, albeit ineffable to them. Or not - they can be driven by reacting to how others see their work. Literate persons are as easily led away. (In modern times, Charles Dickens' serialized stories are considered different than solo literature for the same reason - the stories were responses to changing popular opinion as they were written.)

The visual mind is no less wise than the literate, it just takes more time for the work, if it succeeds, to be realized by the purely literate. You see, the difference, if there must be one, is the very fact that photography's essential nature is 'realized' in literature, history, by the marketplace of historians, curators, philosophers and that's when we often discover that the work of a blissful illiterate visionary, if he persists long enough in his work, will be actualized by the thread of intent (in series) and the materials of each moment. Nothing else distinguishes the work.

So, no, I am afraid I do not agree that intention that defines the result. Not intent alone.

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 12:40

I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color.

After all, even unfiltered Panchromatic films alter normal tonal relationships, because they are not truly panchromatic. They manipulate normal tonal relationships. But by some peoples arguments, if I use a light yellow filter to more "realistically" portray grey tones, I am not manipulating, but if I use a red filter I am manipulating? It is all some form of manipulation.

Some aesthetic philosophies and methods simply strive to hide the manipulation.

Photography is an art form that always utilizes some manipulation. It is inherent in our materials. It is a continuum from imperceptible to obvious but it is always present.

We should celebrate the controls that we have, because they give us artistic tools and license.

paulr

20-Dec-2005, 13:18

"I fail to see how any photograph, analogue or digital, is anything but a manipulation of reality if by nothing else simply the framing/selection process. B&W is by nature an abstraction. Saturated color films exagerate color."

There are differences in HOW different mediums manipulate reality. A photograph that we traditionally consider unmanipulated does alter reality in a number of ways. But there are certain key ways in which it doesn't alter reality. Its the combined effect of the ways it alters the world and the ways it doesn't that we think of as a "phtographic" depiction.

This is part of what I posted to the original thread:

Photography introduced a way of seeing that is in some ways distinct from other art media. Semiologists have refered to it as "indexical," meaning that the image is in some way created by that which it depicts. The indexical quality introduces an element of objectivity into photographic seeing--which is not the same thing as saying a photograph is objective. A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has.

In "straight" photographs, all of the deviations from objectivity, whether contibuted by the process (the optics, the format, the spectral sensitivity of the materials, etc. etc.), or by the artist (cropping, adjusting exposure and contrast, selective lightening and darkening, etc. etc.) change the way the image looks, but do not alter the indexical nature of the image.

In the images that we tend to think of as manipulated, the indexical nature is typically altered. An element will be added, moved, or removed. A scene that fundamentally never existed in front of the camera will be depicted.

I'm not addressing any claims of heirarchy. But i am suggesting that claims like "all photography lies, so there's no such thing as purity" might be every bit as naiive as believing that photography always tells the truth.

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 13:36

"A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has."

This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent. That is not naive. It is undeniably obvious. It is naive to believe otherwise. Some photographers adocate an aesthetic which denies this but that is simply marketing to an audience who basically distrusts ART and ARTISTS. These photographers simply hide behind the veil of truth because they lack the self worth to simply own the fact that their work is their creation, their personal point-of-view of reality, absolutely devoid of objectivity.

John_4185

20-Dec-2005, 14:18

This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent.

By such terms then, all perception is a lie because we cannot prove we all see the same thing except in specific instances of a scope so narrow that it is meaningless; even when all put together, individual instances cascade into an infinite number of possibilities so it is, again, meaningless. I hope we have wrung that point to death by now.

These photographers simply hide behind the veil of truth because they lack the self worth to simply own the fact that their work is their creation, their personal point-of-view of reality, absolutely devoid of objectivity.

What an odd bird that photographer must be. I've yet to meet one. Perhaps I'm just lucky.

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 14:52

" I hope we have wrung that point to death by now."

Obviously not, the underlying premise to this thread has been argued from entry level photo classes to prestigious journals since as long as I can personally remember (1970) in Beaumont Neuhall's and Van Deuron Cokes classes. It was phrased differently then. The arguement then was whether photography allowed enough artisitic control (manipulation) to be considered a real art form. Now the argument is whether there is too much manipulation to be considered real photography.

John_4185

20-Dec-2005, 15:08

Thanks for the window, Kirk. Yes, it is almost shocking to imagine that we (the collective) did not imagine that one day anyone with a credit card could have on his desk an image manipulation program 100 times more powerful than a Scitech system.

I wonder what we are overlooking now as we overlooked today thirty-five years ago.

THESE are the Good Old Days. Already!

paulr

20-Dec-2005, 15:50

"This is true and this is what gives photography its unique power, but that does not negate the fact that all photography does lie to some extent."

It's the "to some extent" part that needs to be examined before the statement can be seen as useful or not. As a parallel, all maps lie to some extent: they all make omissions, they all distort, and they can never be up to date. But we don't consider them fundamentally wrong if the information fundamental to their primary purpose--getting us from here to there--is correct. Is the map really "lying" if the scale is off by half a percent, if all the trees along the route are not marked, if this section of road is marked as unpaved even though it's paved?

