Something to think about

[fokker]

Sigh, this old argument again. It's been done almost as much as canon vs. nikon....

:waiting:


Can't we just agree that some people like to post-process, some don't, and that if you over-process an image then at some point it becomes graphic art and not photography, but at which point exactly that is we will never agree on because we all have different standards and ideas as to what constitutes a photograph.

 

[subscuck]

I think all of the important points have already been made.

1) Just because you weren't at the lab watching your color print film being processed doesn't mean it wasn't. In fact it was. Brightness, contrast, color correction, etc.

2) The same things done by a lab with print film are the same things most people do with digital. Especially needed for digital since it has less DR than print film.

3)People were manipulating (different from processing) photos with film, they will continue to do so with digital.

4) Some people go overboard.

5) Some people wrongly assume you can get a sharp, color corrected digital photo with perfect contrast, wb, etc., that looks just like the prints from the film you dropped off at a lab, SOOC. Better gear puts you closer, but still no cigar.

 

[The_Traveler]

Silver-based imaging's basic goal has always been to capture the desired image, and to make it permanent in light-sensitive silver, or using light-sensitive dye layers. With a silver-based image, there is a physical,tangible negative or positive image that is perfectly captured and preserved on a glass plate, or a piece of film base (in most cases).

The original goal is to create a reproduction in some manner of what the photographer sees. It is only afterwards that one chooses a medium. yes, silver-based photography makes a specific kind of image but that's not the important part, although lots of people like to worship that as 'photography.'

This got me to thinking.
It seems at some point, that being a photographer ends, and being a "computer art technician" begins.
Lets remember the good old days of photography

That may be a comforting way for you to deal with the new world of digital - and get you competitive again with all those photogs who are digital wizards - but does it make sense to say that artistry or vision must stop when you press the shutter? We have new tools, why must we only use those tools the old way?

People like Jerry Uelsman didn't - even though they used film.
The medium isn't the message; the message is the message.

 

[gsgary]

If you took your photo in JPG it was edited by your camera, if you use a pro camera they don't look as good as a consumer camera when they come straight out of the camera

 

[ann]

I have been involved with photography for over 63 years, most of those years using the darkroom.

When I began using digital I continued to do what I always did, get as much correct in the camera as possible. It wasn't until several years ago I began to realize I could still maintain my "ethics" by doing exactly what i did in the darkroom but this time in the computer.

As has been suggested, film has been manipulated for years (read old days) and printing in the darkroom is a highly personal vision (of course this may depend on the experince and talent of the photographer; think Jerry Ulsman) which by the nature of the process needs manipulation.

These days, my personal guide line is to do what ever I need to create the image, if it crosses over (my guide line) I call it "digital art" Since I am shooting RAW it is always manipulated at some point.

However, (agreeing with others) it drives me crazy when someone says, "oh, well, I don't need to worry, I'll fix it in PS". Post processing should be about the creative vision, not correcting something that is a basic technique and a result of using the camera properly; be it analog or digial

 

[ausemmao]

Silver-based imaging's basic goal has always been to capture the desired image, and to make it permanent in light-sensitive silver, or using light-sensitive dye layers. With a silver-based image, there is a physical,tangible negative or positive image that is perfectly captured and preserved on a glass plate, or a piece of film base (in most cases). With a digital image there is NO physical,tangible image fixed in a permanent medium, but only an invisible collection of 1's and 0's, capable of being interpreted, re-interpreted, and re-interpreted again and again and again. The essential basis of analog photography is that of film and silver and dyes,with the representation of light captured and "frozen" within a physical medium in ONE,exact form; the essential basis of digital capture is that the image is composed of electronic code, and does NOT EXIST in an exact, "frozen" form in a physical medium.

The above is my summary of a very profound essay written by the noted Leica photography expert Erwin Puts, in his essay "Photography does not exist anymore!", found here, on his web site p://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/Analysis/page106.html

And the act of generating that representation already makes it unreal. You don't see in black and white, you don't see with 8 stops of dynamic range, you don't see in rectangular format.

That aside, to argue that somehow digital is lesser for being a representation in binary code...Are the Kindle versions of Mark Twain's writings lesser because they're ones and zeros rather than hidebound pigment on paper?

 

[KmH]

Just because your lab boys didn't tell you what they did with your photos doesn't mean it wasn't done. My guess is your film was edited much more than any of your digital. Do you know how many of your 'film only predecessors' complained about digital when it came about? It wasn't because their techniques had changed. It was because somebody wasn't cleaning up after their mess.

With film, you could be off 2 or 3 stops and the lab could push or pull it and get you great shots. With digital, it's up to you. On the other hand, there are still labs out there that will take your crap photos and make them into what you had wished they were in the first place, as long as you are willing to pay their price.

Personally, I would rather get it right from the get go. I get so sick and tired of hearing about how it was in 'good ole days'...The truth is, in the good ole days, low paid lab techs fixed your screw ups and made them okay. There was never such a thing as F/8 and be there without techs making it work for you.

Get off your high horse. Welcome to the new era.

Word!