Lenswork - Ouch!

[clay]

Seriously, I think painting all digital work as unethical is a bit of a stretch. It is akin to saying that because a gun is used in a horrible school shooting that anyone using or even owning a gun is an evildoer.

Sure digital work can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily is. And this was an issue long before digital. The famous Gene Smith photo of Schweitzer springs to mind as a interesting photo manipulated masterfully in the darkroom in order to 'tell a story'.

This 'ethics' approach taken to its logical limit would indict users of Velvia as evil manipulators. I have used that film in many situations over the years, and the supersaturated chromes that come back don't look very much like the actual scene that was in front of my camera when the shutter was tripped (at least in terms of color) . Does the fact that I have a supersaturated transparency that doesn't much resemble reality indicate that I am trying to manipulate the viewer? My thought has always been that I am trying to make a cool picture. That is enough for me.

I think the only (hopelessly naive, IMO) expectations most viewers have for photos is in the realm of photojournalistic work. It would be pretty to think that those photos are unmanipulated. But if you think about it more than a second, it becomes obvious that just the mere act of framing a photo is manipulating reality, since it involves a judgement of what to show and what not to show the viewer. I think the whole notion of manipulations exists on a continuum from 'not much' to 'a whole lot'.

And is not just the advent of digital photography that created this. It has been around a long time. Just check out 'Fading Away' by Henry Peach Robinson:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/...y/robinson.htm

This photo was made in 1858, when photography was still in its infancy. And already it was being manipulated to tell a story.

Plus c'est la meme chose, plus ça change, eh?

[Ian Leake]

...and consider the number of people who were erased from soviet photographs because of their misdeeds during Stalin's era. Extensive manipulation is nothing new. OK, Photoshop makes many of these things easier, but it's the people who deceive not the technology.

[clay]

Bingo.

. OK, Photoshop makes many of these things easier, but it's the people who deceive not the technology.

[eclarke]

To some extent you can't believe anything which can be edited. If you read newspapers and watch television you are constantly being deceived...EC

[wfe]

Seriously, I think painting all digital work as unethical is a bit of a stretch. It is akin to saying that because a gun is used in a horrible school shooting that anyone using or even owning a gun is an evildoer.

Sure digital work can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily is. And this was an issue long before digital. The famous Gene Smith photo of Schweitzer springs to mind as a interesting photo manipulated masterfully in the darkroom in order to 'tell a story'.

This 'ethics' approach taken to its logical limit would indict users of Velvia as evil manipulators. I have used that film in many situations over the years, and the supersaturated chromes that come back don't look very much like the actual scene that was in front of my camera when the shutter was tripped (at least in terms of color) . Does the fact that I have a supersaturated transparency that doesn't much resemble reality indicate that I am trying to manipulate the viewer? My thought has always been that I am trying to make a cool picture. That is enough for me.

I think the only (hopelessly naive, IMO) expectations most viewers have for photos is in the realm of photojournalistic work. It would be pretty to think that those photos are unmanipulated. But if you think about it more than a second, it becomes obvious that just the mere act of framing a photo is manipulating reality, since it involves a judgement of what to show and what not to show the viewer. I think the whole notion of manipulations exists on a continuum from 'not much' to 'a whole lot'.

And is not just the advent of digital photography that created this. It has been around a long time. Just check out 'Fading Away' by Henry Peach Robinson:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/...y/robinson.htm

This photo was made in 1858, when photography was still in its infancy. And already it was being manipulated to tell a story.

Plus c'est la meme chose, plus ça change, eh?

Thank you Clay...

Cheers,
Bill

[rst]

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

No I don't. It is all a matter of trust. I looked at your image "Late Afternoon, Clearing Storm", a beautiful image, I like it and I am curious how a print of it will look like. Is it unmanipulated? I do not know, I can not prove but I trust your word. And I doubt that you are willing to send your original transparency to me so that I can prove If I look at images in a book, on the internet or in a gallery, then I have to trust everyone who claims that their images are unmanipulated because I, as a viewer, do not have access to that transparency/negative or digital original.

