The one industry truly killed off by digital photography.

[c.cloudwalker]

You have an amazing talent for taking a few lines out of a whole text and make it say whatever you want. Ever thought of going into politics?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Photo-manipulation in the darkroom is a bit more difficult...

No it's not.

Isn't that my point?

Yes, definitely should have been a politician. Say one thing, say the opposite and it all makes sense to you.

 

[LokiZ]

Interesting topic Garbz,

To me there are darkroom gurus, there are digital editing gurus, there are those who know dark room basics, and there are those who know digital editing basics. That pretty much covers all four corners of image development, which in turn encompasses pretty much any skill level at either the digital or film branch of photography. Agree? EDIT: ( I am speaking only on the editing portion of photography)

How I took what Garbz originally posted is this... Computers and digital cameras are becoming more and more a part of our lives earlier and earlier in our lives. We are seeing big changes as far as the realm of how society is educated concerning it's views on unbelievable representations.

The funny part is that we as photographers have all seemed to zero in on whether or not false representations are easier to do digitally vs. film. Or the quality of the digital age masses who falsify representations vs. the numbers of those who have done so via film.

Neither one of these two focus' really has much bearing to the OP. Why is the believability of the general public dwindling in a downward spiral when it comes to false representations in photography? This is tied to more then just the realm of digital editing. Digital communication in general plays a huge part into why we don't believe anymore. This would have happened whether or not there was digital editing or not (at a slower pace of course) because it's more about the world wide communication of what has been found to be fake. It's all about the education and the inclining interval my friends.

The final word is that as long as there are those out there creatively trying to fake us out either via film or digital media we should not look at it as a competition but rather a tag team match. A fake is a fake and once that is known it spreads quite fast with today's methods of communication. The more the public is educated that this type of trickery happens the better those of use who like to play are going to have to get to succeed and that goes for film as well as digital.

Happy editing everyone.

On a side note. It's not that digital editing as a process is more creative then dark room. It's more about how many human brains you have and on which side of the line they fall darkroom or digital room. (it's not a one to one ratio, one brain can be greatly more creative then another brain. But when you have darkroom numbers dwindling and digital growing exponentially... well you do the math. The potential is overwhelming.) I myself don't care what process you use to edit, if you are a pro or if you are good... I totally respect whatever choice you make and don't pretend to hold a candle to you. To me the majority of the magic still happens prior to the editing stages, that is where the creativity starts.

Salute!

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

Has anyone looked at the pictorialists from the 1840s and 50s. They were recreating scenes from the classics using 10 - 20 negatives at a time.

Yes a different technique. But still prooves that even before photoshop VERY clever "Fakes" were being created. even though the end purpose was to amuse and to enthrall not merely to mislead for personal gain.

 

[LokiZ]

I remember reading about the shots long before any of us that showed "twins" and they looked very well done. I agree it's not always done for personal gain. I am not sure of the exact years the article was speaking of, but I know it was way back. It was probably as far back as the flash powder days.

Very cool indeed.

 

[Garbz]

It could be faked with film as well.

A valid thought but what is the difference between a darkroom guru and a PS one?

But, one who spent hours in the darkroom, is now spending hours working in photoshop, and other editing programs. Either way, the process is still the same.

To me there are darkroom gurus, there are digital editing gurus, there are those who know dark room basics, and there are those who know digital editing basics.

Yes of course, every word of all that is true. However my point was never what was and wasn't possible by the gurus, or how hard it was. My point was the sheer number of gurus that now exist.

The only two people in my extended family that have (had) a darkroom was myself and my grandpa and out of us two I'm not a guru by any stretch and would find it very hard to fake a spaceship. Out of about 50 of my friends only 1 other person has a darkroom.

However the scene changes with photography. My father and my sister both have Photoshop Elements and know to use it rather well. My cousins are Open source nuts and GIMP gurus, If my grandpa was alive today I guarantee you he'd have photoshop too because he's a tinkerer. And out of the same selection of 50 friends I'd say half of them have something as capable as photoshop and a quarter of them are competent enough in it's use to fake an alien invasion.

The point is now "gurus" are so common place that you can't trust a single thing you see anymore. Nearly everyone does some form of photo manipulation in highschool for art / computer class.

So whereas 20 years ago the scene of a UFO in a photo would likely make you think if it was possibly real vs faked by a master of the darkroom, today any such image would instantly be met with "It looks shopped!"

 

[usayit]

Exactly! what my posts were saying.

I had to go to school to learn and access a darkroom... I could count on 1 hand how many photographers I knew had access to one. Many professionals that I had the pleasure of meeting had people dedicated and specialized to darkroom work. To become a "guru" is even more of a feat.

Now a days, most are learning PS from a book or tutorial with a laptop. To get really good at it is a matter of dedication and practice.

 

[aprillove20]

Well,Photo-manipulation in the darkroom is a bit more difficult.

 

[Soocom1]

One point: As Jay Leno asked: "... what ever happend to the UFO pictures after cell phone cameras came around?"

 

[TomBlaze]

Photographs on film can't be faked.

For a film photograph to happen a physical sample of the subject matter has to travel to the film, burrow into it, and occasion chemical changes that result in marks you can see.

What can be faked is subject matter. How many Loch Ness monsters are distant floating logs? How many UFO's are Frisbees? Photographs do not lie, film photographs that is, but liars may photograph.

Of course they can, it just took a different talent. I used to do this in my early days of photo retouching.

The process took a lot more talent, but all that needed to be done at least when I was involved with it was a good airbrusher to alter details and take a photo of the photo (a little more technical than that but pretty much in the ballpark) and re-develop.

In fact, the changes are much harder to notice in film but it requires an extreme amount of airbrushing talent.

 

[Sbuxo]

Photographs on film can't be faked.

For a film photograph to happen a physical sample of the subject matter has to travel to the film, burrow into it, and occasion chemical changes that result in marks you can see.

What can be faked is subject matter. How many Loch Ness monsters are distant floating logs? How many UFO's are Frisbees? Photographs do not lie, film photographs that is, but liars may photograph.

:lmao::lmao: double exposures on film :er:

 

[jbnhl]

So many industries are struggling but still there. People still use film, there are still black and white chemical labs around, and even some discontinued films are now being reverse engineered by hobby chemists. But there's one thing you will never see again. We now live in a world of quick snaps, photoshop edits. Where now anyone and not just darkroom gurus can do basically anything.

Who will ever again believe someone when they post a picture of a UFO online! If someone showed you a picture now of bigfoot, what would you think? What would you have thought 30 years ago?

Just got this thought after watching an ancient episode of X-Files.

I think the same thing about movies. Any movie I watch now, I realize most of it never happened. With that green screen that they use, they can pretty much do anything. I think this makes action movies great, but I wonder where the role of the "double" or "stuntman" is going. Heck, with the CGI used now in Avatar and such, you can film an entire movie in one room with hardly any props at all.

 

[maman]

This argument also carries over into - those true artists and technical types who shoot difficult and/or dangerous setups... and those who just fake it in photoshop, to make it look like they shot a dangerous or difficult setup! In each scenario the results are the same - so who is the better 'artist'? The photographer, or the photoshopper?

 

[Sbuxo]

This argument also carries over into - those true artists and technical types who shoot difficult and/or dangerous setups... and those who just fake it in photoshop, to make it look like they shot a dangerous or difficult setup! In each scenario the results are the same - so who is the better 'artist'? The photographer, or the photoshopper?

If the photoshopper is, then the person who made all their tutorials that they memorized from is the better artist.:er:

 

[magkelly]

A few years ago when I was still in school I went to what is considered one of the best photography suppliers in the country. This was maybe a year before digital cameras just exploded and went mainstream.

One of the questions they asked me was whether or not I preferred film to digital and whether or not I thought digital would ever replace film.

I told them yes, that I felt digital would become in time film's equal if not it's superior and that the masses would move from film to digital as soon as they could. I said that film would always be around but that within 5 years it would be strictly for the niche market, and that even a lot of the die hard film devotees would be switching to digital format while keeping film for special projects maybe.

They didn't like my answer, but everything I said at the time was dead on.

They still have this absolute "thing" against digital even while they have moved to accommodate the majority of people who use it for profit reasons.

I didn't get the job then.

I don't honestly think I'd want it now.

They're still a good store, for supplies, but they are stuck in the Dark Ages in their attitude and I no longer shop there as much as I used to. I'm not the only one. I still know someone who works for them. They supposedly lost something like 90% of their film related business before they finally got it that digital isn't film's evil stepchild.

They still have people using film and the dark rooms they provide, but most of their business on the studio end has gone to selling books and digital cameras, renting out computers with software and/or providing digital editing and CD making services. They hardly ever process film anymore.

That's the biggest loss I think, all the photo print shops that went out of business. You can barely get prints made at the drug store where I live anymore, let alone find a decent print place to make really good ones. It's all gone do it yourself or send it away.

It's all digital manipulation and Photoshop now.

It's a do it yourself world out there lately for shutterbugs...