Lenswork - Ouch!

[Annika1980]

Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it.

And yet you have a website. A Digital website.
Mr. Jensen is of the opinion that the final work is what matters and I agree.
I would think that anyone who has an interest and an investment in analog printing techniques would sing the praises of Lenswork and Mr. Jensen's efforts to produce a magazine showing the best in photography, both analog and digital.

And to those of you who have turned away from the magazine because it might include some photos made digitally, I ask, "Do you ever view portfolios online?"

An online photo (or one featured in Lenswork) made from a digital capture is just as "real" as one made from traditional analog techniques.
That is, neither of them are "real." Photography isn't "real."
So c'mon, get real!

[roteague]

An online photo (or one featured in Lenswork) made from a digital capture is just as "real" as one made from traditional analog techniques.

Not in my opinion they aren't. Like most people you are confusing digital capture with digital printing - they are two totally different and unrelated technologies.

[JBrunner]

If this degenerates into a Dthingie isn't real photography deceased equine pounding, then it will be going off topic from being off topic. The recent discussion hasn't been about that at all, and if you think it has, you may have missed some important points.

[bjorke]

And to those of you who have turned away from the magazine because it might include some photos made digitally...

As W Churchill liked to say, a fanatic is someone who will not change their mind and refuses to change the subject.

It's okay Annika. In fact, it's helpful. When you see someone making soapbox declarations about their proud blindness to pictures based simply on the kind of equipment used to make those pictures, then you know you can ignore that people's pronouncements in general and move on to the next idea. It's a huge time saver.

[copake_ham]

As W Churchill liked to say, a fanatic is someone who will not change their mind and refuses to change the subject.

It's okay Annika. In fact, it's helpful. When you see someone making soapbox declarations about their proud blindness to pictures based simply on the kind of equipment used to make those pictures, then you know you can ignore that people's pronouncements in general and move on to the next idea. It's a huge time saver.

bjorke,

First off, good to see you posting again.

As to your point - while wise indeed (especially the Churchillian paraphrase) and something I would expect from a Mensa - you fail to note that this site is an analog photography site.

Thus, Annika, in a Gene Roddenberry (sp?) sense, "has violated the prime directive".

Here, we do care about the capture medium. It HAS to be film.

Not because that is the "rule" for everyone, everywhere. But that is the "rule" here. It is the very essence of this site.

How you print is secondary to how you create the image.

On this site, we shoot film.

[Annika1980]

bjorke,

Here, we do care about the capture medium. It HAS to be film.
Not because that is the "rule" for everyone, everywhere. But that is the "rule" here. It is the very essence of this site.
How you print is secondary to how you create the image.
On this site, we shoot film.

I understand all of that. But the thread was about Lenswork, where the method of capture is secondary to the finished product.
In Lenswork it clearly doesn't have to be film.
So while everyone here may share an appreciation for film and analog capture as you do, there are also others who just love good photography in any form. I think it is that group of people that Lenswork targets.

[roteague]

So while everyone here may share an appreciation for film and analog capture as you do, there are also others who just love good photography in any form. I think it is that group of people that Lenswork targets.

It is debatable whether digital is good photography. For some, compositional skill is not the only defining point of a good photograph. There are other considerations; considerations such as how the photograph was printed, how faithfully the image represents the scene; for example some want to know that Photoshop wasn't used to add a new sky, or duplicate a right eye and paste it over a drooping left eye - in other words, is the image ethical.

When I look at an portfolio on Lenswork, I always look at what equipment was used first. That is simply because I know most digital photographers have no problem using techniques, such as I described in the previous paragraph, which I find unethical. I don't care how good an images composition is, if it has been manipulated beyond that necessary to faithfully represent the scene - that is not adding elements that weren't there or subtracting elements that were - then I am not in the least bit interested in looking. For me, the ethics of an image overrule the composition. I suspect, I'm not the only one that feels that way either.

[Dave Miller]

Lenswork 73 arrived here today, stunning images as always; in fact that's not true, this edition is the best I've seen in a while. Beth Moon's "Portraits of Time" is fantastic IMO.

