Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,550   Posts: 1,573,069   Online: 814
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,659
    Images
    15
    Must be the same article? Different publications.
    http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...130-1o5iz.html


  2. #12
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    747
    Part of the problem is that the images in question are not actually photographs by the standards of APUG, I think. Making pictures out of electronic files isn't photography and the resultant pictures don't have the special relationship real photographs have to subject matter.

    People get fooled by calling them photographs instead of pictures. Pictures that emerge from a digital environment have the same relationship to subject matter as paintings and drawings. And no one, even the most naive viewer, expects paintings and drawings to be samples of the real world.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  3. #13
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,274
    Images
    73
    The real problem is that the advertising industry has so manipulated women's ideas of what is "ideal" that they are starving themselves trying to achieve something that is not even real in the first place. Their sense of self has been eroded and left with a gaping hole of insecurity. Unfortunately we men buy into it and in many overt or passive ways put pressure on women to become something they aren't.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  4. #14
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,574
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Helinophoto View Post
    This is nothing new, check out old hollywood portraits from the 30's to the 70's and you'll learn that photographers have been retouching photos and even the negatives themselves for many, many years.

    Retouching is probably the better word here imo.

    I really have no problem with it, but personally I aim to end up with a natural looking result (in digital photography), also, there is a difference between removing blemishes (which aren't permanent to the person) and streching their necks, slimming off 40 pounds, lifting boobs, reducing calf size, removing arm fat and removing eye lines.

    You really cannot just say "no to retouching" in general imo, this is always dependend on what, why, how and if the final result was part of a vision beforehand.
    Is this not the same as Photoshop?

  5. #15
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Part of the problem is that the images in question are not actually photographs by the standards of APUG, I think. Making pictures out of electronic files isn't photography and the resultant pictures don't have the special relationship real photographs have to subject matter.

    People get fooled by calling them photographs instead of pictures. Pictures that emerge from a digital environment have the same relationship to subject matter as paintings and drawings. And no one, even the most naive viewer, expects paintings and drawings to be samples of the real world.
    Talk about blinkered. Photographs were retouched, altered, and manipulated for years before Adobe surfaced. Are these images "not actually photographs" according to the APUG gospel? Maybe you could also explain "the special relationship" that "real"(sic) photographs have with their subjects relative to digitally captured images.

  6. #16
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,433
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Talk about blinkered. Photographs were retouched, altered, and manipulated for years before Adobe surfaced. Are these images "not actually photographs" according to the APUG gospel? Maybe you could also explain "the special relationship" that "real"(sic) photographs have with their subjects relative to digitally captured images.
    That's for sure. When I worked at a newspaper some the prints in the archives from the 30's and 40's were shocking in the level of alterations that had been done to them. Stuff that I was told would I would be fired for had I done it to any of the work I was doing at that time. The NPPA has had a code of ethics for image editing for quite some time, predating the digital revolution. It's an interesting topic.

  7. #17
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by erikg View Post
    That's for sure. When I worked at a newspaper some the prints in the archives from the 30's and 40's were shocking in the level of alterations that had been done to them. Stuff that I was told would I would be fired for had I done it to any of the work I was doing at that time. The NPPA has had a code of ethics for image editing for quite some time, predating the digital revolution. It's an interesting topic.
    I just finished a recent consideration of this, Errol Morris's Believing is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography. Worth a look for some welcome perspective.

  8. #18
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Yes yes, I know that touchups have been done for ages and women were corseted a long time ago and so forth.

    The point is that photography (if we can even call it that any more) is turning a corner, and now the tools of manipulation are so easy to use, and so widely accepted, that the value of the photograph as some sort of reflection of reality is simply vanishing. All of us value artistic license for sure. But... this way more than pictorialism, what we see now in the treatment of women in particular. It is practically manga.

    And the purpose of the manipulation is not to satisfy some justifiable artistic purpose, or to exercise some artistic license... but rather to misrepresent! For a clearly commercial purpose. This will be the most Marxist thing I've said in a long time, but I must say that this manipulation serves only to commodify the subject... and ultimately the craft.

    I never get the sense from a Steichen or Weston or Hurrell image that there was any intent of misrepresenting the subject. Can the same be said for some of the examples in this article?
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #19
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,742
    Images
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Rose View Post
    The real problem is that the advertising industry has so manipulated women's ideas of what is "ideal" that they are starving themselves trying to achieve something that is not even real in the first place. Their sense of self has been eroded and left with a gaping hole of insecurity. Unfortunately we men buy into it and in many overt or passive ways put pressure on women to become something they aren't.
    Men aren't immune either.

    I don't approve of the images we are bombarded with, but I'm not sure a warning label as suggested in the articles will change anything about a culture clamoring for some impossible ideal. And yes, reading the Errol Morris book Believing is Seeing is very interesting, both in terms of editorial or news pictures, and advertising. As ever, buyer beware.
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 11-29-2011 at 08:06 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Clarity

  10. #20
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    I never get the sense from a Steichen or Weston or Hurrell image that there was any intent of misrepresenting the subject. Can the same be said for some of the examples in this article?

    Are you serious? They were posed, probably the most obvious form of manipulation.

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