• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

B&W or Color ?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
One cannot reproduce the human vision nor constant trickery to the brain. We do, however, want to record some essence of what we see. Not just what a camera can see. A camera does not alter what it can record by the wind blowing across its face or the rustle lof leaves or the smell of roses. We do! When we record images we need to use all the tricks in the book to enable us to re-experience, not what the camera could detect, but what we felt looking at that scene. Images, are after all about human feelings. No one feels it's impure to alter the blue of the sky or abolish glare using a Polaroid filter ! However, that is certainly not how the eye sees things.

So my approach is purely pragmatic. We need to to show in the print what we experienced inside our minds. If that means altering the rate of change in brightness in the water, so be it. If we must up the blues, fine by me. Or else, if we get a more powerful representation of what we are trying to show, we can get rid of the color too!

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
It's a sort of 'enforced dream'. What you said, Asher, reminds me of a flight simulator. It doesn't move, it's pretty well bolted down. It fakes acceleration/decelleration by tilting at pretty extreme angles. (Disneyland change the seat profiles, you fall back into the seat, giving an experience of acceleration, say, in their 'space rides'.) Some years ago, I was lucky enough to 'have a go' in a 747 simulator, as used for training BA pilots. It felt exactly like the real thing. Total immersion, virtual reality with a vengeance. Our photos can only be part way there. A problem we have is control of the rest of the environment in which they are viewed. Its the difference between cinemascope, and tv., between Nicolas's large printed images, and what I see on my monitor, (the large image becomes the environment) but I suggest that Nicolas has to fake it to make it look like his reality, in the same way as Disney moves the seats.

Please have a look here, http://www.lottolab.org/ , for many explanations of what we are discussing, or at least what I am trying to show, it may give a whole new take on 'shadow highlight' correction. Anyone considering this, or do we just process so 'it looks right'?

For example, Antonio's second coloured image is much 'warmer' than his third. Both are correct, or are they? What do we associate with warmness? (a hot oxy-acetylene flame is not a warm colour...)

Best wishes,

Ray

PS, please liberally scatter a few
icon7.gif
through out, I'm not trying to get at anyone in particular, just asking if you ask the questions of yourself.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Ray and Asher
Thanks for the links though I knew them already, they may be interesting for others.

My point is not that B&W is fake and colors are not.
My point is that with modern technologies and capabilities, doing B&W is 95% of time faking.

I don't think that there is one only human on earth looking/seeing in B&W.

In fact, I recognize that for some reason, sometimes someone may use B&W to serve a purpose (whatever that point is, is not relevant here).

What I do not agree with is using the pseudo code of B&W for social/dramatic pics.
They don't need that if the photographer is skilled.

Color photography is much more difficult than B&W
Going to B&W is easy, lazy, poor, 95% of time.

Except for the stunning 5%, B&W shows the lack of creativity and deceives only the uncultivated

Now I know that after having stated this I'll receive a bunch of mails or PM!

I won't answer to all!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
First we must accept that what we see is modulated by the brain, not so the 1DsII!

My point is not that B&W is fake and colors are not.

Nicolas, everything is fake. What you have of what you saw is a pretense of reality. You do not have the 3 dimensionality. You cannot smell it, there is no breeze in your face, and you canot taste the salt, certainly you cannot capture the twinkle of light in the waves since your picture is static. All these things are used by the brain when it sorts out the color and creates objects.

What the camera gives you is merely it's vision, devoid of your humanity as if through a 1 foot blook of almost clean glass that shields you from the reality of all your senses!

You can still bring back your own expereince by adding back your precious memories and your vision. Now you have to make the picture! You, Nicolas Claris might add an S curve or sharpen, slectively blur adjust the color but it will always be a chase of a memory of what you saw. It's therefore always fake.

The more so since you add the experience of a great printer, Nicoals Claris, to the process.

You are not printing ANY picture, you are getting on paper what you saw, but you "saw" with all your senses and your own library of all the images and dreams you have ever had and all the pictures you have made and seen.

So what you are making is the scene informed, filtered and modulated through all this.

It is fake but beautiful, just like make up, a swishing skirt or a plunging cleavage (a shadow, it's the delusion again, not something real. The real is the body underneath, the thoughts in the brain, the emotions of a real person. The easiest thing to do is to have colored patterns and razzle-dazzle the eyes. If the real thing was better, who over 30 would wear clothes at all!


I don't think that there is one only human on earth looking/seeing in B&W. In fact, I recognize that for some reason, sometimes someone may use B&W to serve a purpose (whatever that point is, is not relevant here).

Not true! A number of photographers claim to see in B&W, compose in B&W (they set the cameras to show just B&W on the LCD) and that's what they do.

There is no way one who has not trained him/herself to "see" in B&W to be able to do that. It is aquired by dedication. Just as one excludes objects form composition by angle, position, timing or later, one has the perfect right to do that with colors. If a bright yellow drill detracts from the focus of a picture, then we can desaturate that object by 15% and then the picture gets balance.

After all we just want ot convey the subject in the way we saw it, which was governed by a thinking filtering brain, assigning levels of relevence to each component of the scene. If you don't do it when making the picture for delivery, you are produicing a fake, since the RAW file reprsents what the camera was able to sample from that changing scene in a split second, which is not what you saw by any shot! So if you are printing merely what the camera saw, you are not true to any vision and being simplistic.


