The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!

Started 8 months ago | Questions
Beachcomber Joe
Contributing MemberPosts: 530Gear list
Like?
Re: Balderdash.
In reply to DenWil, 8 months ago

DenWil wrote:

With todays scanners and properly processed film it's a cinch and the time in post to fine tune files is minutes.

The OP was comparing traditional capture and processing (wet) with digital capture & processing.  You are comparing a hybrid process which only differs in original recording media.  The post processing is a cinch because you are processing a digital file.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chkproductions
Contributing MemberPosts: 873
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to Dennis, 8 months ago

First T3 did a great post with very good examples.  Thank you for taking the time to pull them all together.  I hope it helps convince some that image manipulation was always a part of the process in all genres of photography. How subtly or garish you want to manipulate is left up to the individual, for better or worse.

My take on this never-ending dilemma that is brought up time after time here on this website is there is an acute defensiveness from both the legacy parties of the days of film (which I am part) and the new/next/now technology centric parties (which I am part) Why, I don't know. It just always seems that one party or the other needs to be the winner.

Coming from my legacy point of view, I regard my darkroom (post-processing) experience as more of a tactile craft, much as woodworking, sculpting, painting is a tactile experience. That is what I feel I have lost here in the techno age. From the handling of film in darkness to get it into and out of film holders, the mixing and pouring of the various chemicals, the act of the agitation of tanks and trays. Then came the inspection of contact sheets that I held in my hands and a very close look at the physical film and contact sheet with a loupe. And finally the insertion of a neg in the neg holder, the racking of its focus on the easel through a fine grain focuser: the pulling a sheet of paper; the delicate technique of dodging and burning; the gentle, consistent rocking in the developer tray all while watching the hand of the timer. Finally the washing, drying and holding of the print out in the light, inspecting the results of all that work.

This may sound like some pining for the good old days lost to time, but, and it's a real but, it was a tactile process that gave me ownership of a rectangular piece of paper that I held in my hand with an image burned into it that I brought to life. My hands interacted with all those steps to come to a result. It was a craft.

Today with all the digital process I do, which I could not now do without, my work is alway separated from that old, antiquated, bothersome, yet wonderful tactile process by a piece of plastic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennis
Forum ProPosts: 14,107
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to chkproductions, 8 months ago

chkproductions wrote:

Coming from my legacy point of view, I regard my darkroom (post-processing) experience as more of a tactile craft, ... it was a tactile process that gave me ownership of a rectangular piece of paper that I held in my hand with an image burned into it that I brought to life.

That's an excellent explanation of your response/reaction to the change. It makes perfect sense to me. And you did it without any "X is better" or "Y sucks" !

I shot film for years; mostly 35mm and a bit of medium format. I helped someone out in a darkroom on 2 occasions (having no idea what I was doing) but never got into it myself. My early photography was marred by the unpredictability of shooting print film and having 4x6 prints made. The process accommodated exposure errors, the prints were too small to see technical problems, and colors were up to "the machine" and for a while, I didn't know any better. (I also had no real exposure to good photography, so didn't realize my photos were as bad as they were !) I eventually did realize it and moved to slides; bought a light table and a loupe, and my photography made decent strides after that.

Digital gives me the ability to do the (digital) darkroom work I never bothered with before, because the space, cost and time commitment were all too daunting. It provides numerous other benefits that aren't really on topic (ease of sharing, organization, and options for printing in books). I can certainly appreciate the craft of producing prints from film and understand that digital wouldn't provide someone the same level of satisfaction. At the same time, digital gives me the control I never bothered to exercise in the good old days. I can also imagine the satisfaction that would come from shooting with a large format field camera and have entertained the notion of trying it a number of times, but I already don't have enough time to spend doing photography.

