The real evil in digital photography

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The concept of The Artist is relatively modern. At one time artists were considered craftsmen. With the advent of the tintype, all those traveling miniature portrait craftsmen were frustrated and lost their businesses to photography, so I would say that at least in this manner, photography and 'art' were side-by-side until photography won.

 

Photography won some limited battles certainly. Such as the miniature portraiture you cited as a perfect example.

 

But painters such as Constable and Turner shortly before the invention of photography, and Monet and Pissarro shortly after, used their creativity in such profoundly different ways that I think its a bit off track to look it as competition.

 

Artists, whether they are called artists or not, are less concerned with reproducing reality as producing a new one, and this has nearly always been the case.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kivis]

Saw some photos shot with Kodak Tri-X on a Leica M3. They were taken on the street where I live. Strange I walked around for hours never finding any houses that were all black and white. Somebody is trying to fool with my head.

[Orient XI]

The concept of The Artist is relatively modern. At one time artists were considered craftsmen. With the advent of the tintype, all those traveling miniature portrait craftsmen were frustrated and lost their businesses to photography, so I would say that at least in this manner, photography and 'art' were side-by-side until photography won.

 

The current Manet exhibition at the Royal Academy in London suggests that there was a symbiotic relationship between this artist and carte de visite photographers. Manet had an extensive collection of several hundred of these small prints and often used them in his work.

Personally I was disappointed in the exhibition. I went to learn about the secret of successful portrait lighting but frequently found it impossible to identify the source of the light. My task was not helped by the lighting on the figure coming from a different direction to that on the face. The exhibition guide suggested that lessser artists in his establishment were left to fill in the mundane details of the models' clothes which would agree with the different lighting.

[NZDavid]

Looking for bright colours? Come to New Zealand, you don't need Velvia or PP!

[Angora]

(...) The idea is to "improve" reality to fit social norm or desires.

Art which is untrue is kitsch.

 

"True-ness" is defined by the social norm.

[pico]

"True-ness" is defined by the social norm.

 

Perhaps in Art, but for social issues in a Western society, 'true' is a concern of the scientific and legal systems.

 

Who cares what is 'true' or not in Art, except those who wish to nail Art to the ground as if it were Gulliver?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of my oft stated comments, for more years than I care to remember is,"the camera is the greatest liar on earth, except perhaps for me!"

 

That in response to comments like "the camera never lies". Bollocks.

 

Early on I learned to use non-normal focal length lenses because I realized they produced images that could only be viewed via the photograph and not with the naked eye, just as B&W works the same way.

 

I realize that all my life I have been distorting 'facts' deliberately to create an acceptable response. Even when describing my travels to people, I embellish the truth in an effort to allow them to enjoy pleasures close to my experience when I was actually there.

 

years ago a client commented to me that I 'lie with integrity'. When questioned, he explained that I always, in his opinion, exaggerated a truth before my camera in order to make a valid point. I decided I liked that and still do it. Mainly by choice of shooting angle or lens selection. Another reason I have difficulty subscribing to 'one lens' theories.

 

So nothing new on the 'reality' situation, just variations on how we present it.

[NZDavid]

I found these travel destinations that are too good to be true:

 

Travel website exposes reality behind glossy holiday brochure photos | Mail Online

 

...and some proof that doctoring pictures started long before Photoshop:

 

16 Famous Photoshopped Images Throughout History - Chill Out Point

[Peter H]

...............................................

Art which is untrue is kitsch.

 

I'm not sure Picasso would see the world quite as you do.

[erl]

.... alternatively, one could say,"and what is wrong with kitsch?"

[hepcat]

There are three very separate kinds of photography... art, where you use the medium to produce what you want your work to be; advertising where the goal is to make whatever it is as "attractive" as possible to lure the unsuspecting into giving up their hard earned cash for it; and reportage or documentary where the goal is to represent the subject as close to one saw it as possible.

 

Now of course, every photograph is an interpretation by the photographer. What's left out of the frame is, sometimes, more important than what's included in documentary photography. Where it gets dicey for the viewer is when advertising is represented as documentary either by design or unintentionally. And the three types are more represented by a Venn diagram rather than thought of as unrelated forms.

 

When viewing photography, to me the first and most important thing I do is to try to establish the context in which I'm supposed to be viewing the photo. That helps me put into perspective what I'm really looking at.

[hepcat]

The current Manet exhibition at the Royal Academy in London suggests that there was a symbiotic relationship between this artist and carte de visite photographers. Manet had an extensive collection of several hundred of these small prints and often used them in his work.

Personally I was disappointed in the exhibition. I went to learn about the secret of successful portrait lighting but frequently found it impossible to identify the source of the light. My task was not helped by the lighting on the figure coming from a different direction to that on the face. The exhibition guide suggested that lessser artists in his establishment were left to fill in the mundane details of the models' clothes which would agree with the different lighting.

 

Impressionist paintings are probably NOT the genre to try to learn portrait lighting from generally. Manet in particular was very indiscriminate about the way he portrayed lighting. In some of his paintings, the subjects almost seem to glow from inside. He uses very little shadow to indicate light direction or intensity. The few portraits he did that show directional lighting show a brightness on one side of the face and deep shadow on the other indicating window-like lighting where the subject was posed at 90* to a window. And even then, as your tour guide pointed out, that lighting is only vaguely carried into the rest of the portrait. It's really fascinating to look at impressionist art in terms of photography; sometimes there just isn't much in common, and yet the art is amazing. Perhaps that's why Impressionism is so compelling...

[Orient XI]

Heprcat, I agree with your views on Manet; the flat lighting made some of my companions (not photographers) begin to wonder where the jaw ended and the neck began in several of the portraits. The exhibition was inferior to the earlier one of Degas' works. This exhibition really showed Degas' debt to early photographic motion analysis by Muybridge et al.

[Peter H]

.................................

 

.................When viewing photography, to me the first and most important thing I do is to try to establish the context in which I'm supposed to be viewing the photo. That helps me put into perspective what I'm really looking at.

 

This is interesting Hepcat. Sometimes, when a photograph is an illustration as it might be when accompanying a story in a newspaper, the context is obvious and essential. However, some photos transcend the original purpose and carry a more universal context, such as some of the great war photos we can all think of. In some senses it doesn't even matter in which war those photos were taken, whilst in others the precise details of the very same photographs are part of the purpose and thrust of the image.

 

There are other very different photos, such as many of HCB's to take an obvious example, where no amount of context will do anything to increase the impact and enjoyment of the image. (Although some background information might be interesting of course.)

 

So I think I agree that context is important, if by context you allow a lack of context, if you see what I mean.

[zlatkob]

You cannot blame the sensors or the software.

You need to blame the ones who use it!

 

Exactly. Why blame the tools instead of those who use them? The problem, if there is one, is in the artistic choices. The tools are wonderfully useful and don't make artistic choices.