# Photoshop and Photography!



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Where does Photography stands in this era of Photoshop?


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

I think it really depends on how you define photography.  In essense, much of what photoshop does for a digital photo is little more than what can be accomplished in a darkroom.  Dodging, burning, cropping, etc.  All that happens in a darkroom just as it can happen on my photoshop screen.  True, you _can_ go much beyond darkroom techniques with PS, though, so the line becomes pretty blurry and gray.

Personally I think manipulations that don't affect the actual content of the photo are still to be considered photography.  For example, I take a photo of my wife, convert it to b&w, increase the contrast a bit, and apply a softening filter.  All I've done is the exact same thing I could do in a darkroom to a traditional film print.  Now if I take a photo of my buddy and digitally affix his head to my dog's body, just for kicks, I've gone beyond the realm of photography and into "digital art" if you will.

But that's just me, personally.  Talk to 10 different people in the hobby / trade, and you'll come up with 10 different (and probably VERY different) answers.


----------



## terri (Mar 19, 2004)

As an art form that may become cheapened in value due to technological improvements.


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

How so, Terri?

I don't understand how me cropping and adjusting contrast to a photo using my mouse or in the darkroom are any different.

Or are you talking about the more 'non-darkroom' manipulations that PS is capable of?


----------



## karissa (Mar 19, 2004)

I saw Terri's comment more like... PS makes it easy for anyone to dodge and burn while as long as it was in the dark room it was something you had to learn how to do.  Now, just about anyone who can use a computer can go in and work on a picture.

It degrades the value kind of like being able to mass produce diamonds would cause them to be worth less.


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

karissa said:
			
		

> I saw Terri's comment more like... PS makes it easy for anyone to dodge and burn while as long as it was in the dark room it was something you had to learn how to do.  Now, just about anyone who can use a computer can go in and work on a picture.
> 
> It degrades the value kind of like being able to mass produce diamonds would cause them to be worth less.



While that's true and I see your point, I still see more similarities than differences.

There's still a learning curve to using photoshop and all its tools and techniques, just like there's a learning curve to using a darkroom.  Plus, even though anyone with a computer can work on a picture, that's by no means a gaurantee (sp?) that it's going to come out artistic, or even good.  Same as with a darkroom--just because I can mix chemicals doesn't mean I'm going to make a good or artistically pleasing print.


----------



## karissa (Mar 19, 2004)

I agree with both of you actually.  The technique can be learned and picked up but you still have to have the creativity and they eye to see things.  It's hard to make up for something you where not born with and I think creativity is something you are born with and then sharpened over time with effort.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 19, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> Now if I take a photo of my buddy and digitally affix his head to my dog's body, just for kicks, I've gone beyond the realm of photography and into "digital art" if you will.



Check out Jerry Uelsmann.  I'm sure that most folks who see his photography today assume it was photoshopped, except that it was created 20 years before Photoshop.  There was a famous postcard photographer from Ottawa, KS, I can't remember his name, who did the original "We grow 'em big around here!" giant vegetable pics, giant fish, farm animals, etc...  He worked in the early part of the 20th century.  

Like all combinations of art and technology it's constantly changing.  It has been since the beginning, and it will continue to evolve in the future.  What seems amazing today will be old fashioned tomorrow.  And as much as it changes, it will always have ties to it's roots.


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> And as much as it changes, it will always have ties to it's roots.



Agreed.  In a lot of ways, Photoshop has taught me more about photography, in fact.  When I first got interested in taking pictures, I had no clue what the hell 'burning' or 'dodging' was.  If PS had said 'make lighter' and 'make darker', it would've made more sense at the time, but now I know a lot more about the history of film developing, even though I've never developed a roll of film myself in my life.  (I did date a photographer in college though who did her own prints...does that count??   )


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

Alfred Stieglitz worked hard at the turn of the century to get photography to be recognized as art. At the time, it was only viewed as a tool to make reference shot for painters who "made the real art".


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Just checked out http://www.uelsmann.net/

How did he do that? Did he do that in a darkroom??


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

So you want to tell me that PS rules over Photography or the other way around?


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Just checked out http://www.uelsmann.net/
> 
> How did he do that? Did he do that in a darkroom??



Yup. The man is a printing genius. His darkroom has several enlargers, and he'll have a neg loaded up in each one, moving the paper from one to the other to the other.


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

For myself, I go to how the word is made.

Photograph = light drawing

Photoshop is just another tool to use while working with an image.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Does a hardcore/genuine photographer choose to ignore PS ??


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> So you want to tell me that PS rules over Photography or the other way around?



In my eyes, neither.  They're both tools--means to an end.  If I go all the way west, I end up in China.  If I go all the way east, I end up in China.  Different routes, same destination.


----------



## vonnagy (Mar 19, 2004)

terri said:
			
		

> As an art form that may become cheapened in value due to technological improvements.



When camera came out - people said the same thing - it cheapens the value of portraits and painting because it was available to the masses. Painter felt threatened by this.

However, did painting portraits and realistic scenes stop after photography became common place. No they became even more valued, imho  It also helped the avdent of super-realism in the art world.

Photoshop and programs have a tendency to scare old school photographers, but i think it will add, not detract from their work. Matt mentioned earlier his love for silver gelatin is a sample of this. Sure anyway can play with these graphics programs, but how many can do well?  Does that make them any less of artist? 

Contrary to popular belief - it just the same same amount of time to photoshop an image sometimes to achieve what the artist wants than it does for a darkroom artist to achieve their artistic goals.

Only because the medium has moved from photo paper to pixel does not mean they are any less of artist. It does not cheapen their work nor the work of traditional photographers.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> So you want to tell me that PS rules over Photography or the other way around?
> 
> Does a hardcore/genuine photographer choose to ignore PS ??



Once upon a time I'm sure there was an uproar when crazy folks started shooting pics on newfangled film rather than glass plates.  And Edward Weston had to be talked into printing on gelatin silver paper by his sons.  

Photoshop is just another part of photography.  How, or if, you choose to use it is up to you.  There is not, never was, and never will be a consensus on what "genuine" photography is; it's an opinion.  I say you do what floats your boat, and if you enjoy the process, then most likely your work will improve.

As far as "hardcore" goes, I shoot 4x5 while listening to the Dead Kennedys, I'm as hardcore as it gets.  At least until a guy shows up with an 8x10 camera.  Have you seen these "Ultra Large Format" guys?  Those guys are freakin' hardcore!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Its all about control or command over one's respective area.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

> When camera came out - people said the same thing - it cheapens the value of portraits and painting because it was available to the masses. Painter felt threatened by this.
> 
> However, did painting portraits and realistic scenes stop after photography became common place. No they became even more valued, imho  It also helped the avdent of super-realism in the art world.




Thats an excellent perspective


----------



## terri (Mar 19, 2004)

I love to get Vonnagy all riled up.    :twisted:   You tell us, baby!!!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result. 

But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result.
> 
> But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!



That's just it.  *You* are the artist.  Cameras, chemistry, and software are just tools.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!



Better not buy a digital camera then.


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

Is the enlarger the artists? Should people only be making contact prints?


----------



## Harpper (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> PS might be a good tool in order to get a great result.
> 
> But, I would prefer to bring that 'great' result on a camera. If we tend to photoshop, it means it limits US. The Photoshop becomes the artist instead of myself. I don't know how comfortable I would be in that shoes!


It sounds like you haven't used PS much. A lot of your concerns would be easier explained if there was a way for you to simply try out PS for awhile before you jump to these conclusions.

First of all, PS is not a some magical robot that will just make your pictures perfect automatically. *You* are always the artist because *you* have to tell PS what to do in order to make your pictures perfect. For example, you need to know if increasing or lower exposure levels will make the shot better. You are also the one who decides if the lighting is correct for what your focal point is. You are the one who decides if some object is in the wrong place and should be crop. You, the artist, control how things turn out so how can PS be the artists?

I don't want to confuse you even more by explaining PS's full abilities but for the most part PS is primarily used by photographers as a touch up/correction tool. Tool being the key word. If you really don't like PS then the simple solution is to not use it. You _can_ get by without it as a photographer but it's just another tool that can be used to get your pictures the way you want them.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

I never mentioned that I'm against PS. PS in fact is a beautiful tool. I never said that I do not have plans to use it. Certain prfessional work defenitely calls for the US of PS. The whole point is, Photoshop should not take precedence, since it would limit this whole procedure called 'photography'. I'm not talking graphic or digital design here. In graphic/digital design, yes, we use computers to obey our commands. We are the ones who control the show and make the picture better. I do not dispute that factor.  

I was just talking about plain old fashined photography!

I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

*danalec99 wrote:*


> I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.


 
When we do that, it is the PS that takes the front seat!


----------



## malachite (Mar 19, 2004)

In the latest issue of B&W magazine (April 2004) one of the spotlight features is on Nathan McCreery. And excerpt from that interview:

_I think your epuipment is secondary to the process," McCreery says. "It doesn't matter what kind of camera you are holding in your hands, it's the equipment between your ears that's most important. It's the culture you come from, the way you see things, the way you think - that matters. I believe those are the things that cause one photographer to be different from another. The equipment is completely beside the point. I think it was Paul Strand who said, 'Isn't it interesting that our equipment has improved, and out photographs haven't'".

_


----------



## drlynn (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> I would like to shoot pictures that needs less or no PS touches. Or else, why invest in DSLR's? One could go get a cheap disposable Kodak; shoot pictures and touch it up with the PS. An average Joe could do that task. I'm not talking about that average Joe here.



To me, this is the eqiuvalent of saying, "I don't want to have to take any special steps in the darkroom.  I shouldn't have to dodge, burn, crop, etc any oif my images. They should be able to hang on a wall straight from the camera."

I don't think that is a realistic expectation.  Changing a photo's white balance, etc while it's still inside the memory of your DSLR is no different than doing it in Photoshop, or in the darkroom.

And I have to disagree with the notion that any average Joe can make masterpieces with a disposable camera and PS.  PS cannot correct a blurry photo from a cheap lens.  Too much sharpening in PS looks artificial and is easily spotted, even by untrained eyes.
My $0.01 (half-price sale   )


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

I think it's a very worthwhile goal to try to get the image the best it can be at the point when you press the shutter. I also think it's a very worthwhile goal to try to get the image to be even better once you get to the darkroom or in Photoshop. One does not preclude the other.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 20, 2004)

*drlynn wrote:*


> They should be able to hang on a wall straight from the camera."


Yes, this is exactly what I had initially perceived. But I now see that there is more to it!

*drlynn wrote:*


> And I have to disagree with the notion that any average Joe can make masterpieces with a disposable camera and PS. PS cannot correct a blurry photo from a cheap lens. Too much sharpening in PS looks artificial and is easily spotted, even by untrained eyes.



The average joe statement was not meant to be in the literal sense. It was just a mild reference.

The thing is, if I could play with PS, I do not see the whole point in attempting to take a top-of-the-line shot with my DSLR. I just have to do a mediocre job with the camera and let the PS do the changes. Of course, it is me who would control the PS, BUT its the question of reliance. Should I rely on my lens or the Photoshop to make a better picture?!

Guess its the balance of both. And PS should be viewed as an additional feature on the camera![/color]


----------



## markc (Mar 20, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> The thing is, if I could play with PS, I do not see the whole point in attempting to take a top-of-the-line shot with my DSLR.


I think you still have a misunderstanding of what Photoshop can do. It isn't magic. To me, it's like saying that you don't have to learn to write well because you are using a word processor on a computer instead of a pen. The computer may have spell-checking and such, but if you don't know how to express your ideas effectively, you'll just have well-spelled ramblings, not a masterpiece.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 20, 2004)

I see the point now. Its the essay that matters; and not the 'spell check'!


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 20, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> There was a famous postcard photographer from Ottawa, KS, I can't remember his name, who did the original "We grow 'em big around here!" giant vegetable pics, giant fish, farm animals, etc...




here's the link to some of this guy's stuff

http://www.photographymuseum.com/talltale.html


----------



## joseph (Mar 23, 2004)

I remain ambivalent about digital  because of it's uncertain truth. Firstly, Yes, film development has similar conceptual frameworks, but... it does not make up for mistake, technical or artistic the way PS does. Well so what? part of excellence in photography is the technical and artistic skils. So call excellence is easier to achieve now, not years of experience but perhaps week or months with a good computer and editing program. Now computer skills determine determine excellence. Secondly, The most "manipulated" film photos, i.e saturated film, filters etc. still will look more like the real thing then manipulated digital with bumped up saturation and other digital tricks. IMO photography is  the art of capturing the real. Nothing wrong with digital manipulation, it produces a newer art form, we may have a new name for it at some point. Anyway this is my rant.... I am totally digital, migrated from film about two years ago, digital is too compelling...my goal is to use PS only for cropping and curve adjustment this is IMO  closer to the chemical dark room...still working on this goal. I tell you, I could not produce some of my photshoped images with film! I do not have  the expertise. Good thread.


