TonyP Loc: New Zealand

My partner and I are retired, but publish Coffee News in the Bay of Plenty to keep the brain active and provide some extra income. Then I spend much of my time indulging my lately found passion for picture taking. 50 years ago I was an apprenticed photographer to a (NZ) well known Wellington Studio, eventually, when I thought I knew it all (yeah, right), went out on my own and did survive for some years as a GP Photographer. I still have a couple of Leica M3's and lenses that we used for most outside work. We went to Nikon later and I have stayed with Nikon now I have gone digital. Strangely, for many years after changing careers, I didn't take one photo. I had sold all my darkroom and studio equipment, my fantastic Hasselblad. I guess I was just photoed out :? I started again about 5 years ago with a D70, then a D200 and now have a D300s with the D200 as my backup. I still have my old 80-200 f2.8 and a 50 f1.8 but have bought a 70-300 f4.5 and the 18-200 VR kit lens. My focus is firstly animal pictures but after that, anything that catches my eye. (I am rarely without my Lumix LX3 in my pocket.)
Am not really a forum sort of bloke, but have been watching Ugly Hedgehog for some time and you seem an interesting bunch of people so thought it only fair I came out of my closet.
Have to add a little of my philosophy: Another NZ Photographer has put it far better than I could ever hope to, I hope David will forgive me for putting a link to his site, http://davidlloyd.info/2010/01/17/altered-states/ . But I wholeheartedly support his take on 'digital darkrooms'.
Phew, hope this post isn't too long. Now I'll go back to Mr Tusketwedges post and ask a question. Best regards to all who read this.

Rudolf Loc: Marietta, Georgia

Wonderful portfolio, welcome to the Hedgehog.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Well here is perhaps the longest welcome to the old Hog the site has seen. You think you are long winded! Regarding your interesting philosophical thoughts here is a further development.

The philosophical point is all about honesty. I'll go for that. And, I can see two aspects at either end of a communication, keeping intentions honest and expectations honest.

Being honest at the input-intentent location is what we have with the expressed philosophy. Understanding that is not difficult, don't lie. At the other end there is some responsibility too. An unlabeled picture is just that, a picture.

Don't have expectations and assumptions that it is a photograph. It may look like one, it may be based on photographic technology, but it is not a photograph for the viewer until it somehow labeled as such. Dare I say that there is something dishonest in having false expectations?
The unlabeled picture may well be truly photographic, but there is no way of knowing or being sure. The error of false assumption attaches to the viewer.

There is a problem to be dealt with in determining whether an image is a photograph or a mere picture. The crux of it is not so much a matter of alteration as degree. It is a rare image that is formed as an exact replica. So just how far from the original can we go and still have a photograph instead of merely a picture?

How many ways do images acceptable as photographs deviate from the original? Some common deviations are size, coloration, amount of exposure and representation of the range of light values present, and lens distortions. Then there are the artifacts of mechanical processing including the presentation medium. In the old days one chose the kind of print paper. For a transparency there was projector and projection surface to be considered. Today our cameras have electronic processing to introduce departures from the original image, though they may be attempting to match that. Even the fundamental camera RAW image represents the interaction of camera, sensitive surface, and the electronic translation of that into a stored file.

So, when we get an image out of a camera it is something far from the original image. This is also the case with the eye. Right off the inverted image gets converted to upright in the brain. Then only a slice of the color spectrum is represented. If we have cataracts, we have a yellow filter working on the image.

Yet we are willing to enter into a common sense agreement with others, that in an acceptable sense, what we most commonly get out of a camera is an honest image; that is mainly due, I think, to the intent of being a representational
product. We are willing to overlook certain deficiencies.

It is not too different from testimony. We accept as true statements that are essentially true rather than completely true. Completely true statements would be loaded with information of no interest; indeed it is impossible to manage a complete description of some object or circumstance just as a camera is limited in what it is able to resolve.

In producing a photograph for presentation human manipulation is introduced into the process. Even if completely managed mechanically by an automatically performing machine, the human element has set the machine to perform to some specification according to some set of intentions. Therefore, we may ask just what point does manipulation convert a photographic image into a mere picture; if we are accepting as a valid photograph something of less than complete accurate representation, where is the line drawn dividing the two concepts of image?

It is an interesting question, one that may seem to submit easily to some common sense, but just how much in common do we sense this matter? Individually it is an easy answer; it is answered as one pleases. But, to gain an answer that better satisfies a larger, better fitted sense, where does one go? Where is the line between?

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Welcome to UHH!

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Thanks Rudolf. Please note however that the portfolio ain't mine (wish it was).

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Hi Bobber, thank you for the extensive welcome, I think :) Please do note that the comments and website are by a fellow kiwi, David Lloyd and not by me. What both David and I believe is that digital file manipulation by someone with fantastic computer skills does not a photographer make. In days gone by, it was far more a truism that the camera didn't lie. Today, with the options provided by Photoshop, the Add-ins and Plug-ins and all the computer enhancing options that are available, that with absolutely no photographic skills at all, a graphic artist can pass him (or her) self off as a 'Photographer' of note. This of course is one of the reasons, for instance, that National Geographic wont even consider any material other than RAW files.
I didnt mean to be controversial in citing Davids opinion, only that I endorsed it.
Again, thank you for the welcome 8-)

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Thank you.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Indeed, I was just addressing a topic of interest your hello included. I did note both the distinction and the corresponding agreement. Don't worry about controversy- - -, it'll come looking for you regardless. It loves opinions. Translation, opinions = target. We all know what bit of anatomy is likened to opinion and the universality of that anatomy.

In an entirely different direction, I found a Kiwi military funeral as shown on Youtube fascinating. The inclusion of a strong dose of Polynesian warrior culture in the proceedings spoke clearly that that heart still beats. I also thought I saw in the physiognomy of many of the soldiers Polynesian traits. The figures carved on cemetery gate also did. As I recall, the European intrusion was stoutly resisted by those already present.

pjreed Loc: Tonopah, Arizona

Welcome to the UHH :thumbup:
Nice looking puppy

richardh76 Loc: VT, Central, Champlain Valley

A very warm Welcome to UHH!
And, I agree with you, nicely said!
Richard

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Hi from Wainuiomata,welcome to a great site,always something of interest.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Re the Military Funeral on You Tube. If that was a recent clip it was probably covering one of the funerals for some of our soldiers killed in Afghanistan. (we lost 5, including a young female medic in the space of about 2 weeks, to IED's, last month). Maori arrived in NZ about 700 years ago, thought to come from Polynesia. The English and French followed (invaded) about 150 years ago. Capt Cook, from England, discovered and charted NZ. Some areas were settled relatively peacefully but other areas (like where we live) experienced quite bloody battles. The figures you mentioned wouldn't have been on a cemetery gate, they were probably either at the Military Camp or at the entrance to a Marae and would have been Maori carvings. To us, Maori look like Maori and Polynesians, be they from any of the Islands in Polynesia, look like wherever they come from. The soldiers you refer to as looking Polynesian, were probably not Maori but from Polynesia. Our Military, and indeed society, has a rather high percentage of other Cultures from Polynesia (and also Asia).
Cheers

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Thank you for the welcome. The puppy is a 7 years old Swedish Valhund. Cheers

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Thanks Richard. Only web thing I have ever subscribed to so will have to learn the rules. Regards

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Thanks gnu37. Was born and lived in Wellington for many years. Used to go hunting over the back of Wainui (about 45 years ago!!). Bet its changed, a lot, since then :-)
Cheers