Digital manipulations

[NadMat]

About manipulation of photos. While I love PS even if not good at it, it sure doesn't feel as 'magical' as doing it in the darkroom did.

OTOH, it is much easier to pack my laptop for travel than it would be to load up even a B&W darkroom setup.

Also, while I still love 'real' film sometimes, I must admit that having a digicam and a few 512M or better cards and my laptop to dump them in and edit is much easier than either traveling with all the film I think I may need or worrying about whether I can get more at destination, plus working to guarantee that film does not get X-ray'd

Just my 2 psi

 

[Diver Dennis]

Matt, manipulating film is an art as well. I've never used a darkroom but it does seem more organic than sitting in front of a computer.

 

[Jamdiver]

About manipulation of photos. While I love PS even if not good at it, it sure doesn't feel as 'magical' as doing it in the darkroom did.

OTOH, it is much easier to pack my laptop for travel than it would be to load up even a B&W darkroom setup.

Also, while I still love 'real' film sometimes, I must admit that having a digicam and a few 512M or better cards and my laptop to dump them in and edit is much easier than either traveling with all the film I think I may need or worrying about whether I can get more at destination, plus working to guarantee that film does not get X-ray'd

Just my 2 psi

Quite true Nadmat, I sometimes wish that I had been interested in photography in the days of film and the darkroom.
Not that people don't do this today, but it's not the most prevalent medium for capturing photos.

Anyway yes, there is something romantic and I use it the truest meaning of the word- ( marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized) about putting a roll of film in your camera and watching the counter go from 36 to 0, dropping off the film at a photo place or developing it in a darkroom and watching your images come to life.

I think perhaps the OP and others miss the 'physicality' of this process, the sort of tangible evidence of their work.......
Lol, but for me a memory card and the image on my monitor or print if I choose to have one made is great for me .

 

[NadMat]

Dennis, you are right, I just wish I were an artist at it

However, most I can claim is enthusiastic amateur
But my photo's are mostly for me, although I do share sometimes.

And having started young and used many film formats through the years I must admit it was fun, perhaps because of the many challenges involved.

Shooting with everything from pinhole cameras made out of oatmeal containers, to 35mm, to borrowing and renting some large format professional rigs forces one to think alot about what is going on. And as said before, developing film and printing pics in darkroom always felt like magic or alchemy. A much more mystical experience than PS.

But requires much time, space, and equipment, plus learning darkroom techniques will burn a lot of paper, no undo buttons.

Digital is much more portable and convienient and also allows more people the opportunity to take and edit their own great pics. Almost all my photos are taken and edited digitally nowadays, although I do still enjoy shooting 35mm, I no longer have a darkroom setup.

And as said before, for travel digital really rocks.

 

[Tortuga Roja]

When i look on the web I see many beautiful photo’s but if I look closer I see that these photo’s are manipulated in Photoshop. In the old days there were photographers who for me were real artists it looks now that there a lot of artists but if you look closer they can not compete to my heroes from the past. Gentlemen good photo’s are made with knowledge about what your doing and not by making average photo’s look better in Photoshop. My suggestion is that every body who manipulates there photo’s in Photoshop and are working beyond cropping and making it sharper should tell it. And all contests should be clean of manipulations of photo’s. I hope with this a discussions will start over manipulations of photo’s

To me, it all boils down to whether you look at photography as an art or a competition. On this forum and others, I have seen people of both minds and both are valid but different. The quote above is confusing the two by trying to put artists in a competition. I don’t think you can mix art and competitions with good results.

If you are of the competition mindset, there has to be a level playing field which is created by a bunch of rules. That's why contests almost always have rules about film or digital, compact or dSLR, beginner or pro, these PS tools are ok and these are not. All contests have slightly different rules and to enter one you must study the rules and abide by them.

Although I have entered a few contests, I like to think of my images more as art than a competition. Art after all shouldn’t be stifled by rules. You can’t “cheat” with art unless you plagiarize. The point is to bring out some sort of emotion in the viewer. This has nothing to do with how the image was created but rather the impact of the final product. Could you imagine if all of the artists of the past were only allowed to use watercolor or clay? Could you imagine if Ansel Adams was not allowed to do any darkroom manipulations? Boring!!