[palewin]

It is debatable whether digital is good photography. For some, compositional skill is not the only defining point of a good photograph. There are other considerations; considerations such as how the photograph was printed, how faithfully the image represents the scene; for example some want to know that Photoshop wasn't used to add a new sky, or duplicate a right eye and paste it over a drooping left eye - in other words, is the image ethical.

When I look at an portfolio on Lenswork, I always look at what equipment was used first. That is simply because I know most digital photographers have no problem using techniques, such as I described in the previous paragraph, which I find unethical. I don't care how good an images composition is, if it has been manipulated beyond that necessary to faithfully represent the scene - that is not adding elements that weren't there or subtracting elements that were - then I am not in the least bit interested in looking. For me, the ethics of an image overrule the composition. I suspect, I'm not the only one that feels that way either.

Robert: This quote, and your earlier, recent post about the difference between digital capture and digital printing intrigue me. I understand your concept of ethical photography. But regardless of the capture technique, doesn't the transfer to digital, even if "only" for printing, open up exactly the issues of manipulation that you raise? It would seem to me that once you have scanned your negative, the truthfulness of the final print or image created from that file is entirely a question of the honesty of the photographer (or the printer, if the scan and print are done by a lab). In that case there is no difference between digital capture and digital printing, i.e. if someone takes a digital landscape image (I believe it was Steven Johnson who did a lot of large format image capture with a 4x5 scanning back) we have to trust that individual if he says that the image is unmanipulated, just as we have to trust a photographer who maintains that the digital scan of a film negative is unmanipulated. By the way, my point is simply that the insertion of a digital file anywhere in the workflow opens up what you call the ethical issue; I don't want to go near the question of "ethics" in the purely analog world, I'm sure we're all aware of the combining of negatives in early photography to get clouds in the sky, Eugene Smith's famous retouching, or even Ansel Adams's manipulations in Half Dome (filters) or Moonrise (lots of burning and dodging). Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind, but thank goodness his entire artistic body was based on manipulation of negatives, so there was no subterfuge.

[roteague]

Robert: This quote, and your earlier, recent post about the difference between digital capture and digital printing intrigue me. I understand your concept of ethical photography. But regardless of the capture technique, doesn't the transfer to digital, even if "only" for printing, open up exactly the issues of manipulation that you raise?

Of course it does, but the beauty of traditional photography is that you have the original transparency or negative from which to compare.

It would seem to me that once you have scanned your negative, the truthfulness of the final print or image created from that file is entirely a question of the honesty of the photographer (or the printer, if the scan and print are done by a lab). In that case there is no difference between digital capture and digital printing, i.e. if someone takes a digital landscape image (I believe it was Steven Johnson who did a lot of large format image capture with a 4x5 scanning back) we have to trust that individual if he says that the image is unmanipulated, just as we have to trust a photographer who maintains that the digital scan of a film negative is unmanipulated.

That is always a true. But where are we today in photography? There was a point in the history of photography where photographs were considered factual representations of reality (the tree in the picture was actually there, for example). In those early days, photography was a prime moving source for both social and environmental change - like the creation of national parks, or the saving wilderness areas. These days of digital photography everyone assumes that an image has been factually manipulated. That mechanism of photography that was once used for good, now creates an attitude of mistrust towards photographs (similar to what we saw where a photographer enhanced images of bombing in Lebanon). We are all the losers.

I don't want to go near the question of "ethics" in the purely analog world, I'm sure we're all aware of the combining of negatives in early photography to get clouds in the sky, Eugene Smith's famous retouching, or even Ansel Adams's manipulations in Half Dome (filters) or Moonrise (lots of burning and dodging). Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind, but thank goodness his entire artistic body was based on manipulation of negatives, so there was no subterfuge.

The fact that some unethical practices happen in the world of traditional photography doesn't make it right - two wrongs don't make a right. With traditional methods, it was much more obvious the manipulations had occured.

However, there is a major difference between combining negatives and dodging and burning. When you dodge and burn, you are not factually removing or adding elements to the scene, just changing there emphasis. As you say, we all knew Jerry Uelsmann work was manipulation; that was his vision, and he didn't try to use it as a mechanism for societal or environmental change.