How much editing is justified?

[Alan Edward Klein]

“Irregardless” is perhaps the most redundant “word” in the English language.

I used it deliberately, Mike to make a point about previsualization.

 

[gary mulder]

printing a negative many ways to see the differences (how they taste, so to speak) is a common experiment that can feed one's visualization and make it more useful in one's work. But it is hard to beat experience.

What do you mean with but ? I read this sentence as. It's good to experiment notwithstanding it is hard to beat experience. To me that sentence makes no sense. How to get experienced with new ways to expres one self through photography without experiment ?

 

[Vaughn]

Experience -- as in just making images/prints and learning from that -- and not necessarily conducting experiments. Learn by making prints the best one can, look at one's successes and mistakes and learn from them. That way, one is working on both ones vision and ones techinque at the same time. This creates more opportunities to find new ways of expression...sometimes the mistakes can point to a more successful outcome.

Starting in 1992, I taught myself carbon printing from a magazine article and only saw one other carbon print (other than my own) for my first decade of carbon printing. I found it exciting...I had no idea of what a carbon print should look like. What freedom that gave me! It was two years of of experimenting and printing before I felt I found the way to make the prints that best expressed the light I was experiencing. What was interesting (and prolonged the process) was that I worked on changes in the process and worked with changes in the negatives to match the changes in the process. I was doing this with freshly made negatives (redwoods close by), so I found out what type of negative could produce what qualities in my carbon prints. Too many variables at a time, of course...but it provided a series of mistakes to learn from!

 

[gary mulder]

Experience -- as in just making images/prints and learning from that -- and not necessarily conducting experiments. Learn by making prints the best one can, look at one's successes and mistakes and learn from them. That way, one is working on both ones vision and ones techinque at the same time. This creates more opportunities to find new ways of expression...sometimes the mistakes can point to a more successful outcome.

Starting in 1992, I taught myself carbon printing from a magazine article and only saw one other carbon print (other than my own) for my first decade of carbon printing. I found it exciting...I had no idea of what a carbon print should look like. What freedom that gave me! It was two years of of experimenting and printing before I felt I found the way to make the prints that best expressed the light I was experiencing. What was interesting (and prolonged the process) was that I worked on changes in the process and worked with changes in the negatives to match the changes in the process. I was doing this with freshly made negatives (redwoods close by), so I found out what type of negative could produce what qualities in my carbon prints. Too many variables at a time, of course...but it provided a series of mistakes to learn from!

Thank you. I find this a good answer to the OP’s question.

 

[koraks]

Thank you. I find this a good answer to the OP’s question.

Well, it would have been if the question had been something like "how shall I proceed with this." However, this is the crucial bit from #1:

I wonder how you guys feel about the extent of post-processing that's sometimes unleashed on an image.

@Vaughn prints to the best of my knowledge predominantly in ways that allow for relatively little manipulation. I do, too, but only some of the time. At other times, I find that approach to limiting in several ways, including the flexibility of the process. So my approach is ultimately to do whatever it takes to get the job done, and I can expand that repertoire of 'whatever it takes' by trying on more things for size. I've never had the tendency to limit myself to one or two processes, because indeed, it feels like a limitation to me.

So if someone chooses that particular route, I wonder if any aspect to that choice has to do with the degree of manipulation that's inherently possible in their workflow. I can't speak for @Vaughn, only for myself, and the appeal I find in carbon transfer (among some other qualities) is the directness of the process, which I referred to earlier as the 'chain' - at least as long as it's done with camera negatives, which I find I prefer for this very reason. This is part of what triggered my initial question.

Zeigt sich in der Beschränkung wirklich der Meister, or is the self-imposed limitation a crutch that we choose to hold on for, for fear of toppling over if we dare to step away from it?

 

[gary mulder]

You have to make mistakes to learn from.

 

[koraks]

So letting go of the crutch is inevitable.

 

[Vaughn]

I fully manipulate the image to create a print. I just do most of it it at the front end.

Thank you. I find this a good answer to the OP’s question.

Great ! Glad we reached an understanding -- agreement is always optional.

The OP's question was poorly asked...but it generates discussion so all is well.

I refuse to be handicapped and have to use the crutches of burning and dodging!

When something is unlimited, it can not be limited. That is how I approach photography. One is not limiting themselves by not cropping -- there are more incredible uncropped images available than one can make and print in a lifetime. Most photographers (pre-digital) only ever use one process -- silver gelatin. Was this a 'crutch' for all those photographers we admire?

However, I fully appreciate those who are Jacks of All Processes, and those that are Masters of One.

 

[koraks]

Never pass on the opportunity make a snide comment, eh @Vaughn.

Careful with your crusade. They never end well.

PS: the 'woosh' sound was the essence of this exchange going straight over your head. Too bad you'll never realize. It's kind of funny.

 

[Vaughn]

Never pass on the opportunity make a snide comment, eh @Vaughn.

Careful with your crusade. They never end well.

PS: the 'woosh' sound was the essence of this exchange going straight over your head. Too bad you'll never realize. It's kind of funny.

And you do too, but as a moderator. And now issuing trump-like threats.

Relax...

 

[Don_ih]

I wonder how you guys feel about the extent of post-processing that's sometimes unleashed on an image. Emphasis on 'feel', because I'm looking for the emotional response to knowing what went into the image in order to make it look the way it ended up looking.

That's a pretty clear question, not poorly asked at all.

 

[Vaughn]

That's a pretty clear question, not poorly asked at all.

I was just going by the the confusion of responders and the need of the OP to redirect the discussion. The question itself was good.

I have issues with the word "crutch", as it tends to have a negative meaning, as they tend to only be used if one is injured or somehow handicapped. It implies one's photographic ability, knowledge and/or experience is somehow limited.

It is just as silly to say those who use multiple processes are using that a a crutch to avoid the work required to master one process.

 

[TJones]

The extent of my editing varies with the gap between what was there and what I saw. In most cases, the difference is fairly small; I'm not exploring surrealism or "dreamlike" images (not that there's anything wrong with that . Nearly all of what I do digitally can be done in a straightforward way in a darkroom. I did experiment once with replacing the sky with something more dramatic, and it worked quite well, but I have mixed feelings about the finished work.

 

[Vaughn]

The extent of my editing varies with the gap between what was there and what I saw. ...

I understand -- a wonderful way to put it. It can be a wide gap and one of the photographer's job is to jump it.

 

[BrianShaw]

I was just going by the the confusion of responders and the need of the OP to redirect the discussion. The question itself was good.
...

The question, indeed, was a good one. But there doesn't seem to have been much confusion among the responders; by my read, there were responses that didn't involve enough "feeling" to satisfy the request. Some of us, apparently, just don't put that much feeling into these kind of decisions or don't believe there is a "universal enough" answer. It is a very good question but dependent upon both the image and the need/desire.Perhaps this kind of question is better asked in a therapy session or art class than on a discussion forum where the answers might be more varied.

If it helps, I got a lot out of your responses, Vaughn.

 

[koraks]

there were responses that, apparently, didn't involve enough "feeling" to satisfy the request. Some of us, apparently, just don't put that much feeling into these kind of decisions

Indeed, and I wanted to challenge the responses with less 'feeling' in it to see if the feeling was overlooked, not recognized as relevant or simply not there to begin with. I still think the latter option is far-fetched, especially if I witness how fervently technical matters are discussed on this forum, and how adamant many are in expressing their preferences. There seems to be a lot of feeling underlying all that.

In formulating the question, I was quite careful to set the scope as I intended it. Notwithstanding, people can still interpret it in any number of ways. Some of those ways I chose to bend a little into a direction I personally found interesting, at least at first. I intended the discussion to be fairly focused at the start and then allow it to broaden and deepen.

And now issuing trump-like threats.

If this is about the comment about the crusade - that wasn't a threat. It's a sober observation that crusades tend to create many victims, often unintentionally, and the supposed victors upon closer scrutiny happen to be among them. I don't think that's what you're aiming for.

I have issues with the word "crutch"

In the sense I used the metaphor of the crutch here, it loosely refers to the same metaphor Dali's work, who used the crutch as an expression of the need for emotional support or comfort. These needs in my view are inherently human and perfectly healthy. But yes, at the same time, a crutch is also a sign of having to rely on something external, and in some cases, the crutch can be a hindrance. The crutch is inherently ambivalent.

Choosing a particular medium, or technical scope within which one performs their work, is a crutch. There's comfort in having fewer options to have to consider or explore. It's the sense of security that the zoo animals in The Life of Pi derive from their safe (but restricted) cages. How do you strike a balance between freedom and security?

 

[Vaughn]

Pre-visualization is different from visualization, which is different from post-visualization. The part of the phrase(s) I find challenging is “visualization” since it mostly happens in the mind’s eye. I wish Minor and Ansel used “conceptualization” instead. But, regardless, my opinion really doesn’t matter as the term has been coined.

Thanks for that -- been thinking about it. I'd like to hear your differences in pre and non-pre, and if it what i wrote below fits.
"Conceptualization" is an interesting alternative, but would that make us conceptual artists? (joking).

Perhaps any pre-visualization I have done, if I got the definition right, has been fairly limited. My usual is to just wander, a bigger camera in a pack, or a smaller camera (5x7 and smaller) on a tripod (with holders and meter in a shoulder bag). I rarely scout (hiking w/o camera taking notes for a return visit), but often return to the same areas bringing experience back. I enjoy the light, try to keep my mind clear and open to when everything falls into place. And when it does, I set up the camera.

However, I might have used pre-visualization with my image on this thread (#37). Knowing I'd have a model, and not wanting to waste their time wandering as I usually do, I wandered around two weeks before. I found the spot, photographed it (4x5) and made a print that I was very pleased with. It had been a typical foggy mid-day in the winter redwoods, so lighting conditions were easily and lucky matched. A highwater event had occurred, so the foreground was completely different...some positive, some negative effects on my original composition, but I worked with it.

Is this pre-visualization? Or did I just use the whole process of visualization (from pre to post) as the pre-visualization of the final image w/ nude? Saying 'I had a concept and then followed it' does seem a lot simpler!

 

[BrianShaw]

Okay, Vaughn... here's what I thought this morning. It's close to, if not the same as, "I had a concept and then followed it". I recalled an interesting place where I recalled seeing a fungus/funghi growing on the side of a stump. I pre-visualized/pre-conceptualized that it would be a great photographic subject and decided on what camera/film might be best. My "pre" phase is much more limited that of Minor or Ansel as it only addresses the concept of subject and composition and not extended to the end product. The visualization/conceptualization phase was when I actually had equipment on site and actively made composition and film choice decisions... and actually made photographic exposures. The post phase is what comes afer actually having the negative and digital file in hand, as some would say... editing. My feelings throughout these phases are something I'm not sure I could explain. All I felt I want/wanted was to end up with a nice image. Definitely more of an intuitive approach than an academic approach.

Seems like we are somewhat on the same page.

 

[Vaughn]

...

Choosing a particular medium, or technical scope within which one performs their work, is a crutch. There's comfort in having fewer options to have to consider or explore. It's the sense of security that the zoo animals in The Life of Pi derive from their safe (but restricted) cages. How do you strike a balance between freedom and security?

Interesting and valid way of looking at it. I do not feel it is universal way of looking at it, and I feel it only would apply to a small percentage of practitioners.

There are many personality styles or types...each with their optimal way of working. For some, working as a jack of all trades fits them best. They prefer to expand their creativity by making great prints in a variety of media. Their safety net is knowing if an idea isn't working out in one media, they can productively ditch it and go to another media.

Others may prefer to spend their time delving deep into one (or two) processes and expand their creativity that way. There is no safety net waiting for them at the bottom. Instead of the safety of having multiple outlets to use if things get tough, they have to grit their teeth and dig deeper in both vision and process. Their safety net is that no one else seems to know what they are doing.

Instead of a crutch, I see it as a slingshot. An incredible challenge to ones creativity. And certainly not at all secure.

 

[nikos79]

I kind of find it hard to follow the discussion. Seems it got into very fine details.
Btw I think that every artist/creator call it whatever you like needs some limitations in order to create.
Some photographers need their routine, other their subjects, other their equipment.
And for some editing or no editing is part of their routine.
Just because you CAN do any manipulation you want in post-processing doesn't mean you HAVE to,

 

[BrianShaw]

… and none of that needs to be a life choice, or even a rational choice.

 

[Vaughn]

...

Seems like we are somewhat on the same page.

Thanks! My take on it then, is that my wandering is basically my pre-visualization. My subject is the light itself -- as expressed by the way it is reflecting off the landscape. As I wander, I am looking at the light and looking at the various compositions that can be formed with it. For example, there's a tree backlit by an open area in the forest, I am looking at a tree, but I am also seeing a dark structure that interacts with the lighter values behind it as I move along the trail.

Somewhere in here visualzation kicks in. As the say in Zen, the mind can not know the Mind.

By the time I set up the tripod, I got the vision and just have to work to confirm it on the GG. Or say, "Oh well, that doesn't work" and put the camera away and move on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All this visualization is giving me a headache. Just shoot the picture, already.

 

[BrianShaw]

All this visualization is giving me a headache. Just shoot the picture, already.

Apparently your mind does not know its Mind!

 

[koraks]

All this visualization is giving me a headache. Just shoot the picture, already.

Hear, hear!