----------



## drdan (Mar 24, 2004)

I recall Robert Heinlein talking about making calculations in the early days of rocketry that took several people, several days to do. There weren't any computers available and the amount and complexity of the calculations for achieving orbit etc were staggering. That amount of work made the results seem a lot more valuable, certainly much more of a personal accomplishment. 

To an astronaut though, they just want those calculations to be correct! If accuracy can be more assured with a computer, great.  

A lot of the "purity" of getting a picture from proper camera and darkroon technique is lost on viewers who are not photographers themselves. They are interested in the result and often have very little interest in the means. 

As someone on this thread pointed out, highly manipulated photos are usually evident to almost everyone and not mistaken for reality. Even a film shot with a polarizer can result in a sky so blue anybody can tell it's not really realistic and that has nothing to do with PS. Photoshop is certainly changing things but people can still tell a good picture from a bad one just as easily as they ever could.

To reiterate what was already said here, computer skills may or may not translate in to artistic talent or even the sensibility to appreciate what looks good and what doesn't. PS can not give you talent, only tools. 

As far as I can tell, PS does not have the ability to turn a bad photo in to a good one, believe me I've tried. I think the photographers who excel in the digital era are going to have the ability to take technically good pictures AND the ability to use PS effectively.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 25, 2004)

So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!

In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?

The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 25, 2004)

So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!

In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?

The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 25, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> So you meant to say it is the 'eye' that matters?? I recollect someone in this thread pointing out that it is what between the ears that matters!
> 
> In a broader perpective, isn't the camera another tool?
> 
> The two important subjects then will be the photographer and the result!



The eye is directly connected to what is between the ears.

The camera is just a tool.  Digital Rebel, Nikon F5, Super Speed Graphic, pinhole cam made from an oatmeal box.  Four different tools that don't take even bad photos without the photographer.


----------



## drdan (Mar 25, 2004)

Sorry danalec, I don't understand what you're saying exactly.

I've found that online you sometimes need to spell things out a little more than you do face to face since people can't get any of your intent from your tone of voice or body language.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 25, 2004)

From your message, one needs to conclude that it is the Rocket Scientist and his end result (Rocket), that matters NOT the TI Calculator/or any super computer that he uses for building the rocket.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 25, 2004)

Let me put it this way... whats in the head (read *talent/skill*)of the rocket scientist(s) that makes a top notch product.
Camera, Photoshop are all tools to achive the better result.

I dont know if I'm clear enough!


----------



## malachite (Mar 25, 2004)

Seems like you're looking for an _absolute_ definition. In my universe anyway, an absolute doesn't exist in any type of creative process. Breaking the rules, going against the grain, and attempts to re-invent the wheel is what creativity is all about. It's all in your head, literally. Make your own rules and you too can have your own universe


----------



## markc (Mar 25, 2004)

That's my thought, also. There is no magic formula to making a great image. Mainly because not everyone can agree on what _is_ a great image.

Imagine if you were trying to make a rocket and asked a bunch of people how to make a great one. Some of them would tell you how to make one that  could deliver a satellite into orbit. Others would tell you how to make one that could deliver a weapon payload to the next continent. A few might tell you how to put wheels and a seat on it so that you could break the land-speed record. Others might even tell you how to make one that flies under water. A rocket good for delivering a weapon may not be good for delivering a satellite.

Even if you have a set goal like launching satellites, history will show many different ways of going about this. Some are better than others depending upon what you want to do, but most have been a success, meaning that they were good for what they were intended for.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 25, 2004)

Photography is not rocket science.  There is a huge difference between using light sensitive materials to create an image and going to the moon.  

A very good photographer should be able to create a good photograph using nothing but a box with a hole in it, paper, and basic chemicals.  

I know of lot's of photogs with Nikon F5s, and I wouldn't doubt there is rocket science and super computers built into a Nikon F5, but the photogs still don't make very good images (IMHO).

A camera cannot take a photo sitting in a box on the store shelf.  It needs a person.  Just because that person has a good camera doesn't mean they can take a good photo.  The combination of the right mind and tools is what makes it all come together.  Without one, the other is lost.


----------



## markc (Mar 25, 2004)

I don't know if you were responding to my post or not, Matt, but I totally agree. I was comparing the approach, not the tech. While you only need basic equipment, there can be a lot of mental mecanics going on to produce a "good" image.

If you want to compare tech, it only takes a few dollars at a hobby store to build yourself a rocket you can launch in your backyard. That's a hellova lot of fun and many people consider them good rockets, if rather simple. A really skilled hobbyist can build themselves a multi-stage machine with lots of fancy fins for only a few dollars more spent on scrap pieces and using their own design. They are much more likely to have a smooth flight and be able to launch it again without major repairs. That's an absolutely great rocket for field launches.

Going to the moon would be akin to doing a studio shoot for a major advertising campaign. A photographer might be able to take what they consider a great shot using a Holga, but it's not likely that the client is going to be thrilled with it if they are trying to sell wine or diamonds. You will most likely need to spend money on a good lighting setup and at least a moderately priced camera to get the job done in the manner and time-frame that the client expects.

But an art dealer will probably not even glance twice at a comercial shot of a wine bottle and instead be drawn to the moody feel of the Holga image.

One isn't better than the other. I guess that's my point after being so long-winded: Some shots require certain equipment to make, whether its expensive or cheap, but that doesn't make them better than any other.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 25, 2004)

Just responding to the general flow of posts.  There is no right or wrong, we are discussing philosophy.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 25, 2004)

*drdan* wrote:


> I recall Robert Heinlein talking about making calculations in the early days of rocketry that took several people, several days to do. There weren't any computers available and the amount and complexity of the calculations for achieving orbit etc were staggering. That amount of work made the results seem a lot more valuable, certainly much more of a personal accomplishment.  To an astronaut though, they just want those calculations to be correct!
> If accuracy can be more assured with a computer, great. A lot of the "purity" of getting a picture from proper camera and darkroon technique is lost on viewers who are not photographers themselves. They are interested in the result and often have very little interest in the means.
> 
> To reiterate what was already said here, computer skills may or may not translate in to artistic talent or even the sensibility to appreciate what looks good and what doesn't. PS can not give you talent, only tools.
> ...



ksmattfish, No one is trying to compare photography with rocket science.  The terms 'Rocket science' came in to the picture with the above quote. And I was trying to draw an illustration on the basis of it.

And I was merely observing the fact that it is the stuff between the ear that matters, rather than the equipment and tools. I totally agree with you.

WHICH draws to the conclusion that the human still rules over machine!


