The topic of post-processing photographic images appears to create emotional arguments on both sides of the dialog. I remember back in 2000 photographers on photo.net were ranting about photographers who would produce post-processed images for post and the fact that those photographs weren't "real" photographs. They were drawing a line of separation, implying that anything processed after a lens capture was cheating. I guess using strict guidelines you could make that argument, but I never bought it.
First, having done conventional film photography, I was very aware of using dodge and burn, color filtration, etc. at the enlarger in the darkroom for print enhancement. That was one of the traits of good printing practices. You aren't viewing the original "film capture" in most circumstances. You are "transferring" that image to another process when printing. By the very fact that you were "enlarging" the image implied you were moving away from the "purest" intention of representing the image as captured. It's impossible to not have an altered image if you are going to use it in any other form than a negative/positive piece of film.
Personally, I think of Lightroom/Photoshop as my darkroom. No fumes, less mess...and if the "enlarger" provides more function built into the "head" then I have a really expensive enlarger in my darkroom.
I would agree that it's hedging a bit to imply that there is no post processing in the final images. I viewed that video clip and had the same knee-jerk reaction. The problem was with the way the question was structured. There was a sense of disbelief that the final product could actually be that rich. I think Jeffery wanted to steer away from a dialog on enhanced imaging and imply that he's a capable photographer that captures beautiful images in lens. There's no doubt that he does. Look at the work. As much as color rendering, you can see the quality in the composition. That implies "eye" and that implies talent. The interviewer was looking for a way to "lessen" the artistic value of the print by questioning whether it was "enhanced". That would have required a completely different philosophical discussion and would have moved the interview off topic. I think he answered appropriately.
There's a decidedly sharp line in photography between the purest intention and the artistic intention. The problem lies in the fact that there are "artists" that use photography to make pictures and there are photographers that use photography to make pictures. The real problem lies in the fact that they both use photography and people assume that implies "photographer". Was Ansel Adams a photographer or an artist? Most would agree that he was a photographer because he developed an entire science around capturing an image and printing an image. If those same people were asked "was Man Ray an artist or photographer", most would agree he was an artist. Does it really matter? In the end, the people that buy the work are all that count. If they like it for whatever their reasons, they are going to "covet" it.
I think at this point in history we can agree photography is an art. There's no "real" notion about the strictness of how that art is created. That would imply that you can break it down into schools of convention. There are purists and there are experimenters. They both create images based on photography and fall into that category.
What's hilarious about this argument to me is this. Any photographer/artist using a camera to capture a "picture" is probably going to use the camera in a way that they will get the best picture possible for their needs. If it's sharp, with proper color temperature, light balance and composition you're considered a "good" photographer. Less work on the flip side right? But the genius is really the person that can take a really bad photograph and turn it into a great image. That's actually rare. Imagine the interviewer asking the same question and Jeff replying, "no the original was a horrible image with no color and slightly out of focus. It was actually un-interesting and rather bland." What do you think the look on her face would have been? What would have been her next question?
In the end, it was about the "print" right? I had a rather lengthy back-and-forth with Jeff yesterday while he was out in the field shooting new pictures. I'm pretty sure his response in the interview was meant to qualify the impression that he's a very capable photographer...not a fake. Either way, I'm not sure it matters. He's a landscape photographer. It states that on his website. The people concerned about a capable photographer are the ones that want their wedding shot or the pictures of their kids to look good.
To that end, I find him to be an extraordinary landscape photographer and I think kudos are in order.
Just my take on things.
~Kim
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment