Art photos are manipulations

[faberryman]

See my last post for one answer. The other answer is that shooting photos is the last resort for a person to be an artist without having the ability to draw or paint. People like me who can't draw better than stick figures. So now because of Photoshop, the average photographer cannot keep up with those who have computer artistic skill unrelated to snapping a picture. Their skills are more related to painters who are creating their pictures with their hands rather than capturing the scene with a camera. The whole excitement of capturing a beautiful scene in a landscape, or compelling content in a street or editorial shot, are less important since they can be created at home at your desk. It forces people who have no interest in computer art and manipulation to forgo photography totally. Making meaningful photos in a camera as an artform is being lost as an art in itself. That's unfortunate.

Certainly seems like an odd outlook to me. I wouldn't want to project that outlook on others, particularly here on Photrio where most of the participants have embraced making photographs the old fashion way. The rise of digital photography certainly hasn't induced them "to forego photography totally."

 

[darkosaric]

Art photo by fabricating lies can reach the higher truth, for the photographer, and sometimes for the audience.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

d

Certainly seems like an odd outlook to me. I wouldn't want to project that outlook on others, particularly here on Photrio where most of the participants have embraced making photographs the old fashion way. The rise of digital photography certainly hasn't induced them "to forego photography totally."

What you just said, Frank, is very important. It points to the fact that many of us do want to go back to basic photography. So we stick with film. Not because digital is sinful. But because we dismiss the allure of digital because of the ease you can manipulate the original art of getting the picture in a camera. Sure there's Ansel's "performance" of the print. But that's usually much limited than digital art; mainly relating to exposure, not cloning. Also, the fact that much of "fine art" in photography is BW, the final work often doesn;t have the reality look of a color or digital print. So the viewer accepts it as a special art form.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Art photo by fabricating lies can reach the higher truth, for the photographer, and sometimes for the audience.

Making a political statement, if that's what you mean, by hook or crook, is a bad way of presenting truths, high or not. You lose credibility once the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.

 

[faberryman]

But because we dismiss the allure of digital because of the ease you can manipulate the original art of getting the picture in a camera.

Seriously, you dismiss digital because it is too easy to manipulate images?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why are such photographs an issue? Let's say I take a photograph of two cows in a field. For aesthetic reasons, I decide to remove one of the cows. Who cares?

If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing. An exception is made for those who are learning and desire to use their skills and tools correctly in the first place. I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters". Real life is interesting enough. People with paint brushes are free to invent their own world and that I can appreciate knowing that I am see what is in the artist's mind and not necessarily reality. Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products.

 

[faberryman]

I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters".

The last time I saw a shark jumping out of the water to attack a helicopter was in the 1966 movie Batman. Fortunately, Batman had some Shark Repellent Bat Spray in his utility belt. The movie was shot on film.

 

[MattKing]

I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters"

The last time I saw a shark jumping out of the water to attack a helicopter was in the 1966 movie Batman. Fortunately, Batman had some Shark Repellent Bat Spray in his utility belt. The movie was shot on film.

Well, this thread has certainly "jumped the shark" now!

 

[Pieter12]

If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing. An exception is made for those who are learning and desire to use their skills and tools correctly in the first place. I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters". Real life is interesting enough. People with paint brushes are free to invent their own world and that I can appreciate knowing that I am see what is in the artist's mind and not necessarily reality. Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products.

Photojournalism and documentary photography and photographs used as evidence should not be manipulated. Any other photos are fair game. An artist certainly should not be restricted from using any specific medium (in this case photography) to express themselves.

 

[faberryman]

If you cannot change your position, camera angle or lens to not show only one cow, then by demonstrated facts you would have shown me that your photographs are not worth my time to look at. I would rather interact with people who actually know what they are doing. An exception is made for those who are learning and desire to use their skills and tools correctly in the first place. I do not waste my time, energy or resources on those who want to make "photographs of sharks jumping out of water attacking helicopters". Real life is interesting enough. People with paint brushes are free to invent their own world and that I can appreciate knowing that I am see what is in the artist's mind and not necessarily reality. Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products.

That is certainly one approach.

 

[removed account4]

And therein is my concern with the misuse of FauxTow$hop and resultant distrust of digital photograph in general.

I distrust ALL photographs, even the ones I take myself. As my grandmother told me trust half of what you hear and none of what you see..

Scott why are you so hung up on manipulations? There is a big difference between common darkroom procedures and swapping parts of photographs. Are you trying to justify some types of darkroom procedure or is this just a discussion?

SG Scott really isn't hung up on anything. The problem is that people who do analog/ film based photography, you - me - everyone, manipulates the scene just by framing it, by adjusting the shutter/fstop by processing the film a certain way, by burning and dodging and doing common darkroom practices. its all manipulation, maybe not the same as combination printing which has been done since 1839-1840 or the modern equivalent which makes it easier for lay-people to do without the same amount of training. just because common darkroom practices are done and accepted as common doesn't mean its not manipulation. with the camera the lens and shutter and f-stops manipulate the rendering of the image on the film, chemistry manipulates the latent image into a negative, and enlarging or contact printing manipulates the light striking the paper making the paper print. I can't imagine how anyone doesn't agree that those things done in a darkroom or with camera with film AREN'T manipulation... is it because it's not done with a computer their purity makes it NOT manipulation ??