----------



## joseph (Mar 27, 2004)

from my point of view the issue is the definition of a photograph as  we have known it to  be i.e  the camera the chemical processing and the print or slide as the final product. If I can create a photo like image on my computer without actually taking a photo but it look like one is it a photograph? or should we call it something else? it's also an art form but  in my book not a photograph. So if I create in PS for instance, a different color sky, pain the flower yellow etc. is it a photograph? I would like a semantic  distinction e.g. photographer vs. graphic artist. These days I often find the best so called "photos" choices on online forums and some magazines to be obviously altered digitally with some  software, to me these are graphics not photographs... they do not represent the real.


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> There is no right or wrong, we are discussing philosophy.


Right on, Matt.



			
				joseph said:
			
		

> they do not represent the real.


But neither does a photograph. This is the most common complaint I hear about digital photography, but just the fact that film does not have the light sensitivity of the human eye means that a picture taken on film does not show you what it was really like to be there. Henri Cartier-Bresson shoots with only a 50mm lens and prints full-frame with no cropping or burning, and yet he uses B&amp;W film. How is B&amp;W any more real than super-saturated colors? It's the same dramatic change, just in the other direction. The thing that B&amp;W has going for it is that it's been around for more than 100 years, so people are used to it.

At the turn of the century, traditional photography wasn't even seen as art. It took Alfred Stieglitz a long, hard fight to try and get it at least a little bit of recognition. It was new and traditional artists didn't see it as being worthy. I know people aren't saying that digital photography isn't art, but saying it isn't photography feels like the same thing to me.

I completely understand it, too. Having legions of hacks making images of purple cows floating in the sky and calling them photographs is unsettling. It cheapens what we think a photograph should be. The worst of it is it's so easy to do. It would take a lot of skill to make a purple cow floating in the sky using traditional darkroom methods. It could be done, but by the time a person gets good enough to do so, they usually have no desire to, so we don't see it often.

If it's the fact that it's taken digital that makes it not a photograph, then a large number of the images posted here aren't photographs, and we aren't photographers, as many of us are using digital cameras. It would mean that one of these images was a photograph, and the other wasn't:










That seems a little strange to me.

If it's the manipulation that makes it not a photograph, then again, a majority of images, I dare say all images, aren't photographs, even traditional ones. There is at least some manipulation done to every image somewhere down the line. If a photograph was only a photograph if it showed only what was "real", we would have one focal length - whatever was normal for the particular camera; one film - color, and it's saturation would be as natural as possible; one developer - whatever gave the most perfect tones; everyone would shoot at f22 or narrower; etc. 

Photographers have to be graphic artists, otherwise our compositions suck. There are so many variables that we choose amongst. A good way to improve your photographic skill is to take some graphic arts classes along the way.

The digital workflow has blurred the lines, and people don't like that. We like having neat labels that we can apply to things so that they can be sorted, and judged, in our heads. This is something that's going to take a while to settle out. It took a long time for wet-plate photography to be accepted as art. It took a while for color photography to be accepted as real photography (that "color" always had to be tacked on to make sure people knew you weren't talking about "real" photography; people did some strange stuff at the time with that color). It's going to take a while for digital photography to be accepted as just "photography", but it will happen.

I've worked both traditionally and digitally, but right now I'm 100% digital, and I usually have to tell people that my prints are such. They have a hard time telling the difference. I consider myself a photographer, no matter if I pick up my EOS5 or my 10D. I feel I have a stake in this arguement because whenever someone says that digital work isn't photography, they are saying I'm not a photographer. That's everyone's right to think that way, but I'm also going to defend my right to call myself one at the same time. The exact same creative process is going through my head; it's only the tools that differ.


----------



## drdan (Mar 27, 2004)

Well, written Mark!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Very well written Mark!


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 27, 2004)

joseph said:
			
		

> If I can create a photo like image on my computer without actually taking a photo but it look like one is it a photograph? or should we call it something else? it's also an art form but  in my book not a photograph.



Someone has pointed this out before, but I don't remember if it was this thread or not.  Photograph means "light writing", which is pretty vague.  Would the wet plate photographers of old consider shots on 35mm roll film to be "real" photographs?


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

> How is B&W any more real than super-saturated colors? It's the same dramatic change, just in the other direction. The thing that B&W has going for it is that it's been around for more than 100 years, so people are used to it.
> 
> At the turn of the century, traditional photography wasn't even seen as art. It took Alfred Stieglitz a long, hard fight to try and get it at least a little bit of recognition
> 
> It took a long time for wet-plate photography to be accepted as art. It took a while for color photography to be accepted as real photography (that "color" always had to be tacked on to make sure people knew you weren't talking about "real" photography; people did some strange stuff at the time with that color). It's going to take a while for digital photography to be accepted as just "photography", but it will happen.





> Would the wet plate photographers of old consider shots on 35mm roll film to be "real" photographs




So you mean to say 'PhoShograph' (a photoshopped photograph) is going to to be the next art form? And you mean to say it is all in the mindset??


----------



## joseph (Mar 28, 2004)

To me the issue is not the dictionary definition of the word but rather the essence of the photography art form. To me photography was the pursuit of representing a real and meaningful moment in time. The operative word here is "real"  that distinguishes photography from other similar art form. With the  available technology of the time, we had wet plat, b/w, color, but imo it was always trying to represent the real. That is what, to me, is unique to photography. Certainly Picasso's Guernica is not real but boy what a way to covey a moment in time. Similarly a digital creation manipulated and changed by software or for that  matter color filters with film, can also be a wonderful representation of a moment in time...but if we where there would the sunset ever be as red? the sand as white, leaves as green? if not...is it a photograph?


----------



## markc (Mar 28, 2004)

joseph said:
			
		

> but if we where there would the sunset ever be as red? the sand as white, leaves as green? if not...is it a photograph?


I say yes. Because if everything was exactly like it was there, there would be no need for a photographer. We could have a robot taking the pictures.

This again goes back to the fact that photography _can't_ be just like being there. Here's a direct question regarding what you said about the sunset being red: if it's just balck and white and greys, is it a photograph? How is more color different than less color?


----------



## jack (Mar 28, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Where does Photography stands in this era of Photoshop?



hi danalec

what does your question mean ? 
what are you thinking about as such ?


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

Hi Jack,

I/we were wondering: 
-if there is something called photograph today
-or if the next art form is a 'phoshograph' (a photoshopped photograph) 
-Which is real? bw/color and so on?
-Will digital photography come under 'real photography'?

As matt and mark mentioned, there is no right or wrong, no better picture or bad picture...this is a debate/discussion going on here. Feel free to open up your thoughts.

