Comments on: Darkrooms are Irrelevant and The Truth Matters http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/ Daily discussion of photography business issues & photography websites. Marketing and sales tips for smart photographers, plus a dose of inspiration from the PhotoShelter team. Fri, 24 May 2013 14:08:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Tony http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-887186 Tony Tue, 21 May 2013 09:21:40 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-887186 Both versions of the photos in Alans post have been doctored. Neither depict the absolute true reality in terms of light and shade. Both tell us what is going on equally well. One reason why photojournalism tends to be less doctored in this way is because photos have to be published within hours of taking the photo, so there isn't time to 'touch up' photos. That process (over many decades) has created a culture of not 'touching up' journalism photographs such as this. Ansel Adams had all the time in the world to touch up his photos. So he did. Photojournalists didn't have that luxury. So they didn't. And thus was born a culture, a set of rules to define an industry. And then digital came along and allowed photographers to present their photography in a huge variety of new, different and original ways. So they did. What we are witnessing is actually called the freedom of expression. Just like a journalist reporting on an event using words, no two journalists are the same. Allen is saying that he doesn't like the doctored version and wouldn't have awarded it a prize. That's fine. Others say the same. Others say it enhances the storytelling aspect of the photo. Both views are correct and incorrect in equal quantities because it is an opinion. What we shouldn't do is close the door on creativity and interpretation, whether in terms of composing the original image, or cropping the original image, or applying contrast/brightness/saturation effects to the original image. Both versions of the photos in Alans post have been doctored. Neither depict the absolute true reality in terms of light and shade. Both tell us what is going on equally well.

One reason why photojournalism tends to be less doctored in this way is because photos have to be published within hours of taking the photo, so there isn’t time to ‘touch up’ photos. That process (over many decades) has created a culture of not ‘touching up’ journalism photographs such as this.

Ansel Adams had all the time in the world to touch up his photos. So he did. Photojournalists didn’t have that luxury. So they didn’t. And thus was born a culture, a set of rules to define an industry.

And then digital came along and allowed photographers to present their photography in a huge variety of new, different and original ways. So they did.

What we are witnessing is actually called the freedom of expression. Just like a journalist reporting on an event using words, no two journalists are the same.

Allen is saying that he doesn’t like the doctored version and wouldn’t have awarded it a prize. That’s fine.

Others say the same. Others say it enhances the storytelling aspect of the photo. Both views are correct and incorrect in equal quantities because it is an opinion.

What we shouldn’t do is close the door on creativity and interpretation, whether in terms of composing the original image, or cropping the original image, or applying contrast/brightness/saturation effects to the original image.

]]> By: Why photo purists are wrong about “Gaza Burial” | The Hamster Wheel http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-881507 Why photo purists are wrong about “Gaza Burial” | The Hamster Wheel Fri, 17 May 2013 17:57:33 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-881507 [...] catchy ledes to draw readers in (Murabayashi uses one of his own in his piece criticizing Hansen. Take a look.) We cut quotes from different parts of interviews and we decide which ones to spotlight as [...] [...] catchy ledes to draw readers in (Murabayashi uses one of his own in his piece criticizing Hansen. Take a look.) We cut quotes from different parts of interviews and we decide which ones to spotlight as [...]

]]> By: Karen Nichtwahr http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-879423 Karen Nichtwahr Thu, 16 May 2013 09:12:54 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-879423 Apparently some people have spent so much time looking at photographs that they have lost sight of how the world actually appears to the naked eye. The human eye does not see plugged up shadows and blown highlights; it sees something much closer to the winning version of this photo. The 'published' version is how a *camera* sees things, not how humans do. Apparently some people have spent so much time looking at photographs that they have lost sight of how the world actually appears to the naked eye. The human eye does not see plugged up shadows and blown highlights; it sees something much closer to the winning version of this photo. The ‘published’ version is how a *camera* sees things, not how humans do.

]]> By: 2013 World Press Photo – Fakten und Fiktion http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-864467 2013 World Press Photo – Fakten und Fiktion Sun, 05 May 2013 23:52:34 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-864467 [...] lost sight of what photography can achieve” (15.3.2013) Photoshelter/Blog, Allen Murabayashi:“Darkrooms are irrelevant and the truth matters” [...] [...] lost sight of what photography can achieve” (15.3.2013) Photoshelter/Blog, Allen Murabayashi:“Darkrooms are irrelevant and the truth matters” [...]

]]> By: Rob Smith http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-789980 Rob Smith Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:47:13 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-789980 To state that 'darkrooms are an irrelevant argument' is just wrong. Image manipulation has been around since the invention of.....images. Is the inclusion or exclusion of subjective material within the frame when the shutter was pressed manipulation? Or the use of a wide aperture and the resulting blurred background manipulation or simply good technique? Does lens vignetting or use of focal length alter meaning or keep our eye on the subject? History is littered with examples of imagery that have been 'doctored' to satisfy a whole bunch of political or personal agendas. From inaccurate portraits of potential wives for Henry VIII to 9/11 and beyond. The fact that the image was made digitally, with film or a brush is irrelevant - the real question revolves around the ethics of persuading an audience to swallow a particular version of truth, a process also known as journalism. To state that ‘darkrooms are an irrelevant argument’ is just wrong. Image manipulation has been around since the invention of…..images.
Is the inclusion or exclusion of subjective material within the frame when the shutter was pressed manipulation? Or the use of a wide aperture and the resulting blurred background manipulation or simply good technique? Does lens vignetting or use of focal length alter meaning or keep our eye on the subject?

History is littered with examples of imagery that have been ‘doctored’ to satisfy a whole bunch of political or personal agendas. From inaccurate portraits of potential wives for Henry VIII to 9/11 and beyond.

The fact that the image was made digitally, with film or a brush is irrelevant – the real question revolves around the ethics of persuading an audience to swallow a particular version of truth, a process also known as journalism.

]]> By: Sylvain Labeste http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-786180 Sylvain Labeste Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:15:24 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-786180 The questioning is deep and right. But may be this picture - because of its power- is not the appropriate one to talk about the crucial problem of manipulation of what is given to be seen an digested by billions of people. Technically speaking, there's no crime to ameliorate such a photo, even if to my opinion, the result could have been much better with a lighter intervention... The questioning is deep and right. But may be this picture – because of its power- is not the appropriate one to talk about the crucial problem of manipulation of what is given to be seen an digested by billions of people. Technically speaking, there’s no crime to ameliorate such a photo, even if to my opinion, the result could have been much better with a lighter intervention…

]]> By: Narges http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-781486 Narges Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:01:37 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-781486 I do see Mr. Murabayashi's point about having some kind of guidelines established, including submitting one's RAW image, for press photo competitions. Regarding the analogy at the beginning, I don't think it really fits, besides this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/ I do see Mr. Murabayashi’s point about having some kind of guidelines established, including submitting one’s RAW image, for press photo competitions.
Regarding the analogy at the beginning, I don’t think it really fits, besides this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

]]> By: Paul Hansen wint World Press Photo 2012 | Verwoord & verbeeld http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-781452 Paul Hansen wint World Press Photo 2012 | Verwoord & verbeeld Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:30:37 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-781452 [...] Darkrooms are Irrelevant and The Truth Matters ‹ PhotoShelter Blog “If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” – Senator Jon K… 00Share [...] [...] Darkrooms are Irrelevant and The Truth Matters ‹ PhotoShelter Blog “If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” – Senator Jon K… 00Share [...]

]]> By: Catherine Philp http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-781451 Catherine Philp Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:30:05 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-781451 I, too, am commenting without reading the comments. I also prefer the published version. I'm not a photographer, I'm a writer. But I capture images and am very interested in them, and I'm very interested in this debate. The black and white argument is a good one. The world does not appear to us in black and white but photojournalism evolved from black and white origins. Does that affect a photographer's feelings about color? When shooting with film, and developing and printing oneself - I speak here of the black and white era - a photographer was at liberty to adjust the light manually. No-one ever knew. I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong. But photojournalism is an art, not merely reportage - composition, anyone? - and who would deny that its titans are artists? I think of the two photogs I've known well who've most influenced my thoughts on this: Chris Anderson and Jan Grarup. Jan shoots almost exclusively in B and W and Chris used to. It was bc of Chris' influence that I caved and bought the Fuji X100 I wanted even though it lacks a zoom. He explained to me how a zoom distorts an image. I got the camera and it shoots in several different modes, replicating different old types of Fuji film. I adore the colour saturation it produces in one particular mode; I love the black and white of another. What is captured on camera has never been exactly what happened in life. If it were, we would rewarding a photographer for nothing more than their good geographical fortune and their composition. Where does the digital manipulation of an image after its taking fit in next to the digital manipulation in the taking that the new generation of camera allow us? And short of full-blown Photoshopping, how does the post-production manipulation fit in? I don't have an answer in this debate, merely the knowledge that it is a complex one. For me, over all, it's just disappointing that this image was manipulated simply for the purpose of submission for an award. I don't get to re-write an article before it's submitted for an award. Surely the award must go to the product that was published at the time. I, too, am commenting without reading the comments. I also prefer the published version.

I’m not a photographer, I’m a writer. But I capture images and am very interested in them, and I’m very interested in this debate.

The black and white argument is a good one. The world does not appear to us in black and white but photojournalism evolved from black and white origins. Does that affect a photographer’s feelings about color?

When shooting with film, and developing and printing oneself – I speak here of the black and white era – a photographer was at liberty to adjust the light manually. No-one ever knew. I’m not saying it’s right or it’s wrong. But photojournalism is an art, not merely reportage – composition, anyone? – and who would deny that its titans are artists? I think of the two photogs I’ve known well who’ve most influenced my thoughts on this: Chris Anderson and Jan Grarup. Jan shoots almost exclusively in B and W and Chris used to. It was bc of Chris’ influence that I caved and bought the Fuji X100 I wanted even though it lacks a zoom. He explained to me how a zoom distorts an image. I got the camera and it shoots in several different modes, replicating different old types of Fuji film. I adore the colour saturation it produces in one particular mode; I love the black and white of another.

What is captured on camera has never been exactly what happened in life. If it were, we would rewarding a photographer for nothing more than their good geographical fortune and their composition. Where does the digital manipulation of an image after its taking fit in next to the digital manipulation in the taking that the new generation of camera allow us? And short of full-blown Photoshopping, how does the post-production manipulation fit in? I don’t have an answer in this debate, merely the knowledge that it is a complex one.

For me, over all, it’s just disappointing that this image was manipulated simply for the purpose of submission for an award. I don’t get to re-write an article before it’s submitted for an award. Surely the award must go to the product that was published at the time.

]]> By: Paul Guba http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/darkrooms-are-irrelevant-and-the-truth-matters/#comment-781361 Paul Guba Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:47:55 +0000 http://blog.photoshelter.com/?p=27865#comment-781361 I think the search for truth in photography no matter if advertising, editorial, or journalism is a nonsense. The moment any one makes an image it is a judgement, an opinion, a personal choice. That cannot be escaped. I can frame a scene a different way and the emotional impact can vary drastically. Is it factual? Well we all know facts can be manipulated, over or under stated to perpetuate my point of view. I would have to be completely detached from the world to be able not to put my opinion in the process. In that case I would be little more than a security camera. Lets keep in mind that with all photography there is a financial incentive to create images that are dramatic, interesting, entertaining. This is no less a fact in journalism. An image with great impact makes more money, gets run in more papers, is on every website, gets more likes on FB. There is a reward in making them, and if any photographer wishes to continue working then its part of the job. I couldn't imagine showing someone boring images and replying but it was boring that is a fact. So it is not as if the side of truth has suddenly been eroded it really never was part of the equation. Its what I want, the editor wants, the publisher wants, the consumer wants. Mostly the consumer. I think the search for truth in photography no matter if advertising, editorial, or journalism is a nonsense. The moment any one makes an image it is a judgement, an opinion, a personal choice. That cannot be escaped. I can frame a scene a different way and the emotional impact can vary drastically.

Is it factual? Well we all know facts can be manipulated, over or under stated to perpetuate my point of view. I would have to be completely detached from the world to be able not to put my opinion in the process. In that case I would be little more than a security camera.

Lets keep in mind that with all photography there is a financial incentive to create images that are dramatic, interesting, entertaining. This is no less a fact in journalism. An image with great impact makes more money, gets run in more papers, is on every website, gets more likes on FB. There is a reward in making them, and if any photographer wishes to continue working then its part of the job. I couldn’t imagine showing someone boring images and replying but it was boring that is a fact.

So it is not as if the side of truth has suddenly been eroded it really never was part of the equation. Its what I want, the editor wants, the publisher wants, the consumer wants. Mostly the consumer.

]]>