Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,765   Posts: 1,516,351   Online: 1026
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Waltershausen, Thuringia, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Except I happen to think that HDR digital image manipulation is a MORE accurate simulacrum of our perception of a scene with highly different luminosities. The reason HDR is jarring is because it frustrates our visual memory which is/has been based on photographs and regular digital images, not because HDR is actually a poor representation of our visual reality. The human visual is capable of taking in and compressing a very high scene brightness range.
    Interesting, I'll have to think about that. Anyone got the tonal curve of the brain at hand?

  2. #12
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    241
    To my mind, it would only be unethical if someone tried to pass off a digitally-created photograph as a silver gelatin photograph. I only wish that the term "photograph," when used to describe a picture shown in a gallery or magazine, was more accurate, as in "digital photograph."

    Just this week, I was talking with some people about one of my photographs for sale in the coop gallery to which I belong. One woman asked if it was digital, and seemed happy to hear and seemed to appreciate the photograph more when I told her it was "old school:" taken on film, printed in the darkroom.

    Therein was a good news/bad news conundrum: good news that some people value silver gelatin photographs more than digital ones, bad news that some people now assume all photographs to be digitally produced until told otherwise. I try to have my photographs accurately labeled, but I am not in control of the labeling process and am not always successful.


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

  3. #13
    Joe Lipka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cary, North Carolina
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    808
    And if you don't get it right at the release of the shutter, then the best you can hope to do is salvage the mistake.

    I like what you say here.

    And remember, if the print looks manipulated, you didn't do a very good job no matter what you did.
    Two New Projects! Light on China - 07/13/2014

    www.joelipkaphoto.com

    250+ posts and still blogging! "Postcards from the Creative Journey"

    http://blog.joelipkaphoto.com/

  4. #14
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    When does maing a print as good as you can go too far?

    In some sense dodging and burning are like HDR, you are changing the dynamic range of the negative for the final result, in this case a print. Masks, sandwiching negatives and other traditional darkroom techniques similarly do more than a straight print. Heck, even using multigrade contrast filters is stretching things, the most contrasty filter yields scenes no pair of sunglasses will render for a person.

    What about multiple exposures? What if you take two exposures, a flash exposure of the foreground object and then a second long exposure for the stars with a driven mount? That could work yet it would still be fake.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    ... all the photos there have had the saturation bumped way up in photoshop, no film gives that kind of color, not even Velvia.
    Apparently your perception of color has been atropfied by the all consuming blandness of the midwest. Most of my work is shot with VS, and while I am the first to admit that no scan or digital representation can approach the color intensity and fidelity of this wonderful film, the scans are as close to the originals as the limitations of the technology will allow. If you're ever in Dallas, stop by and I'll pull out the slides to show you what the real colors of nature looks like (and, BTW, I don't use photoshop).


    --> Since I only work with transparencies, all the talk of printing is interesting but misses the point. Maris really hit at the core of this issue. A photograph implies visual truth. You should be able to look at a photograph and know that some combination of medium, aperture, shutter speed, time of day/year comprise the image, and that you could reproduce the image by reproducing those parameters.

    It's like a jackalope. It's one thing to present it as a joke, a fanciful chimera that exists only as the result of the taxidermist's art. It is entirely different to insist that jackalopes are real animals, and oh, by the way, I shot that one myself on a hunting trip to west Texas.

  6. #16
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    Apparently your perception of color has been atropfied by the all consuming blandness of the midwest. Most of my work is shot with VS, and while I am the first to admit that no scan or digital representation can approach the color intensity and fidelity of this wonderful film, the scans are as close to the originals as the limitations of the technology will allow. If you're ever in Dallas, stop by and I'll pull out the slides to show you what the real colors of nature looks like (and, BTW, I don't use photoshop).


    --> Since I only work with transparencies, all the talk of printing is interesting but misses the point. Maris really hit at the core of this issue. A photograph implies visual truth. You should be able to look at a photograph and know that some combination of medium, aperture, shutter speed, time of day/year comprise the image, and that you could reproduce the image by reproducing those parameters.

    It's like a jackalope. It's one thing to present it as a joke, a fanciful chimera that exists only as the result of the taxidermist's art. It is entirely different to insist that jackalopes are real animals, and oh, by the way, I shot that one myself on a hunting trip to west Texas.
    I lived in Santa Fe for several years. Honestly, the midwest is much more colorful than the southwest. You scans look like they have the saturation boosted in an editing program. You do use some editing program, if not Photoshop, because you are posting scans..digital images. If your scans don't really look that way, then you need to calibrate your screen. On mine, which is a self-calibrating monitor made for graphics work, they look bizarre. I've shot E100VS and it scans just fine. If you cannot get scans that match its look, you just don't know what you're doing. I've found a lot of the 'digital anything sucks' crowd are just that, people who never learned to work with digital and since their results suck, they assume everyone's results suck.

