self destructing Photoshop

Graeme Hird said:

I shoot colour almost exclusively, but to get from my trannies to prints, I go via the computer. That's somewhat frowned upon here, so I don't post anything at all. I could indeed show you scans of my trannies, but they would forever be doubted as "manipulated", so there's not much point.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why would a scan of a slide be less valid or considered more manipulated than a scan of a print?

I've recently posted the scan of a Velvia slide in the Standard Gallery and not had any negative reaction to it (although the day is yet young! ). Speaking for myself, I'd very much like to see some of your work there, Graeme.

Aggie said:

My prattle is about the way it is taught in conjunction with photography. It is not photography that is being taught. That is tertirary in importance in todays photography classes dealing with digital. PS as a tool to create art in a borad sense is fine. I rile at the fact it is not the art of photography, it is the art of photoshop. Call it by its true name.

Click to expand...

This is not a fault caused by Photoshop. This is caused by instructors who don't know what they're doing, but are still allowed to teach.

Twenty-seven years ago, I took a photo course at a university with a well respected photo department. The work done for the course was only in black and white.

The instructor said, "I'm required to give you a lecture on filters." "I don't use them, and I don't know any photographers that do." That was the end of the lecture on filters. As a graduate from a well known technical institute located in Rochester, NY., I almost fell off my chair. I also couldn't help but wonder about an institution of higher learning that would let someone, who was not fully proficient in the technical aspects of photography, teach at that level.

My point being, don't blame a software program for poor photographic instruction. Poor photographic instruction is the fault of the instructor, and department. Photoshop cannot make a bad photograph good, anymore than hours spent in a darkroom will make a bad photograph good.

While Photoshop does provide an easier means to recover a badly exposed image, the same can be done with dodging, burning, masks, etc. It will not improve a badly seen, badly composed, or badly conceived image.

It seems the mindset of most people who are analog photography (only) advocates is - 1 exposure = 1 image. Only make a print of that exposure so you don't muck up the "purity" of photography and you exactly reproduce, to the best of your ability, the reality in front of the lens.

My question for that attitude is: how do you rate a Jerry Uelsmann or a Patrick Nagatani? Their images were created through strictly photographic processes - no Photoshop involved.

FrankB said:

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Why would a scan of a slide be less valid or considered more manipulated than a scan of a print?

Click to expand...

That's a damn good question Frank, but I can't answer it on this forum without causing problems for some of its members.

You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.

So, I think it best if I refrain from posting images for the time being. I'm happy reading the threads on exposing film, making digital contact negs and using LF cameras. As Jorge correctly noted, I have other avenues to post my images where nobody takes offense at how they were derived. Why rock the boat here?

(But I am feeling a lot more welcome now - thanks for the votes of confidence ....)

Cheers,

Graeme Hird said:

That's a damn good question Frank, but I can't answer it on this forum without causing problems for some of its members.

You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Graeme. My question was made on the assumption that it was a straight scan with possibly a little level correction to overcome the shortcomings of the scanner.

I'll mosey on over to your website and see the images there.

(If there any Texans passing who could give instructions on the correct moseying technique then I'd be much obliged. We're not all that good at it in Wigan...! )

Graeme Hird said:

You see, I'm not averse to dodging and burning the image in "That Evil Program" before I print it. Thus, (nearly) all my images fall into the hybrid category, and therein lies my reluctance to post here. The file is essentially the same as the tranny, but it has had digital work applied as one applies darkroom skills to a negative.

So, I think it best if I refrain from posting images for the time being.

Click to expand...

Graeme,

I don't think you need to refrain posting for that reason. I'm not adverse to doing the same myself; my objection with PS comes when a photo is manipulated and the subject is no longer real because of it. My technique is to scan the transparency, correct the color and print on a Fuji Crystal Archive paper (a real photo paper). You just need to be sensitive to those who choose not to use this technique.

I look forward to seeing some of your work on the forum, I've visited your website. I may even visit West Australia someday; I've been wanting to visit Perth. I have been to Alice Springs a couple of times, and I'm going to be shooting along the Murray River - from Albury/Wodonga to Murray Bridge - in Victoria next month. I usually visit Australia every year or two.

