The Wider Angle

[roy5051]

I have never read such a biased set of opinions as those expressed by Ben Brain in June 2012's The Wider Angle. My initial thoughts were "Well, being Editor of Practical Photoshop (a magazine I have never heard of!) he would say that, wouldn't he?"

In my humble opinion it really depends on whether you consider yourself to be making "photographs" or producing "art". Whilst I accept that many things that are done in Photoshop replicate what may have been possible in the darkroom, it is improbable that the majority of darkroom workers ever attempted such manipulation. Likewise, it is improbable that many digital photographers (as opposed to graphic artists) would attempt heavy manipulation either.

Yes, amongst photographers there is an assertion that one should get as much right in the camera as possible, to alleviate too much computer work after the event. However, there is a breed of photographers who take photographs purely to re-master them into art on the computer. This is fine, but please do not assume that all photographers are like this, because they are not. And there is room for both.

[wavemachine]

I agree there is room for both and I have seem very competent photographers stray more into the Digital Art arena beginning the process with a cracking photo anyway.

Digital photography opens up a lot of possibilities, yes some techniques are traditional techniques applied in the traditional dark room such as superimpossing, vignetting and bleach bypass, however for the vast majority of photographers these were simply not accessable where as with Digital and a reasonably priced piece of software it now is.

To me I either like an image or I do not and whilst I do like to know how it was done from my own learning perspective, I don't think any less of the individual who produced the image after many hours of careful manipulation, infact I have ultimate respect for them.

I do try to get as much right in camera as I possibly can but the simple truth of the matter is I have in my mind what I want to capture and the camera will not always catch the scene as I see it thanks to the superior human brain, as I learn more I understand more what the camera is going to capture and do get a better shot but sometimes I have a wacky idea that I cannot achieve in camera so need to think creatively how I going to achieve it with a combination of shots and PP.

I used to be very much in the camp of nope I will not manipulate my photos but in truth I was scared of the learning curve on top of the photography learning curve, now I enjoy the flexability. Given that I now shoot exclusively in RAW all my shots have some PP primarilly in lightroom and some more than others.

That is where I am at with the debate, I don't think Ben is biased at worst passionate about what he does.

This is just my opinion and is not intended be inflamatory in anyway.

[roy5051]

I found it very difficult to read/understand your reply, due to the lack of punctuation - not very good for a Moderator!

However, when I got the gist of your reply, I can understand where you are coming from. However, when photographs are heavily manipulated, they cease to become photographs and end up as images or graphic art, and are far removed from photography.

Ben may indeed be passionate, but there is a thin line between passion and fanaticism and I would like to see a more balanced view put forward by commentators.

[wavemachine]

Originally Posted by roy5051

I found it very difficult to read/understand your reply, due to the lack of punctuation - not very good for a Moderator!

I have made some edits to try and make my response clearer, one thing I would like to point out is the vast majority of moderators here are volunteers myself included.

One point I didn't make is that what I do object to is when an individual tries to pass a heavily manipulated image as being done in camera.

[karenoliver]

"In my humble opinion it really depends on whether you consider yourself to be making "photographs" or producing "art". "

Or photographic art of course. Obviously documentary photography has to replicate what is there, and you would not expect the photographer to be overly artistic. However, " Photographic art" is a completely different ball game. A photographer will construct their own sets in some cases, create their own props and yes, they will use photoshop and other editing tools. The camera at the end of the day is a tool and how you use it depends on the kind of vision you want others to see.

" it is improbable that the majority of darkroom workers ever attempted such manipulation. Likewise, it is improbable that many digital photographers (as opposed to graphic artists) would attempt heavy manipulation either."

When I first learned darkroom in college we were encouraged to dabble in manipulation by using the same techniques that Jerry Uelsmann perfected. I think you will find a lot more people do employ manipulation techniques in the darkroom than you would imagine. Be it bleach bypass, negative merging or masking etc..

Not being funny but I always feel the biggest critics of Photoshop are those that have never took the time to learn it or simply cannot get their head around it. They despise it because they cannot utilise it themselves.

Karen

[Ben Brain]

Originally Posted by roy5051

My initial thoughts were "Well, being Editor of Practical Photoshop (a magazine I have never heard of!) he would say that, wouldn't he?".

If you've never heard of Practical Photoshop magazine you can find out more about us here: http://www.practicalphotoshopmag.com. It's great read!

[donoreo]

Here is something simple. Google would Ansel Adams use photoshop? Read some of the results, they overwhelmingly point to yes. Taking the photo in the camera has always only been part of it. Yes, the most important part, but still only part. Without darkroom manipulation, many of Adam's photos would not be considered as great as they are today.

[roy5051]

Originally Posted by donoreo

Here is something simple. Google would Ansel Adams use photoshop? Read some of the results, they overwhelmingly point to yes. Taking the photo in the camera has always only been part of it. Yes, the most important part, but still only part. Without darkroom manipulation, many of Adam's photos would not be considered as great as they are today.

I am not saying "do not manipulate" - there are very few photographs that cannot be improved slightly by use of Photoshop or any other editing program; what I am saying is that too much manipulation and the production of digital art from a photograph is not photography, and the results are not photographs. There was a wonderful example of Adams' "Moonrise over Hernandez" in one of the magazines a few months back, which showed a straight print from the negative and Adams' final result; yes, there were local changes to the contrast and exposure of the original negative, but nowhere was there any evidence of serious manipulation that now seems to be the norm for digital imaging.

As I said in my original post, there is room for all types of photographer, all I am asking for is some balance in the opinions of those who should know better, like "expert" columnists, that there are those who do not wish to over-manipulate their photographs and those that do. Live and let live and accept the other man's point of view.

[donoreo]

I agree there is a point that I consider photos stop being a photograph and become something else. Most often this is with HDR......