It's official... digital is crap...

woof woof said:
Either no one manipulated or staged pictures before digital came along or this is just tripe from a bloke who certainly will know better, yet he's saying silly things.

Oh well.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point by a country mile.
 
odd jim said:
Photography is defined as;

"the art or practice of taking and processing photographs" (Oxford English)

So the medium doesn't come into it - photography is photography.
Click to expand...

I said it's how I define things in my own mind, for my own benefit. I didn't say that was the official definition of photography. I actually went out of my way to say that it was my personal definition.

Having said that, I do think it's time photography and digital photography were better named and defined as a practice. The tools, methods and results are so wildly different.

I'd like to suggest the term, "still video", because that's what digital photos often look like to me. Also, the way things are going, I reckon that's literally what it will be in a couple of years anyway...shoot everything, and pick the best frame when you get home! Ha ha!
 
FujiLove said:
Of course, but it's usually very subtle compared to today's digital manipulations. You can go off at crazy tangents using masks and multiple exposures, but on an enlarger these tend to look completely obvious and actually quite silly.

It's fair to say you can manipulate when wet printing, but to suggest it's the same is completely wrong.
Click to expand...
It's not "completely wrong". The level of processing (or manipulation) that's achievable in a wet darkroom is down to the knowledge and skill of the person doing the processing. You can do **almost** anything in a wet darkroom that you can do in "develop" mode in Lightroom with the right skills and equipment, bar some of the newer additions such as de-haze.

And before anyone pipes up, you can even change the hues of individual colours.

But it's more difficult and of course I recognise that.

But if someone wants to process their own, personal image to something *they* find aesthetically pleasing, create it on a canvass and hang on their wall who are we to criticise?

This is wholly different from manipulating a documentary image and passing it off as fact.
 
Last edited:
FujiLove said:
I said it's how I define things in my own mind, for my own benefit. I didn't say that was the official definition of photography. I actually went out of my way to say that it was my personal definition.

Having said that, I do think it's time photography and digital photography were better named and defined as a practice. The tools, methods and results are so wildly different.

I'd like to suggest the term, "still video", because that's what digital photos often look like to me. Also, the way things are going, I reckon that's literally what it will be in a couple of years anyway...shoot everything, and pick the best frame when you get home! Ha ha!
Click to expand...
You can already do that!

But if your digital photos look like video stills you're doing something wrong :) And again, relevant to film, you could always shoot 8mm / 16mm film and use a single frame as a stills photo? More effectively in fact. Nothing's changed, just the medium it's recorded on!
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
He shot a great deal of colour work on assignments. However, black and white wasn't a choice though, it was a necessity for the vast majority of work.


.
Click to expand...
But....he made his name with the biggest removal of reality that exists. Colour. I have books by him on the shelf next to me with hundreds and hundreds of his images in, not one is in colour. His current landscape work is the same. Mono. His choice to remove the thing that gets us closer to reality that there is. It's the same old story, whose reality are we all bound by?

Pookeyhead said:
I don't think he is. What he describes is a real problem. We're finding it harder and harder to find representations of the world around us we can trust. The best example of this is the Peter Kennard montage that (like most of his work) went viral as a meme. You'll be amazed at how many people think this is real...


View attachment 51423






.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't a news image. It was a meme...sure some people believe in memes, social media is full of images with writing over them that purports to be factual, i had a conversation with my 20yo the other day about them, (brought up by him) and he said he was ditching fb purely because of the s*** that is posted on there, specifically this type of s***. So, all is not lost....


