Faking Reality

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

An extremely small fraction then?

Indeed, but few of those who push a piano key down become pianists.

Ask a musician (my parents both taught music). Binary classifications apply to many, many things. They are an effective differentiator. The problem is that because someone can press a button on a phone some consider them to be a photographer. Perhaps the ability to start a car engine should make someone a driver?

I would say that HCB epitomised considered photography. Not convinced that I'm a carry over though.

Whatever happened to the decisive moment? 

[Dennis]

On 10/14/2020 at 10:19 AM, 01maciel said:

I noticed recently that lots of photos with a high contrast and saturated colours get more likes than others.

😂 .. yes, unfortunately it's just like that.

On 10/14/2020 at 10:19 AM, 01maciel said:

So, it means to me that photos without or with minor tweaks do not meet certain aesthetics of the viewers, no?

It's very up to you, whats your message, purpose, for whom, for what. I really like this sentence :"I-d rather be honest than impressive" ...  And it applies perfectly to my philosophy and approach. If you are talking about editing ethic, I recommend to google the "code of ethics for photojournalist". Just for your records, here what AP is saying:

AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or digitally manipulate the content of a photograph in any way.
The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints are acceptable.
Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into gray- scale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.

 

I think your editing is fine. I would choose the second edited photo. It would be my limit 

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

 

12 hours ago, willeica said:

Everyone deserves a chance to learn how to play music.

Absolutely, but we learn by making mistakes and appreciating bad and good, which is my point.

12 hours ago, Jeff S said:

So what? If one is interested in seeing curated exhibitions, there have been many the world over to enjoy.   Billions of people drive cars, and only “an extremely small fraction” do it well enough to have a paying audience.  Does that invalidate the races, the drivers or the cars used?  

And there are some bad drivers out there too. Curated exhibitions are a very minute part of photography.

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

Whatever happened to the decisive moment? 

HCB was an acute observer of what was going on around him. He also placed himself in positions to be able to exploit what he saw photographically. This didn't 'just happen'; I'm sure that he learnt his trade in the same way as other photographers do. He also lived in a period which suited what he did. I see an awful lot of 'street photography' today which is bland at best.

[willeica]

14 minutes ago, pgk said:

And there are some bad drivers out there too. Curated exhibitions are a very minute part of photography.

I agree. As a director of a photographic gallery with 2 curators, I constantly make the point that all photography has some validity and value and not just the curated stuff.

That being said, each of us has a different taste/value/ acceptance template to apply to what we consider to be good or bad. Take away that and there is nothing of value to be found as subjective factors are far more important than the so called objective factors.

William 

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, willeica said:

That being said, each of us has a different taste/value/ acceptance template to apply to what we consider to be good or bad. Take away that and there is nothing of value to be found as subjective factors are far more important than the so called objective factors.

It is the subjective factors which interest me. But in my book photography is primarily about subject, with composition and lighting being equal second. Technicalities are support and simply need to be appropriately sorted out. I have recently seen some photographs exhibited which had good subject matter, were well composed and the lighting was good. They were shot at inappropriate apertures though (and this showed from the context in which the images were placed - it was due to lack of technical skill, not deliberate) and the result was that the points of interest were often ill-defined. Bad technicalities. But the photographer had not realised this and I find this failure to critique and recognise the mistakes rather sad.

[Guest BlackBarn]

I suspect the term ‘faking reality’ is more  about the tension between the adopted way of doing things, developed and hardened over time and the emergence of the new.  ‘Reality is faked the moment the person presses the camera button and the process is handed over to a computerized algorithm. Every photograph is a pastiche of reality at some level. So what is left but taste, formed from a pattern over time and then solidified as the acceptable way.The banks of a river being formed by the flow of the river then containing the rivers flow. 
 

it’s not the first time that the mantra below was lauded as the highest on high.

3 hours ago, pgk said:

Is primarily about subject, with composition and lighting being equal second. Technicalities are support and simply need to be appropriately sorted out.

In another time subject and composition were equal partners and essential along with the ability to technically present, they were the only criteria acceptable and individuals promoted that system, propagated it and determined the formula of taste by excluding those from the establishment who didn’t conform and as such unable to earn a living.

These were the dynamics in the  French Academy up until the  late 19th century. The  tension grew from within,  starting from its students who considers the ‘sketch’, the true  response to the subject, having more artistic value than the prescriptive doctrine which they considered  as ‘faking’ by pulling  a veil over nature. These characters wanted to use their technical dexterity to free the brush and express their response to nature’s light. A new set of acceptable values emerged  and the Impressionists were born. 

Unfortunately through the breaking down of the old establishment and the rush to the financial potential of the new, self expression was considered the prize and it was forgot that those first Impressionists were also technically able. Their different views of  ‘fake ‘ was exploited by the financial motivated and the need for technical competence was the baby thrown out with the bath water. The same roles may now be  playing  out but on a different stage.....photography. May be the  concept of good and bad...subjective or objective .....is the vapor trail based on a  value construct relative to an earlier moment in time.

In the same way the word ‘art’ captures all artistic  styles so does modern photography attempt to do. Yet each of the art styles has matured its own set of values against which it is appreciated, photography has  not.  

Painting is no longer oil paint and canvas nor photography just camera and lens. Painting is no longer constrained by its pre 20th century values nor should photography by its pre digital values.  Technical competence for sure but in the world of fakery there should be the freedom and confidence for each individual  to decide on the ingredients they use to fake.  However when navigating through some territories it may be prudent not to upset the natives.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, pgk said:

And there are some bad drivers out there too. Curated exhibitions are a very minute part of photography.

Again, so what? Glass half empty. A minute part of billions is a lot. Most of any art form or activity is not noteworthy.  This has always been true of photography...even when using a Leica.

Jeff

[pgk]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:24 PM, BlackBarn said:

Painting is no longer constrained by its pre 20th century values nor should photography by its pre digital values.

And its [photography's] purpose is evolving. I just posted a couple of photographs on facebook but in reality they were not put there as art (in any sense whatsoever), nor particularly as photographs. They are images which convey more than it is simple, easy or even sometimes possible to write down viably, and as such are part of a digital conversation. I think that we are seeing a fundamental change in the purpose of many/most photographic images. Yes, they need to be competent in order to fulfil their intended role, but smartphones allow this in a lot of cases. No, they are not, for the most part, considered images - they are taken (probably subconsciously) with the intent of using them as part of a chat or place markers in a flow of life. I suspect that we, as photographers, need to see and appreciate this change, and embrace its opportunities because not all imagery is art nor is all part of an ongoing chat about us.

Edited October 19, 2020 by pgk
typos

[adan]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

And its [photography's] purpose is evolving. I just posted a couple of photographs on facebook but in reality they were not put there as art (in any sense whatsoever), nor particularly as photographs. They are images which convey more than it is simple, easy or even sometimes possible to write down viably, and as such are part of a digital conversation. I think that we are seeing a fundamental change in the purpose of many/most photographic images. Yes, they need to be competent in order to fulfil their intended role, but smartphones allow this in a lot of cases. No, they are not, for the most part, considered images - they are taken (probably subconsciously) with the intent of using them as part of a chat or place markers in a flow of life. I suspect that we, as photographers, need to see and appreciate this change, and embrace its opportunities because not all imagery is art nor is all part of an ongoing chat about us.

I have always considered photography to be more important as a narrative and explanatory art than as a visual art. Although visual technique and style of seeing are clearly important adjuncts, just as command of language and idiom and vocabulary and "imagery" are important to effective writing.

As summed up in the 20th-century phrase "A picture is worth 1000 words." Or Rod Stewart's less mathematical Every Picture Tells A Story. But a concept dating back at least to Turgenev in 1861: "The drawing shows me at one glance what might be spread over ten pages in a book." Or perhaps even Da Vinci, who purportedly wrote "A poet would be overcome by sleep and hunger [trying to] describe with words what a painter is able to depict in an instant."

So while photography's purpose (like everything) is always evolving, that particular purpose has been a core function throughout its 190-year history. Nothing new to the digital age.

BTW - what the heck is a "considered image?" Outside of being a trade name for a commercial photographer in Adelaide, who specializes in weddings and other "family documentary photography" (which seems to mean taking family snapshots for those unwilling or uncompetent to do it for themselves).

Although it also pops up in the context of the most extremely un-artistic, technical, "images for use" arena - images being analyzed to predict (and avoid) vehicle collisions:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Considered-image-parameters_fig1_306113671

Somehow I suspect those are not what you mean......

[pgk]

On 10/19/2020 at 5:39 PM, adan said:

BTW - what the heck is a "considered image?"

Somehow I suspect those are not what you mean......

I'm sure that you can figure it out.

[adan]

Sounds to me like a humpty-dumptyism:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Lewis Carroll - Through The Looking Glass

I suppose literally it means "a visual representation of something, having been thought about carefully."

Except that the most obvious example of that which I have experienced, outside of studio photography, was the time a repair tech spent three minutes leaning over my shoulder with his cellphone camera, carefully considering the right angle from which to make an image of a failed lamp fixture, so that he could text it to the service center.

And again, from your context, I suspect that is not what you meant....

[pgk]

Many seem to think that using an imaging device by setting it to auto results in 'creative' photography. I on the other hand believe that it is only when the photographer actually understands what they are trying to achieve and uses a camera to do so by using their own input (which is repeatable) that creativity is really unleashed. Anything else is accidental. Hence considered'.

Mastery of technique is a pre-requisite for 'creativity' in all its forms. It is only when technique is second nature that the really important aspects of photography can be concentrated on.

If we go back to the OP, the base problem is one of intent. Post precessing an image without pre-visualisation is a hit and miss affair and is not about photography, its about software control. If on the other hand the photograph had been taken with the intent of utilising post processing to achieve a specific desired result then that would e a more considered approach and have more 'creative' input or be a considered photograph. Fake or reality don't really come into it in many ways though - its a 2 dimensional representation of 3 dimensions and so is pretty unreal whichever way you look at it.

[250swb]

58 minutes ago, pgk said:

Many seem to think that using an imaging device by setting it to auto results in 'creative' photography. I on the other hand believe that it is only when the photographer actually understands what they are trying to achieve and uses a camera to do so by using their own input (which is repeatable) that creativity is really unleashed. Anything else is accidental. Hence considered'.

Mastery of technique is a pre-requisite for 'creativity' in all its forms. It is only when technique is second nature that the really important aspects of photography can be concentrated on.

If we go back to the OP, the base problem is one of intent. Post precessing an image without pre-visualisation is a hit and miss affair and is not about photography, its about software control. If on the other hand the photograph had been taken with the intent of utilising post processing to achieve a specific desired result then that would e a more considered approach and have more 'creative' input or be a considered photograph. Fake or reality don't really come into it in many ways though - its a 2 dimensional representation of 3 dimensions and so is pretty unreal whichever way you look at it.

I think there are two long running threads on LUF that exceptions aside highlight this dichotomy, the 'Leica M10 Monochrom Images' thread and the 'I like film....' thread.

Browse the M10M thread you struggle to find a photograph that has white in it, and the mid-tones are often flat and linear. The camera produces the best possible starting point, it hasn't blown any highlights and it hasn't put a particular curve on the mid tones. So why can't people see they haven't got a white in their photograph, why can't they see the mids look drab without even a natural contrast to them? It's high performing camera so what it produces for most people posting in that thread isn't questioned at all, why buy a great camera then mess around with the images and compromise it with a personal opinion? There are a very high proportion on un-considered images in this thread

The 'I like film....' thread is a polar opposite, not only for the creativity immediately apparent, but that creativity comes directly from photographers making decisions early in the image making process. The first is choosing a film, the second is how the image is created from development to end result. Very few indeed are presented as straight scans from a lab (the film equivalent of not making decisions). There is a very high proportion of 'considered images' in this thread.

Well anyway that's how I see it, and it's not a rule or anything.

 

 

[andybarton]

A much better photographer than me once told me "Don't be afraid of black"

[pgk]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

..... why can't people see they haven't got a white in their photograph, why can't they see the mids look drab without even a natural contrast to them?

A bit of an aside, but many people have their monitor brightness too  high which may be one explanatory factor, if they are not from the film workflow days?

I think that I remember having one RAW file this year which was almost spot on with a very minimal amount of intervention required. It surprised me so I remember. Otherwise RAW files are just a starting point last weekend I shot some images with a clear idea of what they should look like and I'd post to illustrate the adjustments needed but they were on a Sony!

[andybarton]

For the purposes of illustrating a point, a file from a Sony camera will be fine and within the rules.

[adan]

37 minutes ago, andybarton said:

A much better photographer than me once told me "Don't be afraid of black"

There are, of course, two schools of thought on that.

A picture was posted here a year or so ago related to the problem of blown and distorted colors in "day-glo" emergency clothing. On examining the jpg in Photoshop, I noticed there were no blacks - the darkest areas had digital brightness of 30 or more. I commented that the picture had been overexposed a bit, and got a terse reply from the creator that "there are no blacks in reality."

I have heard that HC-B made similar requests of his printers - no pure blacks, because they didn't exist in life.

A long time ago, a photo teacher - actually a very creative and proficient technician - told me (in reference to traditional silver prints from negs) that I should hold them up to view by transmitted light. If there was significant tonal detail visible that way, that did not show by reflected light, I was probably over-exposing the print. (BTW this trick works with digital prints as well).

It was not so much a command to include those tones, as simply a technique for me to check and see if I was really in control of my printing.

I believe the constant harping on "maximum dynamic range" as a sine qua non for an excellent picture, and a perceived weakness of digital images compared to film, may lead people to have an inferiority complex if they can't squeeze out every last jot of shadow and highlight tone. I definitely went through a phase like that in my early digital years (Digilux 2/Sony R1/M8), trying to "prove" how much tonal range digital could achieve.

Or then again, as pgk says above, it could just be a lot of uncalibrated monitors.

I do try to get an original - digital file or film scan - that holds as much range as possible (black only in film rebates, no blocked-up highlights). But that is just the score - the performance can be as dark and moody or bright and shiny as I want. And usually (except for effect) contains a black and a white somewhere.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, andybarton said:

For the purposes of illustrating a point, a file from a Sony camera will be fine and within the rules.

OK. So here are the unadjusted RAW and adjusted JPEG files. Neither can illustrate '' because light and colour reality at 27m depth are both low (1s at f/14 handheld + flash is as far as I could go) and there are only reds due to the flash. The exposure is at the high side, but all highlights are retained, because of the background which would otherwise be absolute black and whilst I can pull back the highlights, noise kicks in in the shadows if they are brightened too much. For anyone who doesn't scuba dive in murky, dark, cold (12C) water, then it may not also be apparent that decision making is marginally blurring at this depth and there is a very finite limit on the time available so precision is not always as easy as above water. But I digress. Sony A7II with 20/1.8 FE lens. Its primarily a scientific shot and the adjusted shows how I intended the image to look.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 22, 2020 by pgk

[willeica]

27 minutes ago, pgk said:

OK. So here are the unadjusted RAW and adjusted JPEG files. Neither can illustrate '' because light and colour reality at 27m depth are both low (1s at f/14 handheld + flash is as far as I could go) and there are only reds due to the flash. The exposure is at the high side, but all highlights are retained, because of the background which would otherwise be absolute black and whilst I can pull back the highlights, noise kicks in in the shadows if they are brightened too much. For anyone who doesn't scuba dive in murky, dark, cold (12C) water, then it may not also be apparent that decision making is marginally blurring at this depth and there is a very finite limit on the time available so precision is not always as easy as above water. But I digress. Sony A7II with 20/1.8 FE lens. Its primarily a scientific shot and the adjusted shows how I intended the image to look.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Your usual superb standard, Paul. I suppose the question about which actually represents reality is answered by what you saw when you were there yourself. However that was the reality you saw and which you attempted to capture. If I was there (unlikely!) I might see a different 'reality'. No camera or film that I have used can capture exactly the 'reality' that I can see. When I take a photo I often make a little mental note to self along the lines of 'I know what I will do with that one'. It is all a bit circular really, but it reflects what what the photographer wants to see and show.

As for technical points about the output abilities of different cameras and films I usually don't pay them much attention once I am in a shooting situation. To put it another way, the best camera is the one you have with you. Cameras and films are tools and the important thing for a photographer is to know what they can and cannot do. Beyond that it is up to the photographer (and processor, of course).

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

Some of the discussion at the end of the article on this link resembles some of the discussion on this thread. As for this particular David Bailey (I know of at least one other who is a photographer), his work is technically good, but has never been particularly interesting to me. Is it art? Does that matter? 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/02/look-again-by-david-bailey-review-girls-camera-action

There is a lot of personal taste displayed in the comments eg people preferring the work of Cartier Bresson and McCullin, but the work of the mentioned photographers is not comparable, of course. Each of them was very good at what they did.

William