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

Rich_Ellis said:
Haha!!! :):)
Click to expand...

Not gonna have a go at Byker for patronising you as well? Or did you know that too. :)

I'm still surprised he sold out and did that for Canon... still... you gotta earn a living, so good on him.

LOL... those images are mindbendingly awful.

[edit].. I mean the ones Fujilove posted.... can't quote it for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Not gonna have a go at Byker for patronising you as well? Or did you know that too. :)

I'm still surprised he sold out and did that for Canon... still... you gotta earn a living, so good on him.

LOL... those images are mindbendingly awful.

[edit].. I mean the ones Fujilove posted.... can't quote it for some reason.
Click to expand...
nah, he was being amusing, you were just being rude. ;)
 
I don't normally take part in threads like these as they always degenerate into slanging matches (much like this one has already) but ... Not sure if this was posted to get folk going or just a bit tongue in cheek ... I've just read the article David linked and it has rather saddened me.
Pookeyhead said:
..because the Don says so.. and he's the Don... OK?
Click to expand...
Well, no he didn't say that, at least not in the article you linked :)

What he did say and seems to be quite sweeping too, was that -
“the digital cameras are extraordinary. I have a dark room and I still process film but digital photography can be a totally lying kind of experience, you can move anything you want … the whole thing can’t be trusted really.”
So, extraordinary is somewhat contrary to being crap (unless of course he meant extraordinarily crap ;)) Also by inference from his comments not a single digitally produced image can be trusted, using words like "totally" and "whole" don't imply some or part now do they?

I do agree though that digital images can be manipulated far easier than film images. However the trust issue isn't so much the image as the image maker in my opinion. I read the piece about photojournalism and how Reuters(I think it was) wanted only jpegs straight from the camera to try and enforce integrity (for want of a better 2 line summary) and I guess this is where DM is coming from when he says it cannot be trusted.

However he later goes on to say when stood on Hadrian's wall -
“If I’d have used a digital camera I would have made that look attractive, but I wanted you to get the feeling that it was cold and lonely,”
Well, I hate to say it but how the final image looks is surely up to the person taking it, if I wanted an image to be bleak, I'd pp it accordingly whether or not I shot it on film or digital. (and for the avoidance of doubt pp can be done in the dark room, at the computer or indeed both ;)) Comments like this really do not help his argument imo as it implies that a digital camera somehow forces you to produce an attractive image ... sadly to me it just seems to be the bitter ramblings of an aging man.

I did find his comments about photography and art interesting too.

I rather hope that is a poor piece of journalism and that DM's comments have been taken out of context, if not then it seems to show him as living in the past and wishing it was still the same now as it was then.

I'll still be going to his exhibition though http://www.hauserwirth.com/exhibitions/2603/don-mccullin-conflict-y-people-y-landscape/view/ he is a great story teller with his images.

EDIT: Corrected news agency name.
 
