Simon Worby wrote:
>But nevertheless I don't agree with digital manipulation:
>
Why just digital manipulation? As others pointed out, retouching,
manipulation, enhancement, etc. have all been in use for 150 years or
more. And the tools were... the tools of the graphics arts.
Some was in the service of vanity and some used for covering up
photographers' mistakes in the countless portraits that were retouched.
Some was in the service of what many consider art. I've seen a straight
print of "Moonrise, Hernandez", and I'll tell you it would not be famous
without the darkroom manipulation. However, Adams has said that what
resulted in the darkroom work was a realization of what he saw, but the
camera didn't. And I, for one, believe him. The human visual system
works quite differently from the dispassionate camera. Although the
crosses don't stand out so strongly in strict tonal terms in a straight
print, their emotive content makes them prominent to someone actually
watching the scene. In order to come close to reproducing that origianal
impression, the image was manipulated.
>at a certain point you might as well just be a graphics designer rather than a
>photographer.
>
True, of course, but where is that "certain point"? Use of a shift lens,
for example, alters the image the eye views into something the mind
sees/prefers. When I see a subject I like, then carefully adjust my
viewpoint for the perspective I want, then remove a couple of
distracting elements, which is that, photography or graphic design? If
Walt knew the guy was really out and went over to tidy up the scene of
trash, is that different than removing some after pushing the button?
What if the whole thing was staged, and that's just Walt's NY drinking
buddy, who posed for him? How does all this relate to the battlefield
photos of the Civil War, where various elements, inlcuding bodies of the
dead, were moved to improve the composition?
I propose that all 'serious' or 'thoughtful' photography is certainly
graphic design to a greater or lesser degree. Even with the gazillions
of technically poor snapshots taken each year, there is usually a
conscious 'design' that is 'graphic' in terms of the eventual resulting
image. "Billy, go over next to your daddy in front of the <insert
tourist attraction>. Now both of you move to the left a little. That's
it, now say cheese!" Now she could just as well snap a pic of Billy
picking his nose next to his dad leaning over so far to take a great
macro that his butt (arse) crack shows. But wait a minute, to snap or
not to snap a particular configuration of subject elements is a design
decision, isn't it? And the second shot may well be a stronger graphic
than the first.
I come break down absolutes, not to create them. I believe it's all a
continuum and demarcations, while often useful for some purposes, are
often used in ways that are perverse to the situation at hand and often
even perverse to their original intent; used to limit and stifle, rather
than to define and clarify.
Artistically libertine,
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|