Bright Eyes - How?

[darkosaric]

I remember once showing to my friend (who is not a photographer) video where great photographer Alexey Titarenko does selective toning and bleaching. He told me "that is cheating". After patiently explaining to him that most important thing that photographer wants is to transfer emotions to the viewer, and to make emotional impact, and showing "reality" is not important at all (reality is arbitrary) - he understood what I am trying to say.

 

[MattKing]

Lightening the eyes by bleaching doesn't destroy integrity. They are still the same eyes.

Painting on a mustache would destroy the integrity.

 

[NedL]

Probably needs a new thread, but Darko's friend intuitively thought that one kind of manipulation was "cheating". I agree with everything Michael wrote, but I also think we all put self-imposed constraints on ourselves. Maybe they are "integrity of process". We feel satisfaction when we achieve what we want within our self-imposed "rules". Here at APUG that usually means entirely chemical/analog process. I like to see what constraints other people put on their own photography, and it is interesting how different people choose different things to be "strict" about. Not many of us these days would keep a collection of "good sky negatives" to add to our prints when the sky is boring, so we'd (mostly) agree on that constrtaint. But we see all kinds of other constraints: full frame vs crop, straight prints, etc... It would be interesting to see what everyone thinks is "cheating" or not. Or maybe "cheating" is too strong a word, maybe it is different ideas about "pure" or about hand-crafted, etc...

 

[eddie]

Ned- For me, it's about getting a negative which requires the least amount of printing manipulation. It's easier to accomplish with sheets, but roll film often requires compromises. Other than that, I have no sacrosanct rules for achieving the print I'm after.

 

[NedL]

So even though there is nothing "magic" about a straight print, yours is a sort of practical aim. I know I feel a certain satisfaction when a straight print is close to what I was hoping for. It means I did lots of things right along the way, and it might mean the negative is truly better in many subtle ways than one that needs lots of darkroom gymnastics to print. But I would not hesitate to burn a sky ever so slightly or to dodge a shadow just a bit, just to keep it a straight print. Still, if a print looks great as a straight print, it is a kind of achievement that one can rightly feel happy about.

I was thinking of where we draw our lines.. for example I doubt you would scan that negative and inkjet print it. But people who do that could also have the aim of making the best negative possible for that purpose. So they place the "importance" or "rules" differently. I know I do some things because I like to do them, rather than because they make perfect logical sense...

 

[cliveh]

Probably needs a new thread, but Darko's friend intuitively thought that one kind of manipulation was "cheating". I agree with everything Michael wrote, but I also think we all put self-imposed constraints on ourselves. Maybe they are "integrity of process". We feel satisfaction when we achieve what we want within our self-imposed "rules". Here at APUG that usually means entirely chemical/analog process. I like to see what constraints other people put on their own photography, and it is interesting how different people choose different things to be "strict" about. Not many of us these days would keep a collection of "good sky negatives" to add to our prints when the sky is boring, so we'd (mostly) agree on that constrtaint. But we see all kinds of other constraints: full frame vs crop, straight prints, etc... It would be interesting to see what everyone thinks is "cheating" or not. Or maybe "cheating" is too strong a word, maybe it is different ideas about "pure" or about hand-crafted, etc...

I would say cheating is not the correct word, as we all have different ideas. If Michael thinks every negative should be manipulated when printed, what does that say about most contact prints?

 

[eddie]

Yeah. Exposing/developing the film so the straight print is as close to the desired result is the goal. I'm looking for the path of least resistance (least print manipulation) to get there. I think we all do. Still, I often find a little dodging/burning/bleaching/etc. makes for a better print, so I don't consider it sacrilege to do so. As long as the final print doesn't look manipulated, and it matches my vision in taking the photo, I consider it a success.

 

[miha]

Spanish Wake, 1951, by W. Eugene Smith: a famous photo showing manipulated eyes: http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/Coll...g-paper-people/W.-Eugene-Smith-s-Spanish-Wake

 

[eddie]

But I still think in some cases the philosophy lacks a reasonable basis...

I agree. If a bit of manipulation makes a better final product, you're only shortchanging your work by setting some arbitrary boundaries.

 

[pdeeh]

These are all self-imposed constraints. Assuming lack of skill isn't the issue, they are all philosophical in nature. .

It could be seen that there is an implicit assumption that an individual who has acquired skill - and chooses not to use it - is on sound philosophical ground with their decisions about what they choose as constraints, but that an individual who hasn't the skill (or hasn't yet acquired it - not the same thing) is not; another interesting case would be the individual who doesn't have skills, knows that they do not, and chooses not to acquire them ... on philosophical terra firma or not?

I think I'm probably nit-picking at a straw man, of course ... ... but there is a serious point, because I think there really is often an unspoken (perhaps even unconscious) assumption made (maybe amongst the most "orthodox") that only those who have the finest skills have earned the "right" not to use them.

 

[NedL]

I would say cheating is not the correct word, as we all have different ideas. If Michael thinks every negative should be manipulated when printed, what does that say about most contact prints?

I agree. I thought it was interesting that a non-photographer used that word, and had an opinion about what is a "pure" photographic process. Once I started to realize I have these same "constraints", I started paying attention to other people here at APUG that way. Including you Clive. Your prints tend to include the full composition, the care at the time you press the shutter is very evident. I admire when people stick to ideas like that, it means they are pursuing an internal idea or goal, a "higher purpose" or "inner purpose" if you will, rather than just aiming for external approval or for what will get the most attention from others. The different ideas people have along these lines are fascinating to me.

When I was a young child I remember looking at AA's "winter sunrise". My dad told me that Adams used "lots of burning and dodging", which I took to mean the light beam highlighting the meadow and the horse was not real but was "painted" in with darkroom trickery. I was really disappointed and felt "cheated"! Later I read Adams about making that photograph, and the light was real and he didn't like having the horse there at all, but at the last possible moment it moved into profile. Most of the time Adams was waiting for the light, it was the horse's ass facing him!

 

[NedL]

Interesting! And interesting that somehow that doesn't bother me, but if the ray of light had been completely artificial it would. I don't care if the light was emphasized by printing, but if it was never there in the first place it would make me sad that the beautiful scene had not "really happened".

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I'm off to take a walk ( w/ camera ) and then I'm making a salt print this afternoon while we've got a sunny day. Rain coming tonight. ( My reluctance to use a UV light instead of the sun for these prints is related to this thread.... )

 

[cliveh]

cliveh: I never said every negative should be manipulated. I have no such rules. A print requires whatever the printer thinks it requires. Nothing more, nothing less. As long as you get the result you want.

My point was only that a straight print is not necessarily faithful to the negative (ie it doesn't maintain the integrity of the negative) to any greater degree than a manipulated print. That is a consequence of the science. No getting around it.

Therefore while I have no artistic argument against a self-imposed rule of making only straight prints, I think the philosophical argument for it is seriously flawed.

I would also add this has nothing to do with whether a negative is contact printed or enlarged. Both can either be straight or highly manipulated, and everything in between.

Michael, I understand and I also have no such rule about no manipulation. I sometimes dodge and shade, but prefer not do it at all, or keep it minimal. Just as Eddie points out: - it's about getting a negative which requires the least amount of printing manipulation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Spanish Wake, 1951, by W. Eugene Smith: a famous photo showing manipulated eyes: http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/Coll...g-paper-people/W.-Eugene-Smith-s-Spanish-Wake

The dead guy's eyes do not seem to be manipulated.

 

[miha]

It's the eyes of the wife and the daughter that were manipulated.