Digital BW, The Print

On 5/5/03 10:58 AM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Loris wrote:
> 
>>> >>...
>>> >> "With Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, and a handful of
>>> >> other photographers, Adams founded in the early 1930s Group
>>> >> f/64, which was dedicated to straight photography as an art
>>> >> form. Photography at the time was dominated by the
>>> >> "pictorialists," who created staged, artificial (and now
>>> >> largely forgotten) photographs that imitated the conventions
> 
>> >Just to address the sarcasm enclosed in parenthesis:
>> >I simply don't beleive that Joel-Peter Witkin's
>> >(which is not the only photographer to present staged,
>> >artificial photographs) work will be forgotten in the
>> >future...
> 
> Just to be clear, the phrase/sarcasm in the parenthesis was in the original
> quote -- it's not mine.
> 
>>> >>... Adams was instrumental in the struggle to gain
>>> >> for photography recognition as art on its own merits."
>>> >> <http://www.turtlebay.org/exhibitions/anseladams/pg04.html>
>>> >> ...
> 
>>> >> ...
>>> >> Near the end of his life, Adams produced prints
>>> >> intended to represent his life's work not just as a series of
>>> >> landscape images but as a panorama of the possibilities of
>>> >> the "straight," unmanipulated style to which he adhered."
> 
>> >I don't consider AA's work unmanipulated at all. ...
> 
> Nor do I.  In addition to lots of dodging and burning, he even eliminated
> the big "LP" (for Lone Pine High School) that was on a hill in the middle of
> one of his shots of Mt. Whitney.
> 
> That is why I think "straight" photography is a good, accepted term for the
> genre of photography that includes what I and many other landscape
> photographers do.  It includes AA's work, most of other Group f64 member's
> prints, and many more traditional B&W landscape photographers.  There are
> certain traditional manipulations that have been accepted in the genre.
> Yet, the significant details and physical relationships of the lens-formed
> image are preserved.
> 
> This is not to say that the "straight" photography genre is better or worse
> than any other, but it may serve as a way to describe a certain style that,
> in my view, retains the essence of the "basic honesty" of the lens-formed
> image that gives viewers of photographic prints the feeling they are looking
> at a slice of reality.  The genre clearly still allows manipulations that
> are, in my view, necessary to convey the photographer/printer's overlay
> communication that makes notable and memorable prints more than random
> snapshots.
> 
> (Note that even contact printers can dodge and burn their prints.)
> 
> Wendel wrote:
> 
>> >..."What's in a name? That which we call a rose by
>> >any other name would smell as sweet" ....
> 
> Maybe, but maybe not always.  When I represent my work to be "straight"
> photography, that gives the viewer information that adds value to what I
> do -- at least for some, like me.  Again, I love the digital, fantasy
> landscapes, but being a nature lover, the fact that a photo is a "straight"
> view of my beloved nature is important to me.
> 
>> >... [An] LA Times photographer, was recently fired for
>> >manipulating an image in Photoshop that ran in the paper
>> >as if it was a "straight" or a faithful document of a
>> >moment during the Iraq War. But this
>> >sort of manipulation has been going on since
>> >Matthew Brady began dragging dead bodies around the
>> >battlefield for better composition during the US
>> >Civil War. He did not need Photoshop to manipulate
>> >the "truth" within a photograph.
> 
>> >This is the thing about photography - it lies
>> >and tells the truth simultaneously.
> 
> Absolutely, and it's a more major problem now than in the "good old days."
> 
> It's not an easy thing to define the line between a "lie" and a manipulation
> that simply emphasizes that part of reality which the photographer wants to
> communicate.  Did AA's elimination of the "LP" from the hill misrepresent
> the view in a significant way, or was it removing a human intrusion into a
> beautiful scene.
> 
> I think the L.A. Times, in doing and publicizing the firing did the same
> thing I try to do with my label of "straight" photography.  For some
> markets, a major part of the value of the photograph comes from the
> "illusion" that it is an "accurate" representation of reality, at least
> within boundaries that the viewer, perhaps unconsciously, has accepted.  The
> L.A. Times is mostly in the news business, not the art business.  The ease
> with which digital tools allow manipulations -- and the viewer's knowledge
> of this -- has the potential to seriously undermine a major part of
> photography's value to that news organization.
> 
> Traditionally, whether true or not, most believed that a photo represented
> "truth."  The L.A. Times wants to assure it's readers that, unlike the
> tabloids, it's photos do represent the truth.  Figuring out how to
> preserving this characteristic of photography, at least for some subset of
> the larger field, is what this thread is about.
> 
> One thing I like about Photoshop is the ability to remove twigs, etc. from
> intruding into my shots.  When one considers that the old-time landscape
> photographers cut down trees to clear their views, I feel good about my
> modern methods.  Even if they portray a view of reality that is not strictly
> accurate, I consider them to be accurately described as "straight"
> photographs.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1052150126%3eM=247865
> .3003379.4507215.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1052150126%
> 3eM=247865.3003379.450>
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

I am not trying to be a name dropper but Ansel Adams was very aware of the
coming impact of the computer.  He told me, in reply to a question once,
that if he were a young photographer just starting out that he would explore
the digital route.  He mentioned that he had seen what they could do while
processing digitally his images for publication.  He said he was amazed and
felt that this was going to be the future of photography.  J Vee
-- 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]