It's a slippery slope if if we call everything that isn't 100% accurate a lie. We would have to accuse every form of representation of lying, and as jj points out, every form of perception. While you can make a case for this, I don't know what purpose it serves, because it suggests all lies are equal. Which we intuitively know not to be the case.

Most would agree that the famous picture of Stalin, which he ordered Nikolai Yezhov, his Commisar of water transport, airbrushed out of, is lie. And you could argue that the picture lied even before it was manipulated, because, it was black and white, because it abstracted three dimensions to two, because cropping to a rectangular frame is an artifice born of subjective valuation, because the print maker burned in the sky, because the lens focused selectively, because the pose was created for the camera, etc. etc...

But are the lies equal? Are they even of the same type? My point is that they are not of the same type. One still preseves the indexical nature of photographic representation. The other represents a completely different type of representation.

What strikes me as naive isn't the idea that photos lie, but that this is the last word on the topic ... that retouching an image by hand (or machine) doesn't in a fundamental way alter that image's relationship to the objective world. Granted, there's a huge gray area between images we'd all consider "straight" and ones we'd all consider manipulated. But the existance of a gray area doesn't eliminate the existance of a distinction.

Marko

20-Dec-2005, 16:44

Most would agree that the famous picture of Stalin, which he ordered Nikolai Yezhov, his Commisar of water transport, airbrushed out of, is lie. And you could argue that the picture lied even before it was manipulated, because, it was black and white, because it abstracted three dimensions to two, because cropping to a rectangular frame is an artifice born of subjective valuation, because the print maker burned in the sky, because the lens focused selectively, because the pose was created for the camera, etc. etc...

But are the lies equal? Are they even of the same type? My point is that they are not of the same type. One still preserves the indexical nature of photographic representation. The other represents a completely different type of representation.

That's a great comparison, Paul.

Of course they are different. I'll use this opportunity to reiterate my previous point: what makes them different is the intent. One aims to refine the presentation of fact, the other to alter the fact itself. Therefore, one is manipulation and the other is not.

And they are both analog, by the way.

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 16:51

JJ,

I happen to think we are living in the golden age of photography. I used to be able to count on one hand the number of serious LF photographers in New Mexico on one hand. Now there are dozens. Yes we have lost some great films and papers, but what we do have, especially in color is so superior to what was before. Personally I have never had so many options and so much control. When I started silver was so dominant that everything else was simply categorized as "non- silver" and largely considered a historical relic. But the heyday of "non-silver" was even yet to come!

Oren Grad

20-Dec-2005, 16:55

I'll use this opportunity to reiterate my previous point: what makes them different is the intent. One aims to refine the presentation of fact, the other to alter the fact itself. Therefore, one is manipulation and the other is not.

No, what makes them different is that the removal of Yezhov destroys what Paulr has referred to as the "indexical" nature of the photograph. This is completely independent of intent.

Philip Hutson

20-Dec-2005, 17:01

Just a comment on this
I was thinking about how a picture is a lie or isn't and I looked up at one of my shots above my desk. It's a picture of a cactus flower. The shot was actualy taken in my back yard but the way the framing is done it looks like it could be any desert. The cactus is in the middle of my cactus bed which is sand and the framing is a shallow depth of field with the golden sand framing the flower. That almost seems like a lie to me even though its one of my shots and its never been 'digitaly altered'. Because of the information contained in the picture it gives the viewer a false impression.
-Philip Hutson

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 18:05

"Granted, there's a huge gray area between images we'd all consider "straight" and ones we'd all consider manipulated. But the existance of a gray area doesn't eliminate the existance of a distinction."

Generally I am considered a "straight" photographer. A friend of mine recently remarked about an image of mine in one of my books that he could really feel the tones in the original scene through my image. Ironically, the tones in that image are manipulated dramatically even in silver (I have never actually printed it any other way). They are manipulated so much that if you were standing next to me when I made it, I doubt you would rcognize the location in my prints. Now that book is about a real and well known place, Chaco Canyon. That particular image is of an out of the way site that you need special permission to get to so not many people see it, but even if it were one of the main ruins, I wouldn't hesitate to drastically change the tones there either if the print worked better that way. I make no apologies for this, because I abandoned my dependency on strict veracity and image making along time ago. I am not interested in documentation, but expression, expressing my thoughts, emotions etc. about a place. These expressions are more powerful in a print if the result is believeable, and therin lies the aesthetic restraint. Because a step beyond that believeable point denies the unique power of photography as an artistic medium. Beyond that point is just art.

Digital printing has not changed that at all. For me it is just a more sophisticated way of burning, dodging and controling tone. I don't place or remove objects in a scene. It is not that different from what I was doing in the darkroom. I can just control it better.

My intent is not to lie but illuminate. Yet the objective truth is that I do lie in service to that aesthetic beast i.e. my "straight" photographs are highly manipulated.

Oren Grad

20-Dec-2005, 18:26

My intent is not to lie but illuminate. Yet the objective truth is that I do lie in service to that aesthetic beast i.e. my "straight" photographs are highly manipulated.

Kirk, that's interesting, but it still leaves me wondering whether you buy paulr's fundamental point, that...

A photograph does, however, in its purest forms (I was hoping to avoid the P word ... really) have a relationship to the subject that is fundamentally different from what a painting has.

