So, when the drugstore would fix the exposure on my photos(as their machines were set to do) it was fake photos? Or was it ok because it was captured on film?

Just a point of clarification: Ansel Adams made contact prints from 8X10 negatives taken with his view camera. Some would argue that it was almost identical to the process of using a photocopier. He also did extensive darkroom work to bring out the shadow detail he so vigorously sought using his zone exposure system -- shadow detail that could not have been brought out without that darkroom technique. He also used toning and bleaching to create the image that was in his mind. Ansel was also best known for his artistic cropping of the images he created.

In short, Ansel Adams used the best technology available to him to create -- or recreate -- the images in his mind's eye. He did not etch his images on tin to pay homage to daguerreotype process. Nor did he feel that using his zone system was "cheating". He was a photographer and an artist and he used both his skill in the field and his unrivaled use of technology in the darkroom to create memorable images we can all enjoy today.

Jim

The push/pull technique (mostly pull) what Ansel Adams used in a darkroom mistacenly identified as manipulations.
Many digital photographer use Ansel Adams darkroom technique as an excuse for all the cheating they do. Every time when this subject come up the first name mentioned is Ansel Adams!
I saw Ansel Adams exhibition with more than 100 photo! There was an informations for every photo, about how and where was taken, and what kind of darkroom "manipulation" was made. I did found only a few picture which was actually manipulated in darkroom, on mostly just darkened the sky. Even there was a small print which showed the original shot! Because no one want us to believe the picture was shoot in that way as the big print shows and they are showed us the original shot, I can't call it cheating!
Digital photographers do the same thing? They are show us the original shot, just to see how much manipulations was made on the picture? NO!

Otherwise why do not mentioned Jim Brandenburg's name who did shoot on slides, and never cheat. He did make a book project when at a summer he took every day only one picture! No cheating, no manipulations no second chanse! Just pure photography. The book was success!
Or why not mentioned those photographers' name, who won the BBC "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" contest with slides! They never can manipulate the pictures, because you can't manipulate the slides! There was much more photographers than Ansel Adams! There was millions of photographers who shoot on slides, and never get even close to a drakroom! There was many photographers who win big competitions with slides, not with prints! Prints can be manipulated, slides and negatives can't. There was much more photoraphers than Ansel Adams.
And even if we say, yeas Ansel Adams extensively manipulated his prints, it is not an excuse for cheating! Just because some people rob banks that not means it is excuse to us to do a same thing!

Ansel Adams zone system is NOT a darkroom technique at all!

The zone system is a guide to set the right exposure based on spot ligth metering! I do use a zone system but actually I developed myself without knowing Ansel Adams' technique. For long time I also believed the zone system is a darkroom technique. Then I read about it and I found out I use the same thing, and it is not a darkroom tecnique.

The pull processing what Ansel Adams used for bring out more detail in a shadow area, is also not a post manipulation! The pull processing is actually must have to decided before the shot is taken!
The point of the technic is the folowing:
Those light sensitive particles wich not get enough lights are not react with the developer chemical and wash off from the surface of the film during the processing. During the enlargement process, when the negative projected to the photopaper, there is no any particle on the path of the light in the shadow area, so there is not gonna be any detail on the print!

But if we overexposed the film, even in a shadow area enough lights can be hit the film so during the processing the light sensitive particles react with the developer chemical and remains in the surface of the film. But because the film was over exposed (in purpose!) need a shoret developing time to corect it. But even the shorter developing time (pull processing) the particles remains in the shadow area too! That bring more details on a print. This technique works only using negatives!
On roll film, if one picture was over exposed in purpose for using a pull technique, all the others must overexposed too with a same EV!
Because this technique must be decided even before the shoot, it can't be called manipulations, or cheating.
I use push technique for getting higher contrast. It is mean I underexposed all my picture on a roll in purpose, with a same EV value, and it is corrected with the processing. If I accidentaly under or over exposed a frame that is became dark or bright! It is impossible to fix on a slide or negatives an accidentally wrong exposure! You can fix it on a print if it is not too much.

Attila, you won't win this battle. You won't win this war. Film is dead. Slides are dead. You hear of advancements daily in computing speeds, camera processing power, new sensors, new software, new advancements.

You also hear about the end of Kodachrome, about people discontinuing their film processing labs, where you can buy film is becoming slimmer.

You can rail against it, you can scream "Cheaters" and at the end of the day, technology moves on. Just because you use digital, or photoshop, doesn't mean you do not also see the shot, see the light and use it.

If you use slides and film because you prefer it, that is fine, there is a big world out there and we are all free to do what makes us happy.

If you want to convert people over to your way of thinking, you are not doing a very good job. Name calling and ranting usually does the opposite

Kodachrome was almost dead when the Fuji start to sell the Fuji Velvia!
Many photogrpahers, inclouding myself, don't like the Kodachrome. It wasn't as great slide! Actually it is surprising it was able to stay alive this long!
But the Kodak came out with a brand new negatíve just in 2009 and this year it became available for medium and large format too!
In 2005 the Fuji stop to manufacturing the Fuji Velvia because the dificoulty to get the raw materials for it, but a same time came out with new fuji Velvia slides, replacing the old velvia 50. But the customers don't let the old Velvia just dissapear! The fuji got so many request for continue the Velvia, so Fuji's engineers start to develop a new fuji Velvia with same caracteristic as the old velvia was.

All this thing is not shows me the film is dead! I know so many digital shooter would like to see to die the film, because that would open even more door to the acceptance of cheating.


But this topic is about the scannography is a photography or not?

Attila,
you have an interesting historical view. I guess if you don't like what is an historical fact, you simply change it to match your philosophy. Well that's not all that unusual. What is unusual is that you research your photo subjects very carefully and very well but you have no idea what Ansel Adams really did or how he did it.

