Lenswork - Ouch!

[JBrunner]

The results are in:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[bjorke]

Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives."

 

[JBrunner]

Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives."

ROFLMAO!!

 

[JBrunner]

Bjork's post did get me thinking.

One thing that is interesting to me is the apparent need for some of the more modern minded to attempt to homogenize all types of photography and photographic process as identical. It seems that if one is not willing to concede that an ink or electronic image is the same as silver or alternative process image, the refusal to do so is taken as a denigration of the newer media. As far as I am aware this attitude is unique to photography. Sounds silly, but I don't see wood carvers insisting their work is the same as stone, or water color artists howling that their product is identical to oil. Many painters practice both, but if someone were to insist to them that they were the same, an eyebrow would be raised.

The idea that all finite visual patterns are equivalent because they contain content is a bit droll to me.

The point of the print give way thread "exercise" was to prove that persons prefer an actual artifact from the artist over a mechanical or electronic reproduction. Obviously people do.

The "real" photography thing simply seems to be a chip on the shoulder of those uncomfortable about the acceptance, or some other aspect of their chosen process, and I think may be a different issue than what is being discussed here.

 

[Ian Leake]

One thing that is interesting to me is the apparent need for some of the more modern minded to attempt to homogenize all types of photography and photographic process as identical. It seems that if one is not willing to concede that an ink or electronic image is the same as silver or alternative process image, the refusal to do so is taken as a denigration of the newer media. As far as I am aware this attitude is unique to photography. Sounds silly, but I don't see wood carvers insisting their work is the same as stone, or water color artists howling that their product is identical to oil.

I think I'd go further and argue that an alt process print is not the same thing as a silver print. A cyantoype, for example, is fundamentally different in all its physical attributes from a glossy silver bromide print. That doesn't make one inherently superior to the other, but it does make them different. Their inherent differences give them different visual and emotional characteristics, make them more or less suitable for different purposes, and tend to lead people to prefer one over the other.

Likewise an inkjet print or an online image is not inherently inferior or superior to a silver print: but they are different, and suited for different purposes.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

If you are interested about the Lenswork selection process, Brooks has just posted a podcast about editing in reference to this thread, where he... "edits" saying the word "APUG"

 

[MurrayMinchin]

... "edits" saying the word "APUG"

Good point!

I mean really Brooks, if you (and 'Art Soft', but don't get me going on that one again) are going to farm APUG's fertile ground for inspiration, why not admit it? Think of it as a fair play list of ingredients.

Please disregard these comments if they'll result in any LensWork submissions of mine being flushed in the first round editing process

Murray

 

[JBrunner]

I think I'd go further and argue that an alt process print is not the same thing as a silver print. A cyantoype, for example, is fundamentally different in all its physical attributes from a glossy silver bromide print. That doesn't make one inherently superior to the other, but it does make them different. Their inherent differences give them different visual and emotional characteristics, make them more or less suitable for different purposes, and tend to lead people to prefer one over the other.

Likewise an inkjet print or an online image is not inherently inferior or superior to a silver print: but they are different, and suited for different purposes.

I agree, I just didn't list out every process and nuance available. That each is different, and carries it's own signature, is a wonderful aspect of photography.

 

[timbo10ca]

Once again I am convinced that unless you are shooting on a metal plate using Spirits of Judea, it's not a real photo. Heathens with your "fixers" and "negatives."

Man, you are a funny guy! LMFAO

It's also funny how this battle never changes over the years. Ironically, I've been reading back issues of Lenswork (starting at #1), and I'm just on Issue 17 (1997-ish, I believe), and the opening Editor's comments by Mr Jensen are exactly on this topic with virtually no temporal displacement! It's very interesting to read these early issues and the comments concerning the introduction of digital photography.

Tim

 

[Annika1980]

I guess sitting down in a store and reading something cover to cover and then putting it back on the shelf is accepted practice, but I wouldn't feel right about doing it. YMMV.

They don't get ya on the magazines ... they get ya on the coffee!

 

[Annika1980]

Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it.

And yet you have a website. A Digital website.
Mr. Jensen is of the opinion that the final work is what matters and I agree.
I would think that anyone who has an interest and an investment in analog printing techniques would sing the praises of Lenswork and Mr. Jensen's efforts to produce a magazine showing the best in photography, both analog and digital.

And to those of you who have turned away from the magazine because it might include some photos made digitally, I ask, "Do you ever view portfolios online?"

An online photo (or one featured in Lenswork) made from a digital capture is just as "real" as one made from traditional analog techniques.
That is, neither of them are "real." Photography isn't "real."
So c'mon, get real!

 

[roteague]

An online photo (or one featured in Lenswork) made from a digital capture is just as "real" as one made from traditional analog techniques.

Not in my opinion they aren't. Like most people you are confusing digital capture with digital printing - they are two totally different and unrelated technologies.

