Digital BW, The Print

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
Ink getting you down? Check these out...
Steve M.


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

Steve,

Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> 
> 
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> Steve M.

In a message dated 9/15/2002 3:39:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
darkroom@... writes:


> Steve,
> 
> Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
> 
> Austin
> 
No, not really! Clean yes.Are they too perfect? If I told you Michael Kenna 
prints where digital, would you say they looked "mega photoshoped? I'm not 
that skilled in photoshop so I don't even think that way.
I just though it was a good example of Black and white digital output, other 
than ink jet.
Steve M.


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

> > Steve,
> >
> > Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
> >
> > Austin
> >
> No, not really! Clean yes.Are they too perfect? If I told you
> Michael Kenna
> prints where digital, would you say they looked "mega
> photoshoped? I'm not
> that skilled in photoshop so I don't even think that way.
> I just though it was a good example of Black and white digital
> output, other
> than ink jet.
> Steve M.

Hi Steve,

It's REALLY tough to tell much about what a print would look like from a web
image though...

Actually, my comment was from the samll images...they do look more "natural"
from the larger versions.  The only information I could find about some of
the images, is that the Spring 1999 show was shot with a view camera and B&W
film, and that they he "Using a computer, he gives his photographs their
unusual gold coloring and has them printed on color paper."

They certainly are nice images!

Regards,

Austin

No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs. It
has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop? Would
that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you ever
heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
as your question.

g

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints

Steve,

Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?

Austin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> 
> 
> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> Steve M.



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
"flames."
- 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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Gus,

It's as relevant as someone wants to make it.  What's relevant to you or
irrelevant to you may be very important or completely unimportant to someone
else.  It's someone's own business what's important/not important to them.

Why I asked, is because the small images looked very un-natural to me, so I
wondered if they had been manipulated.  The larger images are much more
natural looking to me.  I know that I'm not a fan of very unnatural looking
images, whether they are massively manipulated images or not.  That's my
personal taste, and certainly doesn't have to be anyone else's.

Austin

> No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs. It
> has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
> Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop? Would
> that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you ever
> heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
> as your question.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>
> Steve,
>
> Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
>
> Austin
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> >
> >
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> > Steve M.

I would not be surprised to learn that PS had some role in the skies, but the rest of it looks pretty much the same as other photos taken with a large format camera, a superb lens, a good tripod, great light and a good eye.  I would have guessed a Noblex, though.

  --Ken

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gus J Grubba 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 6:01 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


  No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs. It
  has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
  Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop? Would
  that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you ever
  heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
  as your question.

  g

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
  Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints

  Steve,

  Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?

  Austin


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
  > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
  > 
  > 
  > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
  > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
  > Steve M.



  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
  "flames."
  - 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
  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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 "flames."
  - 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. 


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

They don't look photoshopped to me, except for the castle stalker photo.
The light on the building seems to come from the right, while the light
on the rock is coming from the left.  Looks like it, anyhoo. Beautiful
photos!  Can a noblex give an absolute straight horizon?

Jerry

Ken Carney wrote:

> 
> I would not be surprised to learn that PS had some role in the skies, but the rest of it looks pretty much the same as other photos taken with a large format camera, a superb lens, a good tripod, great light and a good eye.  I would have guessed a Noblex, though.
> 
>   --Ken
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Gus J Grubba
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 6:01 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> 
>   No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs. It
>   has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
>   Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop? Would
>   that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you ever
>   heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
>   as your question.
> 
>   g
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
>   Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> 
>   Steve,
> 
>   Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
> 
>   Austin
> 
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
>   > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
>   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>   >
>   >
>   > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
>   > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
>   > Steve M.
> 
>   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
>   "flames."
>   - 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
>   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   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 "flames."
>   - 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.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 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 "flames."
> - 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I accept your take on it. I understand it as something some people like
others don't. I just get irked when I hear comments making a photograph
less than "something" because Photoshop was involved one way or the
other. I can't understand any kind of censorship on an art form. If you
are reporting reality that's another story but certainly not the case
here.

I've been intrigued by David's work for a while. I first saw his work
not too long ago (a couple of months) and found interesting that all of
the sudden it showed up here.
 
It looks as if coming from a Hasseblad Xpan and Kodak Techpan but it
could be any number of different systems. I've done a few "panoramas"
like that using a simple Fuji GX680III and cropping. I would use a 617
but it's not easy to get those negatives scanned.

g

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:22 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints

Gus,

It's as relevant as someone wants to make it.  What's relevant to you or
irrelevant to you may be very important or completely unimportant to
someone
else.  It's someone's own business what's important/not important to
them.

Why I asked, is because the small images looked very un-natural to me,
so I
wondered if they had been manipulated.  The larger images are much more
natural looking to me.  I know that I'm not a fan of very unnatural
looking
images, whether they are massively manipulated images or not.  That's my
personal taste, and certainly doesn't have to be anyone else's.

Austin

> No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs.
It
> has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
> Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop?
Would
> that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you
ever
> heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
> as your question.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>
> Steve,
>
> Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
>
> Austin
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> >
> >
> > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> > Steve M.



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
"flames."
- 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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Not sure.  See http://www.macduffeverton.com/  I use an 8x10 view camera, cropping to appx 4x10.  Although, I am taken with the Kaidan pan head that came in last month for 35mm or digital cameras.  Esp digital since you don't have to scan so much, plus it is not such a PITA to fly with.

  --Ken

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jerry Olson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 6:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


  They don't look photoshopped to me, except for the castle stalker photo.
  The light on the building seems to come from the right, while the light
  on the rock is coming from the left.  Looks like it, anyhoo. Beautiful
  photos!  Can a noblex give an absolute straight horizon?

  Jerry

  Ken Carney wrote:
  > 
  > I would not be surprised to learn that PS had some role in the skies, but the rest of it looks pretty much the same as other photos taken with a large format camera, a superb lens, a good tripod, great light and a good eye.  I would have guessed a Noblex, though.
  > 
  >   --Ken
  >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   From: Gus J Grubba
  >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  >   Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 6:01 PM
  >   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
  > 
  >   No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs. It
  >   has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
  >   Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop? Would
  >   that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you ever
  >   heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
  >   as your question.
  > 
  >   g
  > 
  >   -----Original Message-----
  >   From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
  >   Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
  >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  >   Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
  > 
  >   Steve,
  > 
  >   Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
  > 
  >   Austin
  > 
  >   > -----Original Message-----
  >   > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
  >   > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
  >   > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  >   > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
  >   > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
  >   > Steve M.
  > 
  >   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
  >   "flames."
  >   - 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
  >   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  > 
  >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >               ADVERTISEMENT
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  >   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 "flames."
  >   - 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.
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > 
  > 
  > 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 "flames."
  > - 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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 "flames."
  - 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. 


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

Steve,

Thanks for the link.  I like these moody pieces. It would be very
interesting to see the actual prints.

What is of great interest here is that digital is getting acceptance into
galleries. We have fretted over the longevity of inkjet yet here are B&W
prints on RC color paper with an advertised life of 60 years being sold at
some respectable prices. Times do seem to be changing.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: <sdmey4@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


> http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> Steve M.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi Gus,

I must admit, it is less of a photograph to me if it's seen heavy PS
manipulation.  It moves from photograph to graphics art in my book...of
course, where to draw the line is quite unknown, at least for me.  Now, I
didn't say it makes it less art, mind you, as both certainly can be on equal
footing as far as art goes.

One thing to keep in mind, is manipulation in PS is FAR FAR FAR much easier
than doing so in a "normal" darkroom, and as such, people tend to do it more
so.  That's why I'd ask if has something been "PS'd" far more than if it had
been "DR'd".

Regards,

Austin

> I accept your take on it. I understand it as something some people like
> others don't. I just get irked when I hear comments making a photograph
> less than "something" because Photoshop was involved one way or the
> other. I can't understand any kind of censorship on an art form. If you
> are reporting reality that's another story but certainly not the case
> here.
>
> I've been intrigued by David's work for a while. I first saw his work
> not too long ago (a couple of months) and found interesting that all of
> the sudden it showed up here.
>
> It looks as if coming from a Hasseblad Xpan and Kodak Techpan but it
> could be any number of different systems. I've done a few "panoramas"
> like that using a simple Fuji GX680III and cropping. I would use a 617
> but it's not easy to get those negatives scanned.
>
> g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>
> Gus,
>
> It's as relevant as someone wants to make it.  What's relevant to you or
> irrelevant to you may be very important or completely unimportant to
> someone
> else.  It's someone's own business what's important/not important to
> them.
>
> Why I asked, is because the small images looked very un-natural to me,
> so I
> wondered if they had been manipulated.  The larger images are much more
> natural looking to me.  I know that I'm not a fan of very unnatural
> looking
> images, whether they are massively manipulated images or not.  That's my
> personal taste, and certainly doesn't have to be anyone else's.
>
> Austin
>
> > No, they are not "mega-photoshoped". They are just good photographs.
> It
> > has almost the same look and feel of Michael Kena's night photography.
> > Come to think of it, what if they were manipulated with Photoshop?
> Would
> > that make it any less? Why is that question even relevant? Have you
> ever
> > heard someone saying "mega-darkroomed"? It makes as little sense to me
> > as your question.
> >
> > g
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:39 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > Don't they look mega-photoshoped to you?
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:59 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
> > > Ink getting you down? Check these out...
> > > Steve M.

At 1:35 AM -0400 9/16/02, Austin Franklin wrote:
>Hi Gus,
>
>I must admit, it is less of a photograph to me if it's seen heavy PS
>manipulation.  It moves from photograph to graphics art in my book...of
>course, where to draw the line is quite unknown, at least for me.  Now, I
>didn't say it makes it less art, mind you, as both certainly can be on equal
>footing as far as art goes.
>
>One thing to keep in mind, is manipulation in PS is FAR FAR FAR much easier
>than doing so in a "normal" darkroom, and as such, people tend to do it more
>so.  That's why I'd ask if has something been "PS'd" far more than if it had
>been "DR'd".
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin


This argument has been going on long before I got seriously 
interested in photography over 30 years ago...the "purists" vs the 
"manipulators".  Most people don't realize that some of the most 
venerated photographers were heavy manipulators of the silver gelatin 
media.  Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith are just a couple that 
immediately come to mind.  I would be seriously surprised if any 
major art or advertising photographer today was part of the purist 
camp. Manipulation has always been part of the craft of photography 
and it is still being taught in Black and White Photography 101 in 
schools around the world...

Photoshop is by it's nature manipulative. "Selections" are the basis 
of most operations in Photoshop.  Those that seriously object to 
images being "heavily manipulated in Photoshop" don't really 
understand the intent and full scope of the program.  Seems clear to 
me that one of the intentions of developing this program was to go 
beyond the mechanical and chemical manipulations that were being done 
in the darkroom.  Spending the nearly $700 on this program just to 
use it to scan and print an image with no 
corrections/operations/manipulations...(choose your favorite word)... 
is a waste of money. I guess that's why Photoshop "Elements" was 
published.

Shall we go on to more fruitful topics such as abstraction vs realism 
in painting? ...on another list, of course!


Bill Agee
-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

In the 70's (they still be around for all I know) there was a school 
that believed that if you even cropped an image you were some how a 
charlatan. This school of photographers would actually file out the 
enlarger file holders so a black uneven border would appear around their 
prints so that you would know they had not cropped. The were all 
disciples of Henri Cartier-Bression (who never went to that extreme). Of 
course to them Ansel Adams and W Eugen Smith were a incarnation of the 
Devil.

This sound like the same old argument. If the image is crap going into 
PS, it's crap coming out. PS provides the artist yet another creative 
tool. Too much PS will ruin the artistic value of a good image and PS 
cannot create a truly great image out of a poorly visualized photograph.

Truman


hogarth1x wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak
> <richard@c...> wrote:
> >
> ...snip
> > 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.
> >
> snip...
>
> Come on, Richard. This sounds like the kind of arguments I used to
> have with my brothers when I was nine. "I've got more talent than
> you've got!" "No you don't, it's just different!"
>
> Can't we rise above this level, just a little bit? Or is it that you
> really think that using Photoshop artistically requires no artistic
> talent?
>
>

Oh, for heavens sake! Should we also divulge which, if any, filters were
used on the lens? Why can't we think of Photoshop as just another
evolutionary development to make our images look like what was in our
mind when we took them? Isn't that what the zone system is all about?

Barbara White

Richard Sintchak wrote:

> 
> 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.

Barbara White Architectural Photography
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com

> 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 
> photographerslike 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. 


What a load of old Bo**ocks :-)

Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and 
manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and 
true is that...?).

Secondly - it takes just as much skill, expertise and experience to use 
Photoshop well as a photographic tool as it does be an excellent 
darkroom technician. Differnet skills, but just as rare in both cases.

Monday, September 16, 2002, 2:37:33 PM, Barbara White wrote:

BW> Oh, for heavens sake! Should we also divulge which, if any, filters were
BW> used on the lens? Why can't we think of Photoshop as just another
BW> evolutionary development to make our images look like what was in our
BW> mind when we took them? Isn't that what the zone system is all about?

BW> Barbara White


Oh, for heaven's sake, if the filter radically changed the color or
hue, then YES, you should.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Monday, September 16, 2002, 3:25:32 PM, Tim Atherton wrote:


TA> Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and 
TA> manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and 
TA> true is that...?).

TA> Secondly - it takes just as much skill, expertise and experience to use 
TA> Photoshop well as a photographic tool as it does be an excellent 
TA> darkroom technician. Differnet skills, but just as rare in both cases.


I completely agree with you.  And those who use it artistically garner
my respect.  Those who use it in place of, or to make up for, lack of
artistic talent, no.

I'm sorry, you can all call me a Luddite (which I'm not I use PS
extensively, have read 4 books on it and have taken 3 workshops in
using it for photography), but those who want to blindly and broadly
classify ANY all-out use of PS for whatever reason as perfectly
acceptable I find are usually the ones who depend on it the most. What
did photographers ever do before PS came along? Just toss out all
those awful slides on the light table?

I use it constantly. Do I crank up the saturation to make up for my
poor exposure or lack of good light at the scene? No. Do I change
color hues to be more interesting and completely different than what
was actually there? No. I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist.

(And by saying this I AM NOT saying that PS should not be used!  So do not
accuse me of such.)

Anyone want to maturely and intelligently continue the thread fine,
but let's drop the condescending and belittling "oh for heaven sakes!"
comments.  Please.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Hi Richard,

> What
> did photographers ever do before PS came along? Just toss out all
> those awful slides on the light table?

I know that at least I learned not to have so many "awful" slides/negatives
on the light table, by refining my photographic techniques as well as my
exposure and developing techniques...

Austin

> BW> Oh, for heavens sake! Should we also divulge which, if any,
> filters were
> BW> used on the lens? Why can't we think of Photoshop as just another
> BW> evolutionary development to make our images look like what was in our
> BW> mind when we took them? Isn't that what the zone system is all about?
>
> BW> Barbara White
>
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake, if the filter radically changed the color or
> hue, then YES, you should.

Richard,

I think most people can tell when a filter has been used...  One issue I
have with PS manipulation, is believing what I'm seeing.  With a simple
filter, I know that it's merely a tonal shift...with PS, the envelope is
wide open.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Tim,

> Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and
> manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
> true is that...?).

I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
reproduction of a scene.

> Secondly - it takes just as much skill, expertise and experience to use
> Photoshop well as a photographic tool as it does be an excellent
> darkroom technician. Differnet skills, but just as rare in both cases.

Absolutely BS.  How many did USM in the darkroom?  How many of you even know
that USM is a chemical darkroom technique, and know how it's actually done?
Not many, I assure you.

I think the ease of using PS is FAR FAR FAR greater than doing the same
thing in the darkroom.  It takes FAR less skill to do most anything in PS
than in the darkroom.  That has no bearing on the ability to get the result
you want, mind you...but the technical skill to do USM in the darkroom is
far greater than that required to do it in PS.  Does it matter?  Probably
not in reality.

That doesn't mean that someone using PS isn't a great technician...but just
because you do something in PS that can be done in the darkroom, doesn't
mean you have the same technical skill level.  That's the beauty of PS, it
takes a lot of the difficulty of doing certain things.  There's a bit of
narcissism to using PS for some, I'd say...because it allows people to do
things they couldn't or didn't do before, far more easily.

This is an aside, but somewhat, (IMO) related.  It's funny to listen to
people who weren't brought up around computers and know someone who "USES" a
computer...they think they are a "computer wiz" simply because they can
 "use" a computer.

Austin

Monday, September 16, 2002, 4:05:05 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

AF> I think most people can tell when a filter has been used...  One issue I
AF> have with PS manipulation, is believing what I'm seeing.  With a simple
AF> filter, I know that it's merely a tonal shift...with PS, the envelope is
AF> wide open.


The issue is, is this good or bad for photography?

Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?

I am amazed at how quickly people want to polarize this issue instead
of discussing and debating the middle ground in a respectful and
meaningful way. I am immediately accused of being ignorant, fearful,
lazy, scared, old-fashioned and full of sh**. I've been using PS since
version 4.0 and have made it my business over the years to receive
extensive professional training in it's use in addition to being
widely read in its use. Ignorant I am not. But the speed at which this
conversation became rude and condescending is troubling. Are people
really more comfortable trying to discount my opinions and want to
believe I'm nothing but an uneducated PS user who yearns for the past?
Why? What comfort does this provide people?

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Hi Richard,

> AF> I think most people can tell when a filter has been used...
> One issue I
> AF> have with PS manipulation, is believing what I'm seeing.
> With a simple
> AF> filter, I know that it's merely a tonal shift...with PS, the
> envelope is
> AF> wide open.
>
>
> The issue is, is this good or bad for photography?

For me, that isn't an issue...

> Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?

Yes, that's my feeling too.

> I am amazed at how quickly people want to polarize this issue instead
> of discussing and debating the middle ground in a respectful and
> meaningful way. I am immediately accused of being ignorant, fearful,
> lazy, scared, old-fashioned and full of sh**.

Hey, welcome to the club ;-)

> But the speed at which this
> conversation became rude and condescending is troubling. Are people
> really more comfortable trying to discount my opinions and want to
> believe I'm nothing but an uneducated PS user who yearns for the past?
> Why? What comfort does this provide people?

Well, I think there's an interesting defensiveness that can take place on
both sides. People who have discovered PS and use it don't want to be told
they aren't photographers....which may or may not be the case, IMO.  I am a
purist.  I like to get my exposure dead on, my composition perfect etc.  I
like the negative to BE the image, not something I manipulated in PS.  What
I CAN use PS for is to help an image that I didn't get right.  For me, it's
the extensive creation of images using PS that I'm not a fan of.  That doesn
't mean I don't like some of the images, but I take them for what they are,
as you say, graphics art...not photography.  There is a nebulous line right
now with respect to that.  I certainly don't know how to quantify the line,
but I do know when I see an image that looks PS'd and one that doesn't.  I'm
sure I get some wrong every now and then...

Austin

> Hi Tim,
>
> > Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and
> > manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
> > true is that...?).
>
> I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> reproduction of a scene.
>

That's close to the old "Photographs never lie" myth Austin - almost every
photograph does, and is an unreal representation of what it tries to
present. Even Scenes of Crime photography requires the testimony of the
photographer to authenticate it - it doesn't and can't stand on it's own.
(having spent my early photographic days doing just that). Becuase the
Courts are very aware of how easily photography lies - even the choice of
viewpoint makes a difference.


> > Secondly - it takes just as much skill, expertise and experience to use
> > Photoshop well as a photographic tool as it does be an excellent
> > darkroom technician. Differnet skills, but just as rare in both cases.
>
> Absolutely BS.  How many did USM in the darkroom?  How many of
> you even know
> that USM is a chemical darkroom technique, and know how it's
> actually done?
> Not many, I assure you.

I did, for one, and plenty of it...

And I think you missed the point - I said it is as much a skill to master
Photoshop as it is to become a good darkroom technician - I said nothing
about how easy or hard it was to do things in PS as compared to the
darkroom. Some things still work better and are easier in the darkroom,
others in PS.

> I think the ease of using PS is FAR FAR FAR greater than doing the same
> thing in the darkroom.  It takes FAR less skill to do most anything in PS
> than in the darkroom.  That has no bearing on the ability to get
> the result
> you want, mind you...but the technical skill to do USM in the darkroom is
> far greater than that required to do it in PS.  Does it matter?  Probably
> not in reality.

A really skilled user of Photoshop is still as rare as a really skilled
darkroom craftsperson - most people's Photoshop work is pretty clumsy - but
then so is most darkroom work.

tim

Austin Franklin wrote:

>  
>
>>Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, that's my feeling too.
>  
>

Does that mean it's in any way negative? Lautrec did Impressionist 
Dancers with oils as well as publicity posters... Is one or the other 
less illustrative of his genius? less worthy of being called art?

>  
>
>>I am amazed at how quickly people want to polarize this issue instead
>>of discussing and debating the middle ground in a respectful and
>>meaningful way. I am immediately accused of being ignorant, fearful,
>>lazy, scared, old-fashioned and full of sh**.
>>    
>>
>
>Hey, welcome to the club ;-)
>
>  
>
>>But the speed at which this
>>conversation became rude and condescending is troubling. Are people
>>really more comfortable trying to discount my opinions and want to
>>believe I'm nothing but an uneducated PS user who yearns for the past?
>>Why? What comfort does this provide people?
>>    
>>
>
>Well, I think there's an interesting defensiveness that can take place on
>both sides. People who have discovered PS and use it don't want to be told
>they aren't photographers....which may or may not be the case, IMO.  I am a
>purist.  I like to get my exposure dead on, my composition perfect etc.  I
>like the negative to BE the image, not something I manipulated in PS.  What
>I CAN use PS for is to help an image that I didn't get right.  For me, it's
>the extensive creation of images using PS that I'm not a fan of.  That doesn
>'t mean I don't like some of the images, but I take them for what they are,
>as you say, graphics art...not photography.  There is a nebulous line right
>now with respect to that.  I certainly don't know how to quantify the line,
>but I do know when I see an image that looks PS'd and one that doesn't.  I'm
>sure I get some wrong every now and then...
>
>  
>

Well said...

Drawing static lines in the sand won't work.. Photography supplanted 
much of the market for painted portraiture, but it also opened 
"portraiture" to millions who could never afford having a good oil done 
of themselves..

I think the key is to sort crap from good/effective art...  Again we 
will come back to whether the tool, technique, style, etc, supports the 
message or detracts from it..

Keith
 
 



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

Hi Keith,

> >>Or are we quickly becoming graphic artists?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, that's my feeling too.
> >
> >
>
> Does that mean it's in any way negative?

Of course not, but it's calling a spade a spade.

> >Well, I think there's an interesting defensiveness that can take place on
> >both sides. People who have discovered PS and use it don't want
> to be told
> >they aren't photographers....which may or may not be the case,
> IMO.  I am a
> >purist.  I like to get my exposure dead on, my composition
> perfect etc.  I
> >like the negative to BE the image, not something I manipulated
> in PS.  What
> >I CAN use PS for is to help an image that I didn't get right.
> For me, it's
> >the extensive creation of images using PS that I'm not a fan of.
>  That doesn
> >'t mean I don't like some of the images, but I take them for
> what they are,
> >as you say, graphics art...not photography.  There is a nebulous
> line right
> >now with respect to that.  I certainly don't know how to
> quantify the line,
> >but I do know when I see an image that looks PS'd and one that
> doesn't.  I'm
> >sure I get some wrong every now and then...
> >
>
> Well said...

Why, thank you!  Happens every now and then ;-)

> Drawing static lines in the sand won't work..

Agreed.

> I think the key is to sort crap from good/effective art...  Again we
> will come back to whether the tool, technique, style, etc, supports the
> message or detracts from it..

And I believe that's probably true too.

Regards,

Austin

Luke Granfield wrote:

>>From "The Spirituality of Imperfection" by Ernest Kurtz and Katherine
>Ketcham:
>
>"Once, when Rabbi Mordecai was in the great town of Minsk expounding the
>Torah to a number of men hostile to his way, they laughed at him. 'What you
>say does not explain the verse in the least,' they cried.
>"'Do you really think,' he replied, 'that I was trying to explain the verse
>in the book? That doesn't need an explanation! I want to explain the verse
>that is within me.'"
>
>
>
>  
>
I think given the current misunderstanding of Islam by many, and the 
hostility of  much of the public to even the word "Islam," that the 
following Persian story appropriately illustrates the idea succinctly 
and even provides a welcome insight into how many muslims feel about the 
intolerance preached by the current crop of "Jihad zealots".. (in case 
anyone cares, I am not a follower of Mohammed - but can easily see the 
wisdom in this story)


Mullah Nazruhdin  was spending some time as an ascetic, alone on an 
island, in the middle of a large lake...  Upon his departure to the 
island he told some more "senior" clerics that he would be working upon 
his devotion to Allah, and particularly planned to work upon perfected 
his kneeling supplications (bows) towards Mecca, so that in perfecting 
his physical honoring of the lord, he could more closely approach 
spiritual perfection.

After a few weeks, three senior (and very self-important)  Mullahs took 
it upon themselves and said "let us go see how Mullah Nazruhdin is 
getting along on the island and see if his supplications of prayer have 
improved"

They rowed out to the island and spent a day eating and discussing with 
Mullah Nazruhdin various spiritual insights...  When evening prayers 
arrived the three visiting Mullahs stood and watched as Nazruhdin 
offered his prayers, bent and prostrate towards Mecca.

"No, no" they said, "you still have not got it right, watch brother 
Ahmed demonstrate the proper obeisance"  and they proceeded to 
demonstrate how they KNEW prayers were most properly to be offered to 
the divine.

Mullah Nazruhdin promise to work much harder to hopefully bring his 
manner closer to how they had instructed..

Just after sunset the three Mullahs began to row back from the island...

As they got about halfway back to shore, one Mullah noticed something 
towards the island flashing brief spurts of white in the afterlight of 
sunset upon the surface of the lake.. As they rowed along the flashes 
grew brighter and it soon became apparent they were simply the spray 
being kicked up by something in or on the water..

As this first mullah pointed out the strange phenomenon to his two 
brother mullahs, they all suddenly realized it was someone running to 
them from the island, kicking up spray with their speed on the surface 
of the water..

It was Mullah Nazruhdin!

They could see his arms waving as he tried to draw their attention, and 
finally, over the wind and surf they could hear his voice:

"Wait, wait, Brothers, I think I finally have it right, please come back 
and review my prayer stance once more..."



Keith
 
 



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

My intention in starting this thread was not to inspire a Photoshop 
discussion. Not even! Lets go back to the images and technique.  
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/osbornnew.htm
Do to the recent uneasiness about the archival nature of Black and white 
inkjet prints, I simply provided a link showing a prime example of an 
alternative method  for digital black and white (with a known life expectancy 
that is acceptable in most circles)! Since there are so many who wish to 
replicate what they used to get in the darkroom (air dried silver fiber 
prints) I thought the link might stimulate or inspire some to explore 
lightjet printing of black and white images. I really don't think anyone can 
say that David Osborns negatives really sucked until Photoshop fixed them! I 
think its pretty obvious that the guy is a very skilled photographer. I think 
the guy just didn't want to deal with having to make 20x60's in the darkroom 
so he found a better way! LIGHTJET. I would also say he probably did not want 
to risk an unknown output such as inkjet or he would have gone that way. He 
was playing it safe I'd say with a guaranteed 30 -50years using Fuji Crystal 
Archive paper. These types of lightjet prints on the semi matte paper are the 
most comparable to Silver fiber prints. In my opinion.
I would call David Osborn a photographer, Photoshop or not. 
This seems like a very reasonable way to make large prints, Ink printing 
isn't the whole digital world.
From the tone of this tread I assume that most of you thought the images 
where to good to be unmanipulated? All I can say is lots of exhibit 
photgraphers do darkroom work with a similar look( Michael Kenna comes to 
mind) So why does photoshop have to make the images good in this case. I 
doubt his buyers really care one way or another....
Steve Meyers


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

Hi Steve,

> From the tone of this tread I assume that most of you thought the images
> where to good to be unmanipulated?

No, not at all, as I'm the one who brought PS and those images up.  The
small images looked like they had the highlights out of proportion, and had
some PS manipulation to them...as they looked very unnatural.  Nothing to do
with looking too good.  Once I looked at the larger images though, they
looked quite a bit better.  The thread really had nothing to do with his
images, except that I thought that they might have been "shopped"...

Regards,

Austin

Ken Carney wrote:

>If there is one clear message in this thread, it's time for the FTC and Congress to step in and clean this mess up.  As a collector of art, I have a right to know which filter was used, what was placed on Zone III, whether a Windsor brush was used or some cheap imitation, and so on.  Then I can make an informed decision as to whether it's art or not.  Isn't that reasonable?
>
>
>  
>

Truth in Labeling for Art?

These are the same people who let phrases light "lite" and "all natural" 
confuse the public!!...  They let millions of  pounds of ConAgra ground 
beef reach the public for nearly two months before they interceded -- 
and in that case public health was at risk! Foods and dietary 
supplements are constantly  mislabeled and government is  virtually 
impotent in addressing it...  

The market will easily determine the value or lack thereof in imagery 
created in certain manners...

If an artist says a work was produced in manner "x" when it was done in 
some less valuable way, when that become apparent, the value of all 
their work will go down..  Just look at all the agonizing this list  
goes through over what term  to use to describe a particular printing 
process..