Pookeyhead said:
I'm not sure what you think they "get" better than older people, but if it's camera controls and basic theory, then the problem is these days is not whether they can get it or not, but the fact that they're not arsed about getting it. Turn your back, and 70% of them will just put the camera back on auto. At degree level, the mature students are by FAR the better students. The kids ignore all the technical stuff these days.... they've been made to feel cocky by F.E courses that reward crap and produce "distinction" students that have never been taught to operate the gear... actually been rewarded for it. Then there's social media and Flickr et al that further rewards they're work produced with no technical skill at all.... then I come along and tell them they need to go back to the beginning now, because we're using manual studio flash, or film, or just because I want to ensure you can use a camera manually in tricky situations... or, being controversial... because it's FUN. Guess how that goes down... :) The more mature students just accept it, do it, lean from it, and get better as a result. The kids fight it, challenge you, and invariably continue shooting on auto and making things on a computer that ultimately no one outside of social media is actually interested seeing, and certainly no one wants to PAY them for. By year 2 they start to get it, but by then they're the weakest students and need to work so much harder.

Sorry mate... but you're dead wrong on this one, but it's nothing to do with kids being measurably more stupid, but because education at lower levels than I teach at have convinced themselves that these "digital natives" need to do every ****ing thing on a computer. Decisions made by idiots, basically.





That's the majority though. Seriously.... more people in the world think that Kennard montage above is real than not. That's the world now. Despite more and more images being false, more and more people actually believe what they see. This democratisation of photography the digital world has heralded in, genuinely is a double edged sword. The majority of the world are NOT photgraphers, despite the popular saying that suggests they are.





.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean 'get it' as in camera settings. I have no idea whether they do or don't, as you say, you're in a better position to judge that. I think the young do always seek to find a quick and easy fix to everything. Its a disposable society we live in. But i would argue there will always be some, just some, that will learn it because its fun/interesting/gives better results etc. As there always have been. I expect the same debates took place when 'auto' first appeared on a camera and a 'cheap' camera became available to the masses. In fact, i think I recall a documentary saying exactly that.

Pookeyhead said:
You've been "normalised" by it all probably, and you like it.

That depends what movies you watch I suppose. Hollywood crap, then sure... no reality there either, but then again, would we expect it? Surely our expectations in a movie theatre are different from those we have when we look at the front page of a quality broadsheet.
Click to expand...
Movies have never shown reality i guess, I'll give you that. But documentaries? The infamous polar bear scene narrated by the god of natural history? Reality? Mmmm........
Pookeyhead said:
I do wish people would stop making this assumption. He shot as much colour as he did black and white.



I'm not a photographer from the old days, and nor do I have anything against using digital. I teach it... I use it... most of what I do is digital, and I probably know more about it than you do, so I'm sorry, assuming that anyone who agrees with these sentiments is some old dinosaur that has just refused to move with the times is false and misleading.
Click to expand...
But he isn't as 'famous' for his colour work...?

My comment was general, the majority that make these comments are older. Look at all the film comments above, i'd wager the majority of those come from the over 50's age group.
 
Phil V said:
The point here is silly, you're arguing (uneducated) opinion against fact. o_O

And the fact that you can't understand why news photography should be un-manipulated is frankly sad.
Click to expand...
Ummm....which bit is uneducated? Oh the bit about the writing? Haha, really? Photographers of the past didn't pick out the scene that best gave across their point of view and perspective?

I get why news photography is sacrosanct but when its accompanied by the written drivel it has little bearing anyway. I just wonder why images are more above the moral line that the written word? I realise it always has been but why?

The interesting piece in the future will be who the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway? I honestly don't know of anyone that actually buys a paper these days on a regular basis anymore. Certainly the kids don't even look at their websites. So Murdoch will have much less influence in the future anyway...it could be argued.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Ummm....which bit is uneducated? Oh the bit about the writing? Haha, really? Photographers of the past didn't pick out the scene that best gave across their point of view and perspective?

I get why news photography is sacrosanct but when its accompanied by the written drivel it has little bearing anyway. I just wonder why images are more above the moral line that the written word? I realise it always has been but why?

The interesting piece in the future will be who the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway? I honestly don't know of anyone that actually buys a paper these days on a regular basis anymore. Certainly the kids don't even look at their websites. So Murdoch will have much less influence in the future anyway...it could be argued.
Click to expand...
To be fair, all the newspapers have web sites...
 
odd jim said:
You can already do that!

But if your digital photos look like video stills you're doing something wrong :) And again, relevant to film, you could always shoot 8mm / 16mm film and use a single frame as a stills photo? More effectively in fact. Nothing's changed, just the medium it's recorded on!
Click to expand...

That's very true, especially so as 35mm is a movie format and was never meant for stills.

And you're right in saying that it's only the medium that's changed. But digital photography is a change to a non-physical medium, which is an enormous change. So much of a change that I stand by my original argument that they are two different processes and should be named and treated as such.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
My comment was general, the majority that make these comments are older. Look at all the film comments above, i'd wager the majority of those come from the over 50's age group.
Click to expand...

I'm over fifty and I wish digital had been around at today's stage of development forty years ago. For me film is dead. Long live digital.

FujiLove said:
But digital photography is a change to a non-physical medium, which is an enormous change. So much of a change that I stand by my original argument that they are two different processes and should be named and treated as such.
Click to expand...

It's still pointing a camera at something and making an exposure like Fox Talbot and Daguerre did. You might just as well treat Daguerrotypes as different to paper negatives and use a different language to talk about each of them.

Photography is simply about using a lens to focus light on a recording surface. Doesn't matter a jot what that surface is or what is done with that recording, it's all photography.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Ummm....which bit is uneducated? Oh the bit about the writing? Haha, really? Photographers of the past didn't pick out the scene that best gave across their point of view and perspective?

I get why news photography is sacrosanct but when its accompanied by the written drivel it has little bearing anyway. I just wonder why images are more above the moral line that the written word? I realise it always has been but why?

The interesting piece in the future will be who the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway? I honestly don't know of anyone that actually buys a paper these days on a regular basis anymore. Certainly the kids don't even look at their websites. So Murdoch will have much less influence in the future anyway...it could be argued.
Click to expand...
Again, an opinion, you're entitled to it. But you can't overthrow facts with one. :)

News photography doesn't just appear in print, and not all news reporting is drivel. Seriously if you want a discussion you'll have to step back from the hyperbole, no one will take it seriously.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I get why news photography is sacrosanct but when its accompanied by the written drivel it has little bearing anyway. I just wonder why images are more above the moral line that the written word? I realise it always has been but why?

The interesting piece in the future will be who the hell reads newspapers anymore anyway? I honestly don't know of anyone that actually buys a paper these days on a regular basis anymore. Certainly the kids don't even look at their websites. So Murdoch will have much less influence in the future anyway...it could be argued.
Click to expand...

The written word, or even the title sets the story. without these to set the direction, your personal beliefs, experiences would possibly give a different interpretation to the image than someone elses.
News photography is sacrosanct, really. Which image is chosen by the editor to reflect that papers political views? Which image is selected that is cropped in a particular way to suit?


Oh and I read the Guardian everyday on ipad, buy the Sunday Times every week.
About 2million people buy the sun every day, about 1.5million buy the Daily Mail. About 7-7.5 million papers are bought every day, then there's the free ones given away, locals, etc
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Again, an opinion, you're entitled to it. But you can't overthrow facts with one. :)

News photography doesn't just appear in print, and not all news reporting is drivel. Seriously if you want a discussion you'll have to step back from the hyperbole, no one will take it seriously.
Click to expand...
Haha, your condescension is admirable. I can have any type of discussion I choose to thanks and anyone can take it as seriously or not as they choose. If you don't get that virtually every piece of writing accompanying any image has an agenda then it is you sir that is sad.

I never said that newspapers were only in print, if you want a discussion, perhaps its better to make a point rather than just hurl crap about. You keep on about facts but don't mention which ones.
 
From day one, a photograph has been an abstract. It never did and never will be reality or tell the whole story. Press photographs are illustrations, the published frames chosen carefully by the editor to sell their propaganda.

David, I think you have shot yourself in the foot with your thread title somewhat. I have to say that I understand your dismay about the level of altered reality (not that I totally agree with you by the way) and I have enjoyed reading the discussion but to put such a headline as this on a link is in my view just as much manipulation as anything you could do to a photograph.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Haha, your condescension is admirable. I can have any type of discussion I choose to thanks and anyone can take it as seriously or not as they choose. If you don't get that virtually every piece of writing accompanying any image has an agenda then it is you sir that is sad.

I never said that newspapers were only in print, if you want a discussion, perhaps its better to make a point rather than just hurl crap about. You keep on about facts but don't mention which ones.
Click to expand...
But that's not the point of the debate, which is the manipulation of the image.

I have less faith in the honesty of the press than most, but I'd still fight for standards to exist rather than shrugging my shoulders saying that we can't expect honesty.
 
Byker28i said:
The written word, or even the title sets the story. without these to set the direction, your personal beliefs, experiences would possibly give a different interpretation to the image than someone elses.
News photography is sacrosanct, really. Which image is chosen by the editor to reflect that papers political views? Which image is selected that is cropped in a particular way to suit?


Oh and I read the Guardian everyday on ipad, buy the Sunday Times every week.
About 2million people buy the sun every day, about 1.5million buy the Daily Mail. About 7-7.5 million papers are bought every day, then there's the free ones given away, locals, etc
Click to expand...
Ummm....it is exactly my point. Images are chosen to represent any particular publication's agenda, always have been. Its a strange set of belief systems for me thats all. Removing a bit of straw isn't acceptable but cropping, taking an image out of general context etc is fine as long as it hasn't been doctored too much. And you can write anything you like, doesn't have to be factual, just a snapshot of propaganda and its ok.

Red top readership is dropping by 10% per year isn't it? 185,000 people buy the guardian compared to over 432,000 in 2001. The Times dropped from 700,000 to 400,000. Its a dying industry and going online where I suggest the readership is much more transient than it used to be. It's changing dramatically and new titles are emerging with less need for expensive resources meaning the likes of Murdoch will have less influence per se.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I'm over fifty and I wish digital had been around at today's stage of development forty years ago. For me film is dead. Long live digital.



It's still pointing a camera at something and making an exposure like Fox Talbot and Daguerre did. You might just as well treat Daguerrotypes as different to paper negatives and use a different language to talk about each of them.

Photography is simply about using a lens to focus light on a recording surface. Doesn't matter a jot what that surface is or what is done with that recording, it's all photography.
Click to expand...

To me it isn't. The medium is a huge factor in the process and result. Digital is non-physical, so very different. I'm not saying better or worse, just different. In the same way painting is a completely different medium and process to photography. The digital medium allows all these manipulations we see today to be easy, quick and automated, hence available to all. Perhaps more importantly, it also facilitates easy and instantaneous distribution of images, which is playing a huge role in modern photography. You may only think of it as a simple change of media, but to me it's huge. I haven't read a single thing on this thread, or indeed anywhere else that convinces me that photography and digital photography are essentially the same. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are chalk and cheese as far as I'm concerned.
 
Phil V said:
But that's not the point of the debate, which is the manipulation of the image.

I have less faith in the honesty of the press than most, but I'd still fight for standards to exist rather than shrugging my shoulders saying that we can't expect honesty.
Click to expand...
Me too to a degree, I just think the lines are blurred and to a certain extent always have been. Therefore honesty has always been subjective. Maybe the debates are a good thing and means the lines will be redrawn so we can all understand where they lie and the modern day serious press will sign up to a true 'code' or something. It's going to be difficult tho due to the subjectivity.

I'm not advocating a free for all but care less about a bit of straw on a zoo gorilla than I do an out of context heavily cropped 'scene' that gives the impression of total and utter chaos and devastation (for example) when the reality is a few guys had a punch up on a Saturday night. Still not nice but contextually less important than the impression given.
 
And my main point to the original post regarding McCullin was his infamy generated by images that contained no colour. Surely this is the biggest removal of 'reality' there is? Where is the 'reality' in that? There is none.

