11 ms·

I gave this discussion some thought this morning. Basically the argument boils down to "it's not an old picture, it's modern, it's been post-processed in Photo

I gave this discussion some thought this morning. Basically the argument boils down to "it's not an old picture, it's modern, it's been post-processed in Photoshop, recently. What you're reacting to is a modern photograph" Correct me if I'm mistaken. If that is the case, I still disagree. I'll bring the old saw from Ansel Adams that the negative is the score, and the print is the performance. He reprinted some of his most famous photographs throughout his lifetime, and some of these prints are arguably better than others. My point being, that since Prokudin-Gorksy isn't around to give us his performance, others have stepped up and created something they feel is analogous to the actual experience and perhaps amped it up a bit for our color-weary eyes. There is no way for us to experience these images in the original without the three lens projector Prokudin-Gorsky used. With any method, you can claim that the colors and presentation are an artifact of the production process. If I see a beautiful image, sometimes it's apparent that Kodachrome or Velvia had been chosen specifically because of the way they enhance color or saturation. Would we even be having this discussion in these images had been captured on Kodachrome? I have some idea of what is possible in Photoshop, and I can say with certainty that these images don't "reek" of Photoshop in the same way that those on the news stand do, with their plastic women and too-white teeth. What has been done is the most rudimentary work necessary to render both an image which is both colorful and complete by proper registration of the layers and by some manipulation of the contrast and saturation. I think that the technicians who put these images together have respected the work and the original intent of the artist (as far as I can suppose it), and have breathed new life into this artifact. What they have done is less invasive and less manipulative than the restoration of the Last Supper. What puzzles me is this purism. This sense that Photoshop is so dominant over our visual senses that we cannot see past it and make statements about the work itself. That it has to be Photoshop that we find colorful, interesting, or worthy of note. Not all viewers are equally naive. Some find tone-mapped HDR obtrusive, and the halos, contrast inversion and lack of shadows physically sickening. Some look at HDR and say gee wiz. I think readers on this site deserve more credit by default than the second category. What I really want to know, is a suggest for fixing this alleged problem, of these images looking like Photoshop. What is the way to experience these images without that obtrusive technical monster in the way? What is the pure experience without some monkey at the keyboard interposing their vision on the work? How can I find myself enamored with the thing in itself, rather than a modern process or technique. Where is the original artwork, and how do you suggest I experience it? As an aside, I'm very intrigued by your description of Gursky's photo being full of mind-bending and subtle tricks. What is unnatural about the space? I see what looks like compression, possibly by the use of a long lens. The lake should not be sunlit without the ground before and after being sunlit, unless there are some particularly rectangular clouds overhead. Some items have been cloned out, but I haven't been to the site or seen photographs of it to know what. Essentially, what is the visual signature that is present in this photo by Gurksy that is present in the Prokudin-Gorksy photos? I'm just not seeing it. I'd love to see a mockup in Photoshop that would simulate how you think the Prokudin-Gorsky images should look, or does the mere use of Photoshop somehow make it impossible to create an approximation of the ideal look of this work.

