Digital manipulations

[Diver Dennis]

All good points Mike. I agree.

 

[tankboygreg]

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.

I don't miss those days either. I even took a class in school and we had a darkroom at home. I never got into it.

This argument always shows up. Sport Diver Magazine was recently editorializing on the subject. They showed two pictures of a fish one was not "enhanced" and was pink in color. The other was "enhanced" and was a deeper shade of red. The point was that it was more honest to show the pink fish. However, even in film, much less digital, it is possible to "enhance" colors through the film you choose, the lighting you choose, the filter you choose, or how the lab processes the print. What is the true color of the fish or the subject of any picture for that matter?

 

[pakman]

now where did CP62 go??

 

[Hammerhead]

maybe, just maybe...

 

[jonix]

well said jam and tortuga! can't add anything more. anyways, personally if i'd have it my way i'd prefer not doing any PS on my photos...but i don't like the idea of a chip controlling how an image i shot should look like.

btw, i shoot with both a digital compact and a film slr

 

[CP62]

Well I made one bad mistake in my post and that was I said gentlemen and forgot about woman photographers. And I am very sorry that I made this mistake I have to tell you that I am married already for 20 jears and I love woman and respect them. So again to al the woman
In the world I am sorry that I made this mistake. But still I have problem with digital manipulations because they show us a world underwater
that does not exists. The water is never as blue as in photo’s your making things look better.
When a new diver goes diving for the first time he or she will be disappointed because he or she will not see the colors as shown in the magazines. In my eyes photography is art. I have no problem with a bit of cropping of making it a bit sharper. David Doubilet’s and Ruud Rozendaal and of course there are more but these guys are artists. I once had a little chat with Stephen Frink in Florida and he is a nice person and for me a great photographer. These guys are artists.

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

The water is never as blue as in photo’s your making things look better.

Actually I use Photoshop to remove the blue hue and get some colour back in the picture. But where do you draw the line:

Is it ok to put a filter on a camera to take a shot? If so then whats wrong with getting the same effect using photoshop?

Photography has changed. The tools of the trade have changed. The negative has been replaced by the RAW file. The enlarger and the trays have been replaced by Photoshop and a computer. Correct paper and film selection by an understanding of colour levels, curves and filters.

The eye for a good shot and the ability to produce the image you envisaged remains the same.

Cheers,
Rohan.

 

[_Bella_]

It's funny that you mention photogs like Stephen Frink and David Doubilet. They chose specific films for the colour, saturation and effect that it will lend to their photographs. That is why through the years film manufacturers were always providing such a wide assortment. Velvia was loved by nature photographers for it's exagerated colours (were they true to life?) but it made a mess of skin tones, so portrait photogs prefered a different film, and then there were sports photogs, architecture, fine art, the list goes on. Each and every specialty had a film that was very generally preferred because it gave a desired interpretation of a scene.
So again I ask the question what is the difference between chosing RVP over E100VS. Very different films, with very different curves and yet photogs could get into wars about which one represents their vision more correctly. Why is the chemical company allowed to interpret my vision and I should not be?

 

[Mike Veitch]

Hi my name is Mike... and i shoot digital photography...

i am still trying to get the nice blues i used to get with my provia... i can't seem to do it with digital...

But damn.. i sure love the convenience of not having to scan and store my slides to make them digital... because that is what i did with all my slides...

sure is nice not to have to haul around that scanner, and E6 machine, and chemicals, and slide mounts, and sleeves, and books, and pay those overweight fees due to all the books of slides, and not have to worry about xray machines ruining my film, or not being able to have my slides processed on location, or worry about chemicals going bad, or or or or and and and and and....

Suck it up pal.. its the way of it, its called technology and advancments. I too was skeptical at first, but haven't shot a roll of film in about 18 months now, not worth it...and boy has my work load lessened...

WOuld you rather have typed out your messages on a typewriter and sent it off in a letter to the board mods to post for you? same thing...

 

[bladephotog]

Well you can't call photography art and simultaneously argue that manipulations shouldn't be allowed. Again, it's about where you draw the lines. For me, I like to try and keep to the truth as I saw it. Now I will boost saturation, sharpen, crop, dodge and burn. But no combining of images or cloning out anything other than dust spots.