As Julie says, you can rant all you want but it won't change reality. Photography has moved from film to digital. If you'd like to be one of the last holdouts, knock yourself out. BTW, I'm curious, you are a carpenter by trade: do you still use hand drills instead of electric ones; do you still use hand saws instead of table saws, compound miter saws and jigsaws; do you use a hammer instead of pneumatic nail guns? If you do, then I'd guess you are quite a craftsman but not very productive. If you don't . . . well that would be cheating, wouldn't it . Have a nice day, Attila.


Jim

Attila, gonna play devil’s advocate here with you a bit.

You said:
“So this mean none of the pictures which was manipulated in computer should call photo, because many of the details/features wasn't captured/created by lights! Many of the feature on a manipulated picture was calculated and drew by a computer software not created by lights.”

I would argue then that the pictures you post here are digitized even though you capture them on film. You couldn’t post them here if they were not from a computer. Does that make them non photographs?


You said:
“Ansel Adams did make his pictures with a scanner?
I don't think so! He used camera with lenses.”

I would argue that a scanner is just a lens capturing the light fed by the scanner. I know it’s a bit of a leap, but it does involve light and a lens to capture it with.

You said:
“The pull processing what Ansel Adams used for bring out more detail in a shadow area, is also not a post manipulation! The pull processing is actually must have to decided before the shot is taken!”

But you argue in an earlier post that:
“The right darkness/brightness is achievable with a correct light measuring and camera set up, adjust it in a PS is cheating and make the picture a fake photo.”

Is not Ansel’s adjustment after the capture the same as what you call cheating in Photoshop?

I would argue that I take a picture with the end result in mind….just like Ansel did. I also remember a comment where before Ansel died, that he commented on his excitement on the anticipation of photography going digital in the future.

As a photographer, I put a lot of effort into exposure, the zone system, using my Sekonic meter…analyzing and capturing the light, and capturing the experience of the slice of time I see when I am out exploring our world. Just because we have a sensor instead of a chemical capturing the light doesn’t make it NOT photography. It just changes HOW we do photography.

I have no beef with film….I just prefer digital. I love knowing I have left my scene with a proper capture. Digital with all its tools, allows me more elbow room in that arena. I don’t have to wait till the film comes in to realize that I just blew a shot…I can look at my resulting capture out in the field and re-capture if a mistake was made, or the shutter clicked at the wrong time.

Photoshop for me is the bridge between what the limited camera saw…and what my true experience was. I don’t edit things into my shots, nor do I clone things out. If there is garbage ruining my shot, I pick it up and pack it out with me. If telephone lines are in my way, I pick a new composition.

About the only editing I do that changes something is often on wide angle shots. If it has the moon in it, I take a separate shot of the moon with a longer lens. I also take note of something in the shot to give me a reference of what the moons true size is and when I add the moon back, to the picture, it is at the same size my eye saw it. I also disclose this editing on my posts so no one is confused.

An example of that is this shot. The moon is the same size as my eyes saw it when I took the shot:



This also brings me to my other personal ethic. If I edit anything in a shot, I disclose that every time. This is a composite of two shots. I did take the shot with the moon over the basket…I just played with this to make the shot look like I wanted…but I never try to pass this off as an “As Shot” picture:


I respect film photographers. I was one long ago. I got over the "Digital vs. Film" arguments a LONG time ago. Resisting progress dosnt stop it. It just makes a person frustrated and bitter. Joy is a big part of seeing for me. Digital photography is here to stay and a joyful thing for me.

You can call it whatever you like....art...photography...or any other name you please. I respect your opinion, but I live by mine...and I hope you have a wonderful time with your film based photography. Me...you will not change my mind...just like I will not change yours. So lets just do what we do and maybe find where our common ground it instead of our diffrences.

Were both still calculating exposure. Were still both finding things of interest. Were both still choosing our ASA/ISO. Were still both capturing light. I would argue that most film photographers are still digitizing their photographs and importing the results into photoshop for final "spit and polish" with the end result being much like digital photgraphers. We are both capturing moments in time. We both pre-visualize what we want before pulling the trigger. Were both capuring the same photons. You do so with chemicals, I do so with mechanical microlenses.

Peace to you....may your photography thrive. I know mine is.

Roman

I feel like I have become the professional coat holder in this debate. And happy at doing it! I hope you all enjoy the discussion as much as I have.

As the devils advocate, Roman, you have continued the debate with great skill and all of you have presented interesting points.
Having seen the photo industry change so dramatically in my career lifetime, I must admit that I really enjoy the challenges. I don't particularly like the expense with every change, I feel we are heading in an incredibly interesting creative time for the arts. Mediums are blurring the line more than ever before and personally I feel that is a great thing.

Being a painter way before my photographic business, I am now combining the two mediums much more that I did when I hand colored the silver halide prints. Painters hated the photographers when they first started. It was mostly out of fear that there business would be replaced.

I will be giving a program at our next two day seminar and the title is Riding the Merry Go Round. Where ever we got on this fabulous ride, it still keeps going around and it now more fun than ever.

I have always had a hard time with the labels pertaining art. Painter (sub title of the medium) Sculpture (same about medium since bronze gets more respect than ceramic, etc.) and then the photographers with our choice of creating that image. And now that I am putting photography into glass and firing it - what do I call that! LOL

So, just to hold a few more coats - what do you call yourself when introduced by your art= are you an artist, photographer, digital photographer, craftsman, artisan......????

Photographer is what most people "lable" me as.

I would classify myself as a craftsman of the digital photographic arts?!?. ....LOLOL!!!

And as long as my work satisfies me....my viewing audience, and my customers.....and they keep voting with their pocket books...They can call me anything they want as long as it's not "Late For Supper".

Im not all that caught up in titles.

Roman