Long exposure and aperture shifting

[george013]

Right on! Just like Ansel Adams did everything in the camera, not in the darkroom

IMO: The computer plus editing program are just a less smelly and more environmentally friendly incarnation of the darkroom, although, many disagree with that attitude. However, just like in Kipling's poem regarding the East and the West; "Never the twain shall meet!" on this argument.

Ansel Adams didn't add subjects to his photo's as far as I know. As soon you do that the comparison with the darkroom is wrong.
In the digital darkroom you change the values of the pixels, you don't add subjects. Or dismiss them.
It's a rather simple boarder but many people don't see the difference between drawing/painting and photography. A kind of wishful thinking.

George

[dem]

Right on! Just like Ansel Adams did everything in the camera, not in the darkroom

Does the green smiley face mean sarcasm? We are talking about the guy who could spend a whole day in the darkroom just to produce one print and practically invented dodging and burning.

[William W]

As William stated the main point is what can you do with the camera, not with the pc.

I think that you may have slightly misunderstood my comment.

All that I was commenting on, was that there are two main reasons why Photography Competitions have a minimum manipulation rule.

I did not mean to imply that I agreed or disagreed with those rules.

As for my opinion: I alluded to my position in post #20.

I think there are very good reasons to include minimal post production manipulation for some Competitions and for other Competitions, to have such rules is simply total madness.

Apropos the Frog and Sky Photo (link in Post #1), I think it would be a reasonable rule to NOT allow Multiple Image Cloning and/or Image Stacking, but allow some Post Production (Minor Colour, Tone, Contrast Cropping etc), for that competition: it was organized by a Nature Photographer and he appears to adhere to a general set of editorial guidelines, wherein Cloning and Image Stacking would both probably be a big no-no.

WW

[William W]

Ansel Adams didn't add subjects to his photo's as far as I know. . .

and

In the digital darkroom you change the values of the pixels, you don't add subjects. Or dismiss them.

A little pedantic perhaps, but as we are picking nits, Adams certainly dismissed (removed) Subjects and Subject parts from his images.

I do not know if he stacked or sandwiched negatives (those are two methods of wet lab 'adding subjects') but that knowledge and those techniques were certainly available to him, and he worked with big negatives and he spent a hell of a lot of time in the Darkroom.

WW

[Shadowman]

Wouldn't happen for the recent Competitions in which I have been involved; as one of the conditions is that the raw file must be supplied.

WW

Bill,

Was the use of the raw file for verification purposes (limited editing) only?

[William W]

Bill,

Was the use of the raw file for verification purposes (limited editing) only?

No. Actually, it is more than just the raw file which has been requested. It is the original capture storage device (camera card)

That card can then be used to verify not only the original file content, but also (almost always) relative date, time, location and assist to prove/disprove a multiplicity of post production manipulations.

WW

[Shadowman]

No. Actually, it is more than just the raw file which has been requested. It is the original capture storage device (camera card)

That card can then be used to verify not only the original file content, but also (almost always) relative date, time, location and assist to prove/disprove a multiplicity of post production manipulations.

WW

Wow, that's a lot of control on their part, with those requirements I'd be perusing the fine print of the contest to see what else I'd be giving away, granted most contests require you to relinquish some control anyway.

[William W]

Wow, that's a lot of control on their part, with those requirements I'd be perusing the fine print of the contest to see what else I'd be giving away, granted most contests require you to relinquish some control anyway.

I don't see it as the Photographer "giving away any control" whatsoever.

It is simply part of that competition rules.

Supplying the Camera Card for verification of adherence to the rules is no more a loss of control than having one's accounts audited, or car checked by the appropriate authority for road worthiness.

It is not that the Photographer has to "give" the camera card and not get it back. It is simply to verify that the entry Image conforms to the rules, no fine print, just for verification of adherence to the rules.

For example, I recently attended local out and back ocean swim (2.6kms), there were age categories, entrants had to supply photo ID with DOB (typically a Driver's Licence) that is, to verify their age.

As Richard mentioned earlier, if Photographers don't like strict rules about Post Production, then they can choose not to enter those competitions: it's a simple as that, in my mind.

WW

[Shadowman]

I don't see it as the Photographer "giving away any control" whatsoever.

It is simply part of that competition rules.

Supplying the Camera Card for verification of adherence to the rules is no more a loss of control than having one's accounts audited, or car checked by the appropriate authority for road worthiness.

It is not that the Photographer has to "give" the camera card and not get it back. It is simply to verify that the entry Image conforms to the rules, no fine print, just for verification of adherence to the rules.

For example, I recently attended local out and back ocean swim (2.6kms), there were age categories, entrants had to supply photo ID with DOB (typically a Driver's Licence) that is, to verify their age.

As Richard mentioned earlier, if Photographers don't like strict rules about Post Production, then they can choose not to enter those competitions: it's a simple as that, in my mind. Part of my reasoning for allowing unlimited usage is I would personally have very limited use of the image save for posting on a website forum and possibly in book of street photos.

