Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You've got a good point, Jim, but is the situation really that bad? I think we can all agree that spotting, dodging, burning, sharpening, etc. is not in and of itself changing the basic representation of the scene. And that's all most of us do. As Tina said, it takes much less time, and it's easier. I think we also all know that there are ways to "lie" even with dodging and burning, if you dodge or burn an essential detail or emphasize a non-essential detail that distorts what was there. This leaves out the fact that intent, purpose and context really makes a difference. It also leaves out the difference between journalistic truth, artistic/emotional truth, and just clearing up clutter so you notice what's there in the first place, and the other truths can get noticed. I don't subscribe to the idea that we are all whores, and it's just a matter of degree. I think we all can agree that if we de-emphasize a distracting detail, so the viewer is more likely to see what is important, that's not lying. But it does demonstrate that every process has weaknesses that must be compensated for to get a coherent result. If we scan, we gotta use unsharp mask, or the result is mush. If we approach that with integrity, we're OK. The idea that we have to be absolutely pure or we have no right to photograph denies reality. That's why I always thought the black-border crowd was pushing a phony conceit. Besides, black borders could be faked, even before digital. Removing a blotch or a reflection--or even a distracting newspaper in the driveway--is not quite the same thing as airbrushing out the purged members of the Politburo from last year's May Day parade pictures. And they did the latter long before digital. Frankly, I think that one of the reasons for all the hoopla about this issue is that software is marketed on a "coolness" factor. And it's "cool" to be able to make something look like something it wasn't. Press a button, imagination becomes reality. Turn your ex-boyfriend green. Stick the picture of the lion you took at the zoo in the middle of the Kenyan bush. Or on the main street of your town. Wow. Kewl. Because I Can! But don't blame them--every new technique gets overused. It's just part of the development process. Eventually it quiets down. Some of it might even be art. My image editor, Picture Window Pro, (which I bought rather than buy or pirate Photoshop--another thread) has an interesting sample on its Web site. There's a wedding photo where the original has the Justice of the Peace in it, but she's half obscured by the couple. The finished version has the J.P edited out, so now it's just a nice picture of the couple. Is the picture a "lie?" Depends. If we're just showing a nice portait of Dick and Jane getting married, probably not. If we're representing it as an authentic journalistic shot of the wedding, yes, and the fact that we would do it there would lead our viewers to question whether we did it in some other picture where it truly mattered. But the software is being sold on the basis that you *can* easily change things that drastically. Which leads some to mistrust the process. Man, this whole subject has me so paranoid that for a moment I felt guilty about changing this: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_org.jpg . . .to this: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/charlie_xmas.jpg All I did was remove a nasty reflection so you notice Charlie instead of an illuminated lump growing from his scalp. Does the fact that I did this mean I'm never to be trusted? Nah. I know, I'll take a vow. If ever get that picture-of-a-lifetime of Mr. X shooting Mr. Y, I promise not to edit out the knife in Mr. Y's hand. Not even to please the District Attorney. Thing is, I could have framed the picture without the knife, and that would be lying with no digital manipulation at all. - --Peter Klein Seattle, WA Jim Brick sez: >But that's the whole problem as I see it. As soon as you scan a film or >photograph using a digital camera, the next step is Photoshop before >printing. Once in Photoshop, well, the urge is there and 99% of the time, >the print you are printing has been modified to where it is not >representative of the original scene. > >I'm not saying that you, Tina or Ted, do this, but it is, I believe, the >general practice among a great many of the digital photography folks. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html