the bastardization of photography.

to preface:  i'm not a hater.  promise.

to further preface:  i do not think it's necessary to remove objects in photographs (e.g., Allan Detrich), i do not think it's necessary to be an idiot at clone stamping (e.g., reuters stringer), it's not necessary to clone photographic objects to make the composition better (e.g., la-times-walski) ... nor do i think that a fucked up frame should be massaged to high hell to get something closer to hdr (e.g., Klavs Bo Christensen).

whilst a lot of what i do ends up in weekly and monthly glossies, beyond levels, contrast, unsharp mask and a resize, which is done for me automatically given the transmission software i use, i don't do anything else.  i mean ... if you feel captioning is modification, of course.

getting back to that klavs shooter from denmark.  i saw this article and asked a friend to "give me the jist" as i don't speak danish.  go figure.  unless you're in solvang there's really no need.  i mean .. unless you live in denmark, of course.  i don't know klavs so i'm just gonna link rather than post his photos.  unlike some motherfuckers out there ... i don't post something i haven't asked to post.

homeboy's original camera file is this.  should you drag this file to your desktop and then drop it in photoshop, you'll see camera data as follows:



was stoked that wasn't stripped.  yeah, this dude totally-totally-totally underexposed this.  in the film world this would have been "thin."  i'm sure you still have that file open do an apple-l and look at the levels...

just for the fuck of it ... be the editor ... fix this image.  bring the both outside sliders in and move the mids a bit to the left. 

look at this photo.  what you get when you just fix this guy's levels is a far cry from the original.  for sure.  there are many more photos on the page.  the lone woman standing next to a shanty.  dunno if it's a shack or a shanty but i'll call it a shanty.  look at the camera data...



certainly likes iso 400 in daylight a lot. ;)  but f/8 at a thousandth is a pretty good exposure as the levels would seem to indicate...

but you look at the "finished version" and well ... it's really different.  like materially.

not only that ... but ... honestly ... if you are in a position to make your horizon level, do it.  it's more appeasing.  in this photo, though, there's a definite tilt.  one could argue that the tilt towards the lone subject could appear to make the weight of her surroundings seem to "pour toward her."

if you're going to make the argument that that danish guy who's name escapes me and i don't feel like scrolling up "saw the image as the finished image before he made the frame," yet "massaged" the original file to his "original vision," well, i don't know if visual journalism is the place for you. ;)

there's a third original camera file which that i feel is a pretty even exposure given the foreground and background.  do an apple-l and check the levels.  not a hell of a lot more you could unless you would used a 2- or 3-stop ND grad.  but ... you look at the "finished file" and ... it takes on a whole different character.  it made a wholly mundane dA-dd candidate into something perhaps not completely worth skipping over.

what someone like the danish guy is doing is masking any real talent in photography.

but what is this teaching the kids sitting in some high school photo class?  or a visual journalism class at brooks or some shit? 

honestly, the things i've seen performed to photos in front of me would tend to make me believe that a certain generation of cough-cough-photographer ... feels LIBERAL photoshopping is not only OK but required to "make a photo" look even halfway decent.

look at the twilght onesheet photographer's work.  in his defence at least his site's title includes "fine art" and "perception."  i'll give him that.  but seriously ... go personal>street.  honestly, surprised there are people on dA trying to copy this as they have with all of those textures and fake-bokeh-bullshit to cover up the fact their photography is mundane at best.

he used to have a "photojournalism section" but it would appear he took that down.  yet, he has a street section.  seriously?  hdr and multi-layer photoshop work qualifies this as street?

really?

perhaps they qualify as "street portraits," which in all actuality they are ...

i just don't see how friggin' any type of street photo can be photo-chopped and layered and called ... street.

honestly, though, i'm happy that such a young kid has broken into the ad world.  good for him. 

told ya' i wasn't a hater.

it's just these days the term photographer is such a "loose definition" of anyone who picks up a fucking camera.    in the real world ... the world of real work-flow and real editors looking at your un-photoshopped work ... GETTING IT RIGHT IN CAMERA MATTERS.

i have seen the RAW's from people who don't know i've seen their RAW work.  seriously, the flattest most uninteresting frames one could possibly imagine seeing ... not unlike that danish dude's camera originals. 

if you rely on photoshop or some other program to make your work viewable ... you, my friend, are not a photographer ... you are a photo illustrator.  plain and fucking simple.

not only ... but if you shoot the human condition (fka street) ... or journalism and add layers and filters and fake bokeh (hate that fucking word) ... you are a visual journalistic illustrator. ;)

and if you're a photographic writer who a) makes photos of babies at f/32 or b) you've never proved your photographic ability by posting anything worthwhile ... you are a fraud. ;)

so ... yeah ... there were a couple of other people i was going to pick on ... but i decided not to.

since the last few posts had photos i felt i deserved to write something that didn't include any photos of my own.

long live those photographers who make in-camera. ;)

cheers from the temperate los angeles!

Comments

[Satan]

Will u send this to every editor at GettyImages PLEASE?

[John Launius]

You're not a hater. You tell the truth.

[lara]

I understood nothing of the technical aspects of this post but I am right there with you on this one: "it's just these days the term photographer is such a 'loose definition' of anyone who picks up a fucking camera."

Although, I hope that after I post my pics from this weekend, you will see the true talent that lies behind my Canon SureShot photos and won't be too intimidated... :)

(Seriously, though - very interesting and good post. Enjoyed it!)

[Christian Rollinson]

i'm missing the simplicity of shooting film at the minute, where the only post work required was to correct the fuck ups the cheap scanner made, i.e, minor curves and usm.
i suppose while most of us only do whats necessary to a raw file to get it as we saw it through our mk1 eyeball, it would seem a lot of the public, like the sheep they are, like photoshopped stuff because they think they should. look at all the bullshit that comes on your average digicam nowadays, it's like the camera has photoshop built in to it.

[Jeremy Brotherton]

Yeah but these days people just simply think it's Photoshoped even when it's not. We've hit the point in photography were ways are changing. You can either keep listening to the records with the clear sound and full tones and round bass or get the crappy cd/mp3s. Times are a changing and I agree it's not for the best in a lot of cases but it's what's happening. People have always fought change in all forms. Don't fight it except it and just keep doing your own thing if that is what you feel is right.

[Jesus]

Pls play with my photos and blog about them... I'm not that important! Damn....
I'd love to shoot all film but I'm a poor bitch! Got a darkroom though and I'm well conserving it! ;)

PS: Would you send all my photos to Getty Editors PLEASE!

Cheers

[glen]

Try this link to the story. Now in english !

[glen]

Ooops forgot the link
http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/fotografi/index.php?id=11708

[Scott]

I love blogs like this, calling out those who deserve to be called out.

I cant believe those people call themselves professionals, and worse yet, get pro work..

Everything I do for the real world (the mag and the wire) is sent in straight from camera.. at least, if basic editing in aperture counts as straight from camera..

If I'm doing something special, or for a client who wants it, sure, ill fuck around with PS as much as they ask..

All 3000 photos on my personal site (too much I know) are un-edited aside from basic levels, and b/w conversion

[Tom Walsh]

When looking through that Joey L. website, I had the same reaction. It's not street, it's a portrait session that just happens to be on a street.

I'm very happy to say that the photos I submit to my paper are not edited at all, and yet I think they look great. I take pride in not opening photoshop. Even though it costed an arm and a leg.
Here's one that I'm talking about, if you want to see it: http://blogs.dailyemerald.com/photo/2009/01/12/shebang-the-llc-performance-hall-drag-show/

Hope LA is treating you well. It just hailed in Eugene. I'm driving down to LA though on Thursday. Going to Coachella :D Can't wait for the sun!

[Dmitry K]

Great stuff, great points. And i totaly agree.

When i was looking at that Joey L. web site I found it funny he photographed the same person I have. (The 3rd portrait in the street section)

Great to see blogs, miss the UBER days was a bit easier to keep up with everything.

[C Weeks]

@satan: yes, for sure. right on it. ;)

[C Weeks]

@john: that's why we appreciate each other, man.

[C Weeks]

@lara: honestly, there is nothing bad about the snapshot aesthetic. and in fact ... personal photos are important to everyone who takes them. i'm not taking away from that.

i'm sure your sureshot photos will be amazing. :)

thank you and great seeing you over the weekend!

