Real feelings about fake images

For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:44:25 -0400, (Terry
Davis) wrote:

For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry


In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
resolution for film.

Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can
change the point of interest or focus of a picture.

These techniques allow you to have your vision and create the reality
you see which is not, however, always what was in front of the lens.

Don't be offended if people think your photos have been photoshopped.
Just smile and suggest that you hope that technology catches up to the
quality of a good, handmade photograph.

Ehud
still-light.com

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:44:25 -0400, (Terry
Davis) wrote:

For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry


In the end, no photo is "real" due to optics and film characteristics.
That is to say, depth of field, angle of view, selective focus, and
etc. for the optics. Light sensitivity, grain, sharpness and
resolution for film.

Burning and dodging change the way a photo is perceived. They can
change the point of interest or focus of a picture.

These techniques allow you to have your vision and create the reality
you see which is not, however, always what was in front of the lens.

Don't be offended if people think your photos have been photoshopped.
Just smile and suggest that you hope that technology catches up to the
quality of a good, handmade photograph.

Ehud
still-light.com

"Terry Davis" wrote in message
...
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

I was astonished the first time a sophisticated person published one of my
photos calling it a "Merged, maniuplated print." It was a straight,
conventional print.

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

Consider it a sign of the times and be encouraged rather than discouraged.
When interests drift into what's genuine and what is not, you will have
evidence for the former.

"Terry Davis" wrote in message
...
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry

No! I feel just the opposite. I am inspired to produce even better
traditional prints especially as my last few prints were sold to individual
collectors searching for non-electronic photographs.

Truly, dr bob.

"Terry Davis" wrote in message
...
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry

No! I feel just the opposite. I am inspired to produce even better
traditional prints especially as my last few prints were sold to individual
collectors searching for non-electronic photographs.

Truly, dr bob.

I'll agree with this (bottom) poster. I have spent the last 30 years of my
life working with information systems, and quite a few with digital image
manipulation techniques - usually "making art" or wallpaper for websites,
not manipulating images. I really dislike working with images in a digital
darkroom. Not that it's "immoral" or "not real art" or anything, I just
don't like those tools anymore than I like to cook with a blowtorch. I love
the challenges and opportunities posed by the limitations of a chemical
developing process, and as long as there is B&W film, I'll do the chemical
darkroom.

I think the rub is that non-photographers don't seem to appreciate the work
that goes into making a good straight print, and tend to view the artist's
talent exclusively as a function of the complexity of the image. The more
complex and manipulated, the better the artist. I wonder how they would
feel about Ansel Adams who labored mightily over his "straight" landscapes.
While to the casual eye they may appear essentially unmanipulated, his
abilities to eventually find his way to the print he intended and his
ability to frame the image at the right moment make him one of the truly
great artists. But I wonder if he will still be appreciated when we are a
few generations removed from the film camera?

The ease of digital imaging does not appeal to me, and frankly that's all
that should matter. I tend to print full frame 35mm, 4x5, and panoramics on
the theory that I should include all (and only) the necessary information in
the frame when I trip the shutter. I work at filtration and exposure to
capture the image I have in mind. I manipulate the print to get to that
image too. For me photography is about challenging myself. If I did it for
money, I'd have to go digital to compete. But I can waste countless sheets
of paper, rolls of film, and hours of labor, ultimately producing 1 good
print just because I have learned something from the experience and just
because I know that those who have spent time in a darkroom will appreciate
the effort as much as I appreciate their efforts.

I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who
will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the
worthy pictures have already been taken." To carry this bizarre notion into
the digital world, we should no bother to take any pictures because if it
hasn't been shot yet, (or we missed an historic picture opportunity), we
could just fabricate what we imagine it was like digitally. We "filmers"
have the satisfaction of knowing we have the skill and the luck to be in the
right place at the right time to capture in an image a tiny slice of reality
rather than (potentially) fabricate it out of thin air. That makes me want
to work harder at my craft.

I do label all my prints with the camera, film, and paper to be sure that
the viewer has the ability to understand that this print resulted from a
chemical rather than digital process.


"dr bob" wrote in message
...

"Terry Davis" wrote in message
...
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry

No! I feel just the opposite. I am inspired to produce even better
traditional prints especially as my last few prints were sold to
individual
collectors searching for non-electronic photographs.

Truly, dr bob.

I'll agree with this (bottom) poster. I have spent the last 30 years of my
life working with information systems, and quite a few with digital image
manipulation techniques - usually "making art" or wallpaper for websites,
not manipulating images. I really dislike working with images in a digital
darkroom. Not that it's "immoral" or "not real art" or anything, I just
don't like those tools anymore than I like to cook with a blowtorch. I love
the challenges and opportunities posed by the limitations of a chemical
developing process, and as long as there is B&W film, I'll do the chemical
darkroom.

I think the rub is that non-photographers don't seem to appreciate the work
that goes into making a good straight print, and tend to view the artist's
talent exclusively as a function of the complexity of the image. The more
complex and manipulated, the better the artist. I wonder how they would
feel about Ansel Adams who labored mightily over his "straight" landscapes.
While to the casual eye they may appear essentially unmanipulated, his
abilities to eventually find his way to the print he intended and his
ability to frame the image at the right moment make him one of the truly
great artists. But I wonder if he will still be appreciated when we are a
few generations removed from the film camera?

The ease of digital imaging does not appeal to me, and frankly that's all
that should matter. I tend to print full frame 35mm, 4x5, and panoramics on
the theory that I should include all (and only) the necessary information in
the frame when I trip the shutter. I work at filtration and exposure to
capture the image I have in mind. I manipulate the print to get to that
image too. For me photography is about challenging myself. If I did it for
money, I'd have to go digital to compete. But I can waste countless sheets
of paper, rolls of film, and hours of labor, ultimately producing 1 good
print just because I have learned something from the experience and just
because I know that those who have spent time in a darkroom will appreciate
the effort as much as I appreciate their efforts.

I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who
will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the
worthy pictures have already been taken." To carry this bizarre notion into
the digital world, we should no bother to take any pictures because if it
hasn't been shot yet, (or we missed an historic picture opportunity), we
could just fabricate what we imagine it was like digitally. We "filmers"
have the satisfaction of knowing we have the skill and the luck to be in the
right place at the right time to capture in an image a tiny slice of reality
rather than (potentially) fabricate it out of thin air. That makes me want
to work harder at my craft.

I do label all my prints with the camera, film, and paper to be sure that
the viewer has the ability to understand that this print resulted from a
chemical rather than digital process.


"dr bob" wrote in message
...

"Terry Davis" wrote in message
...
For over 20 years I have enjoyed traditional photography, both color and
b/w. I have also printed in both a color and a b/w darkroom for the
past 15 years.

The only print manipulation I perform is selective dodging, burning, and
cropping.

It seems that lately some viewers are questioning the "reality" of my
work. I am often asked; "Oh, did you create that image in Photoshop?".

My images are true to life....just as I saw them with my own eyes at the
time of exposure. I get upset when viewers suspect that my work is "made
up" or is "not real".

I am beginning to lose the excitement and joy that my photography has
given me over the years. I just do not feel inspired to seek out
great scenes to photograph when it is now possible to just create an
artifical scene on a computer.

Does anyone else feel this way...or am I just too sensitive for my own
good?

Terry

No! I feel just the opposite. I am inspired to produce even better
traditional prints especially as my last few prints were sold to
individual
collectors searching for non-electronic photographs.

Truly, dr bob.

It's a very frustrating attitude to have to deal with. People who have to
ask if an image has been Photoshopped, to me, don't understand much about
photography and aren't worth engaging in conversation about anything photo-
related.

My answer to the question as to whether one of my images has been PSed is,
"Who cares?" If it is indeed the questioner who does care, thank them for
their time and walk away.

Christopher Swift
www.hotchilistudios.com

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

It's a very frustrating attitude to have to deal with. People who have to
ask if an image has been Photoshopped, to me, don't understand much about
photography and aren't worth engaging in conversation about anything photo-
related.

My answer to the question as to whether one of my images has been PSed is,
"Who cares?" If it is indeed the questioner who does care, thank them for
their time and walk away.

Christopher Swift
www.hotchilistudios.com

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com