Thanks,

steve said:

The instructor said, "I'm required to give you a lecture on filters." "I don't use them, and I don't know any photographers that do." That was the end of the lecture on filters. As a graduate from a well known technical institute located in Rochester, NY., I almost fell off my chair. I also couldn't help but wonder about an institution of higher learning that would let someone, who was not fully proficient in the technical aspects of photography, teach at that level.

Click to expand...

LOL...you have got to be pulling our legs. That would similar to my P.Chem professor telling me....nah dont take instrumental analysis, you wont use it, so you wont need it...lol....

steve said:

It seems the mindset of most people who are analog photography (only) advocates is - 1 exposure = 1 image. Only make a print of that exposure so you don't muck up the "purity" of photography and you exactly reproduce, to the best of your ability, the reality in front of the lens.

My question for that attitude is: how do you rate a Jerry Uelsmann or a Patrick Nagatani? Their images were created through strictly photographic processes - no Photoshop involved.

Click to expand...

This actually is not true. Those that advocate analog only photography advoctae the wet process. No digital work what soever. If you want to double expose a neg, stack them, crop, burn, dodge or whatever in the darkroom, go for it. There are purists who feel the way you do but, while they may not practice the activities listened they do accept that this is analog. Throw an image onto the computer, burn and dodge or what ever then you have stepped into the digital arena. It really is that simple.

Jorge said:

LOL...you have got to be pulling our legs. That would similar to my P.Chem professor telling me....nah dont take instrumental analysis, you wont use it, so you wont need it...lol....

Click to expand...

I would like to say it was a joke - but, no...it really happened. My friend who was renting a room in my house from me, put his hand on my shoulder, leaned over to me and said, "Just don't say a word." As I had gotten into a rather intense discussion with the instructor the previous week as she had said that the photo I had brought in was interesting but, "...had too much detail."

She only shot 35mm and wasn't used to seeing work produced with a 4x5 camera. She found all that detail "confusing."

I asked her what the one unique attribute photography had that truly set it apart from all the other visual art mediums - she looked at me blankly ... and I said "detail."

Needless to say, the discussion went down hill from there...

I did, however, manage one bit of personal vindication (okay, revenge). I looked at her work and noticed she was attempting to do split-tone prints. They were done very poorly and unevenly. So, I started turning in perfectly split-toned prints for every assignment.

Towards the end of the semester, she asked me to stay after class and said, "I'd really like to know how you make perfect split-tone prints."

I smiled at her, and said, "Well, you just have to understand the process technically - after that it's quite easy..." turned and walked out of the room.

steve said:

I did, however, manage one bit of personal vindication (okay, revenge). I looked at her work and noticed she was attempting to do split-tone prints. They were done very poorly and unevenly. So, I started turning in perfectly split-toned prints for every assignment.

Towards the end of the semester, she asked me to stay after class and said, "I'd really like to know how you make perfect split-tone prints."

I smiled at her, and said, "Well, you just have to understand the process technically - after that it's quite easy..." turned and walked out of the room.

Click to expand...

LOL..you know, there is a fruit in Mexico called Zapote (I guess it would be one of those "exotic" fruits they sell in the US for more than gold). This fruit has a brown skin and inside, the meat is very dark brown, almost looks like asphalt but with a brown tone and it is very, very sweet, almost too sweet some would say. So we have a saying that revenge is like a zapote.......dark but sweet...

BTW I sure hope you said that after you got your grade...

mark said:

This actually is not true. Those that advocate analog only photography advoctae the wet process. No digital work what soever. If you want to double expose a neg, stack them, crop, burn, dodge or whatever in the darkroom, go for it. There are purists who feel the way you do but, while they may not practice the activities listened they do accept that this is analog. Throw an image onto the computer, burn and dodge or what ever then you have stepped into the digital arena. It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

And my problem with the analog only people is that many discount images made any way but analog - and, I just don't understand the attitude.

I'm at the point in my work and life that categorizing things makes no sense. I truly do not care how the image was made - as long as it's interesting.

I see total schlock made with both analog processes and digital processes. I really don't see that one method has a corner on the schlock market. There also seems to be the perception that Photoshop is "easier" than wet darkroom techniques.

Apparently, I must be the exception, or be relatively bad at using Photoshop. I spend as much time in Photoshop working with an image as I do in the darkroom. The difference is, once I have done the work, I don't have to repeat the process for every print.

I don't really see why that's so important. Are there style points added for being able to print & repeat / print & repeat / print & repeat?

If there is, and if that's what makes a photo print so important to you, then I'd suggest you do something really difficult like hand lithography. The print and repeat cycle on that one is truly intense, can take days to get to a final print, and requires you to hand register every piece of paper on the stone or plate. Matching the signed artist's proof that was printed a month or more earlier is a real challenge as relative humidity, and temperature can have a tremendous effect on the entire process.

You want to admire and appreciate process control and craftsmanship - print six color (or more) lithographs for a while. Haven't found a photo process that even comes close to lithography for having to know the materials plus having a sixth sense as to how to "tweak" the process for current/changing conditions. I've been printing, had a thunderstorm come in, and had to quit printing because the rapid humidity change put the process out of control - it can be that sensitive.

At one point, I wanted to know why aluminum plates formed scum when printing. Zinc plates and stones rarely scum. I borrowed the electron microscope at the university medical school and did some late night investigations on aluminum and zinc plates - I found out the reasons and how to control the process - but, it took that level of research to find the answers.

The people at the lithographic institute didn't care that I found the answers - in fact, they were a bit miffed that I had used scientific means to investigate something and had ruined part of the craftsmanship and mystique of the process. They were also quite put out that I insisted on using a pH meter for mixing etches - that also took the craftsmanship and mystique out of the process.

The analog / digital craftsmanship / mystique redux just reeks of the BS I went through with the lithography dilettantes.... I still don't get the "why" a certain way of working is so damn important.

The point is analog is what some of us have chosen. It has nothing to do with one being better than the other. This is a place where those who have made the decision to work in an analog only environment can discuss analog without the world of digital popping in and taking over as it has done on most other sites. Yes there are those who feel that digital is evil; yes there are those who feel that digital voodoo is attempting to replace talent. It really does not matter. What does matter is that there are plenty of places to talk photoshop. There are few places-this is the only one I know of-where I can discuss my choice of photographic processes. If folks want to make grand digital discoveries then let them discuss them in another forum, or keep it within the confines of the rules of the digital negative subforum.

It is a choice, Steve. Let people have their misgivings. I for one do not give a damn what photoshop can and cannot do. It does not interest me. This is not the place to educate someone on the wonders of photoshop or to talk about how difficult it is, or the control one has, or whatever.

steve said:

And my problem with the analog only people is that many discount images made any way but analog - and, I just don't understand the attitude.

Click to expand...

The attitude in my opinion is more a backlash by us who have developer instead of blood. We were using film long before bytes. When the digital world of photography started it was interesting. Then it began to overwhelm. It is now almost seen as we are terrorists (meaning that as a joke) for not going digital. At every turn we are bombarded with yet more people/adverting/magazines that are telling us we have to go digital.

At the cruxt of it all is Photoshop. It may not be the only photo manipulation program, but it is like microsoft and all powerful.

Yes we should be more tolerant. We should leazrn to live with digital. I just would be more willing if I was not at least mentally being forced to go digital. I like and prefer analog. It is a quiet time in a noisy world. It takes me to wonderful places to meet more wonderful people. I enjoy the smell of chemicals in the morning. I love the challenge of the medium. It's magic to me.

Digital is not magic to me. I live in a household where hubby is an IT exec. Son is in multi media at college. we have more computers in the house than people. We are working on having more than people and my three cats. I tire of the noise of the computers hum. Everywhere I turn there is another screen. Everywhere i turn there is also another example being shoved at me that says I am horrible and harming the environment using those awful chemicals and wasting resources such as trees for the paper. The list is endless and long filled with reasons why we as analog lovers should just trash our equipment and buy the never ending upgrades of more computer technology.

I would love to just have my analog and live in peace.

I still don't get the "why" a certain way of working is so damn important.

Click to expand...

I'll post what I wrote in this thread some posts back and it's why I find it special.
From when we were talking about the term "soul" in photography.

"I think the word "soul" means different things to different people when it comes to photography. For me the "soul" is when unique light which you sought out burns itself into the film. It's a real object affected by real light, and it stores that moment in a tangible way. So I see that moment of capture and storage as "soul" or the essence of the light stored into the film. Making the print uses that same stored essence to generate a positive. The lifecycle of the "soul" for me is not broken this way. It's when the image is digitized and imported into a virtual existence and changed that the natural cycle is broken. It is no longer real in my eyes and at the moment of digitizing becomes a reproduction of the real object."

Some artists have an emotional connection to a process, and it's that connection that influences their finished product. These types of artists can not understand the mindset of "the final product is all that matters" because for them it doesn't work like that, it is a journey using real materials that has an overall influence in their work. It's not an inconvenience, it's highly emotional and enjoyable. I'm not going to put down digital, but the digital process for me removes my love of soul and craft in photography. Just my views..

steve said:

The analog / digital craftsmanship / mystique redux just reeks of the BS I went through with the lithography dilettantes.... I still don't get the "why" a certain way of working is so damn important.

Click to expand...

It's a choice and I don't see why some people are so bothered by it. At least you have dozens of forums in which to discuss your process and have it appreciated, get advice for what you do and the way you choose to do it.

But no. Digital users, of any level, must insist that the process be pervasive, that every photography forum discuss it and accept it and make it part of the common practice.

Just because I choose to use analog methods to produce my photographs does not mean that I am totally anti-digital. I CHOOSE ANALOG - my decision, my choice.
In other posts in other threads, I have stated that I have seen wonderful digital images by some gifted photographers (and these people I am referring to would never think of putting down my choice of analog) who choose digital.
I really do not give a rat's backside if someone chooses to work in the digital realm. And I will not condemn them for their choice. But I do expect that respect of choice be reciprocated.
gene

Exactly Gene!!!

New photo mags are not published in New Zealand very often. Here's one after its first month of publication that the owner appears to be tired of already :-(
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Magazines/Hobbies/auction_photo-14211997/permanent-0/photoid-4852930/title-New+Zealand+D%2Dphoto+new+magazine.htm

So what's wrong with maintaining a wonderful website entirely dedicated to those people dedicated to traditional methods of photography?

The best revenge is to be happy with what you do and successful to boot!

Okay, here's what I'll do: in deference to the terms of this forum, I'll post only those images where minimal PS work was done to match the file with the tranny. The prints would be better than what gets shown here.

Cheers,

Aggie said:

The attitude in my opinion is more a backlash by us who have developer instead of blood. We were using film long before bytes. When the digital world of photography started it was interesting. Then it began to overwhelm. It is now almost seen as we are terrorists (meaning that as a joke) for not going digital. At every turn we are bombarded with yet more people/adverting/magazines that are telling us we have to go digital.

Click to expand...

Interesting way of putting it, but it sadly seems true (the terrorist part). I shoot film because of the quality, and because visualizing and composing images in the field is much more satisfying than anything I could do on the computer. FWIW - I'm a C++ programmer, so I am fully aware of what computers can do.

The more I read comments about working in a darkroom the more I wish I had the space for one. My Minolta can supposidly figure everything out for me and leave me with just the task of pressing the shutter release but I do so love the process of framing, focusing, metering, adjusting for the meters faults (TTL meter), shaking off my beginners tension, and then finally snapping the shot. I don't know that my amateur photos speak for the work I put into each shot but I still love the process. I can spend 20 minutes stalking a dragonfly trying to catch it in a still moment and never notice the time that passes. If I were to see that dragonfly appear on paper before my eyes I think I would cry.

I get stressed out by photography at times but never do I feel stressed when I have the camera in my hands. Some people drink to calm their nerves, I grab my camera. The computer doesn't do that for me, there's no magic to it, there's no emotional connection. I have seen any number of my photos appear on the screen after scanning them and it doesn't feel magical or special. I've even explored the capabilities of a graphics program - that didn't feel very special to me either.

I have no idea why I'm babbling - sleep dreprived impulse I guess.

anyte said:

The more I read comments about working in a darkroom the more I wish I had the space for one. My Minolta can supposidly figure everything out for me and leave me with just the task of pressing the shutter release but I do so love the process of framing, focusing, metering, adjusting for the meters faults (TTL meter), shaking off my beginners tension, and then finally snapping the shot. I don't know that my amateur photos speak for the work I put into each shot but I still love the process. I can spend 20 minutes stalking a dragonfly trying to catch it in a still moment and never notice the time that passes. If I were to see that dragonfly appear on paper before my eyes I think I would cry.

Click to expand...

I've put darkrooms in 3 foot square closets. If theres a will.....
If you have a space you think *might* work, ask us how to proceed.