"Purist" Used As an Insult

[treeman]

At a guess I'd say it was covered in my post regarding what was done in a normal darkroom and what was handed to a 'retoucher'.

Apologies, you did, I was speed reading

Though it clearly needs repeating on every other post, as some folk still do not understand the difference.

 

[Brian_of_Bozeat]

I'm not against PP - in fact, I've mentioned elsewhere the possibility of running another competition where I shall supply a suitably poor photograph for people to do with what they will to rescue/improve it. Anything will go in that one, although I will point out that I'm not a fan of overblown HDR or colour popping, so any of those may well be at a disadvantage! Not sure of the prize for that - probably a card or USB stick of the winner's choice again. In fact, I may start trawling my archive for a suitable image next week - it'll give people something to do while the weather's cr@p!

Why not post your best non PP image and see what people who know what they are doing can do with it. You might be surprised! PP is not a photography hospital to be used only in an emergency, In my opinion.

 

[Phil V]

Apologies, you did, I was speed reading

Though it clearly needs repeating on every other post, as some folk still do not understand the difference.

Most people, and its ridiculous, because when you reasonably point out that all photos are post processed, it appears to others to mean anything goes.:shrug:

It really needs a differentiation in the language. Maybe something simple like processing and retouching

 

[big soft moose]

Next June, I will be running a competition for disposable cameras and the one major rule will be that NO PP or digital manipulation of images will be allowed.

OT - how are entrants going to resize their scans in order to upload them ?

 

[joxby]

OT - how are entrants going to resize their scans in order to upload them ?

The rule will save people loads of time though - the lo-res file as supplied by Boots is well under both pixel and Byte size for the gallery here, so no need to resize and mess around with Flickr or similar.

c'mon get with the program...Pete


lol

 

[joxby]

hells teeth, I just read the "I didn't win the LPOY" cover to cover..


although I feel empathy for the guy's involved, I can't say it surprises me, it gives me no pleasure to say it further strengthens my thoughts on the subject.

:shake:

 

[Nod]

OT - how are entrants going to resize their scans in order to upload them ?

Morning, Pete. As Joxby has pointed out, Boots (and other labs) usually supply lo res files along with (what they laughingly call hi res ones [usually scans from the print @300PPI]). Entries to the competition would be required to send that original file in for the judging, although there will be a parallel thread for "improved" shots (which will not be eligible for any prize). In the case of the Boots lo res files, they come in well under both pixel dimensions and file size to be dropped straight into people's galleries here.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

...


although I feel empathy for the guy's involved, I can't say it surprises me, it gives me no pleasure to say it further strengthens my thoughts on the subject.

:shake:

I second that feeling.

On the OP subject.
Photographs should be honest to their original content otherwise its not a photograph......pp manipulation is fine, even the heavy stuff, as long as the content still matches the original capture then its still a true photographic record. I'm ok with removing litter, or even a distant lamp post, but, anything major that wasn't in the original, like swapping colours or changing orientation is falsifying and extra sky is defo a limit!

 

[ernesto]

It certainly seems Purist is not insulting, in fact I would almost take being called a Purist a complement.
The word Luddite has more of an implied insult, although that would mean using some sort of 100+ year old plate camera...

 

[joxby]

When peeps use that word, it evokes a feeling that to be a purist is to hold an extremist point view.
Nobody wants to be seen as extremist, it suggests that the pov ought not to be taken that seriously.
I think that is why to be called a purist appears insulting, its an extremist ideal, not popular and therefore doesn't matter.
I think most peeps that use it in a photographic conversation, do use it in an insulting manner purposely, or at least an inflammatory manner.
The truth is, one man's purism is another man's anything goes.

 

[redhed17]

It my be obviously faked, or the viewer may find out at a later date the image doesn't or couldn't exist.
It would hardly matter if the image was fake if the viewer didn't question it, or was not moved to, ie, it looked as though it could exist.
But where does that leave the viewer of a image presented as a photograph.
I think photography has always been viewed with a certain amount of integrity and credibility, because a photograph is a copy of what existed, there is not much room for wholesale manipulation.

It depends what 'you' mean by manipulation and what 'you' see as too much surely? :shrug:

Like it or not, people in general expect reality in a photograph, and when they see pictures they like and then find out later the mountains were in fact grey and not orange, they feel cheated or conned, however much they loved the image in the beginning.

Have you seen how popular OTT (imho of course) HDR images are? I wouldn't be so bold as to say what people expect from a photograph. I know what I expect and like, but I couldn't say what a group of people think. :shrug:

Unfortunately the further away from actuality we go with our images that we present as photographs, the more that undermines the integrity and credibility of photographs.

