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?
No I don't. It is all a matter of trust. I looked at your image (there was a url link here which no longer exists), a beautiful image, I like it and I am curious how a print of it will look like. Is it unmanipulated? I do not know, I can not prove but I trust your word. And I doubt that you are willing to send your original transparency to me so that I can proveOf course it does, but the beauty of traditional photography is that you have the original transparency or negative from which to compare.
I can understand your point but I think you miss part of the funroteague said:... 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.
In my previous post, I should have also mentioned that the photography in Lenswork Extended is generally of very fine quality. But when one person controls virtually everything about a publication, as Brooks clearly does with Lenswork, things can stagnate. As far as the editing goes - it seems to me that Brooks has forgotten that tight editing is extremely important for photographers and writers. Some portfolios show seemingly endless variations of almost identical images and Brooks commentary seems to be endless as well sometimes. It's the "framing" of the images presented in Lenswork that I have a problem with. In general, I think that photographs should speak for themselves but Brooks talks the images he presents nearly to death and this intrudes upon the viewer's own interpretations of the work. Lenswork has some wonderful photography but it is framed in too much talk... all of which is filtered through Brooks Jensen. An analogy would be someone going to a gallery and having someone constantly talking over their shoulder as they viewed photographs. I would leave such a gallery and this is why I am letting my Lenswork Extended subscription expire.
Also, Brooks uses the magazine to promote his own work and that of his close friends. Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with him promoting his own work in his own magazine that people have to pay for. On the other hand, his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer.
Lastly, I simply can't understand why they can't get Lenswork Extended to autorun. As it is, the subscriber has to open the disk and navigate to an executable file. That's silly and I can't think of any explanation for it. Also, the DVD based magazine is also awkward and even confusing to navigate. Navigation should be elegant and simple. This is very basic stuff that could be fixed very easily by just about an 10 year-old kid.
Something is wrong when you find several Lenswork Extended disks sitting around without viewing them for months. But if they 1) ran automatically.... 2) were easily navigated and, most importantly...3) did not include so much chatter by Brooks... I would renew my subscription.
Also, Brooks uses the magazine to promote his own work and that of his close friends. Maybe it's just me, but I have a problem with him promoting his own work in his own magazine that people have to pay for. On the other hand, his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer.
.
I just saw Jim Galli's portraits in some magazine.
The new newstand price for Lenswork will be $12.95 starting in Jan '08. Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuchhh!
Will you still buy it, or will you finally break down and subscribe?
I just looked at the newest issue of LensWork at Barnes and Noble yesterday since my subscription copy has yet to arrive. It was interesting that Hoflehner is featured in Black and White Photography, as well as LensWork, and the issues that carry his work are on the newstands at the same time here in the NYC area (the December issue of B&WP). That seems to happen from time to time with certain photographers. A lot of attention all at once, and then not much thereafter.
That's interesting. Presumably Photographer X decides it's time to do some marketing, sends out a whole bunch of portfolios to various places, and occasionally more than one outlet picks them up.
Welcome to the forum Alden. I thought yours a sensible post, one with which, as a Lenswork subscriber, I can empathise. Like you, and most here, I enjoy the wet printing process. I also appreciate the relative durability and convenience of the traditional negative. I do however have an issue with the level of manipulation and falsification that digital working encourages, and which now seems, unfortunately mandatory, of course there are those that will argue that we have been employing such trickery in the darkroom for years, as indeed some have. Ansel Adams work forms a suitable example. As far as club house prejudice goes, surely that is now against traditional work? Since this site espouses traditional materials and working, one must expect a certain amount of bias in that direction, and make allowances for it.
Hi Murray,
Well, I wasn't looking to fuss and fight with anyone . I just noticed that several people stated they would not even deem to look at a publication because the work was digitally captured , and I honestly wondered if there was a genuine reason for this.
. Some cold glowing phosphor, plasma, or LCD, or ink sprayed on paper isn't a photograph.
So going by this statement a photo gravure isn't a photograph ...
Hardly, it was a response to what I inferred from your post. BTW, less than 5 minutes to make a reply, I didn't think it would be that fast.Out of context, spindled, folded, and mutilated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?