His google search for images produces virtually no colour images at all on the first page despite the protestations that he also shot in colour.

It is because of this I disagree with his comments and call him out for being one of the best exponents of non-reality images there is! I repeat, I love and respect his work, just not this opinion.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Me too to a degree, I just think the lines are blurred and to a certain extent always have been. Therefore honesty has always been subjective. Maybe the debates are a good thing and means the lines will be redrawn so we can all understand where they lie and the modern day serious press will sign up to a true 'code' or something. It's going to be difficult tho due to the subjectivity.

I'm not advocating a free for all but care less about a bit of straw on a zoo gorilla than I do an out of context heavily cropped 'scene' that gives the impression of total and utter chaos and devastation (for example) when the reality is a few guys had a punch up on a Saturday night. Still not nice but contextually less important than the impression given.
Click to expand...

I think 20-30 years ago images were generally accepted as truthful, thinking of time magazine, etc. these days a lot of people assume the image has been altered in some way and high profile cases such as those affecting Reuters or the world press photo comp reinforce this belief. 20% of world press photo entries disqualified, new rules needed, no wonder Reuters is trying to restore faith.
 
FujiLove said:
To me it isn't. The medium is a huge factor in the process and result. Digital is non-physical, so very different. I'm not saying better or worse, just different. In the same way painting is a completely different medium and process to photography. The digital medium allows all these manipulations we see today to be easy, quick and automated, hence available to all. Perhaps more importantly, it also facilitates easy and instantaneous distribution of images, which is playing a huge role in modern photography. You may only think of it as a simple change of media, but to me it's huge. I haven't read a single thing on this thread, or indeed anywhere else that convinces me that photography and digital photography are essentially the same. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are chalk and cheese as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Ever since the invention of the negative photographs have been reproducible and distributable. Digital is just the latest development of that. Every development in photography has been to simply the process. You see digital as a step change, I see it as part of a continuum.

What sets photography apart, and gives it its power, is that the pictures are easily made, reproduced and disseminated. Anything which facilitates that is good in my opinion.

But then I have never believed that the medium (or quality for that matter) of reproduction of photographs is important, only the information they contain. If I want a medium to be important I'll look to painting, drawing etc.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
And my main point to the original post regarding McCullin was his infamy generated by images that contained no colour. Surely this is the biggest removal of 'reality' there is? Where is the 'reality' in that? There is none.

His google search for images produces virtually no colour images at all on the first page despite the protestations that he also shot in colour.

It is because of this I disagree with his comments and call him out for being one of the best exponents of non-reality images there is! I repeat, I love and respect his work, just not this opinion.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between a photo that's desaturated and one which has been digitally manipulated to, for instance, remove a person from the scene. I'm sure McCullin was mostly referring to that sort of manipulation, rather than changing tones or contrast. I know he also mentioned over-saturation as a personal dislike, but the general point of the article is that digital photography is going way too far. In his opinion film has more integrity, and I agree with him.
 
FujiLove said:
There is a huge difference between a photo that's desaturated and one which has been digitally manipulated to, for instance, remove a person from the scene. I'm sure McCullin was mostly referring to that sort of manipulation, rather than changing tones or contrast. I know he also mentioned over-saturation as a personal dislike, but the general point of the article is that digital photography is going way too far. In his opinion film has more integrity, and I agree with him.
Click to expand...
In other words HE chooses what integrity means. Removing colour is ok, anything else isn't. I don't agree with him.
 
Last edited:
Rich_Ellis said:
In other words HE chooses what integrity means. Removing colour is ok, anything else isn't. I don't agree with him.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the definition of integrity really is in this context...but are you saying a simple B&W photo, shot on a film camera has the same or less integrity than a digital image where someone has been cloned out and a fake sky pasted in?! :facepalm:
 
How many times have people on here on seeing a photograph (the bird carrying the stoat, springs to mind) say it must have been photo shopped? What I think he is alluding to is that whilst we (those of us that are into photography) are aware that you can manipulate film photography. The public as a whole see digital as an easy manipulated media and will place less reliance on it.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
But....he made his name with the biggest removal of reality that exists. Colour.
Click to expand...