People's thoughts about any art is a constantly changing thing influenced by so many aspects of life, society, history, hype, technology, whatever. I think the most overriding thought at the front of most peoples minds is 'do I like it?' :shrug: And that happens within a fraction of a second.

I second that feeling.

On the OP subject.
Photographs should be honest to their original content otherwise its not a photograph......pp manipulation is fine, even the heavy stuff, as long as the content still matches the original capture then its still a true photographic record. I'm ok with removing litter, or even a distant lamp post, but, anything major that wasn't in the original, like swapping colours or changing orientation is falsifying and extra sky is defo a limit!

Changing the orientation? In what way for example?

And if the camera gets the colour wrong, or indeed the film reproduced the colours either incorrectly or not pleasing, are they to be left alone?

And every B&W is a manipulation of the original scene btw, because it probably wasn't B&W in reality.

To some, removing things would be a line too far that has been crossed. :shrug:


Everyone has their own line, and even some 'purists' may be doing something that someone else will say is 'playing about' with the reality of the scene. As long as they, and you, are happy with your images, who cares? :shrug:


PS If people say good post processing rather than nice picture, then you may have gone too far. (In their opinion )

 

[treeman]

PS If people say good post processing rather than nice picture, then you may have gone too far. (In their opinion )

Or just be a better photographer than they imagined

 

[straycat]

i would be proud to be described as a purist and not feel insulted.

when using film i allways believed that processing and printing was half of the job/art of a photographer.

i have never let anyone print any of my negs,i would not use a retoucher.

people who didnt print their own negs i felt had cheated/done half the job in a way.
as you also interpret the neg to the image you where trying to achieve [check out Ansel Adams if you dont understand that].


with digital you have to do some PP its the degree that you do it that determines how you are percieved.

which brings us back to the RAW v JPEG argument

i am a PURIST i dont need RAW........

 

[joxby]

I wouldn't be so bold as to say what people expect from a photograph. I know what I expect and like, but I couldn't say what a group of people think. :shrug:

Well I would, and do, I couldn't guess what 5 people think, but the general population of planet Earth, I'll take a stab at.
If there is something particular you want to address, then speak up, I don't do post dissection, or addressing individual points with a question, life's too short..

 

[Nod]

which brings us back to the RAW v JPEG argument

i am a PURIST i dont need RAW........

As a JPEGger myself, I've never regarded that aspect of my choices to be purist until now!

I'm another who has only today read the unfortunate tale of the LPOTY winner/DQ. Even the (IMO) hugely overprocessed image (? the Copse ?) is a good image - as I say, to my taste, vastly overprocessed but an effect that could be achieved in a darkroom. I like all the others too. My only comment on the tale is to point out the importance of reading and obeying the T&Cs. I sincerely hope that any spend of the winnings was done through windows rather than tills...


I'm not a competition enterer - I don't regard myself as good enough but if I was, I would make as damn sure as I could that my entries met all the criteria in all categories. Of course, as everyone's is, my hindsight is 100% perfect so that's easy to say but even in Yv's recent 12" challenge, I checked on the rules re cropping etc and tried (with little success in most of my 27 shots!) to get horizons straight and framing correct. Of the 25 that got printed (2 were of the inside of a dark pocket - the result of a habit of always keeping any camera ready to shoot - wound on and flash charged), only 2 were IMO good enough to post and only one was really pleasing and may well get scanned and PPed to improve it. When/if I do so, I may post it for C&C, revealing its origins so people (hopefully!) don't just pan it as being carp quality. My PP skills are fairly rudimentary but I can dispose of unwanted elements etc if I need to. I'll have to have a good look at the scan to see what needs doing!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

...



Changing the orientation? In what way for example?

And if the camera gets the colour wrong, or indeed the film reproduced the colours either incorrectly or not pleasing, are they to be left alone?

And every B&W is a manipulation of the original scene btw, because it probably wasn't B&W in reality.

To some, removing things would be a line too far that has been crossed. :shrug:


Everyone has their own line, and even some 'purists' may be doing something that someone else will say is 'playing about' with the reality of the scene. As long as they, and you, are happy with your images, who cares? :shrug:

..By changing orientation I mean moving stuff around in an image. And if the colours wrong then its not very real is it, so best to change it, I meant changing green to orange would be ott ...ya see, I'm not getting your point.
I do care that a photo is a photo, not pretending to be a photo. ..I mean what's the point, call stuff what they are I say.

 

[redhed17]

When people say changing the orientation they are normally talking about from a landscape orientation to a portrait orientation, which is why I asked for clarification.

I thought having to stick with the orientation you shot the image and not being able to crop a different way was a bit harsh.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Ah right, yes that would have been seriously harsh ... I get the now...yes shocking!!!