Technology vs. Purist photography..

I don't do much post processing, mostly because it's not the part of photography i enjoy all that much, but that said, it's a very powerful tool.

It's not cheating, because it's not like photography is about capturing 'what is there'. Light is physical, and how it is interpreted is very much a different thing than 'what is there'. Photography isn't about reality, after all, what is reality? Is it how we perceive things? If it is, then a camera doesn't do that either - we don't all have zooming focal lengths, or ultrawide angle lenses. The images we see are very much interpreted by our brain. A camera simply interprets these differently, and so why not have a computer interpret them again differently?

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
I got on a little "rant" earlier in response to a critique, and this just spilled out. I think i solved something, in myself, that a lot of us "purists" struggle with. So, I thought I'd post it here in hopes of benefiting someone that also struggles with the same delima, yet hasn't thought of it this way...

i dont know where i stand on the digital era in this regard.

i guess i am a purist.....that is slowly coming around.....reluctantly​.

to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

however, when i really start to think about things...technology is a wonderful tool to be utilized, not poo-pooed. we dont still shoot b/w exclusively. we dont even shoot film. we dont process our prints anymore. and, even when we did, we dodged and burned, added contrast layers, pushed and pulled film by using "soak times," and used a variety of other techniques to achieve the "look" we wanted. therefore, we always doctored the shots in some way.

and, its funny how we gritch and moan about these things technology provides. the old Burkee machines the newspaper used to "stitch" together the magenta, yellow, and cyan slides for color prints costs thousands more than the future "Photoshop 27 PRO" ever will. so, technology is making things cheaper, too.

so, in a nutshell, i am coming out of my "purist" shell (no pun intended).....albeit slowly. i guess it comes down to motivating myself to learning new techniques to get the absolute best quality image possible. and, besides, photography is all a matter of personal preferences. we don't have to view HDR, or layer work, if we dont like it....lol.

wow, where did that little rant come from so early in the day? today may get interesting after all.

thanks for listening. i feel better now.

Ansel Adams was considered a PURIST. It has to do with vision as much as technology. Read his 3 books
The Camera
The Negative
And the Print
And you'll see that he was a master at his craft and through the zone system could see the image in his minds eye and had the technical ability to print what he saw which in most cases was very different than the scene in front of the camera. So what is pure. The scene as you see it as is the case with Adams? Theres a reason why many have photographed in the same spots as he did but few have ever taken images as powerful and thought provoking as he did. His images were as much about light as they were about subject.

chopper5654 wrote in post #8833137
to me, layers, transparencies, multiple image shots, and heavy pp all fall into the category of "faking" an image that didnt really exist. or, using technology to manipulate something that couldnt otherwise be captured with only the camera. so, i have a bit of an issue with all the HDR shots that are all the rave right now. i almost view them as "cheating."

I feel the same way. If you do all that to a recorded image, IMHO you are manipulating it via "digital art", a category now at most art shows. Though some would say "digital art" is something created completely with a computer that did not start with a photograph by it by digital camera or film camera.

The reason I don't like people taking a photograph and heavily manipulating and/or compositing 2 very different photos and trying to sell it in their photography booth is that it gives the public a sense that all photographers now greatly enhance and manipulate most images they show to the point where the scene in the print did not actually exist which is certainly not the case. All I ever do to my photographs is correct color balance, and fine tune the contrast.

Some art show are requiring photographers who display prints on canvas to have a note saying they are photographs printed on canvas to appease painters to not think they are paintings. I've also seen prints in photographers' booths where were clearly run through a photoshop filter to make it look like a painting. Obviously what is a "photograph" is really becoming muddy based upon where people are taking it while still calling it "photography".

please nobody take any of my statements the wrong way. i am not saying either way is bad, wrong, or otherwise. this was just a self-realization that i posted because i thought if i felt this way, others must, too. and, if i can learn to appreciate where this hobby/craft/art/trade/​whatever is heading, i think others may get over their hurdle if i explain my point eloquently enough.

all art evolves. some is appreciated immediately. some isn't appreciated for many years, if ever. it's still art, though. and, photography definitely applies. there are styles. some enhanced a lot. some a little. to each his own. i, and all of you, have my preferences as to what appeals to me.

personally, i think there is a place for all of the variations we humans can dream up. that is why so much is subject to individual interpretation.

i just like the fact that i see myself growing, or opening my mind, enough to appreciate more on an artistic level instead of dismissing things before i understand them a little bit. the more i look into an approach, the more i appreciate it. i may not like it, but i appreciate it all the same.

i also think that someone that truly tries to "master his craft" will try to dabble in all he can, specialize in what he likes most, but still apply all he has learned along the way to what he does.

neither of this is right or wrong. it is what it is. like what you like. but, try what you dont know before you blindly dismiss it as crap. i think that was all i was trying to say.

I apologize for derailing your thought a bit, but it did get me thinking.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8836499
Ansel Adams was considered a PURIST. It has to do with vision as much as technology. Read his 3 books
The Camera
The Negative
And the Print
And you'll see that he was a master at his craft and through the zone system could see the image in his minds eye and had the technical ability to print what he saw which in most cases was very different than the scene in front of the camera. So what is pure. The scene as you see it as is the case with Adams? Theres a reason why many have photographed in the same spots as he did but few have ever taken images as powerful and thought provoking as he did. His images were as much about light as they were about subject.

Adams was far from being an overnight sensation when it came to printing. Apparently his time in NY was spent printing, re-printing, re-re-printing and often re-re-re-re-printing images until they were truly marketable and gallery worthy.

The gentleman who moderates the photography group to which I belong studied with Adams for while and he related to us just the other night that the first print of Moonrise Over Hernandez bears little resemblence to the very last version that Adams himself printed.

One trick that Adams used was to actually dodge and burn not only at the time of exposing the paper but also while the print was developing. He would literally stick his hands in the chemicals to rub and warm specific areas to make them develop faster and have higher contrast.

The man defined the term "Know Your Craft"

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #8838284
Adams was far from being an overnight sensation when it came to printing. Apparently his time in NY was spent printing, re-printing, re-re-printing and often re-re-re-re-printing images until they were truly marketable and gallery worthy.

The gentleman who moderates the photography group to which I belong studied with Adams for while and he related to us just the other night that the first print of Moonrise Over Hernandez bears little resemblence to the very last version that Adams himself printed.

One trick that Adams used was to actually dodge and burn not only at the time of exposing the paper but also while the print was developing. He would literally stick his hands in the chemicals to rub and warm specific areas to make them develop faster and have higher contrast.

The man defined the term "Know Your Craft"

Hot water burns

When you increase the temp you increase the impact of the developer so the warmth from your hands can effect an area of a print. You can also do it with hot water.

I've done this a few times myself..I've also breathed on certain parts of the print during development..

BTW,,the term is called localised development..

yogestee wrote in post #8838516
I've done this a few times myself..I've also breathed on certain parts of the print during development..

BTW,,the term is called localised development..

Thanks for the clarification on terminology.

I think the term "purist" in most pursuits is so subjective as to defy accurate description.

In photography terms, which "purist" is more pure: The one who uses a modern digital camera to record a scene and make a print with absolutely no post-processing, or the one who uses an archaic, fully manual large-format camera, then spends hours dodging and burning in the darkroom until the print matches his artistic vision of the scene?

I also play guitar as a hobby, and there are many who consider themselves "purists" because they'll only play vintage instruments "straight in" through tube amplifiers....no effects, no solid-state amps, etc. The term "cork-sniffer" is sometimes used to describe their condescending attitude toward modern/solid-state technology. It occurs to me that if they were truly "purists", they would play nothing but gut-stringed vintage acoustic instruments with no amplification whatsoever, as the amplified electric guitar is a modern invention and hardly "purist" in the musical sense. While a teenager of today who plays heavy metal through a solid-state amp and a dizzying collection of effects pedals may consider a '52 Telecaster through an old Fender Deluxe Reverb as "old school" and "purist", an acoustic bluegrass musician would consider it as new-fangled blasphemy that started the ruin of "purist" music. Which one is right? It all depends on where you're coming from.

Going back to the original topic, I guess I don't know where I fall on the spectrum....and don't really concern myself with it. I take photos of things that look good to me. If I think post-processing would somehow enhance the image and make it more aesthetically pleasing, I'll do it; if not, I'll leave it as is. When looking at others' images, I go with my visceral reaction - if something about the image moves me, impresses me, stirs me or whatever, then I consider that a good image. I've seen some HDRs that knocked my socks off, and I've seen (and made!) some that were garish and completely overblown. I've seen some images that have obviously been heavily Photoshopped, yet were very impressive to me - even if what impressed me was the editing/post-processing skill involved. I've seen some "SOOC" images that were absolutely breathtaking, and others that I found blase and mundane.

I've always found that boxing myself in with some artificial, superficial criteria of "purism", "realism", etc. was limiting. I guess in the end I'm pretty simple - I just like to experience things for the enjoyment without getting too wrapped up in labels, genres, categories or whatever. Maybe that's actually the ultimate in "purism"!

Maybe you can call me a purist also.. I try everything to get my images spot on in camera and do as little post processing as possible..

yogestee wrote in post #8838516
I've done this a few times myself..I've also breathed on certain parts of the print during development..

BTW,,the term is called localised development..

Yep, I did that myself.

C'mon, when you're breathing on prints and brushing on deadly poisons to lighten tiny areas, we're talking "manipulation" here.

The question is not one of purity, it's all about perception. I like the guitar anlaogy that Veemac used. I also own a few guitars, and nothing frustrates me like a purist that shuns all electronics between the electric guitar and the electric amp and thinks its desirable as compared to using (oh-no!) electronic effects pedals.
I admit, the differance between tube amps and solid state amps is huge, as is the differance between digital and film, as is the differance between a fireplace and a heat lamp. Who cares? the final effect is still music, art, and heat.

To me, there is a line where the manipulation moves the photography into graphic arts. Not that I have anything wrong with that...unless you call it photography Just because something is made of photographs doesn't make the whole a photograph.

Stregone wrote in post #8855781
To me, there is a line where the manipulation moves the photography into graphic arts. Not that I have anything wrong with that...unless you call it photography Just because something is made of photographs doesn't make the whole a photograph.

If the image started in a camera, it's a photograph.