It's official... digital is crap...

•
crap: vulgar slang,
noun: something of extremely poor quality.• nonsense.• rubbish; junk.

This is not what I understood of the text! …or did I miss something?
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
crap: vulgar slang,
noun: something of extremely poor quality.• nonsense.• rubbish; junk.

This is not what I understood of the text! …or did I miss something?
Click to expand...

He kind of did yes.. not the camera specs but how you can manipulate an image etc

Although he did say he still uses them because he has too lol
 
He misses a couple rather important points too

1. Film ends up scanned, and from there on it is the same story. Long live the photoshop

2. Photography is not just plain photojournalism. Photography is art whether he likes it or not.

P.S. A mildly tweaked photo is nothing compared with heavily biased article text, yet nobody is talking about it.
 
I can see where he is coming from in relation to journalism and documentary photography where integer and non manipulation is core the very nature of what they do, but I disagree that photography cannot be art though that said I can still see his point, while I kind find amazement in his and those like him's work I don't really see it as artistic, fascinating yes... For for artistic or none journalistic photography I see not distane for digital from that article
 
His contract with Canon must have come to an end, short while ago he was saying how much he loved his 5D3.
Shame as I always thought he had a high level of integrity.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
His contract with Canon must have come to an end, short while ago he was saying how much he loved his 5D3.
Shame as I always thought he had a high level of integrity.
Matt
Click to expand...

He probably did love the camera. He uses digital cameras all the time. He's talking about what digital is doing to photography. Nothing can be trusted any more. He's not just talking about the integrity of photo-journalism images either (although that is clearly a concern for many), but about how digital images are always manipulated now. Nothing is real. How photographers would now never, ever release an image unless it's manipulated in some way. He's talking about colour too. This is one thing that bothers me about it, particularly with landscape these days. It's as if reality has no place in landscape any more.

I'm not suggesting there's no place for unreality in photography. There always has been since it's invention, but it bothers me that everything... and I mean everything, has a layer of unreality added these days. No one, ever creates work that has nothing done to it. Increasingly, the world is starting to look nothing like the images we create that is meant to represent it. In a way, landscape has always had that expectation to a degree, but now EVERYTHING has this treatment, even photo-journalism. Recovered highlights, compressed dynamic range, saturated colours, lifted shadow detail.. you see these things in JOURNALISM now. No wonder Reuters have just insisted on straight JPEGs... well done I say. Even images of war and conflict are made with aesthetics in mind. :(

Many art forms reject reality, and as you all know, I have no problem with thinking of photography as art. However, what is happening now, is a wholesale rejection of reality as valid. Surrealism is not real for instance, but no one is pretending it's meant to be, neither is Dada, or futurism or any other art movement. However, we change everything now.. nothing is truly accurate, but we fool ourselves that it is and think we we're actually reflecting and representing the world accurately. It's a slow creep, but we#'re heading to a situation where we will reject anything that's not "fantastic" in some aesthetic way - a world where only "wow" cuts it. This is what's prompted this rise in manipulated photo-journalism: A generation of digital photographers who feel as they're naked if they don't run their output through lightroom to arse around with some sliders to "improve" their imagery... give it a veneer of aesthetic to hide it's banality. People expect more and more "zing" and "wow" from their imagery to hold their shrinking spans of attention for a little bit longer in a world where this generation can't concentrate on anything for more than 10 seconds without being distracted by whatsapp or snapchat. I bet most 18 year olds would have been desperate for a comma in that last sentence because it was too ****ing long for them :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
He probably did love the camera. He uses digital cameras all the time. He's talking about what digital is doing to photography. Nothing can be trusted any more. He's not just talking about the integrity of photo-journalism images either (although that is clearly a concern for many), but about how digital images are always manipulated now. Nothing is real. How photographers would now never, ever release an image unless it's manipulated in some way. He's talking about colour too. This is one thing that bothers me about it, particularly with landscape these days. It's as if reality has no place in landscape any more.