... 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 can understand your point but I think you miss part of the fun I look at every portfolio in Lenswork and I look at the used equipment last because if I am curious (and that is almost always the case) I try to guess, was it digital capture? Was it film capture? Surprisingly often I guess right and I can not describe what it is, that makes me guess right. Some images just look digital to me.

ciao
-- Ruediger

[ZoneIII]

I'm letting my subscription for LensWork Extended lapse not only because it is drifting more and more to digital but, more importantly, because Brooks Jensen, as nice a guy as he seems to be, simply talks too much. He talks a subject to death! I think he just likes to hear himself talk. For that reason, I have been turning the audio portion off but his articles are just as long-winded. I haven't even looked at most of the last two DVDs I have received. LensWork needs some fresh blood. As it is, everything is filtered through Brooks Jensen. It also needs to be edited much more tightly.

[ZoneIII]

In my previous post, I should have also mentioned that the photography in Lenswork Extended is generally of very fine quality. But when one person controls virtually everything about a publication, as Brooks clearly does with Lenswork, things can stagnate. As far as the editing goes - it seems to me that Brooks has forgotten that tight editing is extremely important for photographers and writers. Some portfolios show seemingly endless variations of almost identical images and Brooks commentary seems to be endless as well sometimes. It's the "framing" of the images presented in Lenswork that I have a problem with. In general, I think that photographs should speak for themselves but Brooks talks the images he presents nearly to death and this intrudes upon the viewer's own interpretations of the work. Lenswork has some wonderful photography but it is framed in too much talk... all of which is filtered through Brooks Jensen. An analogy would be someone going to a gallery and having someone constantly talking over their shoulder as they viewed photographs. I would leave such a gallery and this is why I am letting my Lenswork Extended subscription expire.
Also, Brooks uses the magazine to promote his own work and that of his close friends. Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with him promoting his own work in his own magazine that people have to pay for. On the other hand, his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer.

Lastly, I simply can't understand why they can't get Lenswork Extended to autorun. As it is, the subscriber has to open the disk and navigate to an executable file. That's silly and I can't think of any explanation for it. Also, the DVD based magazine is also awkward and even confusing to navigate. Navigation should be elegant and simple. This is very basic stuff that could be fixed very easily by just about an 10 year-old kid.

Something is wrong when you find several Lenswork Extended disks sitting around without viewing them for months. But if they 1) ran automatically.... 2) were easily navigated and, most importantly...3) did not include so much chatter by Brooks... I would renew my subscription.

[jeroldharter]

In my previous post, I should have also mentioned that the photography in Lenswork Extended is generally of very fine quality. But when one person controls virtually everything about a publication, as Brooks clearly does with Lenswork, things can stagnate. As far as the editing goes - it seems to me that Brooks has forgotten that tight editing is extremely important for photographers and writers. Some portfolios show seemingly endless variations of almost identical images and Brooks commentary seems to be endless as well sometimes. It's the "framing" of the images presented in Lenswork that I have a problem with. In general, I think that photographs should speak for themselves but Brooks talks the images he presents nearly to death and this intrudes upon the viewer's own interpretations of the work. Lenswork has some wonderful photography but it is framed in too much talk... all of which is filtered through Brooks Jensen. An analogy would be someone going to a gallery and having someone constantly talking over their shoulder as they viewed photographs. I would leave such a gallery and this is why I am letting my Lenswork Extended subscription expire.
Also, Brooks uses the magazine to promote his own work and that of his close friends. Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with him promoting his own work in his own magazine that people have to pay for. On the other hand, his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer.

Lastly, I simply can't understand why they can't get Lenswork Extended to autorun. As it is, the subscriber has to open the disk and navigate to an executable file. That's silly and I can't think of any explanation for it. Also, the DVD based magazine is also awkward and even confusing to navigate. Navigation should be elegant and simple. This is very basic stuff that could be fixed very easily by just about an 10 year-old kid.

Something is wrong when you find several Lenswork Extended disks sitting around without viewing them for months. But if they 1) ran automatically.... 2) were easily navigated and, most importantly...3) did not include so much chatter by Brooks... I would renew my subscription.

I don't have any history with Lenswork but have "looked at the pictures" from time to time. I don't really like digital photography but some of those cartoons are good for ideas.

I just ordered an extended subscription and all of the back issues. This guy might talk to much and like to hear himself, but most of us on APUG share that in common. I for one admire someone who is willing to put his money where his mouth is and generate a product.

[jovo]

Also, Brooks uses the magazine to promote his own work and that of his close friends. Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with him promoting his own work in his own magazine that people have to pay for. On the other hand, his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer.
.

If you think "his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer", why do you have a problem with his publishing it in his own magazine? As he has observed, if he doesn't publish it, who will?