If you get duped into buying a piece of art that is NOT what it was 
represented as, then its your right to sue...  Next you'd have the FTC 
checking TV appearances of Pop bands for  lip syncing..  ;-)

In situations where the beauty and unique nature of an object  are key 
to its value, there is no replacement for "caveat emptor".. Although a 
good attorney on retainer helps.. ;-)


Keith



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

Hi Tim,

> > > Fist, photography always has and always will be about
> artificiality and
> > > manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
> > > true is that...?).
> >
> > I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> > reproduction of a scene.
> >
>
> That's close to the old "Photographs never lie" myth Austin - almost every
> photograph does, and is an unreal representation of what it tries to
> present.

You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of, is what you
took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it self.  What it
represents is something possibly different, but it's at least accurate to
what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.

> > > Secondly - it takes just as much skill, expertise and
> experience to use
> > > Photoshop well as a photographic tool as it does be an excellent
> > > darkroom technician. Differnet skills, but just as rare in both cases.
> >
> > Absolutely BS.  How many did USM in the darkroom?  How many of
> > you even know
> > that USM is a chemical darkroom technique, and know how it's
> > actually done?
> > Not many, I assure you.
>
> I did, for one, and plenty of it...
>
> And I think you missed the point - I said it is as much a skill to master
> Photoshop as it is to become a good darkroom technician - I said nothing
> about how easy or hard it was to do things in PS as compared to the
> darkroom.

I think you missed the point.  The skill level to do USM (or much of
anything) with PS is FAR less than to do it in the darkroom.  That's a fact.

> Some things still work better and are easier in the darkroom,
> others in PS.

Name something that's easier in the darkroom...aside from getting a drink of
water, as most chemical darkrooms have sinks, and most digital ones don't.

> > I think the ease of using PS is FAR FAR FAR greater than doing the same
> > thing in the darkroom.  It takes FAR less skill to do most
> anything in PS
> > than in the darkroom.  That has no bearing on the ability to get
> > the result
> > you want, mind you...but the technical skill to do USM in the
> darkroom is
> > far greater than that required to do it in PS.  Does it matter?
>  Probably
> > not in reality.
>
> A really skilled user of Photoshop is still as rare as a really skilled
> darkroom craftsperson - most people's Photoshop work is pretty
> clumsy - but
> then so is most darkroom work.

How do you know?  Most everyone uses USM now, and most everyone didn't when
doing chemical prints.  People don't even know what to call "manipulation"
and what not to.  Setpoints and tonal curves are not manipulations, they are
simply calibration in my book...that is if done to "match" the image.  Dust
spotting is hardly manipulation, nor is cropping really.

Austin

>Ken Carney wrote:

>>If there is one clear message in this thread, it's time for the FTC and Congress to step in and clean this mess up.  As a collector of art, I have a right to know which filter was used, what was placed on Zone III, whether a Windsor brush was used or some cheap imitation, and so on.  Then I can make an informed decision as to whether it's art or not.  Isn't that reasonable?


>Truth in Labeling for Art?

>These are the same people who let phrases light "lite" and "all natural" 
confuse the public!!...  They let millions of  pounds of ConAgra ground 
beef reach the public for nearly two months before they interceded -- 
and in that case public health was at risk! Foods and dietary 
supplements are constantly  mislabeled and government is  virtually 
impotent in addressing it... 

I wouldn't let one slip-up condemn the whole program.  This entire issue came to my attention recently when my uncle, God rest his soul, left me a "Moonrise" printed by AA himself, evidently as an expression of gratitude for some business advice given.  It was beautiful, apparently an unusual size (40 x 50") and I was overwhelmed...until a little research revealed the truth. First of all, I was shocked...shocked!...to find that the bottom part of the negative had been intensified in chromium chemistry.  But that was nothing compared to learning that there were clouds that had been...burned out!  Needless to say, I returned it to the executor.  I believe it is now pinned to the wall at an intake center for the City Rescue Mission.  A simple, but conspicuous, disclosure statement on the print would have saved me much anguish.  It is my humble opinion that we can trust our elected representatives in this matter. 



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

> You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
> accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of, is what you
> took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it self.  What it
> represents is something possibly different, but it's at least accurate to
> what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
> which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.

Austin,

the point is that photography can never accurately reproduce a scene (at the
most banal level, all photographs arrest the flow of time, extracting a
fraction of a second - a fraction far to short for the eye to register - and
so the instant the photograph is taken, it becomes unreal and inaccurate - a
construct). The photograph you produce is merely an attempt to represent
what you, the photographer, saw. To insist it is (or can be) an accurate (or
true) reproduction is simplistic at best and certainly inaccurate.

And to bring it back to the Photoshop question, the adjustments or
manipulations made in PS or the darkroom are so far down the line in this
process and so crude as to have little important bearing on the truth or
otherwise of the image.


Tim

> > You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
> > accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of,
> is what you
> > took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it
> self.  What it
> > represents is something possibly different, but it's at least
> accurate to
> > what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
> > which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.
>
> Austin,
>
> the point is that photography can never accurately reproduce a
> scene (at the
> most banal level, all photographs arrest the flow of time, extracting a
> fraction of a second - a fraction far to short for the eye to
> register - and
> so the instant the photograph is taken, it becomes unreal and
> inaccurate - a
> construct). The photograph you produce is merely an attempt to represent
> what you, the photographer, saw. To insist it is (or can be) an
> accurate (or
> true) reproduction is simplistic at best and certainly inaccurate.
>
> And to bring it back to the Photoshop question, the adjustments or
> manipulations made in PS or the darkroom are so far down the line in this
> process and so crude as to have little important bearing on the truth or
> otherwise of the image.
>
>
> Tim

Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)

Regards,

Austin

>
> Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
> sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

your welcome Austin! I understand - you're and engineer and I know where you
are coming from - no problemo  :-)

tim

> > Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
> > sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> 
> your welcome Austin! I understand - you're and engineer and I 
> know where you
> are coming from - no problemo  :-)
> 
> tim


And...I know where I'm going too...to BED!

;-)

Regards,

Austin

First, the words manipulation or manipulative should not be allowed to be
used. It has a negative connotation to start with. The concept of the
instant a photograph was taken is unreal and inaccurate is beyond my
comprehension. It might be used (the photograph) out of context but that
doesn't make it unreal or simplistic. It still represents a real instance in
time. That fraction of a second never existed?----that's crap. People
manipulate people. If someone can make contact through an image, that is not
manipulation---it's communication. When a poster is used for propaganda
that's manipulation---of the society, not the poster art. Did Mondrian
manipulate? Or any of the other artists who broke the silly barriers of
communicating? The message is the thing and everybody is attacking the
messengers. Too bad. There are photographers who can manipulate their
a----es off and it will still look like crap.

bgs---The ultimate lurker!
From: "Tim Atherton" <tim@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


> > You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
> > accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of, is what
you
> > took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it self.  What
it
> > represents is something possibly different, but it's at least accurate
to
> > what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
> > which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.
>
> Austin,
>
> the point is that photography can never accurately reproduce a scene (at
the
> most banal level, all photographs arrest the flow of time, extracting a
> fraction of a second - a fraction far to short for the eye to register -
and
> so the instant the photograph is taken, it becomes unreal and inaccurate -
a
> construct). The photograph you produce is merely an attempt to represent
> what you, the photographer, saw. To insist it is (or can be) an accurate
(or
> true) reproduction is simplistic at best and certainly inaccurate.
>
> And to bring it back to the Photoshop question, the adjustments or
> manipulations made in PS or the darkroom are so far down the line in this
> process and so crude as to have little important bearing on the truth or
> otherwise of the image.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Austin, Tim,

I think you are both largely correct and I understand your positions. They
sort of combine in the statement:

The camera rarely lies but it seldom tells the truth.

Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been manipulated
before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. If it
is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. (Unless
I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)

Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will probably make
good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the computer.
The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and dedication to
the craft.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


>
> > > Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
> > > sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> >
> > your welcome Austin! I understand - you're and engineer and I
> > know where you
> > are coming from - no problemo  :-)
> >
> > tim
>
>
> And...I know where I'm going too...to BED!
>
> ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Austin, Tim,
> 
> I think you are both largely correct and I understand your positions. They
> sort of combine in the statement:
> 
> The camera rarely lies but it seldom tells the truth.
> 
> Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been manipulated
> before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. If it
> is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. (Unless
> I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
> 
> Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will probably make
> good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the computer.
> The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and dedication to
> the craft.
> 
> Martin Wesley

YAY MARTIN   i am not a photographer, as i have told you in off group (but a visual artist using these tools), but i truly think one needs to follow NOT THE RULES 
OF THE TOOLS, but what you are trying to SEE and get SEEN (may i say what you FEEL and want to share?)  why else DO it?    no matter how "perfect" you get 
(perfection being impossible) if it says nothing, it truly SAYS NOTHING! 

so use all the tools, whatever way you use them, and be the artist rather than the shooter/technician      the art world has not so easily accepted photography as an art 
form   i do    but if you argue forever over the small things, how do you ever have time or energy for the looking and seeing? which precede the taking of that shot that 
stops your heart and that of others    i have seen some shots i found on this discussion (links) which stopped my heart and made me want to LIVE THERE for some 
time AND return to there   now THERE, my friends, is ART!    jno

> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:36 PM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
> 
> 
> >
> > > > Well, Tim, I understand what you're saying, and still believe you're a
> > > > sandwich short of a picnic, and entirely missing the point ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Austin
> > >
> > > your welcome Austin! I understand - you're and engineer and I
> > > know where you
> > > are coming from - no problemo  :-)
> > >
> > > tim
> >
> >
> > And...I know where I'm going too...to BED!
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Hi Tim,
>
>  
>
>>Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and
>>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
>>true is that...?).
>>    
>>
>
>I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
>reproduction of a scene.
>
>  
>

Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that actually 
accurately depicts reality.

B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..

Keith
 



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

At 10:18 PM -0700 9/16/02, Martin Wesley wrote:
>Austin, Tim,
>
>.....
>
>Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been manipulated
>before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. If it
>is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. (Unless
>I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
>
......

>Martin Wesley
>
>

Martin, I totally agree with your position. I would put it that the 
end result is what counts, not how one got there...and yet another 
way..."all's fair in love and Photography."

Bill Agee
-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

> I'm sorry, you can all call me a Luddite (which I'm not I use PS
> extensively, have read 4 books on it and have taken 3 workshops in
> using it for photography), but those who want to blindly and broadly
> classify ANY all-out use of PS for whatever reason as perfectly
> acceptable I find are usually the ones who depend on it the most. 
What
> did photographers ever do before PS came along? Just toss out all
> those awful slides on the light table?
> 


Richard...condescending aside (it's probably good for the soul and 
making you a better person in any event <g>...

This thread doesn't even consider the (apparently) small number of us 
who have dropped film and chemistry altogether...after 30 years of 
smelly hands, I just won't go there any longer.

The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to 
Photoshop...does it? Does that make it "not a photo"?

We seem to miss the essence we are all striving to capture and 
project (possibly a pun)... IF you and Austin will admit that images 
captured on CCDs can be photos (and I know you both will)...then this 
thread has taken a wrong turn altogether, IMHO.

Tom O'Connell

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bill Agee" <billagee@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


> At 10:18 PM -0700 9/16/02, Martin Wesley wrote:
> >Austin, Tim,
> >
> >.....
> >
> >Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been
manipulated
> >before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. If
it
> >is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important.
(Unless
> >I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
> >
> ......
>
> >Martin Wesley
> >
> >
>
> Martin, I totally agree with your position. I would put it that the
> end result is what counts, not how one got there...and yet another
> way..."all's fair in love and Photography."
>

Bill,

Yep. Thing of it is though, for some people the "how it got there" is very
important. Just from all the comments to that effect this is obviously the
case. There is the scientific or technical fact that when you trip the
shutter, light reflected off of real objects passes through the lens (and
filters) and records an image on the film or CCD array. The negative or
image file then is a factual representation of this physical event. To that
degree the camera is objective. If people want to build on that towards a
certain style of photography and/or a philosophy of "Photography" or "Art"
more power to them. Have at it. The full frame Leica street photography
school has produced some wonderful stuff so it is a very workable concept.

What is rubbing people the wrong way here is that rather than promoting the
value or beauty of such a method, the proponents are instead placing their
approach on a pedestal and making denigrating comments about other
approaches. You don't get many converts by offending people.

Martin

Bill Agee wrote:

>Well, Richard, I will stipulate that you are not a reactionary 
>"purist", but you Keith and Austin are just "more pure" than the rest 
>of us..
>
>  
>
Whoa!

Got me in the wrong category pardner..

I love PhotoShop for image work...  I don't give a darn  how much anyone 
uses it..  The only place I find overuse of PhotoShop in any way 
dishonest, is in News  oe Reportage..

My position is that just as there is good and bad photography,  there is 
good an bad PhotoShop..  IMHO good PhotoShop is anything that helps 
create a better image that better conveys the artist's intent.. I'd much 
rather do an unsharp mask in PhotoShop.. or color correction.. Can you 
imagine trying to get the prints you wnat out of cross-processing 
without PhotoShop? (It may have been done in the past - but PShop makes 
cross-processing  a toll with a wider application of its own)  


Keith
 
 



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

Martin Wesley wrote:

>
>The camera rarely lies but it seldom tells the truth.
>
>Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been manipulated
>before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. If it
>is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. (Unless
>I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
>
>Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will probably make
>good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the computer.
>The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and dedication to
>the craft.
>
>  
>
To steal a page from your book Martin:

HEAR, HEAR!!

Keith
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




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

Tim,

> The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to
> Photoshop...does it?

Er, why?  For what?  Do you think that mom and pop digital camera user knows
how to use PS?  Certainly not.  For digital photography to be a success (in
a vast commercial sense like film is), it MUST be able to be done by simply
printing what the camera takes, period.  Hook that camera up to an HP
PhotoSmart printer, push a button...and out comes a "perfect" 4x6...

> Does that make it "not a photo"? [talking about PS'd images]

Yes and no.  Is paint that is painted over a photo a photo or a painting?
It may be graphics art...

Austin

Keith,

> >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and
> >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
> >>true is that...?).
> >
> >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> >reproduction of a scene.
> >
>
> Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that actually
> accurately depicts reality.
>
> B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..

That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of reality, but
it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.  What's
there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally "different".
That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.

Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum, doesn't
make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".

Austin

> YAY MARTIN   i am not a photographer, as i have told you in off
> group (but a visual artist using these tools), but i truly think
> one needs to follow NOT THE RULES
> OF THE TOOLS, but what you are trying to SEE and get SEEN (may i
> say what you FEEL and want to share?)  why else DO it?    no
> matter how "perfect" you get
> (perfection being impossible) if it says nothing, it truly SAYS NOTHING!
>
> so use all the tools, whatever way you use them, and be the
> artist rather than the shooter/technician      the art world has
> not so easily accepted photography as an art
> form   i do    but if you argue forever over the small things,
> how do you ever have time or energy for the looking and seeing?
> which precede the taking of that shot that
> stops your heart and that of others    i have seen some shots i
> found on this discussion (links) which stopped my heart and made
> me want to LIVE THERE for some
> time AND return to there   now THERE, my friends, is ART!    jno

I don't disagree at all.  The issue is, is it photography, or graphics art,
and where to you draw the line?

