Raist3d

Lives in United States Canyon Country, CA, United States
Works as a Photographer & Game Developer (Programmer)
Has a website at http://raist3d.typepad.com
Joined on Dec 9, 2001
About me:

To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my
professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for
all that is good. :-)

Comments

Total: 1906, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jkspepper: The key point is fujifilm profiting from the 'goodwill' derived from the polariod-copied shape. However how can you calculate that good will if polaroid can't make a profit?

Taking that logic, shouldn't Polaroid be paying Fujifilm since the Polaroid square format has shown to result in losses and as such the Polaroid-square format has negative goodwill.

@Darn - this needs a bit more qualification. I could print two photos 4 x 6 from different film and say I am confused by one over the other- yet that shouldn't mean printer Kodak could sue Printer Fuji for that.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: every single image was cheapened........

carpet bombing culture indeed

@FodgeanDurn - I think they can co-exist with the permission of the original photographer.

" If people continue to edit, modernise, reassess and re-examine my life's work when I am gone I would consider myself beyond fortunate."

Yes, but that's *your choice* about *your things*. Don't presume this is what the other photographers would choose. Like I said, color can change composition. In this case, color is also an interpretation guess - not reality - of those doing the retouching.

So the issue per se is not that I am oppose to the idea of someone coloring the photos or someone who wants that done but the apparent sense of entitlement of just getting someone else's work and art and do whatever they want with it.

And what if doing so according to the author takes away from it even if you think it adds value simply because you may not know better in that line of work? It's more complicated than that.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: I think most of the 'most popular' comments are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This was not an attempt to 'improve' the images at all. Let me explain.

Adding colour can make us consider past protagonists as modern, sympathetic fellow humans, rather than the often long-dead subjects of historical record. They can be made more immediate and emotionally recognisable to modern audiences. Seeing a monk burn in protest is far more affecting and visceral when the colour removes the distance and mask of old photographic technology. Since this image was always meant to document something horrific, I would argue that removing that distance to modern viewers is EXTREMELY valid.

I think everyone here jumped on a high horse to defend sacred artefacts, without considering that perhaps their creators might also have valued efforts to help them continue to be affecting to future audiences.

I, for one, find it valuable to contemplate the shift in perspective added colour provides.

"You are coming at this from the perspective of someone who takes pictures to be admired, not someone who takes pictures to tell an important story. It is my firm belief that most photographic journalists would be all for having their story updated and redispersed."

No, I am coming from the perspective of respecting the work produced by other people, not a decision made by a mob because of what they think it's important. Your belief needs an ask.

The fact it's B&W a least in some of these cases may very well point to a choice precisely because of how B&W communicates things. Color affects composition. And in this case also color is a guess, not reality.

You keep saying how color makes them "more accessible" - I don't see how that's the case.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: I suppose it could be the gift for someone that literally has everything, but I can think of better ways to waste my time than degrade classic B&W photos. Ask yourself did the addition of colour add anything at all to the impact of the photos? IMO absolutely not.

@dark - you see nothing wrong with changing the lingo in a written work like Lord of the Rings? Of course it changes things! The words used are important and key to the writing, the metaphors, the descriptions. And it has several poems in, you don't see how that at least changes?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: I suppose it could be the gift for someone that literally has everything, but I can think of better ways to waste my time than degrade classic B&W photos. Ask yourself did the addition of colour add anything at all to the impact of the photos? IMO absolutely not.

Drive - there's a difference between adapting a book with rights to a different medium and this, which is the same medium. By elves speak spanish I mean taking out their full developed language Tolkien did for them.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

Ironically some could certainly point out that the B&W photos hold truer to what they were trying to show. After all color can change the composition. And there's guesswork by the retouchers.

BTW, if any of the companies that hold the rights or better yet- the photographers- the original authors- want them colored by them, that's great and fine. Again, their work, their skill, their choice. But looking at the book seems like there's a bit of a cash-on mentality thrown in. Reminds me of some of the Vivian Maier work and what some of the people who hold their work said in a conference what they believe she is thinking about sharing her work. Amazing made up stuff.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

You seem to be changing the dates now. 1960 is what you said. That's 1963. But then if the photographer chose B&W, maybe he or she had a reason.

If the belief (and it was), was back then that B&W was a truer expression of the art medium whether you disagree with that or not doesn't matter- it's their choice, not yours. It's their work, not yours. That's for them to decide. Not me, not you.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 11:22 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

So to put it another way, a lot of the photos are B&W because of what you said, but not all. Most importantly- a lot of people here are saying that the photographers would clearly have chosen color over B&W if color was as available to them back then (before color was more wide spread- as in the era of some of these photos). I don't think that's a given.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

It's one of the cited examples of why people apparently decide they are entitled to paint with color. Some shots, yes, but some shots there was color. I am sticking to the topic. And Kodachrome was around already for quite a while.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 11:14 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

@dash2k8- learn to read? The photo of the monk is 1963. Learn some history? And to read? :-) So the statement of "back then" seems like a bit of a blanket statement no?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 11:08 UTC
In reply to:

jkspepper: The key point is fujifilm profiting from the 'goodwill' derived from the polariod-copied shape. However how can you calculate that good will if polaroid can't make a profit?