From that "tactile" point of view, I'd be quite happy just to have one camera that's as satisfying to use as my favorite film cameras. I'm thrilled with digital after I press the shutter; it's before that isn't quite as satisfying (at least in some ways).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bosjohn21
Senior MemberPosts: 6,952
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

I assume the we you refer to is just you because many of us work as carefully in digital as we did in film.

this discussion comes up a lot but bottom line is photography or imagery is now and has always been a process and the processing comes after the release of the shutter. Even polaroids are post processed

-- hide signature --

John aka bosjohn21

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Janoch
Contributing MemberPosts: 951Gear list
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

fcheh wrote:

Just food for thought in the good old days we had Photography: Are we at the Tipping Point of "Imagery" where we PS the F* out of the image and call it Photography? I would love to start a forum just for "What I Saw is What You Get" no post processing allowed, not even cropping just natural the way it happened pictures!

One reason why I love a great zoom lens is you crop as you go, you compose then shoot. Primes are great BUT they give you the SAME point of view as everyone else using them.

Think of the days when each and every shot cost MONEY and was composed, waiting for the light, several takes then the lightbox, sorting for the best.

2014 and we have "BURST" shoot the S* out of something and hope something good comes of it and by the time we sit down and view 400 shots of nothing we forgot what we were trying to capture.

-- hide signature --

Frank S Cheh
chehartphotograhy.smugmug.com

"We"?

 Janoch's gear list:Janoch's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,007
Like?
Re: ghetto of a medium?
In reply to MaxTux, 8 months ago

MaxTux wrote:

tex wrote:

... And putting oneself in a ghetto of a medium additionally cuts you off from seeing how different media can inform one another in one person's work. ...

I'd newer tell someone what medium and what manipulation of the material stock of that medium he can or can not use to express himself or herself artistically. This is especially true if he seeks and finds the communication with an audience receptive to his particular form of expression.

However, I am not prepared to accept any arbitrary "expansion" of the definition of an art form - in this case "photography" (as an art form) - merely because the expanded process shares with that, previously established art form, some technical devices. At the same time, I fell that once there is a critical mass of creators and consumers, a new art form is born, and I will gladly let those that find aesthetic pleasure in the products generated by the (in this case) intrusive computer manipulation of digital imagery define their art and its canons.

I will, for sake of mutual understanding, try to quickly define my boundary between acceptable and intrusive computer processing something like this:

Computer processing does not push a camera-generated image beyond the definition of photography if it is restricted to the following:

  • Selection of a sub-set of the image generated in camera ("cropping")
  • Change of geometry that could have been achieved by selecting a different lens and/or different optical axis vs. sensor geometry (rotation, tilt, shift).
  • Change of light response characteristics which are applied to the complete image area and could have been achieved by camera settings.
  • Correction of optical and sensor uniformity errors.

MaxTux

As was already pointing out though photography had moved beyond this decades ago with darkroom techniques. Not just that either but filter use and indeed even film selection can obviously alter the final characteristics of an image.

Ultimately this seems to be getting into more of a semantic rather than an artistic debate that seems to have little value to me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joris1632
Regular MemberPosts: 230
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

Post processing has always happened but the main reason has hardly ever been artistic. There was a period in the 60s or 70s (as Iremember) when integrity was the buzz-word and artists and advertisers alike printed whole frame shots even showing the 35mm perforations or edges of a 4x5. Ansel Adams may have produced a few famously heavily worked prints but they were exceptions in his oeuvre, he placed huge emphasis on good exposure hence the zone stystem.

All those hours of dodging and burning were strictly for amateur enthusiasts. Professionals then, as now, had it done for them. The samples T3 shows look to me like an art director's notes to a printer not the thoughts of the author!. The problem in Ye Olden Days was that no matter how perfectly exposed a neg was, different printing techniques required different originals. Coarse screen newsprint needed a much more contrasty B&W pic, glossy mags had varying standards and colour was a hit and miss affair. Then along came computerisation and Photoshop produced a standard for the whole printing industry: it was never intended to help amateurs improve their "artistic" and "creative" selves but to optimise commercial photos for printing.

I'm certain that all professionals working now in retail, editorial or advertising do their utmost to get the shot right in camera first time because PP is time consuming and expensive; there's little difference there to a "purist" approach. If hobbyists want to shoot a load of stuff and enjoy twiddling with it , so what?