 

[JBrunner]

If this degenerates into a Dthingie isn't real photography deceased equine pounding, then it will be going off topic from being off topic. The recent discussion hasn't been about that at all, and if you think it has, you may have missed some important points.

 

[bjorke]

And to those of you who have turned away from the magazine because it might include some photos made digitally...

As W Churchill liked to say, a fanatic is someone who will not change their mind and refuses to change the subject.

It's okay Annika. In fact, it's helpful. When you see someone making soapbox declarations about their proud blindness to pictures based simply on the kind of equipment used to make those pictures, then you know you can ignore that people's pronouncements in general and move on to the next idea. It's a huge time saver.

 

[copake_ham]

As W Churchill liked to say, a fanatic is someone who will not change their mind and refuses to change the subject.

It's okay Annika. In fact, it's helpful. When you see someone making soapbox declarations about their proud blindness to pictures based simply on the kind of equipment used to make those pictures, then you know you can ignore that people's pronouncements in general and move on to the next idea. It's a huge time saver.

bjorke,

First off, good to see you posting again.

As to your point - while wise indeed (especially the Churchillian paraphrase) and something I would expect from a Mensa - you fail to note that this site is an analog photography site.

Thus, Annika, in a Gene Roddenberry (sp?) sense, "has violated the prime directive".

Here, we do care about the capture medium. It HAS to be film.

Not because that is the "rule" for everyone, everywhere. But that is the "rule" here. It is the very essence of this site.

How you print is secondary to how you create the image.

On this site, we shoot film.

 

[Annika1980]

bjorke,

Here, we do care about the capture medium. It HAS to be film.
Not because that is the "rule" for everyone, everywhere. But that is the "rule" here. It is the very essence of this site.
How you print is secondary to how you create the image.
On this site, we shoot film.

I understand all of that. But the thread was about Lenswork, where the method of capture is secondary to the finished product.
In Lenswork it clearly doesn't have to be film.
So while everyone here may share an appreciation for film and analog capture as you do, there are also others who just love good photography in any form. I think it is that group of people that Lenswork targets.

 

[roteague]

So while everyone here may share an appreciation for film and analog capture as you do, there are also others who just love good photography in any form. I think it is that group of people that Lenswork targets.

It is debatable whether digital is good photography. For some, compositional skill is not the only defining point of a good photograph. There are other considerations; considerations such as how the photograph was printed, how faithfully the image represents the scene; for example some want to know that Photoshop wasn't used to add a new sky, or duplicate a right eye and paste it over a drooping left eye - in other words, is the image ethical.

When I look at an portfolio on Lenswork, I always look at what equipment was used first. That is simply because I know most digital photographers have no problem using techniques, such as I described in the previous paragraph, which I find unethical. I don't care how good an images composition is, if it has been manipulated beyond that necessary to faithfully represent the scene - that is not adding elements that weren't there or subtracting elements that were - then I am not in the least bit interested in looking. For me, the ethics of an image overrule the composition. I suspect, I'm not the only one that feels that way either.

 

[Dave Miller]

Lenswork 73 arrived here today, stunning images as always; in fact that's not true, this edition is the best I've seen in a while. Beth Moon's "Portraits of Time" is fantastic IMO.

 

[palewin]

It is debatable whether digital is good photography. For some, compositional skill is not the only defining point of a good photograph. There are other considerations; considerations such as how the photograph was printed, how faithfully the image represents the scene; for example some want to know that Photoshop wasn't used to add a new sky, or duplicate a right eye and paste it over a drooping left eye - in other words, is the image ethical.

When I look at an portfolio on Lenswork, I always look at what equipment was used first. That is simply because I know most digital photographers have no problem using techniques, such as I described in the previous paragraph, which I find unethical. I don't care how good an images composition is, if it has been manipulated beyond that necessary to faithfully represent the scene - that is not adding elements that weren't there or subtracting elements that were - then I am not in the least bit interested in looking. For me, the ethics of an image overrule the composition. I suspect, I'm not the only one that feels that way either.

Robert: This quote, and your earlier, recent post about the difference between digital capture and digital printing intrigue me. I understand your concept of ethical photography. But regardless of the capture technique, doesn't the transfer to digital, even if "only" for printing, open up exactly the issues of manipulation that you raise? It would seem to me that once you have scanned your negative, the truthfulness of the final print or image created from that file is entirely a question of the honesty of the photographer (or the printer, if the scan and print are done by a lab). In that case there is no difference between digital capture and digital printing, i.e. if someone takes a digital landscape image (I believe it was Steven Johnson who did a lot of large format image capture with a 4x5 scanning back) we have to trust that individual if he says that the image is unmanipulated, just as we have to trust a photographer who maintains that the digital scan of a film negative is unmanipulated. By the way, my point is simply that the insertion of a digital file anywhere in the workflow opens up what you call the ethical issue; I don't want to go near the question of "ethics" in the purely analog world, I'm sure we're all aware of the combining of negatives in early photography to get clouds in the sky, Eugene Smith's famous retouching, or even Ansel Adams's manipulations in Half Dome (filters) or Moonrise (lots of burning and dodging). Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind, but thank goodness his entire artistic body was based on manipulation of negatives, so there was no subterfuge.

 

[roteague]

Robert: This quote, and your earlier, recent post about the difference between digital capture and digital printing intrigue me. I understand your concept of ethical photography. But regardless of the capture technique, doesn't the transfer to digital, even if "only" for printing, open up exactly the issues of manipulation that you raise?

Of course it does, but the beauty of traditional photography is that you have the original transparency or negative from which to compare.

It would seem to me that once you have scanned your negative, the truthfulness of the final print or image created from that file is entirely a question of the honesty of the photographer (or the printer, if the scan and print are done by a lab). In that case there is no difference between digital capture and digital printing, i.e. if someone takes a digital landscape image (I believe it was Steven Johnson who did a lot of large format image capture with a 4x5 scanning back) we have to trust that individual if he says that the image is unmanipulated, just as we have to trust a photographer who maintains that the digital scan of a film negative is unmanipulated.

That is always a true. But where are we today in photography? There was a point in the history of photography where photographs were considered factual representations of reality (the tree in the picture was actually there, for example). In those early days, photography was a prime moving source for both social and environmental change - like the creation of national parks, or the saving wilderness areas. These days of digital photography everyone assumes that an image has been factually manipulated. That mechanism of photography that was once used for good, now creates an attitude of mistrust towards photographs (similar to what we saw where a photographer enhanced images of bombing in Lebanon). We are all the losers.

I don't want to go near the question of "ethics" in the purely analog world, I'm sure we're all aware of the combining of negatives in early photography to get clouds in the sky, Eugene Smith's famous retouching, or even Ansel Adams's manipulations in Half Dome (filters) or Moonrise (lots of burning and dodging). Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind, but thank goodness his entire artistic body was based on manipulation of negatives, so there was no subterfuge.

The fact that some unethical practices happen in the world of traditional photography doesn't make it right - two wrongs don't make a right. With traditional methods, it was much more obvious the manipulations had occured.

However, there is a major difference between combining negatives and dodging and burning. When you dodge and burn, you are not factually removing or adding elements to the scene, just changing there emphasis. As you say, we all knew Jerry Uelsmann work was manipulation; that was his vision, and he didn't try to use it as a mechanism for societal or environmental change.

 

[clay]

Seriously, I think painting all digital work as unethical is a bit of a stretch. It is akin to saying that because a gun is used in a horrible school shooting that anyone using or even owning a gun is an evildoer.

Sure digital work can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily is. And this was an issue long before digital. The famous Gene Smith photo of Schweitzer springs to mind as a interesting photo manipulated masterfully in the darkroom in order to 'tell a story'.

This 'ethics' approach taken to its logical limit would indict users of Velvia as evil manipulators. I have used that film in many situations over the years, and the supersaturated chromes that come back don't look very much like the actual scene that was in front of my camera when the shutter was tripped (at least in terms of color) . Does the fact that I have a supersaturated transparency that doesn't much resemble reality indicate that I am trying to manipulate the viewer? My thought has always been that I am trying to make a cool picture. That is enough for me.

I think the only (hopelessly naive, IMO) expectations most viewers have for photos is in the realm of photojournalistic work. It would be pretty to think that those photos are unmanipulated. But if you think about it more than a second, it becomes obvious that just the mere act of framing a photo is manipulating reality, since it involves a judgement of what to show and what not to show the viewer. I think the whole notion of manipulations exists on a continuum from 'not much' to 'a whole lot'.

And is not just the advent of digital photography that created this. It has been around a long time. Just check out 'Fading Away' by Henry Peach Robinson:

Dead Link Removed

This photo was made in 1858, when photography was still in its infancy. And already it was being manipulated to tell a story.

Plus c'est la meme chose, plus ça change, eh?

 

[Ian Leake]

...and consider the number of people who were erased from soviet photographs because of their misdeeds during Stalin's era. Extensive manipulation is nothing new. OK, Photoshop makes many of these things easier, but it's the people who deceive not the technology.

 

[clay]

Bingo.

. OK, Photoshop makes many of these things easier, but it's the people who deceive not the technology.

 

[eclarke]

To some extent you can't believe anything which can be edited. If you read newspapers and watch television you are constantly being deceived...EC

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Brooks,

While you are at it, PLEASE bring back the limited edition prints you used to produce. They were great. You must be able to find or train someone to make the diginegatives and make excellent prints.

Bring them back so we can BUY them and help your bottom line as we get some fine prints.