Newspapers of the time were black and white. Hardly his fault. Almost every MAGAZINE assignment he did from the late 60s onwards (he didn't ONLY shoot war you know) was colour.


Rich_Ellis said:
I have books by him on the shelf next to me with hundreds and hundreds of his images in, not one is in colour.
Click to expand...

Need some better books then

94f9da62c44eab29d9e667f781f4267b.jpg 1970s-MAGAZINE-DON-MCCULLIN-DESERT-NOMADS.jpg 1972170IP.jpg
19680324_3.jpg

DON-McCULLIN-Biafra-BERYL-REID-William-Holman-Hunt.jpg



You do realise that even some of the images that went to press as B&W were actually shot in colour.. don't you?




Rich_Ellis said:
But it wasn't a news image. It was a meme...sure some people believe in memes, social media is full of images with writing over them that purports to be factual, i had a conversation with my 20yo the other day about them, (brought up by him) and he said he was ditching fb purely because of the s*** that is posted on there, specifically this type of s***. So, all is not lost....
Click to expand...

No.. it BECAME a meme because people thought it was real. It was a piece of photo montage art by Peter Kennard. It was not created as a meme.



Rich_Ellis said:
Movies have never shown reality i guess, I'll give you that. But documentaries? The infamous polar bear scene narrated by the god of natural history? Reality? Mmmm........
Click to expand...


Nope.. but it's not news. It's documentary and all you have to do is look at Lorca di Corsia or Mosse to see how negotiable that is.

Rich_Ellis said:
But he isn't as 'famous' for his colour work...?
Click to expand...

Who's fault is that?
 
Last edited:
Oh.... he didn;t just shoot war and conflict either

index.jpg
 
From the angle of a low budget hybrid (scanned film) enthusiast, that really doesn't give diddly squat about how others get their kicks out of photography (I enjoy capturing on film, then sharing in the Digital World), all that I can claw out of this discussion, is that for some reason, hybrid film photographers don't feel the need to be so heavy with post-scan software manipulation, as do many popular schools of full digital photography.

What I mean is, that although our film scanners do often make corrections such as auto levels (depending on how we set up the controls), I cant recall seeing any film photographers employ strong software filters or PP techniques. Modern film photographers largely seem to favour what some might deem to be a "natural", or alternatively "film photograph" look. This is in contrast to many full digital photographers that appear to be drawn to heavy software manipulation techniques - over-the-top HDR, selective colour, fake filters, special effects, unblemished skin, sharpened eyes, etc, etc. For some reason film photographers prefer to make photos in a camera as much as possible, while scores of digital photographers (partly encouraged by photography magazines, and unconsciously by trends), see "Photoshop" as being perhaps the most important part of the process.

I really don't mean to disrespect all of the great photographers using modern technology, that do not get sucked into the "let's make it stick out glossy, sharp, and unreal" camp. I really do have respect for the future of digital photography, and I'm sure that I'll employ more of it one day in the future. I've said before, that future archaeologists of photography will be able to date digital photography by it's filter or technique. Horses for courses though I guess, certainly the general public are attracted to some highly processed digital images. They're no more the real world though, than my dusty b/w scanned film images.

I keep saying this, but two issues get lost in these discussions. 1) as far as we amateurs are concerned - whatever makes you happy in photography is just fine. For an enthusiast - happiness is the goal. 2) different schools of technology require different technologies. I'm not going to try to convince a digital wild-life photographer, that they should dump their gear for a 40 year old 35mm compact.

I think that this was part of the Don's point. Contemporary, popular photography has been incredibly driven by software. He mentioned the over the top colours. Contemporary styles of photography such as HDR were perhaps his target. I sort of agree with him, it's not to my taste - but I do reserve the right of others to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Newspapers of the time were black and white. Hardly his fault. Almost every MAGAZINE assignment he did from the late 60s onwards (he didn't ONLY shoot war you know) was colour.




Need some better books then

View attachment 51452 View attachment 51453 View attachment 51454
View attachment 51455

View attachment 51456



You do realise that even some of the images that went to press as B&W were actually shot in colour.. don't you?






No.. it BECAME a meme because people thought it was real. It was a piece of photo montage art by Peter Kennard. It was not created as a meme.






Nope.. but it's not news. It's documentary and all you have to do is look at Lorca di Corsia or Mosse to see how negotiable that is.



Who's fault is that?
Click to expand...
Haha, thanks for the education there, i would never have known as obviously I would be too ignorant to understand he also shot in colour! The guy NOW takes landscape images in Somerset in mono. Currently, with his 5D3. HIS choice. I won't be as childish as to post a load of images proving this point as you can look them up yourself if you need to. Just type Don McCullin into Google and select "images" and a load of his work pops up. In there you'll see some landscapes, all in mono. The fact is they are a distortion on reality. which seems fine to him in this instance but not for someone to do other things.

It's nobody's fault, he's just best known for that. I guess the public/press/other photographers assume its his best work.

Oh, btw, they're books produced and collated by him. If you're seriously stating that he's more famous for his colour work then maybe you need the education rather than insisting I do. I think we all know he produced colour work but thanks for letting us all know, we are all better off knowing this vital piece of info that only you think you know!

Meme produced because all who used it thought it was real. Really? Wow, your knowledge is quite incredible. I on the other hand think the majority thought it was funny in light of the Iraq war. I would never be as presumptuous to think I know the minds of every meme producer or viewer in the world.
 
Now you're just being a knob. As you replied with "I have books by him on the shelf next to me with hundreds and hundreds of his images in, not one is in colour." it was reasonable to assume you weren't aware that he did. Not really any need for the defensive, aggressive reply.
 
Last edited:
I think it was pretty clear i knew who the guy was and was familiar with his work. In fact, I think I said I liked his work which would have been difficult if I didn't know a bit about him. I would have thought if I bought some books by him I might've looked at other of his work as well? For the record, I've been to a couple of his exhibitions as well wouldn't you know! Thanks for the knob comment btw. Always good to resort to insults as well as being condescending.
 
Large scale manipulation was often 'more' effective in the film days. As people generally didn't expect it.
Compared it to today where it's easier to do and all around us. And with kids growing up with free tools to do it. And in 3D and moving pictures too. Hooray for improved ease of use.

No one today believes we've managed to train Russian meerkats to act. Or do they?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...I think it may be time to leave this thread alone and find something more interesting than a computer screen. These insanely manipulated (B&W) rolls aren't going to develop themselves ;)
 
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1448811350.151352.jpg
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Haha, thanks for the education there, i would never have known as obviously I would be too ignorant to understand he also shot in colour! The guy NOW takes landscape images in Somerset in mono. Currently, with his 5D3. HIS choice. I won't be as childish as to post a load of images proving this point as you can look them up yourself if you need to. Just type Don McCullin into Google and select "images" and a load of his work pops up. In there you'll see some landscapes, all in mono. The fact is they are a distortion on reality. which seems fine to him in this instance but not for someone to do other things.

It's nobody's fault, he's just best known for that. I guess the public/press/other photographers assume its his best work.

Oh, btw, they're books produced and collated by him. If you're seriously stating that he's more famous for his colour work then maybe you need the education rather than insisting I do. I think we all know he produced colour work but thanks for letting us all know, we are all better off knowing this vital piece of info that only you think you know!

Meme produced because all who used it thought it was real. Really? Wow, your knowledge is quite incredible. I on the other hand think the majority thought it was funny in light of the Iraq war. I would never be as presumptuous to think I know the minds of every meme producer or viewer in the world.
Click to expand...

You do know he also shoots landscapes in colour...
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/Don_McCullin.do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top