Just where will image processing end

[Manfred M]

The great majority handed over their rolls of exposed film to others, and received back their finished prints or transparencies, without having to think of the number of distinct processes and procedures the film had undergone to produce the finished product, processes of which most people had little or no knowledge and no control.

And today's equivalent is shooting jpgs using the default setting, something the majority of shooter do.

[Ady]

That being said, it then becomes difficult to define harm, or at least an acceptable level of harm that can be tolerated...

Just the idea of an 'acceptable level of harm' is appalling when you see it written down but it is absolutely true. Almost everything we do, including owning cameras, involves some harm to someone even if it's so far removed from ourselves that we can't see the harm done.

I can't believe that in the process of producing a camera, from the mining of minerals to the retailing of the product, that there is no harm done to someone somewhere. So we do all on a daily basis make decisions that we should probably balance with the probability of harm, and determine if that harm is acceptable. Though the idea of acceptable harm still makes me uncomfortable if I think about it for too long.

... there has been much criticism of how women's bodies are portrayed in fashion publications, with Photoshopped images being the target of scorn by both politicians and quasi-judicial bodies.

The thing that astounds me with this issue is that female editors, artwork commissioners, designers etc. seem to be equally responsible for perpetuating the promotion of such images. I've spoken about this with my partner and she has said that some of the most unpleasant attitudes towards female body shape and self-image come from her female peers.

Of course this is based on 'anecdotal evidence' (which always struck me as an oxymoron) so we may both be mistaken and the victims of manipulation by hidden men who pull the puppet strings for us all... not that I'm paranoid, or own a tin foil hat

Cheers,
A

[ajohnw]

I think it a mistake to consider processing as a distinct and separate procedure to image formation.

The manipulation of light photons by means of lenses, and the conversion of those photons into electrical charges in the sensor are at one end of the process stream, and the finished image at the other.

In the days of photochemical photography, the photographer's contribution to the production of the finished product usually ended with the formation of a latent image, which would then be subjected to further chemical processes, re-sizing and printing by others, except for the small minority who did darkroom work themselves. The great majority handed over their rolls of exposed film to others, and received back their finished prints or transparencies, without having to think of the number of distinct processes and procedures the film had undergone to produce the finished product, processes of which most people had little or no knowledge and no control.

Today, we have a high degree of control over most of the procedures from the beginning of the processing stream when we take the picture, to the end where we view our finished work on screen, or print it out. This can only be to the good.

Misguided beliefs in 'authenticity' often underpin discomfort over digital processing, and thereby diminish all the darkroom arts, the many manipulations, procedures, and processes through which a latent image evolved into a finished print in the photochemical age.

There was more control than many people realise in both black and white and colour film photography. The biggest difference really is that in the extreme that needed to be thought of when the shot was taken and in some cases there was no going back at that point.. There is more scope in digital and undo is always there.. Some techniques such as unsharp mask date back to film. There will be others as well really some based round paper and film types and of course developing at any stage.

Missguided belief - I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. Photo's generally need to be more real than the real thing. What I was emphasising is the real part of that. As to the rest I have modified 3 shots posted on here that aren't real any more. A horse, some shadow once in a faded print. Gave it more sun than it had on the day. Why - the horse looks a lot better and that and the lady on it's back is the main aspect. A boat scene. None linear scaling to get a better crop. A stretched rock in another scene. All pushed so that in one way or the other they emphasise other aspects of the shot as well. This is why I used the word sympathetic processing. Other approaches often result in a technically great record shot and little else. Not art of any form. The shot that started this thread is heavily processed and I think beyond doubt art. The last one I posted a link too just can not hang together so well. If for instance the shot had been viewed on the basis that it had just rained which in the right lighting conditions can give incredible colour clarity and made more real than real on that basis I feel that again it would finish up being art.

Not that I claim to be that good in any of these aspects but I feel that often people miss the point of art and get it mixed up with technical expertise. It is possible to visit art galleries and even see photo's that joe public buy these days. From what I have seen there must be a lot of mileage in the argument. Obviously though this area can not be a black and white subject. The main problem with photographers viewing prints is that they will see "photography". On may shots an art critic would just turn their back and walk away. On the other hand it is possible for a photographer to take a step back and look at things in a different way. Few do in my opinion. I try. May never get it right to my entire satisfaction either but tastes vary anyway.

-

[Manfred M]

Though the idea of acceptable harm still makes me uncomfortable if I think about it for too long.

Replace the word “harm” with “impact”, it somehow makes things more palatable.

Unfortunately, everything we do has an impact on something else, so trying to figure the acceptable limits might be best left to philosophers, activists and politicians. These groups seem to enjoy telling the rest of us how we should be living our lives. The real problem is when the philosophers and activists manage to influence politicians and some really stupid law gets introduced. The law, no matter how well intentioned, usually has spin-off effects that end up doing more harm than good.

The thing that astounds me with this issue is that female editors, artwork commissioners, designers etc. seem to be equally responsible for perpetuating the promotion of such images.

And they do this because they are trying to sell their product(s). This is especially true when it comes to selling something that is fashionable or trendy. Everyone wants to stand out from their competitor and tries to go for something striking and edgy.

Eventually someone figures out that they don’t like it because it causes “psychological harm” to some segment of society. It gets the attention of the activists, who take an idea that may some have merit and totally go overboard, convince policy makers and politicians to do something about it. That’s when the problems really start….