Austin

Hi Martin,

> Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been 
> manipulated
> before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the 
> computer. If it
> is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not 
> important. (Unless
> I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)

Agreed, but is it photography or graphics art?
 
> Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will 
> probably make
> good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the 
> computer.
> The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and 
> dedication to
> the craft.

No argument there.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Keith,
> 
> > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about
artificiality and
> > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real
and
> > >>true is that...?).
> > >
> > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about
accurate
> > >reproduction of a scene.
> > >
> >
> > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that
actually
> > accurately depicts reality.
> >
> > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> 
> That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of
reality, but
> it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see. 
What's
> there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally
"different".
> That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.
> 
> Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum,
doesn't
> make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".
> 
> Austin

Actually, it is true. Photography is an abstraction. One of the
definitions Webster's uses for abstract is "expressing a quality apart
from an object." Photography expresses a 2D quality apart from most
objects' 3D reality.

It gets better in B&W, which expresses a grayscale quality apart from
most objects' full color reality.

To argue that photography is *not* abstract is less than wise. You put
yourself in the position of arguing with the acknoledged experts in
the field, Stieglitz, Adams, Weston, etc. who all come down on the
side of photography being abstract.

Given reasonable technical skills the abilities a good print comes from 
the photographer's vision. The art of photography is to capture an 
arrangement of photons on a sensor (film or CCD) that existed at some 
point in time and producing a final image that conveys to the viewer the 
vision in the mind's eye of the photographer.

The negative is alike the musical score and the final print is like the 
performance of the score with the printer being the conductor. The 
performance may change over time just has a person may make a different 
print from the same negative at different times. But the final image is 
the vision of the photographer. I cannot produce a score that would 
sound like the classical masters or Pink Floyd or the Greatful Dead, 
etc. no matter who plays it. If the negative does not capture that 
vision, it cannot be added in either PS or a darkroom.

Truman

Martin Wesley wrote:

> Austin, Tim,
>
> I think you are both largely correct and I understand your positions. They
> sort of combine in the statement:
>
> The camera rarely lies but it seldom tells the truth.
>
> Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been 
> manipulated
> before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. 
> If it
> is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. 
> (Unless
> I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
>
> Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will 
> probably make
> good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the 
> computer.
> The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and 
> dedication to
> the craft.
>
> Martin Wesley
>
> <http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html>




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

> > Keith,
> >
> > > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about
> artificiality and
> > > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real
> and
> > > >>true is that...?).
> > > >
> > > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about
> accurate
> > > >reproduction of a scene.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that
> actually
> > > accurately depicts reality.
> > >
> > > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> >
> > That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of
> reality, but
> > it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.
> What's
> > there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally
> "different".
> > That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.
> >
> > Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum,
> doesn't
> > make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".
> >
> > Austin
>
> Actually, it is true.

You BELIEVE it's true, and I strongly disagree with that.

> Photography is an abstraction.

Photography CAN be an abstraction, but that does not make all photography an
abstraction.

> One of the
> definitions Webster's uses for abstract is "expressing a quality apart
> from an object." Photography expresses a 2D quality apart from most
> objects' 3D reality.

Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you only have the
data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's still real.
Does someone who can't hear, not live in reality?  I believe your
application here is entirely wrong.  Because one only senses one aspect
(like IR, or UV or grayscale), such as a  particular spectrum, doesn't make
it "abstract".

By your interpretation, ever sense we have, vision, hearing, taste etc. is
an "abstraction", and in fact, there is no reality.  Fact is, we can only
sense what our sensors allow us to sense, that's it.  Every sensor has
limitations, and "expresses a quality apart from an object", period.  That
does not mean what it senses is an abstraction.  You're arguing what is
reality.  Is what you sense reality, at least from your prospective?  If so,
then what ANY sensor senses IS reality, as far as that sensor's prospective.
It's when you manipulate that sensors data that you make it abstract.

Data can be "corrected" to make it more usable to the processing system that
is processing it, namely in our case, our eye, and that doesn't make it
"abstract".  Just like you do tonal corrections to the data, because the
system that is sensing the scene REQUIRES tonal correction to convert from
it's sensing view to yours.  Of course, there comes a point where this
correction can cause distortion...at least from your prospective, the
original scene and your "representation" of the scene become divergent.

> It gets better in B&W, which expresses a grayscale quality apart from
> most objects' full color reality.

There is no "full color reality" by your argument.  And as I said, I
disagree with the whole premise you bring up, though I understand the
arguments on both sides intimately.  I've done a LOT of work in the area of
sensors and machine perception.  Reality is only what YOUR sensors allow you
to perceive.

> To argue that photography is *not* abstract is less than wise. You put
> yourself in the position of arguing with the acknoledged experts in
> the field, Stieglitz, Adams, Weston, etc. who all come down on the
> side of photography being abstract.

What makes their "understanding" any more valid than anyone else's?  Not
everyone agrees with them, BTW.

Photography CAN be abstract, but not all photography, by definition, IS
abstract IMO, in a practical sense use of the word.  There is a level of
accurate representation.  Technically, you can never accurately represent
anything physical, accurately...but there is a humanly acceptable level of
representation that is accepted as being accurate.  There are also different
aspects of accurate...a photograph has many aspects to it...relative
dimensional accuracy, tonal accuracy...  It certainly is more accurate at
some aspects than others, that's for sure...and that's true with any sensing
system.

I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe that when it
becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.

Austin

> Tim,
> 
> > The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to
> > Photoshop...does it?
> 
> Er, why?  For what?  Do you think that mom and pop digital camera 
> user knows.... etc etc


Wasn't this tim, Austin..


tim a

> I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe 
> that when it
> becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
> 
> Austin

Presumably you print your landscapes full size Austin  :-)


tim

> > I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe 
> > that when it
> > becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
> > 
> > Austin
> 
> Presumably you print your landscapes full size Austin  :-)

Tim,

Some of them, especially when they are of small landscapes ;-)

Austin

> > Tim,
> >
> > > The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to
> > > Photoshop...does it?
> >
> > Er, why?  For what?  Do you think that mom and pop digital camera
> > user knows.... etc etc
>
>
> Wasn't this tim, Austin..
>
>
> tim a

Oops, sorry...right idea, wrong name (on both of our accounts!), it was TOM,
not Tim...

Question still stands though ;-)

Austin

>
>
>I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe that when it
>becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
>
>Austin
>


Austin,

This is why you have a contrary opinion.  You don't accept the 
definitions most of us do in this field...  No sense discussing it 
any more as you have your own special definitions of abstraction, 
photography and graphics art.  This is more about language than image 
making.

Bill Agee
-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

Bill,

> >
> >I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe
> that when it
> >becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
> >
> >Austin
> >
>
>
> Austin,
>
> This is why you have a contrary opinion.  You don't accept the
> definitions most of us do in this field...

I do not believe your definitions are the ones "most ... in this field
accept".  I've been a professional commercial photographer as well as in the
digital imaging, and computer graphics business for over 25 years, and I
don't find your definitions to be "accepted by most of US in this field".

> No sense discussing it
> any more as you have your own special definitions of abstraction,
> photography and graphics art.  This is more about language than image
> making.

I believe my understanding is more acceptable across the varied fields that
are intermixed here, as I'm "in" all these fields, and have been for some
time.  That's just MY opinion and well versed perception...and from years of
discussion about these very topics with many other professionals.  Of
course, you're entitled to your own opinion, based on what ever your reality
is, but stating that YOUR opinion is unquestionably the "correct" does not
make it correct at all.

You don't happen to be on the "left" coast, do you?

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

 >Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you only 
have the
 >data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's still 
real.
 >Does someone who can't hear, not live in reality?  I believe your
 >application here is entirely wrong.  Because one only senses one aspect
 >(like IR, or UV or grayscale), such as a  particular spectrum, doesn't 
make
 >it "abstract".
 >
 >
It does not make the data or the phenomenon itself abstract..  BUT,
  representation of the data, be they graphs, paintings, tables, or
photos is abstract UNLESS that representation recreates the phenomenon.

 >By your interpretation, ever sense we have, vision, hearing, taste etc. is
 >an "abstraction", and in fact, there is no reality.
 >
OH boy.  There's fun coming now.. You are on a train headed right into
the philosophy of perception...  "Welcome to my lair said the spider to
the fly."

 > Fact is, we can only
 >sense what our sensors allow us to sense, that's it.  Every sensor has
 >limitations, and "expresses a quality apart from an object", period.  That
 >does not mean what it senses is an abstraction.
 >

No, what you sense is a manifestation of an object or phenomenon BUT
that manifestation is NOT the object..   Philosophers have understood
this since Plato... There is a difference between what  he called the
"essence" of an object and its "manifestations."  In fact, color has
both "manifestation" and "essence" in Platonic philosophy, BUT, we know
only the "manifestation" which can change under differing conditions.,
  Only the object itself  "knows" or "experiences" its own reality.

If you care to look at more recent philosophy, I suggest Kant or Hegel 
(or any of the great German metaphysicians) as they discuss the 
difference between the perceived and our perception (and/or memory) on 
the one hand, and reality itself on the other..  Kant
says we can never truly "know" something, and is 100% correct...  We
cannot know without going at the door that we won't fall into a
blackhole as we leave the house.  We can operate with the expectation
that will not happen, simply because the logical probability of it is
near nil.. Why?  In great part because we can only know our own version
of reality as mediated through our senses..  We cannot perceive the
future directly, we can only perceive what our senses, or extensions of
those senses,  allow us to perceive of the present OR of other mediated
records of the past.     So  in philosophy, we clear separate between
ontology, as "that which we know,"  and epistemology, in "how we know
what we know."

Reality really only exists in that space and time occupied by a
particular object.  Our perceptions of it are mediated and axiomatically
abstracted.  I would recommend checking out Kant's "Critique of Pure
Reason"..  You need to wrap your mind around the difference between
"noumena" [noumenal realm]  and "phenomena" [predominantly rational
realm].. (We'll skip the "emotional" realm for now)

 >  You're arguing what is
 >reality.  Is what you sense reality, at least from your prospective? 
If so,
 >then what ANY sensor senses IS reality, as far as that sensor's 
prospective.
 >It's when you manipulate that sensors data that you make it abstract.
 >
Not true, perception is mediated...

This is one of the major problems with REAL artificial intelligence..
  How does one create an intelligence that we will recognize as such?
  Part of the answer lies in making sure its perceptions of reality (its
mediated perceptions)  accord with our own closely, or can be made to
line up with our perceptions.  See the work of Turing and Fodor (who I
pummelled in errors in one of his theoretical models during his
colloquium presentation  some years back -- he made the mistake of
accepting something as axiomatic that was not, thereby loossening the
underpinnings of his theory and its accuracy -- but I digress) in this
vein...

 >
 >Data can be "corrected" to make it more usable to the processing 
system that
 >is processing it, namely in our case, our eye, and that doesn't make it
 >"abstract".  Just like you do tonal corrections to the data, because the
 >system that is sensing the scene REQUIRES tonal correction to convert from
 >it's sensing view to yours.
 >
Bingo!  You just illustrated the point in some sense..  The fact that
differing perceptions exist mean they only attempt to measure or
abstract reality, not actually reproduce it..  Temperature is a good
example.. Celsius, Fahrenheit and Kelvin all are abstract
representations of the state of the thermal energy inherent to a
particular point in space..  None of them are inherently better or more
correct in the abstract, instead each has a "best use"..

Similarly let's consider an extreme instance...  You are sitting at a
baseball game on one side of you is a blind man, on the opposite a deaf
man..  The perceptions each of you have of the game - its mediated
reality will differ.  Therefore, reality as PERCEIVED IS different for
each of you. BUT,  reality itself remains the same...  Now consider our
photos, for a blind man/woman they do not accurately represent reality,
as sight and light are not phenomena he/she perceives..

There is also a line of philosophy and science that says our perception
of reality actually impacts upon it and changes it simply b/c we are
perceiving it..  Again, this goes back to Plato, but a more contemporary
example would be the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... I.e. that one
cannot know where an elementary particle is b/c any form of perception
we use imparts or subtracts  energy from the particle thereby moving it
from its position.  This is NOT Newtonian physics, the math says, you
cannot use knowledge of the energy imparted  or subtracted to actually
correct for that energy and predict where the particle WAS.

 > Of course, there comes a point where this
 >correction can cause distortion...at least from your prospective, the
 >original scene and your "representation" of the scene become divergent.
 >
 >
 >
They are always divergent...

Only the object of our perception can actually know its own reality..

 >
 >
 >>It gets better in B&W, which expresses a grayscale quality apart from
 >>most objects' full color reality.
 >>
 >>
 >
 >There is no "full color reality" by your argument.
 >
Correct

 >  And as I said, I
 >disagree with the whole premise you bring up, though I understand the
 >arguments on both sides intimately.  I've done a LOT of work in the 
area of
 >sensors and machine perception.  Reality is only what YOUR sensors 
allow you
 >to perceive.
 >
 >
 >
NO,NO, NO...  Reality exists, our mediated perception of it is what our
sensors allow us to know..  Reality can be ontology, what we know is
always governed by epistemology..  Of course that means that every
ontology  is predicated upon epistemological  limits...  In other words,
all our perceptions are NOT EVER absolute, but inherently subjective and
mediated..

 >
 >Photography CAN be abstract, but not all photography, by definition, IS
 >abstract IMO, in a practical sense use of the word.
 >
Photography works in two dimensions..  We live in four or more
  dimensions.. Reduction of multiple dimensions to fewer dimensions is
always axiomatically an abstracion...

Important to Dali and Picasso's art were attempts to portray four
dimensions in two or three...

Look at their use of the "hypercube" to do this..

 >  There is a level of
 >accurate representation.
 >
Accurate is a wholly subjective term.. Especially since one cannot know
reality, how do we know how much our perception TRULY differs from it..?
  We cannot...

Sorry, but on this level the nihilists and existentialist are correct..
  As we cannot KNOW reality, except that within our own bodies, and even
that is limited, all we can do is accept our perceptions and exist...

 > Technically, you can never accurately represent
 >anything physical, accurately...but there is a humanly acceptable level of
 >representation that is accepted as being accurate.
 >
What it is, is sufficiently good a description/representation of our
perceptions to allow us to predict  interactions and allow us to
relatively safely move about the universe..  That does not make it
accurate..

With nuclear weapons i can "miss" the target by miles and still
successfully destroy it.. But with a conventional bomb, a several mile
"circular error probable" (CEP)  is unacceptable.. Not because it is
more inaccurate in reality, BUT because for that purpose, in that place,
and that time,  it is not sufficiently accurate.  Once again, it becomes
subjective.