    I'm here because I shoot 100% film. I don't even own a digital camera anymore, but I get tired of the ignorant bashing of other people's work. Only a fool thinks a photograph is visual truth. You can make a photo lie using purely 'straight' techniques just by choice of lens and position you shoot from. Photographs can tell the truth or they can be made up, just like any other form of art. If all you want to do are make record shots for the archives, fine, but don't bash people who are making art. Seriously though, you need to calibrate your monitor or pay someone who knows what they're doing to scan your film for you.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,142
    Images
    2
    The true original (in film) is the negative or transparency. Most people would rather view a positive so one could say that unless an
    un-manipulated contact print or transparency is presented the print is the photographer's interpretation of what was seen. I guess the contact print on more or less contrasty paper could be considered a manipulation. The capture in digital is also the original but we need to view it. There have been many discussions on this subject. My personal opinion is they are all valid presentations and are images on different media of the photographer's choice. I understand that the purpose of this website is to present analog photography as close as possible to a wet darkroom print.

    Jerry Uelsmann does not misrepresent his work for which he is a master at his technique and produces flawless prints that I doubt all but the masters of PhotoShop such as John Paul Caponigro can come close to.

    i say do whatever you want to photographs to present your vision and enjoy that of others just don't misrepresent.

    http://jeffreyglasser.com/

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chino,Ca.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    153
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Who cares what "photography" is? Just shoot and print good shit, and be happy about it. Sure; it's bullshit work. I agree with you...but that is just an opinion based on taste, with all the lack of import that any opinion carries. Can any of us do any better, and if so, why don't we do it or shut up (or both)? Really. Who cares. I am tired of people on the Internet trying to define terms as if they really mean something anyhow. Just shoot. Print. Have fun. The world is full of assholes and idiots. Just let it lie. Bad and misrepresented art is not going to kill us.
    I agree 100%
    To quote a famous American "can't we all just get along?"

    Larry

  9. #19
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    I lived in Santa Fe for several years. Honestly, the midwest is much more colorful than the southwest. You scans look like they have the saturation boosted in an editing program. You do use some editing program, if not Photoshop, because you are posting scans..digital images. If your scans don't really look that way, then you need to calibrate your screen. On mine, which is a self-calibrating monitor made for graphics work, they look bizarre. I've shot E100VS and it scans just fine. If you cannot get scans that match its look, you just don't know what you're doing. I've found a lot of the 'digital anything sucks' crowd are just that, people who never learned to work with digital and since their results suck, they assume everyone's results suck.

    I'm here because I shoot 100% film. I don't even own a digital camera anymore, but I get tired of the ignorant bashing of other people's work. Only a fool thinks a photograph is visual truth. You can make a photo lie using purely 'straight' techniques just by choice of lens and position you shoot from. Photographs can tell the truth or they can be made up, just like any other form of art. If all you want to do are make record shots for the archives, fine, but don't bash people who are making art. Seriously though, you need to calibrate your monitor or pay someone who knows what they're doing to scan your film for you.
    Chris,

    You got it all 100% correct. These arguments are always tiring and, at the end, going nowhere/counterproductive.

    And, Tim, not to pile on or anything and with all due respect, I do work on a Eizo hardware calibrated monitor and your images are absolutely not natural. Just as Chris said, something is wrong somewhere along the line, ie: poor scans, non-calibrated monitor (although I don't think that can be attributed to colors that wild).

  10. #20
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Photography has never being a realistic rendering of reality. Reality is not in Black and white, in reality we have an optical system which behaves differently than a large wide lens or a telephoto lens, since ever photographers have put diffuser filters in front of lenses when portraying young woman, portraits have always been made with two, three, four light sources which in nature is basically impossible, polarizing filters have been "abused" in the last decades to obtain supersaturation of colours and "dramatic" skies etc. etc.

    There are various levels of "truth" in photography. News agencies do not accept a scan or a negative which is even minimally manipulated. Ceremony photographers do photoretouch images to a degree that reflects the way we perceive persons and reality. It is legitimate to portray a woman with a diffuser filter because, in real life, even if we can see the single spots and wrinkles on the face, we do not concentrate on them and we do not remember them, so that in a portrait said spots and wrinkles would make the person appear "much worse" than how we remember it.

    By the same token, certain scenes in HDR look quite natural because they are closer to how we experienced the scene.

    What is "unethical" is, in my opinion, lying about the process. Saying it is film if it is digital, saying it is "unretouched" when it is, saying a scene was "happening" when it is posed.

    Provided one is sincere about the process, any picture however manipulated is valid and legitimate within the ends and the scope which justify its existence.

    Anyway, the "all-too-fake" digital wave might spur a revival for film, which in the future might be perceived as a more genuine kind of photography.

    Fabrizio

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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