Ctein and The Online Photographer "part ways"...

DREW WILEY · Aug 5, 2016

In this election year, the latter scenario might be entirely real !

pdeeh · Aug 6, 2016

falotico said:
I'm all for artistic freedom. But I believe that there is a difference between a photograph showing Buzz Aldrin walking on the Moon and one showing Elvis Presley shaking hands with an alien from Mars.

you DO know they were both faked. yeah?

wiltw · Aug 6, 2016

jnanian said:
how is that ?
the OP of the thread was that ctien was upset because the other guy
claimed his images were "too manipulated" to be considered "photography"
so he said that his work, and others that contain manipulation he considers "photoart"
my pov is that ALL photography is manipulated, even heavily manipulated it is what photography is ..
not sure how that is thread drift ...

OP posted a quotation about difference of opinion between Mike Johnston and Ctein, leading to Ctein's decision to no longer associate with Johnston's publication, but NO EXPLICIT reason for the separation was cited, other than a unresolvable difference of opinion. It is speculation about he exact nature of the disagreement which has resulted in 'debate' about what is or what is not 'photography' due to manipulation of images. OP did not state 'too manipulated' (or words to that effect) as to the source of the dispute!

pdeeh · Aug 6, 2016

ah but if you take the time to read through a couple of the articles by mj that ctein was objecting to, you will find that is exactly what the whole debate is about

wiltw · Aug 6, 2016

pdeeh said:
ah but if you take the time to read through a couple of the articles by mj that ctein was objecting to, you will find that is exactly what the whole debate is about

Mike Johnston clearly stated that the disagreement was about his (Mike's) stance: " he dictated a long recantation that he demanded I publish over my own name, as if I had written it. That, I would not do." The root cause has not been disclosed. We know that Ctein challenged Johnston on what he called 'photoart', and Johnston pointed out that he did not consider a composite photo to inherently be 'photoart', nor was the elimination of power lines from a print.
The content of the recant, written by Ctein and which Johnston refused to publish as if it was his own writing, is unknown (can someone refer us to the explicit content somewhere?)...the fact that Johnston had refused to publish it with his own name appearing to have authored the content, seems reasonable. But instead folks decide that what is or is not 'photoart' is the material point to side on one side or the other, not Johnston's refusal to comply with Ctein's expectations about publishing a recant.

If someone can directly quote or link to something which proves me wrong in my opinion, I would be pleased to read the original statement. Otherwise, the summary, "he demanded...That, I would not do." to me is the source of the ultimate parting of ways, not the two opinions themselves.

cowanw · Aug 6, 2016

It still seems to me that the more precise we can express things with specific words the better we will be understood. Even if, in a metaphysical world, there is no difference between film photography and digital image making, there are differences. Is it not worthwhile to have words that can reference things in a way that communication and understanding are enhanced. If it is true that Inuit have 50 words for snow (which may be debatable) surely we can discuss if it is possible to come up with words (as opposed to longer explanatory phrases) that we can all understand and use with regard to the differences between film and digital image making

DREW WILEY · Aug 8, 2016

Ctein works very hard to recreate the actual hues and lighting range as this existed in front of his camera to begin with. That's one reason he stuck with the control of dye transfer printing, and why he now goes to a lot of extra work dithering and so forth to obtain accurate hues in inkjet. Of course, over the years he seems to have subconsciously adopted the particular hue response of his preferred color negs films as itself a substitute color reality, but at least its an objective standard. Nothing can really re-create what our own eyes are capable of seeing; but we can try. Taken from
this standpoint, maybe you can appreciate him standing his ground philosophically. I won't interject my own spin on this except to state that most
"gross manipulation" is gross; it stinks.

removed account4 · Aug 8, 2016

I won't interject my own spin on this except to state that most
"gross manipulation" is gross; it stinks.

all of photography is "gross manipulation"
that is how a 4D scene can be rendered on a piece of film or paper.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 8, 2016

jnanian said:
all of photography is "gross manipulation"
that is how a 4D scene can be rendered on a piece of film or paper.

If reality is 4D or more (time being the 4th dimension), then a print is 3D, not 2D as mentioned above, since it's travelling in time as well.

I'll have to respectfully disagree that all photography is gross manipulation.

DREW WILEY · Aug 9, 2016

We're playing with words here, not with cameras. I thought that was what art critics were for, since they don't seem to have anything better to do.

removed account4 · Aug 9, 2016

its kind of amazing the level of "manipulation denial" exists with
even the most hard core analog photography enthusiasts ...

Lachlan Young · Aug 9, 2016

jnanian said:
its kind of amazing the level of "manipulation denial" exists with
even the most hard core analog photography enthusiasts ...

'Documentary' photographers are pretty bad in general about this - certainly compared to notions of 'documentary' as understood in the world of cinema.

DREW WILEY · Aug 9, 2016

I already gave my own word-play analogy. It's "gross" if it smells fishy - time to throw it out! Guess it just depends how sensitive your "nose" is.

Vaughn · Aug 9, 2016

jnanian said:
its kind of amazing the level of "manipulation denial" exists with
even the most hard core analog photography enthusiasts ...

Not denial, just definition. Your definition of manipulation has it starting before the film is developed. Others just consider that portion of 'manipulation' the 'selection process' of scene, lens, format, film, and developing method...with their 'manipulation' starting at the moment after the negative is dry. No big deal.

Manipulation starts the moment we have a thought -- unless one happens to be a fully realized zen master or the like. I do not know why you are insisting that others follow your own personal definition of manipulation, John.

removed account4 · Aug 9, 2016

good point vaughn and drew.
its a lovely blurry line
and that's fine by me ..

Theo Sulphate · Aug 10, 2016

In regards to manipulation, "denial" or "denier" is a very manipulative word.

If I call someone an X-denier, that implies that I absolutely know the TRVTH and those who disagree with me deny this supposed truth. But that is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" (*) -- which means that you assume the truth of your conclusion as part of your premise:

"Bigfoot is real because 99.6% of Bigfootologists say that he's real. You must be a Bigfoot denier."

Hmm... I'm sure someone has an unmanipulated photo of Bigfoot...

Anyway, I like reading what everyone has said so far. This is a good thread.

(*) many people mistakenly use this phrase when they actually mean "prompt the question".

DREW WILEY · Aug 10, 2016

A number of famous documentary photographers with real film have gotten "caught". A friend of mine who idolized Eugene Smith was incensed when
researchers examined original negs and discovered some of his most famous images had been doctored or were even composites. An very very well
known marquis image by a current war photographer has also recently raised eyebrows. This kind of thing might be perfectly acceptable from an
artistic or creative standpoint; but if the expectation is truthful journalism....? Smoke and mirrors, my friends, it's all smoke and mirrors....

falotico · Aug 10, 2016

Photographers should adopt the practice of labeling an image "UN-RETOUCHED". The profession can establish rules as to what exactly that means.

DREW WILEY · Aug 10, 2016

That would be ambiguous, because there is a world of difference between retouching out a dust spot on the film or paper, and bleaching out someone's eyeballs and retouching them back in to point their gaze a different direction. So I don't know what you mean by "the profession" itself,
which seemingly has no fixed standards. Even National Geographic is routinely publishing conspicuously doctored digital images nowadays under the
umbrella of creativity - annoying given their past claims (deserved or not) to journalistic integrity, moreso now, since almost everything prank they
view as creative is already passe and predictable to most of us. New toy syndrome.

pdeeh · Aug 10, 2016

falotico said:
Photographers should adopt the practice of labeling an image "UN-RETOUCHED". The profession can establish rules as to what exactly that means.

hmm ... good luck with that

removed account4 · Aug 11, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
In regards to manipulation, "denial" or "denier" is a very manipulative word.

If I call someone an X-denier, that implies that I absolutely know the TRVTH and those who disagree with me deny this supposed truth. But that is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" (*) -- which means that you assume the truth of your conclusion as part of your premise:

"Bigfoot is real because 99.6% of Bigfootologists say that he's real. You must be a Bigfoot denier."

Hmm... I'm sure someone has an unmanipulated photo of Bigfoot...

Anyway, I like reading what everyone has said so far. This is a good thread.

(*) many people mistakenly use this phrase when they actually mean "prompt the question".

yeah it was sort of snarky/jerky for me to use the expression deniers, and i agree with you 100%.
we all have our own ideas of where manipulation start and the best thing we can do
is be truthful with ourselves and the way we talk about our own photography.
i agree with what rich s and others have suggested that sometimes people are not truthful about
what they are doing or have done, and i think gives is all a black eye ... if one does something
and makes it a point to display to friends, family or publish it online or whatever, people he/she
shouldnt' misrepresent what they have done. photography at best is a mirror to reality and can show us
things we couldn't imagine to be true, and at worst is something made up with the maker ( or seller/promoter )
representing / suggesting that it is something that it is not. sometimes the made up images
are more interesting than reality, and thats ok too.

timparkin · Oct 22, 2016

I am the main technical judge for the Wildlife Photographer of the Year run by the National History Museum, London. The rules have recently been relaxed a little (mainly because so many underwater photographers consider removing the occasional bubble 'standard operating practice' and we were throwing out half of entries because of the stringent rules). We spent a long time trying to come up with absolute 100% guidance and in the end failed and instead introduced the idea of 'intrinsic truth' which would then be judged by the panel. The judges are free to interpret this as they wish but as the judges are naturalists and photographers they do a pretty damn good job of it. In this was the competition adapts with the zeitgeist as long as we choose strong judges.

So - in short, IMO there is no absolute truth - it includes photography if it records light on something as part of the process of creating it. It is photography if the majority of it has been generated by recording light.

Thoughts?

Tim

Maris · Oct 22, 2016

timparkin said:
....
So - in short, IMO there is no absolute truth - it includes photography if it records light on something as part of the process of creating it. It is photography if the majority of it has been generated by recording light.

Thoughts?

Tim

In a formal philosophical analysis the proposition is not sound. If there is no absolute truth what is to be made of the statement "there is no absolute truth". If the statement is true then at least one thing is absolutely true. Therefore the statement "there is no absolute truth" has just been refuted and is consequently false. If the statement "there is no absolute truth" is false then absolute truth must exist. Either way absolute truth exists (somewhere out there) but we can't necessarily be always certain that we've encountered it.

The rest of the "records light" and "generated by recording light" musings are, I think, excuses for trying to include within photography things that aren't legitimately photography at all. Even realist paintings and drawings have "records light" and "generated by recording light" at the front end of the production sequence. How about "photographs are pictures made out of light-sensitive substances". With that criterion I'd expect no current Wildlife Photographer of the Year would qualify but we'd be spared a bunch of pictures asking us to suspend disbelief about fudged content.

Patrick Robert James · Oct 23, 2016

I would put it all into two categories. Photography that I pay attention to and photography that I don't care about. This line shifts depending, but I would propose that we all have this line. If you are saying something important about the human race then you have more leeway by my standards. If you are just trying to sell manipulated prints under the "documentary" label like McCurry, then you are pitiful by my standards.

Your standards may not be the same as mine.

ruilourosa · Oct 23, 2016

Anything that goes as a prefix or a suffix of art probably has nothing to do with art! And this discussion has nothing to do with art either, just terminology, and dog pissing as territory branding. Art is not technique. Photography in it self is not art nor is painting or sculpture or dance or theater or turning around a urinol and signing it. I advise some readings is aesthetics.

This is a technique issue not an artistic issue. Coining names randomly to name things that already had a name is quite an globalizing and capitalist state of mind.

Photography is never natural, people just tend to believe what they see! but photography is always un "beso de judas" or judas kiss... a representation without a code (it´s the reality code) but always a representation! kind of a betrayal or illusionist step!

Ctein and The Online Photographer "part ways"...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency