Leica Rangefinder Photographs editing

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

At least it got people to thinking about this.  Maybe they will look at photos more critically from now on, searching for signs where the photo is trying to fool them.

I don't think people are as naive as you would like to believe. 

The antecedent to the digital debate is of course film. Many people here will remember reading National Geographic in the heyday of Kodachrome. Did readers really believe in the colours (never mind the editorial)? The 'other worldliness' extended to the advertising photography as well. It wasn't fooling anybody because even then readers had a sophisticated filter in their head that could differentiate the medium from reality. 

And people liked what they saw. Family holidays were photographed on Kodachrome, not because of its colour fidelity but because the colour saturation supercharged the memory of the holiday. Subliminally they liked being fooled.

it would have been a godsend for any family to have been able to remove the telegraph pole growing out the top of Aunt Fanny's head, or colour the sky blue after a three hour drive to the beach to be met by rain. These are simple human desires and responses to imagery, the only fool is the one for which a photograph is a fundamental truth.

[MikeMyers]

I think it's the other way 'round.  Just like people wanted longer, lower, wider cars with fins, they wanted their photographs in color, not b&w.  I think the first choice was Kodachrome, ASA 25, and then Ektachrome which was faster.  Kodachrome had the prettiest colors as I recall.  Accuracy wasn't yet "a thing".  Just having color was great, and unlike color prints, the colors lasted seemingly forever.  Naive isn't the word I would use they/we/I accepted the limitations, along with the benefits, and just used what we had access to.

I don't know what you mean by the National Geographic - seems like they went to great pains to get good, high-quality images, and if I remember right, 35mm was excluded for a very long time because it wasn't up to the quality.  Advertising of course was fake, along with the claims.  Fake or not, it was effective.  Parents bought what their kids were attracted to on TV....   and I remember when I got my very first color TV.  I went back to the store and bought another, to give to my parents.  Color accuracy was the last thing on my mind - quite irrelevant.  Things were now in color, and black&white TVs were being replaced.

Family holidays and Kodachrome?  Not in my world.  People went into the store and asked for color film, slide or print.  I'm sure you're right that the brilliant, bright colors were appreciated more than washed out pastels would have been.  I think I remember asking for "Kodacolor" film, but that wasn't for 35mm.  I didn't avoid color because of the color - I avoided it because I didn't know how to deal with it in my darkroom.  99% of my shooting was b&w.  My one attempt at doing color worked, but it was SO much hassle.  Cibachrome if I remember correctly.  My parents were happy with b&w of course, as that's what they grew up with.

As to a godsend of being able to remove telephone poles growing out of someone's head, yeah, books talked about that, and the photo magazines, but nobody other than me and my brother cared.  They cared about the person, and the expression, and so on - background stuff was irrelevant.  I doubt they cared about blue skies either - they didn't realize they were supposed to care.  As long at the people looked good, everyone I knew was happy.

22 minutes ago, 250swb said:

These are simple human desires and responses to imagery, the only fool is the one for which a photograph is a fundamental truth.

I guess that makes me a fool.  That's OK, I've been called worse. 

I spent the past two hours editing a photo I took this morning, right after sunrise, trying to show the golden glow over the city of Miami as the sun was just starting to illuminate the buildings.  What I ended up with matches what I saw.  I can't post it here, as I used my Nikon.  I may not be an artist, but a real artist likely knows how to use his tools to show what he sees.  When I take photos of damaged or sick eyes at the eye hospital I volunteer at in India, it is imperative that the captured image is an accurate representation of what was photographed.  I would like the photos I post in my online gallery to be reasonable representations of what I saw in my head as I took the photo.  Sometimes I can, other times I don't have the skills.  

Personally, I think that anyone spending $8,000 and up for a Leica camera, and another few thousand for a lens, ought to be trying to get the best quality out of the gear that is possible....but nowadays you are right, and I am wrong, as I figure the overwhelming majority of photos taken nowadays ar for the facebook or the instagram, or stuff like that, and the more outrageous the image is, the better.

 

I remember the old days, and maybe that's part of the reason I want to start shooting my M3 again, with b&w film.  Very sad, I'm quickly learning of all the things I forgot how to do.  I have no idea if I can still create the quality of my photos taken while growing up.  The biggest thing about photography while I was growing up, is it was fun, and it was exciting, and it was challenging, and it was frustrating.....   but very satisfying too.

 

Sorry for the diversion, just thinking out loud.

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Personally, I think that anyone spending $8,000 and up for a Leica camera, and another few thousand for a lens, ought to be trying to get the best quality out of the gear that is possible

No one would argue with that. Nor would anyone argue that it is perfectly acceptable for an individual to just stop there or with minimal post processing/darkroom adjustment. Where I take issue is when someone tells me that anything else is 'not photography', or that such 'rules' have some objective validity behind them.

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

a real artist likely knows how to use his tools to show what he sees

or how to use her/his tools to show other people what she/he wants them to see.  

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Where I take issue is when someone tells me that anything else is 'not photography', or that such 'rules' have some objective validity behind them.

The heart of the matter! 

[MikeMyers]

Oops, I have decided that you guys are right, and what I'm asking for is impossible.  

A friend of mine posted this image in a PhotoLab 4 forum.  The question asked is which square was darker, "A" or "B".  To me, it seemed pretty obvious, but I was wrong.  They are both the same shade of gray.

If I can't see this simple image "realistically" even when it's right in front of my eyes, I'm in no position to judge what is or isn't "real".

 

I think people  reading this post are going to think I lost my mind, because it is so obvious that A is darker than B, but like it or not, they are the same..  

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!

[MikeMyers]

If you still don't believe they are the same, here is a video that Joanna made to prove it:

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!

[P1505]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can see it if you squint.