[C Weeks]

@christian: precisely why i was so stoked when another photographer plopped 30+ contact sheets in my hands to look at.

there wasn't any of that "thinness" which the danish guy had in his photography. in fact, homey should be shooting film only from now on to be taken seriously.

that is, of course, unless he wants to be the joey l of visual journalism. sorry ... visual journalistic illustration. ;)

[C Weeks]

@glen: thank you for the link but i was read to me basically by a native-speaking danish friend! very good translation on that page, mate. pretty much everything i heard before!

[C Weeks]

@jeremy: "Yeah but these days people just simply think it's Photoshoped even when it's not." perhaps some but not all, mate. if you know what a sensor or film is capable of ... you also know what it's NOT capable of doing.

"Don't fight it except it and just keep doing your own thing if that is what you feel is right." perhaps but don't call yourself a photographer if you're actually an illustrator. ;)

[C Weeks]

@jesus: send me a link but sadly, unless you're really amazing, i won't be forwarding it along to the getty editors. ;)

[C Weeks]

@scott: exactly. that's why aperture is so fucking amazing. if i know someone uses aperture to do selects, levels, a bit of unsharp, contrast and exporting i know they can't possible fuck with their photos too much.

and, of course, if i do headshots and the client wants retouching, then, yeah, for sure. they're paying for it ... and i'm not representing it as "just as i saw it."

3000 are too many indeed. ;)

[C Weeks]

@tom: the university of oregon's paper is really good, man. and, yes, your photos look great ... although some hdr and additional layers would be so cool. ;)

the kids love joey. and the kids have no idea what the fuck street is. ;)

love love love oregon.

yes, indeed l.a. is treating me well! enjoy coachella! no coachella for me this year. i didn't think the lineup was worth it. :(

[C Weeks]

@dmitry k: lets see that photo that you did! :)

and, yeah, i totally agree that uber made it easier but ... well ... uber's dead. :(

hope you're well!

[Shane]

Chris, this is fucking awesome. And, it's not at all evil, mean, or any of that bullshit. It's calling it like it is, and that's what makes you, You... and why I always know I can turn/come to you for the truth of shit. Even if it winds up crippling my own ego! Ha!

I can only hope that if you should ever happen upon one my RAW files, and I should be so lucky to be in a situation where you even would see one, that I hope it's one that I got right in-camera. It would suck to have anything else happen.

This makes me wanna go back and reread the essays on street work you've submitted. Yeah, fuck it... I'm gonna go do just that, seeing as it's too shitty out for any street work here (ie, there's literally no one outside, and I'd be shooting signs and lights).

[Andross]

I read the English translation, and I must say, the guy has a point in that RAW files don't represent the actual scene, and moreso since it seems the judges just zero'd out all the settings in Camera RAW (which will make almost any image look like crap - digital sensors are just not like film).

BUT

It's quite obvious he went overboard, at least with the last two. It just looks like some ridiculous HDR or lazy curves layer masking a la Stuck in Customs (why do people like that guy's mundane crap again?).

You can argue for the first shot, since really, it was just a matter of levels and contrast (the RAW file zero'd out will look like the one the judges looked at, but it is more likely that the image on the D700's LCD looked closer to the final edit). But either way, I understand all the issues with doing this kind of crap in the context of journalism, and to a degree photography.

I'm by no means a pure or straight or whatever the hell you want to call it photographer (maybe even a got damn'd photo illustrator ;] ), but I certainly recognize there's a degree of unnecessary slickness/commerciality moving into photo j and documentary work.

Maybe all photo journalists that shoot RAW should enable JPG copies in the camera as well - that way, there's no question what the photographer is looking at on the back of their LCD, and it's far more accurate than just zeroing out the RAW file.

[C Weeks]

@shane: please don't go and shoot street signs. leave that to http://wwww.bradmoore.com. ;) thanks as always for the comment, man.

[C Weeks]

@andross: okay, perhaps, but ... my RAW's look pretty goddamned right on. perhaps it's because i use aperture? ;)

i know that there are a lot of trends among really hardcore photoshoppers. i know they try and outdo each other. but where i see that is fashion, editorial portraits and um ... adverts ... i don't expect to see that in pj work.

jpeg+raw! it's so much fun. ;)