Thanks


----------



## joseph (Mar 29, 2004)

Well, I suppose I think that landscapes in Alaska, for instance, just the way they are is magnificent and do not need enhancement. At the right time, light qnd composition, the photo is a little like being there within the confines of a two dimensional segment  of the place. I do not want the alpenglow to be made more purple then it real is, I want the somewhat dull greens to remain dull. So at least for me that is my objective in taking photos. I do not think I can improve the "look" in nature. Re B&W photos. Again, the reality is in the shapes and shades, Adams did not have color to work with, his zone system attempted to mimic what the eye would sees if we were there. In the final analysis this thread demonstrate that we all have our own interpretation of the endeavor, that is often part of what art is. Anyway interesting discussion.


----------



## drdan (Mar 29, 2004)

Yes but what if the camera did not capture the alpenglow as it really looked to you but you can get it to look like what you really saw by subtle manipulation in PS. That sounds like exactly what Ansel Adams was doing to me.

If I'm taking a picture of Alpenglow it's because I want to share that experience with someone who wasn't there. Despite my best efforts the camera does not have the range of the human eye and may not be able to get all of the "real" look that I experienced. If I can use PS to get closer to what I actually experienced then that is a MORE accurate represention of the moment I was trying to preserve, not less and not fake.

It seems like people sometimes assume that what the camera captured is true "reality" and if it doesn't measure up to what we saw then it's our memories that are faulty. Well, I don't think that's necessarily so. Even people who know the camera can't "see" everything the human eye can, are adamant that only what the camera recorded is real. I want the person viewing the picture to experience what I experienced no matter how I get there. 

A good example is trying to get shots of late afternoon sun in aspen groves with a lot of lush greenery underneath. It's been my experience that this is difficult to photograph well primarily because the camera cannot adapt to see everything with all the contrast of light and shadow, white trunks and dark green leaves and undergrowth like the human eye can. I'm quite sure there are people who can use their camera more effectively than I in such conditions but IMO PS can allow a photographer to get a more accurate representaton of what it's like in a grove like that than the camera alone can.

As has been said, some film does not give "true" colors. That's also true of digital sensors. My Sony, for instance, tends to give pictures that are slightly too cool and green under certain conditions. Which would be more fake, correcting those colors closer to how they really look or letting them stand as they came from the camera?

I certainly understand the distaste for pictures that are supposed to be reality but are manipulated to the point that they don't really resemble what you would see in person. There are shots of Hawaii on a certain website that are all oversaturated. They kind of catch the eye at first but are irritating to use as a monitor background, mostly because they just don't feel or look "right" after a short while.

I know use of PS can get into some very gray areas. That doesn't mean that all enhancements are fake however.


----------



## Harpper (Mar 29, 2004)

This discussion is really in two parts...1) PS being used for photo correction 2) PS being used for photo manipulation.

I can understand how someone might be against number 2 when it comes to photography but PS being used for the first reason is just the same as someone correcting their photos in camera and with tools like filters. Drdan brought up a good point in his last post. Cameras don't always capture what the human eyes see. In order to compensate for that flaw there is a handful of tools photographers can use like filters, extra lighting, using different film, or changing settings in digital cameras.

How is that really different than using PS to do the same corrections? Sure, you get the luxury of doing all in one setting/program but the results are the same. If you are against that then you shouldn't never use any kind of "traditional" hardware photograhpy tools. 

This whole trying to go for "real" photographs by only using the camera is kind of a silly concept if you ask me. Drdan already mentioned some of the limitations from camera only shots but I'll give more examples. Try using a really wide angle lense and take pictures of straight lines near the edges of the lenses. Most likely you won't get straight lines but our eyes don't have this problem. So is that picture you took consider real or would correcting it in PS to make it look more like what our eyes see consider more real?

You also limit yourself greatly if you can't use tools like PS to make corrections. Basically the conditions have to be perfect for you to take "real" shots. For example, pictures taken during noon hours aren't the best time for photography but with PS you can make them decent and normal looking depending on your PS skills. It's just like carrying around filters, speedlights, etc to shot in less than ideal situations. PS let's you do the same.

As for using PS to manipulation photos it can be pretty easy to tell if someone has used PS too much. If you can't tell then I think the person has done a pretty good job of getting the picture "real". As good as PS is it still can't do the impossible. I mean if the picture is really crappy PS might make it look decent but it's not going to be a prize winner. Also like someone said early, too much use of PS can actually make the picture look worst.

You should really think of PS as a touch up/correction tool. It's always better to get the best picture you can out of the camera and then fix any remaining problems with PS. It's really up to the user if they want to make their pictures to look more real or unreal. I'm sure some of you will be surprised at how many "real" pictures have been touched up with PS to make them look that way. Basically, PS compensate for the camera's limitations...real or unreal.


----------



## markc (Mar 29, 2004)

Harpper said:
			
		

> This discussion is really in two parts...1) PS being used for photo correction 2) PS being used for photo manipulation.


Yeah, it seems that people automatically assume Photoshop = flying purple cows.

I think a lot of it comes down to the human need to catagorize. It's something we need to do in order to mentally function, but it often gets in the way of seeing outside the box.

I think a lot of the bands who are being called punk now are really just alt-rock. Some of my favorite music is a mix of metal and rap. Which should it be called? (yeah, I know; some of you would say "junk")

A friend of mine brought up a really good point the other day while several of us were debating some definitions. The dictionary is not some sort of holy books who's definitions are sacrosanct and unchanging. It is a book of words and their meaning _at this current time_. The dictionary is not meant to limit the growth of our languange, it's meant to represents our current cultural state. That's why they are constantly being updated.

I guess it doesn't really matter how we as indiviuals use the words we do. Society as a whole determines where our language goes. That's why bad is good and hot is cool.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 29, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> Yeah, it seems that people automatically assume Photoshop = flying purple cows.



And on the flipside, people think film photography and it must be a 100% accurate capture of reality, but this is rarely the case.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 29, 2004)

Here are some quotes I've always liked, and seem somewhat relevant to this discussion...

Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution. -Ansel Adams

When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without. -Ansel Adams

Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs. -Ansel Adam

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships! -Ansel Adams

The use of the term "art medium" is, to say the least, misleading, for it is the artist that creates a work of art not the medium. It is the artist in photography that gives form to content by a distillation of ideas, thought, experience, insight and understanding. -Edward Steichen

*In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability. -Edward Steichen
*

Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera. -Yousuf Karsh

To convey in the print the feeling you experienced when you exposed your film - to walk out of the darkroom and say: "This is it, the equivalent of what I saw and felt!". That's what it's all about. -John Sexton

In photography we talk about illusions. -John Sexton

The contemporary artist...is not bound to a fully conceived, previsioned end. His mind is kept alert to in-process discovery and a working rapport is established between the artist and his creation. While it may be true, as Nathan Lyons stated, 'The eye and the camera see more than the mind knows,' is it not also conceivable that the mind knows more than the eye and the camera can see? -Jerry Uelsmann

You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus. -Mark Twain

These and many more quotes can be found at
http://www.photoquotes.com/
which someone here on thephotoforum.com turned me on to.


