This is an obviously manipulated image I wasn't going to post it here. But, after reading yet another diatribe about modern photography and how we should all be following a set of rules, I thought I'd post it and be damned.View this larger here.
Link of the dayEcho
Manipulated or not, it's a fine image - evocative of childhood memories, it's as if we've been transported into the mind's eye of some kind of flashback.
a great photo is a great photo.
Good for you - glad you did.
heh. you must have tuned into chromasia too. honestly i don't know why people get so worked up over that issue. i say let the debaters debate and let the photographers.. erm.. photograph. nice shot.
so how is it manipulated? i tend to be a "purist" -- whatever that means, even tho I shoot in digital. my definition of that is to only use techniques that would be available to me in a wet darkroom. but the fact is that this is 2006 and we have superstar photographers like loretta lux whose work is solely "manipulation." so, i suppose the finished product is all that matters.
Very glad you did, Miles. This is fantastic.
At the end of the day it's all about the image, the expression of the artist, what it conveys to the viewer and what the viewer takes away from their interaction with the artwork. How this is achieved is irrelevant and pointless to me.
Julie Margeret Cameron was manipulating the photographic process over 100 hundred years ago to get an end result, to convey a feeling and mood. If after 100 years people are still getting upset about the concept of "pure" photography, to me they are completely missing the point of what art is about.
Anyway, I like this a lot, it is a nice use of syntax to evoke feelings of bygone days, dreams and childhood memories.
Yeah, well this is the thing for me. I don't mind people preferring to not post process their images, or not 'embracing' digital, what annoys me is when people seem to think that it's digital vs analogue when it comes to what is an image. It's nothing to do with digital vs analogue, it's the extent of manipulation, whether it's in a darkroom or on a computer.
EVen though manipulated...it doesn't take away the fact it is still a Photo. It's Art, you should be able as a photographer to express your feelings through your work freely. Too bad that you always have to explain or justify yourself...If only the world was a lil' more open-minded. This is not an attack to the "Purist" because without them there wouldn't be a push for evolution and the need to "manipulate" pics to express a feeling differently.
Don't know if it makes much sense but Purist or Not, it's an art we all Respect and should Encourage each other to push the boundaries of it.
Fantastic work Miles!
this whole purist attitude is getting so tired. i think purists are like those grumpy old men that complain about "the rap music". lighten up gramps.. it's just photoshop.
no one other than us photogeeks even gives a shit how a photo is shot / processed.
Hehe. I love the shrink-em effect. . .and rebellion:)
fantastic shot miles - lots of emotion.
as far as i'm concerned, they're all images, it's all art, do what makes you happy, live and let live.
Great post processing!
Don't let the nay-sayers get to you Miles. I very much enjoy the work you do. The tendency to criticize instead of critique and to parrot standard complaints about a field without any sincere thought is becoming very common. I just wrote a post about the same thing in regards to my profession on my blog.(http://quicksilverdreams.blogspot.com/2006/03/fourth-estate.html) As far as photography manipulation, I am of two thoughts. I am staunchly and adamantly against it in anything approaching a journalistic milieu. That being said, outside of documentary work, photography is an art and as such is open to the style, intent, creativity, technique and output as any other art.
Thanks again, I would like to say that some of my best friends are analogue purists, but they're accepting of images like this even if they wouldn't want to reproduce the process themselves :)
My personal view is that cameras, film types, darkrooms, image applications, etc are all tools to use in the pursuit of an image, in pursuit of your own vision.
Jessica, I agree. With my own 'documentary/news' type shots (such as the protest shots) where I am just trying to get across a scene to the viewer I do the minimum of post production necessary (levels/b&w conversion), but with images like this, where I am trying to convey more than just the visual, I will do whatever I have to :)
What was your goal here, Miles? I mean, if it's to make a "pure" document of this scene, I suppose it's a miserable failure. But I think most anyone who tries to do that (beyond maybe the confines of photojournalism [still not really "pure" imho]) is just kidding themselves. We might as well require all painters to paint everything '100% accurately'. As an image, it's strong. Just because you don't have the tool there to make this exact image in camera doesn't make it weak by any stretch of the imagination.
And again in reference to the whole photojournalism thing... lets not pretend that there's no editing going on there. I mean, choosing when to press the shutter itself and capturing a certain mood (whether or not that's what's actually going on) can contain a ton of bias. That's ok though. While I'm an adamant supporter of accurate portrayal of news events, I'm also big on free speech. And the freedom to choose to ignore news sources where you feel there's a bias. We're not limited to a single news agency, are we? (Man, have I gotten off topic.)
But really, I'd rather see you give up on trying to justify your actions when you manipulate and let the images stand for what they are. I hope you won't take that as a criticism. It's just that it's your site and everyone can complain 'til the cows come home, but who really cares that they're so immature?
First of all I want to thank you for linking to
my post! I'm flattered and surprised. And second, this photo you posted is very beautiful and sweet.
Very iconic and moody. Always good stuff Miles.
Not to flog a dead horse but sheesh. I agree with Walker. It's your thing and you are DAMN good at it. I think it's fantastic to see all the people shooting film and experimenting with antique methods but digital is just another step, another tool, antoher "darkroom". It's a means to an end, and that end in this case is fantastic.
I think its just superb!
like a reflection on our childhood... a 'lightpoint' in the dark sometimes...
great work miles...
I say this as a complete neophyte to photography, and I actually agree with all you all that post-processing is fine, but there is a little tug at my brain that thinks back on the nature photography I grew up with (such as Courtney Milne). I used to look at those (now cheesy) pictures of sunsets, northern lights, and glowing caves, and I felt that I was looking at the beauty of the world all around me that the photographer was able to capture and that I was too lazy/ignorant/novice to notice. When I later found out that Milne added some of the colours in his pix, I felt a bit deceived.
I'm only mentioning this because I don't feel manipulated by more modern photography. Maybe I just accept post-processing more, but maybe you modern photographers are indeed more restrained. I imagine many of you do consider this when post-processing.
Wallker: there is a definitional difference between "photo manipulation" as in adding, subtracting or changing in content, and "bias" - as in do I press the shutter release when the basketball arcs into the basket or do a capture the look on the face of the young child in the second row as he watches his hero fall to his knees in despair as the final seconds tick away on another loss--- do I snap the picture when the fireman carries a screaming baby from the flaming house, or do I take the picture of the mother of that child being led from the scene of the same fire that her meth factory in the basement started? Those are bias decisions. Manipulation, in the definition we were speaking of, does not occur in photojournalism (outside of the rare shameful practitioner that every field of business experienes). Believe it or not, those of us who claim this as our profession have ethics and standards the same as you, or moreso since we take care to have the facts before speaking which seems to be questionable in your case? As far as the bias goes? That is our job. to show the world what they did not get to see. Just as you would look at one thing when entering a scene of any sort, and another would see some thingn completely different at the same scene, not all photographers shoot or see the same thing...it does not carry the evil intent and purpose you paint it with. And, as you said, you have plenty of outlets, any person, in this day and age, who only gets their news from one source, needs to open their eyes, open their minds and broaden their view.
**Steppin off my soapbox, bashful grin** sorrry Miles, had to respond to that.
I like it.
Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I don't want to feel like I'm trying to justify what I'm doing but I do have an impulse to explain it, try to make people understand where it's coming from.
This image is like a memory. It's perfect as it is. manipulated? Only You see what You see. Why not use the options you have to show it?
Jessica, I've witnessed enough bias in your field to determine what many others have... that you're not all as ethical as you would try to lead us (and probably yourselves) to believe. I understand you think everyone in your industry is in it for the right reasons, but many young politicians think the same thing about their field.
And I'd heartily disagree with your assertion that your job is to show the world some sort of bias. How about a little objectivity? Perhaps you think of bias as a good thing, but I don't. And I'm sorry, but some people *do* have evil intentions and purpose. I never said all photojournalism was fakery or 100% bias, but it's not the pure, white profession you would lead us to believe (save the acknowledgment of those making direct manipulations).
I don't really want to get into the debate here, I find that there is never really a conclusion to something like this and in most cases it just becomes a slanging match against the oposing poles, slowly moving off and back onto the initial subject.
Anyway I really really like this shot, I get such an eeire feeling from it. Suppose its the hollywood film image of an abandoned playground in my mind. Still very good ;)
Good point, JD. My apologies to Jessica, Miles and everyone else.
No worries, I find it all very interesting even if this isn't the best place for a debate.
Walker, as JD pointed out, this is not the place for this discussion. If you care to email me or drop by my blog, you're welcome to. On that note, again Miles....I quite enjoy your art, and look forward to more of your posts.
I love the work you did to it...brings back childhood memories!
very cool mood...
Miles -- You do what you do. In your case, you are an excellent photographer and need not feel constrained by someone else's boundaries. Everyone has their own.
That said, I can see a fine curved line around the top of the slide -- it seems to dip just at the bottom of the 'apostrophes' -- any idea what that is from?
rules are for people that can't think for themselves. Do what you like. I like the shot. Screw the naysayers.
I love it. Very atmospheric.
Excellent shot...love the simplicity. Yeah...seems like this discussion (or a derivation thereof) is making it's way on to photoblogs nowadays. It's my opinion that most people who don't use postprocessing are quite ignorant to the art of photography and reproductive imagery, whether that be newbies or purists or simply people who haven't a clue. Digital has made it easier to postprocess, but harder to justify it.
Nice job, Miles.
hello. i regularly view your photos, and this one struck me as particularly interesting. I love it - i also liked the series you had of that tree. many of those ended up on my desktop!
I used to think that post processing of photographs isnt necessary and shouldnt be done. But that was before I knew how to use photoshop myself. Though I can only really do a minimal amount on photoshop, I can certainly appreciate an image which has gone through a lot of processing. I understand the difference between it and one which hasnt been processed much; photography is art and there should not be any limiations to how you create your finished piece.
Nicely done! Who cares about rules! Very well done.
I agree with most of the people here so I won't rehash it (my only problem is if you are holding the shot out as journalistic or pure).<p>
But on a semi-related tangent, I actually think its helpful to sometimes impose "rules" on yourself. Creating an artificial confine can force invention of a new view in order to create variety within that confine.
Looks great. I like it and the post processign done to it. =]
To my mind, there are diffrent purposes to different photographs. Some are meant to capture an image so that it can be presented to an audience for their own digestion. Others are meant to show something in the artist's experience with the subject. I prefer the latter. If it didn't seem to me that the first "filter" you use is your own eyes, I wouldn't bother to look at your pictures. Manipulate away, if it brings me closer to what you see.
in this case i think the statement:"the medium is the message" proves itself to be true one more time.
All content Rigent Design and Development © 2004 - 2014