Pure photography - To post-process or not

spraynpray

', when I think back to my full manual film days there WAS a 'pureness' about the photography back then. It isn't here now - too many gadgets and settings to fiddle with.

.

Too many gadgets???

In the days of film I had
A separate exposure meter
A separate range finder
A separate flash gun
6 different filters
on one camera, I had to change viewfinders when I changed lenses
Sometimes I carried 3 cameras; one for B/W , one color transparency, one for color negs

all in a nice big gadget bag


pure photography or pure nostalgia?


Disdain for marketeers????

Always remember. Marketing is about persuading the punter, to buy something they don't need, with money they don't have, in order to impress someone they have never met

This was true in the days of film, it has never changed and never will

I think you forgot the tray of magnesium powder there...

sevencrossing

I think you forgot the tray of magnesium powder there...

I used to use a length of steel gutting
letting off a Kilogram of flash powder is an unforgettable experience

Golf007sd

For me, every single image needs a loving touch. Hence, PP is a key element in digital photography.

PB_PM

The entire notion that "pure" photography is done this way, or that way, is kind of odd. Maybe exchange the word pure for, "the way I like doing things."

If we were talking about pure in terms of the art form, there is no such thing, since art is intrinsically meant to be creative. The person who works with the camera, and later the image is creating something, therefore whatever they come up with is "pure." That is unless the person just copies step by step what they have seen someone else do. Even if the person is a "copy cat" it is very unlikely that the exact same results will be achieved.

Here is my thinking, each person sees the world differently, so their own idea of pure is also different. For a person who is colour blind (totally) a black and white image is all they see, but that doesn't mean that black and white photography is purer than colour photography to that person. Cameras rarely create the image that I see in my mind, while looking at a given subject. From that point of view, what the camera produces is actually anything but pure. Therefore without post processing it is impossible for me to create a "pure" image.

henrik1963

Imagine I took a picture of a sunset. Later the police found out they could solve a murder by lifting the shadows of that picture. Would lifting the shadows make the picture "not pure"?

Like Msmoto I think we are confused by "semantics" - we are confused because we don't have a clear idea what "pure photography" means.

In the case where a news are manipulated not "pure" means "lying" about what happened.

In the realm of "art" you could create a challenge by not allowing yourself the use of some of the tools normally used in photography. Here "pure photography" would be a "dogma" - a tool to create something different.

spraynpray

Maybe people are confuzzed and mistaking photography for post processing. I believe they are separate - the image is captured (film) or data gathered (digital) and the means of doing so are what 'pure photography' relates to. What you do with it after is up to you. Journalists take pictures that are (usually) not PP'd at all and that is photography.

Thus fully manual no frills photography is more 'pure' and highly automated computerised photography is less so. Quite where you stop with fully manual is quite another thing though.

Wiki seem to agree, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

sevencrossing

spraynpray
Wiki seem to agree, anyway:



"The result in an electronic image sensor is an electrical charge at each pixel, which is electronically processed and stored in a digital image file for subsequent display or processing"

So what is "pure" about each pixel being "electronically processed and stored in a digital image file" (by the cameras computer)

and "impure" about electronically processing the file, in your computer, at home ?

How can you display a digital image file, without some sort of processing, eg a graphics card
printing an digital image file will always involve some sort of processing

framer

Hi all,


Ansel Adams made a big deal out of using the darkroom. Most guys I knew from the 60's, 70's and on did, too. Jerry Uelsmann even used multiple enlargers.

Mike

IMHO... Ansel Adams used negative retouching in creating his master images. I'd bet there a ton of pencil marks and scrapes on those negatives. Those techniques are quickly becoming a lost art. So what's the difference doing that in PS? Photography as an art form, again IMHO, demands manipulation. Photography for CSI and news reporting demands a way to guarantee nothing been manipulated.

framer

Msmoto

The word "photography" is almost a generic term for capturing a scene through a focusing device using electronic or chemical means. And, from this stems a lot of subclassifications, many of which we discuss, and which can be early confused due to the semantics, undefined terms, and first language limitations.

Thus, we have a lot of very inspiring, fascinating, and sometimes irritating comments, all attempting to clarify topics which may have their interest in the fact they are so very ambiguous.

Having said all that, coffee anyone? ;;)

Msmoto

@PitchBlack

Nailed it! And, I love the term "rat's behind". )

snakebunk

I think there was a similar discussion about music when the samplers came and after that with autotune. Now I think that discussion has settled and people care about the music instead. I think it mostly comes from people that are scared that their old skills will be useless.

haroldp

@Pitchblack

Well said.

.... H

Bokeh_Hunter

The term "Photoshop-ed" has no definitive definition.
The term "Edited" has no definitive definition.
The term "Post-process" has no definitive definition.

It all comes down to the photographer being transparent and honest when they are asked what they did to get "the shot."

Too many leave out the "details" to try to prove a point, or to make people believe the image is "easily" attainable when it is shot by a particular set of tools, software, knowledge they have and would like to "share" with you for a small (or large) price. Others just have the always present desire to boost their ego.

That omittance and false projection of abilities is dishonest. People who work hard at trying to replicate images see this and eventually figure out it just can't be done from what was relayed, and become frustrated. That is what leads to people wanting to define what is actually capable "in camera" (add whatever descriptor you like) as they may not have the software, computer hardware, or the program ability to edit like others. We get the frustration from this type of learning process. And it doesn't just happen in photography, it is prevalent everywhere.

To me discussions like this always begin from a point of honesty, or a lack thereof, by a photographer who is trying to peddle something, or is just feeding their ego and not disclosing all the details how they shot something.

sevencrossing

....That omittance and false projection of abilities is dishonest.....

Why ???

I see nothing dishonest in failing to tell people how my pictures are made

Yes, I know people might get frustrated, when they cannot get similar results, but I don't fee that is my fault or my problem

haroldp

IMO, the only time 'honesty' enters into this is if photo represents something that does/did not exist, and the circumstances of its presentation (such as a newspaper as news), state or imply that it did / does exist, or if statements are made about it by the photog or presenter (ie publisher) that would mislead the viewer as to the circumstance. This does not always mean 'photoshop' and more often (in the pure 'film' days) has involved 'staged' photos presented as news.

When a photo is presented as 'art', all tools available to the artist in expressing their vision are equally valid, and if the artist considers the detail of his / her 'craft' as proprietary, that is also valid.

I routinely use perspective and distortion control to make the walls of buildings I photograph, to render as vertical and parallel.

I do not consider this 'alteration', since a viewer standing at my location would 'see' it that way, and not as converging and leaning backwards. This is no different than using a technical camera with tilt lens and back to accomplish the same thing. I rarely explain that this is what I have done, since I imply that the building looks like my photo, and it does.

If I transplanted it to present a person as bring there who was not, and presented it in a way that the viewer would presume that the person was there (such as a newspaper as news), the I would be committing journalistic fraud.

Regards to all .... H

spraynpray

I think you are describing a different form of dishonesty to that Bokeh_Hunter is describing.

Golf007sd

I have no problem being truthful when ever someone asks me how I took an specific photo or what I did to it in post. Moreover, I'm faltered and encouraged in providing the answer.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Bokeh_Hunter

@haroldp - that is something very different than what I was describing. That has more to do with what alterations are made that may put something into an "artistic representation" vs. actual representation. That of course goes with your previous photojournalism honesty from your previous posts - which I do agree with that it needs to stop.

I see nothing dishonest in failing to tell people how my pictures are made
Yes, I know people might get frustrated, when they cannot get similar results, but I don't fee that is my fault or my problem

The "I'm not telling you" group certainly exists in this business, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about those that omit the hours of Photoshop or even hiring a professional retouch-er and claiming it is only a small bit of post, a certain lens, or "just lighting" that creates the image.

There are many learning programs/material out there that shows exceptional images and claimed to be just lighting when it is actually hours of editing after the shot. There are also many shooters who review various gear and claim "this is the best" etc. who actually do a lot of editing on images as well. There is nothing wrong with editing, but posting a positive review of a system/lens with edited images, not saying so, and then a so-so/dislike review of another system with straight out of the camera images misrepresents what the first system is capable of. This happens all over, even on this site.

This exists in various ways all over the internet in reviews, marketing various lighting, editing software, books, CDs.

I don't have any problem with editing (outside of photojournalism), but taking an image and claiming it is only "X", creates a false representation of what was actually used to be deceitful for some sort of gain.

sevencrossing

@ Bokeh_Hunter sorry i misunderstood you
Like Golf007sd I more more than happy to show anyone how I do my PP, but I have not got the foggiest how to codify what i do in post

snakebunk

Maybe "don't lie" sums it up?

sevencrossing

Maybe "don't lie" sums it up?

I think the expression " the camera never lies " is not and never has been true

something tells me, my GF does not want me to reveal exactly how I made her look x years younger. Her friends, know I retouch my photos of them and provided, i don't make them look like teenagers , they seem very happy

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: Not saying is not lying, you are ok :-)

sevencrossing

"The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

WestEndBoy

"The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

The "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" is full of kernels of wisdom like this and consequently the D.F. Vassallo version occupies an honoured place on my bookshelf. There are a few other quotes about lying. Another one says:

"Only a sadistic scoundrel--or a fool--tells the bald truth on social occasions."

I think that this is highly relevant to photography.

spraynpray

"The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

The "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" is full of kernels of wisdom like this and consequently the D.F. Vassallo version occupies an honoured place on my bookshelf. There are a few other quotes about lying. Another one says:

"Only a sadistic scoundrel--or a fool--tells the bald truth on social occasions."

I think that this is highly relevant to photography.

On the strength of you recommendation I just bought it Jeff!