Folks, I appreciate your comments and especially the apology. Id like to try once more to explain away my sin.
When I did that shot, it was early in the morning maybe 7 oclock or 7.30. The humidity was about 95 %. There was yet heavy fog that the 2-hr-old sun hadnt yet burned off. The exposure at shutter-time on that shot failed to display the fog and I was disappointed. Too late to go back and redo the shot, the moment had passed.
I had the theme for this shot in my head before I even stepped off the patio. The dog is about 65 years old in human terms. Shes had a hard life and still she makes this daily morning vigil around the homestead parameters. She has survived being run over by a car. She survived a gunshot wound. She has arthritis and every step is painful but still she does that daily morning patrol thing. That dog is an old soldier that will die while on patrol duty.
I have added nothing to the shot. I was disappointed when the exposure didnt capture enough of the fog. So I digitally changed the exposure value in several selected areas. The manipulation was subtractive rather than additive. I selectively revealed the fog that was already there. I did no magic, I didnt add anything that wasnt already there. If you want to see want to see the original view as it actually existed, download the original and apply about 2 extra f-stops to it and you will have an idea of how the view looked to the naked eye. The fog was so thick and the humidity was so high that my shirt was wet and my camera strap was damp after about half an hour. My sneakers and socks became completely soaked form the dew upon the grass.
In my opinion, a purist should be an
purist. I believe it is rationalizing talent when a certain amount of manipulation (which they can do) is accepted and more intense manipulation is disallowed.
Many state that digital manipulation comparable to the manipulation of a darkroom is acceptable as photography. Yet, they have never had a darkroom. Never even been inside of a darkroom. Never mixed a batch of chemicals. Never constantly regulated chemical temperature during the entire process of developing. Never re-tuned a color analyzer to a new batch of paper. Never spent an entire Saturday processing ten 8x10s. Never hung them on a clothes line stretched across the basement and waited for them to drip-dry while hanging over a thick layer of newspapers and rags spread out to protect the carpet from chemical wash. Never paid the dues. Talk the talk but dont walk the walk.
In my opinion even Ansel Adams was no purist. Everything he ever did was phony. He would often make a hundred different copies in his darkroom before he got one that represented the vision that he knew was hidden in the orginal scene. And only then would he display it. And everything he displayed was way different than what you would have seen had you been standing beside him as he snapped the shutter. Had he been a sculptor, he would have seen the hidden statue in the shapeless piece of stone. So that darkroom only synopsis does not keep with my views of what photography can be.
Ansel Adams invented the Grey Scale and the technique to use it. Everyone since has adapted/adopted his technique. I doubt if any monitor can display, any printer or digital camera can capture all ten levels of the grey scale. Ansel Adams manipulated his darkroom procedure so that the most important detail would be inside the visible range of the grey scale (probably about 5 levels). Id also be willing to speculate that Ansel Adams never had an Automatic or a program selection on his camera.
Think how Ansel would have used the technology that exists today....now that's an interresting thought!
How many purists shoot in full manual mode? Could it really not be photography unless it was done like Ansel Adams did it? Nah! That doesnt support the purist program.
When you have some spare time, Google up some of Charlebois photography. He is a well known modern photographer, but the images that he concocts are definitely not purist by any definition or standards. Look in some of the work considered to be photography that appears in COSMOS, VANITY, HOME and GARDEN, PHOTOGRAPHER, MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY, even PLAYBOY.
I have always respected and will always respect everyones right to their own views even if I perceive a slight amount of kidding themselves. Whatever makes them happy is fine as long as it isnt dictated upon me. Ive taken a chance of expressing my opinions in this post because there are many different opinions already expressed and theyve been accepted gracefully and peacefully.
I keep it in mind that this forum is intended to be for help in improving our craft. It wasnt intended to be competitive (theres a separate thread for that) . It wasn't intended for temporary rules of fairness and unfairness. Were not going to grow if we close or minds to creativity.
If you aspire to be a professional (make a living at it), you must produce a salable product. I wouldnt consider myself a professional if I labored under false limitations to creating the best product that was possible.
Im not a radical in my views on photography, but I do care very much about it. I care about how far it has come; where it has been; where it is going. I care about it as a business. I care about it as a pastime. I care about it as Art. I care about it as a hobby. I care about it as a vehicle to pull people out of stressful existences of everyday responsibilities of living. I dont care for it when it perpetrates stress and undo competitiveness. Its results should be pleasant and beautiful to experience.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/38/38262-10a9668da9a2b36a92cddde57caf87bc.jpg?1734172150)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/38/38261-db20f6f92ee8f0d4c5cf1536e308638b.jpg?1734172147)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/38/38264-552eb428d8a704186dcc43400f417d0f.jpg?1734172154)
