pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #41 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do you mean by "manipulate"? Alter? No--this is a charged word. In the darkroom, even dodging and burning in is "altering" the negative. You do probably mean "alter with intention to deceive". But in that case, the moral stigma is in the intention, not in the mere physical act. Don't think! Don't think, for chrissake! It's dangerous! You may lose that smooth feeling of certitude. And where would you be then? The old man with the bad habit of thinking I don't appreciate your smart-ass comment. You do not know me well enough to judge. Moving on, then... The National Press Photographers' Association (USA) has some strident rules regarding image manipulation, including burning and dodging. I believe the later came about after a period in which it was so fashionable to heavily burn the edges. I was disappointed by that little fad. I'm glad it is gone. What one finds in the print is in the negative, for better or worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here Reality check: Old School photographer [Stanley Greene Interview]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #42 Posted January 17, 2011 If newspapers really cared about authenticity, it shouldn't be too hard to have cameras made that are tamper proof and encrypt a copy of the images using a key that only the newspaper can decrypt. (link) - here is one approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 17, 2011 Share #43 Posted January 17, 2011 (link) - here is one approach. Thank you. Could be useful - but not yet: did you notice it says "simply insert the card into an SD WORM-compatible digital camera and begin capturing images" - i.e. they won't work in just any camera that takes SD cards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 17, 2011 Share #44 Posted January 17, 2011 What one finds in the print is in the negative, for better or worse. Perhaps is today's photojournalism, but there's a lot more to photography than photojournalism - and I speak as someone who loves the genre. The recent Don McCullin retrospective has a photograph with his burning and dodging notes written on it. There were a lot of them. There was a Salgado film a few years ago where he was seen discussing how to print one of his photographs, again lots of adjustments. Both were film based of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 17, 2011 Share #45 Posted January 17, 2011 Images are mostly hideous. They always were, it's just that digital photography in general, and the web in particular has made it much easier for people to share them with others. I don't think Photoshop is the root cause, though I admit there are some spectacularly ugly photographs produced using it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #46 Posted January 17, 2011 Perhaps is today's photojournalism, but there's a lot more to photography than photojournalism - and I speak as someone who loves the genre. The recent Don McCullin retrospective has a photograph with his burning and dodging notes written on it. There were a lot of them. There was a Salgado film a few years ago where he was seen discussing how to print one of his photographs, again lots of adjustments. Both were film based of course. I love the genre, too, having once made a living in the field before turning to academe. Still not sure that was the right thing to do, but I cannot redo the past thirty-five years. Eugene Smith was a big influence upon my early years, but when I found how much he changed some photos, I was disappointed. He painted in eyes, combined negatives in at least one case each. He was one very good printer. Dodging, burning, local bleaching, all that was very much what I did, too. Still do. There is another photographer that had a career parallel to my own, but he is a far better photographer, and Smith is still very important to him. I concede to the greats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #47 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you. Could be useful - but not yet: did you notice it says "simply insert the card into an SD WORM-compatible digital camera and begin capturing images" - i.e. they won't work in just any camera that takes SD cards. I saw that, but gave it little thought, John. Guess I'd best do some more research. There once was a digital camera that was designed for evidence photography that encoded something in the image somehow. Can't find anything on it today. Still looking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 17, 2011 Share #48 Posted January 17, 2011 Integrity: It cannot ever be in the tools, only in the society that uses them. A society that values integrity will encourage integrity. A society with other priorities, will encourage those priorities. If a mag or paper or channel publishes pictures of the Haitian cholera epidemic, it's not because "it" feels horror, but because it wants to sell advertising space. The buyers of space are now powerful enough to get the image of "reality" that they want. Just like the Ministry of Truth. Adam Smith told ut that it is not due to his love of us that the baker bakes bread for us. I's because he wants to make some dough. Smith also told us that (much of the time – not "always", because this Scots professor of moral philosophy was a honest man, and knew about the exceptions) an "invisible hand" would produce what we needed. With the unspoken proviso that we had to be able and willing to pay for it. Now it's pretty clear that if Smith's invisible hand ever existed, it's dead now. The hands of interest are just too damn visible. And it did never exist in journalism. I have spent many interesting hours in wet darkrooms. Hell, I grew up with lead type printing too, and un-synched gearboxes. And when anybody tried to call me "journalist", like in science journalist, I hit him on the head with the nearest chair if I dared. Mr. Greene is a young man who may yet sort out his thoughts better, if he doesn't get burnt out, or shot. Meanwhile, I sympathise with his attitude, though not with his actual conclusions. Old hypo-fingers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 17, 2011 Share #49 Posted January 17, 2011 I saw that, but gave it little thought, John. Guess I'd best do some more research. There once was a digital camera that was designed for evidence photography that encoded something in the image somehow. Can't find anything on it today. Still looking. The name Fuji came to mind ... but a quick web search didn't find me anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 17, 2011 Share #50 Posted January 17, 2011 There once was a digital camera that was designed for evidence photography that encoded something in the image somehow. Can't find anything on it today. Still looking. There was (is?) a data security kit kit for Canon cameras that could identify changes to images and/or exif data. I assume it embedded some kind of password protected checksum into the files to show that they hadn't been changed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted January 17, 2011 Share #51 Posted January 17, 2011 interesting read... whilst I tend to agree with a lot he has to say, it seems Stanley is a very bitter man who has an axe to grind. Maybe I am wrong but 'falling between the cracks' seems to have influenced him quite a lot in his views. Anyway good read and I too prefer film but that is not the issue in this short interview, its more about resentment. best andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.