Taking that logic, shouldn't Polaroid be paying Fujifilm since the Polaroid square format has shown to result in losses and as such the Polaroid-square format has negative goodwill.

I think a better question to ask is - if such a thing as a square printed photograph (or developed film photograph) is trademark able or represents the polaroid trademark. I would understand Polaroid suing for similar chemicals/formula (patents). But this? When people see a polaroid logo they think about those rainbows... not about a square photograph me thinks.

Update: If Polaroid did indeed trademark the exact border/shape ok. In which case all Fuji needs to do is change the border.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 10:59 UTC
In reply to:

camera_d3pt: This book is so wrong on so many levels. Really. I wonder what the response would be if someone made the Mona Lisa, black and white, because it'd be more "evocative". I guess this answers the question of whether or not photography actually is Art. Obviously it isn't Art, no one would attempt this heresy on actual Art for fear of having their vegetables chopped up. I think this behavior, of not actually creating anything of value, but makeing it seem as if garbage is contribution is not just symptomatic, but representative of today's society. Photography today is held in no esteem as an art form. As a vehicle for individual expression it has become easier than bodily movements. Everyone can create images, regardless of their intent for their creation to be art. Art created without intent is not art or Art, it's an accident, and unless one's intent was to create through accident, then those creators are not artists nor should their effluvia be seen as such.

You are making the assumption that in their effort to communicate the photographer would have def. chosen color. Several of these photographers existed in an era where color film already existed. The photographer made a B&W choice.

You can't be sure what they will be glad or not for. That's just your guess and hardly fact.

The people "helping their story live on new formats" is hardly the point. Colors are being guessed, so there goes the whole "more realistic" deal. If the photographer gave their nod, then sure, that's great. But assuming that they owe to go through this transformation to make them "better photographs" or "more accessible" is complete nonsense.

It's not about being a white knight. It's about respecting the work of people. But if that makes me a white knight so be it.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:50 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: every single image was cheapened........

carpet bombing culture indeed

Well yes because they are unknown. But we know the ones that could have shot in color that chose B&W, so that's valid. It's still a valid point anyway, whether you and I know them.

I think it's silly to say coloring photographs is making it more accessible also.

The very attitude int he last paragraph makes a lot of my point. It's like making someone's profession slavery or products being the entitlement of others to decide what to do with them. That sounds far closer to me to intellectual snobbery if anything. Maybe not so intellectual though.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
In reply to:

camera_d3pt: This book is so wrong on so many levels. Really. I wonder what the response would be if someone made the Mona Lisa, black and white, because it'd be more "evocative". I guess this answers the question of whether or not photography actually is Art. Obviously it isn't Art, no one would attempt this heresy on actual Art for fear of having their vegetables chopped up. I think this behavior, of not actually creating anything of value, but makeing it seem as if garbage is contribution is not just symptomatic, but representative of today's society. Photography today is held in no esteem as an art form. As a vehicle for individual expression it has become easier than bodily movements. Everyone can create images, regardless of their intent for their creation to be art. Art created without intent is not art or Art, it's an accident, and unless one's intent was to create through accident, then those creators are not artists nor should their effluvia be seen as such.

The photographer took the photo. He spent the effort to get the skills, travel there. Yes, it is not a piece of commonly shared human history because it's a photograph that was composed, skill required, know how required to take it. The knowledge of the monk setting himself ablaze is common history. The photograph not so (unless given as such).

Also being in color doesn't mean more accessible- necessarily, at all. And a good skilled documentary photographer shots are hardly "great snaps." You are basically decided to yank something out of their skill. Maybe you would have favored making photographers going to places to document was going on a mandatory slave profession. I disagree.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

ZeBebito: I wonder what % of the profits will go to the rightful owners of those images?

So, what about the ones that are still living?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jarvis Grant: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

@Karroly - I think there are higher principles here at hand. Like respect for someone else's work.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:22 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: every single image was cheapened........

carpet bombing culture indeed

"FodgeandDurn
What intellectual snobbery."

Hardly. Here we have a bunch of people who decided what to do with someone else's work. A lot of these photos were made in an era where color film existed yet the choice was for B&W. Perhaps they are even more accessible precisely for being in B&W? Who are you to say except for the author. And that's the thing. Shall I come into your house and change things to make them more accessible? Why is it someone else that wants to decide?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:21 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: To everyone decrying the colourising of iconic photographs, remember that if colour photography had been invented in those days, they all would have been in colour anyway. The only reason they were originally in black and white, is because of technical inadequacies of the day.

Color film back then wasn't good? Are you kidding me? Ever read about Kodachrome?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:16 UTC
In reply to:

Drive: You guys will argue about anything. Who cares? It’s literally someone coloring in old pictures. Switch your monitor to grey scale if it bothers you so much.

I think these comments speak to the value of intellectual property of individual artists, as seen by society. :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:16 UTC
In reply to:

lds2k: A B&W photo is a work of art. Is it ok to paint over a work of art? I think not

But being accessible should not imply color. The photographer that took this photograph *chose* B&W after all. What's disgusting is vandalizing the work of the original author. Whether it's documentary or not, and it should not in any way diminish what the monk did and the message he sent.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2017 at 05:15 UTC
Total: 1906, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »