Yes or no, a photographic/photographers question

Like this, you mean?

RobAnt – I had never considered that option! In a world of mega pixels and
manipulation it’s refreshing to talk about good old coke burners!

Gahhhh, digital pics are just a stream of 1’s & 0’s, Ons & Offs, do what you want with ’em. Rearrange them at your pleasure/leisure.

There is no such thing as “truth” in a photograph – because you can’t always see what instigated the situation the picture was taken in – ie, what is, or was, (or even isn’t/wasn’t) going on behind/beside the camera. Time-cause & effect – can be manipulated just as easily (or not so easily) as those digital 1’s & 0’s.

Blimey, even the emotional state of the photographer (for want of a better word) has some sort of effect.

coke burning stove and your trying to sell me central heating!

Can’t you use a coke burning stove as the heating source for CH? Run a pipe through it and there you go!

I feel that we need to distinguish between the reasons for taking the photo?
1,If you are taking it to record the “truth” then everything should be left and even “framing” the photo to make more pleasing to the eye should be discouraged.
2,If the photo is for making a pleasing image you will enjoy looking at but does’nt state that it is 100% representative of the truth of “that moment in time” then i don’t think theres a problem with post photo taking alterations within reason.
If you buy a painting of a representation of something in the past you have no guarantee of how authentic it would really have been unless directly researched from source or copied faithfully from a known true photo/drawing.

It’s almost
as If I have a coke burning stove and your trying to sell me central heating!

Well if you need some I know a man who can 🙂

My point was every picture published in the press these days has been manipulated. Most of them quite considerably. Now I’m not saying I agree with it, just that its a fact of life.

There is still a place for film, but sadly most of todays retailers disagree.

No I don’t think thats true ! Charles Brown was the best photographer of his generation. However can we speculate as to what he might have produced
with the equipment we use now? There are certainly photographers now
producing work at least as good -often with manufacturers support.
I don’t have to ‘get used to it’ – fact ! I love the digital lobby ! It’s almost as If I have a coke burning stove and your trying to sell me central heating!
Manipulation of photographs will indeed happen – however following on from your point it is indeed far more enjoyable to shoot a target of opportunity rather than shoot piles of pictures in the hope than something even vaguely interesting comes from it.

The comparison is unfair, Charles E Brown was the best aviation photographer ever. Period. Full Stop.

Digital manipulation is a fact, get used to it. I can honestly say that apart from the removal of dust spots and a minor bit of sharpening (nothing more than would have been done in a processing lab with film) I have only ever digitally altered one photo that I have posted on here. Getting the shot right first time is much more fun.

I think I will choose to agree with JDK on this one. One of the benefits that the digital lobby has always advocated is instant evaluation of a picture and the ability to take it again rapidly if it’s not up to scratch. The likes of Charles Brown didn’t have that ability – a number of his post war pictures were taken hanging out of an Auster with the door removed . Either he was incredibly lucky -wasted loads of films or planned his sorties meticulously to avoid undesirable backdrops.
While I agree that photograph manipulation is nothing new – I believe
that in the sphere of historic aviation it serves little purpose.

No harm if it’s done properly. I had a go at this one using one of Guzzineil’s shots a while back…

interesting that you ‘re-touched’ that one.. the cones were in the shot for a reason!! 😀 (there was some ‘cone’ banter on the forum at the time 😮 :confused: ).. I suppose thats the danger with digital enhancement being easily available, other people interpretating what they think the person taking the phot was trying to achieve (or not!) 😀

Neil.

Moi? Je suis Monsieur maximum tact avec Tweed!

Yeah but I dont take them as historical documents, I take them because I enjoy it and I enjoy sharing them with you guys. The stress of taking a “historical document” for the Nation is stress I can live without thank you very much.

(I have all my original images however).

I dunno, wont buy a photo, forced me to Old Warden in a Gentlemans motor vehicle. I put up with a lot you know 😉

Heh…

OK, heritage theory lesson. Photos are historical documents. Unmanipulated photographs are ‘a primary source’ manipulated ones aren’t, they are a ‘secondary source’. Primary sources are often biassed or partial, but invalid if they are faked, where they become a less worthwhile resource. Sadly we don’t know what documents will survive in a milenia or two to document our alleged civilisation. If it’s DB’s pics, it’ll look nice. If it’s this forum, it’ll be mighty confusing.

Why do you need the motorway?

I’m sure CEB would swap a motorway or two for the middle of a world war. 😉

A pleasure.

Interesting point there DB.

You clearly could operate Charles’ camera, were he brought back to life (ho, ho, funny man) while he might have some problems with your technical gadgetery. However, would you claim to be able to capture the quality of images he did in the circumstances he did with the equipment he did?

For those not aware, Charles E Brown took some great aviation images using a large format wooden plate camera with a crosshair sight. During W.W.II he took a few dozen shots on 35mm of mainly RAF aircraft in colour with film supplied by Life magazine, for a US published special. Need I mention there was a war on? Most of the wartime air to airs you’ve seen of RAF aircraft, blown up to poster size etc, were taken on these few sorties. For return on investment CEB is leagues ahead of anything we do today. In my opinion, he was one of the best aviation photographers of all time. And he did it with a wooden box and shutter speeds that are today regarded as pointless.

My point stands. 😉 You said it was ‘outside the plan’. I DO hope you got what you wanted as part of the plan. Complaining that your extra lucky shot isn’t perfect seems a bit tight to me 😀 Sure, go ahead, duff out the cars. But it’s a partially forged image as a result. As a historical document, it’s invalid. Nothing wrong with it, done it myself. Doesn’t make it ‘right’. The shot wasn’t right, you can correct it. Great. Doean’t make it the shot it should have been had it been set up properly in the first place.

Hmm. ~thinks~ Do I need to account to DB? No. Sorry!

Cheers

You know DB,
When the FP server had a wobble just then, I thought – rthat’ll be cos DB’s gone and be caustic again, and the server can’t handle it. 😀

First point. You can’t always be lucky. As you said, it wasn’t a setup shot, so too bad. Of course you can duff out the trucks; but Charles E Brown wouldn’t. My point stands. Not that you didn’t get some great pics if it’s the sortie I’m thinking of.

Yup, have bought a signed copy of the MOTF piccie. It’s on the front of the S’worth calendar. 😉 Call me tight when you’ve moved halfway around the world. 😉

Cheers

I thought he was a dog?

Hmm. Spot the ball?

Flood

Cloning and manipulation was done way back. Yet it was done in the darkroom, with sleight of hand, scalpels and paint brushes. For example the portraits of soldiers killed in the Great War that were faked (didn’t Billy Connoly portray this in a film? Gentlemand Relish or something#? Tru happenings).

There is the accuracy/historical value aspect – in which case I don’t feel that things ought to be manipulated – ie like Police Evidence (which definitely is Officer – weren’t me driving!) but other than that I feel anything is fair in the tidying arena. The faking arena is a different story though – if it’s to produce a picture, fine, if it’s to show the scene then it’s blurred.

Sure Phil,
But that’s the oldest circular argument in the world. I’m sure they’d have liked having a Squadron of Harriers in 1940. So what?

What could be done pre-digital and what can be done now in terms of manipulating images at the top end are about the same.

The difference is that now millions of people with a bit of experimentation can now produce a completely false image in seconds – before thousands of better trained professionals or experienced enthusiasts could produce a manipulated image that experts could usually pick as adjusted. It’s not ‘is it the same?’, but ‘how easy it is for so many’.

A comparison in ‘talent’ and ‘great photos’ would be that we’ve got no more musical genuises per capitas today despite the ease of making music today and access for more people than in Mozart’s day.

Cheers,

Some random thoughts. (NB – non judgemental, just musings!)

Think you’ve convinced yerselves it’s OK.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

I don’t mind much, but there’s a lot of defensive remarks above.

Manipulating a picture after it’s been taken isn’t the same as framing (what I presume you mean Snapper) while taking it, and dodging and burning aren’t the same as cloning, Phil.

I know that, but if they could have cloned things out at the turn of the century,trust me they would 😀
Phil.

The RPS (Royal Photographic Society) and most camera clubs make no distinction between ‘digital’ and traditional methods of producing an image. There is very little, if anything, that darkroom workers have not done long before the use of digital cameras and manipulation packages became more popular