"Darkrooms are Irrelevant and The Truth Matters"
Eh... Don't care for much in the article. Can someone explain to me what the deal is with the fuji film and ilford paper comparisons he has in one of his images? So random.
The first poster on the original site summed up my read on this right away: From the site.>>
"E.G. • 15 hours ago −
So, what if a news outlet picked up the color photograph but ran it in a BW section of their newspaper? Is that a problem?
Or what if it gets printed in color by some print outlet, but their calibration is off?
In either case, the main story is still the main story. Why? Because in this case, none of the vital points of the image were altered. No faces were added or subtracted. Nothing nefarious of that sort. The color/tone/etc. of the image has nothing to do with the message of the image here. It might in other cases, but not for this photograph."
I don't have a problem with what was shown... and I have encountered bad drumscanning/color adjustment of transparencies back in my analog photojournalist days. We applied a lot of "hand of God" in the darkroom printing B+W negatives to emphasize a subject and never called out... The 'Best of Photojournalism" books published by the NPPA from 1970 to the dawn of the digital age is full of prints with the "Hand of God" embelishments.
@Batwist (post #4)
BTW... in today's new business... you would be very hard pressed to sell a newsworthy photo and get it published with a non digital initial workflow.
I live here in the mid-west. I was out driving one day when monster storms were rolling in hauling my sailboat home. I laughed that I might photograph a tornado gobbling up a small town with my Russian LTM, get like hell to my darkroom have a negative ready to scan say in 40 minutes and be BEAT by an inferior (in story-telling and quality) i-phone image.
ALSO my image that I might try to sell would have to be SOO very good to get PAID, as most i-phone shooters love to post stuff and get it published in the paper or TV news for free.
Last edited by vpwphoto; 02-21-2013 at 08:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
since the first photographs were made
they have been manipulated ..
the moment you expose the film it is manipulated
printing, well vpwphoto said it there ... manipulated
we are a bored society, always have had a very short attention span.
people lie with words as much as they do with images because the truth is ... boing
The problem is, when it comes to photojournalism, manipulation introduces bias. The photographer goes from an impartial observer to an editorialist.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
in my newspaper days it was very evident that i was not an impartial observer .. just changing where i are stood, and what lens i used
Originally Posted by eddie
changed things from 4 or 5 people standing around to a riot ...
You would probably be running yourself ragged trying to beat a digital photographer to the editorial punch, and there's little point in trying to defy the nature of traditional photography. But what's wrong with releasing the image to the press later, if it says something? Do we have to live by the 'now or never' mentality of a child? Thomas Hoepker's 9/11 picture for instance, despite his hesitation in publishing it, probably raises the most questions about that day than any of the thousands of 'impulse pictures'. That's important. It probably still would be if he'd left it another 10 years. Some images absolutely need to be shown during or in the immediate aftermath of events and arguably, video is best suited to this (camera manufacturers understand this, even if we don't yet) but some pictures only truly have an impact in retrospect. The need to be retrospective, in fact, is almost ingrained in the traditional process and I hope this always has value to people.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
I think Hasselblad masters is much much worse.
- Should be renamed "photoshop masters", because the end result has absolutely nothing to do with the original camera capturing the shot.
Using filters and effects to dramatize news is bad.
Using filters and effects to dramatize a photo for a contest, if there are no particular rules about it....who cares.
Article has nothing to do with the darkroom per se, other than the darkroom no longer being relevant for journalistic photography, as everyone machineguns with digi's these days.
I am rarely impressed by war and hunger journalist-shots anyway, seems like there are 1000 clichés competing for first price, and the photo that wins, has been seen a million times before.
- Which is boring, to be honest.
Last edited by Helinophoto; 02-21-2013 at 10:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Helinophoto... check out Ansel Adams or Fred Picker's darkroom trickery!
When I was in J-school I turned in my first assigment...straight printed B+W negative. I got it back with red china marker ALL over it.
Where it should have been cropped... dodge this burn that... and it began and it was 1985 (for me).
The only manipulation "uproar' at the time was the cover of the "day in the life of America" book where a full moon was moved a couple inches so it would be included in the vertical crop of the cowboy, back then they didn't say "Photoshopped" they called it "CYTEX" long forgotten photo editing platform.
Originally Posted by batwister