That sounds right to me, however difficult it is to define "indexicality" precisely.

Here's a different question that may shed some light: why do you choose to photograph rather than paint?

Kirk Gittings

20-Dec-2005, 18:40

oren, can't really respond right now. i am trying to buy my daughter a powerbook and apple has compltely screwed up the order and i am on endless hold trying typing with one lame finger.

paulr

20-Dec-2005, 19:23

"That sounds right to me, however difficult it is to define "indexicality" precisely."

Index/indexical: a mode in which the signifier is not arbitrary but is directly connected in some way (physically or causally) to the signified - this link can be observed or inferred: e.g. 'natural signs' (smoke, thunder, footprints, echoes, non-synthetic odours and flavours), medical symptoms (pain, a rash, pulse-rate), measuring instruments (weathercock, thermometer, clock, spirit-level), 'signals' (a knock on a door, a phone ringing) ...

(from the Semiotics for Beginners site at http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html#indexical_signs )

A photographic image is indexical because it is in fundamental ways CAUSED by the thing it depicts. An apple can't be photographed without the apple (as it can be painted). Light must be bounced off the apple and gathered and projected onto a light sensitive surface to create the photographic image. The subject is involved in the creation of its depiction.

If you draw someone's fingerprint, you have an ICONIC representation ... one that looks like the pattern on their finger but that was not caused directly by it or tied directly to it. If you dip their finger in ink, and press their fingerprint onto paper, you have an INDEXICAL representation--one that was caused by the thing depicted.

If you then add new lines to the fingerprint by hand, or with a computer, you have something different. Something that includes elements of both kinds of depiction.

Bee Flowers

21-Dec-2005, 10:25

>>>> Nikolai Yezhov, his Commisar of water transport

Water transport? Ironic in a debate about lies. Yezhov was head of the NKVD. That's KGB for you.

paulr

21-Dec-2005, 11:47

See? They lied to me and I believed it.

Mark Sampson

21-Dec-2005, 12:19

"Art is a lie that tells the truth".

-Picasso

Walt Calahan

21-Dec-2005, 12:45

Thank you Picasso!

Now let's all get out there an make photographs instead of navel lint.

I was out at dawn on this shortest day (or is that tomorrow? please dabate me) in the snow and cold exposing a few sheets. FUN!

paulr

21-Dec-2005, 16:36

"The best stories are more true than if they'd really happened."
--Hemingway

same goes for the best navel lint, thank you very much.

John_4185

21-Dec-2005, 20:44

"The best stories are more true than if they'd really happened." --Hemingway

My childhood was spent as a second-generation Irish-American of the 40's in a family of sailors and laborers in Rhode Island, and the myths and tall stories went over my head. Then I grew up (still working on that part) and moved to the South where I learned what "Sittin around telling lies" was really all about, and I recognized it at last: the greater the lies in story-telling, then the greater the myth comes to the celebration of the human condtion. Laughing at our human condtion.

*yawn*

Tired.

g'nite, all

FpJohn

20-Jan-2006, 10:17

Hello:

This issue generates more heat than light.

I notice that all my lenses sport either a yellow or skylight filter as they, to my taste, give images that are truer to the subject. I am slowly acquiring the skills required to do the same for scanned images. I suspect that some line is crossed if I choose to use PhotoShop as the much longed for telephone pole or Tim Horton's coffee filter.

yours
Frank

Rory_5244

5-Nov-2006, 19:37

Okay, so Christmas is coming up again and I am hoping that the spirit will prevent me from getting slapped for posting in this thread. It's just that I'm so depressed that I had to get it out!

I go through great pains to take photographs of my home that look almost too good to be true (or at least, what my fellow citizens are accustomed too). The thing is, is that those pictures represent exactly what my 4x5/8x10 slides look like. It means being at the right place at the right time, and a whole lotta blinkin' effort (excuse me, it's the frustration creeping in again). The point I try to make to my countrymen - whose patriotism is at a rather low ebb lately - is that our country really is that beautiful, one just needs to look more closely. Anyway, up comes Mr. Nikon D50 guy, who has seen my website, and who is now reproducing the look of some of my photographs. The thing is that he is using a heavy dose of Photoshop CS2 to get the saturation and the "look" he needs. Also, there are a profusion of PhotoBlogs now (Paul Butzi lists a few of them on his excellent blog) with photographers producing brilliant pictures, but, through the use of a mind-boggling array of Photoshop filters and plug-ins to shape the image according to their vision.

I don't know why I bother to say things like, "taken with large format camera, print matches slide" anymore when nobody seems to care, or to understand what on earth I'm talking about. It seems almost like a conceit to myself. Maybe this is just a bit of culture shock, as I hadn't realised how far things had progressed "Photoshop acceptance-wise", while I've been standing still. I'm sorry to unload this. I'm confused right now, and I need to think about things for a bit.

Donald Miller

5-Nov-2006, 19:50

I think a good question to consider is who is it that you are making photos for? If it is for others then you probably ought to join the crowd. If it is for yourself then what difference does it make?

Rory_5244

5-Nov-2006, 21:09

Yes, quite true. I will definitely have to factor that in.

Kirk Gittings

5-Nov-2006, 22:08

There is the chicken and egg thing going on here. Your prints may match the slides, but do your slides match the original scene (plus lenses distort space)? All films distort colors to some extent and many films exaggerate saturation. At some point, it seems to me, you have to accept the reality that photographic processes distort reality. But that understanding and utilizing these distortions are part of the creative process. Photography is more of a creative medium than a recording medium. As artists we should celebrate that.

Capocheny

5-Nov-2006, 22:42

kjsphotography

6-Nov-2006, 14:39

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

6-Nov-2006, 15:06

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

6-Nov-2006, 15:06

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

6-Nov-2006, 15:26

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

6-Nov-2006, 15:58

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

6-Nov-2006, 16:06

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

6-Nov-2006, 16:27

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..... ;)

Jim collum

6-Nov-2006, 17:12

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..... ;)

before digital, anyone doing darkroom work could develop a high level of proficiency very quickly. granted, they're not Paul Caponigro in the darkroom.. but then, any 15 year old with practice would also have a more difficult time getting to John Paul Caponigro's level in photoshop.

Darkroom work really isnt' all that hard. Getting the eye/aesthetic to properly use it is (same can be said for digital imaging)

jim

Jorge Gasteazoro

6-Nov-2006, 17:21

before digital, anyone doing darkroom work could develop a high level of proficiency very quickly.

Really?!?..... and how do you know this? And if so, why the need to change to digital? If you are already a master printer there is no need to move to PS....... The facts do not seem to bear your statement.

Jim collum

6-Nov-2006, 17:25

Really?!?..... and how do you know this? And if so, why the need to change to digital? If you are already a master printer there is no need to move to PS....... The facts do not seem to bear your statement.

i print both.. digital and platinum.. and i know this because i obtained a fairly high level of profiency in a fairly short period of time. i don't understand why being a master printer in the darkroom precludes one from working in digital.. Charles Cramer is a master printer in the darkroom.. one of the best dye transfer printers (past and present). he's working mostly (but not exclusively) in digital now. the facts don't seem to bear *your* statement

Jorge Gasteazoro

6-Nov-2006, 17:51

i print both.. digital and platinum.. and i know this because i obtained a fairly high level of profiency in a fairly short period of time. i don't understand why being a master printer in the darkroom precludes one from working in digital.. Charles Cramer is a master printer in the darkroom.. one of the best dye transfer printers (past and present). he's working mostly (but not exclusively) in digital now. the facts don't seem to bear *your* statement

Ahh, I see, could it be that Cramer is the exception that confirms the rule. Certainly one example does not make a "rule". As to your proficency...well, not having seen your prints I cannot say whether your high level of proficiency is true, but I have been printing platinum for 5 years exclusively and I can tell you I am no where near someone like Dick Arentz, so perhaps your standards and definitions of a "high level" of proficiency are very different than mine. Which seems to be par for the course, good enough has replaced excellence.

Being a master in the darkroom does not preclude someone to work on digital, but I doubt many of those who switch could call themselves master printers......

Marko

6-Nov-2006, 17:55

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..... ;)

On the other hand, there are things that a 15 year old with even just a little practice can do much easier and better than you, despite all your practice.

Photoshop, for instance... ;)

On the more serious note, the real challenge would be to get as proficient in Photoshop as you are in the traditional darkroom. For anybody here, you and that 15 year old included. Had you ever tried that, you wouldn't be sneering at it.

Jim collum

6-Nov-2006, 17:59

Ahh, I see, could it be that Cramer is the exception that confirms the rule. Certainly one example does not make a "rule". As to your proficency...well, not having seen your prints I cannot say whether your high level of proficiency is true, but I have been printing platinum for 5 years exclusively and I can tell you I am no where near someone like Dick Arentz, so perhaps your standards and definitions of a "high level" of proficiency are very different than mine. Which seems to be par for the course, good enough has replaced excellence.

Being a master in the darkroom does not preclude someone to work on digital, but I doubt many of those who switch could call themselves master printers......

i've been printing platinum for about the same... and i've never refered to myself as a master printer (nowhere near someone like Dick either)... but i am above average.. as i suspect you are.

however, you'll find that most of the more proficient, as well as master, platinum printers are moving to a digital workflow as well.. digital negatives. and creating them does require manipulation of the image in photoshop (actually, much more extensive manipulation than i typically do when printing inkjet)

i'm not really sure why i'm even discussing this. at least from your posts, you've put forth an extremly religious anti digital opinion... i don't think there's much of a chance of a balanced conversation in this regards

Jorge Gasteazoro

6-Nov-2006, 18:20

i've been printing platinum for about the same... and i've never refered to myself as a master printer (nowhere near someone like Dick either)... but i am above average.. as i suspect you are.

however, you'll find that most of the more proficient, as well as master, platinum printers are moving to a digital workflow as well.. digital negatives. and creating them does require manipulation of the image in photoshop (actually, much more extensive manipulation than i typically do when printing inkjet)

i'm not really sure why i'm even discussing this. at least from your posts, you've put forth an extremly religious anti digital opinion... i don't think there's much of a chance of a balanced conversation in this regards

As opposed to your extremely religious pro digital position you mean? You got that right, not a chance in hell of a balanced conversation, but dont just blame it on me...ok?

As to the digital workflow and digital negatives, I have seen the resulting prints, and no where do they have the quality of a print from a negative. This is not to say they are bad prints, only that I can see the difference in quality.

Jim collum

6-Nov-2006, 18:24

As opposed to your extremely religious pro digital position you mean? You got that right, not a chance in hell of a balanced conversation, but dont just blame it on me...ok?

As to the digital workflow and digital negatives, I have seen the resulting prints, and no where do they have the quality of a print from a negative. This is not to say they are bad prints, only that I can see the difference in quality.

sorry.. i'm far from religiously pro digital. i use both film and digital for capture and output. i've tested both, and for my workflow understand the limitations. i have high standards of what i produce. i've argued both sides, pro analog and pro digital, based on testing that i've personally done.

as far as if you can see the difference, i'm not about to deny that you can.. .but most of those master platinum printers that are using the digital negatives can't.

tim atherton

6-Nov-2006, 18:42

I can tell you I am no where near someone like Dick Arentz, so perhaps your standards and definitions of a "high level" of proficiency are very different than mine.

I thought Arentz was also utilising the various digital possibilities for some of his work?

David Luttmann

6-Nov-2006, 19:00

sorry.. i'm far from religiously pro digital. i use both film and digital for capture and output. i've tested both, and for my workflow understand the limitations. i have high standards of what i produce. i've argued both sides, pro analog and pro digital, based on testing that i've personally done.

as far as if you can see the difference, i'm not about to deny that you can.. .but most of those master platinum printers that are using the digital negatives can't.

Jim,

Don't waste your breathe. Your trying to explain something to someone with experience on only one side of the equation.....

David Luttmann

6-Nov-2006, 19:01

I thought Arentz was also utilising the various digital possibilities for some of his work?

He is. But don't tell Jorge ;-)

paulr

6-Nov-2006, 19:30

I think a willing 15 year old could easily be taught to master any of the analog or digital tools--photoshop, mixing chemicals, burning, dodging, agitating, working an enlarger, using a contact frame, coating papers, etc. etc...

What I would not expect a 15 year old to be able to do is develop a real esthetic for how to print--how to interpret what an image is about to him, and to translate that vision into the physical world by determining what the print values should be. What to DO with the tools he's mastered.

This kind of vision is what makes someone a great printer, not the simple ability to use the tools, which either the analog or digital versions of could be taught to any tradesman.

roteague

6-Nov-2006, 20:31

Jim,

Don't waste your breathe. Your trying to explain something to someone with experience on only one side of the equation.....

Don't underestimate Jorge or his experience.

Rory_5244

6-Nov-2006, 21:48

humm, and I thought I was the one with the problems. BTW, I enjoyed the article, "in defense of film" on your website, roteague. :)

David Luttmann

6-Nov-2006, 23:26

Don't underestimate Jorge or his experience.

He has proven no experience in the digital arena by comments he makes.....you overestimate him.

Marko

6-Nov-2006, 23:45

Gordon Moat

7-Nov-2006, 00:49

Exactly. Oil, film, digital... that's all just tools. They don't create art, the artist does.

Speaking of digital skills, Photoshop in particular - what I would not expect neither any 15 year old nor, frankly, any of us here to be able to do is something like this (http://www.bertmonroy.com/).

Why do you find that so difficult Marko? It is simply illustration. There are some of us here trained as artists, including drawing and painting. If you can draw with pencil and paper, it is only a small step change to drawing in software; though a WACOM tablet helps. Granted, none of us are getting the book deals or notoriety as Mr. Monroy, though I think you were referring to the skills.

A little historic note, PhotoShop was originally developed to emulate darkroom processes. A big change happened with PhotoShop 3.0 with the introduction of layers. Up until about version 5.0 (or maybe 6.0), it meant something professionally to be a PhotoShop expert. Today we are faced with the unfortunate situation of some clients wanting an expert, but not understanding what that means, and usually they end up with someone who claims to be an expert. It is still possible to use PhotoShop like the earlier versions, or to go beyond that to tricky composite images; unfortunately PhotoShop continues to be dumbed down to an ever increasing audience, thereby gaining few useful additions beyond convenience. It is still possible to master PhotoShop, or become an Expert, but those terms are fast becoming meaningless for all except those who run workshops.

Don't get me wrong, I have been using it weekly, starting with PhotoShop 2.0, for work. The newer versions are still powerful tools, when you need to perform something highly manipulated (like removing heads from musicians on posters and advertisements). Time and budget can be bigger constraints upon doing anything in PhotoShop for paid work. Amateurs and enthusiasts have the luxury of taking as much time as they want.

I also can make my own B/W prints in a darkroom, and I have done platinum prints after taking a Dan Burkholder workshop. I would never claim to master either, though like what I can do in PhotoShop, I can get the results I want. Each have a level of difficulty, though anything done in a darkroom will often get more respect . . . even from people outside photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

D. Bryant

7-Nov-2006, 01:57

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.

Jorge,

I've seen Jim's large pigment over palladium prints (made from a digital negative) and you can't tell that the print was made from a digital negative unless you print sniff it with a 8-10x loupe.