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,007
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to chkproductions, 8 months ago

chkproductions wrote:

First T3 did a great post with very good examples. Thank you for taking the time to pull them all together. I hope it helps convince some that image manipulation was always a part of the process in all genres of photography. How subtly or garish you want to manipulate is left up to the individual, for better or worse.

My take on this never-ending dilemma that is brought up time after time here on this website is there is an acute defensiveness from both the legacy parties of the days of film (which I am part) and the new/next/now technology centric parties (which I am part) Why, I don't know. It just always seems that one party or the other needs to be the winner.

Coming from my legacy point of view, I regard my darkroom (post-processing) experience as more of a tactile craft, much as woodworking, sculpting, painting is a tactile experience. That is what I feel I have lost here in the techno age. From the handling of film in darkness to get it into and out of film holders, the mixing and pouring of the various chemicals, the act of the agitation of tanks and trays. Then came the inspection of contact sheets that I held in my hands and a very close look at the physical film and contact sheet with a loupe. And finally the insertion of a neg in the neg holder, the racking of its focus on the easel through a fine grain focuser: the pulling a sheet of paper; the delicate technique of dodging and burning; the gentle, consistent rocking in the developer tray all while watching the hand of the timer. Finally the washing, drying and holding of the print out in the light, inspecting the results of all that work.

This may sound like some pining for the good old days lost to time, but, and it's a real but, it was a tactile process that gave me ownership of a rectangular piece of paper that I held in my hand with an image burned into it that I brought to life. My hands interacted with all those steps to come to a result. It was a craft.

Today with all the digital process I do, which I could not now do without, my work is alway separated from that old, antiquated, bothersome, yet wonderful tactile process by a piece of plastic.

I'd argue though that your viewpoint actually seems to be the opposite of the OP's, I can certainly understand a love for the craft of darkroom print making or indeed the general use of film cameras, even the idea that the craft may influence artistic choices.

His view seems to echo the common misunderstanding about the level of manipulation that has always existed in photography. Whilst avoiding manipulation can be a valid artistic decision I don't see the kind of blanket terms the OP tossed around as artistically helpful.

In this respect I think the legacy of film can for many be a negative thing, a misplaced confidence that post processing had no place in photography and has no value today, not just that there own work lacked it but that well respected art producted with film did as well.

It ties in to me with a misplaced level of confidence many people who used film at a basic level seem to have. Yes I respect the photographer who honed his craft well with film and darkroom work, no I don't respect the guy who dropped off snapshots at the chemist for years and now views this as a sign of their superiority to those who grew up with digital, many of whome who via an open minded dedication to their work have likely advanced well beyond them artistically.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dwight3
Senior MemberPosts: 2,009Gear list
Like?
Imagery for ME! Yes!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

People seem to think that images that have gone through PS are somehow not natural, i.e. they're not really what you saw with your eyes.

While that can certainly be true sometimes, I'd like to point out that images that come out of the camera are not necessarily representative of what you saw with your eyes. At least they're often not what I think I saw. I use PS to try to recapture what I saw, based on my memory of the scene.

For example, I took a macro shot of a plant shoot that I'm growing. My eye saw everything in focus. My camera did not. I took several shots at different focus points and stacked them in PS and came up with an image that looked closer to what I saw, but was still limited.

Part of that is due to the fact that my eye really probably saw the scene not much different from what the camera saw, but my brain processed the image to improve it substantially. The human eye sees things pretty well in the center, but the IQ drops off a lot on the edges (which are a lot wider than most wide angle lenses). The brain has been practicing for a long time (in my case a very long time) and knows how to interpolate things to produce a much better image.

Another example is the camera's response to color. It doesn't "see" colors the same way as the human eye does, so there can be tonal differences. In particular, some blues/magentas can look much different coming from the camera than what my eye sees. I try to improve on the reproduction in PS by adjusting the color in the image.

