Real feelings about fake images

"Ehud Yaniv" . schreef in bericht
...
| On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:44:25 -0400, (Terry
| Davis) wrote:
|
| For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
| b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
| past 15 years.
|
| The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
| cropping.
|
| It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
| work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".
|
| My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
| time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
| up" or is "not real".
|
| I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
| given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
| great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
| artifical scene on a computer.
|
| Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
| good?
|
| Terry
|
|
| In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
| That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
| etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
| resolution for film.
|

That is not the reality it is about, I'd say.
Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography
(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated
that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence
digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_
photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist).

I share Terry's feelings, but I keep my head up, thinking "what do they
know?" If you can't appreciate it, well so be it. Others will.


| Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can
| change the point of interest or focus of a picture.
|
| These techniques allow you to have your vision and create the reality
| you see which is not, however, always what was in front of the lens.
|
| Don't be offended if people think your photos have been photoshopped.
| Just smile and suggest that you hope that technology catches up to the
| quality of a good, handmade photograph.
|
| Ehud
| still-light.com

"Ehud Yaniv" . schreef in bericht
...
| On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:44:25 -0400, (Terry
| Davis) wrote:
|
| For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
| b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
| past 15 years.
|
| The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
| cropping.
|
| It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
| work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".
|
| My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
| time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
| up" or is "not real".
|
| I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
| given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
| great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
| artifical scene on a computer.
|
| Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
| good?
|
| Terry
|
|
| In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
| That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
| etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
| resolution for film.
|

That is not the reality it is about, I'd say.
Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography
(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated
that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence
digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_
photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist).

I share Terry's feelings, but I keep my head up, thinking "what do they
know?" If you can't appreciate it, well so be it. Others will.


| Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can
| change the point of interest or focus of a picture.
|
| These techniques allow you to have your vision and create the reality
| you see which is not, however, always what was in front of the lens.
|
| Don't be offended if people think your photos have been photoshopped.
| Just smile and suggest that you hope that technology catches up to the
| quality of a good, handmade photograph.
|
| Ehud
| still-light.com

In article ,
Jan T wrote:

"Ehud Yaniv" . schreef in bericht

| In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
| That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
| etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
| resolution for film.

That is not the reality it is about, I'd say.
Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography
(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated
that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence
digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_
photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist).


Interesting. There's something to that distinction. No one would
claim that the producers of _Jurassic_Park_ photographed a dinosaur.
They created an image designed to look like a photograph of a
dinosaur.

This criterion actually crosses the digital/silver line. If I take
an image of me on the Golden Gate Bridge with a silver-based camera
or a silicon-based camera, then both are photographs of me. Then,
suppose I get a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge and add an
image of Charles Darwin to it, whether by darkroom alchemy or digital
algorithms. I could try to sell it as a 'trick' photograph or a
special effect, but would seem wrong to sell it as a "photograph of
Darwin on the Golden Gate Bridge"--since *he was not there*.

To take a sillier example, NASA has an 'art train' where they go
around and show off space exploration art they commissioned over the
last few decades, and they have a setup that can splice a picture of
you into a lunar scene. Everyone says, "wow, it looks like we're on
the moon", or something similar. But it's unnatural to say that they
produced a photograph of "us on the moon".

So that criterion certainly captures something of how the word
and concept of photography are used.

Digital makes it easier to create images that look like photographs of
things that weren't there. In essence, it makes certain special
effects easier.

In article ,
Jan T wrote:

"Ehud Yaniv" . schreef in bericht

| In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
| That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
| etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
| resolution for film.

That is not the reality it is about, I'd say.
Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography
(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he stated
that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there". Hence
digital manipulation or image creation or whatever it's called is _not_
photography (although it can be art in the hands of an artist).


Interesting. There's something to that distinction. No one would
claim that the producers of _Jurassic_Park_ photographed a dinosaur.
They created an image designed to look like a photograph of a
dinosaur.

This criterion actually crosses the digital/silver line. If I take
an image of me on the Golden Gate Bridge with a silver-based camera
or a silicon-based camera, then both are photographs of me. Then,
suppose I get a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge and add an
image of Charles Darwin to it, whether by darkroom alchemy or digital
algorithms. I could try to sell it as a 'trick' photograph or a
special effect, but would seem wrong to sell it as a "photograph of
Darwin on the Golden Gate Bridge"--since *he was not there*.

To take a sillier example, NASA has an 'art train' where they go
around and show off space exploration art they commissioned over the
last few decades, and they have a setup that can splice a picture of
you into a lunar scene. Everyone says, "wow, it looks like we're on
the moon", or something similar. But it's unnatural to say that they
produced a photograph of "us on the moon".

So that criterion certainly captures something of how the word
and concept of photography are used.

Digital makes it easier to create images that look like photographs of
things that weren't there. In essence, it makes certain special
effects easier.

In article ,
(Travis Porco) wrote:

If I take
an image of me on the Golden Gate Bridge with a silver-based camera
or a silicon-based camera, then both are photographs of me.

Not according to some.

but would seem wrong to sell it as a "photograph of
Darwin on the Golden Gate Bridge"--since *he was not there*.

Why? Since its obviously a fake representation of time. Unless someone
is naive enough not to know him and his circumstances I doubt
anyone would buy the image. That is unless they had the desire to have
such an image for some illustrative point.

To take a sillier example, NASA has an 'art train' where they go
around and show off space exploration art they commissioned over the
last few decades, and they have a setup that can splice a picture of
you into a lunar scene. Everyone says, "wow, it looks like we're on
the moon", or something similar. But it's unnatural to say that they
produced a photograph of "us on the moon".

There was a movie about the fake moon landing, some people
believe that is the truth,...just like Roswell.

So that criterion certainly captures something of how the word
and concept of photography are used.

Digital makes it easier to create images that look like photographs of
things that weren't there. In essence, it makes certain special
effects easier.

Wrong thought process, the photographer,....or imagist does it
not the magic box that captures the "seen-scene" stuff.
If you set up a film camera to document the happenings of a place
and a digital camera to do so, you still have more or less exciting
images.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Jan T" wrote in message
i.nl...

That is not the reality it is about, I'd say.
Roland Barthes (France, philosopher) wrote a very nice book on photography
(1980?, befor digital got into the hands of the common man) where he
stated
that photography stands or falls with this criterium: "It was there".

True! And that should be the very end of this thread.

Of course, the fundamentally argumentative type will dive into their own
foolish vanity to extend the thread until is a ghost of fibre.