----------



## markc (Mar 29, 2004)

Wow! Good stuff, Matt. I wish I could have met Adams. It sounds like he was a really cool guy.

I've seen quotes from several people who have worked with him that say he would have been into digital photography big-time, because for him it was all about the image at the end, not the process.

I always used to think he would have been a stuffy guy to have come up with something as anal as the zone system, but after learning more about him, I realized that he wasn't try to limit people to the "right" way to make a photograph as he saw it, he was trying to find the most perfect way to go about it with the tools at hand.


----------



## ksmattfish (Mar 29, 2004)

I have no doubt he'd love digital photography, and he even discussed it in his auto-biography.  Of course only briefly as it was still far away into the future then.  By the way, Ansel's auto-biography is pretty interesting, I read it last year.  It'll really change your perception of him.


----------



## markc (Mar 29, 2004)

I didn't realize he wrote one. Man, another book to go on the list.


----------



## joseph (Mar 30, 2004)

I agree with Harpper. No issue with using any technology e.g. PS to represent the "real." I used the "enhance" functions of PS to saturate colors because my D100 exposure and  the camera's electronics "undersaturated." I did my best to represent the color as I remember it and actually checked out my perceptions with traveling companions. My issue is with manipulating the photo to have "unreal" colors as an example. Again, no issue, art is the eye of the photographer, but should we think about this art form i.e manipulated photos  the same as we would if our objective is to have "real" photos? It's not the tools, its the mission. 

For example, on my web page, some time ago, I have posted two abstracts (actually not great photos, to say the least) one is "real" the other is a manipulated image. I do not think of the manipulated one as a photo. 

I real appreciate the thoughtful  commentary in this thread.


----------



## terri (Mar 30, 2004)

> I real appreciate the thoughtful commentary in this thread.



Agreed.   This has been an enjoyable read.


----------



## Harpper (Mar 30, 2004)

joseph said:
			
		

> My issue is with manipulating the photo to have "unreal" colors as an example. Again, no issue, art is the eye of the photographer, but should we think about this art form i.e manipulated photos  the same as we would if our objective is to have "real" photos? It's not the tools, its the mission.
> 
> For example, on my web page, some time ago, I have posted two abstracts (actually not great photos, to say the least) one is "real" the other is a manipulated image. I do not think of the manipulated one as a photo.


Well, that's really the heart of the discussion isn't it? There really isn't a definite answer to this question. It comes down to what markc said about the human need to categorize and define something so there is a clear yes or no answer. The problem is that it depends on *your* definition of what photography is. Everyone's definition is different and it's ok if you only want to achieve "real" photos but let me tell you reality is boring. Some of the best pictures I've seen here and elsewhere aren't "real". 

Photo manipulation doesn't only happen in PS and I didn't really want to go into it unless I had to...I guess I have to. Manipulation also happens in-camera but we are all used to it because it's been around for awhile. Let me use markc's photos as an example. There was a thread in the gallery section that Mark took of a little boy. One had him catching a football and the other was with the boy and a tree in the background. Mark if you can link that thread here I would appreciate it. I'm feeling kind of lazy right now...Anyway, in the first picture Mark cropped the picture very close to the boy, used a shallow DOF to blur out the background, had a nice amount of grain which gave a unique artist touch, and lastly it was in B&W. Now how can you tell me that's real unless you have some really screwed up eyes. Also would you or would you not still call those pictures photography? They obviously have been manipulated but I think most people here would still call that photography. The difference is that those methods have been accept in the photography community while PS is still new.

It just depends on how narrow your definition of photography is. For the sake of argument, let's just say the definition of photography should be only for real photos. When I say real here, I mean exactly what your eyes see. This would mean that the only lense you can use is a 50mm prime because that's the closest range our eyes sees. You can use filters to compensate for the camera's lacking ability to represent real colors but you can't use them to give an artistic unreal look. Yes, you don't need PS to do that. You can do that with filters and if you have digital you can easily do that by playing with the white balance. Actually in the future more digital cameras will probably have more PS like functions built into them but since it's in the camera people probably won't have this outcry about PS. For example, I can easily sharping and soften a picture in-camera and taking B&W pictures is as easy as pressing a button. You also can't use any motion blur because that's not real. Basically you have really limited yourself just to get "true" pictures.

Going back to Mark's pictures, to make them real he would have to not crop his picture in an interesting way, focus the background, make it in color, and make the whole picture as sharp as the eyes sees. That sounds pretty close to a snapshot to me, but then again that could just be me. Of course, I'm exaggerating the definition of real to make a point but still. Manipulations happen in just about every form of art and photography is no exception. Would any say Mark's pictures were not photography? I think I have proved that manipulations can happen with traditional photography tools. There's no need for PS when it comes to manipulation. If everything was normal and real I don't think it would be called art but let's not get into a discussion about what's art. A manipulated photo is just a different form of photography just like real life paintings vs abstract painting. They are still both paintings.

Cameras, filters, other traditional camera tools, and PS are just tools to achieve what you the artist want to display to the world. If you want only "real" pictures then more power to you but some of us don't want completely real pictures but rather a venture into the unreal. Could you seriously call Mark's pictures non-photographic or can you serious say his pictures have not been manipulated? Nature and reality doesn't always have the best colors nor are they always framed right with perfect lighting. If they were then photography would be easy. There have been many times that I have made a picture exactly the way I saw it but I then realized that it was the most boring picture I have ever taken.

Let me use another example that's very close to photography. The movie industry had a somewhat similar reaction when digital was introduced, but I think it's safe to say digital has had a major acceptance. For example, Star Wars and The Lord of The Rings weren't shy about using digital manipulations...but are they any less a movie? The creatures they created were definitely unreal as were some of the backgrounds, and if you really have a good eye colors aren't always correct because of several reasons like the real colors are too dull. I forgot the name of this one movie but it had a slight bluish hue through the entire movie for a unique artistic effect. I thought it worked well with the movie style. How can you tell me that's not considered a movie just because it didn't use real colors?

Did you also know that photographic advertisers sometimes paint fruits and other natural items to make them look better and more "normal" or societies' definition of normal? They also paint them different colors for an artist expression or message. How is that different then doing the same thing in PS? Some of the unreal manipulations you can be mimiced in the real world but it's more cost effective and easier to do in PS. For example, if you really want flying purple cows then just paint some cows purple, launch them with a catapult, and take your picture. If you want your flowers to have a richer color just paint them or use PS. Advertisers have been doing that for years before PS came about.

