Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,654   Posts: 1,481,376   Online: 1078
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ... and devoid of original integrity related to original capture.
    This is a very problematic thought. Although photography is capable of representing reality in some sense, that isn't necessarily a rule.

    A few simple examples.

    Black and White photography, the world is colorful what's up with that? Really, is that anywhere near the normal view most of us see?

    Cropping, when we take a photo we pick a composition, we crop it right out of the whole. For any given photo most of the context that our composition resides in is left out. Without the context how are we supposed to judge the integrity of a subjects tears? The scene can be real and misrepresented at the same time.

    Color, we choose the films we put in our cameras. Velvia is a favorite of many, I've seen many gorgeous photos done on Velvia, what I can't say about most of those photos is that the colors represented in those tranny's ever really existed in the scene.

    Studio portraiture, is normally fully and absolutely artificial, but it does exist in the real tangible world. From makeup through lighting and set building to posing it is completely contrived. It is Photoshop before the fact.

    Studio portraiture's little brother is flash photography.

    Colored lens filters manipulate how the film sees/how it renders colors.

    Soft-focus lenses change the texture of a subjects skin. Vaseline on the lens can also be used.

    Short depth of field controls context, blurring away things that aren't wanted.

    Okay I'll quit, even though I could go on.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    I'll throw this in:

    So why is image manipulation using different exposure and development tecnhiques and variations without criticism? I'm arguing it's the same thing, more or less, as print manipulation.

  3. #13
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,173
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Dodging & Burning In – I know this is sometimes necessary when producing a print. However, if you photograph something with the correct lighting ratio for the film you are using and get the exposure and development right, this is often not necessary. ...
    Respectfully disagree.

    You do qualify your original statements with the words I've highlighted, but the overall tenor of the post seems to make me think that you disapprove of dodging and burning, or somehow consider it cheating. Please don't take this personally, (we don't know each other), but this is your opinion and mine is that dodging and burning is a perfectly legitimate and useful tool. and is often necessary to convey the original vision of the photographer.

    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ... I also think that some of the maps shown by printers who do extensive dodging and burning are really trying to show they have some special skill which should be emulated by others. Almost comparable with Photoshop manipulation and devoid of original integrity related to original capture.
    How is it different, with respect to integrity, than adjusting development times, or the exposure index of the film to suit personal preferences? Or any of the other things we all do to "get the exposure and development right"? How is it different from the selection of printing paper and its development?

    Granted, if I am doing studio work, or have the advantage of controlling the lighting, I can "often" make negatives that require little, if any, manipulation in printing. However, if I'm "in the field" and have to deal with whatever lighting is there, dodging and burning to bring the image in line with what I saw when I made the image is not a breach of integrity.

    This seems to me to be along the same lines of puritan reasoning as those who believe that cropping is wrong. The comparison to Photoshop is a straw man ...

    EDIT: I see others are saying much the same things. It took me a while to write this.
    Last edited by David Brown; 01-08-2012 at 03:53 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: additions

  4. #14
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
    I'll throw this in:

    So why is image manipulation using different exposure and development tecnhiques and variations without criticism? I'm arguing it's the same thing, more or less, as print manipulation.
    I basically agree. A print is, after all, a re-photograph of the photograph. Many of the games you can play in the capture phase can also be played in the darkroom. After all, there are GNDs and such.

    I am not one to assert purity of technique nor insist that we must all adopt the ethics of photojournalism; I think one has to do whatever is necessary to make the desired statement.

    But... my points are that (1) if you can do most of your work "in camera" then your darkroom work will be much less laborious, so looking for the light you need is essential; and (2) poorly executed, d&b leads to some unnatural effects, so again, having a sense of how to wait for and use the available light is very helpful.

    D&b can produce some really terrible things, I know because I've made a few myself. An example is a bank of perfectly gentle clouds that have been artificially made to look ominous, and so forth. That's one d&b cliche that I cannot take! Expert printers like Mr. Carnie don't commit such offenses, of course
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  5. #15
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Almost comparable with Photoshop manipulation and devoid of original integrity related to original capture.
    If you could offer up some example of what you mean..........but so far, I completely disagree with your assessment.

