On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:46:32 -0500, John H.
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:38:02 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:10:10 -0500, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:46:11 -0500, John H.
wrote:
Life was certainly easier and simpler in the days of TriX, PlusX,
KodaChrome II and Kodacolor!
What?
No way.
Sure it was. You spent all your time composing and focusing, knowing
that there was only so much you could do in the "darkroom."
As an old newprint type, I'm fairly sure you worked with a
photographer from time-to-time. And I'm sure that you know of the
dark room tricks used to enhance and sharpen images, degrain and
smooth images or what they did to work on AP/UPI/Rueters fax photos
from events around the world.
Take sharpening for instance. They would develop the negative, then
redevelop a slighty out of focus negative, then combine the two to
sharpen up the image. Or adjust the color eye in particular with
Kodachrome which had a bad feature of non-reproducing true color if
the temp was a little off in the developing solutions. TriX was a
freakin' nightmare unless you had extremely fast lenses and shot wide
open all the time.
Refocusing, double print, masking, using masks as layers to produce
sharper, clearer images and color or introducing new elements into a
composite image - art prints, news prints, etc., etc., etc.
I honestly don't know where you got this idea of "only so much" in the
darkroom. For pete's sake, "Moonride over Hernandez New Mexico" was
altered in several ways.
Allow me to cite from Adam's biography.
"The development of the negative was a painstaking process, being
carried out very slowly to give the maximum control of the image. The
resulting negative was difficult to print and several years after it
was taken the foreground was subjected to a process of chemical
"intensification" that altered it in a way whereby "Printing was a bit
easier thereafter, although it remains a challenge".
The printing of the image was also in itself a highly skilled task
with different areas being "masked" and given more or less exposure
than others until the overall balance of tones was one that resulted
in a satisfactory image. Even differences in batches of what were
supposedly exactly the same type of photographic paper were noticed, a
result of all the variables involved led to the comment, "It is safe
to say that no two prints are precisely the same."
"Now, I see a lot of doctored photos, and 99% of them bore me
because I know the "eye" and "art" had nothing to do with them.
With all due respect, bullfeathers as my Grandfather used to say in
polite company.
You had no clue that I sandbagged you on that image I asked you to
look at - editing images in Photoshop and futzing around with the EXIF
data is child's play.
You had no clue - none, zero, zip, nada.
You are correct in that you usually can tell a "doctored" image
because in most cases, you won't see that in real life - some things
don't mix.
However, I would point you to some of the recent CGI work in which you
can't tell the CGI from the real world and I have an archine of
fantasy images that are composites that I know for a fact you wouldn't
be able to tell if they were doctored or not.
With respect to the minds eye, I point you to this:
http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=34287
Gene saw this image at a pub in Dublin, only it had a different cast
of characters. He saw, in his mind's eye, a brilliant adaptation
using himself as the cast of characters. Nine images were taken to
produce that one photo, altered, adjusted and composited to produce
the final result.
Gene's mind's eye as a brilliant compositional photographer (and
generally a brilliant photographer period) and his skills working at
manipulating, adjusting, compositing the photo came together to
produce that image.
I won't even begin to introduce you to other photographer's I've been
mentored by over forty years and their work because you clearly have
no appreciation for their "art".
I apologise for the sharp tone, but you ****ed me off by making what
was clearly an uninformed and ignorant statement - in particular for a
old timey print guy.
You should know better.
Thanks for the link. Some great shots there.
All I will say is he has a favorite subject. Your grandkids are much
more interesting to me, and your shot will be remembered by me
longer than anything on that site. It's a personal preference,
but I'm with Harry on doctoring photos beyond some light tweaking.
To me a photo becomes art when it reflects the reality of a special
moment in time and place, and evokes - intentionally or not - emotion.
I found the photos on the above site cold and boring.
As I said, personal preference, and different element move people
differently.
But the greatest shots in history, again personal preference, are the
ones reflecting reality.
A few that come to mind are the flag raising at Iwo Jima, the
depression shot of "mother of 7 children," and more recently the very
"unprofessional" snapshot of the firefighter climbing the tower
staircase on 9/11. His face will haunt me forever.
To each his own. This guy has a very interesting site with a lot of
info, including how he uses Photoshop. Worth looking at by anybody
interested in photography.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
--Vic