I'm not suggesting there's no place for unreality in photography. There always has been since it's invention, but it bothers me that everything... and I mean everything, has a layer of unreality added these days. No one, ever creates work that has nothing done to it. Increasingly, the world is starting to look nothing like the images we create that is meant to represent it. In a way, landscape has always had that expectation to a degree, but now EVERYTHING has this treatment, even photo-journalism. Recovered highlights, compressed dynamic range, saturated colours, lifted shadow detail.. you see these things in JOURNALISM now. No wonder Reuters have just insisted on straight JPEGs... well done I say. Even images of war and conflict are made with aesthetics in mind. :(

Many art forms reject reality, and as you all know, I have no problem with thinking of photography as art. However, what is happening now, is a wholesale rejection of reality as valid. Surrealism is not real for instance, but no one is pretending it's meant to be, neither is Dada, or futurism or any other art movement. However, we change everything now.. nothing is truly accurate, but we fool ourselves that it is and think we we're actually reflecting and representing the world accurately. It's a slow creep, but we#'re heading to a situation where we will reject anything that's not "fantastic" in some aesthetic way - a world where only "wow" cuts it. This is what's prompted this rise in manipulated photo-journalism: A generation of digital photographers who feel as they're naked if they don't run their output through lightroom to arse around with some sliders to "improve" their imagery... give it a veneer of aesthetic to hide it's banality. People expect more and more "zing" and "wow" from their imagery to hold their shrinking spans of attention for a little bit longer in a world where this generation can't concentrate on anything for more than 10 seconds without being distracted by whatsapp or snapchat. I bet most 18 years old would have been desperate for a comma in that last sentence because it was too ****ing long for them :)
Click to expand...
History will show that in this day and age, the world looked like something out of Wizard of Oz, when it is not. I dont think you can blame people though - we have all these tools to enhance images and they get used. Sometimes a lot more than they should, especially weddings I think. A lot of processing goes into it, too much sometimes (especially those with dinosaurs chasing the wedding party - those really do get up my back). You're right about landscapes too - I see some of them and just think I've never seen a hill look like that - Im not running anyone down - I have been guilty of such things because the landscape can look pretty bland otherwise - but I think this is good discussion (y)
 
Carlh said:
History will show that in this day and age, the world looked like something out of Wizard of Oz, when it is not. I dont think you can blame people though - we have all these tools to enhance images and they get used. Sometimes a lot more than they should, especially weddings I think. A lot of processing goes into it, too much sometimes (especially those with dinosaurs chasing the wedding party - those really do get up my back). You're right about landscapes too - I see some of them and just think I've never seen a hill look like that - Im not running anyone down - I have been guilty of such things because the landscape can look pretty bland otherwise - but I think this is good discussion (y)
Click to expand...


Of course I can blame people... LOL People do it. Having something doesn't mean you MUST use it. We have nuclear weapons too, should we use those just because we have them? :)
 
To be fair it is down to us... There are those that shoot film that still manipulate it in Photoshop, you don't have to just like you don't have to with digital
 
Cg_Girl said:
To be fair it is down to us... There are those that shoot film that still manipulate it in Photoshop, you don't have to just like you don't have to with digital
Click to expand...

It's as if there is no choice though. EVERYONE.... ALWAYS... CHANGES reality these days. When did you last see anyone on here posting something that wasn't altered in some way?

I'm not advocating everything being straight off camera BTW... this isn't necessarily a purist rant, but my point is, NOTHING is just as it was shot any more... NOTHING. Look at your own practice. Have you ever... even once.... posted up an image that wasn't post processed to "improve" it? If not, what does that mean? Does it mean you've never once taken an image that was exactly what you wanted, based on your exposure, lighting etc... that was as planned? Why is reality no longer good enough? Why this aesthetic arms race to make your work "better" in some way by removing reality from it?

I know the world is s**t but just for once, I'd like to see someone take a ****ing photo and just show the world as it damned well is.
 
Pookeyhead said:
He probably did love the camera. He uses digital cameras all the time. He's talking about what digital is doing to photography. Nothing can be trusted any more. He's not just talking about the integrity of photo-journalism images either (although that is clearly a concern for many), but about how digital images are always manipulated now. Nothing is real. How photographers would now never, ever release an image unless it's manipulated in some way. He's talking about colour too. This is one thing that bothers me about it, particularly with landscape these days. It's as if reality has no place in landscape any more.

I'm not suggesting there's no place for unreality in photography. There always has been since it's invention, but it bothers me that everything... and I mean everything, has a layer of unreality added these days. No one, ever creates work that has nothing done to it. Increasingly, the world is starting to look nothing like the images we create that is meant to represent it. In a way, landscape has always had that expectation to a degree, but now EVERYTHING has this treatment, even photo-journalism. Recovered highlights, compressed dynamic range, saturated colours, lifted shadow detail.. you see these things in JOURNALISM now. No wonder Reuters have just insisted on straight JPEGs... well done I say. Even images of war and conflict are made with aesthetics in mind. :(
Click to expand...
I agree with what your saying, and it is true. I think some landscape photographers strive to produce a 'perfect' photograph, but it depends on the individual's definition of perfect! For me personally that would mean that I am replicating the scene exactly as my eyes see it, with no frills bells or whistles. So that means getting the piece of mechanics / electronics in the box on the tripod, and the computer, and the printer to output what I see. No mean feat eh ( actually a lot of your posts David have got me nearer that:)).

However as we know there is, shall I call it a 'pressure' to conform to what is deemed to be a perfect landscape by today's standards! Undoubtedly that will mean a degree of processing, but for me it's the degree that is the issue. My aim is always to only adjust what is necessary to reproduce what I saw, which can be a problem in itself. Sometimes I wonder what should I do now to aid my failing memory, do I take a JPEG of the scene and strive to get the RAW to look the same but then the JPEG is processed by the camera too, bugger this means I'll have to take my F5 and shoot with that too. Seems a bloody silly statement doesn't it, but I actually got to the point of thinking that. So I think if you have that sort of approach to landscape photography your not far from the mark.

I hold many photographers on this site in high esteem rightly or wrongly, and many manipulate their images to a lesser or greater extent, and I enjoy both. I am of the view that Landscape falls into 2 category's, fiction (or art) and non-fiction is probably the best description. Most strive to produce a natural appearing photograph and they are the shots I appreciate the most, lifting shadows, pushing saturation, shifting colour tones, beyond what would be natural doesn't work for me. Seeing a typical sunrise for example where the foreground is unnaturally light, to apparently lift the detail doesn't work for anyone. Processing should be sympathetic to the landscape that sits before you unless the photographer is shooting art.

For me the perfect photograph is one that I do not have to adjust in any way and today many strive to achieve that, so don't be too harsh on the landscape photographer ;), to me and many others trying to get it right 'in camera' means you have done it right. The idea of spending hours behind a PC when I could be in the field does not appeal. I guess we are all guilty of having 'that' image that was spoilt by X Y or Z and having the ability to now rectify that by manipulation is indeed a god send! (Please don't ask me how many 'that's' i have:().

As you said we shouldn't forget that photographs were manipulated since photography was born. My view is so long as it's pleasing to the eye and I enjoy looking at it. I am also guilty of art because it is fun ( yep even landscape photographers can have fun:rolleyes:).
Just my 2d

PS I always enjoy reading your thought provoking posts(y)
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's as if there is no choice though. EVERYONE.... ALWAYS... CHANGES reality these days. When did you last see anyone on here posting something that wasn't altered in some way?



