Most smart TV's have numerous modes that can be adjusted to change the saturation, contrast, lighting, black level, etc to taste. So you can tone down the "pop" to whatever you want when you're showing a slide show. Theater and movie modes tend to be rather drab. Sports mode increases the lighting level and saturation. Regular is well regular. Then there is another where you can set it to all personal levels.Alan,
I certainly have displayed scanned files on 2K HD TVs, and seen files displayed on 4K TVS, and they can look quite nice.
A well projected slide - particularly a well projected medium format slide - looks better.
The "pop" on the TV is part of the problem.
I never allow myself to add or remove any thing from my shots, except removing dusts. That is not the art of photography. It is in my opinion only done by con artists.
no worries I know you weren't .. it is unfortunate that people do what they do, really unfortunate, but I've been called worse by others on this site so I've learned to ignore most of these people and take their words for what they are worth.Keep in mind that I was not supporting the name calling, only trying to explain where I think he was coming from!
complete agreement, blurry line, people can agree to disagree, posturing and name calling is unfortunate .. its just what people do, since it all ends up being an us vs them tribal debate and "them" not even acknowledging that they are manipulating an image just as much but its "ok" because they are doing it. it all gets kind ofSo, I agree with you that there is a lot of arbitrary posturing regarding the superiority of completely unmanipulated photography, but I'd argue that there is a non-arbitrary line (though often a blurry line) that is worth observing: the line past which the realism of transparency is compromised. But these are things about which intelligent people can disagree. The name calling and posturing about these things is unfortunate.
As on old guy who grew up shooting slides which were sent out to be developed, returned mounted for immediate projection, I am the type who never manipulated my photography. Even with negative film, that too was sent out and returned as is with 4x6" prints made by the lab. The only manipulation they did was to adjust the exposure if your exposure capture was off. Again, there was no manipulation of the scene other than adjusting exposure errors.Exactly. Photographic images have been manipulated from the very start. Take, for instance, Richard Jones Calvert's Capuchin Friars (1846), where a person was bleached from the negative to enhance the composition.
But it is worth pointing out that photography has always had an uneasy relationship with manipulation. As a medium it lends itself to documentary/evidentiary practices, since it records images based on light reflecting from or shining through "what was actually there." This creates a certain expectation of realism on the part of the viewer, and that expectation affects their interpretation/reception/experience of the photograph. This understanding of photographic realism is why we tend to think of photographic evidence as more reliable than a sketch of a crime. I would argue that this belief in photographic realism carries over into the reception of photographic art as well -- I react differently to your (jnantz's) images because I believe that they are photographs. If I believed that they were water-colors or oil paintings I would have a different experience of them (even if they looked exactly identical). I "read" Roger Fenton's The Valley of the Shadow of Death very differently after being given reason to believe that he (or his assistant) moved the canon balls around to create the final composition, but I would read it very differently still if I believed that those canon balls had been painted on the negative with ink and bleach. In one case we have a staged photograph -- but still a photograph. On the other we have a work of mixed media -- photography and illustration. Knowledge that an image has been manipulated undermines that belief in photographic realism, and creates a kind of cognitive dissonance on the part of those viewers that associate photography with realism. I think mtjade2007's name calling is a result of that kind of cognitive dissonance. If one is given something they think is documentary in nature and find that it has been heavily manipulated, one feels cheated, or lied to.
Now, the fact that many of us have such beliefs in photographic realism (a belief I would bet is less prevalent in folks born after the rise of photoshop, which led to heavy manipulation becoming more widespread) does not mean that those beliefs are justified. I think that the physical and chemical processes of analogue photography support those beliefs for those who have a reasonable grasp of how film photography works, but the "black box" nature of digital photography (where one cannot know what changes have been made between the image sensor and the file recorded by the camera) does not support it (though if you knew precisely how the file was recorded -- i.e. had a competent understanding of the firmware/software in question -- it would once again support it).
In the end, does any of this matter? I would argue that it does, since the belief in photographic realism enriches the interpretation of the photo (in fact, this was a central argument in my doctoral dissertation -- read it at the risk of severe boredom!), even when it is a work of art and not primarily documentary in nature.
Incidentally, above I suggested Errol Morris' book, which is indeed quite good, but I think I was actually thinking of Faking It, the book companion to the Met Museum's exhibit by the same name. I think everyone in this thread would enjoy that book.
What happens to all of us when software comes out that allows you to make the full picture without leaving your desk at home? Just press different buttons, and the program arranges the whole photo. What would be the point of photography?As far as altering a photo goes, what is considered altering by this elite, esteemed group of experts? If a photographer burns part image to minimize or obliterate it, is that an adulteration of the photo? If I ask someone to move from their original position to one that I dictate, or ask them to move their hands, take off a hat or pick up or let go of an object, is that alteration?--this is no how they were until I altered their location to suit my purpose. If I replace the face of someone who's eyes closed during one of a multiple number of shots of a group of people, is that conning the viewer? The person was actually there along with the others, the reality of the photos is intact, just merged.
im sure that happens everywhere not just the FSU. people believe what they see.The Soviet regime and Stalin in particular, regularly had people removed and signs changed in photographs when they fell out of favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
I'm sure that's part of it. For me it's also about the process of developing my own film. I really enjoy that. Makes the images feel more "my own".Photoshop may be the reason film is becoming so popular again. It's taking us back to basics and reality. It's like the difference between email and messaging or meeting your friend over a cup of coffee.
Interesting ideas from Walton and you. Thanks for sharing them!Keep in mind that I was not supporting the name calling, only trying to explain where I think he was coming from!
And I fully agree with you that there is no difference between putting on a filter to alter contrast and adjusting the contrast digitally. But I would argue that neither practice necessarily destroys the realism of the photo (though if taken to extremes both can). I have in mind Kendall Walton's notion of a realism of transparency: the view that we can look through photographs at the thing photographed, rather than merely looking at an image of a thing. This is why I can say that I'm watching a motorcycle race right now, rather than say that I'm looking at a movie which depicts such a race. My experience is that I'm looking through the television and at the race itself.
Kendall Walton's book is worth reading for his explanation of that concept, but for the sake of our conversation (and since I haven't read the book in 5 years!) here's a quick paraphrase from my diss:
As Walton puts it, “photographs are counterfactually dependent on the photographed
scene even if the beliefs (and other intentional attitudes) of the photographer are held fixed.”
275
In other words, despite the various ways in which the photographer’s beliefs, choices, and
agenda may affect the appearance of final product, what a photograph shows depends primarily
on what lies before the lens. By adjusting his point of view, the contrast of the image, and by
timing his photograph just so, a photographer might make a person look menacing, or comical,
or terrified, when in fact that person would not have come across as such to someone looking at
them with the naked eye. But if the photograph does indeed make the person look menacing,
then it is only by subtly altering the presentation of what was there, before the lens, and not by
inventing things that were not actually there (or deleting things that were).
So, I agree with you that there is a lot of arbitrary posturing regarding the superiority of completely unmanipulated photography, but I'd argue that there is a non-arbitrary line (though often a blurry line) that is worth observing: the line past which the realism of transparency is compromised. But these are things about which intelligent people can disagree. The name calling and posturing about these things is unfortunate.
I can see that.I'm sure that's part of it. For me it's also about the process of developing my own film. I really enjoy that. Makes the images feel more "my own".
Well that was an artists rendering because the Hindenburg disaster the Art Deco skyscrapers were conceptualized as zeppelin moorings.
As on old guy who grew up shooting slides which were sent out to be developed, returned mounted for immediate projection, I am the type who never manipulated my photography. Even with negative film, that too was sent out and returned as is with 4x6" prints made by the lab. The only manipulation they did was to adjust the exposure if your exposure capture was off. Again, there was no manipulation of the scene other than adjusting exposure errors.
It may be an artist's rendering but it was fabricated from photographs, with the intention to give it the authenticity of a photograph--"In 1930, International News Photos distributed this manipulated photograph. At the time, no airship had docked at the Empire State Building. That didn’t happen until September 1931, when a privately-owned dirigible docked for a mere three minutes, in a 40-mile-per-hour wind."Well that was an artists rendering because the Hindenburg disaster the Art Deco skyscrapers were conceptualized as zeppelin moorings.
Interestingly enough, Adobe has also started developing tools that can both detect when an image has been manipulated, and reverse the changes to reveal the original, for faces at least.
You should get yourself one. You do not realize just what you have been missing, until you see a MF slide vs. a 135 format slide projected!I shoot medium format but have never projected it not having a MF projector.
I work the other way around and start with a concept and make the picture fit that concept with what ever means I can use to do so. The negative is just a means to an end..
Mind you digital be the devil and making pictures without the use of computers is a higher art.
Once I see a photograph heavily manipulate a photograph by adding or removing major constituents, I automatically dismiss all the rest of the photographer's work as fiction and not worth wasting my retinas viewing anything else from him or her. It is a good way to get blown off.
Notice how most of the software aimed at the D crowd emphasizes this manipulation. Sky substitution, remove objects and even people, change the angle of a face, add a smile, etc. More "creative tools" to add to the " workflow " for the button push guys. The crowd at Dpreview goes orgasmic over this stuff.
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?