001sky 14y ago
I think its worth backing up a bit. "What puzzles me is this purism." "Not all viewers are equally naive." "the original intent of the artist" "Where is the original artwork" "What I really want to know, is a suggest for fixing this alleged problem" "There is no way for us to experience these images in the original" "What you're reacting to is a modern photograph." Nobody thinks like this anymore. These were debates from a long time ago. This is all strawman. These questions don't need to be answered. Digital post processing is the norm. It does not make an image worth anything. It does not ruin it. It is just a fact or not (and in these cases, we know its true). Second, why does this even matter? Well, for (1), it opens up an entirely new realm of colours. Second (2), it allows for an entirely new realm of image-data-translations. So, we can assign point X a unique color, and then translate point X and all its neigbours to unique colors, without ruining the "image" information in the process. (3) It enables an entirely new rage of output colours, so what we see is and relate too is more/less similar based on 1x2x3. This is independent of the quality of the input image, but is magnified when these inputs are high-quality (because more translation can occurr with better tonality, et). Here is the intuition: Photoshop workin space vs Monitor output space. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/17.jpg http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/17.jpg Massive difference. Of course none of this has to do with what the image originally took in, this is just what we can do with it after we have it. We can do alot. So, takeaway #1 is the actual color pallette of digital is unique. The acual image may be a tiny subset, and it may be designed such that it maps to an even tinier subset that is shared with C-print or whatever else you choose. But although I may end up in a <tiny> output space not blowing through the <working> space during my translations is critical. If I am workin in <tiny> space I am very constrained on translations. Ina <large> space, I can do lots of translations and then jam the output into <tiny> space at the end, wit a lot less damage. The next question is: style and image composition. Is that unique to digital, and if so how? Why does it matter? Is it visible. etc. This is actually alot more important than the color range. The color range, we can (if we want to) keep "normal looking" pretty easily. But we need powerful tools to keep it normal looking, if we want to also have stong image tonal controls. Each time we dial up an RGB curve, it gives us more color in addition to more contrast. In chemistry, the paper controls the contrast level (for the most part). But the paper is the whole image, so a strong contrast and a punch color go together. the whole image has this "look". Kodachrome, Vevia etc for example is typical. But in digital, I can have a stong contrast and a muted color, because I can turn down the color for each turn up of contrast. So, even on a cloudy day, I can have stong contrast in the midtones, with no black shadows. I can add strong contrast to the light sky, without blown out highlights. I can have stong overal contrast from forground to background. I can have massive tonal seperations between a green grass and a grey river. etc. This look is very "contemporary". To sum, its strong local contrast with muted to natural color. There are unnatural amounts of information present in all kinds of atypical relationships. Visual cues of depth and relative location do not act like normal. etc. Its more "interesting" to look at, because there is actually more information in the image. What does this say about image quality? Nothing. This is true for good images and bad images. You can generate some of these effects on instagram. Its just more stuff to look at that is precisely tailored to the way your brain processes the images (ie, midtone=yes, shadows=no, etc). There are a whole host of subtle mind tricks, if you want to go there. Point of fact is ansel adams is using these techniques in many of his prints, just not in color. Its just that with PS this is all easier, faster, and far more widespread the understanding. So, is some of this present in the images? Yes, it seems it is. These images are also interesting in their own right, this is not a critique. But for the many folks who are wondering "how it is possible" they are so lifelike and HD and cinematic and etc. This is in part the reason. In his day, they would have been nice BW prints. But the colour space of "lanterns" vs the color space of ProfotoRGB? is not comparable. lots more information extraction is possible in color today than 100 years ago, no doubt. And thats part of the reason for this "uncanney valley" of hyper-reality people seem to notice here. The extra information paired with the artifacts of glass plate images, and all that is almots-not-quite-perfect-but-still-very-cool. So, is this insightful? I don't know. That's for you to decide, I was only sharing this for those who cared. Not all viewers are equally naive...I think readers on this site deserve more credit by default WEll, this may or may not be well known. My first few answers were thinking everyone knew this. But I hope you don't feel like this is talking down to you. This is also providing the foundation to understand Gursky. Its abit outside the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say he is projecting freehand N-dimensional spaces, that are masked to appear normal. Consider a panaroma from the mars rover. But stiched together in an imaginary plane. But now consider that the rover is flying, not stationary. Its sort of a picasso in photoshop. But it looks "normal". Until you see how it doesnt. How it cant possibly be real. But then you step back, and it looks normal. you step up and can see every detail, perfect. The color is normal. The contrast is not extreme, etc. It looks "normal" but its not. ..... In a 2001 retrospective, New York's Museum of Modern Art described the artist's work, "a sophisticated art of unembellished observation. It is thanks to the artfulness of Gursky's fictions that we recognize his world as our own."[7] Gursky’s style is enigmatic and deadpan. There is little to no explanation or manipulation on the works. <His photography is straightforward>.[8] ..... His photography is straightforward? But wait... Camera position is the co-star of these pictures. Usually Gursky places his lens high above, far away, on cranes, or even on helicopters. His pictures often entail multiple views of the same subject, different subjects seamlessly spliced together, and digital manipulation. Notice how little of this is explained in the catalog: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5496716 http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjec... For more reading up on this, with explanations: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Photography-Matters-Never-Before/dp/0300136846 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Photography-Matters-Never-Before/d... [disregard the star rating] Another Gursky that is more obviously mind-bending: http://www.matthewmarks.com/new-york/artists/andreas-gursky/ http://www.matthewmarks.com/new-york/artists/andreas-gursky/

001sky 14y ago

I think its worth backing up a bit. "What puzzles me is this purism." "Not all viewers are equally naive." "the original intent of the artist" "Where is the original artwork" "What I really want to know, is a suggest for fixing this alleged problem" "There is no way for us to experience these images in the original" "What you're reacting to is a modern photograph." Nobody thinks like this anymore. These were debates from a long time ago. This is all strawman. These questions don't need to be answered. Digital post processing is the norm. It does not make an image worth anything. It does not ruin it. It is just a fact or not (and in these cases, we know its true). Second, why does this even matter? Well, for (1), it opens up an entirely new realm of colours. Second (2), it allows for an entirely new realm of image-data-translations. So, we can assign point X a unique color, and then translate point X and all its neigbours to unique colors, without ruining the "image" information in the process. (3) It enables an entirely new rage of output colours, so what we see is and relate too is more/less similar based on 1x2x3. This is independent of the quality of the input image, but is magnified when these inputs are high-quality (because more translation can occurr with better tonality, et). Here is the intuition: Photoshop workin space vs Monitor output space. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/17.jpg http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/17.jpg Massive difference. Of course none of this has to do with what the image originally took in, this is just what we can do with it after we have it. We can do alot. So, takeaway #1 is the actual color pallette of digital is unique. The acual image may be a tiny subset, and it may be designed such that it maps to an even tinier subset that is shared with C-print or whatever else you choose. But although I may end up in a <tiny> output space not blowing through the <working> space during my translations is critical. If I am workin in <tiny> space I am very constrained on translations. Ina <large> space, I can do lots of translations and then jam the output into <tiny> space at the end, wit a lot less damage. The next question is: style and image composition. Is that unique to digital, and if so how? Why does it matter? Is it visible. etc. This is actually alot more important than the color range. The color range, we can (if we want to) keep "normal looking" pretty easily. But we need powerful tools to keep it normal looking, if we want to also have stong image tonal controls. Each time we dial up an RGB curve, it gives us more color in addition to more contrast. In chemistry, the paper controls the contrast level (for the most part). But the paper is the whole image, so a strong contrast and a punch color go together. the whole image has this "look". Kodachrome, Vevia etc for example is typical. But in digital, I can have a stong contrast and a muted color, because I can turn down the color for each turn up of contrast. So, even on a cloudy day, I can have stong contrast in the midtones, with no black shadows. I can add strong contrast to the light sky, without blown out highlights. I can have stong overal contrast from forground to background. I can have massive tonal seperations between a green grass and a grey river. etc. This look is very "contemporary". To sum, its strong local contrast with muted to natural color. There are unnatural amounts of information present in all kinds of atypical relationships. Visual cues of depth and relative location do not act like normal. etc. Its more "interesting" to look at, because there is actually more information in the image. What does this say about image quality? Nothing. This is true for good images and bad images. You can generate some of these effects on instagram. Its just more stuff to look at that is precisely tailored to the way your brain processes the images (ie, midtone=yes, shadows=no, etc). There are a whole host of subtle mind tricks, if you want to go there. Point of fact is ansel adams is using these techniques in many of his prints, just not in color. Its just that with PS this is all easier, faster, and far more widespread the understanding. So, is some of this present in the images? Yes, it seems it is. These images are also interesting in their own right, this is not a critique. But for the many folks who are wondering "how it is possible" they are so lifelike and HD and cinematic and etc. This is in part the reason. In his day, they would have been nice BW prints. But the colour space of "lanterns" vs the color space of ProfotoRGB? is not comparable. lots more information extraction is possible in color today than 100 years ago, no doubt. And thats part of the reason for this "uncanney valley" of hyper-reality people seem to notice here. The extra information paired with the artifacts of glass plate images, and all that is almots-not-quite-perfect-but-still-very-cool. So, is this insightful? I don't know. That's for you to decide, I was only sharing this for those who cared. Not all viewers are equally naive...I think readers on this site deserve more credit by default WEll, this may or may not be well known. My first few answers were thinking everyone knew this. But I hope you don't feel like this is talking down to you. This is also providing the foundation to understand Gursky. Its abit outside the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say he is projecting freehand N-dimensional spaces, that are masked to appear normal. Consider a panaroma from the mars rover. But stiched together in an imaginary plane. But now consider that the rover is flying, not stationary. Its sort of a picasso in photoshop. But it looks "normal". Until you see how it doesnt. How it cant possibly be real. But then you step back, and it looks normal. you step up and can see every detail, perfect. The color is normal. The contrast is not extreme, etc. It looks "normal" but its not. ..... In a 2001 retrospective, New York's Museum of Modern Art described the artist's work, "a sophisticated art of unembellished observation. It is thanks to the artfulness of Gursky's fictions that we recognize his world as our own."[7] Gursky’s style is enigmatic and deadpan. There is little to no explanation or manipulation on the works. <His photography is straightforward>.[8] ..... His photography is straightforward? But wait... Camera position is the co-star of these pictures. Usually Gursky places his lens high above, far away, on cranes, or even on helicopters. His pictures often entail multiple views of the same subject, different subjects seamlessly spliced together, and digital manipulation. Notice how little of this is explained in the catalog: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5496716 http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjec... For more reading up on this, with explanations: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Photography-Matters-Never-Before/dp/0300136846 http://www.amazon.com/Why-Photography-Matters-Never-Before/d... [disregard the star rating] Another Gursky that is more obviously mind-bending: http://www.matthewmarks.com/new-york/artists/andreas-gursky/ http://www.matthewmarks.com/new-york/artists/andreas-gursky/