[Joseph McGarraghy]

Friends, I hope you do not mind my thoughts on the matter of honest photography.

Many of our members seem to change their original images with cosmetic manipulation. I feel that the purists among us might like to look at real photographs as a distinct section.This would avoid all the titillation that takes away the truth of the original. Editing is one thing, conversion to a creation is another.

I particularly have in mind a section for pictures of Record, those that can be seen as faithful records of fact.

I would like your thoughts, please.

[Markulous]

Think you'd have to define what is/isn't "honest" photography! By definition ALL dSLRs have to be "enhanced" and film has to be scanned

Personally, limit my cosmetic alterations to minor cloning and relatively small tweaks

[fionaB]

hmmm and the age old arguement raises its head again...... as markulous said where do u draw the line........ANY digital image has been edited at some point...... wither it be incamera or by computer it matters not. where or WHO draws the line between what it as is and what is not........and in the dark rom days the same changes could be rbought about by use of techniques and chemicals........ just because it doesnt take a few years apprenticeship and more years experience to achieve the same result doesnt make it any different from what p[hotographers eveyrwhere have always done. changed an image to what THEY want not necessarily HOW they saw it in the first place.
on saying that however i do not think that a section for photographs that have not been manipulated pot camera is a bad thing. however trust comes into play as we will have to take the word of each photographer that it has not been edited post camera
Fi

[lolyton]

O.k if it is going to work then there should be some guidlines.....
1. No cropping.
2. Only adjust brightness and contrast. (ie. levels)

anyone to add anymore, only really the things you can do, assuming if it is not mentioned then you can't do it. I only included no cropping because that may not be obvious or is open for discussion.

[Markulous]

1. No cropping.
2. Only adjust brightness and contrast. (ie. levels)

3. Clone/Heal dust "bunnies"

4. Sharpen

[fionaB]

if we are going to do it i dont think that even birghtness adustments shold be allowed........ straight from camera means straight from camera

Fi

[lolyton]

Maybe there is another way to look at it, maybe we should think about what the norms are in a darkroom.
For me, i used to take paper, compressed air test strips etc. So i could alter.....

1. Brightness/contrast.
2. Remove dust (compressed air).
3. Crop (but even then purists said you shouldn't, so we leave that open to debate [well and all the others too]).
4.Correct colour cast (colour printing).
5. Dodging and burning.

How do you go about getting B+W pure, i would never shoot in B+W mode on a digital camera and this follows from film days, i would always shoot colour film then print B+W.

So that would be what i would have done in the days of darkrooms. And it is still pretty much true with the majority of my images. Rarely would i do more (more down to lazyness than anything).

Fiona has got an argument with her Brightness adjustments, but if your camera doesn't have much control over exposure then it may be unfair, but a valid point as you should get it right in camera if you have the control to do so.

[Joseph McGarraghy]

As I clearly say:

Editing is one thing, conversion to a creation is another.

To trim, to sharpen and anything that helps to give a TRUE record of the subject is all part of presenting a good image. All else is fabrication.

[lolyton]

O.K. a question for you Joseph......
Since the invention of colour film (then onto colour dig cameras), what would be your views on B+W images?
From your previous statement i would say you should be anti it, given that nowadays it is conversion for creation and it is not a TRUE representation of a scene ie it is not in colour.

[Dave]

What about reflecting how you shoot slide film ?

[Joseph McGarraghy]

... what would be your views on B+W images?

Hi Lolyton, you seem to have missed the point, which is about photographs that are true to their origins. A monochrome image is just that but no less a record.

If you look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson you will see examples of record/candid photography.

From the mid-1950s until 1970 I worked in a national newspaper reference library where we also filed the photographs and negatives. Those pictures were all records in monochrome, from Donald Campbell's final speed attempt to Sputnik 1 and the Apollo flights. The only touching-up was for newspaper reproduction, which could then make them slightly false.


I will post one or two of my monochrome pictures from that time.

[Joseph McGarraghy]

Originally Posted by Dave

What about reflecting how you shoot slide film ?

Hi Dave,

I have been distracted quite a lot while answering these question so please forgive any mistakes.

Yes, I have developed my own colour slides and the process was, 1960s, simply to reverse the negative image by giving a second exposure to a light in the darkroom. Indeed, I did a great deal of slide photography, without a light meter. There was no editing slides then, you got it right or not, first time. Though some Club members would use masking tape to get the effect they wanted.

I found colourslides to be a very good record of actuality.

We are now very fortunate to be able to scan and edit our slides to improve presentation as prints.

Yes, I am thankful for the quality of those slides that I took in the 1950/60s.
They are a very good record.

I hope that anwers your question?

[Pixalo]

So can I assume "slides" is the medium that can be manipulated the least ? (Dave)

[Joseph McGarraghy]

Originally Posted by Pixalo

So can I assume "slides" is the medium that can be manipulated the least ?

I wouldn't be so bold.

There are all kinds of slides, including animated, as I am sure you will know.
If we are talking about the period I am speaking of, colourslide photography quality was good and difficult to improve on, given the correct exposure. As we all know, manipulation is not new and slides are not immune. Some club members would create special effects for slide competitions.

Clubs usually had special 'Record' sections in their competitions but they were often pictures of buildings and places. I am talking about good record pictures of the world as it is now, in all its facets. It needs to be a well presented image showing life as it really is, not through tinted lenses.

Yes, slides can be manipulated now on the computer but I hope that that will simply mean trimming, as would benefit the subject.

I hope that is what you were asking?

[stepheno]

Is it not true that most things that are done digitally can be done in the darkroom? Therefore what is an honest photograph