What I do not agree with is using the pseudo code of B&W for social/dramatic pics.
They don't need that if the photographer is skilled.[/QUOTE]

That is judgmental and not buttressed by either logic or cogent evidence. Name one masterpiece in B&W that could have been made, with more skill, in color.


Color photography is much more difficult than B&W

That was perhaps true if one sent color negatives to the store, since they almost always got the colors wrong! Thats why people went for chromes with the added value of great highlights.

Taking color slides with Kodachrome II almost always gave stunning images that everyone enjoyed. B&W pictures, by contrast, were often so challenging since they most often required careful lighting and processing.


Going to B&W is easy, lazy, poor, 95% of time. Except for the stunning 5%, B&W shows the lack of creativity and deceives only the uncultivated

Once one recognizes that everything is a delusion and a vanity, then one can start to make art. A short term cure is always a fine Bordeaux and beauty!

Color is not life, the shading between light and dark between truth and deception is a far better and more complex way of drawing!

You friend,

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Nicolas,

Now I get you, I think. ;-) thanks for the extra explanation.

I may disagee with
Going to B&W is easy, lazy, poor, 95% of time.
I think it is more correct as 'going to B&W is easy, lazy, poor for many of those who do so'. I'm trying to say it is the person's choice, if they start from a decent colour image, but it is often the easy option. (but it may also be necessary if something has really skewed in the colour, which can not be rescued). I think a few folk, as you next mention, work hard to get good results in B&W, from the outset that is their desire.

I think that monochrome, in particular sepia prints, bring in either the 'comfort zone', connotations of those old pictures of your grandmother, etc. or in another direction high contrast, grainy black and white infers 'newspaper reporting'. If that is an added dimension that we want to use, then it is not too far removed from choosing 'quality' printing papers, etc., matting and framing.

In Antonio's examples above, at least for a couple of them, they could work equally as well in colour or monochrome. This may be because the colours are subdued, almost monochrome, and the story/composition outweighs the colour information.

Best wishes,

Ray

;-) original smiley - B&W, easy to apply
icon7.gif
new fangled coloured smiley - not so easy to apply
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Asher
Once again you took me wrong.
Take your time, have a cup of your favorite tea, and reread my previous posts.

What I try to explain with my poor English is that using nowadays B&W is faking. Not B&W by itself.

I love Marcel Carné or Cocteau B&W. Their lighting, their film grain were so beautifull!
But if they had the technologi and the money, I'm pretty sure (I'd lolve to ask them, but too late now:-(
that they would use wonderfully the color enhancements. These guys were modern and avant-gardists!

To this point Ray did say much better than me :
connotations of those old pictures
.
YES that's what I don't like. CONNOTATION! thanks Ray!
I like note. Not Connote.

And BTW, NO Asher, my IDsMkII doesn't make the pic for me. It just helps me to express my view(es)

I'm ready whenever you want, with any camera, P&S or whichever you want, if I have a style, you'll recognize it. To make it short, the only difference will be the ability to enlarge… very large, I'll get rid of any other aspects as high dynamic range, not so wide angle etc.
You know why?
Because I DO compose my picture when I shoot it. NOT in PS (becoming nearly only a sharpening and enlarging tool for me).

Now let' me go back watching UPS website every 30 seconds to see when my brand new 500 mm IS will come out of French custom in Paris airport and be delivered, I would love to have it for my next shoot in helicopter of a 105 footer sailing boat next Saturday… Gonna be a Sunny day, plenty of nice colors all around me!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas,

You might be happy to note that all the B&W pictures I have recently posted (portraits and Stret pics) are all as shot, as composed and often NOT sharpened or processed, spotted just converted to B&W as that is what I planned when I took the pictures. I was in fact

The base player here and beautiful street people here .

However, there is NOTHING wrong with recomposing when the image is looked at on the monitor!
Auguste Rodin came in to his workshop, went up to the Burgher and cut of the guy's ear and moved it to a new position Why? Because while he was walking around, having has dinner, looking at trees or scratching his neck, he developed an alteration to his vision.

That is good. Xrays of some of the most famous paintings show revisions. Why? They don'y have the skill you talk of? No, it's because they have a special skill and humility that htey know that until the art is delivered to the place that holds finished works, it is not finished and anything can be done to it to bring it in line with the UPDATED vision. If we don't do that, we are cemented, constipated, frozen and paralyzed in creativity to one split second of a decision which in all honesty is merely competant, but must be incomplete.

If one thinks what they get in that presng the shutter is the picture, then they are robbing themselves of full crerative input. So photographers MUST abandon assertions of purity and put up for slaughter all shots!


Asher
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
Asher
Once again you took me wrong... my brand new 500 mm IS ... for my next shoot in helicopter of a 105 footer sailing boat next Saturday… Gonna be a Sunny day, plenty of nice colors all around me!

I would love to see those pics !!!
icon14.gif


No, no. I would love to go aboard with you !

icon14.gif
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Antonio

unfortunately the owner of this boat doesn't want the photos to be published, they are for him only!

And BTW the 500 is still at custom clearance in Roissy (Paris airport)… will use once more the 400 (not that bad though, just a little too short even with 1.4 extender, which I expect to use with the 500… later!)
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
Hi Antonio

unfortunately the owner of this boat doesn't want the photos to be published, they are for him only!

