There are some great Adams photos showing his darkroom notes for exposure, dodging, and burning. You can barely see the scene through the marker ink.
Even RAW files are “interpreted” by the choice of program we use. As you said, every photo has been manipulated in some way. It’s just a matter of how comfortable you are with that fact.
Yeah man, when I saw these photos for sale I kinda got relieved, I must say. I was starting to join that dangerous purism thing…
While I’m purist struggling on getting images out of light, silver halide, chemical baths and emulsion, people are living by having edited photographs as their profession, which is a dream of mine.
For me, the key is to recognize that attempting to get “perfect” shots in camera doesn’t rule out editing later (computer or darkroom), nor does the ability to edit rule out the need to get the best possible negative (or digital file) in camera. All encompassed in the singular goal of getting the photo the way you envision it.
Agree. That’s I think more and more that composition and access to scenes/places is more important than equipment. Magnum’s photographers all had both: composition and access. That’s what make photos catch the eye.
"It looks Photoshopped" did you Photoshop it? IMHO most viewers ask silly questions through ignorance. The same folks who look at an image and the price and wave their smart phones and quip I could do that! They lump photo editing in the same condemnation with photo manipulation. Wish I had 250 to but that Ali image
I’ve never understood those so-called “purists” who appear to think photography should be conducted in a certain way to be thought of as true photography — and who think the subject in a print they deem a great photograph is somehow captured in its Platonic form.
As you write here, every photograph, digital or analog, has been handled. Edited. In a number of steps along the way. The finished product is a choice or series of choices. Who’s to say what the “correct” steps are? Or what the output should be? Certainly not me. And, I’d argue, not those who somehow think a great photographer like Ansel Adams didn’t manipulate his vision in the darkroom. With the printing time chosen — and development time too. Or with his camera or lens choice. Or with the film or paper choice. Or with his film exposure time. Or with his colored filter choice. Or even with what not to include in the composition.
Anyway, you are preaching to the choir but it’s good to see a reminder here for those who may have missed the point. 😃
Yeah, the purists think they are the “Aristotles of Photography”. Platonic is the perfect word you chose for that!
Question for you: I wanted to approach an “there’s no right or wrong” thing, and at the end of the day, platonic forms are also ok. The point is that where they complain and give other people a hard time, people like Andreas Gurszky, or the Magnum agency is profiting millions with his edited photographs. Do you think the post conveyed that well?
Thanks a lot for adding valuable thoughts to the discussion, my friend!
Not to get into word-smithing, but editing often suggests adding or taking away. I only really start wondering when you start getting rid of annoying people, traffic lights, garbage cans, and such. If it was in the frame and it is printed based on the subjective wishes of the photographer, I am OK with that. HCB and Salgado were among the most critical for their printers to work with. The final print being their vision, not the printers. In the frame 👍 not in the frame 👎
Yes!! I think there’s a difference in the terms: “edit” versus “manipulate”, where edit is basically dodge and burn and print material, contrast. Manipulate is do cuts, elements insertion/removal, etc. — or could be the opposite. But I’m almost sure there’s separate terms for those!
Excellent essay. Thank you. I really like those 'how-to-edit' examples. Just as the Magnum Contact Sheets book. Seeing the shots before and after the photos we all know is so fascinating.
Thanks Marcel! Yeah, I put the Mohhamad Ali’s photo side by side to see the A/B. You can literally see the result of the dodge and burn, and it’s fascinating.
This article is right on time. I wrote an article about Fan Ho and how he manipulated his darkroom prints and the conversation in the comments was very enlightening. People have forgotten that in the film days almost every photograph was manipulated in the darkroom at some level. To me the final photograph is the photographers vision, what he is trying to convey or what is visually pleasing to them. This purity of the photography never really existed.
There are some great Adams photos showing his darkroom notes for exposure, dodging, and burning. You can barely see the scene through the marker ink.
Even RAW files are “interpreted” by the choice of program we use. As you said, every photo has been manipulated in some way. It’s just a matter of how comfortable you are with that fact.
Yeah man, when I saw these photos for sale I kinda got relieved, I must say. I was starting to join that dangerous purism thing…
While I’m purist struggling on getting images out of light, silver halide, chemical baths and emulsion, people are living by having edited photographs as their profession, which is a dream of mine.
For me, the key is to recognize that attempting to get “perfect” shots in camera doesn’t rule out editing later (computer or darkroom), nor does the ability to edit rule out the need to get the best possible negative (or digital file) in camera. All encompassed in the singular goal of getting the photo the way you envision it.
Agree. That’s I think more and more that composition and access to scenes/places is more important than equipment. Magnum’s photographers all had both: composition and access. That’s what make photos catch the eye.
Those saying real photography is only on film are probably those still listening to vinyls instead of digital HiRes FLACs
Ahahahahaha, great point!!!
"It looks Photoshopped" did you Photoshop it? IMHO most viewers ask silly questions through ignorance. The same folks who look at an image and the price and wave their smart phones and quip I could do that! They lump photo editing in the same condemnation with photo manipulation. Wish I had 250 to but that Ali image
+1 on this!
I’ve never understood those so-called “purists” who appear to think photography should be conducted in a certain way to be thought of as true photography — and who think the subject in a print they deem a great photograph is somehow captured in its Platonic form.
As you write here, every photograph, digital or analog, has been handled. Edited. In a number of steps along the way. The finished product is a choice or series of choices. Who’s to say what the “correct” steps are? Or what the output should be? Certainly not me. And, I’d argue, not those who somehow think a great photographer like Ansel Adams didn’t manipulate his vision in the darkroom. With the printing time chosen — and development time too. Or with his camera or lens choice. Or with the film or paper choice. Or with his film exposure time. Or with his colored filter choice. Or even with what not to include in the composition.
Anyway, you are preaching to the choir but it’s good to see a reminder here for those who may have missed the point. 😃
Yeah, the purists think they are the “Aristotles of Photography”. Platonic is the perfect word you chose for that!
Question for you: I wanted to approach an “there’s no right or wrong” thing, and at the end of the day, platonic forms are also ok. The point is that where they complain and give other people a hard time, people like Andreas Gurszky, or the Magnum agency is profiting millions with his edited photographs. Do you think the post conveyed that well?
Thanks a lot for adding valuable thoughts to the discussion, my friend!
Ahhh, yes, that was a good point!
Not to get into word-smithing, but editing often suggests adding or taking away. I only really start wondering when you start getting rid of annoying people, traffic lights, garbage cans, and such. If it was in the frame and it is printed based on the subjective wishes of the photographer, I am OK with that. HCB and Salgado were among the most critical for their printers to work with. The final print being their vision, not the printers. In the frame 👍 not in the frame 👎
Yes!! I think there’s a difference in the terms: “edit” versus “manipulate”, where edit is basically dodge and burn and print material, contrast. Manipulate is do cuts, elements insertion/removal, etc. — or could be the opposite. But I’m almost sure there’s separate terms for those!
Part of the issue is that there is no consensus around what those words mean. We are light on definitions!
Excellent essay. Thank you. I really like those 'how-to-edit' examples. Just as the Magnum Contact Sheets book. Seeing the shots before and after the photos we all know is so fascinating.
Thanks Marcel! Yeah, I put the Mohhamad Ali’s photo side by side to see the A/B. You can literally see the result of the dodge and burn, and it’s fascinating.
This article is right on time. I wrote an article about Fan Ho and how he manipulated his darkroom prints and the conversation in the comments was very enlightening. People have forgotten that in the film days almost every photograph was manipulated in the darkroom at some level. To me the final photograph is the photographers vision, what he is trying to convey or what is visually pleasing to them. This purity of the photography never really existed.
https://dbucknerphotography.substack.com/p/the-negative-was-never-the-photograph?r=2jp7zg