Give me your Opinion

[rlarsen]

I just started reading a photography book,
(Galen Rowell’s, Inner Game of Outdoor Photography).
What do you think of this paragraph from the book? (pg. 26)
Give me your opinions. I find it very interesting.

“In this digital age, photographers are often tempted to take shortcuts to visual power by creating altered images of nature that never were before their eyes. As this straight-image success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature photograph is irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than wholly rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully represents a “real” event witnessed by another human being.”

Thanks.

[Nicole]

My opinion: It's not caused by digital photography People were creating "photographs that never were" long before digital came along.

[jdepould]

It's an artistic choice. The vast majority of my photos fall under the "true to life' category, but I don't have a problem with image manipulation as long as it's clear that the image has been manipulated.

[Elmo]

Guess you can call me "old School" but most "altered" photographs, I see, are something the photographer took and it did not work. He then tries to make it work by alterations, in stead of trying to see what went wrong and retaking the shot.

Elmo

[FloridaMike]

Originally Posted by rlarsen

I just started reading a photography book,
(Galen Rowell’s, Inner Game of Outdoor Photography).
What do you think of this paragraph from the book? (pg. 26)
Give me your opinions. I find it very interesting.

“In this digital age, photographers are often tempted to take shortcuts to visual power by creating altered images of nature that never were before their eyes. As this straight-image success story unfolds, it shows us that the power of a nature photograph is irrevocably connected to our human belief system, rather than wholly rooted in the image itself as so many photographers, publishers, and members of the public wrongly assume. The tremendous public response to this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully represents a “real” event witnessed by another human being.”

Thanks.

I hate to say it, but it seems we live in a society that wants to believe that you can cheat to accomplish any goal. All of my photographs are right outta the camera, all of them. I believe that you get the best composure, exposure, at the time you trip the shutter, then you can use the computer programs to edit the photos! I don't have Adobe photoshop yet. I must do the best that I can.

[jiminyClickit]

rlarsen,

Does this paragraph refer to an actual photograph in the book?

[The tremendous public response to this photograph is inextricably tied to the belief that it truthfully represents a “real” event witnessed by another human being.]

[geotography]

My first reaction was that the language was stilted and did not communicate effectively. I finally concluded that reading the paragraph out of context is not how I interpret language. So, I submit to you that it would be difficult for me to evaluate the entire paragraph and give a full opinion.

The first sentence in the paragraph has the most clarity about what the writer believes.

In this digital age, photographers are often tempted to take shortcuts to visual power by creating altered images of nature that never were before their eyes

This sentence appears to be condescending towards post-processing of digital photographs. That is unfortunate. My comments are as follows:

1. Photography is an art form; and the final form that a photographer produces with digital and post-processing tools represent that person's view of the world, their sense of beauty and their personal truth.
2. I think that in all probability, professional and serious hobby photographers alike, believe that they should make the most effective, the most creative image at the time of exposure. What follows the capture are the photographer's post-processing decisions, whatever they may be.

[TarheelRambler]

Most people who claim to be "Old School" are under the mistaken impression that good photographers in the past never manipulated their images in the old days when they used film. That is so untrue that it is laughable. Where in the world do you think the idea of "dodging" and "burning" came from. The only difference was that instead of using Photoshop, those photographers used chemicals during the developing process, or an airbrush in post production.

To think that someone who makes adjustments in Photoshop which include manipulating the sharpness, or the color saturation, or whatever is somehow "cheating" is just about the most naive and uninformed statement I've ever heard.

[Elmo]

Another comment from the "old school".

The issue is not about digital alterations but the extent of digital alterations. Photography in contrast to other art forms is an exact replication mode. Certain alterations to the presentation are useful even advised as long as the orignal content is maintained. Other art forms are designed to potray what the artist wants you to see. Photography potrays what is actually there.

This makes photography the most difficult art form. What I observe is most of the "Artsi-fartsy" stuff is based on a photograph the photographer captured that did not potray what the photographer intended. Instead of determining his/her error and trying another capture most take the easy way (and less educational) way out and photoshop it.

This is not to say there is not any extreamly altered stuff that is any good, quite contary. What I object to is the over use of photoshop as a crutch for bad photography skills.

This is the same type of crutch most of us lean on with digital cameras, Shoot lots of captures and hope for the best. Besides if all else fails photoshop it.

I recently started using a G9 PnS in putting together an upcomming photography class. I was amaised how much I had fallen into the machine gun capture mode.

Elmo

[Major_Small]

I agree with the old-school comments. Take a look at some of Jerry Uelsmann's work. He's one of my favorite photographers, and his work isn't done digitally at all:

Today, with the advent of digital cameras and Photoshop, photographers are able to create a work somewhat resembling Uelsmann's in less than a day, however, at the time Uelsmann was considered to have almost "magical skill" with his completely analog tools. Uelsmann used the darkroom frequently, sometimes using three to ten enlargers to produce the expected effect. Photos are still widely regarded as documentary evidence of events, and Uelsmann, along with people like Lucas Samaras, was considered an avant garde shattere of the popular conception.

I think people that claim to be "old-school" and resist all the things you can do in the "digital darkroom" were just never skilled enough or had the foresight to try some of the more interesting things you can do with paper and chemicals.