And BTW the 500 is still at custom clearance in Roissy (Paris airport)… will use once more the 400 (not that bad though, just a little too short even with 1.4 extender, which I expect to use with the 500… later!)

It's OK Nicolas.
Then I just fly with you to hold your cams, while you shoot !!!
icon7.gif
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Antonia,

I guess the boat will be in a 'public place', so you can hire your own chopper and chase Nicolas, take your own photos. (Don't forget your life jacket ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
Hi Antonia,

I guess the boat will be in a 'public place', so you can hire your own chopper and chase Nicolas, take your own photos. (Don't forget your life jacket ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray

Thank you Ray !

How could I miss such a brilliant ideia ! ?

Silly me ! LOL LOL

Have a nice week end.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Due to some technical problems with the yacht (in fact they are in sea trials by the yard before delivery to her owner), the shoot is postponed to Sunday or Monday… so I'll maybe have the 500 MM.
UPS quote
PACKAGE DATA PROCESSED BY BROKERAGE. WAITING FOR CLEARANCE;RELEASED BY CLEARING AGENCY. NOW IN-TRANSIT FOR DELIVERY
I may get it tomorrow morning!

BTW, Antonio, Ray's idea i s brilliant, chopper will only cost you 1150 Euros + VAT flying per hour… I guess your wife will appreciate! LOL!
 

Antonio Correia

Well-known member
Due to some technical problems with the yacht (in fact they are in sea trials by the yard before delivery to her owner), the shoot is postponed to Sunday or Monday… so I'll maybe have the 500 MM.
UPS quote I may get it tomorrow morning!

BTW, Antonio, Ray's idea i s brilliant, chopper will only cost you 1150 Euros + VAT flying per hour… I guess your wife will appreciate! LOL!

I can imagine (no I can't, how much you charge for that work !!! )

I have never flew an heli.
I hope one day to do it in the USA among the canyons.
When we have been in Namibia we were going to fly a balloon - which we have never flew either - but the weather was lauzy and we flew on a Cessna.

My son and I have just began a firm with an heli to make movies. But it's a small machine, we are importing from the USA. Serious business.

I'll show it to you when time comes.

I do know Roissy, Charles de Gaulle airport, Grand Charles's airport: a mess.
We lost one flight there to Cambodia because of the lauzy luggage system !
A shame. It costed us some money to catch the tour.

We travel (very) often with French. Throught Asia.fr more preciselly.

But, anyway, wouldn't you like to have the honour of a Portuguese carrying your cameras to your heli ? LOL

You can call me slave if you let me do it !!!
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Funny you talk about your son…
Mine is working now with me as a video cameraman and movie (and music…) editor!
Let me know when your new company will ve set-up, I might be interested as we may have some times some shoot to do in Portugal…
What chopper do you want to buy? You said a small one, would it be a Robinson 22?

Now, look at Asher's front page article, you'll see me (and my son) shooting a power boat from a chopper in the Bahamas last year.

BTW, I don't charge that much, chopper on cost basis and the shoot on hourly "creative" rate + rights depending of use.
 

Bob Wilson

New member
I have copied this from the from the new member introduction at the request of Nicolas.

Asher and I are "fighting" since a long time about B&W. [ . . . ] I understand and agree that a photog that want's to express/create an image in B&W may THINK in B&W. My statement was that none "SEE" in B&W... We do appreciate discussion with STRONG beliefs…

Well I don't "think" in B&W or even in shades of gray, but I must admit that I stayed away from color because I had problems "thinking" in color. Let me explain.

The latitude of B&W film and print materials allows me to have more control of both the initial image and the final print than the color materials do. Also an unavoidable red, orange, or yellow object that would be a distracting spoiler in color is just another shade of gray in B&W. Interestingly enough, it has been my recent foray into the digital world that brought home to me that I should not worry about the colors and just strive to take well composed and correctly exposed photos, and the color will take care of itself. I guess I'm just real slow to learn some of the obvious things.

------------------------------------

Considering the images that started this thread, I'll append these short comments.

The digital medium affords all uf us the opportunity to see one truth in the color vs B&W debate. A dramatic, bold, arresting photograph in color may not "work" in black and white and vice versa. If I had to pick the image that I considered the best, some times I would pick the B&W of the pair and sometimes the color image is more suitable. But in every case bad composition can destroy the usefulness and/or "beauty" of the image.

Take any of the picture stories of masters of photojournalism like Eisenstadt for example who worked in both color and black and white. Send him out on assignment and he would bring you back good images that could be used in Life magazine, but given two sets of his contact sheets one in color and one in B&W of the identical images, the layout editor would chose different images to tell the story simply because some images work better in color than they do in B&W and vice versa.

I'll be conceited enough to say that this post effectively ends this thread because what I have said in the two paragraphs above are an immutable truth.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I have copied this from the from the new member introduction at the request of Nicolas.



Well I don't "think" in B&W or even in shades of gray, but I must admit that I stayed away from color because I had problems "thinking" in color. Let me explain.

The latitude of B&W film and print materials allows me to have more control of both the initial image and the final print than the color materials do. Also an unavoidable red, orange, or yellow object that would be a distracting spoiler in color is just another shade of gray in B&W. Interestingly enough, it has been my recent foray into the digital world that brought home to me that I should not worry about the colors and just strive to take well composed and correctly exposed photos, and the color will take care of itself. I guess I'm just real slow to learn some of the obvious things.

