Digital BW, The Print

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

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


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

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

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

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

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Richard,

I have rarely been able to significantly improve an image by 
"tweaking a few sliders" in Photoshop. I can make the image look 
different, yes, but not much better. On the other hand, years 
ago when I used to print color myself, it was not hard to completely 
alter an image by playing with various filters in the darkroom 
-- about the equivalent of tweaking a few sliders. I don't really 
see the point of confessing to having used layers, or hue adjustments, 
or sharpening, or whatever, any more than to having used a particular 
flash, backdrop, filter, or darkroom processing technique. Having 
been a "manipulator" in both realms, it doesn't feel that different 
to me. It is easier to do some things with a digital image, and 
it is possible to do some manipulations with a digital image 
that could not be done at all in a darkroom, but doing really 
good digital manipulation takes, I think, the same sort of mind 
set and skill development as doing really good darkroom or lighting/filter 
manipulation using wet chemistry and film.

Just my two cents.

- David

= = = Original message = = =

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

BA> This argument has been going on long before I got seriously 

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


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

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

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

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

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...



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/


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Hi Richard,

> I think this argument is less about the actual act of "manipulation"
> than about the art and talent inherent to the manipulation or
> enhancing process that was used.
> 
> I belive now that many people are actually quite aware that photographers
> like Adams and Smith were manipulators. However, their techniques
> required an artistry and talent on a completely different plane than
> many are now doing by simply tweaking a few sliders in PS.

I couldn't have said that better my self.
 
> 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.

And I certainly agree with that!
 
> 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.

Possibly, but not always...

Regards,

Austin

--- 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?

Hogarth1x,

> Or is it that you
> really think that using Photoshop artistically requires no artistic
> talent?

Obviously, if one IS using PS artistically (by whose definition of
 "artistic" is debatable ;-), it requires some artistic talent.
But...because one uses PS, doesn't make one an "artist".

Austin

I'm sorry but this feels more like a reactionary stance on a new
methodology for which you have no experience. I see Photoshop as a tool
no different than controlling the exposure and the timing and
temperature of my developer in order to control contrast. I have over 30
years of experience with "analog" and around 10 with digital if I only
consider it when applying to photography (it goes further back for film
work).

When I first posted my comment, this is exactly the kind of reaction I
was sensing. I accepted the notion of taste. That cannot be argued and I
will defend your right to disagree with my taste to the end. However
this is not what this is turning out to be.

People invest great amounts of time perfecting a methodology and feel
threatened by new methods (as if that made them obsolete). Instead of
trying to understand it, the reaction typically involves attacking it as
to make it less than what they know and are comfortable with. This is by
no means isolated to this subject. It happens whenever a new methodology
is presented to replace or augment an older one. Pick any field and you
will find exact copies of these sentiments. Heck, how many people feel
that digital printing isn't "real" photography?

All in all, it all boils down to fear. Fear to admit the ignorance of
something new and laziness to try to understand it. Photography is, and
has always been a highly technical procedure. Capturing light,
especially monochromatic light is inherently "artificial" and
manipulative. Controlling the aperture to define depth of field,
choosing a lens in order to define perspective compression, choosing a
film in order to control contrast, grain, etc. These are all
"manipulations" of reality. To try to determine what is "good"
manipulation and what is "bad" manipulation is just simple censorship.
As any other kind of censorship, it comes out of fear.

The solace is that this tends to "die out".

Rest in peace.

g

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sintchak [mailto:richard@...] 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 1:28 PM
To: Bill Agee
Subject: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints

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

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


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

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

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

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

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...



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/

On 9/16/02 5:41 PM, "Gus J Grubba" <gus@...> wrote:

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


Baloney...

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

Gus,

> I'm sorry but this feels more like a reactionary stance on a new
> methodology for which you have no experience.

Er, I've been using PS, and even it's predecessor, plus programs out before
PS, like Digital Darkroom....for, what would that be...15 years?  I've got a
LOT of PS experience.  I'm no expert at it...but I do know how to use it,
and know what it can do.