Not that's not to say that a contact print made from a 16x20 in camera negative looks the same as a 16x20 print made from a digital negative but the print made from the digital negative has no characteristics that would indicate it's made from a digital negative.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

julian

7-Nov-2006, 05:53

Or as Bill Shakespeare wrote "To thine own self be true, then thou cannot be false to any man."

yeah, but he had Polonius say it, who was a two faced politician who didn't know the meaning of 'truth' (check out his other lines in the play)... ever thought that quote could be ironic?

Jorge Gasteazoro

7-Nov-2006, 08:38

Jim,

Don't waste your breathe. Your trying to explain something to someone with experience on only one side of the equation.....

See this is your problem, you dont know me or what I have done, but even worse, you dont know Kevin Saitta, who not only has done both, he makes his living as a programmer. This is your typical excuse, "he has not done both"...well I can easily say the same about you, you have no proven experience with traditional, or at least not one that would seem to indicate you know what you are talking about.

Don,

Sorry, but I was with Dan the last time he was here teaching his pigment over platinum, (which in reality is platinum over pigment I was surprised about that!) and the digital neg can be easily spotted, unless you think Dan Burkholder does not know what he is doing I doubt I can find a better example of this type of printing.

This is why I am told I am "anti digital" because peopple like Lutmman or Collum dont like to hear the naked truth. A digital negative is not the same as an in camera negative, an ink jet print is not the same as a silver print, and manipulating an image in PS is far easier than it is in the darkroom.

This is not to say digital images are bad, but the time has come people start calling them and their quality what they are. IN the end Don, I now carry ink jet prints when I show my pt/pd prints, even people who do not know anything about photography can see the difference. Stay tunned for my fade testing, I will post it in my web site.

Jim collum

7-Nov-2006, 09:07

i also make a living as a programmer.. i have most of my life. i currently write code for wireless networking products. i've been writing code for the last 20 years.. although i'm not sure what that means in all of this.. just that there seems to be some entrance criteria necessary. ok.. so i've been a developer for 20 years. i've printed in the darkroom for the same amount of time. i've been working with digital imaging (scanned images since the late 80's, digital cameras since they started coming out). i'm actively selling my images (both inkjet as well as platinum/pigment) out of a leading gallery. any more qualifications necessary to have an opinion?

i'm also not sure what the 'naked truth' is. an inkjet print is not the same as a silver print. personally i find a depth to the silver emulsion that isn't quite there with the inkjet. however, that's an aesthetic judgment. for the same reason, i print platinum instead of b/w digital... a personal aesthetic choice. but what i do know from experience (see above), is that working in a darkroom isn't any harder/easier than a digital workflow. you walk around more maybe. what is a *lot* harder is to use either Photoshop or the darkroom to produce an aesthetic vision.

See this is your problem, you dont know me or what I have done, but even worse, you dont know Kevin Saitta, who not only has done both, he makes his living as a programmer. This is your typical excuse, "he has not done both"...well I can easily say the same about you, you have no proven experience with traditional, or at least not one that would seem to indicate you know what you are talking about.

Don,

Sorry, but I was with Dan the last time he was here teaching his pigment over platinum, (which in reality is platinum over pigment I was surprised about that!) and the digital neg can be easily spotted, unless you think Dan Burkholder does not know what he is doing I doubt I can find a better example of this type of printing.

This is why I am told I am "anti digital" because peopple like Lutmman or Collum dont like to hear the naked truth. A digital negative is not the same as an in camera negative, an ink jet print is not the same as a silver print, and manipulating an image in PS is far easier than it is in the darkroom.

This is not to say digital images are bad, but the time has come people start calling them and their quality what they are. IN the end Don, I now carry ink jet prints when I show my pt/pd prints, even people who do not know anything about photography can see the difference. Stay tunned for my fade testing, I will post it in my web site.

Jorge Gasteazoro

7-Nov-2006, 09:20

Jim, regardless of your opinion, it is obvious you and people like you dont want to admit that it is far easier to work on PS than it is in the darkroom. It is also far easier to alter an image due to mistakes in PS than it is in the darkroom.

Suffering is not good for the soul, but dont pretend that sitting on a pc working on PS is the same as doing darkroom work. This is another of the naked truths people doing digital dont like to hear. PS might be labor intensive, you might have to spend 5 hours laying reference points....but defintily is not difficult to learn and do, as much as people like LUtman would like us beleive.

i also make a living as a programmer.. i have most of my life. i currently write code for wireless networking products. i've been writing code for the last 20 years.. although i'm not sure what that means in all of this.. just that there seems to be some entrance criteria necessary. ok.. so i've been a developer for 20 years. i've printed in the darkroom for the same amount of time. i've been working with digital imaging (scanned images since the late 80's, digital cameras since they started coming out). i'm actively selling my images (both inkjet as well as platinum/pigment) out of a leading gallery. any more qualifications necessary to have an opinion?

i'm also not sure what the 'naked truth' is. an inkjet print is not the same as a silver print. personally i find a depth to the silver emulsion that isn't quite there with the inkjet. however, that's an aesthetic judgment. for the same reason, i print platinum instead of b/w digital... a personal aesthetic choice. but what i do know from experience (see above), is that working in a darkroom isn't any harder/easier than a digital workflow. you walk around more maybe. what is a *lot* harder is to use either Photoshop or the darkroom to produce an aesthetic vision.

Jim collum

7-Nov-2006, 09:36

i'm not sure what 'people like me' are. i just know from personal experience (20+ years of it). that both are easy to learn, difficult to master, and both will produce horrible as well as great images. i'm not pretending anything. this is my opinion based on 2 decades of experience in all of the areas you deem necessary.

Jim, regardless of your opinion, it is obvious you and people like you dont want to admit that it is far easier to work on PS than it is in the darkroom. It is also far easier to alter an image due to mistakes in PS than it is in the darkroom.

Suffering is not good for the soul, but dont pretend that sitting on a pc working on PS is the same as doing darkroom work. This is another of the naked truths people doing digital dont like to hear. PS might be labor intensive, you might have to spend 5 hours laying reference points....but defintily is not difficult to learn and do, as much as people like LUtman would like us beleive.

Robert Oliver

7-Nov-2006, 09:39

if you can touch it / them then they are real. (works for other arguments too)

But I think there is more value in a 1 of a kind original created by hand on traditional materials.

Jim collum

7-Nov-2006, 09:49

if you can touch it / them then they are real. (works for other arguments too)

But I think there is more value in a 1 of a kind original created by hand on traditional materials.

value is a subjective call. if by 1 of a kind, you mean a single image printed from a negative, then destroy the negative.. same thing can be done digitally. if you mean difference from one print to another...

when i was printing in the darkroom, it wasn't hard to produce 10 images that would be to a buyer, identical. in fact, that was normally the goal.. figure out what i wanted in an image, and produce it. not really hard at all. if i change my vision of the image, my print changed.. as does a digital print. given control of the variables, it's not hard to produce identical print after another.. in any process. the magic of an image doesn't happen when you push the 'print' button on a printer. .just as it doesn't happen when you start the timer and the exposure begins. the magic happens as a result of the interaction with those tools. most of the interaction for a digital workflow happens before you push the button. in the darkroom, that magic happens both before (masking) as well as during and after you push the button... but you do push a button in both cases.

D. Bryant

7-Nov-2006, 10:10

IN the end Don, I now carry ink jet prints when I show my pt/pd prints, even people who do not know anything about photography can see the difference.
Jorge,

I'm not comparing ink jet prints to palladium prints, I think most anyone can see the difference between the two even if both are excellent examples.

But putting Jim Collum's work aside, I'll use my work as an example. People that look at my palladium prints made from digital negatives cannot discern a difference between prints made from in camera negatives and ones made from a digital negative. Or let me express it another way. People can tell no difference between a palladium print made from a digitally enlarged negative than made from an negative enlarged on film.

And BTW, I'm a programmer and database administrator so I'm not sure what significance there is for Kevin's photographic judgement based on the fact that he is a programmer.

I don't necessarily agree that people can master or even become profficent with traditional darkroom methods quite as easily as some one pumping data through Photoshop but marrying the two technologies together and being able to produce consistently excellent work isn't as simple or easy as some might suppose. In fact the hybrid method requires that you know what to do and how to do it in both disciplines.

Don Bryant

paulr

7-Nov-2006, 10:17

A digital negative is not the same as an in camera negative, an ink jet print is not the same as a silver print, and manipulating an image in PS is far easier than it is in the darkroom.

Who's saying they're the same?

As far as photoshop being easier than the darkroom, it certainly is in some ways. It's more powerful, which makes certain things easier, but also encourages you to exercise that power. Which sometimes means spending even more time tweaking than you did in the darkroom. I do think the working conditions are easier to live with. Being able to hit save and walk away whenever you want, without having to worry about chemicals going bad. As far as mastering the tools in photoshop, I think the learning curve is actually longer than with darkroom tools. But that's just my experience.

But the real question is, so what? Is harder somehow better? If I chose to print with a giant cross nailed to my back, does that somehow make my work better or more valuable?

I'm much more concerned with an artist's vision, and if they used their tools in the best way to express that vision. How hard it was for them to use the tools might make a good annecdote, but hardly influences what I think of the work.

This is not to say digital images are bad, but the time has come people start calling them and their quality what they are.

I call them what they are, and I let the quality speak for itself. The only people in a position to comment on the quality are those who have seen my prints (or Dave's, or whoever's). How can one person's prints speak for anyone else's prints?

That would be like someone saying "I've seen some crappy platinum prints. So your prints must be crappy too."

Marko

7-Nov-2006, 11:02

Why do you find that so difficult Marko? It is simply illustration. There are some of us here trained as artists, including drawing and painting. If you can draw with pencil and paper, it is only a small step change to drawing in software; though a WACOM tablet helps. Granted, none of us are getting the book deals or notoriety as Mr. Monroy, though I think you were referring to the skills.

Yes, I am talking about the skills. If obtaining that level of skill in any endeavor, be it Photoshop, the darkroom or what have you, was so easy as you say, then we would all be writing books. Better yet, nobody would be writing them because they wouldn't be needed.

I will venture to say that obtaining the level of Photoshop skill demonstrated by Mr. Monroy is no easier than obtaining top level darkroom skills. After all, it's just a craft, isn't it?

It may feel easy and simple for you precisely because of your education and experience, but I am willing to bet that those who dismiss it as something "any 15 year old could do" would find it much harder and complex to get anywhere close to Mr. Monroy's level.

roteague

7-Nov-2006, 11:10

He has proven no experience in the digital arena by comments he makes.....you overestimate him.

I don't know what his experience is, and I suspect you don't either. The fact that you don't agree with his comments doesn't make him unknowledgeable.

David Luttmann

7-Nov-2006, 11:13

I don't know what his experience is, and I suspect you don't either. The fact that you don't agree with his comments doesn't make him unknowledgeable.

Jorge has stated that he doesn't know Photoshop nor digital work very well.....he doesn't need to.....he is more than proficient with pt/pd printing.

The fact is, YOU didn't know this and as such are posting nothing more than your ill informed opinion. He will talk circles around me in traditional printing....as I will about digital printing with him. Best to keep to yourself on this one.

Alan Davenport

7-Nov-2006, 11:31

Incredible, this thread still has life almost 11 months later.

No question about it, any thread that begins with, "Not a troll," is gonna reel 'em in....

Don Hutton

7-Nov-2006, 11:35

Jorge

I've spent a lot of time over the past few months trying to produce good digital negatives for Pt/Pd (negatives which will produce prints which are very close to those produced from an in camera negative). I'm getting closer, but I haven't managed to myself, yet... But, I recently saw some of Don Bryant's palladium prints from digital negatives and unless you examine them extremely carefully, you won't discern a difference. So, the technology/experience/process is coming along really fast, and I for one am pretty certain that you or me, with the right mix of application, hard work, skill and a healthy dose of old fashioned luck, will be able to produce pt prints from digital negatives which very closely resemble prints from in camera negatives. The learning curve is steep, technology is improving by the day and the knowledge base around this subject increase dramatically all the time.

It also doesn't mean that you will want to produce your prints from digital negatives - that choice is yours and you will do what you choose - as will others....

Gordon Moat

7-Nov-2006, 12:27

Hello Marko,

Yes, I am talking about the skills. If obtaining that level of skill in any endeavor, be it Photoshop, the darkroom or what have you, was so easy as you say, then we would all be writing books. Better yet, nobody would be writing them because they wouldn't be needed.

PhotoShop has passed the realm of professionals and landed solidly in the hands of amateurs. Some people barely understand how a computer operates, let alone actually doing something creative using a computer. There is a huge market of How To books, simply because there is demand. However, getting a successful book out on the market is just like many other things in life, you need the right connections, and networking in the right places.

I will venture to say that obtaining the level of Photoshop skill demonstrated by Mr. Monroy is no easier than obtaining top level darkroom skills. After all, it's just a craft, isn't it?

It might help to understand the defining aspects of skill levels: there is the Adobe Certification, tests administered by temp agencies (Aquent, Adecco, Creative Partners, et al), and a level of not being limited by the tools. The Adobe Certification might seem impressive, and can be a good thing for teachers, though it is vastly weighted towards the tools, options, and toolsets. Tests administered by Aquent, Adecco, et al are intended to gauge how fast one can work in the software, meaning the skill sets are focused towards accomplishing certain tasks; do well enough and you will be listed as an expert to potential hiring companies. Neither of these gives any indication of an ability to express a creative vision using PhotoShop.

Interestingly enough, companies that want someone to be creative will not look at your software qualifications, they want to see a portfolio. Mr. Monroy is not talented because he knows PhotoShop, he is talented because he can express a creative vision. That is chooses to put creative emphasis on PhotoShop probably helps sell some books and workshops. Oh . . . just a side note, one of his co-authors on one of his books was a professor of mine at San Diego State University.

It may feel easy and simple for you precisely because of your education and experience, but I am willing to bet that those who dismiss it as something "any 15 year old could do" would find it much harder and complex to get anywhere close to Mr. Monroy's level.

Well, I agree with you on that, and find it a vast overstatement that any 15 year old could use PhotoShop. They might be able to accomplish a few things, or learn the tools, but most teenagers will be missing experience to express a cohesive creative vision. Unless one only wants to work in production (graphic arts, or production artist) just learning PhotoShop is fairly meaningless. Just like any software, at some point it will be common to know just enough to trick people into believing you understand more than they do, which can help people get work; the problem then is when you really do need to know what you are doing . . . a concept that is lost on some people.

Okay, so I have lots of education and experience, but I still don't think the software is a barrier. Anyone who wants to attain a level of proficiency in PhotoShop so that it is no longer limiting their ability to express their creative vision, should be able to practice with nearly any version for about one year, and achieve their goal. If you approach it like it is tough or difficult, then it will be so; approach it like there are numerous aspects and toolsets (lots of information), and I think anyone who puts their mind to it can learn the software.

If you think the Adobe Certified PhotoShop Expert is the level of greatness, then study their test, take it, and get your certificate. Funny thing is I see that like my Certificate in MicroSoft Word; I know the software well enough to have taught others, but I can barely type 20 words per minute.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)