Christmas grumble...
Just got back from a road trip to Gosford and points west, via Canberra. The country is in poor shape from the drought and hundreds of kilometres of it is covered by thick smoke from the fires.
We were sitting having lunch in a cafe in Rutherglen on Tuesday. It was 37 deg outside. The air was thick with smoke. You could smell it inside the cafe and we could even see smoke drifting through the open door. We were eating salad and having cold drinks. The damn sound system was playing "Walking through a Winter Wonderland". Australia really needs to come up with its own Christmas imagery. Or at least toss away the sentimental Euro/USA images.
This photo was taken outside Rutherglen.
Not digitally manipulated
An article in The Age (Melbourne daily newspaper, 6th December) about a retrospective exhibition of the works of one of my photographic heroes, Sam Haskins, contains the following phrase: “but none of the images is manipulated, digitally or otherwise”.
The phrase “not manipulated” occurs regularly in discussions of photography, both traditional and digital. When I read it, I am never sure if I should laugh or get angry and rage a bit. This time I have decided to get angry and rage a bit.
I am not sure what the phrase is supposed to convey; some form of superiority perhaps. “My images are better because they are natural and I didn’t fake anything in Photoshop.” “My images are better because I am so technically proficient I don’t have to make any changes at all.”
As far as I am concerned, the statement “not manipulated” is a load of bullshit. I worked in both commercial and amateur darkrooms (both colour and black & white) for many years, and I don’t think I have ever printed a colour or black & white image without some form of manipulation. And I don’t think very many other photographers have either.
Let’s take a look at the traditional black & white process…
Unless you have framed the image perfectly in the camera, it will need cropping. The standard 10” x 8” paper size doesn’t match either 35mm or 21/4 square format; so you either accept a lot of uneven white border, or you crop to suit. Either way, this is the first change away from the original image.
Usually, the next step is to decide what paper you print on, the surface type (matt, glossy) doesn’t matter, but the contrast rating of the paper does. If you choose a paper that provides more or less contrast than the image originally had, you’ve just made your second manipulation.
Then the print maker will work out the exposure time the paper needs under the enlarger. Once again, unless the exposure results in an image that is the exact equal of the original subject, not lighter or darker, then another manipulation has been made.
Unless the image has been taken on a day that is not too bright, or not too dull and unless it has been exposed correctly, it is likely that some areas of a ‘straight’ print will either be too light, meaning detail is faint or missing; or too dark meaning that detail has been lost in a solid black. A good print maker will then give extra exposure to a faint highlight (burning in) or hold back the exposure in a dark area (dodging). More manipulation.
To sum up, unless a print is produced that exactly reproduces the full frame of the negative with the same contrast, brightness tonal range and/or colour rendition as the original subject (virtually impossible due to the recording limitations of film and paper), some manipulation has taken place to produce a quality print.
If you are working in colour, there are other issues. Colour film and paper can’t accurately reproduce all the hues in the real world. Neither can the saturation of these colours match the real world counterparts in all instances. So, when printing colour, choices have to be made. What colour will be printed accurately? If the photo includes a person, most print makers will try to get the skin tones right, or at least pleasing.
Producing pleasing colour in a colour print is not necessarily the same as producing accurate colour. I would suggest that in most cases it is not possible to accurately represent every colour in a image. Not direct manipulation, but by deciding which colours to correct, emphasise or highlight, the print maker has made changes away from the original.
Now let’s move into the digital world…
Unless you have one of the very rare cameras that can produce a black and white image, all your images start off as colour. So, if I convert an image to black & white to produce a traditional art-type print, am I guilty of one of those terrible digital manipulations?
I have been taking images for more than 30 years now and I use a digital SLR from Canon, but I still don’t get a perfect exposure every time I press the button. I would have to say that, even with the best attempts I am capable of, the images don’t come out of the RAW converter ready to print or display on screen.
I usually need to adjust the contrast (selecting paper) and the brightness (paper exposure). Often some areas need to be darkened (burning in) or the shadows lightened to reveal detail (dodging). For some images I also adjust the colour saturation.
For me, the point is to produce the most visually pleasing image I can. Why would I produce a substandard, murky, flat, uninteresting print, if it is possible to extract the best from the image data and produce something with a bit of impact? And what is wrong with that if I do.
Anyone who says they didn’t do these types of manipulations in a darkroom is kidding themselves. Anyone who says they produce digital images that are not manipulated is either throwing away half the data in their image files and producing sub-standard work or is telling porkies.
Anyone who says this about the work of another either has no clue what they are talking about, or is making the photographer sound like a wanker, and my hero, Sam Haskins, is not a wanker.
Cheap as chips!
Over at The Online Photographer, Ctein has posted a blurb about the $10 (US) digital camera. This is almost hard to believe, a functioning digital camera for the price of a roll of film. Read about it here...
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
And if you don't know who Ctein is, visit his site and find out, a talented man who has been involved in digital imaging for decades.
http://ctein.com
The advent of the $10 digital camera brings to mind my first camera, the Kodak Instamatic 25. It came in a cardboard display box with a clear top. The 'pack' featured the camera in all its plastic glory, a wrist strap, a four-sided flash cube, a flash cube extender (for avoiding red-eye) and a 126 black and white film cartridge. Photographic heaven for a 10 year old.