> I see Photoshop as a tool
> no different than controlling the exposure and the timing and
> temperature of my developer in order to control contrast.

Not really.  It IS a tool, but a tool that allows you to MAKE things that
didn't exist before.  You can't do that with exposure and development.

> People invest great amounts of time perfecting a methodology and feel
> threatened by new methods (as if that made them obsolete). Instead of
> trying to understand it, the reaction typically involves attacking it as
> to make it less than what they know and are comfortable with.

Well, in my case, I know that simply is not the case.  I just don't like
manipulated images, period, for what I consider "art" photography.  There is
a point when manipulated photographs are more manipulation than photograph.
Nothing wrong with that, mind you...as it has it's place.

> This is by
> no means isolated to this subject. It happens whenever a new methodology
> is presented to replace or augment an older one. Pick any field and you
> will find exact copies of these sentiments. Heck, how many people feel
> that digital printing isn't "real" photography?

Well, I personally don't like toned prints.  That's been around a LONG time,
so you can't say that about every case, at least for me.  I agree with you
that is true for some people, but don't blanket it over everyone.

> All in all, it all boils down to fear.

For some...purely taste for others.

> Photography is, and
> has always been a highly technical procedure. Capturing light,
> especially monochromatic light is inherently "artificial" and
> manipulative. Controlling the aperture to define depth of field,
> choosing a lens in order to define perspective compression, choosing a
> film in order to control contrast, grain, etc. These are all
> "manipulations" of reality.

Yes, but they are far more limited than what some people do with PS.

> To try to determine what is "good"
> manipulation and what is "bad" manipulation is just simple censorship.
> As any other kind of censorship, it comes out of fear.

No, no, no.  That's simply silly.  No one is censoring anything, as far as I
can tell.  If I don't like something, it doesn't mean I "fear" it.  I don't
like liver...I don't fear it, I simply don't like what it tastes like.  I
also don't like toned B&W photographs, some I like, but in general, I just
don't like them, I'd rather see the "real" image...now that does't mean I
have some fear of toning...I've played with it, and it's just not my taste.

Austin

On 9/16/02 5:52 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Gus,
> 
>> I'm sorry but this feels more like a reactionary stance on a new
>> methodology for which you have no experience.
> 
> Er, I've been using PS, and even it's predecessor, plus programs out before
> PS, like Digital Darkroom....for, what would that be...15 years?  I've got a
> LOT of PS experience.  I'm no expert at it...but I do know how to use it,
> and know what it can do.


Austin,

Did you bother to read the bottom of the message from Gus?  He was replying
to RICHARD, not to you!  I know this may come as a shock but not all of
these replies are directed to you ;-)

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

Austin,

I already said that taste is not an argument. We agreed to have
different tastes and I've also said that I would defend your right for
that different taste to the end. Overall however, this is not what this
thread turned out. I see it more about not accepting digital
manipulation. 

Statements such as:

> 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.

Are certainly not about taste, rather simple censorship (fear,
ignorance, etc.)

g

P.S. I knew this was coming. I actually like liver. :>

Hi Gus,

> Austin,
> 
> I already said that taste is not an argument. We agreed to have
> different tastes and I've also said that I would defend your right for
> that different taste to the end. Overall however, this is not what this
> thread turned out. I see it more about not accepting digital
> manipulation. 

OK.

> Statements such as:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Are certainly not about taste, rather simple censorship (fear,
> ignorance, etc.)

And, the statement is not something I agree with either...

> g
> 
> P.S. I knew this was coming. I actually like liver. :>

Bleck!

Regards,

Austin

Lawrence,

> Did you bother to read the bottom of the message from Gus?

Er, yes.

> He
> was replying
> to RICHARD, not to you!  I know this may come as a shock but not all of
> these replies are directed to you ;-)

Er, yeah...but does that somehow preclude me from responding?

Did you notice I was responding to Gus, not to you?  I know this may come as
a surprise to you, but you're more than welcome to respond, no matter who it
's directed at ;-)

Austin

> Are certainly not about taste, rather simple censorship (fear,
> ignorance, etc.)
> 
> g
> 
> P.S. I knew this was coming. I actually like liver. :>


I'm pretty sure it's an unwritten list law that this discussion make the
rounds every 8 months or so... on almost every list I'm on...
everythingunderthesuncreative that can be touched digitally.

I think Lawrence summed it up nicely myself.

Carolyn

Monday, September 16, 2002, 2:24:16 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

AF> Obviously, if one IS using PS artistically (by whose definition of
AF>  "artistic" is debatable ;-), it requires some artistic talent.
AF> But...because one uses PS, doesn't make one an "artist".

AF> Austin


Thank Austin.  Could not have said that better myself.

Why are some of you taking this as if I spoke to an extreme against
PS? Where did I say that? My main point was those using PS to change
their image to an extreme and not saying anything or admitting to it
when asked. Even Adams would readily admit to using a Wratten Red
filter and bleaching his prints. I use PS all the time. I love it. And
IMHO I'm very good at it too. What I really hate are people who take a
sunset shot, change the hue to some crazy yet still barely believable
color, crank the saturation, add misty clouds, and post it implying
"Hey! Look at what I captured!"

In this day of people highly manipulating their images in PS I feel I
sometimes need to go out of my way to mention that I did NOT use
increase the saturation nor change the color hue of an image file.
Otherwise many figured I did and discount it right off.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Monday, September 16, 2002, 2:41:32 PM, Gus J Grubba wrote:

GJG> I'm sorry but this feels more like a reactionary stance on a new
GJG> methodology for which you have no experience.

GJG> GJG> All in all, it all boils down to fear. Fear to admit the ignorance of
GJG> something new and laziness to try to understand it. 


You could not be more wrong on either point.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

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

Why, exactly, "should" they (we)? Is there a law on the books about 
this that I missed somewhere? 

tim

Monday, September 16, 2002, 3:04:43 PM, Gus J Grubba wrote:

>> 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.

GJG> Are certainly not about taste, rather simple censorship (fear,
GJG> ignorance, etc.)


Sorry g,

That's just plain ridiculous! Censorship! I never said any such thing.


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

> Did you notice I was responding to Gus, not to you?  I know this may come as
> a surprise to you, but you're more than welcome to respond, no matter who it
> 's directed at ;-)
> 
> Austin
> 

LOL

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

> 
> 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.

Do people chose a zingy colour film because it's a dull drab day? Of 
course they do (very few colour films these days have a neutral 
balance) - pile on that Velvia boys; or use a polarizer, or a grad 
filter, or a haze filter; or pick a telephoto to isolate the view, 
compress the background, or a real wide angle to give a nice unreal 
view, or print on harder grade or warmer paper? Or get a nice zingy 
(but unreal) print on Ilfochrome? Cropped out that darn lampost or 
piece of hair on the film gate? Or shoot in B&W to get rid of all that 
annoying colour - lots of way to change the hue, saturation or contrast 
in our photos (which we regularly do without thinking about)? You don't 
need those Photoshop sliders for any of it. Take any edition of Outdoor 
Photographer or such - I doubt you'll find many pictures that 
are "realistic" (even without digital work).

Using photoshop just isn't really any issue

tim

Monday, September 16, 2002, 3:36:45 PM, Tim Atherton wrote:

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

TA> Why, exactly, "should" they (we)? Is there a law on the books about 
TA> this that I missed somewhere? 

TA> tim


No, no law. I should have been more explicit that this is my opinion.
If you think it's ok, then that's yours.

I'm not a purist. But let's think for a moment. What does it do to the
respect of photography in general when we produce a striking sunset
image with glowing reds, yellows, oranges, etc. and someone, who is
not a photographer, ooohs and aaahs overs it. In my experience if you
then told them that the main effect of the colors was achieved because
you used something called a color enhanced filter about 99.9% of the
time their immediate reaction is. "oh....so that's how" and their
respect for what was done and how the photographer achieved it has
dropped considerably. Tell them you did it by cranking up saturation
in PS and the reaction is the same. Don't tell them and they somehow
find out later? They feel cheated.

So where is the line drawn?  It's nebulous.  But the extent of the use
of PS, or even color enhancing filters, helps define it, I think.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

I've been reading this thread with interest. I don't understand how
over-saturating colors, adding noise, combining parts of more than one
image, etc. are any different than cross-processing film, developing for
grain, solarizing, bleaching, intensifying, etc.  These are all accepted
darkroom practices.  Combining image elements by double exposing or
double printing are standard procedure.  Why should Photoshop work be
treated differently?  The image you end up with should be judged on its
visual appeal, not by how you got there.  A bad Photoshop image is just
bad, as is a bad darkroom print.  Thanks --- John.

Tim,

> Using photoshop just isn't really any issue

To some, obviously not...to others, it is.

Austin

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.'"

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?

  --Ken

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Austin Franklin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:05 PM
  Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Very cool B&W Lightjet prints



  > 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


        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]

Oh! for Everybody's sake...............You all just need to move along. 
On one occasion, Picasso was confronted by a gallery visitor with the 
statement that went something like "I have never seen a sunset that 
color," to which Picasso replied, "what a shame!" Painters do not 
stand, or sit, around talking about brushes and paints. No one ever 
captions their painting with the particulars of the brush or pallet 
knife used. One looks at visual art, appreciates it, or not, and moves 
on. If photography is "art" then it doesn't matter how one gets to the 
end result. You like it, fine, you don't like it, fine. Time to move on.

My two cents,

Jim

ps: I really like the subject prints.

But I think we should use Pantone approved colors to signify alert levels
when higher than normal levels of Photoshop filtering activity are going on.
Perhaps we could even have Quadtone alerts!

Oh my, Constance, it's a Gaussian Blur! Holy Moses, my eyes have been
deceived!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>

> 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?
>

Monday, September 16, 2002, 6:06:26 PM, Luke Granfield wrote:

LG> But I think we should use Pantone approved colors to signify alert levels
LG> when higher than normal levels of Photoshop filtering activity are going on.
LG> Perhaps we could even have Quadtone alerts!

LG> Oh my, Constance, it's a Gaussian Blur! Holy Moses, my eyes have been
LG> deceived!


Do you really feel arguing with ridiculous extremes helps qualify your
point?

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., <david_bookbinder@s...> 
wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> I have rarely been able to significantly improve an image by 
> "tweaking a few sliders" in Photoshop. I can make the image look 
> different, yes, but not much better. On the other hand, years 
> ago when I used to print color myself, it was not hard to 
completely 
> alter an image by playing with various filters in the darkroom 
> -- about the equivalent of tweaking a few sliders. I don't really 
> see the point of confessing to having used layers, or hue 
adjustments, 
> or sharpening, or whatever, any more than to having used a 
particular 
> flash, backdrop, filter, or darkroom processing technique. Having 
> been a "manipulator" in both realms, it doesn't feel that different 
> to me. It is easier to do some things with a digital image, and 
> it is possible to do some manipulations with a digital image 
> that could not be done at all in a darkroom, but doing really 
> good digital manipulation takes, I think, the same sort of mind 
> set and skill development as doing really good darkroom or 
lighting/filter 
> manipulation using wet chemistry and film.
> 
> Just my two cents.

David,

I'll add my two cents and agree with you. I don't do much more 
manipulation in PS than I can do in the darkroom. I can just do a lot 
of it better. I always assume that a photograph is an interpretation 
of the photographer and that manipulation took place.

