Lenswork - Ouch!

[wfe]

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?

Thank you Clay...

Cheers,
Bill

 

[rst]

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

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 prove If I look at images in a book, on the internet or in a gallery, then I have to trust everyone who claims that their images are unmanipulated because I, as a viewer, do not have access to that transparency/negative or digital original.

... 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 can understand your point but I think you miss part of the fun I look at every portfolio in Lenswork and I look at the used equipment last because if I am curious (and that is almost always the case) I try to guess, was it digital capture? Was it film capture? Surprisingly often I guess right and I can not describe what it is, that makes me guess right. Some images just look digital to me.

ciao
-- Ruediger

 

[ZoneIII]

I'm letting my subscription for LensWork Extended lapse not only because it is drifting more and more to digital but, more importantly, because Brooks Jensen, as nice a guy as he seems to be, simply talks too much. He talks a subject to death! I think he just likes to hear himself talk. For that reason, I have been turning the audio portion off but his articles are just as long-winded. I haven't even looked at most of the last two DVDs I have received. LensWork needs some fresh blood. As it is, everything is filtered through Brooks Jensen. It also needs to be edited much more tightly.

 

[ZoneIII]

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.

 

[jeroldharter]

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.

I don't have any history with Lenswork but have "looked at the pictures" from time to time. I don't really like digital photography but some of those cartoons are good for ideas.

I just ordered an extended subscription and all of the back issues. This guy might talk to much and like to hear himself, but most of us on APUG share that in common. I for one admire someone who is willing to put his money where his mouth is and generate a product.

 

[jovo]

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.
.

If you think "his photography is wonderful and he is a gifted photographer", why do you have a problem with his publishing it in his own magazine? As he has observed, if he doesn't publish it, who will?

 

[JLP]

I just saw Jim Galli's portraits in some magazine.

Must have been in the Large Format Magazine.. And yes Jim is so refeshing with his old lens, out of focus portraits that i doubt we will see him in Lenswork. There's way to many hip photoshop manipulators for Brooks.
The last issue was actually very nice. (Read, not to manipulated)


jan

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I GET EXTENDED ANYWHO.

 

[manalishi]

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?

http://shop.lenswork.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=324

 

[jovo]

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.

 

[Ian Leake]

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.

 

[jovo]

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.

You may be correct, Ian. I think it was John Sexton who I'm thinking of at the time of the publication of his Recollections. He was in View Camera, and LensWork and maybe some other 'zines as well. It probably helped to sell a lot more copies than might have been the case otherwise.

 

[bdial]

Often, in the case of celebrities, it occurs because their agent is actively marketing them, and appearances in several sources simultaneously are a planned thing. But, in this case, it probably is more coincidence.

Barry

 

[Jim Chinn]

I think Nick Brandt (I think the name is correct) has the record. He did gorgeous MF work of African wildlife and IIRC he was in Lenswork, B&W, Black and White Photography, PDN and Art in America all within about 2 months. I think his work was also in Camera Arts and National Georgraphic later that same year.

 

[jgcull]

I read every word of it, from front to back.

Well, except that I got a notice saying the next was my last issue - though I think I just renewed my subscription a few months back. I think there may have been a mistake made and I've not thought about it at the right time to go write a letter. (ha! how 'bout now???)

 

[Alden]

I am strickly analog, but only because I refuse to shelve my beautiful old cameras/friends. I like people documentary via my Rollei , and I shoot three sizes of sheet film. Also I find greater satisfaction with wet printing than computer printing. That said I cannot understand the predjudice against digitally captured work. For me, Robert Waddinghams portraits of Ethiopians in LensWork # 73 are as good as it gets. As well is Markham Starrs images in the same issue. So please tell me what exactly is wrong with these? The ethical issue holds no water as that is not a machine generated crime. And the, what is it called, dynamic range issue, is surely absurd by now. Are my eyes missing something , or is this digital disregard nothing but clubhouse predjudice ? And how also can one disregard the efforts and accomplishments of imagemakers based on their equipment choice when they have brought home such stunning work?

 

[Dave Miller]

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.

 

[Alden]

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.

Thanks Dave,

Of course there will always be face painting zealots with the "my team rules".
I myself regret digital hegemony, or lets call it Market Social Darwinism, that sees the path of progress in terms of supplanting my prefered working materials. But I'm saddened to see the blame fall to contemporary users of this device because it captures photons differently or places ink on paper, as did the finest color dye transfer process. For printmakers digital is surely a great additional medium, given all the papers, and archival standards. Regretfully our monetary system eliminates our favorite materials. Other artists have not had this fate visited upon them near as much, and this might account for analogers hostility.

But support taken from LensWork because of digital capture? This is quite embarrasing. Imagine DeKooning shunning Pollack or Morris Louis for using acrylics. He would have only cheated himself of the experience of these enlightened artists. So I'll risk the wrath and call to my fellow analogers to rise up and exalt in the photographic acheivements of the "others".

 

[Alden]

And so my brave forging into dicy territory dies on the vine. As it should no doubt, somehow.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Alden,

I believe the person with the militant anti-digital stand you were responding to doesn't drop in here so often anymore. I'd hazard a guess that many of us are in full agreement with you!

Murray

 

[Alden]

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. Speaking strickly in terms of quality. As for manipulation of the real, thats something any medium or maker does. Perception alters.

 

[jovo]

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.

As Murray alluded, there are/have been some zealots here who feel as you describe. But, once the images are published in the magazine, I, for one, absolutely cannot tell how they were made. LensWork homogenizes film and pixel based images when it publishes them as duotones. I am often disappointed when I read that a portfolio I like was taken with a digicam, but I don't like it any less for that fact. Though some would prefer that the tools used to make the 'graphs not be revealed, I personally like keeping score, and continue to be bouyed by the fact that many superb portfolios are still, indeed, made with film and printed traditionally.

 

[donbga]

. 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 ...

 

[JBrunner]

So going by this statement a photo gravure isn't a photograph ...

Out of context, spindled, folded, and mutilated.

 

[donbga]

Out of context, spindled, folded, and mutilated.

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.