Re: [Leica] Digital darkroom - when isn't it photography?

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>]

Adam Bridge wrote:

>>> Hanging in the gallery of The Darkroom, where I print, there are a
> collection of color works, some of which to me are no longer the work of a
> photographer but instead are in some other medium that includes
> photographic elements. It's definitely ART and I admire it. But it doesn't
> seem like photography to me. At some point the digital manipulation has
> changed things so much that it has become a new field.<<

Hi Adam,
I think what happens with some folks is, they change the image beyond merely
burning a dodging or cropping. They enhance colours and do other
manipulations beyond what could possibly be done in a normal darkroom
process. Therefore, they do create a piece of "art" rather than just
replicating an image as recorded on film.

Not saying this is bad, just that I see your point of "art" via a machine as
opposed to a wet darkroom print if there are strong manipulated elements.
By the same token, to print a photograph by machine with no more than
"normal wet darkroom procedures of dodging, burning etc. makes the picture
no more a piece of art than if hand produced in the wet.

>>> And let me add one other red herring to this and I'll aim it at BD. How,
in
> an age where all our news reportage is digital, do we know what is REAL? A
> few minutes in Photoshop and National Geographic moved the pyramids. Are
> our images now less trustworthy because of the ease in which they are
> manipulated? How does an editor know that the images they are working with
> are REAL? That a key piece of background hasn't been edited out to
> transform the meaning of an image.<<<<<<

Nat.Geo. as I understand, were soundly wrapped by the photojournalist
community for that stunt, pure unadulterated stupidity for a magazine of
it's stature! To make any kind of "moving of the land" where it's always
been real life as it was found goes beyond honour of the publication.

If a picture is major manipulated for use in a publication of any kind and
not pointed out the picture has been played with is fraudulent and
despicable. Certainly any publication that is supposed to be printing the
truth of any given worthy event.

Does it happen? Of course, slime ball editors and art directors have no
scruples when it comes to the truth. If it's an advertisement I don't give a
flying hoop what they do, advertising isn't the truth on the rarest of
occasion.

But when it comes to "real life-news-photojournalism" that is recording life
as it is, it shouldn't be touched other than the "normal acceptable element
of dodging, burning and cropping common to the wet darkroom effects.

And everytime some idiot editor screws with a picture and is caught, it
completely under mines the value of photojournalism as the record of life as
"we know it!"

I'd also add that, any photographer messing around and changing what reality
was compared to what he presents to the editor should have his weenie off!

>>Or maybe we should stick to single malt scotches. I like McCallen myself.<

Well there's some truth in that! Although it's Lagavulin lad. ;-)
ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html