Martin Wesley

> 
> = = = Original message = = =
> 
> Monday, September 16, 2002, 10:25:46 AM, Bill Agee wrote:
> 
> BA> This argument has been going on long before I got seriously 
> 
> BA> interested in photography over 30 years ago...the "purists" 
> vs the 
> BA> "manipulators".  Most people don't realize that some of the 
> most 
> BA> venerated photographers were heavy manipulators of the silver 
> gelatin 
> BA> media.  Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith are just a couple 
> that 
> BA> immediately come to mind. 
> 
> 
> I think this argument is less about the actual act of "manipulation"
> than about the art and talent inherent to the manipulation or
> enhancing process that was used.
> 
> I belive now that many people are actually quite aware that 
photographers
> like Adams and Smith were manipulators. However, their techniques
> required an artistry and talent on a completely different plane 
> than
> many are now doing by simply tweaking a few sliders in PS.
> 
> I have no problem with manipulating or enhancing an image in 
> PS. I
> just think photographers should be EXPLICITLY up front about 
> what, if
> any, PS tools and techniques may have been used. The biggest 
> problem I
> see, and the most dishonorable trend I see, is where photographers 
> are
> using PS to create tonal ranges and/or hue adjustments, then 
> say
> nothing in their image description. This "silence" tends to
> purposefully create an "aura" and tends to completely imply that 
> the
> photographer, through talented field techniques and camera skill,
> captured that once in a lifetime light when in reality, while 
> they may
> have captured a very good image, they absolutely needed PS to 
> make it
> over the top.
> 
> Some say we should all use our "artistic license" to make our 
> images
> the best they can be. Artistic license is one thing, but the 
> more
> one's artistic license depends on mouse movements in a computer 
> the
> less merit there is to the art.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...
> 
> 
> 
> 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/

> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
> Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., James Downs 
<silvergull@m...> wrote:
> Oh! for Everybody's sake...............You all just need to move 
along. 
> On one occasion, Picasso was confronted by a gallery visitor with 
the 
> statement that went something like "I have never seen a sunset that 
> color," to which Picasso replied, "what a shame!" Painters do not 
> stand, or sit, around talking about brushes and paints. No one ever 
> captions their painting with the particulars of the brush or pallet 
> knife used. One looks at visual art, appreciates it, or not, and 
moves 
> on. If photography is "art" then it doesn't matter how one gets to 
the 
> end result. You like it, fine, you don't like it, fine. Time to 
move on.
> 
> My two cents,
> 
> Jim
> 
> ps: I really like the subject prints.

Hear, hear!!

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Carolyn Frayn 
<carolynfrayn@s...> wrote:
> > Are certainly not about taste, rather simple censorship (fear,
> > ignorance, etc.)
> > 
> > g
> > 
> > P.S. I knew this was coming. I actually like liver. :>
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's an unwritten list law that this discussion 
make the
> rounds every 8 months or so... on almost every list I'm on...
> everythingunderthesuncreative that can be touched digitally.
> 
> I think Lawrence summed it up nicely myself.
> 
Carolyn,

I think the very best one was in the spring of '01 on the Piezo list 
primarily between John Brownlow, Jerry Olson and Bob Tyson, with 
running commentary my Austin, myself and many others. Went on for 
about a month I think. They will be hard pressed to match, much less 
top, that debate. <G>

Martin

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..

These are fun debates every now and then as it gets the blood flowing 
after a long day...however, I don't think people will feel any 
different when we eventually reach Photoshop 24.0.  Just the names 
will change.

Bill Agee


-- 

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

http://www.redsilver.com

Bill,

I'm not saying "pure" is good, bad or indifferent...I'm just trying to make
a distinction between photography and graphics art.  I believe it's an
important distinction, IMO.

Austin

> 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..
>
> These are fun debates every now and then as it gets the blood flowing
> after a long day...however, I don't think people will feel any
> different when we eventually reach Photoshop 24.0.  Just the names
> will change.
>
> Bill Agee

who cares if a book was written on a typewriter or a word processor ?
Frank