Ansel Adams, Group f/64, Manipulation and the History of Photography
Jan 17, 2018 10:06:45 #
I don’t get it. It’s like saying that in the art of writing only non-fiction is valid. Are not poetry and fiction also valid expressions of the art?
Jan 17, 2018 10:13:07 #
For those who wish to go down this bunny rabbit trail of image manipulation you may find this worth an interesting read.
National Geographic was the first to step into this cow pie of what constitutes image manipulation.
I was there when Photoshop .95 Beta was released and when I saw it I said "The cat is out of the bag".
Love it or hate it there is no going back.
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/
National Geographic was the first to step into this cow pie of what constitutes image manipulation.
I was there when Photoshop .95 Beta was released and when I saw it I said "The cat is out of the bag".
Love it or hate it there is no going back.
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/
http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/national-geographic/
Jan 17, 2018 10:14:46 #
kymarto wrote:
I don’t get it. It’s like saying that in the art of writing only non-fiction is valid.
No, it’s more like saying do not confuse Field of Dreams with actual historic events. The movie is great and entertaining. It even relates to baseball, but it never really happened.
kymarto wrote:
Are not poetry and fiction also valid expressions of the art?
Sure they are, nobody is saying they are not. What I, at least, am saying is let’s not call fiction real. Read it, watch it, appreciate it for what it is, but acknowledge what it is.
Jan 17, 2018 10:17:59 #
Ariel wrote:
What is this realistic/journalistic nonsense ? Would be interested in your meaning of the words.
I think pixelmasters Nat. Geo. link addresses this pretty well.
Jan 17, 2018 10:31:31 #
Shutterbug57 wrote:
Sure they are, nobody is saying they are not. What I, at least, am saying is let’s not call fiction real. Read it, watch it, appreciate it for what it is, but acknowledge what it is.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that both literature and photography are both forms of art.
Where are the boundaries between creative art and documentary work, fiction, non-fiction and fictionalized?
Do those boundaries even matter, and if so when and why?
Jan 17, 2018 10:34:47 #
I think an earlier comment that Adams did not add anything he just printed from his negative is a bit short sighted. A technique of printing directly from the negative is a contact print. Adams added his controlled application of light through the negative to the paper to create what he saw in his minds eye. Today he would use Lightroom to create his image/art. You could say when he captured the light coming through his lens was half the job. The other half was controlling the light coming out the lens.
Jan 17, 2018 10:40:41 #
jbmauser wrote:
I think an earlier comment that Adams did not add ... (show quote)
Adams actually said that the image on film was the score. The print was the performance.
Jan 17, 2018 10:50:35 #
Jan 17, 2018 10:52:52 #
Peterff wrote:
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that both literature and photography are both forms of art.
Ok, I agree they are.
Peterff wrote:
Where are the boundaries between creative art and documentary work, fiction, non-fiction and fictionalized?
Documentary work documents what actuality is, creative/artistic work captures the scene as the artist envisions it. Fiction is a work of the imagination, story telling. Non-fiction is a recounting of an event that actually happened, without embellishment. Fictionalized/historiography is a story telling based on or an embellishment of an actual event.
Peterff wrote:
Do those boundaries even matter, and if so when and why?
I suggest the boundaries do matter. If, for instance I am asserting that I am a journalist reporting actual events, it would be fraudulent if I reported what is not so either in words or pictures. I would be misleading my viewership/readership while taking their money, directly or indirectly. I should, and increasingly may not, get fired.
In journalism, the truth is supposed to matter. Tell/show the folks what happened and let them determine what to make of it. I suspect your confusion may be because in today’s world, we have a media that is largely devoid of journalists - they are talking heads who tell you what to think, not what happened.
Jan 17, 2018 10:53:08 #
Jan 17, 2018 10:59:18 #
Ariel wrote:
Not at all .........the question was what are your definitions.
Ok
Realistic - represents reality or an event as it actually occurred. In context, one would not remove clouds from the image that are clearly on the negative. Or, one would not move the pyramids. To do so is artistic.
Journalistic - reporting the facts of what happened and allowing the reader to interpret the facts. In context, this would be printing an image as it actually appears on the negative. To do otherwise is artistic.
Nonsense - a pejorative term employed by one attempting, unsuccessfully as it happens, to belittle another.
Jan 17, 2018 11:00:02 #
Ariel wrote:
you are comparing apples to oranges
Are we supposed to guess whom you are addressing?
I was comparing fiction with reality. That is what was asked.
Jan 17, 2018 11:00:08 #
kymarto wrote:
I don’t get it. It’s like saying that in the art of writing only non-fiction is valid. Are not poetry and fiction also valid expressions of the art?
All forms of writing are valid. All forms of photography are valid. Each "sector" needs to respect what the others do.
Jan 17, 2018 11:05:01 #
Shutterbug57 wrote:
I suggest the boundaries do matter. If, for instan... (show quote)
I am not confused. I was asking the questions to solicit responses. Thank you for your well expressed response.
Jan 17, 2018 11:07:43 #
Why do so many here feel that the term “manipulated “ as it applies to Adams’ Moonrise, for instance, bears a negative connotation?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.