Bedrock & Paradox

I dream of a hard and brutal mysticism in which the naked self merges with a non-human world and yet somehow survives still intact, individual, separate. Paradox and bedrock.

One more

Our latest free issue (dunno where it comes from) of Outside was waiting for us this morning, and is has an unusually thought-provoking (for them) article on manipulation in photography, digital and darkroom.

Myself, I mess with (in iPhoto) almost all the photos I take a post on here. I think of it as akin to shouting Velvia rather than generic Kodak print film (as my standard op is taking the exposure down a touch, then jacking up saturation).
I do like the above, and it was not messed with at all. No substitute for getting out there.

DaveC

4 responses to “One more”

  1. Phillip Avatar
    Phillip

    Not a bad article…though….The author's idea of innate/static purposes of photography is naive, at best. Magazines, artists, and photographers might be best suited to debate the importance of ethics and honesty in advertising than tilting at windmills. Instead discussions about what is best or imperative to the integrity of something as nebulous as "photography" as a whole entity is a severe form of masturbation without the tangible product.

    Reply
  2. ScottN Avatar
    ScottN

    Dave, were you a subscriber at one point? I used to be and have gotten the last 4 issues out of the blue. Today I got a card that said "Hey, you need to subscribe!"The article about the surfer with Asperger's was interesting.

    Reply
  3. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Scott, I don't think we have been. This is the second mystery subscription we've gotten, the last one in Arizona, this one in Montana. I read 'em, but it is odd.As for photography, any claim to authenticity is problematic. Nonetheless, I find the same kind of integrity and merit in an "earned" photo with a little help from the darkroom, 'puter, or judicious film choice as I do in the lifetime of labor found up in the Sistine Chapel. Art is a craft that must be pursued, for a while.

    Reply
  4. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    Good photography article about an endless debate that will continue as long as people try and capture what "they see". As noted, even Ansel manipulated his photos.In reality as good as the digital equipment is today it can still fail to accurately capture exactly what is seen with our eyes and interpreted by our brains – which are amazing equipment indeed! Lightening dark areas and darkening highlighted areas is a natural thing to do even if you're not intending to take artisitic license to enhance a photo because that IS how you see scenes. Enhancing colors to a certain degree (saturation) is also a reaction to how "dull" a generic RAW photo looks like, in reality colors do "pop" in our brains. Increasing contrast and adding depth are an attempt to show the "depth" we perceive effortlessly when looking at a 3-D world and not a flat screen or sheet of paper. In general these are acceptable forms of manipulation or enhancement – IMHO.I do have problems with the people that pass off highly manipulated photos as reality even if they claim artisitic license. When we look at paintings we generally know they are art and subject to the artist's interpretation. Photos are another thing – if you show a highly manipulated photo (i.e. it includes elements and details that are pasted in from another image, etc.) without clearly describing the technique used is dishonest.One other note, the ability to so easily manipulate photos in post-processing can make up for poor basic photography skills about exposure, composition, etc. therefore you can cheat your way to good photography and that's too bad.Thanks for the article link.Ed

    Reply

Leave a comment