 >  There are also different
 >aspects of accurate...a photograph has many aspects to it...relative
 >dimensional accuracy, tonal accuracy...  It certainly is more accurate at
 >some aspects than others, that's for sure...and that's true with any 
sensing
 >system.
 >
 >I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe that 
when it
 >becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
 >
 >
 >
Say that all you want, but you cannot make it so..

Like the cockroach/man in Kafka's "Metamorphosis"  reality is mediated
by your experience of it.  As does the protagonist of Kafka's "The
Trial" you can rail at the universe all you want, but you
cannot actually KNOW the Universe or its reality..

It's coldly sobering, but our consciousness axiomatically has a mediated
perception of reality.  We are all inherently inaccurate in our
understanding of reality, and we each exist ONLY within our own
consciousness we cannot really "know" another, we cannot actually
"experience" another consciousness,,,  In the end, we are each alone...
  Art: photography, sculpture, painting, music, writing are ways to
bridge the gulf between our respective consciousnesses..  They are
mediated representations of our own already mediate internal perceptions
of an external reality, and as such, axiomatically never an accurate
depiction of reality..

Keith

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe 
>>that when it
>>becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
>>
>>Austin
>>    
>>
>
>Presumably you print your landscapes full size Austin  :-)
>
>  
>
Actually they are 4d...

Or perhaps he moves the actual landscape into the gallery..?

The attempt to represent reality with true accuracy  (see my previous 
post) inherently is a neverending and in the final analysis 
unsatisfactory treadmill..

Keith
 



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

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>Tim,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to
>>>Photoshop...does it?
>>>      
>>>
>>Er, why?  For what?  Do you think that mom and pop digital camera 
>>user knows.... etc etc
>>    
>>
>
>
>Wasn't this tim, Austin..
>
>
>  
>
To answer Austin's question..  Because it is only an arbitrary 
collection of 1s and 0s...  It gets mediated  by PhotoShop or by 
software/firmware anytime it is printed or displayed..

Keith
 



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

Keith,

>  >Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you only
> have the
>  >data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's still
> real.
>  >Does someone who can't hear, not live in reality?  I believe your
>  >application here is entirely wrong.  Because one only senses one aspect
>  >(like IR, or UV or grayscale), such as a  particular spectrum, doesn't
> make
>  >it "abstract".
>  >
>  >
> It does not make the data or the phenomenon itself abstract..  BUT,
>   representation of the data, be they graphs, paintings, tables, or
> photos is abstract UNLESS that representation recreates the phenomenon.

Nothing can COMPLETELY, in complete accuracy recreate the phenomenon, but,
it can "recreate" it to a point that it is accurate "enough" to not be
considered abstract.

>  >By your interpretation, ever sense we have, vision, hearing,
> taste etc. is
>  >an "abstraction", and in fact, there is no reality.
>  >
> OH boy.  There's fun coming now.. You are on a train headed right into
> the philosophy of perception...  "Welcome to my lair said the spider to
> the fly."

Well, having done my post graduate work, and developed many different sensor
and AI systems, and lectured on the subject...I'm sure I can hold my own ;-)

>  > Fact is, we can only
>  >sense what our sensors allow us to sense, that's it.  Every sensor has
>  >limitations, and "expresses a quality apart from an object",
> period.  That
>  >does not mean what it senses is an abstraction.
>  >
>
> No,

No what?  There is not one thing "no" about what I said.

> what you sense is a manifestation of an object or phenomenon BUT
> that manifestation is NOT the object.

I didn't say any differently.  Don't say "no" to something and merely state
something that does in no way negate what you say "no" to.

>  Only the object itself  "knows" or "experiences" its own reality.

Not all "objects" know or experience, as far as we perceive that is.

> If you care to look at more recent philosophy,

Philosophy and sensory perception are two different things, though they do
have overlapping, and interesting, areas of discussion.

> Kant
> says we can never truly "know" something, and is 100% correct...

To a point, that is true...but there are certain aspects that application of
that thinking doesn't make sense, and depends on what your "point of
reality" is.  I KNOW I am wearing two shoes...in a "practical" sense that
is.  There are things that are subjective, and things that are, for the most
practical sense, not.  One has to accept some "level" of reality as being
reality.

> We
> cannot know without going at the door that we won't fall into a
> blackhole as we leave the house.  We can operate with the expectation
> that will not happen, simply because the logical probability of it is
> near nil.. Why?  In great part because we can only know our own version
> of reality as mediated through our senses..

Or...reality is what we perceive, and nothing more.

> We cannot perceive the
> future directly, we can only perceive what our senses, or extensions of
> those senses,  allow us to perceive of the present OR of other mediated
> records of the past.

Well, that is debatable, but from a practical standpoint, I agree.

> So  in philosophy, we clear separate between
> ontology, as "that which we know,"  and epistemology, in "how we know
> what we know."

Correct.

> Reality really only exists in that space and time occupied by a
> particular object.  Our perceptions of it are mediated and axiomatically
> abstracted.

Well, that I disagree with.  Everything is from a reference point.  Reality
is what one perceives.  What I may perceive as "blue", you may perceive as
something different, though it's pretty well proven that most human vision
systems are pretty equal, so that's a bad example...but take the example of
what a CCD sees, or what a fly sees, contrasted with what a human
sees...which one is reality?  Reality is what each one perceives in my book.
It's all relative, but there is a somewhat physically measurable
reality...that a particular color is at a particular wave length...and as
such, it can be "identified" as being the "same", or reasonably close to the
"same", and that's the issue.  Can "something" be reproduced reasonably
close to the "same", and the answer is, it can.

> I would recommend checking out Kant's "Critique of Pure
> Reason"..  You need to wrap your mind around the difference between
> "noumena" [noumenal realm]  and "phenomena" [predominantly rational
> realm].. (We'll skip the "emotional" realm for now)

Thanks, been there, done that...well wrapped already.

>  >  You're arguing what is
>  >reality.  Is what you sense reality, at least from your prospective?
> If so,
>  >then what ANY sensor senses IS reality, as far as that sensor's
> prospective.
>  >It's when you manipulate that sensors data that you make it abstract.
>  >
> Not true, perception is mediated...

Well, I guess that depends on your definition of mediated, and by what
reference.  There is, of course, mediation between color on the wall, and
color I perceive...since mediation simply means it traverses a
"middle"...the only things that really don't, at least outside our body, are
our thoughts.

There is a consistency that develops in the mind, that allows us to make
comparative judgments...such as comparing colors...and concluding they are
the same or different.  Seeing straight lines...etc.

> This is one of the major problems with REAL artificial intelligence.
>   How does one create an intelligence that we will recognize as such?

It's purpose and situation dependant.  Why do WE have to recognize it as
being intelligent?  One of the problems I've had (as my post graduate work
was in AI, and mobile robotics, and I've worked in that field for many
years) is trying to force machines to perceive things a we perceive
them...that's a mistake.  Any sensor sees as it sees, and it's the adaptive
system that "recognizes" what it sees that needs to be allowed to see what
it sees, instead of forcing some other perception on it.  That just doesn't
work.

> Part of the answer lies in making sure its perceptions of reality (its
> mediated perceptions)  accord with our own closely, or can be made to
> line up with our perceptions.

It is exactly the opposite, in my opinion.  Forcing one sensor's perception
onto another is a mistake, as far as AI goes.  We DO force CCDs perception
(at least the resultant data) onto our own, but that's because we are doing
it for us to see!

FYI I spent many years developing machine vision systems (and other sensory
systems) for robotic navigation, and developed the first demonstrable truly
autonomous mobile robot that could navigate a human environment...).  I also
developed the vision system for the first commercial vision guided welding
system, as well as visual parts inspection and vision guided assembly
robotic system.  I'm well versed in this branch of AI and vision sensory
systems and "machine" perception.

>  >Data can be "corrected" to make it more usable to the processing
> system that
>  >is processing it, namely in our case, our eye, and that doesn't make it
>  >"abstract".  Just like you do tonal corrections to the data, because the
>  >system that is sensing the scene REQUIRES tonal correction to
> convert from
>  >it's sensing view to yours.
>  >
> Bingo!  You just illustrated the point in some sense..  The fact that
> differing perceptions exist mean they only attempt to measure or
> abstract reality, not actually reproduce it..

I disagree.  Reality IS what is perceived.  Without it being perceived, it
doesn't exist, in one's mind, and that is where reality lives!

The issue we are having is viewpoint.  What IS reality.  Your stated view of
reality is based on what is, is...though that's true, "is" only "is" if it
can be perceived...and I believe that one's reality is only what one can
perceive.  That doesn't mean because one can't perceive it, it doesn't
exist...in someone else's reality, but it doesn't exist in one's "reality"
if one can't perceive it.

> There is also a line of philosophy and science that says our perception
> of reality actually impacts upon it and changes it simply b/c we are
> perceiving it..

Correct, it does, from OUR perception of it.  Our eye system actually
changes what we see to fit a model of what we expect.  Same with any of our
sensor systems.  That's the way adaptive sensor systems work.

>  > Of course, there comes a point where this
>  >correction can cause distortion...at least from your prospective, the
>  >original scene and your "representation" of the scene become divergent.
>  >
>  >
>  >
> They are always divergent...

Only to a point.  There IS resolution to any sensory system, and to your
need to have accuracy for it to not be "abstract".

> Only the object of our perception can actually know its own reality..

But that's IT'S reality, not YOUR reality.  They are different.

>  >  And as I said, I
>  >disagree with the whole premise you bring up, though I understand the
>  >arguments on both sides intimately.  I've done a LOT of work in the
> area of
>  >sensors and machine perception.  Reality is only what YOUR sensors
> allow you
>  >to perceive.
>  >
>  >
>  >
> NO,NO, NO...  Reality exists, our mediated perception of it is what our
> sensors allow us to know..

How do you know?  I understand what you are saying, but I look at reality
from the other side.  As I've said, because something isn't perceived,
doesn't mean it doesn't exist...but it doesn't exist in one's reality if one
is not perceiving it.

>  >Photography CAN be abstract, but not all photography, by definition, IS
>  >abstract IMO, in a practical sense use of the word.
>  >
> Photography works in two dimensions..  We live in four or more
>   dimensions.. Reduction of multiple dimensions to fewer dimensions is
> always axiomatically an abstracion...

I disagree.  We don't always perceive ALL aspects of something, and that's
the same with photography, it is imparting only a limited number of
aspects...and that doesn't make it abstract!

>  >  There is a level of
>  >accurate representation.
>  >
> Accurate is a wholly subjective term.. Especially since one cannot know
> reality, how do we know how much our perception TRULY differs from it..?
>   We cannot...

Yes and no.  Sensory systems have accuracy/resolution.  That's a fact.  If
they can't perceive a change, then as far as the sensory system is
concerned, no change exists.

> Sorry, but on this level the nihilists and existentialist are correct..
>   As we cannot KNOW reality, except that within our own bodies, and even
> that is limited, all we can do is accept our perceptions and exist...

Exactly.  That is my view of "reality" for the purposes of this discussion.

>  > Technically, you can never accurately represent
>  >anything physical, accurately...but there is a humanly
> acceptable level of
>  >representation that is accepted as being accurate.
>  >
> What it is, is sufficiently good a description/representation of our
> perceptions to allow us to predict  interactions and allow us to
> relatively safely move about the universe..  That does not make it
> accurate..

Why not?  Then the term accurate has no meaning.  Accuracy is ALWAYS a
tolerance, +- some difference.  Nothing is totally "accurate", except
counted numbers...like two shoes.  Accuracy has to do with "measurement"
only.

> With nuclear weapons i can "miss" the target by miles and still
> successfully destroy it.. But with a conventional bomb, a several mile
> "circular error probable" (CEP)  is unacceptable.. Not because it is
> more inaccurate in reality, BUT because for that purpose, in that place,
> and that time,  it is not sufficiently accurate.  Once again, it becomes
> subjective.

And that fits with my argument.  Circle of confusion fits well too.

>  >  There are also different
>  >aspects of accurate...a photograph has many aspects to it...relative
>  >dimensional accuracy, tonal accuracy...  It certainly is more
> accurate at
>  >some aspects than others, that's for sure...and that's true with any
> sensing
>  >system.
>  >
>  >I disagree with calling EVERY photograph abstract, and believe that
> when it
>  >becomes "abstract" it then moves from photography to graphics art.
>  >
>  >
>  >
> Say that all you want, but you cannot make it so..

No, but what is, is, right ;-)

> It's coldly sobering, but our consciousness axiomatically has a mediated
> perception of reality.

But that depends on what your viewpoint is.  How do you KNOW anything exists
outside of your mind?  You simply do not.  The only "truth" is what you
perceive!  Don't tell my wife that, BTW ;-)

> We are all inherently inaccurate in our
> understanding of reality, and we each exist ONLY within our own
> consciousness we cannot really "know" another, we cannot actually
> "experience" another consciousness,,,

That's divergent...if we only know what exists in and of our minds, then our
perception is entirely accurate, and the only reality!

> In the end, we are each alone...
> Art: photography, sculpture, painting, music, writing are ways to
> bridge the gulf between our respective consciousnesses..  They are
> mediated representations of our own already mediate internal perceptions
> of an external reality, and as such, axiomatically never an accurate
> depiction of reality..

We are simply looking at it from two different, and both very accepted,
standpoints.  I believe there is more than one reality.  My reality, your
reality and what is perceive as being reality by other analysis outside
ourselves.

Someone might be cold, but you might not be...whose reality is real?  If one
is cold, well, one IS cold, whether you are cold or not.  Everyone else may
not be cold, but that has no bearing on whether someone else is cold or not.
My point isn't subjective either, it's a physical reaction one has to
temperature...and obviously, there are "thresholds" that are different in
different people that make one cold or not...

OK, got to get back to work...thanks for the most interesting discussion!
Really ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> >>>The image taken with a digital camera has no place to go but to
> >>>Photoshop...does it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Er, why?  For what?  Do you think that mom and pop digital camera
> >>user knows.... etc etc
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Wasn't this tim, Austin..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> To answer Austin's question..  Because it is only an arbitrary
> collection of 1s and 0s...  It gets mediated  by PhotoShop or by
> software/firmware anytime it is printed or displayed..

Keith,

You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image, with out the
need for any image manipulation software intervention.  Of course, there is
firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Keith,
> > >
> > > > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about
> > artificiality and
> > > > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how
real
> > and
> > > > >>true is that...?).
> > > > >
> > > > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is
about
> > accurate
> > > > >reproduction of a scene.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that
> > actually
> > > > accurately depicts reality.
> > > >
> > > > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> > >
> > > That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of
> > reality, but
> > > it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.
> > What's
> > > there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally
> > "different".
> > > That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.
> > >
> > > Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum,
> > doesn't
> > > make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".
> > >
> > > Austin
> >
> > Actually, it is true.
> 
> You BELIEVE it's true, and I strongly disagree with that.
> 

I do believe it's true because, by definition, it *is* true. 

