Triple Exposure III

Still from VALENCE, France

An interesting question about PS. On my color shotI use it only for framing luminosity and contrasts . On my B&W curves calques and negatives are very often used to express something...

9 Dec 2006 7:16am

Hubert Pacheco from Pasay, Philippines

back then photogs used delayed processing times and various darkroom techniques to achieve some of their desired effects. i believe they airbrushed their photos sometimes, much like we use the healing brush in PS. So i guess it's not too different. when you go overboard with it, that's when you sort of "desecrate" the art in photography.

9 Dec 2006 2:03pm

Hubert Pacheco from Pasay, Philippines

great set of multiple exposures, by the way.

9 Dec 2006 2:04pm

Duncan Galbraith from kyoto, Japan

Nice image for a start. As for the PS conundrum, personally I dont believe its much of a conundrum. A good photo is a good photo in my opinion and theres no hiding it. The same goes for a bad one. But as in all art, its all subjective anyway, and its impossible to come to a definitive objective answer (although I realise you're not asking for one!). As for 'taking away its value as photography' via the use of PS then all work would have to be judged via the same rule set and only 'pure images' would be considered 'of value'. I understand where you're coming from although I must say I disagree. I once heared someone say that the alteration of images was the work of good 'technicians' as oppossed to photographers which made me laugh. The principles applied today are the same for example as in Ansel Adams' day. You need the vision, creativity and imagination to firstly see the potential in any given situation, and shoot it. Adams (as all photographers) application of darkroom techniques drastically altered the original image and made it so much more. What does PS do exactly? It merely gives you the tools to enable you to do, what in days gone by would require a darkroom and all its requisite machinery/chemicals etc. The technologies changed for sure, but it's the same game, albeit with a different name. I appreciate the commentary. You've made me think.

9 Dec 2006 3:00pm

Damon Schreiber from Toronto, Canada

Hey Paul, I really like this one. It took lots of looking before that thing I thought was some kind of fork was actually the same plastic chair you photographed before. I guess I could have read the caption :-)

I'm interested in the discussion of photography and when Photoshop manipulation of images is acceptable. I think the first thing is to define ones purpose. Obviously the work you presented above isn't meant to represent a scene that you literally saw all at once. On the other extreme, there's crime scene photography as used by police and forensic experts where you must show absolutely what was there for the purposes of evidence. I think most of our work here falls somewhere in between, but probably a little close to the former in that we are generally more concerned with art than with strict documentation.

My rule of thumb is that all's fair in Photoshop as long as I don't misrepresent things. I try to represent a scene as faithfully as I can but not just the scene, also the impact it had on me at the time. For example, if the stunningly lit scene looks a bit flat in the image, is that my fault as a photographer or the camera's fault for not seeing what I saw? If I never noticed that ugly lamp in a nature scene when I was taking the photo, would it be a crime if I cloned it out after? Who cares; I'll try to take the moment I captured and mold the recorded image to show what I felt when I saw it originally. I don't mind increasing contrast or saturation as long as I feel it looks more or less natural. There are exceptions of course. I think we all accept black and white as a valid form of photographic expression even though almost nobody sees the world with no colour whatsoever. Selective desaturation of an image often looks cheesy to me, but I have to admit that it's sometimes compelling. I take full advantage of the technique in tomorrow's post. Tell me what you think.

9 Dec 2006 7:49pm

Eduardo from Santaigo, Chile

Siguiendo la conversación (espero me sigan en español), creo que como dice Damon, el proposito influye mucho en la utilización de PS. Ahora, ¿no es acaso el PS una nueva forma de "revelar" una fotografía? Por ejemplo en el caso de los archivos RAW, o incluso JPG, o cuando convertimos una fotografía color en blanco y negro (¡ la mejor forma de trabajarla por lo demás!). Muchos de los fotoperiodistas "famosos", como James Nactway, trabajan mucho con fine printer, que aclaran zonas y cambián drásticamente el dramatismo de una imagen...¿No es eso manipulación? Para mi no, es una forma de interpretar una escena y decir algo con ella.

Recortar una imagen, arreglar tonos, saturar, enmascarar, ¿no son técnicas que siempre se han utilizado?

Algunas discusiones son como un espiral...

Un saludo cordial

27 Dec 2006 1:22am