Last edited:
In the Renaissance, artists were aspiring to 'photo-realism' in their 'art' And look where Holbein's Anne of Cleves portrait got us?!
When the first photographic processes started making that sort of 'photo-realism' possible.. popular artists appear to have abandoned the ambition and sought sanctuary in the abstract...
No image making medium is 'Trustworthy', its a matter of our faith in the image maker, and the process.. Henry VIII trusted Holbein to create a 'faithful' reproduction of Anne's form.... and was disappointed in the reality of it! The photo's of the Cottingly Faeries were 100% genuine, and a 'faithful' representation of the subject seen by the girls that took them.. it was merely the subjects that weren't 'genuine' fairies.... but like Harry 8, people see what they expect to see or want to see...
Not long ago I was accused of fraud, admitting to 'touching up' photo's I used for technical illustration.. well, they aren't 100% genuine to start with; I've used selective focus and shallow DoF to draw the viewers attention on the bit of an engine they need to stick a spanner on... so I have no problem cloning out a spark-plug lead that's dstractingy, and irrelevant to the 'subject' .. I could have drawn an exploded diagram, I suppose, with a freshly sharpened HB pencil and Drafting board.... but then the viewer would have trouble translating that to the actual engine they see in-front of them and need to stick a spanner into compared, to a 'photo' .
So where is the 'fraud' ergo the deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive, more, profit from that deception?
IF there is a fraud, it is in that seventy years of popular photography, and popular publication of photographs, combined with some obsession within it, to achieve that 'faithful reproduction', in the face of the obvious failings the medium has to realise it; has 'conned' perhaps five generations of the popular population into placing greater faith in 'photography' to deliver that degree of 'photo-realism' than it is probably due, while constrained by the intricate and often complicated nature of silver-halide processes that make such manipulations more difficult, time consuming and costly to achieve.
You could completely invert Don McCullin's argument and use it to suggest that the ease with which digital has made complex manipulation, rather than undermine the 'trustworthiness' of photography, has corrected the balance highlighting how UN-Trustworthy photography has always been.... so that no longer do people believe 'The Camera Never Lies'.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
In the Renaissance, artists were aspiring to 'photo-realism' in their 'art' And look where Holbein's Anne of Cleves portrait got us?!
When the first photographic processes started making that sort of 'photo-realism' possible.. popular artists appear to have abandoned the ambition and sought sanctuary in the abstract...
No image making medium is 'Trustworthy', its a matter of our faith in the image maker, and the process.. Henry VIII trusted Holbein to create a 'faithful' reproduction of Anne's form.... and was disappointed in the reality of it! The photo's of the Cottingly Faeries were 100% genuine, and a 'faithful' representation of the subject seen by the girls that took them.. it was merely the subjects that weren't 'genuine' fairies.... but like Harry 8, people see what they expect to see or want to see...
Not long ago I was accused of fraud, admitting to 'touching up' photo's I used for technical illustration.. well, they aren't 100% genuine to start with; I've used selective focus and shallow DoF to draw the viewers attention on the bit of an engine they need to stick a spanner on... so I have no problem cloning out a spark-plug lead that's dstractingy, and irrelevant to the 'subject' .. I could have drawn an exploded diagram, I suppose, with a freshly sharpened HB pencil and Drafting board.... but then the viewer would have trouble translating that to the actual engine they see in-front of them and need to stick a spanner into compared, to a 'photo' .
So where is the 'fraud' ergo the deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive, more, profit from that deception?
IF there is a fraud, it is in that seventy years of popular photography, and popular publication of photographs, combined with some obsession within it, to achieve that 'faithful reproduction', in the face of the obvious failings the medium has to realise it; has 'conned' perhaps five generations of the popular population into placing greater faith in 'photography' to deliver that degree of 'photo-realism' than it is probably due, while constrained by the intricate and often complicated nature of silver-halide processes that make such manipulations more difficult, time consuming and costly to achieve.
You could completely invert Don McCullin's argument and use it to suggest that the ease with which digital has made complex manipulation, rather than undermine the 'trustworthiness' of photography, has corrected the balance highlighting how UN-Trustworthy photography has always been.... so that no longer do people believe 'The Camera Never Lies'.
Click to expand...

Discussing art movements that reject reality, or embracing it.. or selectively removing a part from a technical photograph for clarity is one thing.... the news is something else.

Plus...


I disagree. People still DO believe what they see.. in their hundreds of thousands... despite the extremely skill-less, shoddy photoshop work.

britain-first-dawid.jpg

Simply because most people see what they WANT to see.

More than ever do we need a treatise on the photographic image in journalism. It won't stop crap like this happening because Britain First are basically a bunch of knuckle dragging retards, but it DOES show how easily photographs can deceive. Despite viewers being fully aware of digital manipulation, they are just as ready to believe the photographic image as they ever were.
 
Last edited:
PaulButler said:
if I wanted an image to be bleak, I'd pp it accordingly whether or not I shot it on film or digital. (and for the avoidance of doubt pp can be done in the dark room, at the computer or indeed both ;)) Comments like this really do not help his argument imo as it implies that a digital camera somehow forces you to produce an attractive image ... sadly to me it just seems to be the bitter ramblings of an aging man.
Click to expand...

I think it DOES force most people. ...and yes, Paul, the title of the thread is tongue in cheek. I clearly don't think digital is crap, as I use it all the time. I'm surprised at your confusion actually. I do think we've got a problem however, which is why I created the thread.


All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.

We've normalised the process. From over-processed amateur images, to pre-set filters in Instagram, to downright manipulated images in the press. This counterargument that "Images have always been manipulated" is erroneous and misleading: Yes, it's always been possible, but it required great skill. Basically, you could look at images in people's albums, or in local newspapers and believe what you saw. Now you can't. People don't have albums now except the ones on Facebook and Instagram, and almost everything in them will be digitally altered - often heavily. With news images more and more often being crowd sourced from social media, we're getting into a fairly dangerous situation regarding the integrity of images. When breaking news happens and journalists go on a feeding frenzy on Twitter, you reckon they're going to check for manipulation in the race to get the news out first?