You can disagree all you want, but just because you don't like the
definition of a word doesn't make its definition invalid. You are
misusing the word "abstraction" and applying your own Austin-centric
definition. Argue with the OED if you think the definition needs to be
changed to suit you.

Since you refuse to use accepted definitions, your argument is
meaningless.  

<snip>

I think there is more than one valid usage of the word abstraction 
that's getting mixed up here.

The first, the one that I believe Austin is using, is the idea that 
there's a continuum from representation<<-->>abstraction. In this sense, 
a photograph surely lies near the representational end of the spectrum.

The other usage is the idea that anything that isn't "reality" in the 
philosophical sense, is an absctration of reality. In this sense, a 
photograph is necessarily an abstraction, because it's two-dimensional, 
colorless (in this context), etc.

In the first usage, it's common to refer to "Abstract Art"; in the 
second, saying "Abstract Art" would be redundant.

-Jason

hogarth1x wrote:

> You can disagree all you want, but just because you don't like the
> definition of a word doesn't make its definition invalid. You are
> misusing the word "abstraction" and applying your own Austin-centric
> definition. Argue with the OED if you think the definition needs to be
> changed to suit you.
> 
> Since you refuse to use accepted definitions, your argument is
> meaningless.

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
>You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
>simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image, with out the
>need for any image manipulation software intervention.
>
Of course..

>  Of course, there is
>firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.
>  
>
My point exactly.. the firmware mediates..

>  
>

Keith
 
 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }




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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:17 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


>
(snip earlier)
>
> I don't disagree at all.  The issue is, is it photography, or graphics
art,
> and where to you draw the line?
>
Austin,

I think the point is you only have to draw lines if you want to and
everybody gets to draw their own. Then some people color outside the lines
anyways.<G>

Martin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints


>
> Hi Martin,
>
> > Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been
> > manipulated
> > before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the
> > computer. If it
> > is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not
> > important. (Unless
> > I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
>
> Agreed, but is it photography or graphics art?

Austin,

I don't know that I care too much about that either and you start to get
lost in the definitions. I could reasonably say that photography is one of
many graphic art forms but I know what you are taking about. A photographer
I know started out hand tinting and has involved the full blown use of oils
to the point that none of the silver emulsion shows through on some of the
pieces. Is it painting? Is it photography? Perhaps it is both and an art
critic would call it "mixed media"  Personally I don't think that it is
necessary to assign a piece of work to a category.

Martin

> >
> >You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
> >simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image, with out the
> >need for any image manipulation software intervention.
> >
> Of course..
>
> >  Of course, there is
> >firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.
> >
> >
> My point exactly.. the firmware mediates..

Keith,

The ORIGINAL comment was that PS (or any manipulation program) HAD to be
used, and it does not.  The firmware does not do the same manipulations that
a user can do in PS.  All the firmware MAY do is apply a LUT (Loot Up Table)
to the data to simply match the calibration between the camera and the
printer.  That is NOT image manipulation of the sense that has been being
discussed.

Austin

"Tim Atherton" <tim@...> writes:

> > You missed the point.  It's a fact that a LOT of photography is about
> > accurate reproduction of a scene.  What you took a picture of, is what you
> > took a picture of, plain and simple, in and of the image it self.  What it
> > represents is something possibly different, but it's at least accurate to
> > what the eye saw.  We're not talking about crime scene photography here,
> > which is not related, in my opinion, to this discussion.
> 
> Austin,
> 
> the point is that photography can never accurately reproduce a scene (at the
> most banal level, all photographs arrest the flow of time, extracting a
> fraction of a second - a fraction far to short for the eye to register - and
> so the instant the photograph is taken, it becomes unreal and inaccurate - a
> construct). The photograph you produce is merely an attempt to represent
> what you, the photographer, saw. To insist it is (or can be) an accurate (or
> true) reproduction is simplistic at best and certainly inaccurate.

This is both completely true and completely false.  

I'll certainly grant all the obvious ways in which a photo is an
abstraction from reality, and not the reality itself.  Frozen moment,
chosen angle, in B&W loss of color, and so forth.  These are the
senses in which it is completely true.  

Nevertheless, one of the big reasons photography is important *in some
kinds of art* is because the image produced is directly and
mechanically mapped from reality.  It's still a map, and the map is
still not the territory.  But a photograph differs from a painting in
this key way, and this distinction affects the *reactions of people*
viewing the works of art. 

Meanwhile, bird books are very often illustrated with paintings rather
than photographs because the paintings give a better representation of
the *real* animals.  Life is strange.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints
>
>
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > > Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been
> > > manipulated
> > > before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the
> > > computer. If it
> > > is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not
> > > important. (Unless
> > > I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
> >
> > Agreed, but is it photography or graphics art?
>
> Austin,
>
> I don't know that I care too much about that either and you start to get
> lost in the definitions. I could reasonably say that photography is one of
> many graphic art forms but I know what you are taking about. A
photographer
> I know started out hand tinting and has involved the full blown use of
oils

> to the point that none of the silver emulsion shows through on some of the
> pieces. Is it painting? Is it photography? Perhaps it is both and an art
> critic would call it "mixed media"  Personally I don't think that it is
> necessary to assign a piece of work to a category.
>
> Martin
>

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> Keith,
> 
> > >>Fist, photography always has and always will be about artificiality and
> > >>manipulation (it's two dimensional for goodness sake - how real and
> > >>true is that...?).
> > >
> > >I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> > >reproduction of a scene.
> > >
> >
> > Not since I left Pleasantville have I seen a B&W image that actually
> > accurately depicts reality.
> >
> > B&W imagery is axiomatically an abstraction of reality..
> 
> That's not true...it is different from some people's vision of reality, but
> it IS reality, just an aspect of reality YOUR sensors don't see.  What's
> there, is in fact, there.  But none the less, it's only tonally "different".
> That doesn't make it an abstraction at all.

What does "abstraction" mean to you, then?  Presenting a simplified
(less information) version of something (with the simplification
chosen intelligently, not at random) is the essence of abstraction.
And a B&W photo is clearly one step more abstracted than a color
photo. 

> Is IR not reality?  Just because you can't see in that spectrum, doesn't
> make it not reality, or make it "an abstraction of reality".

If I beat my head on a photo of a wall (suspended by a string), I will
not hurt my head much.  If I beat my head on the real wall, I will.  I
claim that the photo of the wall *is* in fact an abstraction of
reality.  It's certainly not the real thing.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you only have the
> data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's still real.

There it is again.  "Abstract" doesn't mean "unreal" to me.  It seems
to mean that to you.  "Abstract" means "reduced", "simplified",
"filtered", with an implication of intelligent choices to make the
information more comprehensible (for certain purposes; intelligent
choice implies purpose). 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Keith,
Oh my gosh, metaphysicians? Now it will be really hard to do the
math! We will never get these worms back in the can.
-JimD

At 11:21 AM 9/17/2002 -0400, Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:

>If you care to look at more recent philosophy, I suggest Kant or Hegel
>(or any of the great German metaphysicians) as they discuss the
>difference between the perceived and our perception (and/or memory) on
>the one hand, and reality itself on the other..  Kant
>says we can never truly "know" something, and is 100% correct...

I have been following this thread with interest for
some time now and I feel that I need to add my own two
cents worth. While I enjoyed the discussion regarding
the existence of an objective reality or lack thereof,
I feel that it is somewhat outside the scope of the
main area of contention.
I am sure that everyone would agree that the print is
not the subject, but is a representation of the same.
(Ceci n'est pas une pipe.) I think that those who are
arguing that it, in some sense, is, really mean that a
"good" print can create the same impression on our
visual sense as the subject itself. An "accurate"
color print viewed at the proper distance may be able
to do just that, but in all other circumstances this
"ideal" is not quite realized. In some cases, the
differences may be apparent only when reference is
made to the original. At other times it may be more
immediately obvious.
Photographers have always had access to techniques to
either increase or decrease the verisimilitude of
their product. Their use has largely been based on the
desire of the artist/photographer. No one can tell him
that he must strive to reflect reality or
alternatively that greater creativity and license are
required. That is his choice. The viewer has the right
to like or dislike the work.
Whether the photographer wishes to be a "purist" and
create an illusion of the reality as seen at the time
of the exposure or prefers to alter the image based on
his artistic vision, photoshop is only a tool. It may
make part of the job easier and more accesible to the
less trained individual, but all of the modern
technology that we have access to today (cameras,
scanners, printers, etc) has done the same.
The distinction between photographer and graphic
artist is rather artificial in my opinion. Should not
photography be considered a graphic art? One of the
criticisms thhat photography has always had to face is
that the photographer is merely a technician and the
"art" is produced by a machine-the camera. Many
photographers have responded to this by emphasizing
the ability to go beyond the acquisition of the image
and apply further "enhancements" or manipulations.
I contend that there is no defining line between the
photographer and the graphic artist. We are all image
makers and our images lie along various spectra from
"photorealistic" to "abstract", from "pure" to "highly
manipulated" and most importantly, but subjectively,
from "good" to "bad".

=====
Wayne D. Harrison

Yvan eht nioj.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com

Wayne Harrison wrote:

> Should not
>photography be considered a graphic art? One of the
>criticisms thhat photography has always had to face is
>that the photographer is merely a technician and the
>"art" is produced by a machine-the camera. 
>

In that sense, am I the ONLY one who finds the "purists" ironic in their 
argumentation against PhotoShop, etc..?

Or, in an earlier era would they ahve bben the painters arguing against 
the camera?

Keith
 
 



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

JimD wrote:

>Keith,
>Oh my gosh, metaphysicians? Now it will be really hard to do the
>math! We will never get these worms back in the can.
>
>  
>
Point taken..

The thought of  19th Century German Kantian or Hegelian acolytes 
discoursing on the "proper"  tonal range of an image, optimal visual 
dMax, or the proper  input resolution for a particular printer driver 
given stochastic screening models and the prime resolution of the 
driver.... that's an image MUCH too scary to even contemplate..


Keith
 
 



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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>If I beat my head on a photo of a wall (suspended by a string), I will
>not hurt my head much.  If I beat my head on the real wall, I will.  I
>claim that the photo of the wall *is* in fact an abstraction of
>reality.  It's certainly not the real thing.
>  
>

Precisely...

And, as the photo is axiomatically an abstraction, there is no LOGICAL 
reason why a PhotoShopped image is a more or less accurate mediated 
representation of reality than is one that was not altered via digital 
methods..

By Austin's own arguments, the final output from PhotoShop and digital 
printing could well be more accurate representations of reality than 
could a traditional silver print..



Keith
 
 



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

Martin Wesley wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>  
>
>>Agreed, but is it photography or graphics art?
>>    
>>
>
>Austin,
>
>I don't know that I care too much about that either and you start to get
>lost in the definitions. I could reasonably say that photography is one of
>many graphic art forms but I know what you are taking about. A photographer
>I know started out hand tinting and has involved the full blown use of oils
>to the point that none of the silver emulsion shows through on some of the
>pieces. Is it painting? Is it photography? Perhaps it is both and an art
>critic would call it "mixed media"  Personally I don't think that it is
>necessary to assign a piece of work to a category.
>
>  
>
EXACTLY!!!

BRAVO!!!

Whether a particular art fits in Category A or Category B is for 
critics...  artists who worry too much about staying "within the lines" 
are constricting, if not artificially restricting, their means of 
expression and thereby their art..

The impressionists and the fauvists were mocked...

Dadaists were ridiculed...

Surrealism and Cubism were called insane...

The famed Blue Horse was called pointless and unreal..

Historically, they were all greeted with derision and snobbery by the 
"established" genre..

BUT, eventually, they all sold because they spoke to people because they 
held a mirror up to reality..

I won't worry about definitions...

In fact, referring back to your associate who uses oils on silver 
prints, I did much work like that with my IR silver prints..  Now, I can 
do the same to my infrared neg scans with more control in PhotoShop... 
 Of course, even with PhotoShop, I often color outside the lines..   ;-)

As for whether we are graphic artists or photographers, it doesn't 
matter to me.. I'll leave that to critics..  I'll just work on my 
imagery and remain happy I am able to produce art that speaks to me (and 
hopefully to others as well)..   


Keith
 
 



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

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>>You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
>>>simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image, with out the
>>>need for any image manipulation software intervention.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Of course..
>>
>>    
>>
>>> Of course, there is
>>>firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>My point exactly.. the firmware mediates..
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>The ORIGINAL comment was that PS (or any manipulation program) HAD to be
>used, and it does not.  The firmware does not do the same manipulations that
>a user can do in PS.  All the firmware MAY do is apply a LUT (Loot Up Table)
>to the data to simply match the calibration between the camera and the
>printer.  That is NOT image manipulation of the sense that has been being
>discussed.
>
>  
>
It may well be...

Many  digicams apply an arbitrary unsharp mask.. or arbitrarily correct 
the whitepoint..

At the print end, drivers do not print pixel for pixel.. more accurately 
dot per pixel..  Remember there is stochastic dithering involved in many 
if not the vast majority of printers..  PLUS, color spaces and models 
differ....  Need I add that one is representing a transmissive model 
(the CCD captures in that mode) with a reflective model (the print)..?

Keith
 
 



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

on 9/17/02 4:39 PM, Wayne Harrison wrote:

> I am sure that everyone would agree that the print is
> not the subject, but is a representation of the same.


Actually, Wayne, not.  Or rather, in all cases, I would argue, both.
There's a lens pointed at a real thing, with more or less focus, more or
less ability to capture the dynamic range (DON'T GO THERE!!!, LOL), color or
B&W, etc., etc.

More importantly, however, some people (artist or viewer) want the photo to
"appear like" what was in front of the lens at that instant; some people
find that appearance itself to be distracting from the print.

For me, the beauty and interest of photography, like all visual arts, lies
precisely in the dialog, or contradiction, or tension, or conflict between
what was in front of the lens, and the print, which in the final analysis,
is the only "reality" of the photograph.

(Anybody know a good place where I could give this lecture ;^)

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139

> >>>You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
> >>>simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image,
> with out the
> >>>need for any image manipulation software intervention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Of course..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Of course, there is
> >>>firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>My point exactly.. the firmware mediates..
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >The ORIGINAL comment was that PS (or any manipulation program) HAD to be
> >used, and it does not.  The firmware does not do the same
> manipulations that
> >a user can do in PS.  All the firmware MAY do is apply a LUT
> (Loot Up Table)
> >to the data to simply match the calibration between the camera and the
> >printer.  That is NOT image manipulation of the sense that has been being
> >discussed.
> >
> >
> >
> It may well be...
>
> Many  digicams apply an arbitrary unsharp mask.. or arbitrarily correct
> the whitepoint..
>
> At the print end, drivers do not print pixel for pixel.. more accurately
> dot per pixel..  Remember there is stochastic dithering involved in many
> if not the vast majority of printers..  PLUS, color spaces and models
> differ....  Need I add that one is representing a transmissive model
> (the CCD captures in that mode) with a reflective model (the print)..?
>
> Keith

Keith,

The point, and what my comment was to, was Photoshop is NOT REQUIRED for
EVERY digital picture, period.  It IS not, that's a simple fact that stands
on it's own.  I don't understand, what's so difficult about that to
understand?  Gack, put your energy into the other discussion, this is really
not debatable.

