Green with envy over your beautiful photos

[John Dittli]

Ya thanks Kid. I think this stuff is good fun. Of course "What is art" has been infinitely debated, and it will continue to be as there is of course no definitive answer. Early and renowned painters of the west regularly represented the landscape (and culture) in a very exaggerated and romantic way. Yet these pieces are very much considered art. Art, is really whatever the artist feels like presenting. Society may or may not except it at the time, perhaps they will later, perhaps not.

Like to check out some of your glass work sometime.

JD

[mokelumnekid]

Understood- Maynard Dixon is one of my favorite painters- so there ya go! He managed to infuse his landscapes with a sense of allegory and mystery. RE: Glassblowing, here's a few- I make large pieces generally. These are all pretty good size. (I know off-topic)

hole1.jpg

water.jpg

flame.jpg

[John Dittli]

Wow! Very nice work. I think I'll definantly call that art

JD

[fishmonger]

re "photoshopped" - I keep thinking of this graph I saw shortly after I saw an HDR image for the first time. I have yet to make one that I actually like, so maybe I won't fall into the "HDR hole?"

[GH-Dave]

In reading these posts about post-processing vs. "reality" I'm thinking that we aren't talking apples and apples here.

Back in the day, when I was in J school putting in many hours in the photo lab, and later when I had my own darkroom at home, I spent a lot of time "post-processing" B&W negs that I had shot with my 35mm and 2 1/4 cameras. In fact, the "post-processing" began at the film development level. One could significantly change the outcome by how one processed the film, shot the print on the process camera, and developed the print. That was 30 years ago, so I don't remember most of what I used to do, but I do remember that I had a large repertoire of tricks that I could employ to make the final prints come out "just right."

Was this dishonest. Was it deserving of derision as "art" rather than "reality?" Personally, I don't think so, or we'd have to throw out all of Ansel Adams' work, as one example. I'll bet Adams' dark room waste basket was filled with tens or hundreds of trial prints for every "perfect" one he ended up with.

In my view, the only difference between then and now is the sophistication and ease of use of the post-processing tools. If one captures a shot that is outside the dynamic range of today's consumer digital cameras, and brings it home and renders it into a beautiful print using HDR technology on the computer, who's to say that that is dishonest or deserving of derision?

One can spend hours in a dark, smelly photo lab, inhaling poisonous chemicals, wasting a lot of sheets of expensive photo paper to get a perfect print, or one can sit in the comfort of his or her computer chair clicking a few keys to get the same results. What's the difference? Only the fact that I'd much, much rather do the latter.

It's possible I'm reading these posts wrong, and that most of the argument is really only against the garish, unreal, almost cartoony HDR photos that are being made these days. If that's the case, then I have to fall back on the prerogative of the artist to perform art as he or she sees fit. Art is all about subjectivity after all.

One doesn't have to like every bit of art that every artist is capable of creating. But, one shouldn't deride another for his or her artistic preferences ... unless of course outright fraud is an issue, as in today's media photoshopping news photos to advance their own agendas.

Anyway. Just my opinion.

Dave

[fishmonger]

there is nothing dishonest about shaking the Tri-X a little less during development to get more grain or less contrast for a different look - there's no "this is the way to do it to get a realistic image" method to any photographic process. Ansel Adams probably burned and dodged his prints with the best of them - something I have never bothered to do once I left the undergrad darkroom behind, but when I was there, it was part of the skillset. But did we ever try to go beyond "average" and do better than the next guy using whatever technique was available to us.

No matter what the medium - what you see is NEVER what you get in photography. You can only make your own best version of it and use the tools available. Good equipment that captures more can give you a head start, but you still have to get it to a final version you feel comfortable with. If you shoot "in camera JPEG with the manufacturer's default landscale picture mode" you are just using somebody else's concept of what will work best for the most average shot over what may be much more appropriate.

In the end a good picture rarely has anything to do with technical issues. If the image has content, everything else becomes secondary.

To me the biggest difference between then and now is that I don't have to sniff selenium fumes any longer to tone my images slightly purple. I don't think things have become much easier - in fact, the only thing that's easy is that you can do it with a mouse on a screen, indstead of having to go through trial prints and endless hours of developing and drying before you get something you are happy with. wonder how Ansel Adams would have worked if he had had an undo-key in his darkroom

[maverick]

Do you not think Ansel Adams would have embraced HDR, as many of the other darkroom
techniques available to us now, an artist uses every tool that is available to him, but
uses them within there own perceived boundaries.
As JD mention sometimes we go with what the client wants, I say sometimes because
there are times when some one will ask to see a print in color as opposed the the b&w
it was originally shown in, and I will rather loose the sale, than changing what my vision
was when producing that print, money isn't my always the driving force.
There are times where I will exaggerate colors for certain clients because that is what
they like/desire, but I honestly do not like doing it because I am changing my own artistic
vision for money, and feel guilty afterwards selling out my own artistic integrity.
Nice work MK, really like #1 and #2!
My second job, where I have worked for 15 years, the people are art collectors (glass
ceramics), board members of Pilchuck up your way, and part of there collection is in
the De Young.
They have some gorgeous pieces, but there other home in SF where all the glass is
located looks like a fantasy land.

[John Dittli]

Dave, congratulations on your purchase, I think you'll like it. I can't believe HDR is even an issue, though like Fish, I've never been happy with the results myself. Perhaps I need to try some of the newer software. I've pretty much found the latitude of the 5d wide enough to cover what I like to shoot (though it takes a lot of post processing!)

Mav, let me clarify "shooting for the client". There is fine art and there is comercial art. I would never change a fine art print to meet a customers wishes, unless I agreed with their critique.

Comercial shoots are a different animal. If the client wants a purple sky, I'll give it to them. What I won't do is go against my personal (and legal) land use ethics by say, putting a mountain biker in Evolution Valley, or a climber on Delicate Arch.

Again, the purple sky may be a sellout, but since I quit my "day job" years ago, the client gets what they want.

BTW Fish, I love that graph!
JD

[SSSdave]

fishmonger >>>""...No matter what the medium - what you see is NEVER what you get in photography..."

One needs to be careful with such statements because many use similar statements to argue that since perfect is impossible, anything goes. A fallacy of tossing out the baby with the bathwater. What one can get when a subject is within dynamic range of color neutral film or sensor is potentially close enough to what a human eye sees that most people would state that image results are reasonably close to what they experience. That is in sharp contrast to much of what comes from pros today that if ordinary people compared results to what they experience would call them significantly manipulated.

That is a prime reason why Kodak produced EPN100 so commercial product pros could reasonably match subject logo and product color without resorting to darkroom tricks. That is one factor as to why Fuji came out with Provia 100F and Astia along with the challenge to those who complained for years that earlier Velvia had poor fidelity. Not perfect but as good as their best scientists could perfect. That is why commercial pros use Xrite tools like EyeOne and Gretag-MacBeth targets to calibrate their high end digital cameras before they shoot product subjects. So even with digital SLRs today, one can get reasonably accurate results if they buy the tools and applications to do so and learn how to use them. Unfortunately 99% of serious digital landscape and nature photographers don't.

With film like Provia 100F I use, the transparency if exposed correctly provides a record one can use on a light box next to their computer while editing to match what actually occurred. So one does not have to use one's memory days later as with uncalibrated DSLRs. To get results that match closely is not too easy unless one has good Photoshop skills with the aps tools to do so. Not something one is going to be able to do by reading some book or taking some PS beginners course. Its easy to quickly tweak image files using saturation, contrast, and hue controls for results that appear aesthetic while difficult to end up with reasonably hue/saturation/luminance accurate print file that will result in a reasonably accurate print on say a Lightjet.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GH-Dave]

Hello SSSDave,

I read all three sections of your philosophy, and I appreciate the work you put into explaining your craft and philosophy behind it.

I'm wondering if I might summarize and put into my own words what I think you are saying. Basically, aren't you saying that with the increase in technology and the rise of the digital format it is inevitable that photos more and more will come under some kind of manipulation? And that there is not necessarily an ethical issue with it unless one attempts to pass these highly manipulated photos off as what the photographer saw in reality? In which case, the photographer should post some kind of general notice explaining that he or she does some post-processing? Right?

So, going back to my original post. I'm just a guy who wants to pick up after a long hiatus from backpacking and get back out into the wilderness to enjoy God's creation ... and incidentally to take some shots about which the folks back home will say, "Wow!" Back in the day, when I did quite a lot of backpacking, photography was not an interest at all. Mostly, others I went with brought cameras, and I went without. I regret that now because all I have is fading memories, but no photos of my trips to show my kids.

So, if I'm faced with a landscape shot that is beautiful to my eye, but challenging for the dynamic range of my camera and I come home and do a little HDRing on it to bring it up to what I thought I saw, then there shouldn't be any ethical issues with that -- no explanation necessary. However, if I push the HDR settings into the range of eye-candy, and it is obviously manipulated, then I might mention that when I show the photos to friends and relatives. Do I have it about right?

I appreciate the ethical considerations that you and others face as professionals, but I believe that people like me that are just out to take photos for fun have more latitude to get a little more "artsy" with it, and to enjoy using the wide range of tools that are available to us.

Dave