Digital manipulation is now so easy and utterly skill-less thanks to plug-ins and applications like Topaz, Nik Effects et al, that anyone can do it now. That's the sad thing really. All these amateur images where people comment "Cool processing"... what do they mean? Someone's moved some sliders around... well **** me... yeah, dead cool. It's a good job actual retouching and composite work still requires skill, otherwise we literally would be seeing a lot worse than we are currently doing.
 
Last edited:
Robert Capa was faking these photos 79 years ago when Don McCullin was still suckling at his mother's teat. It couldn't be fully trusted back then and still can't now. I'm sure nobody believes everything they read, so a healthy dose of skepticism applies to emotive pictures too. I was listening to an interview with Capa and he said; “The prize picture is born in the imagination of the editors and the public who sees them.” That's straight away an invitation to fake and stage.

Don McCullin just sounds like an 80 year old man wistfully telling you about the good old days that nobody wants to go back to. I also don't get the 'I needed to use film because I wanted to make it look cold and lonely'. He's saying he would have made it look better if he used digital and then blaming digital for his processing actions. If he is saying you can do whatever you like to an image then shoot it with digital and make it look cold and lonely.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Robert Capa was faking these photos 79 years ago when Don McCullin was still suckling at his mother's teat. It couldn't be fully trusted back then and still can't now. I'm sure nobody believes everything they read, so a healthy dose of skepticism applies to emotive pictures too. I was listening to an interview with Capa and he said; “The prize picture is born in the imagination of the editors and the public who sees them.” That's straight away an invitation to fake and stage.
.
Click to expand...

Which image did Capa fake? Are we discussing Death of a Militiaman as I don't believe the image was faked, just possibly the story behind it. There's talk that Capa and Taro got soldiers to run up and down the hill, effectively posing, some mentioning pretending to be shot during the siesta which both sides observed. There's been no suggestion that the soldier in the image didn't die, just the circumstances around it, which might be why Capa kept quite quiet on the subject.
 
Byker28i said:
Which image did Capa fake? Are we discussing Death of a Militiaman as I don't believe the image was faked, just possibly the story behind it. There's talk that Capa and Taro got soldiers to run up and down the hill, effectively posing, some mentioning pretending to be shot during the siesta which both sides observed. There's been no suggestion that the soldier in the image didn't die, just the circumstances around it, which might be why Capa kept quite quiet on the subject.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...roof-iconic-Falling-Soldier-image-staged.html

If he was doing it almost 80 years ago then the whole thing started as a lie, it just takes less time to do it now and fewer chemicals.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Staged and manipulated in post are completely different. There's no physical manipulation here, the image is exactly as it was taken. It was then misrepresented after the fact when different claims were made about it.
Click to expand...

They are doing the exact same thing, to deceive the person looking at it. The fakery has been there from the very start, it's just easier to do now.
 
Laudrup said:
They are doing the exact same thing, to deceive the person looking at it. The fakery has been there from the very start, it's just easier to do now.
Click to expand...
It was just as easy to stage a photo then as it is now?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think it DOES force most people. ...and yes, Paul, the title of the thread is tongue in cheek. I clearly don't think digital is crap, as I use it all the time. I'm surprised at your confusion actually. I do think we've got a problem however, which is why I created the thread.


All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.

We've normalised the process. From over-processed amateur images, to pre-set filters in Instagram, to downright manipulated images in the press. This counterargument that "Images have always been manipulated" is erroneous and misleading: Yes, it's always been possible, but it required great skill. Basically, you could look at images in people's albums, or in local newspapers and believe what you saw. Now you can't. People don't have albums now except the ones on Facebook and Instagram, and almost everything in them will be digitally altered - often heavily. With news images more and more often being crowd sourced from social media, we're getting into a fairly dangerous situation regarding the integrity of images. When breaking news happens and journalists go on a feeding frenzy on Twitter, you reckon they're going to check for manipulation in the race to get the news out first?

Digital manipulation is now so easy and utterly skill-less thanks to plug-ins and applications like Topaz, Nik Effects et al, that anyone can do it now. That's the sad thing really. All these amateur images where people comment "Cool processing"... what do they mean? Someone's moved some sliders around... well **** me... yeah, dead cool. It's a good job actual retouching and composite work still requires skill, otherwise we literally would be seeing a lot worse than we are currently doing.
Click to expand...

David,

I almost completely agree with what you are saying here. Rather than type out my thoughts in full again, I'm adding a link to a blog post I wrote a few months ago which looks at the issue from a slightly different perspective.

http://wp.me/p2BFlt-ni
 
Pookeyhead said:
All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.
.
Click to expand...

Thing is its not easy to do it well on computer either - its easy in either medium to make an obvious fake , but its difficult (but possible) to make a convincing fake - so what's different ?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think it DOES force most people. ...and yes, Paul, the title of the thread is tongue in cheek. I clearly don't think digital is crap, as I use it all the time. I'm surprised at your confusion actually. I do think we've got a problem however, which is why I created the thread.


All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.

We've normalised the process. From over-processed amateur images, to pre-set filters in Instagram, to downright manipulated images in the press. This counterargument that "Images have always been manipulated" is erroneous and misleading: Yes, it's always been possible, but it required great skill. Basically, you could look at images in people's albums, or in local newspapers and believe what you saw. Now you can't. People don't have albums now except the ones on Facebook and Instagram, and almost everything in them will be digitally altered - often heavily. With news images more and more often being crowd sourced from social media, we're getting into a fairly dangerous situation regarding the integrity of images. When breaking news happens and journalists go on a feeding frenzy on Twitter, you reckon they're going to check for manipulation in the race to get the news out first?

Digital manipulation is now so easy and utterly skill-less thanks to plug-ins and applications like Topaz, Nik Effects et al, that anyone can do it now. That's the sad thing really. All these amateur images where people comment "Cool processing"... what do they mean? Someone's moved some sliders around... well **** me... yeah, dead cool. It's a good job actual retouching and composite work still requires skill, otherwise we literally would be seeing a lot worse than we are currently doing.
Click to expand...
I've been in plenty of darkrooms over the years and had one of my own.

But I don't think anyone has actually said in this thread it's "just as easy" (or "easy") have they, just possible?

Either way, an expert in the darkroom will be as proficient as an expert in Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
I've never tried to make composite images from film or digital but here's a quote from "The complete photographer's guide" by Steve Mulligan published in 2008. I think it must be easier on digital.......

"Extreme Manipulation."

"There is a definite art to combining different negatives into the same photograph. The standard method is to use a series of enlargers, each one set up with a different negative. By running the paper through the different enlarger stands and with adroit dodging and burning, some very interesting effects can be created...........

....the same method can be applied - albeit with more difficulty - with a single enlarger. I have madea few multiple-negative prints and by carefully changing the negatives in the carrier, and with a lot of experimentation, some have actually worked. This demands some serious dodging and burning, as well as a ridiculous amount of patience. With practice, however, this technique offers a fun alternative to single-negative printing."
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Thing is its not easy to do it well on computer either
Click to expand...

Not easy... but easier. You can see what you are doing immediately without having to go through several stages and porocess a sheet of paper only to have to change one of the steps and repeat until you are happy with the result... Then remember what you did to get multiple prints!


Steve.
 
this is true - but its certainluy not easy or quick to make a convincing fake even on computer ... its probably far easier to stage a shot , which as discussed was certainly possible in the old days
 
Laudrup said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...roof-iconic-Falling-Soldier-image-staged.html

If he was doing it almost 80 years ago then the whole thing started as a lie, it just takes less time to do it now and fewer chemicals.
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
Staged and manipulated in post are completely different. There's no physical manipulation here, the image is exactly as it was taken. It was then misrepresented after the fact when different claims were made about it.
Click to expand...

As said - it's thought the location was different and the soldiers were posing, but the death wasn't staged or faked, capa did captured the death of a soldier, just not in the way it was told. Capa did keep quiet about it for sometime.

Now if we're talking Staging, then we could discuss Roger Fenton and the valley of the shadow of death
 
Frank Hurley was the photographer on Ernest Shackleton's Antarctic expidition. In a previous life he was a war photographer. He was an expert printer who thought nothing of adding more dramatic skies, extra smoke, etc. and would also add real elements to a scene such as soldiers playing dead or extra boulders to make an area appear more bombed than it really was to give a more dramatic effect.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I think it DOES force most people. ...and yes, Paul, the title of the thread is tongue in cheek. I clearly don't think digital is crap, as I use it all the time. I'm surprised at your confusion actually. I do think we've got a problem however, which is why I created the thread.


All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.

