BioRUST Forums - View Single Post

**Tamlin** · 04-07-2008

Well (just to be awkward) I totally disagree.

The whole notion of "manipulating" images goes back to the very beginnings of photography and has been inseparable from it ever since. Even the relatively "simple" process of traditional black & white darkroom development and printing can involve "manipulation" of one sort or another, from techniques like dodging & burning through to colour toning and solarization. I know, because I used to do it myself. How do you classify Henry Fox Talbot's calotypes, Anna Atkins's cyanotypes or Man Ray's "Rayograms"? - all "photographs", but produced without the aid of a camera. How about the gum bichromate prints of Robert Demachy or Constant Puyo, who did not regard "straight" photographs as Art, so manipulated the gum arabic coating of their photographic paper to emulate traditional painting? How about Les Krims and his scraped polaroids, or Jack Perno and Kathleen Carr's polaroid emulsion lifts? Even a bunch of snaps that you took with a disposable camera and had developed at the local One Hour Photo have been "manipulated" in some respect. And this is all before we even enter the realm of digital photography and Photoshop.

Some people can't even manage to post in the correct Gallery as it is - give 'em even more choice (especially something as subjective as this) and the situation will be even worse. And who has to clear up the mess? The Janitor, of course.

Sorry for the rant, but that's the way I see it. Don't do it, M0g - just rename the existing one!

04-07-2008	#5 (permalink)
Tamlin Janitor of Lunacy Join Date: May 2006 Location: Sitting in the Wishing Chair Posts: 5,309	Well (just to be awkward) I totally disagree. The whole notion of "manipulating" images goes back to the very beginnings of photography and has been inseparable from it ever since. Even the relatively "simple" process of traditional black & white darkroom development and printing can involve "manipulation" of one sort or another, from techniques like dodging & burning through to colour toning and solarization. I know, because I used to do it myself. How do you classify Henry Fox Talbot's calotypes, Anna Atkins's cyanotypes or Man Ray's "Rayograms"? - all "photographs", but produced without the aid of a camera. How about the gum bichromate prints of Robert Demachy or Constant Puyo, who did not regard "straight" photographs as Art, so manipulated the gum arabic coating of their photographic paper to emulate traditional painting? How about Les Krims and his scraped polaroids, or Jack Perno and Kathleen Carr's polaroid emulsion lifts? Even a bunch of snaps that you took with a disposable camera and had developed at the local One Hour Photo have been "manipulated" in some respect. And this is all before we even enter the realm of digital photography and Photoshop. Some people can't even manage to post in the correct Gallery as it is - give 'em even more choice (especially something as subjective as this) and the situation will be even worse. And who has to clear up the mess? The Janitor, of course. Sorry for the rant, but that's the way I see it. Don't do it, M0g - just rename the existing one! __________________ Religion: It's all fun and games until someone gets burned at the stake... Last edited by Tamlin; 04-07-2008 at 05:07 PM..