    So, if I have a well executed negative (meaning, that I have gotten the "exposure and development right" for the lighting, according to you), I should only print it to satisfy some literal rendering of the subject tones as they are captured? A well executed negative, IMO, is one that offers up a siginificant amount of freedom to take your visualization of the final print to its completion. Good photographic craft prior to print making should not tie your hands in the printing process, IMHO.........on the contrary, it should free them. Sounds to me, if I understand your point, you are suggesting that dodging and burning are tools that should mostly be used to make up for some mistake made in exposure and development of the negative----I couldn't disagree more.

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,560
    Images
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    I have never made a print in my entire career that was not dodged or burned , it is a necessity IMO.
    +1, although I might not use "it is a necessity" but rather, "they are marvellous tools".
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #17
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,707
    Images
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
    This seems to me to be along the same lines of puritan reasoning as those who believe that cropping is wrong. The comparison to Photoshop is a straw man ...
    I'm not saying that dodging and burning are wrong, but often unnecessary and done because some printers are saying that this is what a photographer should do to produce a good print. I would say the same about cropping, not wrong, but if you have considered original composure, why crop? Does a painter go out and make a painting and then when he/she returns to their studio, take a pair of scissors and cut a bit off one edge?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  8. #18
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California & Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,635
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    You can match your film to whatever range you desire (Zone System, Beyond the Zone System), and the use of multigrade paper and contrast filters can usually ensure good white and black points and contrast if normal graded paper isn't matched to the neg.
    As a example of why dodging and burning is needed, I have a series of photographs that I took in Yosemite which have a subject brightness range of twelve f/stops. To print full range of the negatives took dodging and burning even with multigrade paper and contrast filters. I used them when I took a class with Per Volquartz and he showed me how to get the full range of the negative printed on paper. Without dodging a burning, the highlights would be burned out and much of the shadow details lost.

    Do I dodge and burn every print? No, it is not necessary.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  9. #19
    artonpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    135
    I feel there are to types of dodging and burning, the first being remedial, which means there's a problem with the way the image looks, perhaps a shadow area prints down too far at the base exposure and it looks better dodged out a bit. Or the sun is striking one small area and needs to be brought down to show texture.. The other type of dodging and burning is editorial, where one is looking to change the feeling or emphasis in a print. I think of Ben Fernandez's pictures of Dr. Martin Luther King, marching in huge crowds. Somehow Fernandez managed to dodge King just a bit lighter than the rest of the picture so the eye found him easily at first glance. It was very subtle and perfect, IMO. I also occasionally burn all four edges, something I tried for the first as kid after reading that Ansel did it frequently. I have certainly enlarged negatives straight without D&B. And of course all of my Pt/Pd and gum printing is without D&B.

  10. #20
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,276
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I would say the same about cropping, not wrong, but if you have considered original composure, why crop?
    So how is cropping a shot out of reality any different ethically than cropping what's in the negative?

    For all we know that was the plan when the shot was taken because they didn't have the perfect lens.

    Maybe the photographer shoots a bit loose just to leave some options open. That is also the reason many people overexpose a bit, they want more info on the negative so they have more options when they print.

    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Does a painter go out and make a painting and then when he/she returns to their studio, take a pair of scissors and cut a bit off one edge?
    Yes in essence, not with scissors but by painting over what they already did many painters will recompose a scene.

    Don't get me wrong here I'm ll for good camera work, it makes the darkroom work much easier.

    Uelsmann does very different work than most of us. I'd hazard a guess that some burn and dodge is involved. I'd also hazard a guess that his work would be impossible with out those concepts.

    We all develop procedures and practices that suit our needs. In another recent discussion here the point was made that the development of a neg may be made purposefully not to match the entire SBR to the paper, instead made to get a specific micro contrast with the full intention of burning and dodging to get the rest of the scene onto the paper.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin