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

["Ted Bayer" <tedbayer@harbornet.com>]

This thread seems to be cast in a"thou shall" and "thou shall not" sort
of dialog where each side has a rather interesting perspective of the
role of the photographer and his/her handling of a photo.

Setting aside for a moment the "truth" necessary in some forms of
photography, it's simply a matter of doing what one wants with a photo
in order to present it in such a way that it conveys the mood, message,
idea, or whatever, that the photographer is striving for.  If those that
view it see it as the photographer intended, then it is a success.  If
not, then it's back to the darkroom, digital or otherwise.

Manipulation of images is nothing new, and nothing to be ashamed of.  It
is, according to a recent article (Mirror Images) in the February 2002
issue of Smithsonian, something that may have been done by some of the
greatest master painters - Leonardo, Van Dyck, perhaps even Rembrandt,
to name a few.

Many excellent points of view have been presented on the LUG concerning
this subject.  More will follow.  But, in the end, I believe everyone
will go on doing what he/she finds necessary to present his/her photos
in the best way possible.  And what's so bad about that?  It's just
human nature.

Ted in Olalla



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Digital darkroom - when isn't it photography?


> 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
>

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