What's real to you may not look good to someone else. If your objective in photography is to only take "real" photos then that's your definition of photography, but that's definitely not my definition. There's really no absolute answer because it just depends on each person's definition. I see PS manipulated pictures as just another form of photographry such as oil, ceramic, finger, and body painting are just different forms of painting.


----------



## joseph (Apr 1, 2004)

This discussion helped me define my photographic goal as follows: I try to take "real" and hopefully compelling photos, due to optimized composition, light, and so on, so that when the viewer actually observes the subject of the photo he would say "it looks like Joe's photo" and having  seen the photo he would have a special appreciation, understanding, meaning etc. of the subject. Now, I carved out something I can work toward, and let me tell ya I have a ways to go....


----------



## Harpper (Apr 1, 2004)

joseph said:
			
		

> This discussion helped me define my photographic goal as follows: I try to take "real" and hopefully compelling photos, due to optimized composition, light, and so on, so that when the viewer actually observes the subject of the photo he would say "it looks like Joe's photo" and having  seen the photo he would have a special appreciation, understanding, meaning etc. of the subject. Now, I carved out something I can work toward, and let me tell ya I have a ways to go....


Well, I'm glad this discussion has helped you. When you look any art form it really comes down to you the artist and what you are trying to say or display to the world. There's no need to follow a specific idea of what should or should not be done as long as you the artist are happy with the end result.

Good luck to you joseph. No matter what type of photography you choose to do now or in the future I'll always respect you for it. That also goes for everyone else here. I could care less how you guys got to the end result. My philosophy is to just appreciate the outcome because in the end I believe that's all that matters.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

Do the photographers in publications like Time, National Geogaphic use PS as well?


----------



## markc (Apr 2, 2004)

The Photographers probably don't, as usually they just send the images in, but the editors usually do. Think of the original digital capture as a negative and the editing software as the darkroom. Printing a straight digital capture with no editing is like having an 8x10 negative of Kodak Gold that you make a contact print from with average chemicals and average development time (disregarding the resolution of an 8x10 neg).


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

hmmmm okay!

I just have to change my mindset. 

I used to think using PS is similar to seeking help from bystanders when one is crippled. I should consider PS as an integral part of the digital photo making process.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 2, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> I should consider PS as an integral part of the digital photo making process.



I don't think you have to consider the use of any technique or equipment essential, just possible.  

There are many photographers with very different ideas that consider themselves "purists"; they choose to limit themselves to certain equipment and techniques, and if that's what works for them then that's great.  

Other folks bring in ideas that begin blurring what we might consider the definition of photography with other art forms; this doesn't keep it from also being photography.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

What is it that we should strive for? 

1. Get the clearest vision that a lens could get

and/or

2. Create a visual treat by any means (PS or similar tools)?


----------



## Harpper (Apr 2, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> What is it that we should strive for?
> 
> 1. Get the clearest vision that a lens could get
> 
> ...


Well, that's what we have been discussing in this thread. It just depends on what your goal is in photography. If your goal is to get perfect pictures from accepted traditional photography methods then that's your goal. On the other hand if you goal is to get the exact picture you invisioned in your head using whatever means you can get then that's your goal.

I don't know if this is your first venture into the art fields, but if you are waiting for us to tell you what to do then what you will create is just a carbon copy of what we tell you. Sure, you can learn techiques, strategies, and copying someone's style is a good way to learn but the ultimate decision lies in you the photographer. You need to decide for yourself whether using PS will help or hinder your pictures or if it goes against a "purist" philosophy you have.

Most of the great photographers and artists I've seen use rules as only guidlines and do whatever is necessary to make the art they want. If that means being a "purist" and not touching things like Photoshop then to each thier own, but usually the more tools you have to play with the better chance you have to create the exact art you want. 

Of course, not everyone is going to like your work but as long as you like it then I think that's all that matters....well, unless you are going to sell your work then you have to think about how others like it. Like I said it depends on what you want to get from photography.

Some people like the challenge of being a purist or some of them think of it almost like a "religion" and thou shall not use PS for "real" photography. There's really no right or wrong. It's more of a personal preference. Although I personal believe you should always try to get the best pictures in camera first because it not only means less work later but some things can't be corrected well in PS. I can't tell you how many pictures I had to give up on because PS couldn't fully fix the problem. PS isn't the holy grail for perfect pictures. It does have it's limitations.


----------



## markc (Apr 2, 2004)

Harpper said:
			
		

> PS isn't the holy grail for perfect pictures. It does have it's limitations.



Yeah. It can't make people naked. :|


----------



## oriecat (Apr 2, 2004)

Unlike a dark room...


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 2, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> What is it that we should strive for?



To create that which moves *your* soul.   

Do you want to be a rich and famous photographer?  Then any boobie snapshot of Britney Spears will do.

If you have no personal satisfaction in your work, then it doesn't matter if they are lining up around the block to tell you how cool you are.

If you find satifaction, even joy in your work, then it does not matter if no one else does.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 3, 2004)

*ksmattfish wrote:*


> To create that which moves *your* soul.



I agree. 

But IF I am going to be in the commercial arena, I think I will be forced in moving *someone else's *soul ; at least for starters!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 12, 2004)

Was at Boston this weekend.... 
Was disappointed with the pictures!!

As I was mentioning it in another post, I know it needs lots of practice to get the picture better. 

But I think I'm starting to slowly fall in love with Photoshop. 
I love it when I see the picture desaturates!! Its one amazing phenomenon!!! 

Yes, I _now_ see where Photoshop steps in. I was totally on the wrong side of the picture, where I thought PS was a life saver. 

This had been a very helpful thread![/i]

I have placed some of the pics that I like in the album titled '*trying out bw*'   (www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma)

Your constructive critisisms/thoughts/suggestions welcome!


----------



## drlynn (Apr 13, 2004)

Some very interesting shots in that b&w album, danalec.

Your eye is developing very nicely! I was really intrigued by some of those shots. I especially liked Boston 044-bw, 038-bw, and "decay."

Being at work, I didn't have time to really look at all of them, so I concentrated on the 1st page. 

Very nice work! You're building quite a portfolio.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 14, 2004)

drlynn said:
			
		

> Some very interesting shots in that b&w album, danalec.
> 
> Your eye is developing very nicely! I was really intrigued by some of those shots. I especially liked Boston 044-bw, 038-bw, and "decay."
> 
> ...