 

[Dali]

If it's not what our eye-brain "sees", then any manipulation should be indicated in the caption, especially if shown in a scientific journal. We assume that's what something looks like if we were just looking at it when we snapped the shot.

No, It works the opposite way. Our eyes are manipulating reality so we can see it, not perfectly as it is, but the best we can.

Remember that at night all cats are gray. Are they really?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, It works the opposite way. Our eyes are manipulating reality so we can see it, not perfectly as it is, but the best we can.

Remember that at night all cats are gray. Are they really?

Unless you have physical or mental problems, your brain doesn;t see cows if they weren't in the scene to begin with.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

it isn't a lie or scam or even manipulation unless it brings emotions, don't you think?

What do you mean, Joanne?

 

[Vaughn]

I have a friend who occasionally sees emotions as colors.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a friend who occasionally sees emotions as colors.

He ought to stop using that stuff.

 

[Vaughn]

She was an old girlfriend...no alcohol or drugs for her. Growing up in the 60s, early 70s, she use to take the cable car thru San Francisco to get to her elementary school. Saw enough of that.

But my point is...don't be too sure of what other people see, think they see, and interpret what they see. None our views of the world are normal. We are just use to them.

 

[removed account4]

But my point is...don't be too sure of what other people see, think they see, and interpret what they see. None our views of the world are normal. We are just use to them

this was what I attempted poorly in saying previously, thank you for saying it much better !

 

[Vaughn]

"Two different arts; two different realities. I do not mix them any more than some people would not mix meat and dairy products."

It never pays to argue religion!

I have flattened ferns -- especially those 5 foot long sword ferns -- that want to occupy the bottom third of one's image under the redwoods. Always enough fallen branches to lay across the ferns for the duration -- then release them when I am done. As I stand there studying the scene, I am not above removing a leaf or twig that detracts from the composition. I have also moved big dead branches out of the scene, covered up a boot print in the mud with leaves, waited for people to leave the scene, waved something to make wind, used my shadow to block a highlight, ran up and down a pier to get it to move (8 min exposure), and other odd stuff.

Image Below: Last minute I had to carefully get out and lean over to the waterfall to get something out of there. Sometimes there will be a twig stuck, being moved by the water, blurring it.

Ossagon Creek, July 2020
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
5x7 TMax400 180mm lens Platinum/palladium print

 

[MattKing]

I think Alan is an example of someone who is comfortable in a world where the literal is the norm - and he is far from alone.
Sirius too.
John (jnantz) spends lots of time there, but I think he is happier where the literal isn't the goal.
I sway back and forth - historically I spent almost all of my time with a camera in that world, but I have had more fun lately spending time at least on the edges of the literal world.
In this recently photographed scene the scan is both literal and manipulated.
Literal in that everything you see was there, and nothing (other than dust from the scan) was removed from the area you can see.
It was manipulated in that I chose the position of the camera and the direction it was pointed and the lens I chose and the aperture I chose and the exposure compensation I chose gave me a result - among several similar negatives - that gave me a result that I was hoping for.
At the presentation stage - the upload you see - I made further manipulative choices. I cropped out some of the area outside what you can see. I adjusted the contrast and brightness to give the mood and feeling you see. I also adjusted the tone slightly, because I prefer a warmtone result - the sort you get from warmtone paper and warmtone developer or light brown or sepia toning.
Is the result sufficiently valid for Alan and Sirius? I would suggest that the question of validity doesn't apply.

Parked Inside - Sept/Oct 2020 MSA - "Interior"

• MattKing
• Sep 9, 2020
• 7

The parking garage in the interior of our complex

 

[Dali]

I have a friend who occasionally sees emotions as colors.

Why not? Some people "see" sounds in color.

 

[Dali]

Unless you have physical or mental problems, your brain doesn;t see cows if they weren't in the scene to begin with.

Have an issue with cows?

 

[Pieter12]

I often see things that aren't there, It's called imagination.

 

[darkosaric]

Making a political statement, if that's what you mean, by hook or crook, is a bad way of presenting truths, high or not. You lose credibility once the wizard behind the curtain is revealed.

I honestly did not think anything political here. It could be my bad English, as I am not native speaker. I was thinking about higher truth in a sense of emotion, beauty, world, moments, and so on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I honestly did not think anything political here. It could be my bad English, as I am not native speaker. I was thinking about higher truth in a sense of emotion, beauty, world, moments, and so on.

Art photo by fabricating lies can reach the higher truth, for the photographer, and sometimes for the audience.

Can you show us an example of one of yours or post a link to one on the web?