So if my eye/brain does this on a regular basis, why shouldn't I approximate the process in Photoshop?

 dwight3's gear list:dwight3's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S52c Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 4,724Gear list
Like?
But reality is so boring!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

Photography is more enjoyable to view when it's enhanced in some way. After all, we're trying to take a moment filled emotion and perceived in 3D through all the senses and condense it into an 11x17, 2 dimensional format. And it doesn't smell. The composition and choice of exposure etc. all serve to express this drama as we felt it, not just saw it.

fcheh wrote:

Just food for thought in the good old days we had Photography: Are we at the Tipping Point of "Imagery" where we PS the F* out of the image and call it Photography? I would love to start a forum just for "What I Saw is What You Get" no post processing allowed, not even cropping just natural the way it happened pictures!

Then you're not talking about normal photography practice that has occurred in the past 100 years.

- Lenses alter everything unless they're "normal"

- We've always dodged, burned, polarized, used subject isolation or extreme DOF or push/pull exposures, and on and on. It happened in film, it happens now. Only a small amount of what we do today is different (HDR for example). Film was always different - every film altered reality in some way.

- What about flash? That's quite artificial

One reason why I love a great zoom lens is you crop as you go, you compose then shoot.

But that's NOT what you saw. It's what you zoomed in on.

Primes are great BUT they give you the SAME point of view as everyone else using them.

? Same with zooms.

Think of the days when each and every shot cost MONEY and was composed, waiting for the light, several takes then the lightbox, sorting for the best.

We blew through film like crazy - one roll often yielded zero good results. I'm not sure what era you remember. Civil War? I can assure you, I still compose with digital.

2014 and we have "BURST" shoot the S* out of something and hope something good comes of it and by the time we sit down and view 400 shots of nothing we forgot what we were trying to capture.

Yes, and the number of keepers has gone way up!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chkproductions
Contributing MemberPosts: 873
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to MoreorLess, 8 months ago

MoreorLess wrote:

I'd argue though ...

All good points and sorry to edit your post.  To me, "argue" is the operative word in all of this.  We could argue endlessly and never come to absolute. I went back and reread the OP post.  My take away is he wants a non-processed, take it or leave it, just as I shot it forum.  Good idea.  It would be interesting to see a growing collection of shots that have had nothing done outside of the framing, exposure and click of the shutter.  But he doesn't say if in camera processing is then allowed, which is post-processing.  And is it just JPEGs or RAWs processed with all default settings from just one software imaging program.  So just what is the controlling criteria of a "just as it happened" shot.

As for your comment about just dropping off film to the chemist - I knew a person that shot and only had his film straight processed from a one hour lab.  At the time he was the world's known shooter of - ya, ready - seashells.  He shot only in the early and late light.  Had his 4x6 prints and chromes and that was it.  Nothing more.  At the time, made a good living off making a yearly calender and note cards.  So I guess what I'm saying is "To each, their own"

And for me I still miss that tactile experience of the darkroom process.  But I do know it has given me a better understanding and control of the current digital processes.  Just the experience of burning and dodging a negative and the subtle differences and corrections it can make in the final print translates seamlessly into the digital process.

Cheers

chk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BruceB609
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Re: dictatorial nonsense
In reply to T3, 8 months ago

T3 wrote:

MaxTux wrote:

Yes, photographs have been manipulated (or, to use current term, "post-processed" in the age of wet photography too. But two facts about that "post-processing" should not be ignored:

- the practice was mostly restricted to monochrome printing.

I don't see what difference that makes.

- the amount of effort required served as a natural limit for the degree of change.

I don't see what difference that makes either.

The ease with which the processing is performed on digital files is such that the process is more and more "overdone" for the aesthetic sensibility of some (obviously, the OP is among those).

The art of photography spans a huge gamut, from non-processed to heavily processed to full-on digital manipulation. It's partly because technology has allowed the art of photography to expand far beyond its past technical limitations, and partly because technology has made photography so much more accessible to a more diverse group of participants. It's also expanded the definition of photography to include a more diverse range of images and image-making techniques. Because the branches of photography have now branched out far beyond what many consider to be "traditional", many people think some of these branches of photography as being "overdone." Well, I guess that depends on how narrow your idea of photography is. There was a time when the early impressionist painters weren't considered real painters because their images deviated too far from the expected norms of painting (i.e., realistic depictions of nature, objects, etc.). I guess we're going through that same thing today with digital photos.

Fabulous debate

Here's my view on the situation. I understand the gist of the OP but it's like they're on a beach with toes getting wet. They could take a boat ride out and then jump in to find out there's no measurable depth to the debate. I'm an artist too but what's an artist? Well, OK, I'm a "real artist" (realism). What's realism?... and on and on.

As long as photography can be considered art, it too must suffer the consequences. There are no limits or rules and these days, no definition.

Personally, I love the limitations and challenge of the film era. I also appreciate the representational skill of John Singer Sargent like painters and have been left quite bewildered by the Pollocks that have since evolved. It's funny how people like Gerhard Richter can span such differences and now make millions with a squeegee.

I received an invitation to an exhibit in NYC this morning. Reading the commentary describing the show, I saw this:

...when the post-modernist art critic Arthur Danto, after seeing Andy Warhol’s exhibition of Brillo boxes in 1964, asked “What Is Art?” This led to a book and movement wherein Danto ultimately concluded that most of the aesthetic criteria and parameters of beauty were gone, that art is what the art establishment says it is, and that the age of pluralism had come.

Actually, wet toes on the beach will suffice for me too, as long as it remains a good and personal choice to be enjoyed. To each their own.

BruceWB

 BruceB609's gear list:BruceB609's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Voigtlander 40mm F2 Ultron SL II +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phaedin
Senior MemberPosts: 1,223Gear list
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

This is the great thing about the art of photography.
Just because some people may hate a image and consider it of no value, doesn't mean that other people can't love it and consider it priceless.
If people wish to challenge themselves and work within strict limits, why not? Others may with to challenge themselves and work with no limits. Each process has artistic merit.
I believe that there are no absolutes in art(or life)

 phaedin's gear list:phaedin's gear list
Nikon D7100 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,454
Like?
so, if you use a camera phone camera
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

Does in camera processing include instagram?

-- hide signature --

professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 18,127
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to Joris1632, 8 months ago

Joris1632 wrote:

Post processing has always happened but the main reason has hardly ever been artistic.

On the contrary, that's really the main reason images were, and are, post-processed. It's to satisfy the artistic preferences of the shooter. If it wasn't for artistic reasons, people wouldn't bother with post-processing at all. In the film days, they would just drop their film off at the local 1-hour photo lab, order up a print, and accept whatever came back to them! Can you imagine Ansel Adams doing that?

As for your statement that "Professionals then, as now, had it done for them"...yes, that's quite true. But "professionals" entrusted their images to post-processors that they trusted on an artistic level. Indeed, the post-processor is an artist in his own right, applying his own artistic judgement to the image. For example, Cartier-Bresson collaborated with Voja Mitrovic as his trusted printer.  I think this caption says a lot about the relationship of one artist (Cartier-Bresson) to another (Mitrovic) from this article:

I think both Cartier-Bresson and Mitrovic, as well as many other darkroom artists, would be insulted by your erroneous assumption that "the main reason [for post-processing] has hardly ever been artistic."

As Ansel Adams said in book The Print (1983):

“The print values are not absolutely dictated by the negative. The creativity of the printing process is distinctly similar to the creativity of exposing negatives; in both cases we start with conditions that are “given,” and we strive to appreciate and interpret them. In printing, we accept the negative as a starting point that determines much, but not all, of the character of the final image.”

Yes, the negative (and the original digital file) are only the starting point. Post-processing is the other half of the creative and artistic process of photography-- the first half being the initial step of exposing the negative (or the image sensor). So to say that the main reason for post-processing
"has hardly ever been artistic" is totally erroneous. On the contrary, the desire to achieve artistic satisfaction with one's images has been the main reason many people partake in post-processing. Yes, out-of-camera images can be perfectly acceptable. But post-processing is the way many imaging artists put their unique artistic stamp on an image.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,880
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to fcheh, 8 months ago

Ansel Adams said "You don't take a photograph, you make it".

For over 35 years I have watched, often with amusement, as people file along making it seem that their is some sort of superior aesthetic in photos that are "OOC". Sometimes such photos can be great. Other times they are crap. Crappier still is the attitude of those who think that because they don't do any PP they are somehow producing better or "purer" photos than others.

That's utter photo-elitist snobbery that pales in the face of the history of great photographs. As I see it, it's an attitude fostered by people who just can't seem to hit their desired goals photographically (someone else's photos are always a bit more eye catching, dramatic, creative or well executed than their own). To recover some pride, they dismiss those photos as inferior because there was varying degrees of PP involved.

Sure, there is much to admire in those who can produce good photos OOC. Are they better photographers?

Is B.B. King a better guitarist than Steve Vai? Is Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" "better" than his Ninth Symphony? Such comparisons in photography, as to whether OOC images are somehow better than those that involve a lot of PP reek of hubris induces snobbery if they are taken too far.

Enjoy how you like to make photos, but leave any implications that your preferred method is inherently superior at the door please.

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://eyeguessphotography.com
http://livegigshots.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Contributing MemberPosts: 862Gear list
Like?
Very well put!
In reply to T3, 8 months ago

I agree 100%. It doesn't really matter how you go about getting the look that you want so it's really a case of "by whatever means necessary." I took a number of photo classes in college and one course was all about doing experimental work. There was a project in which we had to combine negatives to create a new image... the kind of thing that folks do all the time in Photoshop these days, but was a little tricker to do in a darkroom. One student did a piece that was really nice (I've forgotten what the subject matter was) and she explained that she couldn't get a really perfect blend from one image to the other in the darkroom so she got out the retouching kit and painted on the print to get that seamless gradation she was wanting. When she apologized for "cheating," the teacher said very pointedly that "there is no cheating in art." I had never thought about it but I found myself agreeing with that as the viewer doesn't have to know anything about the process to get something out of the work. As evidenced by these great examples, very often the process isn't what we might think that it is... but in the end none of that really matters. We either enjoy the work or we don't on it's own merits. You might not know if that great pianist you just saw play studied all her life or learned everything she knows in the last couple of years... You hear the music and are moved by it... or not.

The whole "purity of craft" idea seems so naive, really. Before Photoshop there was airbrushing and before burst mode there were auto winders that folks used to burn up a lot of film in a hurry. If you think that shooting tons of exposures to get a few good ones (because digital is free) is a new concept, you need to learn about folks like Garry Winnogrand, who apparently shot hundreds of exposures for every one keeper. His approach was to shoot so quickly that he really didn't even know what he had in the frame until he developed the film! The juxtapositions that he got in his best shots were probably impossible to get any other way. In this way his "art" was as much in the editing as the taking of the pictures... and there's nothing wrong with that if it gets you the results you're after.

As someone who's spent a lot of time in a darkroom dealing with B&W, color and some alternative processes, I see digital photography as a really great thing. With digital, I feel like I'm much more likely to realize whatever vision I have for a particular image. With software I'm able to fine tune the image to a level that would be all but impossible in a darkroom and digital cameras make it so that I'm much more likely to get the shot I'm after in the first place, as they're much more flexible tools than the old film cameras (I can photograph in a far greater variety of conditions). The fact that I can try out a few approaches and compare them so easily side by side, undoing and redoing steps to my heart's content means that I can really zero in on just the look that going to be ideal.

Digital to my eyes can do almost everything that film can do and then some. Of course there are certain looks... certain processes that can only be achieved by analog means... If that's the look that you're after then you're going to use those tools and those processes and that's perfectly fine as well. Use whatever process that you need to to create the work that's in your mind... simple as that.
There's an idea that I hear that digital photography isn't as "hands on" as the old analog processes were and I see it as just the opposite. With digital, I have much, much more control of the image so I can be MORE hands on with how I approach it. I can treat an image much more like a painting, getting just the level of sharpness or blur on each element, changing colors, contrasts, etc so that it's actually more of a considered process and less "automatic" than working with film.

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,007
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to chkproductions, 8 months ago

chkproductions wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

I'd argue though ...

All good points and sorry to edit your post. To me, "argue" is the operative word in all of this. We could argue endlessly and never come to absolute. I went back and reread the OP post. My take away is he wants a non-processed, take it or leave it, just as I shot it forum. Good idea. It would be interesting to see a growing collection of shots that have had nothing done outside of the framing, exposure and click of the shutter. But he doesn't say if in camera processing is then allowed, which is post-processing. And is it just JPEGs or RAWs processed with all default settings from just one software imaging program. So just what is the controlling criteria of a "just as it happened" shot.

