developing a negative is not manipulation or making it fake, not sure why some of the populace makes that claim... Neither is dodging and burning during the printing phase making it "a fake image".
Photoshop, Luminar, and the other programs can take a picture from a digital camera, and "find" detail in the shadow that may not have even been there, let alone have been caught with your 1500$ hasselblad 120 camera and TMX roll film,,, or your 8x10 and TMX sheet film.
sorry for the tangent Peter ...
the whole photographic process is done through manipulation. some call it "pre visualization"Originally Posted by monochromeFan
it's all "technique" to change what was in front of the camera to be what one wants on the paper.
it's kind of like the modern version of plato's cave... and all smoke and mirrors.
by comparison to the un adulterated latent image it's fake, and that's the point of photography and nothing has changed since 1840.
it's kind of strange that one can make 3 exposures a scene using overly saturate velvia 8x10 chrome film, cross process one in c41 chemistry, make one a straight image and develop the 3rd in Dektol, then bleached in peroxide, reexposed and converted to a BW Slide and each of these 8x10 images would be considered to be an unmanipulated likeness of what was in front of the camera, none of them are, by comparison to the original scene reflected back to the film they are all fakes, they've been tweaked, even the straight processed E6 image seeing real life isn't overly saturated like a fauvist painting, unless the person is a tweaker like vangogh.
seeing great photographs before or after the digital darkroom / lightroom can't help but intensify one's own photographic experience opening one's eyes to the plasticity of just a simple latent image.
Certainly any film-based print can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that they all are -- or that they have to be. Normally, I want to capture and produce a print that is what I saw when the picture was taken. Normally, the film can not come close to capturing what my eyeballs saw. In that sense, the latent image -- even undeveloped is "fake", because it is not anywhere close to the real subject. But the developing and printing processes can allow me to produce, as close as possible, what really was actually photographed. That's the opposite of digital -- which runs away from what was there.
Well, that might be true if you can accept a photographic print as a stand-in actor psychologically and esthetically representing something actually seen and truly experienced.
But that is certainly not the case with an awful lot of Photoshopped imagery these days, and certainly not with anything Ai generated. At best, that is simply painting something imaginary via a computer, and shouldn't be classified as photography at all, whether one likes it or not.
Never liked paint by numbers
Tin Can
yes they all are, it's part of what the medium is, it's like being a little pregnant.
sure OK, the latent image is fake too, I can live with that, but sadly, I don't think you can
the latent image is the result of invisible rays of light that brushed upon the light sensitive materials, and have "indexed" the thing in front of the camera. they haven't been preserved in any means so im not sure how they are manipulated
as seen here and on other photographic forums people develop latent images years, sometimes decades after they impregnated the film (or plate ) .. but I guess it's a physical reaction so sure, it's fake ..
as Edgar Allen poe said soon after the invention of photography: believe half of what you hear and none of what you see ...
Last edited by jnantz; 2-Mar-2024 at 07:24.
Pictures are just like communication using words. Is everything spoken or in literature false or fake?
Paint by numbers? - now AI software can fill in the colors for you, and anyone can be Thomas Kinkade.
You almost got it. Everything spoken is false, while everything written is fake. Does that help clear it up?
pretty much nailed it, bt I coluld be lying
BTW, about 10 mins ago I was offered 1.92 eth each for 3 images I have made
and presented on another site, the image are actual physical objects, not minted ..
I told her currently I only make physical objects and soon after she pleaded and said
she had this 9700$+ ( of etherium ) in her wallet she had to get rid of
I'm not sure but have a feeling she might have been lying too, but I can't be sure, I listen to a
lot of Jack Handey and gosh darn it, I know I'm that good .. I might unblock her
and give her my routing number and account number so she can complete the transaction..
Last edited by jnantz; 2-Mar-2024 at 07:33.
That's a good point. Next time I'll use fake money to buy a camera that creates fake images. Win-Win.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks