Digital BW, The Print

Monday, September 16, 2002, 10:25:46 AM, Bill Agee wrote:

BA> This argument has been going on long before I got seriously 
BA> interested in photography over 30 years ago...the "purists" vs the 
BA> "manipulators".  Most people don't realize that some of the most 
BA> venerated photographers were heavy manipulators of the silver gelatin 
BA> media.  Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith are just a couple that 
BA> immediately come to mind. 


I think this argument is less about the actual act of "manipulation"
than about the art and talent inherent to the manipulation or
enhancing process that was used.

I belive now that many people are actually quite aware that photographers
like Adams and Smith were manipulators. However, their techniques
required an artistry and talent on a completely different plane than
many are now doing by simply tweaking a few sliders in PS.

I have no problem with manipulating or enhancing an image in PS. I
just think photographers should be EXPLICITLY up front about what, if
any, PS tools and techniques may have been used. The biggest problem I
see, and the most dishonorable trend I see, is where photographers are
using PS to create tonal ranges and/or hue adjustments, then say
nothing in their image description. This "silence" tends to
purposefully create an "aura" and tends to completely imply that the
photographer, through talented field techniques and camera skill,
captured that once in a lifetime light when in reality, while they may
have captured a very good image, they absolutely needed PS to make it
over the top.

Some say we should all use our "artistic license" to make our images
the best they can be. Artistic license is one thing, but the more
one's artistic license depends on mouse movements in a computer the
less merit there is to the art.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...