We've normalised the process. From over-processed amateur images, to pre-set filters in Instagram, to downright manipulated images in the press. This counterargument that "Images have always been manipulated" is erroneous and misleading: Yes, it's always been possible, but it required great skill. Basically, you could look at images in people's albums, or in local newspapers and believe what you saw. Now you can't. People don't have albums now except the ones on Facebook and Instagram, and almost everything in them will be digitally altered - often heavily. With news images more and more often being crowd sourced from social media, we're getting into a fairly dangerous situation regarding the integrity of images. When breaking news happens and journalists go on a feeding frenzy on Twitter, you reckon they're going to check for manipulation in the race to get the news out first?

Digital manipulation is now so easy and utterly skill-less thanks to plug-ins and applications like Topaz, Nik Effects et al, that anyone can do it now. That's the sad thing really. All these amateur images where people comment "Cool processing"... what do they mean? Someone's moved some sliders around... well **** me... yeah, dead cool. It's a good job actual retouching and composite work still requires skill, otherwise we literally would be seeing a lot worse than we are currently doing.
Click to expand...

You have a point. Substantial image manipulation may not be new, but it's certainly far easier than darkroom-type tricks. On the other hand, nobody really believes that 'the camera never lies' any more and the worst abuses soon get found out.

However, because it used to be so much harder in the past, manipulated images carried a lot more weight and danger, and the generally blurry nature of old black & white pictures concealed a multitude of sins. Eg, Nazi propaganda.

I can't help thinking attempts to turn the clock back and establish some kind of 'Kosha standard' by news agencies and competition organisers is peeing in the wind. Horse, stable door, bolted, etc. Times have changed, and we adapt. I'm not sure the Reuters initiative, that is commercially driven at heart, is actually practical nowadays.

And Don McCullin, the man, shaped and battered by his extraordinary experiences, is far more interesting than any of his post-war pictures, IMHO. And he was a child of his time, exploiting new technology and media opportunities of the day, just as others do now. Things have moved on, not always for better, but trying to turn the clock back never works.
 
Byker28i said:
As said - it's thought the location was different and the soldiers were posing, but the death wasn't staged or faked, capa did captured the death of a soldier, just not in the way it was told. h
Click to expand...

So one of the soilders actually died while the staged shots were being taken ? or do you mean that the death was renacted for the camera ?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Its all here on Wiki, probably sums it up best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Soldier

Even now, no one really knows what exactly this photo shows.
Click to expand...
I've read about this before, there doesnt seem to be that much evidence supporting its authenticity and an awful lot discrediting it.

I suppose the reality is the authenticity of a any news image (now and historically) only has integrity if the photographer themselves do.
 
big soft moose said:
So one of the soilders actually died while the staged shots were being taken ? or do you mean that the death was renacted for the camera ?
Click to expand...

I believe the accepted truth is that it shows a death whilst the staged shots were being taken. It's thought that Capa refused to talk about it as he felt/was responsible for the death.

It was Capa’s biographer — not Capa himself — who identified the location of the scene as Cerro Muriano.
 
Last edited:
Digital Rev now have an article on this very story and it's actually pretty good;

http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article...-says-legendary-war-photographer-don-mccullin

It features the story of how Don himself staged aspects of a photo showing a dead Vietnamese soldier, although his motivations were good (moving possessions into the shot so as to depict the soldier as a human being with family rather than "just another dead soldier") it wasn't 100% truthful. I didn't know about this even though he never hid the fact.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I think it DOES force most people.
Click to expand...
I really don't see how it forces people, however if you mean that most people using digital want to produce attractive images, then I'd agree. But we can just as easily portray any scene we wish how we like (and I suspect therein lies part of the problem).

...and yes, Paul, the title of the thread is tongue in cheek. I clearly don't think digital is crap, as I use it all the time. I'm surprised at your confusion actually.
Click to expand...
Confusion comes naturally to me ;) Seriously though the printed word can lack intonation, I suspected it was tongue in cheek.

I do think we've got a problem however, which is why I created the thread.
Click to expand...
In terms of factual reporting then I agree.

All these people in this thread going on about how easy it is to do the same in the darkroom clearly haven't actually been in one. It's NOT easy in the darkroom at all. It's perfectly possible, but it is NOT easy. In fact, it's hard.. dead hard. Sure you can burn a sky in a bit etc, but that's not exactly spinning lies is it, and even then, that takes skill too when you do it for real and more importantly, it's pretty obvious it's been done. In the computer... it's easy. VERY easy in some cases, and that's the problem. The temptation to make one's images "better" is strong. So strong in fact, that almost every image you see has been changed far more than in any other time in photography's history, and nowhere is that more true than the amateur arena.

We've normalised the process. From over-processed amateur images, to pre-set filters in Instagram, to downright manipulated images in the press. This counterargument that "Images have always been manipulated" is erroneous and misleading: Yes, it's always been possible, but it required great skill. Basically, you could look at images in people's albums, or in local newspapers and believe what you saw. Now you can't. People don't have albums now except the ones on Facebook and Instagram, and almost everything in them will be digitally altered - often heavily. With news images more and more often being crowd sourced from social media, we're getting into a fairly dangerous situation regarding the integrity of images. When breaking news happens and journalists go on a feeding frenzy on Twitter, you reckon they're going to check for manipulation in the race to get the news out first?

Digital manipulation is now so easy and utterly skill-less thanks to plug-ins and applications like Topaz, Nik Effects et al, that anyone can do it now. That's the sad thing really. All these amateur images where people comment "Cool processing"... what do they mean? Someone's moved some sliders around... well **** me... yeah, dead cool. It's a good job actual retouching and composite work still requires skill, otherwise we literally would be seeing a lot worse than we are currently doing.
Click to expand...
Doing pp work on a computer is easier than doing it in a dark room. No argument from me there. I'll be honest I don't miss the dark room one jot, the smells, headaches and occasionally the mess too! Good pp isn't overly easy to do on a computer though - emphasis on good btw - sure it's easier than in a dark room, but it isn't easy certainly retouching etc. isn't.

As for the race to get images first from crowd sourcing, the likelihood is that they will be as snapped with whichever mobile device they are using - now whether or not they have gone through some form of filter on the phone/Instagram or whatever may be a moot point. I would have thought they are likely to reflect the events as they are happening due purely to the short timescales involved - I could be wrong though. I'd still rather see genuine good photo journalism though.

The thing is with products like Topaz and Nik effects is they support the need now for instant gratification, many people don't want to develop the skills to achieve "stunning" results, they just want to click a button and by magic it's done.

The genie though is out of the bottle as far as digital images and processing are concerned, wistful thinking about past times won't put it back in either.
 
PaulButler said:
I really don't see how it forces people,
Click to expand...

Because when a beginner starts, they see all the best images (as they see best.. meaning Flickr, and social forums) are heavily processed, so they feel the only way they can compete is through doing the same. It's an arms race. No beginner will dare to think, "No... I'm not doing that" because at that level, the feedback they're likely to get will be advising them that they should.

Simple as that really.


PaulButler said:
however if you mean that most people using digital want to produce attractive images, then I'd agree. But we can just as easily portray any scene we wish how we like (and I suspect therein lies part of the problem).
Click to expand...

You have to wonder what drives the tastes that dictate what "attractive" looks like, and why it's so different between the amateur sphere and the professional and creative spheres. To me, it's pretty simple to understand. The amateur arena is only really bothered what an image looks like, whereas the other areas place much more importance upon the purpose of the image. Amateur images don't have any purpose other than to please through being nice to look at.


PaulButler said:
As for the race to get images first from crowd sourcing, the likelihood is that they will be as snapped with whichever mobile device they are using - now whether or not they have gone through some form of filter on the phone/Instagram or whatever may be a moot point. I would have thought they are likely to reflect the events as they are happening due purely to the short timescales involved - I could be wrong though. I'd still rather see genuine good photo journalism though.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are right. One thing is certain though.. the time scales means that any robust checks as to whether the images are even what they purport to be will not happen. It certainly adds a great deal of risk to the equation.


PaulButler said:
The thing is with products like Topaz and Nik effects is they support the need now for instant gratification, many people don't want to develop the skills to achieve "stunning" results, they just want to click a button and by magic it's done.
Click to expand...

This is true. Again, all part of the problem. Dumbing down skillsets, yet raising expectations. That can only end badly.

PaulButler said:
The genie though is out of the bottle as far as digital images and processing are concerned, wistful thinking about past times won't put it back in either.
Click to expand...

Not alone, no, but there are always lessons to learn from the past. In fact, I'm amazed that is one lesson we're all too keen to forget. I'm not just talking about Photography either. No one listens to the truly wise any more, and instead only choose to hear what seems to suit their own short term needs. It seems endemic across all walks of life unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
You have a point. Substantial image manipulation may not be new, but it's certainly far easier than darkroom-type tricks. On the other hand, nobody really believes that 'the camera never lies' any more and the worst abuses soon get found out.
Click to expand...

No one ever believed it, and certainly haven't for at least 15 years any how. People still believe what they see though if it's "news" and from what they deem to be a reputable source.


HoppyUK said:
However, because it used to be so much harder in the past, manipulated images carried a lot more weight and danger, and the generally blurry nature of old black & white pictures concealed a multitude of sins. Eg, Nazi propaganda.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about old black and white images being blurry.. LOL.


HoppyUK said:
I can't help thinking attempts to turn the clock back and establish some kind of 'Kosha standard' by news agencies and competition organisers is peeing in the wind. Horse, stable door, bolted, etc. Times have changed, and we adapt. I'm not sure the Reuters initiative, that is commercially driven at heart, is actually practical nowadays.
Click to expand...

Practical or not, they are doing it, and the news they transmit as a result will be more likely to be an honest image as a result. It's not hard to implement. You just make up the rules, and then apply them. Photo journalists will get the message. Deep down they know they have an ethical obligation and a warning shot across their bows is probably enough. The public way the most recent high profile cases have turned out would mean quite possibly a career ending move for anyone who tries now. This too late, horse bolted, genie out of bottle attitude is just part of the problem if you ask me. It just lacks any balls... it's the ambivalent attitude that's all too prevalent today in so many areas. I also think the resistance to any treatise to combat it is borne from a fear that the tide may turn and digital images may start to be regarded differently, and therefore people's taste for digitally enhanced imagery (I think I'll start calling it that from now on) will wane.

HoppyUK said:
And Don McCullin, the man, shaped and battered by his extraordinary experiences, is far more interesting than any of his post-war pictures, IMHO. And he was a child of his time, exploiting new technology and media opportunities of the day, just as others do now. Things have moved on, not always for better, but trying to turn the clock back never works.
Click to expand...

This not about new technology. I'm not sure how he exploited new technology with a 35mm camera to be honest. He has integrity. News images still require that. It hasn't changed. Technology may have, but surely the values of being reflexive, objective and ethical in journalism haven't... or are you suggesting that along with this new technology we need to revise our ethical ideals.. relax them somehow and accept that news images are no longer to be relied upon? What then? No images at all, seeing as they're all useless as objective reporting? No... the ethics of journalism have no need to change because the image gathering technology has. Just because digital images CAN be manipulated doesn't mean they MUST be. Surely you must agree,
 
Pookeyhead said:
Just because digital images CAN be manipulated doesn't mean they MUST be. Surely you must agree,
Click to expand...


I certainly do! I think it's a bit sad when someone asks how a shot could be improved and the replies concentrate on how the poster should darken parts, increase saturation here and there, clone out wires/houses/people etc..
 
Nod said:
I certainly do! I think it's a bit sad when someone asks how a shot could be improved and the replies concentrate on how the poster should darken parts, increase saturation here and there, clone out wires/houses/people etc..
Click to expand...


Happens a lot now in the beginner forums. Processing advice over photographic advice. No one says get out there and re-shoot it by doing this, or that... instead it's processing and retouching advice. Sad.
 
PaulButler said:
I really don't see how it forces people
Click to expand...
Pookeyhead said:
Because when a beginner starts, they see all the best images (as they see best.. meaning Flickr, and social forums) are heavily processed, so they feel the only way they can compete is through doing the same. It's an arms race. No beginner will dare to think, "No... I'm not doing that" because at that level, the feedback they're likely to get will be advising them that they should.

Simple as that really.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from and to a large extent would agree, but that would not, or should not, apply to DM.

Pookeyhead said:
You have to wonder what drives the tastes that dictate what "attractive" looks like, and why it's so different between the amateur sphere and the professional and creative spheres. To me, it's pretty simple to understand. The amateur arena is only really bothered what an image looks like, whereas the other areas place much more importance upon the purpose of the image. Amateur images don't have any purpose other than to please through being nice to look at.
Click to expand...
Peer pressure I guess drives it, most people want to be told their work is nice and there is nothing wrong with that as such. Sometimes an images purpose is simply to be nice or attractive.

Pookeyhead said:
...One thing is certain though.. the time scales means that any robust checks as to whether the images are even what they purport to be will not happen. It certainly adds a great deal of risk to the equation.
Click to expand...
Risk - yes. But this is a consequence of so many news establishments getting rid of their photographers so not sure this can be levelled at digital imagery per se, albeit crowd sourcing most likely wouldn't happen if it were not for digital images.


Pookeyhead said:
Again, all part of the problem. Dumbing down skillsets, yet raising expectations. That can only end badly.
Click to expand...
And often does.


Pookeyhead said:
Not alone, no, but there are always lessons to learn from the past. In fact, I'm amazed that is one lesson we're all too keen to forget. I'm not just talking about Photography either. No one listens to the truly wise any more, and instead only choose to hear what seems to suit their own short term needs. It seems endemic across all walks of life unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Agreed but we should also not be unduly constrained by the past either.
 
PaulButler said:
Agreed but we should also not be unduly constrained by the past either.
Click to expand...

It's dangerous to label any opinion that suggests restraint in the way we manipulate images is the "past" or "out of date" in my opinion. You should decide if something is worth doing on it's merits, not because you can, and it's new. We keep saying "new" as well... what's that about? We've had mainstream digital images for around 15 years now, with widespread adoption to the point of driving chemical photo labs out of business for over a decade. Why is this "new"? How long are we going to keep calling it new as if it's some kind of defence? :)
 
jerry12953 said:
David,

I almost completely agree with what you are saying here. Rather than type out my thoughts in full again, I'm adding a link to a blog post I wrote a few months ago which looks at the issue from a slightly different perspective.

http://wp.me/p2BFlt-ni
Click to expand...

Sorry.. playing thread catch up here.. works been a nightmare. Yeah.. I remember a long and heated thread about that particular software, and I remember the guy who was their pet photographer joining the forum just to have a go at me. LOL. A wildlife photographer that manipulated his images. You can imagine how that ended. :)

big soft moose said:
Thing is its not easy to do it well on computer either - its easy in either medium to make an obvious fake , but its difficult (but possible) to make a convincing fake - so what's different ?
Click to expand...

I disagree though. Difficult is relative. Most digital manipulation we're talking about in amateur work is not actual replacement and composite... it's mainly moving sliders to alter reality, and that is not hard at all. It is easy. You move sliders until it looks like you want it to. Knowing when to stop seems to the skill in short supply :) I'm amazed so many people manage to be bad at this kind of processing. Surely they must be people that require slip on shoes and spoon feeding.

Actual retouching... that's not quite so easy, but still easy. I teach it all the time and usually get even the most technophobic mature students to a proficient standard in short order. It's not that difficult at all.

Truly believable montage that can fool? No.. that's not quite so easy, but then again, the skills required in Photoshop are the easy part.... it's SHOOTING the components that seem,s to let most people's work down. Digitally, you'd be surprised what you can do with correct one to one tuition instead of people's obsession with silly video tutorials, DVDs and remote learning. They are a crap way to learn compared to good one to one tuition.

However... compared to doing it in the darkroom... all of the above is a walk in the park.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
<snip>

This not about new technology. I'm not sure how he exploited new technology with a 35mm camera to be honest. He has integrity. News images still require that. It hasn't changed. Technology may have, but surely the values of being reflexive, objective and ethical in journalism haven't... or are you suggesting that along with this new technology we need to revise our ethical ideals.. relax them somehow and accept that news images are no longer to be relied upon? What then? No images at all, seeing as they're all useless as objective reporting? No... the ethics of journalism have no need to change because the image gathering technology has. Just because digital images CAN be manipulated doesn't mean they MUST be. Surely you must agree,
Click to expand...

The 'new' opportunity that McCullin exploited was a combination of the camera, the media, and altered attitudes of his generation.

McCullin used a Nikon F, it was new and unique in the 60s, and stayed right at the forefront as the photojournalist's camera of choice even after Canon released the first serious rival, the F1 in the 70s. The Sunday Times Magazine was new then too, and spawned a raft of quality picture-led magazines that fed the new post-war baby-boomers' appetite for McCullin's graphic images, the like of which had never been seen before. The Vietnam war was new, affordable air travel was new - McCullin's timing was perfect.

Of course digital images do not have to be manipulated (I didn't say that!) and equally it would be a good thing of some of them weren't, but I just don't think that's ever going to happen in any significant way. It's too late. I would also suggest it's not really down to photographers to be our moral guardians, either. First port of call should be the media owners, newspaper and news editors, but ultimately, they will publish whatever sells most. And there's the rub, where the pointy finger turns right round to you, to me, and all consumers - the pictures that get published are the ones we want to see.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top