You are telling one of the great photographers of all times to stay with the times. What he is talking about is not about dodging and burning or using different chemicals, but removing or adding things to the photographs that were not there to begin with.
If the color temperature of a photograph needs adjusting- Photoshop can bring the image back to what it looked like to the eye. That is manipulation of the image, but it is creating what was really there.
The person that can load & use a view camera and apply scheimpflug to their work, process the film and print it is a photographer. That same person would probably be able to make pictures with a cardboard box as well as the newest Canon/Nikon. Most people that use DSLR's are simply snappers, good at what they do, but it is so easy these days. Erwitt is a genius, you're not in Magnum through not knowing what you're on about.
You're probably right. I don't doubt both of your posts. And film is probably going to be replaced by digital. But in my eyes, a b&w fiber print from a b&w negative is much more beautiful than any digital b&w prints I have seen in. It is also quite rewarding to make wet prints. For me anyway. As for colour, I like both and I use both.
@jgda9rs The good grade is a great thing. He still acknowledges the uses of digital photography. At the end of the day, it's the image, no matter how you got there.
A camera is a camera is a camera.... I shoot the same way now that I have digital, as I did for 30 years using film. There is no difference in the final result.
For that matter, you can't work in b&w photography and say you don't "manipulate." The eye doesn't see in b&w, so when you snap the shutter with a film camera loaded with b&w, you've "manipulated" right there. He makes valid points, of course, but it's all a matter of degree, not one of being absolutely "real" vs absolutely "imaginary."
Of course a painted image is also writing with light. You put some paint on some canvas and it reflects and absorbs light in a way we can see. Still I would prefer another name for digitally manipulated images from cameras.
If you are doing reportage or photojournalism, then the photograph should be presented as much as possible as the camera saw it. Outside of that, the only thing that really matters is the final result and the impact that final result has on the viewer. If you use Photoshop, or a view camera, or a gradient filter, so be it.
@wildlite LOL, I dont like the way you said it, but what you said is true. As the same time, I understand what's he's saying. he's saying, when you are doing reportage photography, you want to present the photo as the camera saw it.
He is a master. I assume he is not talking about the day to day dodging and burning that will no doubt be used by the printers on his own work. Dodging and Burning and chemical and paper use "manipulate the image". For me manipulation is changing the subject.
Awesome! Manipulated pictures are like a woman with too much makeup and plastic surgery ...it's compensating, it's the type of picture that attracts the eye temporarily but you quickly forget. I am convinced without a doubt that we should aim at taking pictures that do NOT need ANY manipulation except for a very slight curves adjustment or burn MAYBE. These ones are memorable...if you are good enough to take them that is.
Film is manipulation. Film development is manipulation. Reality doesn't look like film. Where is the world black and white? Ultimately there's manipulation and manipulation. Adjusting black and white levels digitally is not the same thing as adding a sunset in a picture.
"old time photographers" are not afraid of digital photography. That's not the point. They master a certain technique and they keep using it. Elliott Erwitt always used for his commercial/assignment work new technology, but for his hobby he has always been using his faithful camera. Bottom line.
If the color temperature of a photograph needs adjusting- Photoshop can bring the image back to what it looked like to the eye. That is manipulation of the image, but it is creating what was really there.
One photograph that I like of Erwitt's work is on page 117 of the book Recent Developments. The photo was taken in Afghanistan in 1977.
Excellent interview! Thanks for posting this "face time" with one of my heroes!
@topdeckdog there are dark room techniques where you require no manipulations, just a correctly shot negative.
You are telling one of the great photographers of all times to stay with the times. What he is talking about is not about dodging and burning or using different chemicals, but removing or adding things to the photographs that were not there to begin with.
I've just been chosen as a winner the new fresh milk photos competition that elliot is judging. This guy kows talent lol
If the color temperature of a photograph needs adjusting- Photoshop can bring the image back to what it looked like to the eye. That is manipulation of the image, but it is creating what was really there.
The person that can load & use a view camera and apply scheimpflug to their work, process the film and print it is a photographer. That same person would probably be able to make pictures with a cardboard box as well as the newest Canon/Nikon. Most people that use DSLR's are simply snappers, good at what they do, but it is so easy these days. Erwitt is a genius, you're not in Magnum through not knowing what you're on about.
Elliott knows what's up.
You're probably right. I don't doubt both of your posts. And film is probably going to be replaced by digital.
But in my eyes, a b&w fiber print from a b&w negative is much more beautiful than any digital b&w prints I have seen in. It is also quite rewarding to make wet prints. For me anyway.
As for colour, I like both and I use both.
@jgda9rs The good grade is a great thing. He still acknowledges the uses of digital photography. At the end of the day, it's the image, no matter how you got there.
A camera is a camera is a camera....
I shoot the same way now that I have digital, as I did for 30 years using film.
There is no difference in the final result.
For that matter, you can't work in b&w photography and say you don't "manipulate." The eye doesn't see in b&w, so when you snap the shutter with a film camera loaded with b&w, you've "manipulated" right there.
He makes valid points, of course, but it's all a matter of degree, not one of being absolutely "real" vs absolutely "imaginary."
Of course a painted image is also writing with light.
You put some paint on some canvas and it reflects and absorbs light in a way we can see.
Still I would prefer another name for digitally manipulated images from cameras.
If you are doing reportage or photojournalism, then the photograph should be presented as much as possible as the camera saw it. Outside of that, the only thing that really matters is the final result and the impact that final result has on the viewer. If you use Photoshop, or a view camera, or a gradient filter, so be it.
@wildlite LOL, I dont like the way you said it, but what you said is true.
As the same time, I understand what's he's saying. he's saying, when you are doing reportage photography, you want to present the photo as the camera saw it.
He is a master. I assume he is not talking about the day to day dodging and burning that will no doubt be used by the printers on his own work. Dodging and Burning and chemical and paper use "manipulate the image". For me manipulation is changing the subject.
@ohnoithinkihateyou photography based digital imagery
i heart him so much
Awesome! Manipulated pictures are like a woman with too much makeup and plastic surgery ...it's compensating, it's the type of picture that attracts the eye temporarily but you quickly forget. I am convinced without a doubt that we should aim at taking pictures that do NOT need ANY manipulation except for a very slight curves adjustment or burn MAYBE. These ones are memorable...if you are good enough to take them that is.
Film is manipulation. Film development is manipulation. Reality doesn't look like film. Where is the world black and white?
Ultimately there's manipulation and manipulation. Adjusting black and white levels digitally is not the same thing as adding a sunset in a picture.
"old time photographers" are not afraid of digital photography. That's not the point.
They master a certain technique and they keep using it. Elliott Erwitt always used for his commercial/assignment work new technology, but for his hobby he has always been using his faithful camera. Bottom line.
If the color temperature of a photograph needs adjusting- Photoshop can bring the image back to what it looked like to the eye. That is manipulation of the image, but it is creating what was really there.