Austin

Keith,

> And, as the photo is axiomatically an abstraction,

Which I disagree with, by the definition of "abstract" that I believe is
appropriate for this discussion.  Yes, I understand that you could zealously
apply, what I consider, a differing definition of "abstract" to any topic,
and claim as you do...but abstract in the ART sense is entirely different
than the one you are using.  Not all art is considered "abstract", if it
was, then why is some of it in fact called "abstract", because if your
definition applied, that titling would be redundant.  As a previous post
outlined, there are differing definitions of abstract, and as I said, I
believe your definition is inappropriate for a discussion of photography,
which is, after all, considered art for all intents and purposes of our
discussion...though not all photography IS art in my book.  Most do not
considers an accurate photograph an abstraction, but photography can be used
to create an abstraction...just like all paintings are not considered
"abstract".

This clearly outlines what abstraction is:

http://www.nga.gov/education/american/abstract.htm

To quote:

"Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects
realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some
artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes,
and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these
transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey
through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive
effect are called abstract."

That says it in a nutshell, and follows exactly what I've been saying.
Photography that is realistic in nature is NOT abstraction.

> there is no LOGICAL
> reason why a PhotoShopped image is a more or less accurate mediated
> representation of reality than is one that was not altered via digital
> methods..

Of course a PS'd image CAN be a VERY inaccurate representation, it's the
nature of the tool!

> By Austin's own arguments, the final output from PhotoShop and digital
> printing could well be more accurate representations of reality than
> could a traditional silver print..

It depends on what you do in PS.  You CAN use it to do as you suggest, but
then again, you can also make it be very divergent.

Austin

David,

> > Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you
> only have the
> > data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's
> still real.
>
> There it is again.  "Abstract" doesn't mean "unreal" to me.

But that's the definition of it.  Go check this link:

http://www.nga.gov/education/american/abstract.htm

"Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects
realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some
artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes,
and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these
transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey
through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive
effect are called abstract."

To me, that outlines abstract art in a nutshell.  The differences are
realistic or abstract.  MOST photos are considered "realistic", not
abstract.

Regards,

Austin

David,

> I'll certainly grant all the obvious ways in which a photo is an
> abstraction from reality, and not the reality itself.  Frozen moment,

Why is a frozen moment not reality?

> chosen angle,

And why is that not reality?

> in B&W loss of color,

But color is not the only reality, there is also IR, UV, grayscale etc.
It's merely a different spectral response.

I'm not sure that your points here show that a photo is an abstraction from
reality...

Regards,

Austin

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> David,
> 
> > I'll certainly grant all the obvious ways in which a photo is an
> > abstraction from reality, and not the reality itself.  Frozen moment,
> 
> Why is a frozen moment not reality?

Reality is continuous and fluid.

> > chosen angle,
> 
> And why is that not reality?

Reality occurs in the round, including the parts we can't see.

> > in B&W loss of color,
> 
> But color is not the only reality, there is also IR, UV, grayscale etc.
> It's merely a different spectral response.

B&W is less information than color.  IR and UV are also relevant (and
radio and x-rays and all that).  And a photo only captures some small
part of this.  (All of them are used for photography in one situation
or another, butn ot *all at once*). 

> I'm not sure that your points here show that a photo is an abstraction from
> reality...

Well, they do conclusively to me.  I got a bit into what *I* mean by
abstraction in a later message, I'll wait and see how you respond to
that. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

"Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> 
> >If I beat my head on a photo of a wall (suspended by a string), I will
> >not hurt my head much.  If I beat my head on the real wall, I will.  I
> >claim that the photo of the wall *is* in fact an abstraction of
> >reality.  It's certainly not the real thing.
> 
> Precisely...
> 
> And, as the photo is axiomatically an abstraction, there is no LOGICAL 
> reason why a PhotoShopped image is a more or less accurate mediated 
> representation of reality than is one that was not altered via digital 
> methods..

I agree completely.  Of course, knowing that it *could have been*
altered a lot says something practical about how much credence we
should give a photograph, in isolation, as "proof" of anything.  

> By Austin's own arguments, the final output from PhotoShop and digital 
> printing could well be more accurate representations of reality than 
> could a traditional silver print..

Very possibly.  And the choice is made by the *person* doing the
work.  As always in art. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> David,
> 
> > > Every sensor you have only senses "some" quality.  Because you
> > only have the
> > > data from that one sensor doesn't make that data abstract, it's
> > still real.
> >
> > There it is again.  "Abstract" doesn't mean "unreal" to me.
> 
> But that's the definition of it.  Go check this link:
> 
> http://www.nga.gov/education/american/abstract.htm
> 
> "Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects
> realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some
> artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes,
> and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these
> transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey
> through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive
> effect are called abstract."
> 
> To me, that outlines abstract art in a nutshell.  The differences are
> realistic or abstract.  MOST photos are considered "realistic", not
> abstract.

Ah, we're running into a technical term.  I thought it smelled like
that.  I must say that their choice of "abstract" to label that branch
of art was a poor one since "abstract" already had a different meaning
that applies meaningfully to artistic endeavors.  I'm actually used to
hearing "abstract art" more for stuff that simply doesn't *have*
recognizable real components in it, but I won't pretend to expertise
in this technical area (art history or criticism).

It may help to mention that my formal training is as a mathematician. 

While I think it was an unfortunate choice of term for the art critics
to hang on that branch of art, it has lots of history behind it, so I
guess there's not much we can do about it.

Now, given that you and I are now in agreement on which meaning of
"abstract" is in play, what's the issue being debated again?
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

"Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> writes:

> I don't know that I care too much about that either and you start to get
> lost in the definitions. I could reasonably say that photography is one of
> many graphic art forms but I know what you are taking about. A photographer
> I know started out hand tinting and has involved the full blown use of oils
> to the point that none of the silver emulsion shows through on some of the
> pieces. Is it painting? Is it photography? Perhaps it is both and an art
> critic would call it "mixed media"  Personally I don't think that it is
> necessary to assign a piece of work to a category.

Categories can be useful in tracing influences and history, but it's
important not to think that the category actually defines the art in
any meaningful way.  It can be illuminating to watch a particular
technique, idea, or whatever, sweep through time, but that's never
*all* that's going on in any work. 

Curators also need to know about actual materials used in a work, to
aid in their ultimately futile battle to preserve them (nothing lasts
forever).  But that's not an artistic issue at all.  It may, however,
be part of why museums like to hang "medium" labels on artworks.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Hi David,

> Now, given that you and I are now in agreement on which meaning of
> "abstract" is in play, what's the issue being debated again?

Whether photography is by definition always abstract.  It clearly is not.

Austin

David,

> > > I'll certainly grant all the obvious ways in which a photo is an
> > > abstraction from reality, and not the reality itself.  Frozen moment,
> >
> > Why is a frozen moment not reality?
>
> Reality is continuous and fluid.
>
> > > chosen angle,
> >
> > And why is that not reality?
>
> Reality occurs in the round, including the parts we can't see.
>
> > > in B&W loss of color,
>
> > But color is not the only reality, there is also IR, UV, grayscale etc.
> > It's merely a different spectral response.
>
> B&W is less information than color.  IR and UV are also relevant (and
> radio and x-rays and all that).  And a photo only captures some small
> part of this.  (All of them are used for photography in one situation
> or another, butn ot *all at once*).

You are saying an instant in time, nor a prospective, nor a sensory
perception are not reality?  Pure poppycock!  (hey, I've always wanted to
say that ;-).

Austin

"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> writes:

> Hi David,
> 
> > Now, given that you and I are now in agreement on which meaning of
> > "abstract" is in play, what's the issue being debated again?
> 
> Whether photography is by definition always abstract.  It clearly is not.

Darn.  I was hoping for a good argument.

Oh well.

(i.e., no, it clearly is not under that definition.)
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

there are many realisms (truly) and a difference between ABSTRACT and
ABSTRACTED!!!   in art as well as here (i have already said i believe
photography can be art)    in my masters class we did all these
arguments   one is better off to admit that there ARE realismS and
differences, rather than fight to the death over things that really only
keep us from our own visual expressions    if it is all about something
else, it belongs somewhere else    all argument is valid   but all have
a place and here may not be it     (some of you are having too much fun
goading     and this is really not the place)  jno

Hi Austin:

This is a very academic definition of "abstraction" in art.  I would turn
the last sentence you quoted around, and say that "works that reframe nature
for expressive purposes are **art**!"  Of course that applies as much to the
f:64 sensibility as to Holga un-focusing.  They are abstractions  because
one thing (the image) *represents* certain aspects, but necessarily only a
few aspects, of another (whatever was in front of the lens).

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that just because there is a
school of art that is labeled "abstract", that other art is not abstract.
Would you say that only the "realist" school, or maybe only the
"Super-Realist" school is "realistic?"  I think not, as these terms are all
relative.  Fundamentally, they describe groups of art-work, not it
relationship to "reality," but in relationship *to other works of art*.
They are all more or less abstract, all more or less "realistic."

Why is this important?  To me it's important because it helps me stay
focused on the image, as an expressive end to itself, in the present moment,
not as an aid to remember a moment, place, and event that have passed.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139

on 9/17/02 7:21 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> To quote:
> 
> "Painters and sculptors do not always strive to depict persons and objects
> realistically. Rather than imitate their subject's natural appearance, some
> artists deliberately change it. They stretch or bend forms, break up shapes,
> and give objects unlikely textures or colors. Artists make these
> transformations in an effort to communicate something they cannot convey
> through realistic treatment. Works of art that reframe nature for expressive
> effect are called abstract."
> 
> That says it in a nutshell, and follows exactly what I've been saying.
> Photography that is realistic in nature is NOT abstraction.

Bill,

> I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that just because there is a
> school of art that is labeled "abstract", that other art is not abstract.

That's simply poppycock.  "abstract" is a generally accepted term, and
something that represents reality is not abstract, something that doesn't,
is abstract.  I know there is some line there, I'm not saying where it is,
but the point is photography is, in and of it self, NOT abstract.

> Why is this important?

Because someone said that ALL photography was abstract, and that's simply
not true, given the definition of abstract that applies here.  Using Keith's
definition of abstract, EVERYTHING is abstract but the object it self, but
anyone's perception of it is abstract...and that's simply not a universally
accepted "view" (definition) of abstract as it applies here.

> To me it's important because it helps me stay
> focused on the image, as an expressive end to itself, in the
> present moment,
> not as an aid to remember a moment, place, and event that have passed.

But that doesn't speak for ALL photography, now does it?

Austin

Hi Jason-

As I have tried to describe in other posts, for me the "continuum" is
between "more or less "representational" at the same time as "more or less
"abstract"- both things, simultaneously.  In this sense, photography as Art
(as opposed to snap-shot) is really no more nor less "representational" or
"abstract" than painting.

Having said that, I would add that the problem (for me) is precisely the
relative ease with which photography can "pretend" to be reality- it is a
seductive trap which can lead us to works that are more a snap-shot than a
"work of art."

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139


on 9/17/02 1:24 PM, Jason DeFontes wrote:

> I think there is more than one valid usage of the word abstraction
> that's getting mixed up here.
> 
> The first, the one that I believe Austin is using, is the idea that
> there's a continuum from representation<<-->>abstraction. In this sense,
> a photograph surely lies near the representational end of the spectrum.

Bill,

> In this sense,
> photography as Art
> (as opposed to snap-shot) is really no more nor less "representational" or
> "abstract" than painting.

I must admit, I AM fascinated that anyone can view photography, in general,
that way...as in my 30 or so years of photography, I've never heard anyone
consider photography, in general, as anything but representational.  It's
just so out of perspective (to me), I simply can't see how anyone can arrive
at the conclusion it is anything but.  That's not to say some photography
can't be considered "abstract", there's simply no debate there...but
ALL...no.

Austin

Hi Austin-

Well, I'm glad I got you thinking!  ;^)

Seriously, I would recommend the Painting in Boston show at the DeCordova.
Painting certainly runs the gamuts that I described.  The question, I guess,
is does photography do the same?

Ever seen the photography of the Surrealists?  How about Cindy Sherman?
What "reality" does she depict? Or go to the Robert Klein gallery for the
Arno Minnkinnen (sp) photos.  Sure, they purport to show his body in various
landscapes.  But if that's all you see in them, then you can only see
snapshots.  Every one of them are _at the same time_ abstractions-  a
glimmer from his mind that he uses the image from the camera to represent.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139

on 9/18/02 12:01 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Bill,
> 
>> In this sense,
>> photography as Art
>> (as opposed to snap-shot) is really no more nor less "representational" or
>> "abstract" than painting.
> 
> I must admit, I AM fascinated that anyone can view photography, in general,
> that way...as in my 30 or so years of photography, I've never heard anyone
> consider photography, in general, as anything but representational.  It's
> just so out of perspective (to me), I simply can't see how anyone can arrive
> at the conclusion it is anything but.  That's not to say some photography
> can't be considered "abstract", there's simply no debate there...but
> ALL...no.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> "flames."
> - 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Hi Bill,

> Seriously, I would recommend the Painting in Boston show at the DeCordova.
> Painting certainly runs the gamuts that I described.

I'm there regularly!

> The
> question, I guess,
> is does photography do the same?

Exactly.  I already know the answer though ;-)

> Ever seen the photography of the Surrealists?  How about Cindy Sherman?
> What "reality" does she depict? Or go to the Robert Klein gallery for the
> Arno Minnkinnen (sp) photos.  Sure, they purport to show his body
> in various
> landscapes.  But if that's all you see in them, then you can only see
> snapshots.

I believe there are more than simply "snapshots" and "art"...

> Every one of them are _at the same time_ abstractions-  a
> glimmer from his mind that he uses the image from the camera to represent.

I don't even believe they (always) originate from one's mind...but are a
recognition...  That's not to say that some don't have aspects of them
originating from the mind, but every aspect, I don't believe possible.

Regards,

Austin

An impression -- for me overly massaged prints (whether in the 
darkroom or computer) give me that same feeling I get when I watch 
highly digitized scenes in a film: I appreciate the pyrotechnics, but 
I have a hard time getting engaged. I find such visual material too 
often going for the big effect, too much idealization, too much 
smoothing out of the rough edges of the raw material that forms the 
starting point -- in painting, Maxfield Parrish has somewhat the same 
effect on me. Of course, I readily admit that this is only my take on 
this stuff, etc.