These discussions always make me wonder if, when photography was first taking hold, painters were calling photographers “cheaters” because they were using chemicals instead of brushes.

Practically speaking, the more control you have over your image, the better art you can produce because the idea is only to share what your mind envisioned. More control comes from knowing all of the tools available to you from tripod to Unsharp Mask. When someone shows a digital picture that is “straight outa the camera,” they are showing an image that has had the contrast, sharpness, and white balance determined by a computer - a chip programmed by an engineer at the camera factory. Hardly creative control. OTOH, if someone shoots in RAW and adjusts those things in Photoshop, they have more control of their art. There is no question in my mind that the most exciting images are coming from those that understand all aspects of digital photography and there is also great art still coming from pinhole cameras.

I don’t think true artists are trying to compete with other artists of the past or future. They are just doing what they feel. If you feel the need to compare Ansel Adams with Jim Church, you are missing the whole point IMO.

(snip)... Gentlemen good photo’s are made with knowledge about what your doing and not by making average photo’s look better in Photoshop...(snip)

BTW, there are ladies on this forum too.

 

[bladephotog]

I for one don't miss the days of spending endless hours in the darkroom spilling nasty chemicals all over myself. Call me crazy but I didn't think there was anything romatic at all about it.

And this really is an endless argument. It's all about drawing lines. Where do you draw the line with what is acceptable manipulation and what isn't? This discussion has been around since the beginning of photography.

 

[Jamdiver]

To me, it all boils down to whether you look at photography as an art or a competition. On this forum and others, I have seen people of both minds and both are valid but different. The quote above is confusing the two by trying to put artists in a competition. I don’t think you can mix art and competitions with good results.

If you are of the competition mindset, there has to be a level playing field which is created by a bunch of rules. That's why contests almost always have rules about film or digital, compact or dSLR, beginner or pro, these PS tools are ok and these are not. All contests have slightly different rules and to enter one you must study the rules and abide by them.

Although I have entered a few contests, I like to think of my images more as art than a competition. Art after all shouldn’t be stifled by rules. You can’t “cheat” with art unless you plagiarize. The point is to bring out some sort of emotion in the viewer. This has nothing to do with how the image was created but rather the impact of the final product. Could you imagine if all of the artists of the past were only allowed to use watercolor or clay? Could you imagine if Ansel Adams was not allowed to do any darkroom manipulations? Boring!!

These discussions always make me wonder if, when photography was first taking hold, painters were calling photographers “cheaters” because they were using chemicals instead of brushes.

Practically speaking, the more control you have over your image, the better art you can produce because the idea is only to share what your mind envisioned. More control comes from knowing all of the tools available to you from tripod to Unsharp Mask. When someone shows a digital picture that is “straight outa the camera,” they are showing an image that has had the contrast, sharpness, and white balance determined by a computer - a chip programmed by an engineer at the camera factory. Hardly creative control. OTOH, if someone shoots in RAW and adjusts those things in Photoshop, they have more control of their art. There is no question in my mind that the most exciting images are coming from those that understand all aspects of digital photography and there is also great art still coming from pinhole cameras.

I don’t think true artists are trying to compete with other artists of the past or future. They are just doing what they feel. If you feel the need to compare Ansel Adams with Jim Church, you are missing the whole point IMO.




BTW, there are ladies on this forum too.

Bravo Tortuga . Very, very well said.

And you're quite right bladephotog, but I personally haven't seen this topic enough for me not to be interested in responding to it.

I just couldn't help not adding my 2 cents though

 

[bladephotog]

By all means discuss it if you like. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't. But for me it's kind of like a dog chasing its' tail - pointless but amusing.

 

[mattroz]

Matt, manipulating film is an art as well. I've never used a darkroom but it does seem more organic than sitting in front of a computer.

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to infer that Darkroom manipulation isn't an art. What I was trying to get across in my haste to post before getting busted at work is that the picture isn't finished when it's saved on the card (or film) there is still work to be done. Basically what Jam said right after me.

 

[Diver Dennis]

No worries mattroz, I was not directing that remark at you, I understood what you meant.