I'm not advocating everything being straight off camera BTW... this isn't necessarily a purist rant, but my point is, NOTHING is just as it was shot any more... NOTHING. Look at your own practice. Have you ever... even once.... posted up an image that wasn't post processed to "improve" it? If not, what does that mean? Does it mean you've never once taken an image that was exactly what you wanted, based on your exposure, lighting etc... that was as planned? Why is reality no longer good enough? Why this aesthetic arms race to make your work "better" in some way by removing reality from it?

I know the world is s**t but just for once, I'd like to see someone take a ****ing photo and just show the world as it damned well is.
Click to expand...

I fully agree and get that it isn't a purist rant, reading his article I totally got what he was saying BUT what he didn't say was that it really is personal choice down to manipulation.
I think it falls on the 'everyone does it so it's a must'
Are our eyes only tuned to brighter, sharper, more intense images now?

I know I'm totally guilty of it, will also hold my hand up and state it's because I don't always get it right in camera.

Going through my Flickr I have one set of film images, my very first that a guy in the film section devved and scanned for me, I didn't manipulate at all, but it's the only ones.

Maybe that should be a challenge for everyone to give it ago, it could be very interesting
 
PPS nice rant(y)
It's true isn't it! We have all been brainwashed :( Lost sight of reality, at least some have been caught up in that wave .....
 
Cg_Girl said:
I fully agree and get that it isn't a purist rant, reading his article I totally got what he was saying BUT what he didn't say was that it really is personal choice down to manipulation.
Click to expand...

Is it? Do people have a choice? I think they don't any more, because if you present an image with no enhancement, it is viewed less favourably, so now we#re in a situation where most people, especially a beginner will feel they HAVE to do so in order to even get an image looked at.
 
69Bonni said:
As you said we shouldn't forget that photographs were manipulated since photography was born.
Click to expand...

But you knew they were, and appreciated them for the fact, because you had reality to measure it against. Now you don't. Manipulated is now "normal".
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's as if there is no choice though. EVERYONE.... ALWAYS... CHANGES reality these days. When did you last see anyone on here posting something that wasn't altered in some way?

I'm not advocating everything being straight off camera BTW... this isn't necessarily a purist rant, but my point is, NOTHING is just as it was shot any more... NOTHING. Look at your own practice. Have you ever... even once.... posted up an image that wasn't post processed to "improve" it? If not, what does that mean? Does it mean you've never once taken an image that was exactly what you wanted, based on your exposure, lighting etc... that was as planned? Why is reality no longer good enough? Why this aesthetic arms race to make your work "better" in some way by removing reality from it?

I know the world is s**t but just for once, I'd like to see someone take a ****ing photo and just show the world as it damned well is.
Click to expand...


To answer the bolded bit, yes. Most of the stuff I stick up has had nothing done to it. Even my in camera settings are set to do as little as possible to the image. Even my prints have the bare minimum PP work done. Maybe pure laziness or maybe because I learned the (black!) art of getting it right on film when a cock up meant wasted money and slides have much reduced latitude.
 
Nod said:
To answer the bolded bit, yes. Most of the stuff I stick up has had nothing done to it. Even my in camera settings are set to do as little as possible to the image. Even my prints have the bare minimum PP work done. Maybe pure laziness or maybe because I learned the (black!) art of getting it right on film when a cock up meant wasted money and slides have much reduced latitude.
Click to expand...
Plus you have the encouragement of when you get up at 4am drive 120 miles to a shoot to get it wrong is just like the good old film days... Expensive!
 
Pookeyhead said:
But you knew they were, and appreciated them for the fact, because you had reality to measure it against. Now you don't. Manipulated is now "normal".
Click to expand...

As long as the manipulation/enhancement retains the integrity of the scene I don't see the issue. SOC landscape images, even if properly exposed still have a slightly faded, dark yet washed out look in the RAW.

Many take the PP too far, but to do nothing at all is just lazy and won't give you or your viewer the most pleasing result.
 
Last edited:
I've been guilty of all the digital crimes in the past. I have prints on the wall which are borderline HDR. I really want to reprint them, but I remember how much work it took to massage them into the final image (less the HDR), and I simply can't be bothered sitting on photoshop so long.

Looking back at why I made those images look that way, I think it was three things:

1. A desire to create some sort of wow factor, to impress other people.
2. Seeing endless software advertised, being suckered into buying it and hence feeling like it had to be used.
3. Seeing everyone else doing it, including pros.
4. Having an anxious need to create some sort of 'final' or perfect image from the raw file.

One of the things I love about wet printing in colour is that all the above disappear. I have the negative and I have one kind of paper that I can buy in sheets. I can make the image a bit lighter (which also makes it less saturated), a bit darker, I can crop and rotate it...and that's it. Final image done, yay!

If it's rubbish, then I need to work out why and correct my mistake in camera next time. It makes you think long and hard about why certain photos work, it makes you get a tight grip on how to nail your exposures, it makes you look damn hard at what's at the edges of the viewfinder.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Is it? Do people have a choice? I think they don't any more, because if you present an image with no enhancement, it is viewed less favourably, so now we#re in a situation where most people, especially a beginner will feel they HAVE to do so in order to even get an image looked at.
Click to expand...

True I can't argue with that.. I do think once you hit other sharing sites and forums it becomes more so though..
I have someone on my Facebook who absolutely refuses to use any form of pp, he posted something recently regarding processed images, said they were fake and not at all true to life, they weren't over the top awfuly processed but his point was they still weren't what the eye saw.
I guess to the non photographer every day person they would be the normal family life images wouldn't they.
 
FujiLove said:
I've been guilty of all the digital crimes in the past. I have prints on the wall which are borderline HDR. I really want to reprint them, but I remember how much work it took to massage them into the final image (less the HDR), and I simply can't be bothered sitting on photoshop so long.

Looking back at why I made those images look that way, I think it was three things:

1. A desire to create some sort of wow factor, to impress other people.
2. Seeing endless software advertised, being suckered into buying it and hence feeling like it had to be used.
3. Seeing everyone else doing it, including pros.
4. Having an anxious need to create some sort of 'final' or perfect image from the raw file.

One of the things I love about wet printing in colour is that all the above disappear. I have the negative and I have one kind of paper that I can buy in sheets. I can make the image a bit lighter (which also makes it less saturated), a bit darker, I can crop and rotate it...and that's it. Final image done, yay!

If it's rubbish, then I need to work out why and correct my mistake in camera next time. It makes you think long and hard about why certain photos work, it makes you get a tight grip on how to nail your exposures, it makes you look damn hard at what's at the edges of the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Point one is a very definite factor..I think we are all guilty of that.
 
Cg_Girl said:
True I can't argue with that.. I do think once you hit other sharing sites and forums it becomes more so though..
I have someone on my Facebook who absolutely refuses to use any form of pp, he posted something recently regarding processed images, said they were fake and not at all true to life, they weren't over the top awfuly processed but his point was they still weren't what the eye saw.
I guess to the non photographer every day person they would be the normal family life images wouldn't they.
Click to expand...

I'd argue the camera doesn't render what the eye sees. I find the PP not being true to life a cop out of an argument.

As long as the work done retains the feel, integrity and basically just enhances what comes off the camera I don't see the issue.
 
ST4 said:
I'd argue the camera doesn't render what the eye sees. I find the PP not being true to life a cop out of an argument.

As long as the work done retains the feel, integrity and basically just enhances what comes off the camera I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, to be honest I love playing in processing with images, arty farty flowers and sh#t and often a fair amount.
Whenever I used to read the whole Photoshop argument and have been involved in the odd one it's usually from those that don't know how to use it.

There is also the differences in cameras, when I first got a camera, just a point and shoot I loved it, when I finally upgraded and shot raw I was devastated at how it felt like I didn't know how to shoot anymore, the colours weren't the same as the p&s, so maybe that plays a part for some too? Maybe....
 
69Bonni said:
Plus you have the encouragement of when you get up at 4am drive 120 miles to a shoot to get it wrong is just like the good old film days... Expensive!
Click to expand...


CBA to get up at 4, let alone drive 120 miles for a shot! Even if I did, I would bracket like crazy to get as good an exposure as possible - taking extra shots doesn't cost anything, just a fraction of a second of time.
 
Cg_Girl said:
I don't disagree, to be honest I love playing in processing with images, arty farty flowers and sh#t and often a fair amount.
Whenever I used to read the whole Photoshop argument and have been involved in the odd one it's usually from those that don't know how to use it.

There is also the differences in cameras, when I first got a camera, just a point and shoot I loved it, when I finally upgraded and shot raw I was devastated at how it felt like I didn't know how to shoot anymore, the colours weren't the same as the p&s, so maybe that plays a part for some too? Maybe....
Click to expand...

I accidentally put the D800 in JPEG fine and took it out for a sunset. I didn't realise until after I took the image into post. It didn't look much different but I thought it needed a bit of shadow recovery. Whilst it didn't respond nearly as subtly as a RAW file it did the job...

I feel it retains the integrity of scene but just pops out more than the SOC image.

_DSC4182 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
 
Pookeyhead said:
Look at your own practice. Have you ever... even once.... posted up an image that wasn't post processed to "improve" it? If not, what does that mean? Does it mean you've never once taken an image that was exactly what you wanted, based on your exposure, lighting etc... that was as planned? Why is reality no longer good enough? Why this aesthetic arms race to make your work "better" in some way by removing reality from it?

I know the world is s**t but just for once, I'd like to see someone take a ****ing photo and just show the world as it damned well is.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that you have stated that ALL digital images are manipulated - either by the camera's processor or in raw conversion. So all will have been 'improved' in some way.

You've posted a picture of how you manipulated a print from film in order to improve it as well. McCullin does the same. Did the world really look the way Kodachrome made it appear? Film is capable of being as guilty of being unreal as digital is. It always has been. That photography is a literal representation of the world has never been true.

McCullin's an old man looking back. Best to nod, smile and move on.
 
Can't say I give too much of a toss really. I do photography because I enjoy it and yes some manipulation too. Some folk are just too analytical, cynical and snobbish. I'm not in the photo journalism area so don't have to adhere to their, quite often, outdated approach and views on manipulation.
 
Cg_Girl said:
But then there is no interesting discussions. No communication in a community of like minded folk :)
Click to expand...
I don't find many like minded folk here. :(

Or anywhere else TBH.:D
 
I don't think anybody has mentioned this but I think some PP is nearly always required because camera sensors aren't as complex as our eyes so can't capture what you can see. I don't see an issue (even in photojournalism) with recovering shadows and highlights and adding a bit more colour to match what you saw in real life as opposed to what the camera recorded, which invariably won't be what you saw in real life if it's straight from camera.
 
What a miss leading title POOKEY!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't see the word 'Crap' used in the link, he said its untrustworthy and at times hideous and he's correct.

You want to stand back and look again from the persons perspective. Its not easy for people that are so passionate about their profession, seeing tossers messing (a they see it) with their trade. Take my profession, people these days think they can print because they have digital printers at work and in the home, in one way they can but they have no skill or knowledge whatsoever from the fundamentals of printing. Their simple button pressers.
 
daugirdas said:
1. Film ends up scanned, and from there on it is the same story. Long live the photoshop
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be scanned and scanners didn't exist when film was invented so film was never intended to be scanned.

Pookeyhead said:
Is it? Do people have a choice? I think they don't any more, because if you present an image with no enhancement, it is viewed less favourably
Click to expand...

It seems that all of the images I see on Facebook posts which get the most favourable comments are those which have been over saturated to within an inch of their lives or have been HDR'd so much that they make my ears hurt.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top