First that was then and this is now. We are not limited by the bad color of every service except a few pro labs and we can tame that yellow for example here in this recent post of mine from the Wood Work thread:

.......two interpretations that I offer with hope that they represent something of the devotion you have to your subject. I have used lighting modification, very careful selective sharpening, blur and tonal curves to get the heart of the observor to the soul of the picture.

Note that the yellow drill is stil yellow but no longer distracting!

134560898-L.jpg

Original prepared by the photographer

Wood_134560898-L.jpg

My color variant with permission: edited for regional tone, color, shadows, sharpness and blur according to distribution of relevence.

2007_03_08134560898-L_AK_BW.jpg

My B&W variant with permission:Desaturated with a Hue Saturation layer and adjusted with an overlying channels layer in monochorme.

Note today we can get "perfect" color routinely and alter the composition as we work the picture. Remember that Ansel Adams considered snapping the shutter just the end oif the beginning of making a picture. He worked in the darkroom, dodging and burning to bring out the composition he saw but no camera could recognize on its own. Same with the "masters".

Take any of the picture stories of masters of photojournalism like Eisenstadt for example who worked in both color and black and white. Send him out on assignment and he would bring you back good images that could be used in Life magazine, but given two sets of his contact sheets one in color and one in B&W of the identical images, the layout editor would chose different images to tell the story simply because some images work better in color than they do in B&W and vice versa.
Of course! And if the story was a different story the SAME picture would have a different meaning as in libel per quod where a photographer's work changes in the context of the text/pages it is placed amongst!

Each picture is a living thing when it is art and behaves differently under different circumstances! So even composiiton that is "bad" under one condition might be great in another room. That's because we have moved in our esthetic appreciation of art in general and each work in particular.

My argument is not so far ffrom yours but my view from the top of the mountain is, perhaps broader and more tolerant of what other people might call bad composition. You see I look to whether or not the picture works. Then we can go backwards and study the composition. It may or may not fit in with the "masters" but so be it!

I'll be conceited enough to say that this post effectively ends this thread because what I have said in the two paragraphs above are an immutable truth.

Bob, what you have said is not an immutable truth*. In any case, if I say, for the moment I understand completely what you infer by the words "immutable truth" I would say yes you are mostly right, however the gap is so important, that the idea that you have completed exploration is indeed conceited, mistaken and perhaps even delusional.

When there is no room for discussion we enter the realm of the dictatorships. Those stifle thought since their dictums, are merely that.

However, your contribution is a worthwhile one. It still does not motivate Nicolas to take off his jacket and explore his own world in black and white.

He believes most work we do in B&W, not the exceptional work of the masters, is a fraud since it merely represents more skill, technique and thought. Further, the words "draining of color" has been used by others here to besmerch some work (not mine as of yet) in B&W that I would consider fine.

So the debate continues since we have lot to learn about looking at life in different ways as way of harvesting the rich catch of truths that are there but have to be discovered.

Asher


* Because every word, in that phrase itself is itsell mutating right at this moment as language is a complex changing collection of growing contex-dependant metaphors.
 

Bob Wilson

New member
Asher,

Remove the color from some images and they work better in B&W than they did in color and some become damn near useless. Sometimes they are just as good but the message or story they tell is either a different "story" or they tell the same one in a slightly different way. The same is true of images that are changed from B&W to color.

Conceit or not, like it or not that is the truth and that truth is immutable. Many of the arguments/talking points in your post are applicable to art from the viewpoint of aesthetics, but again like it or not, not all photographs are art much less fine art that lend themselves to a discussion of their aesthetic appeal.

In regards to manipulation of the elements of an image by techniques such as softening the focus or changing a color, forgive me but I must not have been very clear in regards to distracting color in the photograph. There is no need to play with the red and yellow drills because they are part and parcel of the image and are not distracting in the least.

Also my journalistic background gives me a very strong aversion to the unnecessary manipulation of images. What constitutes unnecessary? Any change to an image that changes the truth of the image is unnecessary and unwarranted. That said, I do not have a problem with a change that makes it a better photograph or better represents what the photographer saw through the viewfinder or on the ground glass as long as those changes do not change the truth or the editorial content of the image.

I am not trying to be either a prude or holier than thou-ish, but I feel very strongly about this. When a photographer performs significant manipulations to an image, at some point it becomes a work of art produced by the photographer by photographic means. That includes landscape photos taken through graduated color filters for effect.

I am very sorry, but the manipulations from your first to your second color image are unnecessary and destroy their truth and usefulness from a strict journalistic standpoint. Nevertheless, the second image is a much better illustration for a how-to-do-it feature than the first, and the two together are an excellent illustration of the point you were trying to make.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher,

Remove the color from some images and they work better in B&W than they did in color and some become damn near useless. Sometimes they are just as good but the message or story they tell is either a different "story" or they tell the same one in a slightly different way. The same is true of images that are changed from B&W to color.

My objection is not to this part of your argument, only your fiat that your statements of immutable truth exhaust possible exploration and insight, and that is unacceptable!

To repeat what I clearely enunciated above, I can write it no better at this moment,

I'll be conceited enough to say that this post effectively ends this thread because what I have said in the two paragraphs above are an immutable truth.

Bob, what you have said is not an immutable truth*. In any case, if I say, for the moment I understand completely what you infer by the words "immutable truth" I would say yes you are mostly right, however the gap is so important, that the idea that you have completed exploration is indeed conceited, mistaken and perhaps even delusional.

When there is no room for discussion we enter the realm of the dictatorships. Those stifle thought since their dictums, are merely that.


Conceit or not, like it or not that is the truth and that truth is immutable.

See above~!

Many of the arguments/talking points in your post are applicable to art from the viewpoint of aesthetics, but again like it or not, not all photographs are art much less fine art that lend themselves to a discussion of their aesthetic appeal.

The photography for news reporting is discussed under that heading. Same with forensic, medical and other documentary work. We have discussed that here and you will see in the section, "UPTOWN" discussions of altered news reportage. Essentially you will come to know that I am vehemently opposed to any alterations of images to move structures, change the meaning as opposed to developing the pictures sufficiently for it to act as honest evidence for what would be observed by any other camera or eye in that position at the particular time.

However, outside of that I personally despise references to truth in pictures! One can only approach transmision of the unstable "vision". This vision of the photographer changes all the time until the picture is completed. This is how it works: T

The photographer imagines the latent and potential picture. This happens before, during and after the shutter is released and then throughout the iterative developement of this conceptual vison as the real picture is developed and made outside his mind on a piece of paper or on the screen.

So being an honest news reporter and being an otherwisew honest photgrapher cannot be equated just because they both use cameras. There are two totally unrelated processes! In the first, there must be no cognitive modulation of the view captured for documentary evidence or news. It is in fact essential to our standards of ethics. It is only mentioned as some newsman, just a terrible few, have been seduced to the dark side of deception.

In any cases, what we discuss here in all other photography, even sports, is the desired and necessary clarifdcation, modulation and enhancement of what we see so that it is more meaningful and evokes thought and so moves us. Here, the works, therefore, must be judged to some extent by esthetics.

In documentary work, esthetics must be looked at with great care and suspicion since there can be dishonest context and therefore manipulation. This once more calls to mind the nature of libel per quod, a defamation by virtue of the context within which an image is placed. However, here it may be dishonest by virtue of induction of emotion with images showing just one side of a story. So here, the word manipulation, is fitting.

Manipulation is not a fine word. It connotates cheating and dishonesty. It cannot, however apply to image processing in work that is not intended to be documentary. Otherwise we would have a problem with ladies wearing makeup or even clothes if it makes them better looking than otherwise.

All ideas of so called "truth" here is not just out of place it is delusional, destructive and constraining to art. It is an affliction that especially strikes news photographers and others who have been guided by ethical principles as they should in documenting things or events. These photographers instead of taking their uniforms off (when leaving the world of the objective worker who releases the shutter and properly delivers an exposed and in focus image to contain the information required of the objective work) mistakenly wears that same uniform of objectivity like a straight-jacket for other non-objective casual or decorative work.

In regards to manipulation of the elements of an image by techniques such as softening the focus or changing a color, forgive me but I must not have been very clear in regards to distracting color in the photograph. There is no need to play with the red and yellow drills because they are part and parcel of the image and are not distracting in the least.

Also my journalistic background gives me a very strong aversion to the unnecessary manipulation of images. What constitutes unnecessary? Any change to an image that changes the truth of the image is unnecessary and unwarranted. That said, I do not have a problem with a change that makes it a better photograph or better represents what the photographer saw through the viewfinder or on the ground glass as long as those changes do not change the truth or the editorial content of the image.

But we are not discussing journalism here, just non-objective photography! No need to bring in the ethics police since it is all untrue anyway!

I am not trying to be either a prude or holier than thou-ish, but I feel very strongly about this. When a photographer performs significant manipulations to an image, at some point it becomes a work of art produced by the photographer by photographic means. That includes landscape photos taken through graduated color filters for effect.

If the photographer does not imprint his/her vison on the dumb scene recorded by photosensitive material then either he/she has created a perfect scene or stalked a perfect scene and has a miraculous emotional bonding with the CMOS/CCD chip. the algorithms in the software or the chemical in film to produce with one click of the shutter what he/she saw at that moment, excluding any emotional content or other values the phortographer brought to the scene.

Now that would be a miracle and I doubt it has happened but rarely even with the greatest photographers of all time!

By contrast, a great photograph is the result of a process of give and take between the image in the brain, always incompletely formed, and the work of the photographer's hands during the process of making the final image for presentation.

During this time, the photographer does not manipulate, just as a lovers do not manipulate. They flirt, suggest, make tentative movements, dance a while, wonder, walk, talk, so on. It is this process which must occur in making a great photograph. It must never occur in news photography!

A soccer picture might not merit more than a short amount of work and the result will be mainly documentary but with pizzaz and a flare.

A portrait might take hours to print. Wrinkles might be less obvious, the eyes leas weary and that bruise gone altogether. A single picture of trees might need weeks of consideration and darkroom work. That one negative or RAW file may be revisited afresh time and again to re-explore and interpet asd if for the first time. We can dig further and express something new by altering tonality, color, sharpeness, contrast, revealing or hiding and more. None of this must ever be called manipulation. To do so is is at the least distrespectful but also shows limited insight in the dynamic creative process which can have no borders since it represents the imagination.


I am very sorry, but the manipulations from your first to your second color image are unnecessary and destroy their truth and usefulness from a strict journalistic standpoint.

But the image was not journalistic in that sense but more a journal of a journey meeting people with some humanity and nature. Antonio is treasuring and highlighting the lives of working craftsmen not proving that they are working in some documentary.

Nevertheless, the second image is a much better illustration for a how-to-do-it feature than the first, and the two together are an excellent illustration of the point you were trying to make.
Thanks.

An again thanks for presenting arguments that make me think more about the creative process.

Asher
 

Bob Wilson

New member
My objection is not to this part of your argument, only your fiat that your statements of immutable truth exhaust possible exploration and insight, and that is unacceptable!
My original statement with which you took umbrage was:

I'll be conceited enough to say that this post effectively ends this thread because what I have said in the two paragraphs above are an immutable truth.

That sentence refered to the two paragraphs above which were as follows:

The digital medium affords all uf us the opportunity to see one truth in the color vs B&W debate. A dramatic, bold, arresting photograph in color may not "work" in black and white and vice versa. If I had to pick the image that I considered the best, some times I would pick the B&W of the pair and sometimes the color image is more suitable. But in every case bad composition can destroy the usefulness and/or "beauty" of the image.

Take any of the picture stories of masters of photojournalism like Eisenstadt for example who worked in both color and black and white. Send him out on assignment and he would bring you back good images that could be used in Life magazine, but given two sets of his contact sheets one in color and one in B&W of the identical images, the layout editor would chose different images to tell the story simply because some images work better in color than they do in B&W and vice versa.

The next comment with which you took umbrage was:

Conceit or not, like it or not that is the truth and that truth is immutable.

That sentence refered to the paragraph above it:

Remove the color from some images and they work better in B&W than they did in color and some become damn near useless. Sometimes they are just as good but the message or story they tell is either a different "story" or they tell the same one in a slightly different way. The same is true of images that are changed from B&W to color.

I am sorry that you don't like the word immutable. Show me using simple logic how any of the statements which seem to disturb you are inaccurate or untrue, and I'll be willing to redefine their "immutability."

When there is no room for discussion we enter the realm of the dictatorships. Those stifle thought since their dictums, are merely that.
I beg to disagree. Just because something is an immutable fact neither stifles thought nor muffles debate and discussion. Here is an obtuse example:

It is an immutable fact that the United States and its allies invaded the country of Iraq in 2003.

An immutable fact is one that cannot be changed, and it is an immutable fact that the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003, but identifying it as an immutable fact has not and will not stifle debate, end discussion, or prevent continued research and investigation.

(continued)
 

Bob Wilson

New member
(Reply continuation)

Frankly I am amused by your reaction to my comments since you have essentially agreed that what I have stated as facts are correct. This thread originated with a discussion of which is best for a particular photograph, color or B&W. My original post was an elaborate way of saying that for some photographs color is better and for some B&W is better and for some it doesn't make any difference.

Although I did not put the conclusions in these terms, it should have been intuitively obvious that those facts rendered the entire philosophical discussion about whether it was/is better to work in color or B&W moot because there is no absolute best. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to investigate and discuss the premise that for a given photograph color is better, truer, or whatever compared to B&W. Likewise there is nothing wrong with discussing and investigating the premise that color is or is not better than B&W, but unless the parameters of that discussion are bounded in some manner, it is well nigh impossible to reach either a useful or defendable conclusion.

The photography for news reporting is discussed under that heading. Same with forensic, medical and other documentary work. We have discussed that here and you will see in the section, "UPTOWN" discussions of altered news reportage. Essentially you will come to know that I am vehemently opposed to any alterations of images to move structures, change the meaning as opposed to developing the pictures sufficiently for it to act as honest evidence for what would be observed by any other camera or eye in that position at the particular time.

However, outside of that I personally despise references to truth in pictures! One can only approach transmision of the unstable "vision".
Ah Plato raises his head. Plato believe that there was one true perfect thing and that all we could do as mortals is make poor imitations of it. The closer our imitation came to the one truth the more we would like it and desire it.

This vision of the photographer changes all the time until the picture is completed. This is how it works:

The photographer imagines the latent and potential picture. This happens before, during and after the shutter is released anid then throughout the iterative development of this conceptual vison as the real picture is developed and made outside his mind on a piece of paper or on the screen.

So being an honest news reporter and being an otherwise honest photographer cannot be equated just because they both use cameras. There are two totally unrelated processes! In the first, there must be no cognitive modulation of the view captured for documentary evidence or news. It is in fact essential to our standards of ethics. It is only mentioned as some newsman, just a terrible few, have been seduced to the dark side of deception.

In any cases, what we discuss here in all other photography, even sports, is the desired and necessary clarification, modulation and enhancement of what we see so that it is more meaningful and evokes thought and so moves us. Here, the works, therefore, must be judged to some extent by esthetics.
Obviously we differ in what an object must and must not be to classify it as a photograph and not something else. For me and many others, an object ceases to be a photograph and become something else at some point in the manipulation/modification process. It appears to me that your point is much further along the modification process than mine is. There is nothing wrong with that and a discussion of when a photograph changes from a photograph to an overly manipulated/modified image or a work of art produced by photographic means is a worthy one to have.

In documentary work, esthetics must be looked at with great care and suspicion since there can be dishonest context and therefore manipulation. This once more calls to mind the nature of libel per quod, a defamation by virtue of the context within which an image is placed. However, here it may be dishonest by virtue of induction of emotion with images showing just one side of a story. So here, the word manipulation, is fitting.

Manipulation is not a fine word. It connotates cheating and dishonesty. It cannot, however apply to image processing in work that is not intended to be documentary. Otherwise we would have a problem with ladies wearing makeup or even clothes if it makes them better looking than otherwise.
A discussion of aesthetics in documentary/photojournalist work is appropriate, but an emotional (aesthetic) reaction to a an image or series of images that tell a story must be a coincidental reaction to the content and quality photographs themselves and not as a result of a photojournalist’s or documentary photographer’s primary goal of producing an aesthetically pleasing photograph at the outset.

If a photographer shoots a landscape with the goal of creating an aesthetic response in the viewer of his/her photograph, that’s fine. There have been many photographers who have done this very well most notably A. Aubrey Bodine and Ansel Adams. Those two photographers created highly emotive works of art with their cameras without making extensive modifications to the image on the negative. Their final prints can be classified as both photographs and works of art. They can also be called truthful to the original scene even though the photographers may have had to use other than standard exposure and negative development techniques.

All ideas of so called "truth" here is not just out of place it is delusional, destructive and constraining to art. It is an affliction that especially strikes news photographers and others who have been guided by ethical principles as they should in documenting things or events. These photographers instead of taking their uniforms off (when leaving the world of the objective worker who releases the shutter and properly delivers an exposed and in focus image to contain the information required of the objective work) mistakenly wears that same uniform of objectivity like a straight-jacket for other non-objective casual or decorative work.



But we are not discussing journalism here, just non-objective photography! No need to bring in the ethics police since it is all untrue anyway!
I am not really sure what you mean by “it is all untrue.” However, I agree that there is nothing wrong with modifying/changing/manipulating (or whatever word suits one’s fancy) an image to create a work of art, but let’s call it what it is, a work of art produced through the medium of photography.

If the photographer does not imprint his/her vision on the dumb scene recorded by photosensitive material then either he/she has created a perfect scene or stalked a perfect scene and has a miraculous emotional bonding with the CMOS/CCD chip, the algorithms in the software or the chemical in film to produce with one click of the shutter what he/she saw at that moment, excluding any emotional content or other values the phortographer brought to the scene.

Now that would be a miracle and I doubt it has happened but rarely even with the greatest photographers of all time!
A miracle? I think not. Serendipitous? Absolutely, but opportunities for finding that serendipitous moment are increased with a good eye and good photographic technique.

By contrast, a great photograph is the result of a process of give and take between the image in the brain, always incompletely formed, and the work of the photographer's hands during the process of making the final image for presentation.

During this time, the photographer does not manipulate, just as a lovers do not manipulate. They flirt, suggest, make tentative movements, dance a while, wonder, walk, talk, so on. It is this process which must occur in making a great photograph. It must never occur in news photography!
Interesting, but it does and must occur in news photography or the resulting images are bland and lifeless or fail to tell the story or both. For example, a photojournalist recording a news event chooses the camera position, lens focal length, depth of field, sharpness, etc. in every image he/she captures and optimizes those selections so that the resulting images best portray what happened or what the truth of the situation was.

The best illustration of what I am talking about that comes to mind is the day that Babe Ruth retired. Every news photographer but one shot the Babe from the front, but the image we all remember is the one taken from behind him that shows all of the other photographers lined up down the base line.

A soccer picture might not merit more than a short amount of work and the result will be mainly documentary but with pizzaz and a flare.

A portrait might take hours to print. Wrinkles might be less obvious, the eyes leas weary and that bruise gone altogether. A single picture of trees might need weeks of consideration and darkroom work. That one negative or RAW file may be revisited afresh time and again to re-explore and interpet asd if for the first time. We can dig further and express something new by altering tonality, color, sharpeness, contrast, revealing or hiding and more. None of this must ever be called manipulation. To do so is is at the least distrespectful but also shows limited insight in the dynamic creative process which can have no borders since it represents the imagination.

But the image was not journalistic in that sense but more a journal of a journey meeting people with some humanity and nature. Antonio is treasuring and highlighting the lives of working craftsmen not proving that they are working in some documentary.
Asher, the word “manipulation” is not pejorative. The act of cropping or adjusting the contrast is a manipulation of the original image. Manipulation or adjusting an original image is not wrong, even for a photojournalist covering a spot news event. In journalistic or documentary work, it is only wrong when those manipulations, modifications, or adjustments alter the truth of the situation. Indeed I will strongly defend a photographer’s right to change/manipulate his/her image as much as he/she desires in the quest to create a work of art, but don’t expect me to call a landscape image of the Rocky Mountains with a green sky, red clouds, and candy cane mountains a photograph.

And again thanks for presenting arguments that make me think more about the creative process.
No problem.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My objection is not to this part of your argument, only your fiat that your statements of immutable truth exhaust possible exploration and insight, and that is unacceptable!
My original statement with which you took umbrage was:

I'll be conceited enough to say that this post effectively ends this thread because what I have said in the two paragraphs above are an immutable truth.

That sentence refered to the two paragraphs above which were as follows:

The digital medium affords all uf us the opportunity to see one truth in the color vs B&W debate. A dramatic, bold, arresting photograph in color may not "work" in black and white and vice versa. If I had to pick the image that I considered the best, some times I would pick the B&W of the pair and sometimes the color image is more suitable. But in every case bad composition can destroy the usefulness and/or "beauty" of the image.

I have no issue with much of what you write except when you infer that a picture can be ruined or may not work when color is removed. First, today, we don't generally remove color, although we could. Today we more often use more choices to render a color image to B&W including tone mapping and also reassigning color to tone. I bristle at the idea of general ruination! It might be that you and 10, million others think the image is drained of all life. However, if I find that it's not, then I am right. You sere there is no truth just a distribution of judgements.

With Daddy or Baby Bush invading Iraq, (written in the causitive) there is not any argument, these are historical facts. However, no such facts exist when color is removed except to say color is removed. There are then no immutable facts about converting colr to B&W that inform us about whether or not it is a good thing.

Why do I still take exception? Because photography, great photography is something of the mind. I cannot contemplate any art piece being bound by immutable fact when it is merely one persective.

To say a picture might change its value or meaning, there we agree.

To go further and bring in handcuffs of "immutable facts" returns you to documentary photography and even that at its best provides only limited perspective.

I was told of a photograph taken outside a hospital as a doctor suddenly whacked a little girl to the ground with no provocation and there were pictures to prove this terrible attacj and then the poor childs cut arms and bruises.

Witnesses reported what they saw a giant wasp attacking the back of the girls head. The doctor who hit the girl was killing the wasp. He knew the girl was allergic to stings. Now whether or not the story is true, it amply illustrates even the lack of immutable truth in unaltered press photographs.

I am sorry that you don't like the word immutable. Show me using simple logic how any of the statements which seem to disturb you are inaccurate or untrue, and I'll be willing to redefine their "immutability."

I do not like the iea of certainty with ideas, except in ceetain cases with values. That's why I object to the idea of truth in photographs, the harshness immutable and the derogatory nature of the word "manipulation".

As for your Bush senior remark, it stands! Yes that's a fact*! :)

Asher

PS I have hundreds of pictures to process so now you post some of your own images so I can sit back and juat enjoy your work. The debate we can continue later!


*Not immutable! If a fact is indeed a fact, in what way does immutable add something to it?
 

Bob Wilson

New member
I think the argument/discussion/debate we have been having revolves around several irresolvable axes. If I distill your comments I believe you are saying:

  • There should be no limitations on art.
It is impossible for me to state how strongly I agree with that premise.
  • Stating that there are some immutable facts or truths associated a specific photograph or photography in general put limits on art.
It is impossible for me to state how strongly I disagree with this premise.
  • The concept of truth in an image is inappropriate from the standpoint of art.
I disagree with this. An artistic truth is not necessarily reality, but it can be. Likewise, an accurate or truthful photographic rendition of something does not mean that that image cannot be art. Most would agree that every piece of great art in every medium has some element of truth in it, even though that work of art may bear no relationship to reality. I would expand that concept to say that when a photographic image is manipulated or changed at some point there ceases to be a photographic truth in a photograph, but the manipulation may create an image that now has an artistic truth in it even though the image may now bear no relation to reality.
  • There are no immutable truths in art or photography and/or the concept of an immutable truth in photography destroys of limits its art.
Only in your mind.
  • It is inappropriate, counterproductive, and/or counterintuitive to suggest that a photograph may not work if color is removed or added.
That’s not really what I said. My point is that some photographs work better as photographs in color than they do in B&W and vice versa. In other words, in some cases a color image transmits its message better than its B&W counterpart and sometimes it does not. That is an immutable truth, but that truth has nothing to do with consideration of an image as art and does not limit such consideration.
Have fun in the darkroom!
 

Bob Wilson

New member
P.S. This was a thoroughly enjoyable discussion even if it did eat up an excessive amount of time to create each post. Thanks for taking the time.
 
My point is that some photographs work better as photographs in color than they do in B&W and vice versa.

I view them as different abstractions of the same thing. Sometimes color distracts more than it adds, sometimes color allows to emphasize.
Since B&W (grayscale) is more of an abstraction of how our eyes see things, it is harder to get right but it can be more powerful when it is done right and the subject lends itself to do it in B&W (e.g. The famous Yousuf Karsh portraits of Winston Churchil, Albert Einstein, and many others).

Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Bob for your erudite counterweight to my own dogmatic free thinking view of art and non-documentary photography. The problem is obviously when documentary photography is performed esthetically and the artwork also records facts. Still, the tension between these two poles is a helpful spectral guide for looking at photography.

Just as I believe the photographer's vision is only being formed but never formed until the work is complete, so my view of "truth" in photography will continue to get clarity.

I have gained a lot by having Nicolas Claris and now you to challenge my own guides to photography.

I enjoy very much your being here!

I just want to encourage and nurture a broader view of what photography can be and not get caught up in the pristine perfections of photography at the expense of creativity.

Now I'll work more on my processing and select a few to post.

Hmm, perhaps in B&W?

Asher
 
Concur (kinda). Have you ever seen any of Karsh's color portraits? Didn't shoot many but they are just as powerful. Of course they are not quite as low key.

Yes, I've seen some e.g. of Pope Pius XII, and a few from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, but with a few exceptions (like his Sophia Loren portrait), I don't like his color work (and I also don't like some of his B&Ws). There are also other artists with great B&W work, but Karsh is a good example where color often detracts from the subject, IMHO.

Bart
 
Top