WW

Bill,

When I say giving up control I mean where the contest sponsors add a stipulation that they can do as they please with the image, when you are also giving them the raw file you really do give up control. I understand that the it is the photographer's decision to participate or not and I have entered contests where stipulations were involved, I tend to be selective with the images I enter into contests and so far have never been asked to provide the raw on original memory card and would be very reluctant to do so. By the way, I am more likely to allow unlimited usage to a landmarked structure, I did last year for an image that was displayed in a local gallery and on two websites.

[george013]

and



A little pedantic perhaps, but as we are picking nits, Adams certainly dismissed (removed) Subjects and Subject parts from his images.

I do not know if he stacked or sandwiched negatives (those are two methods of wet lab 'adding subjects') but that knowledge and those techniques were certainly available to him, and he worked with big negatives and he spent a hell of a lot of time in the Darkroom.

WW

If he did his pictures would be rejected.
Just to show an extreme use of manipulating images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor...e_Soviet_Union. Follow the links to.

George

[george013]

I think that you may have slightly misunderstood my comment.

All that I was commenting on, was that there are two main reasons why Photography Competitions have a minimum manipulation rule.

I did not mean to imply that I agreed or disagreed with those rules.

As for my opinion: I alluded to my position in post #20.

I think there are very good reasons to include minimal post production manipulation for some Competitions and for other Competitions, to have such rules is simply total madness.

Apropos the Frog and Sky Photo (link in Post #1), I think it would be a reasonable rule to NOT allow Multiple Image Cloning and/or Image Stacking, but allow some Post Production (Minor Colour, Tone, Contrast Cropping etc), for that competition: it was organized by a Nature Photographer and he appears to adhere to a general set of editorial guidelines, wherein Cloning and Image Stacking would both probably be a big no-no.

WW

I like to formulate things in my way. Like repeating a given phonenumber in another sequence as given, just to be sure.

The basic of an image is what the camera has captured. That camera is my tool. An analogue film can be developed in more ways, it can be printed in more ways on different paper. But still my negative is the basis. Even when cropping a part out off it. And a same story for digital.

I searched for the contest rule sof World Press Photo.
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/acti...st/entry-rules
And the link in it https://www.worldpressphoto.org/acti...s-manipulation
I know this is for World Press Photo only. Soon coming again

George

[Rent]

The reason some competitions ask for the Raw file, is to stop Photos being lifted from the web. It has happened.
Roy

[William W]

. . . When I say giving up control I mean where the contest sponsors add a stipulation that they can do as they please with the image, when you are also giving them the raw file you really do give up control.

OK. Understood.

I did not mean nor was I discussing "doing what they like with the image".

As a judge I would, if necessary, interrogate a raw file to substantiate that the rules of the competition were followed, nothing more nothing less.

WW

[William W]

If he [Ansel Adams] did [remove subjects or add subjects to], his pictures would be rejected.

Why?

What evidence do you have that if AA manipulated images in the darkroom to remove or add, that his pictures "would be rejected".

Sure that might be an opinion, but it certainly an opinion is not a fact which goes to substantiate that AA did not do such manipulations in the darkroom.

WW

[William W]

The reason some competitions ask for the Raw file, is to stop Photos being lifted from the web. It has happened. . .

That is also one other reason, yes.

But it is not the main reason for Competitions in which I have been involved.

In the twenty or so years of Competition Judging I have had only one accusation of plagiarism/theft to investigate. And yes, it was upheld and the violator was so severely admonished that he resigned from the Society and still remains persona non gratia in a wide circle of known Photographers.

WW

[george013]

Why?

What evidence do you have that if AA manipulated images in the darkroom to remove or add, that his pictures "would be rejected".

Sure that might be an opinion, but it certainly an opinion is not a fact which goes to substantiate that AA did not do such manipulations in the darkroom.

WW

Based on the contest rules. See the links to the World Press Photo rules.


George

[DanK]

This thread now has at least three topics. It started with what I saw as the OP's request for an explanation of what the photographer did. That evolved into a discussion of whether it would make more sense to create this image by means of processing. The answer, I think, the rules of some competitions might preclude that but that it might be more functional, if you goal is simply to produce and image like this. On one of Manfred's points: I agree that this is just a form of light painting.

However, then it got into a discussion semantics and absolutes:

Ansel Adams didn't add subjects to his photo's as far as I know. As soon you do that the comparison with the darkroom is wrong.
In the digital darkroom you change the values of the pixels, you don't add subjects. Or dismiss them.

First, he certainly removed objects. Read about Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. I have no idea whether he ever added things, although other analog photographers whose work I have seen exhibited in museums did. What doe it mean to argue that "[as soon as you add things], the comparison with the darkroom is wrong. In the digital darkroom you change the values of the pixels, you don't add subjects. Or dismiss them”? I don't often add things in my processing, but I have occasionally, and I remove things all the time--a power line where I don't want it, dirt on a toddler's face, spots from sensor dust, etc. Quite apart from the fact that analog photographers have done both in their wet darkrooms, what good does it do to declare that those editing steps are not part of my "digital darkroom," while my other processing is?