Chris Hargens


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> 
> > Seriously, I would recommend the Painting in Boston show at the 
DeCordova.
> > Painting certainly runs the gamuts that I described.
> 
> I'm there regularly!
> 
> > The
> > question, I guess,
> > is does photography do the same?
> 
> Exactly.  I already know the answer though ;-)
> 
> > Ever seen the photography of the Surrealists?  How about Cindy 
Sherman?
> > What "reality" does she depict? Or go to the Robert Klein gallery 
for the
> > Arno Minnkinnen (sp) photos.  Sure, they purport to show his body
> > in various
> > landscapes.  But if that's all you see in them, then you can only 
see
> > snapshots.
> 
> I believe there are more than simply "snapshots" and "art"...
> 
> > Every one of them are _at the same time_ abstractions-  a
> > glimmer from his mind that he uses the image from the camera to 
represent.
> 
> I don't even believe they (always) originate from one's mind...but 
are a
> recognition...  That's not to say that some don't have aspects of 
them
> originating from the mind, but every aspect, I don't believe 
possible.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

I think what I was saying, is that it's common (and acceptable) for the 
word "abstract" to be used to mean "less representational", hence some 
of the confusion in this discussion.

Could you put some words around what you mean by abstract when you say a 
photo can be "more or less abstract"? I'm not challenging you, I'm just 
curious.

-Jason

Bill Morse wrote:

> Hi Jason-
> 
> As I have tried to describe in other posts, for me the "continuum" is
> between "more or less "representational" at the same time as "more or less
> "abstract"- both things, simultaneously.  In this sense, photography as Art
> (as opposed to snap-shot) is really no more nor less "representational" or
> "abstract" than painting.
> 
> Having said that, I would add that the problem (for me) is precisely the
> relative ease with which photography can "pretend" to be reality- it is a
> seductive trap which can lead us to works that are more a snap-shot than a
> "work of art."
> 
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> 
> 
> on 9/17/02 1:24 PM, Jason DeFontes wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think there is more than one valid usage of the word abstraction
>>that's getting mixed up here.
>>
>>The first, the one that I believe Austin is using, is the idea that
>>there's a continuum from representation<<-->>abstraction. In this sense,
>>a photograph surely lies near the representational end of the spectrum.

I missed who this came from and I apologise for that. However, I can't let
it pass without comment.

Your suggestion is fine, IF traditional printers tell us what developers and
fixatives they used and for how long; which grade of printing paper they
used to change the contrast; whether they did any selective dodging or
burning; whether they superimposed any negs or trannies; whether they used a
diffuse head enlarger or collimated light source; whether they did any
spotting on the negs; etc, etc, etc.

Bob Frost.

> >
> > 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.

Austin,

Usually I'm in agreement with your postings (though I did become a bit lost
eventually over Dynamic Range!!)

> I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> reproduction of a scene.
>

However, I must disagree with you here. SOME photography is about accurate
representation of a scene. MUCH traditional photography is about reproducing
the photographer's IMPRESSION of the scene. From my little knowledge I think
this applies just as much to the accepted old masters of photography, as to
today's 'computer whiz-kids' (in which camp you would probably put me, even
though I've been using computers for 20 years or so and most of my Epson
prints are of images taken up to 40 years ago on Kodachrome 25 and only
recently scanned on an LS4000.)

You are clearly in the camp of those who regard photography as a scientific
recording medium. Some painters in the past probably regarded themselves in
the same light. Many, it seems, used optical methods to ensure accuracy in
the outlines and perspectives of their images. Others, however, saw painting
as a way of expressing emotions, and many modern-day photographers use the
medium as a way of getting the outlines on 'canvas', but then use Photoshop
to express their feelings about the scene, rather than play about in the
darkroom as their predecessors had done to achieve the same ends.

Both are surely perfectly valid uses of the camera. Many painters seem to
take photographs of their scenes and then paint at home from those
photographs. Does this make those paintings invalid?

Life is all about VARIATION (and the survival of the fittest).

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> reproduction of a scene.

> Usually I'm in agreement with your postings (though I did become
> a bit lost
> eventually over Dynamic Range!!)
>
> > I certainly disagree with that.  A LOT of photography is about accurate
> > reproduction of a scene.
> >
>
> However, I must disagree with you here. SOME photography is about accurate
> representation of a scene.

OK, Bob...we have a quantification of terms here (yes, I made that up). I
understand "a lot" is subjective, but I believe it's a LOT more than one
thinks of "some" as.  Bill Gates has A LOT of money, but in the overall
amount of money in the world, he really has very little.  Most any reportage
is supposed to be an accurate reproduction of a scene, and so is most all
happy snapping...and I'd say, that comprises MOST of the photography in the
world.

> You are clearly in the camp of those who regard photography as a
> scientific
> recording medium.

Well, no.  I am more into, what I consider, artistic expression, but I do so
by using my eye to capture a scene that I believe has artistic qualities in
and of the scene, not create artistic qualities using PS.

Regards,

Austin

Why on earth would you need that info displayed?

When's the last time you saw a silver print with the note that it was made
on Oriental seagull grade 3 paper with heavy burning and dodging?
Developed in straight Dektol... Overdeveloped 2 minutes to get added
contrast... Yellow filter over the lens.... unsharp mask applied in the
darkroom... Archivally washed,
and Selenium toned for deeper blacks... 

I present my work as a fine art print. Details don't matter, unless the
purchaser of the print asks.

Jerry

> > > 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.

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 3:25:02 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> Why on earth would you need that info displayed?

JO> When's the last time you saw a silver print with the note that it was made
JO> on Oriental seagull grade 3 paper with heavy burning and dodging?
JO> Developed in straight Dektol... Overdeveloped 2 minutes to get added
JO> contrast... Yellow filter over the lens.... unsharp mask applied in the
JO> darkroom... Archivally washed,
JO> and Selenium toned for deeper blacks...

All excellent points. And most buyers, for whatever reason, would not
care about those processes used as you outline them above. Whether
dues to misunderstanding, acceptance, ignorance, I don't know.

JO> I present my work as a fine art print. Details don't matter, unless the
JO> purchaser of the print asks.

But mention to a prospective buyer that you pumped up the color by
using saturation controls in PS, or by using a color enhancing filter
and it WOULD matter to many, many more people.

Do not ask me why.  Ask the general non-photographer public.  But it
does.  And that's my point.

What we, within the photographic-artist group, feel/debate/discuss
amongst ourselves is one thing. How people perceive these newer
processes and the application of them, is another. Should it matter?
Is there a real difference when it all boils down? Perhaps not. But
the perception out there amongst others, which I have found when
talking to people, is that there is.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Either a prints speaks for itself or it doesn't say anything. In either 
case you it was made really doesn't matter, doesn it?

Truman

Jerry Olson wrote:

> Why on earth would you need that info displayed?
>
> When's the last time you saw a silver print with the note that it was made
> on Oriental seagull grade 3 paper with heavy burning and dodging?
> Developed in straight Dektol... Overdeveloped 2 minutes to get added
> contrast... Yellow filter over the lens.... unsharp mask applied in the
> darkroom... Archivally washed,
> and Selenium toned for deeper blacks...
>
> I present my work as a fine art print. Details don't matter, unless the
> purchaser of the print asks.
>
> Jerry
>
> > > > 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.

> Most
> any reportage
> is supposed to be an accurate reproduction of a scene, and so is most all
> happy snapping...and I'd say, that comprises MOST of the
> photography in the
> world.

I'm so glad you added "supposed to be" Austin, because while most people
would like to think and believe that it is an accurate representation, very
little of it actually is.

What is brought to the photograph are the photographers point of view (both
in terms of visual composition and world view), the societal view they come
from (a Russian photojournalist will most likely photograph something very
differently from and American one from AP), the pressure and requirements of
their publication/editor/owner and what the public wants - lots of bodies/no
bodies, enemy bodies/no american bodies... etc. What the political climate
of the time

For example, you will see very little photojournalism in the last year which
overtly shows the results of serious failures of US policy in Arab
countries, or critical of US involvement US in Afghanistan and various
failures there and so on. People just chose not to photograph such things in
the current climate.

They will chose what to photograph and what not to photograph, how to
compose a shot, what impact to go for and so on, all based on these and many
more factors. The best will try and do their work honestly, while saying
they tired to present images that expressed the truth as they perceived it.
But if you look at photojournalism over the last 70 years or so, you will
see all sorts of societal and political trends showing up very clearly in
how and what is photographed, and who was doing the photographing and for
whom.

tim

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 5:09:27 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:

TP> Either a prints speaks for itself or it doesn't say anything. In either 
TP> case you it was made really doesn't matter, doesn it?


To the artist perhaps not.  To his contemporaries maybe.  To a
purchaser it very well may.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

I've have photos of Howard Bond, old Ansel himself and and a few other 
very good photographers hanging one the walls of my house. I even have a 
Picasso lithograph hanging on the wall that my ex-wife gave me for my 
birthday before she was my ex ( and tired to steal after she was). The 
only thing I am concerned with when I buy art work is to know the artist 
used materials that hold up over time, i.e., archival.

I really don't care to much for the details. I have found that the only 
work I ask about "how it was made" is mediocre at best and which I have 
no intention of buying, but a passing curiosity of how it was done.  I 
must add to this, my perspective is of one who has a "day job" and is 
not making a living doing commercial work - although I have sold 
photography it is not my living. Hence I have not suffered some of the 
pressures of pleasing the "customer to pay the rent."

Truman


Richard Sintchak wrote:

> Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 5:09:27 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
>
> TP> Either a prints speaks for itself or it doesn't say anything. In 
> either
> TP> case you it was made really doesn't matter, doesn it?
>
>
> To the artist perhaps not.  To his contemporaries maybe.  To a
> purchaser it very well may.
>
> Best regards,
> Richard 
>
> mailto:richard@...
>

Hi Tim,

> > Most
> > any reportage
> > is supposed to be an accurate reproduction of a scene, and so
> is most all
> > happy snapping...and I'd say, that comprises MOST of the
> > photography in the
> > world.
>
> I'm so glad you added "supposed to be" Austin,

Knowing the crowd, that was carefully chosen...

> because while most people
> would like to think and believe that it is an accurate
> representation, very
> little of it actually is.

I don't agree with that.  It may only show one aspect of what is going on,
but that captured aspect IS typically accurately reproduced.

> What is brought to the photograph are the photographers point of
> view (both
> in terms of visual composition and world view), the societal view
> they come
> from (a Russian photojournalist will most likely photograph something very
> differently from and American one from AP), the pressure and
> requirements of
> their publication/editor/owner and what the public wants - lots
> of bodies/no
> bodies, enemy bodies/no american bodies... etc. What the political climate
> of the time

Yeah, but so what?  That doesn't make it not an accurate reproduction.

> For example, you will see very little photojournalism in the last
> year which
> overtly shows the results of serious failures of US policy in Arab
> countries, or critical of US involvement US in Afghanistan and various
> failures there and so on. People just chose not to photograph
> such things in
> the current climate.

Again, so what?  That doesn't mean that the photograph, it self, isn't an
accurate representation of "a" moment in time.  You're bringing a lot more
into this than just the photograph it self...

> They will chose what to photograph and what not to photograph, how to
> compose a shot, what impact to go for and so on, all based on
> these and many
> more factors.

And again, so what...that doesn't make it not an accurate representation...

> The best will try and do their work honestly, while saying
> they tired to present images that expressed the truth as they
> perceived it.
> But if you look at photojournalism over the last 70 years or so, you will
> see all sorts of societal and political trends showing up very clearly in
> how and what is photographed, and who was doing the photographing and for
> whom.

I COMPLETELY understand what you're saying, and I agree with it in a larger
sense, but that's really not talking about the realism of the photograph,
but the realism of the overall depiction, which really isn't about one
photograph as it stands alone...it's typically far more.

Regards,

Austin

Seems like you're talking about your perception of journalistic bias 
not whether the photograph itself is accurate or not. When you push 
that shutter release you capture what is. How can it be anything 
else? You may want to editorialize, but that's politics...not 
photography.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
> > > Most
> > > any reportage
> > > is supposed to be an accurate reproduction of a scene, and so
> > is most all
> > > happy snapping...and I'd say, that comprises MOST of the
> > > photography in the
> > > world.
> >
> > I'm so glad you added "supposed to be" Austin,
> 
>

Austin,

OK, but what about darkroom manipulations? Did or do you go in for those?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
>
> Well, no.  I am more into, what I consider, artistic expression, but I do
so
> by using my eye to capture a scene that I believe has artistic qualities
in
> and of the scene, not create artistic qualities using PS.

Hi Bob,

It depends on what you mean by "manipulations".  I rarely ever did burning
and dodging...of course, I matched the exposure time/aperture/paper etc. to
get the best tonal range I could...

Austin

> Austin,
>
> OK, but what about darkroom manipulations? Did or do you go in for those?
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> >
> > Well, no.  I am more into, what I consider, artistic
> expression, but I do
> so
> > by using my eye to capture a scene that I believe has artistic qualities
> in
> > and of the scene, not create artistic qualities using PS.

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Hi Bob,
>
>It depends on what you mean by "manipulations".  I rarely ever did burning
>and dodging...of course, I matched the exposure time/aperture/paper etc. to
>get the best tonal range I could...
>
>Austin
>
>  
>
NO dodging or burning?


Keith
 
 



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

> Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >It depends on what you mean by "manipulations".  I rarely ever 
> did burning
> >and dodging...of course, I matched the exposure 
> time/aperture/paper etc. to
> >get the best tonal range I could...
> >
> >Austin
> >
> >  
> >
> NO dodging or burning?

Keith,

I thought you took my word for it?

;-)

Austin

Austin Franklin wrote:

>Hi Bob,
>
>It depends on what you mean by "manipulations".  I rarely ever did burning
>and dodging...of course, I matched the exposure time/aperture/paper etc. to
>get the best tonal range I could...
>
>Austin
>
>
>  
>
Hmmm.. some would say you were therefore "weak" in the craftsmanship 
department...


Also, if you don't cram that wider tonal range onto the print somehow, 
your print loses repro of parts of the "realistic" tonal range.. making 
thephoto less "realistic" and more "abstract", no ?

Keith



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

Hi Bob,

> >It depends on what you mean by "manipulations".  I rarely ever
> did burning
> >and dodging...of course, I matched the exposure
> time/aperture/paper etc. to
> >get the best tonal range I could...
> >
> >Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Hmmm.. some would say you were therefore "weak" in the craftsmanship
> department...

Some might, but they would be foolish to do so ;-)  I make my images on the
ground glass, not in the darkroom.

> Also, if you don't cram that wider tonal range onto the print somehow,
> your print loses repro of parts of the "realistic" tonal range.. making
> thephoto less "realistic" and more "abstract", no ?

I DO "cram" that wider tonal range on to the print...but I don't need to
burn or dodge to do it, now do I.

Austin