Digital manipulations

[CP62]

Again I am not against technology please I use it every day. And remarks about a typewriter are remarks that I do not want to hear. This a discussion about which direction photography is going. If you look on my website you see photos all made with a Nikon F70
And yes there are scanned and I cropped . But I do not consider myself a good photographer just a average Joe who try’s.
But call me old-fashioned I do not like it when a photographer takes a photo
that is not bad and works on it and changes layers and at they end of the work it does not
resemble the photo what came from the camera. And please do not start about pushing the film a bit of working with different brands of film you can not compare this with what you can do with Photoshop. And I also understand that magazines have to sell so photos have to be great. English is not my native langue so if make mistakes I am sorry.

 

[miketsp]

..snip..
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.
..snip..

In the good old days did you ever ask a professional photographer to let you have one of his negatives so that you could get it blown up to produce a poster or for later use?
I asked on a few occasions and never got one.
The answer was always the same - the negative was only the first part of the process.
When I ordered prints from the photographer I was paying for the finished product & not for an intermediate step.
It was quite obvious that there was a significant manipulation between the negative and the print and any photographer that had a reputation to keep up wouldn't risk someone producing an inferior print from one of his negatives.

 

[Mike Veitch]

how about advancements in video? things like Hi Def? Editing on computers now instead of reel to reel? The ability to manually WB at depth with the flick of a finger.. the ease of colour correction before showin it on the big screen...

No offense but have you seen some of the fantastic films they put out on the big IMAX screens? (which is film, not digital) Do you think they do any colour correction in the editing process? Are they no longer considered great UW documentaries if there is colour correction?

Just curious as to your stance on post editing in that area. I also shoot video...

 

[shugar]

how about advancements in video? things like Hi Def? Editing on computers now instead of reel to reel? The ability to manually WB at depth with the flick of a finger.. the ease of colour correction before showin it on the big screen...

No offense but have you seen some of the fantastic films they put out on the big IMAX screens? (which is film, not digital) Do you think they do any colour correction in the editing process? Are they no longer considered great UW documentaries if there is colour correction?

Just curious as to your stance on post editing in that area. I also shoot video...

digital is bad... why do you think the cavemen opted for paint?

Jag

 

[_Bella_]

Did they even use paint? I thought they just carved out pictures with rocks..

 

[Zeeman]

Oh man! What is up with this fuel injection crap for modern engines? I no longer get that raw edge sound when I nail the throttle! Sure, I get more power, smoother delivery, better reliability, better efficiency, but it just ain't an engine unless it's got pushrods and carbs from the 1930's leaking petrol and oil all over my garage floor!


Z..

 

[bladephotog]

Check out the work of Jerry Uelsmann. This is done in the darkroom without Photoshop.

In the good old days did you ever ask a professional photographer to let you have one of his negatives so that you could get it blown up to produce a poster or for later use?
I asked on a few occasions and never got one.
The answer was always the same - the negative was only the first part of the process.
When I ordered prints from the photographer I was paying for the finished product & not for an intermediate step.
It was quite obvious that there was a significant manipulation between the negative and the print and any photographer that had a reputation to keep up wouldn't risk someone producing an inferior print from one of his negatives.

 

[Tortuga Roja]

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.

In your 1st post you were talking about competition and art as though they were the same thing. Now you are comparing art with reporting. If your plan is to bring back images to show new divers what to expect, you are reporting. Like competitions, that's fine too. But not necessarily art.

If seeing images that are only cropped a little and sharpened a little is what does it for you, fine. I respect your opinion to like or dislike whatever images you choose, but you are contradicting yourself in your posts.

The pros that you like are NOT replicating what they saw with their eyes while diving. They are replicating what they saw in their mind's eye. They are also using manipulations of one sort or another to bring out color and contrast and white balance and a field of view. It may be the use of macro or WAL's, strobes, film, camera settings, Photoshop, or a combination of all, but it's manipulation.

If you really want to shoot pix that really look like what you see with the naked eye when diving, you would have to go without a strobe and only use a 50mm lens. Then you would still have to do some manipulation to get it to look real.

And if you think that Doubilet's splits are what it really looks like when you're diving, I wanna go where you dive!! Oh and next time you are talking to Frink, you might want to ask him if he uses Photoshop for more than "bit of cropping or making it a bit sharper" before publishing.

 

[_Bella_]

taking the picture in the camera has always been a first step, a first step with hundreds of variables. Choices of films, choice of external lighting, choice of filters, all to interpret a scene. After the image, there were choices of chemicals and processing times to give more or less saturation, contrast, and colour variables. Then the printing choices were added to the already huge mountain of "my head is hurting and I can't remember what I took a picture of anymore". Choices of exposure, choices of developer, developing times, tonings, dodging and burning, and then there's the dizzying array of papers.

If you really believe that most of the processes provided by Photoshop haven't been available all along, then pick up a copy of Ansel Adams "The Negative" and "The Print" and be suprised.

I've printed in my own chemical colour lab the same image as I've printed on my epson 2400. The digital print took more time than the chemical if I don't count the amount of time I was sitting counting down the clock in the dark.

 

[Mike Veitch]

sorry bella, didn't see your reply... was off ordering some chemicals for my Jobo...

Ok, i know that this looks like everyone is ganging up on the original poster and some of us are posting some off colour (and slightly retouched via the computer) comments.. but..

I truly find it very very interesting to see just how many people are sold on digital and comments on this thread confirm it.. amazing how fast it took over in just the last 6 years or so