Integrity in Photography? (Page 16): Each time I scan a slide, I make sure it is level, crop it if needed, adjust the levels if needed, and then I inspect it at the 100%, or even 200%...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

selmslie wrote:

Scanned Kodachrome displayed on a computer or TV screen can accommodate the DR inherent in the slide but you have the same issue as with printing - you will probably have to do some post processing.

Each time I scan a slide, I make sure it is level, crop it if needed, adjust the levels if needed, and then I inspect it at the 100%, or even 200%, level for "scanning artifacts" - scratches, dust, fungus spots, etc - and correct them. Personally, I have no issues with the types of correction mentioned in the article {at the top of previous page}, which preserve the "truth" represented in the image {the "integrity" mentioned in the title of this thread}.

TheDman wrote:

Let's not misremember slide film as some sort of truth in photography. Slides were post processing. The colors Fuji Velvia produced would look garish even next to the most outlandish HDR of today.

Which is why I didn't use Velvia.

TheDman Loc: USA

Fotoartist wrote:

The premise you just set includes too many hard to agree on definitions.

I didn't set them, Gary post did. I'm just asking for examples. You say you know of some, and can find them. Let's see.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Fotoartist wrote:

The premise you just set includes too many hard to agree on definitions.

TheDman didn't set them. YOU did.

Granted that you copied them from elsewhere, but...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rehess wrote:

Each time I scan a slide, I make sure it is level, crop it if needed, and adjust the levels if needed, and then I inspect it at the 100%, or even 200%, level for "scanning artifacts" - scratches, dust, fungus spots, etc - and correct them. Personally, I have no issues with the types of correction mentioned in the article {at the top of this page}, which preserve the "truth" represented in the image {the "integrity" mentioned in the title of this thread}.

You can see why I said that you probably need to post process a scan.

There is no hard line that can be drawn. You and I seem to prefer a documentary over an artistic approach. Both are valid and both can produce beautiful images.

The choice is whether to preserve the integrity of the image or to create something that was not actually in the original image which may be what others want to do.

TheDman Loc: USA

selmslie wrote:

He is clearly not speaking of anyone who is, "... (show quote)

He did say they were "taking a bow for being a great photographer", which would imply some level of achievement. The whole point of post processing is to strengthen a photo. What separates the good photographers from the bad is knowing which images have potential and which ones don't. The ones that don't cannot be turned into a silk purse no matter how much processing.

What I find is that people who complain that post processing turns lousy snapshots into great photos wouldn't know great photos if they fell over them. In order to be a great image it must be captured correctly, otherwise it's lipstick on a pig. At least in the landscape genre, the guys who spend hours processing take infinitely more care in the initial capture than the non-processors. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't have the material to do what they do.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

If I was to use myself as an example you could say, I'm not respected as some sort of great photographer. And if I showed some work you could say, that's not a masterpiece.

Maybe we can agree on Ansel Adams. His original Moonrise looks like crap to me as an overall image in general. Yeah, it's sharp and all the information is there. But SOOC, no way. But he pulled it off in PP and I and many others agree it's a masterpiece.

TheDman wrote:

I didn't set them, Gary post did. I'm just asking for examples. You say you know of some, and can find them. Let's see.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Fotoartist wrote:

If I was to use myself as an example you could say, I'm not respected as some sort of great photographer. And if I showed some work you could say, that's not a masterpiece.

Maybe we can agree on Ansel Adams. His original Moonrise looks like crap to me as an overall image in general. Yeah, it's sharp and all the information is there. But SOOC, no way. But he pulled it off in PP and I and many others agree it's a masterpiece.

Yes, Ansel Adams was/is highly respected as an artist; Gary Winogrand is probably a good representative of the other pole.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

TheDman wrote:

... What separates the good photographers from the bad is knowing which images have potential and which ones don't. The ones that don't cannot be turned into a silk purse no matter how much processing. ...

One very good example of that in practice is the often followed advice to add "capture sharpening" as the first editing step. Yet it is well known that sharpening should always be the last step and specifically should only be done after an image is resampled to its final size. Yet people argue they can't work on an image that is not sharp!

If they can't see past something that basic how can they even begin to select an image with potential that will be enhanced with significant editing?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TheDman wrote:

... What I find is that people who complain that post processing turns lousy snapshots into great photos wouldn't know great photos if they fell over them. ...

I get what you are driving at but I have never heard anyone express that as a complaint.

Take a look at any random thread in the Post Processing section. Count the number of times that cropping is suggested.

Now try and find a suggestion that the photographer return to the scene for a do-over.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

TheDman wrote:

That's very noble of you. We should all strive to approach digital photography with the same honor, duty, and justice that film shooters do.

yup, noble is my middle name

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

selmslie wrote:

I get what you are driving at but I have never heard anyone express that as a complaint.

Take a look at any random thread in the Post Processing section. Count the number of times that cropping is suggested.

Now try and find a suggestion that the photographer return to the scene for a do-over.

Several years ago a picture was posted at the Gallery with a request that people suggest how he could deal with a branch in the middle of the picture he hadn't noticed at the time. There were lots of suggestions for cropping and cloning; my comment was that he could have avoided all that if he had "stepped into the picture and zoomed out", because he would have been past the branch and would have had a more pleasing angle on the street. However, my experience is that people don't think about things like that before they press the shutter {incidentally. one of the jokes in our family is the "five minute photo stop" that stretches out to fifteen or even thirty minutes as I vet one perspective after another}

tdekany Loc: Oregon

gary post wrote:

I agree with westj. If you don't get it right in the camera and have to "post-process" the image, I feel that you are a "lab tech" not a photographer.
If you shot slides, you learned to get it right the first time as there was no "post processing".

Talented pro photographers who get it right in camera go home and post process their photos. PP is not to “fix” it.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

rehess wrote:

Yes, Ansel Adams was/is highly respected as an artist; Gary Winogrand is probably a good representative of the other pole.

Not a good example. Winogrand actually spent a great deal of time working in a darkroom. He had some very interesting methods too.

Given that he necessarily took many thousands of images to get the few he was willing to work on and show or publish, his processing is of interest. One thing he insisted on was to not review a contact sheet until he no longer actually remembered taking specific shots. He wanted to only be influenced by what he saw in the image and not by what he might remember thinking it would be when he took it. A lot of people mistake his method to distance his memory as a lack of interest in anything to do with processing, but it actually was the opposite.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Apaflo wrote:

Not a good example. Winogrand actually spent a gr... (show quote)

anyone good in the use of film, spends a hell of a lot of time in the darkroom, or has some very talented assistants who work for the photographer for a very talented salary!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

One very good example of that in practice is the o... (show quote)

What are you talking about? Those people are napshot shooters. The TheDman is talking about skilled photographers, not the wannabe snapshot shooters with 50+ years of pressing she shutter. Do you know anyone like that?

PS: at least you were smart enough to walk away after your “sure” reply to me. I will give you credit for that.