What a way to start a day!!  Thank you drlynn 

I initially was depressed with the boston results. But 'desaturation' made me make a severe U turn! 
Love the raw power of b&w. Even though we simply call it black and white, I feel it is richly packed with many different shades of both the color.

Re. the pics you mentioned:
I feel "decay" could have been more sharper!
"044-bw" was sheer luck
"038-bw" - She was not posing. We were really figuring out the schedule for the next day! 

I observe the works in www.magnumphotos.com(click on '*Photographers*' to see their astounding works), and markc's site (http://www.markcarpenter.com/gallery/albums.php).

Certainly do have miles to go!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 14, 2004)

I'm sorry. There was an error in my prev. mail.  When I said 038-bw, I actually meant, 061-bw. 061-bw is that shot that she did not pose for. 

I got the 038-bw frame while we were driving on State st.!


----------



## thebigbillybob (Apr 17, 2004)

i have done some multiple exposures in the darkroom i flooded a mall it loooks soooo tite but i aint got a scanner to scan it here otherwise id post it... but we did it for class no one elses came close to mine i was so proud   just the spacing and everything worked out sooo well its soo much fun and feels so awsome to do that in the darkroom it also takes a  lotta patience took like 10 pieces of paper to get my final print also im not sure if uelsmann did it this way but i know you can just do it however i dont typically like ther result but u can just take two shots on the same neg...  but yes i agree photoshop is just a sign of the times i like it because some of my color negs can be turned into bw which looks good but i also respect the darkroom so its cool haha


----------



## wwjoeld (Apr 17, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. There was an error in my prev. mail.  When I said 038-bw, I actually meant, 061-bw. 061-bw is that shot that she did not pose for.
> 
> I got the 038-bw frame while we were driving on State st.!




You know, if you make a mistake in your post you can just hit *edit*, in the top left hand side of the actual post and you can make changes to the original post.

It saves the forum from being bogged down.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 17, 2004)

wwjoeld said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I apologize for my ignorance!


----------



## joseph (Apr 17, 2004)

Last issue of Pop Photography illustrates the issues. There is a PS  tutorial in it that shows how to change a day time scene to night scene including stars and light beam from a street lamp. Looks pretty good and  as a "real"  photo, which in my book it is not. Additionally, in the same issue Pop Photo changed it's name to Popular Photography (AND)  imaging. In my mind the PS manipulated creation is an IMAGE a photo is unmanipulated. Semantics? I do not think so, if you call it an image it conveys a distinction with a difference.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 17, 2004)

joseph said:
			
		

> In my mind the PS manipulated creation is an IMAGE a photo is unmanipulated. Semantics? I do not think so, if you call it an image it conveys a distinction with a difference.



The thing is that what you are calling "unmanipulated" is very much manipulated.  If people want to think of chemical manipulation as being different than digital manipulation, that's fine, but photographs have been highly manipulated since the discovery of the processes long ago.

I wonder if 30 years from now people will have the same discussions, except that images worked in Photoshop will be considered the old fashioned, pure images, while the images produced using the latest technology will be considered new-fangled and somehow not as pure.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 17, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> *ksmattfish wrote:*
> 
> 
> > To create that which moves *your* soul.
> ...



I don't think so.  I'm not sure "soul" and "commercial" work very well together.  For the commercial arena you want to move someone else's product.  Just don't lose your soul in the bargin.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 17, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats right; its all in the perception!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 17, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But in a commercial arena, won't we be heavily controlled by the client's whims??


----------



## canonrebel (Apr 18, 2004)

I think this subject is entirely relative.

If my darkroom abilities  were better than anyone else's in the world, I would want Photo Shop banned.  If I didn't know Photo Shop as well as I knew my dark room, I would also want Photo Shop banned.  If I were capable of producing better art with Photo Shop than with my dark room, I would favor co-existance.

Now I don't really condone what I've just written above, but I think there are too many people who have similar perspectives as the one mentioned above.  And I say shame on them.

I am into beauty.  I like snow when it drifts.  I like beautiful sunsets and sunrises.  I like babies, kittens, puppies, goslings and ducklings.  I like Old people and young people and  love.  I like serene brooks, lakes and water falls.  I strive to  capture these things with a camera in order that I might freeze a moment in time that will become immortal memories from which to derive pleasure again and even again.

I feel that you owe it to your love of the hobby to perfect the most beautiful photo which you're capable by any means of which you're capable.  If it's not worth your very best possible effort, then what is it worth?  I also feel that every photo fresh out of the camera can be improved upon. 

The Rebel


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> Now I don't really condone what I've just written above, but I think there are too many people who have similar perspectives as the one mentioned above.  And I say shame on them.



Could you  elaborate on this statement, please?


----------



## canonrebel (Apr 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> canonrebel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This was describing someone who doesn't think a digitally manipulated photo should be considered as art because he hasn't perfected it yet.

I can't draw good pictures, but I'll try to draw one for you...

So, here goes.....
This is probably the part of my post that is possibly giving you difficulty.  I was trying to be subtle in expressing my pro/con opinion on photo editing when I expressed the following excerpt.....





> If my darkroom abilities were better than anyone else's in the world, I would want Photo Shop banned. If I didn't know Photo Shop as well as I knew my dark room, I would also want Photo Shop banned. If I were capable of producing better art with Photo Shop than with my dark room, I would favor co-existance.



This does not apply to me because I have nothing against digitally edited pictures as being photographic art and I think digital manipulation has a place in photographic art (just as much as dark room manipulation has a place in photographic art). I wonder if only those darkroom manipulators who haven't taken the time to tackle the intimidating learning curve of PhotoShop would deny photoshop it's place in the world of art.  And if you are one of those darkroom manipulators who is prejudiced against digital editing because you haven't yet learned to do it, then I say "shame on you".   One mode of manipulation is just as legal in the world of art as the other.  Ultimately, it's only the end result that matters.

I still have my old darkroom (an elaborate darkroom which I haven't used for 20 years).  I achieve more production with photoshop in one hour than was possible with my darkroom using an entire Saturday afternoon.  And the results from photoshop are just as rightous as any results ever achieved in my darkroom.  Plus there's a real advantage to not having to mix chemicals and cleanup the mess afterwoards.  

This is my story--and I'm sticking to it.

The Rebel


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 19, 2004)

PHEW!! 

Well, I do not think we do not have the other group here in this forum!


----------



## jack (Apr 19, 2004)

i would guess . 99% pf commercial photography is about as
'artistic' as using (and maintaining) a photocopier really well.

its a very slim niche of professional photography that requires 
artistic expression. much stuff considered "creativity", IMO is actually,
just the initiate's development of the effective Procedure. 




			
				ksmattfish said:
			
		

> danalec99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

