G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

A thread recently discussed the rights and wrongs of getting the right exposure versus doing it later in PP. It got me thinking why we need to see reality in learning photography. I had just been looking at these photo's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10397734/Shipwreck-photograph-collection.html

These were produced by a company that ran from the 1800 to the 1900's and may even be working today, so must have/be successful. These are stark records of ship wrecks. More importantly, like many old photographs they have a flatness that suggests minimal post processing in the darkroom. These are not 'arty' monochrome pictures. (or reproduction has given them a flatness that suggests this) they are not 'pure' by any means as the write up states that they have had elements added but in today's world they would have been tinted or tone mapped with massive contrast and highlights at the very least. Primarily these were meant as record shots.

Today we largely see processed pictures - a kind of 'Dolby sound' of reality. Everywhere we look, we have perfect pictures as defined by advertising standards. Does reality play any part in video,film or photography. Can we go back to pre-Kodak color to get a sense of good photography.

An advertisement for a photo processing system featured on my set of UHH today. It showed a before and after image to portray how 'great' it was. Sadly I didn't like any of its reproductions as they all looked garish and brash. Even as a learning photographer, to suggest that this was a standard to strive for would be totally wrong. Yet it must appeal to some as an acceptable finish. How can you learn what a picture should look like when you are surrounded by artifice?

As cameras produce more and more in-camera processing. Will reality no longer be attainable on file. I don't mean to suggest that we should have mangy dirty dogs on our calendars or, as has been suggested, in other contexts, realistic (flabby) models on the catwalks. But a yardstick that says this is what we should try to attain first before looking to 'pimp' it.

I've been told to look at "the Masters" but these often produced stylized work. They reflect both the fashions and the technology used at the time. Other 'Artists' were merely 'off the wall' from their contemporaries and do not stand out as technically good photographically. Art for Art sake doesn't necessarily teach you, nor demand technical skill. Photographing barns in the US might have been wow in 1950's UK, but tells us very little today. Today, so much is done by 'modern masters' using post processing that realism doesn't exist in any noticeable context.

Someone here recently pointed out that we now have a new Jpeg standard that will reproduce color way beyond our brains ability to distinguish. We have so many hues and shades that we can no longer relate to them. Our memory cannot faithfully reproduce what things looked like the moment that we turn away. Having the technical ability to produce gazillions of hues doesn't help us reproduce what we think we saw. Surely THAT was the very essence of why we take photographs in the first place. Technology is taking us further away from what and why we deem certain things and times of day as being scenic, beautiful and special.

Many complain that mass photography generates low standards. Or, that photography is becoming too 'immediate'. A Take-it-share it-forget-it and-move-on art form. National Papers now feature badly PP'd snaps as 'taken by our readers' if irrelevant to anything printed or 'by the man at the scene' if it can be seen as being loosely linkable. Even TV features youtube clips as news items. It seems that 'camera standard' without technical camera skill is ok in some contexts but not in serious 'photography'. Yet the camera standard is manipulating the photographs in even the cheapest equipment used by the least trained.

So we come back to the question: where can we see reality in photography so that we can appreciate how falsely the imagery that we produce has altered it. Having the ability to reproduce dawn light or sunset color 'at will' negates the effort of skillful photography, but if that is all that the camera will produce - or that is wanted - what then?

"Shoot manual!" I hear someone at the back cry. But to do so takes us right back to the argument about using the right aperture in the first instance. If you don't know what that is and what it makes your picture look like then 'reality' is never going to be valued. Where do you see purely technically perfect pictures, taken with a camera set to (0)fix printed on everyday paper that inspire.

In a world of vibrant artificial colors it doesn't matter which field the grass grows in - it will always be the wrong shade. But when Canon or Fuji decide that grass will only be reproduced 'chinese type 4 blue/grey/green shade 2223333999911100003' will our critics allow us the ability to switch it back at will without censer?

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating a return to clockwork cameras for everyone. Perhaps merely a halt to bad taste becoming a corporate and international standard. I want to learn how to take photographs that show how skillfully I used the camera rather than how much Ram I have on my computer.

Can you recommend a book that has just correctly photographed pictures in it?

Is there a website that specializes in photographic realism with a small 'r'?

Is it too late to learn technique first ?????

TheDman Loc: USA

Who determines what is real?

TheDman Loc: USA

Right after you tell us what songs have been correctly made.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i remember discussions in the 40's as we tried to pick the 'right" toners, in the 50's as we argued over which papers gave the "right" blacks or whites, in the 60's wnen we debated the merets of this or that color films color bias, in the 70's and 80's as we scrambled to find the "proper" lens for contrast and color.

And now its the ubiquitous saturation, contrast, and raw edges the consumers of digital butchery demand.

Give it up, there is no market for a "true" image even if our hardware could be modified to produce it.

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

It's all real in the sense that if done well, it can all reflect the mood or message that the photographer wants to convey.

And none of it is real. A photo is two dimensional – so it is only an abstract representation of a three dimensional world. Most of our equipment can’t capture the full range of colors or shadow and light that exists in the world, so we make choices when taking photos. And, of course, each photographer decides how to represent reality by making decisions about where to point the camera and how to deal with focus and framing issues within images.

As I understand it, in the early days of photography folks thought that photographic images were the only way to capture a really accurate graphic representation of reality because they involved "light painting" -- a kind of reality shadow of what was in front of the camera.

That is one of the reasons why Mathew Brady (best known for his documentation of the American Civil War) got hired to do so much portrait work. It was thought that his images showed a "real" picture of the subject. But Brady picked the lighting, the time of day (important because he used a skylight) the costumes, and the pose. Brady made images of his impressions of who the subject was or wanted to be -- usually an heroic image of course.

That said, I think the OP does have a point. We have nonstop sensory input these days. Music is louder, colors are brighter, and there seems to be a never ending torrent of screaming incoming messages – each more garish than the one before. In photography, there is ever more of a tendency to want make images “pop” -- and so we do.

But why isn't it o.k. for the images to pop more than in the past? The real question, I think, is whether the images evoke some emotional response. Isn't that what art is about?

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

photography as a recording and photography as an artists chosen media; two different animals.

dinosaur39 Loc: Harpers Ferry, WV

G. Brown states brilliantly the reasons I continue to be suspicious of digital photography. When pictures taken by camera phones win first prize at the local photo contest, I begin to question the aesthetics behind the technology.

anotherview Loc: California

You ask this question: "How can you learn what a picture should look like when you are surrounded by artifice?"

Simple: Aim for actuality. First find an interesting subject requiring minimal if any later over-editing. Then do a straight exposure of the subject capturing the darks and lights of the scene. Develop the photograph in the software to match your perception of the subject while applying photographic techniques.

This workflow I follow to do straight photography.

The inherent interest of the photographed subject presented in its actuality will appeal to the visual sense of a viewer.

Taco Shop, Ensenada

SirLan Loc: London UK

We, that is all of us are in the most exciting time of our lives now. Photography is becoming limitless. So why waste your thoughts on what once was, when you can truely recreate the past with today's technology and make photo's look as empty or as full as you want them to be. The beauty or not is in the eye of the beholder. This is a limitless time for limitless minds and limitless technology. It is a great time. If you want to recreate the grainy look of a true picture of the past you can do it with your camera if you really want and see it immediately on the screen on your camera. No waiting for processing. Do some street photography with only one prime lens and see how much truth you can see in the photo's you take, create, minipulate. This new technology is a gift to be loved and true photo's of where we are today can be created whatever circumstance of mind and technology can be put too. I for one thank the past for where we are today and look forward to the future made from our todays. Limitless photography. It is a wonderful time to be a photographer.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Not sure "recording" is true. The camera setup, whether digital or pinhole, "sees" the world differently than the photographer, having different gamuts and no brain. Also, if a pinhole, film SLR, and DSLR shot the same scene, which would be "real"?

The question of a "more real" photo is mostly too slippery.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

One of the great photographers of the last century, Aubrey Bodine, lived and worked right here in Maryland. He was quite up front about how he kept numerous B&W negative transplarancies of clouds, suns, moons etc that he would layer into many of his photos, many of those award winners.

TheDman Loc: USA

What's a "straight" exposure, and how does it capture the darks and lights of a scene?

This must be why HDR has taken off, because people's exposures aren't straight enough.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the shipwreck pictures are in b&w, how realistic is that? (btw, I love b&w). They are great examples of photojournalism, but many good photographers have no interest in producing images exactly as the eye sees them, they want their images to be different from what their eyes see. That's why we use wide angle and telephoto lenses, different apertures, shutter speeds, etc, etc.

clh3RD

The world of music encompasses Bach and his Brandenburg Concertos as well as the German group's Da Da Da. Art masterpieces include Michelangelo's David and Picasso's Guernica. Perhaps photography ought to greet such diversity. It is not as though each of us must like all types of photos we see here on UHH and elsewhere.