As for your comment about just dropping off film to the chemist - I knew a person that shot and only had his film straight processed from a one hour lab. At the time he was the world's known shooter of - ya, ready - seashells. He shot only in the early and late light. Had his 4x6 prints and chromes and that was it. Nothing more. At the time, made a good living off making a yearly calender and note cards. So I guess what I'm saying is "To each, their own"

And for me I still miss that tactile experience of the darkroom process. But I do know it has given me a better understanding and control of the current digital processes. Just the experience of burning and dodging a negative and the subtle differences and corrections it can make in the final print translates seamlessly into the digital process.

Cheers

chk

A bit of a difference there though to an amateur who probably wasn't even aware that the possibility of darkroom work, filter use etc even existed and now claims the lack of it alone marks him out as a superior photographer.

It seems to me that arguably the biggest shift in the digital era(including the rise of net forums) is that the mechanics of photography have been opened up for everyone to some degree. What was often an arcane and secrete art in the film era is now a process known to many more people.

The upshot of that is not only can more people post process but we see the results of this processing by many more people where as in the days of film we'd mostly have only seen the work of professionals.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joris1632
Regular MemberPosts: 230
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to T3, 8 months ago

I agree, I phrased it badly. I meant to point out that the number of artist photographers was minute compared to the vast printing industry's use of photos in the heyday of illustrated magazines such as Life, National Geographic, Time, Picture Post, London Illustrated News etc etc.. I have tremendous respect for Cartier-Bresson's work - though I'd like to point out he also said he didn't care what happened to a picture after he'd pressed the shutter.

My main point was that there is no dichotomy between getting it right in camera and PPing, they are not mutually exclusive.  You are talking Art but I am trying to leave artists out of the equation because Photoshop was not designed for them but for the huge graphic industry. Professional photographers among my family and friends all find PP a necessary evil driven mainly by art director/client pressure.  Only amateur enthusiasts seem to actively enjoy PP.

That an artist makes use of any tools he can lay his hands is part of the creative process but just as in the days of film he probably has an end result, in mind, including PP, when he presses the shutter . My problem is with those who think that pushing a slider to increase saturation makes them "creative", - an artist. I'm afraid it's a bit more difficult than that.

I'm an artist and made my living for 45 years (30 of them in advertising) entirely by my work so I must have done summat right. Still draw, paint and photograph most days in retirement but no PP 

Joris1632

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 3,007
Like?
Re: The Past "Photography" the Future "Imagery" Not for ME!
In reply to Joris1632, 8 months ago

Joris1632 wrote:

I agree, I phrased it badly. I meant to point out that the number of artist photographers was minute compared to the vast printing industry's use of photos in the heyday of illustrated magazines such as Life, National Geographic, Time, Picture Post, London Illustrated News etc etc.. I have tremendous respect for Cartier-Bresson's work - though I'd like to point out he also said he didn't care what happened to a picture after he'd pressed the shutter.

My main point was that there is no dichotomy between getting it right in camera and PPing, they are not mutually exclusive. You are talking Art but I am trying to leave artists out of the equation because Photoshop was not designed for them but for the huge graphic industry. Professional photographers among my family and friends all find PP a necessary evil driven mainly by art director/client pressure. Only amateur enthusiasts seem to actively enjoy PP.

That an artist makes use of any tools he can lay his hands is part of the creative process but just as in the days of film he probably has an end result, in mind, including PP, when he presses the shutter . My problem is with those who think that pushing a slider to increase saturation makes them "creative", - an artist. I'm afraid it's a bit more difficult than that.

I'm an artist and made my living for 45 years (30 of them in advertising) entirely by my work so I must have done summat right. Still draw, paint and photograph most days in retirement but no PP

Joris1632

Really though is any of this related to the OP's comments and similar comments we often get on these forums? those comments were decrying post processing carried out for artistic purposes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads