Makers or Takers

[pentaxuser]

Of course...all pictures are such pictures and we all take them. What differs is the picture taker/maker.

Your above quote was, I take it, in reference to my question asking whether others do not take similar pictures to the one I described In that respect can you expand on what you said

What you seem to be saying is that we all take "real "pictures but what differs is the taker. This puzzles me. It you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

Where do I fit into this?
I am an arty farty type that paints with light.

You don't, buzz off.

 

[Vaughn]

Your above quote was, I take it, in reference to my question asking whether others do not take similar pictures to the one I described In that respect can you expand on what you said

What you seem to be saying is that we all take "real "pictures but what differs is the taker. This puzzles me. It you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

I place importance on the fact that there are two separate images being made...perhaps your sentimental urban environmental portrait of your Uncle Harry -- and my inclusion of the porn shop sign which you had carefully excluded, then printed dark and grainy, leading the viewer to make a connection between the sign and the blurred (1/15th sec) barely reconizable figure of Uncle Harry.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you were there taking Uncle Harry's picture in Blackpool at my shoulder or just behind me then what your viewfinder shows you is essentially the same as mine shows me, isn't it ?

pentaxuser

Possibly, or possibly not. You may have taken the picture of Uncle Harry with the cigar in his mouth, looking like George Burns. I may have taken the picture of Uncle Harry when he held the cigar down, looking more like Winston. Or did I get George and Winston backwards? No matter, same Uncle Harry and same cigar, and same Blackpool; different pictures.

BTW, how is Uncle Harry. Please give him kind regards from me!

 

[Vaughn]

Where do I fit into this?
I am an arty farty type that paints with light.

Make what you can.
Take what you can get for it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As far as I am aware all my photos represent what was there in front of me and in the viewfinder at the moment I took them When I have finished processing the print it does seem to look the same as what was on the negative which in turn represented what I saw in the viewfinder

When I took a picture of Uncle Harry on a deckchair on the beach at Blackpool with a knotted handkerchief on his head for protection from the sun and the large tower about half the size of the Eiffel Tower in the background, the picture looked just like I remembered it a few weeks before when I took it and it still does today

Do others not take such pictures?

pentaxuser

Well, Uncle Harry is not in any of my pictures.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The NY Times has an interest in truth-telling especially with news and documentary photos. They seem to have no problem describing it. I highlighted in red that criteria.

1. Technical Requirements (Submission Standards)​

If you are asked to submit files (e.g., after a successful pitch or for an award entry), the following technical standards typically apply:

• Format: JPEG only.
• Color Profile: RGB.
• Size: Maximum of 3600 pixels on the longest side (equivalent to 18 inches at 200 dpi).
• Metadata: Images must include complete IPTC fields, including:
  
  • Caption (detailed and accurate)
  • Byline (your name)
  • Credit (your organization or "Freelance")
• Integrity: For news photography, you must provide original, unedited camera files (RAW or un-toned JPEGs) alongside your final versions to verify that no manipulation has occurred beyond standard cropping and toning.

2. Ethical Standards (The "Golden Rules")​

The Times has a zero-tolerance policy for photo manipulation in news and documentary contexts.

• No Manipulation: You cannot add, move, or remove any element of the original image.
• No Multiple Exposures: These are generally prohibited for news and feature reporting.
• AI Usage: The use of generative AI or AI-based "editing" that alters the content of the image is strictly forbidden and can lead to a permanent ban from the publication.
• Truth in Captions: Captions must be factual, verified, and provide proper context.

 

[cliveh]

The NY Times has an interest in truth-telling especially with news and documentary photos. They seem to have no problem describing it. I highlighted in red that criteria.

1. Technical Requirements (Submission Standards)​

If you are asked to submit files (e.g., after a successful pitch or for an award entry), the following technical standards typically apply:

• Format: JPEG only.
• Color Profile: RGB.
• Size: Maximum of 3600 pixels on the longest side (equivalent to 18 inches at 200 dpi).
• Metadata: Images must include complete IPTC fields, including:
  
  • Caption (detailed and accurate)
  • Byline (your name)
  • Credit (your organization or "Freelance")
• Integrity: For news photography, you must provide original, unedited camera files (RAW or un-toned JPEGs) alongside your final versions to verify that no manipulation has occurred beyond standard cropping and toning.

2. Ethical Standards (The "Golden Rules")​

The Times has a zero-tolerance policy for photo manipulation in news and documentary contexts.

• No Manipulation: You cannot add, move, or remove any element of the original image.
• No Multiple Exposures: These are generally prohibited for news and feature reporting.
• AI Usage: The use of generative AI or AI-based "editing" that alters the content of the image is strictly forbidden and can lead to a permanent ban from the publication.
• Truth in Captions: Captions must be factual, verified, and provide proper context.

Thanks for that, as it's good to know there are publications out there who value photographic recording without manipulation.

 

[pentaxuser]

I place importance on the fact that there are two separate images being made...perhaps your sentimental urban environmental portrait of your Uncle Harry -- and my inclusion of the porn shop sign which you had carefully excluded, then printed dark and grainy, leading the viewer to make a connection between the sign and the blurred (1/15th sec) barely reconizable figure of Uncle Harry.

You've completely lost me again but never mind It may be that I don't fit into this kind of a discussion either so I'll take the advice given to another participant and buzz off

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

BTW, how is Uncle Harry. Please give him kind regards from me!

Alas long since gone like saucy postcards, the end of rationing and end-of-the-pier comedians telling jokes about mother-in-laws while holiday makers supped pints of dark mild ale and had fish and chips on the way home

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

You don't, buzz off.

I actually laughed at that. Good one, Clive.

 

[Don_ih]

You've completely lost me again

I think @Vaughn was referencing the fact that there can be many different recordings of the same reality and each will be subject to a potentially different interpretation.

 

[Don_ih]

Truthfully, hardly any of us here really do much manipulation of the content of photos. But everything else we do manipulates how that content is presented - starting from seeing something (instead of something else) in the first place.

 

[MattKing]

As far as I am aware all my photos represent what was there in front of me and in the viewfinder at the moment I took them When I have finished processing the print it does seem to look the same as what was on the negative which in turn represented what I saw in the viewfinder

When I took a picture of Uncle Harry on a deckchair on the beach at Blackpool with a knotted handkerchief on his head for protection from the sun and the large tower about half the size of the Eiffel Tower in the background, the picture looked just like I remembered it a few weeks before when I took it and it still does today

Do others not take such pictures?

pentaxuser

The critical words in your post are "represent", "does seem to look the same", "represented" and "looked just like I remembered".
There are fundamental differences between that which is identical to reality, and that which is a facsimile of reality.
Whether or not a facsimile is a close approximation of what was reality, or a distant approximation of what was reality, is a characteristic of both the art you create and the way you experience the visual world.
If @cliveh is actually saying that he values art that gets as close to an accurate representation to what actually was, subject to the constraints of a two dimensional medium that only renders tonal arrangements, and deletes almost all colour information, then that is a totally understandable and justifiable and defensable preference.
But it is a mistake to equate that which is real with that which tries to look real.
Even if the way that something tries to look real actually reveals more about what may be behind the reality than that which may be easily obtained.
As an example, one of my favorite portraits of all time: Jane Bown's "Samuel Beckett":

 

[cliveh]

If @cliveh is actually saying that he values art that gets as close to an accurate representation to what actually was, subject to the constraints of a two dimensional medium that only renders tonal arrangements, and deletes almost all colour information, then that is a totally understandable and justifiable and defensable preference.

Thanks Matt, that is what I was trying to say.