-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] Critique and Burn Question
SNIP
>Actually,
>Jeff's manipulation is a simple burn in and I can't imagine anyone
>objecting to this technique in conventional darkroom work, so why in a
>digital darkroom?
After reading Joel's cogent thoughts, I'm of a bit of a different mind than
before on the proper way to go with this. Some thought and conclusions:
ADITL images are meant to portray reality at a particular time period around
the world, correct? Reality being what the photographer saw and chooses to
present, even if in a 'surrealistic' or abstract way. But I think it's key
to remember that we are photographers and not painters, at least in the
ADITL context. Eg: the 'theme' is 50mm lenses. What can we do with them,
what are they capable of? Judging from the entries I've received thus far
the answer is that a hugely eclectic fanastically varied body of work is
possible with just the 50mm lens. You'll see what I mean soon enough. And
that was the point of the excercise. NOT what we could 'paint in' or alter
later in the computer.
Modifying any of these scanned images to bring the contrast, brightness and
color of the digital image to levels in the original seems natural. After
all, no scanning process, especially inexpensive flat-beds like the one I
use, are going to get it perfectly right. So, these 'digital manipulations'
are actually just adjustments to make the digital image more closely
represent what was in the original.
'Dodging and burning' digitally are a little dicier in my mind, but I'm
tending more towards Joels' position now. Certainly when one makes a 'fine
print' in the darkroom, s/he will use whatever methods they can to present
their 'vision' or, in AA terms, their 'previsualization' of the scene on the
paper. The digital burn-in on Jeff's image is a great example of this. So
it now seems to me that some amount of burning and dodging should be
allowed.
But we must be careful, I think, that we don't go overboard. For example,
say we've got a close-up of a flower that we like, except we could find no
angle to shoot it at which would hide an ugly bright washed-out leaf taking
up much of the background. I think removing something so large or
distracting a part of an image should not be done. The photographic original
should stand on it's own with a MINIMUM of darkroom/digital tricks. What
I'm saying, at least for ADITL, is that we're trying to present our skills
as photographers and what we can accomplish with cameras, lenses and the
like. Thus the Olympus camera caveat. We are not trying to show what can
be done with Photoshop or any other digital tool. That **could** be an idea
for an ADITL down the road: original image vs digitally processed image or
something, but it should not be the norm.
So, had Jeff added texture to the base, or changed the base to be a '57
Mercury or added a person tossing a coin into the fountain - all of which
are possible digitally, these types of things I think violate our intention.
As does adding a moon which would measure .5 x .5 inches on the slide or
neg. to an image taken with a 50mm lens.
So, to summarize, I feel that:
1) digital manipulations which attempt to better present the analog original
in the digital world are allowed. Actually, not just allowed, but
encouraged.
2) **Minimal** dodging and burning which make an already 'good' image
'better' are also allowed.
3) Adding or deleting objects to/from the image is verbotten. Except in
cases like 2 above. I know this isn't precise and could be read in a lot of
different ways, but I think the intention is clear.
Now, this brings me back to what I've said I've done to a couple of
submitted images, that is: a minimal application of #1 above. I'm feeling a
bit less comfortable with it. Why? Because I don't KNOW what the original
looks like. Perhaps it **is** flat and lacks contrast. Then it seems I'm
violating the above tenets. In ADITL1, there were several images which I
thought would benefit from an increase in contrast, but I decided to present
them exactly as I received them. An example would be the first image, the
swan. My image, the hobo playing the flute, was 'enhanced'. I increased
contrast and brightness until I could see the mans' face, which was clearly
visible in my drugstore 4x6 original print, but deeply in shadow in the
scan.
This time, what started me down this road was a particular submission. It
was an interesting image, but the scan I received appeared muddy. There was
a foreground object which blended into the background but was the subject of
the photo. In addition, the background lacked contrast. When I upped the
contrast, the image became far better, at least IMHO. And this is why I'm
uncomfortable. Is MHO the same at the submitter's HO? I now feel that I
shouldn't assume that an image which looks right to my eyes is the one
that'd look right to the photographers' eyes.
What I think I'll have to do is go back to my previous approach. WISIWYG.
(What I See Is What You'll Get.) I think it's proper that I depend on the
submitter to have taken a critical look at their scanned image and made any
necessary adjustments to get it to look 'right'. After all, it is **your**
image.
I hope we all agree to this approach.
George
SNIP
>
>Joel Wilcox
>Iowa City, Iowa USA
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|