| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2007 07:42:21 PM · #1 |
My mom is a painter and she is a member of an artists guild that has a gallery. They allow photography in the gallery but they don't allow any form of tweeking whatsoever! Straight from the camera only.
They have no photographers at all in their 'club'. This doesn't surprise me. This shows their ignorance of the medium. Even film photography needs post processing.
I am thinking about attending a meeting to make a case to change the rules. I'm not a confrontational person and I have horrible stage fright. Should I address the issue and enlighten the ignorant? Or should I keep searching for another gallery that allows photographic images (tweeked or untweeked)? If I were to look for a gallery, how would I go about it? I have searched online but all I get is Painters galleries. Any local photographers know of any good galleries in the St. Louis area?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:46:37 PM · #2 |
It sounds to me like they don't actually want photographers in their group.
However, if I were making a case for it, I would equate it to painting. Painters make choices when they paint a scene, to highlight, deemphasize, add or eliminate elements as they see fit. They choose the colors, the medium, the brush stroke. When they recreate a scene they remember, they recreate it as they remember it or how they wish for others to see it. Altered photography is no different - it just uses a camera instead of oils or watercolors or pastels, and PhotoShop or other editing software as its brush.
Message edited by author 2007-04-15 19:51:15.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:47:00 PM · #3 |
Sounds to me like you have nothing to lose - the way it is, it isn't for you, right? So worst case scenario every thing stays the same, best case scenario you make them see the light.
About your nerves....be prepared with solid reasons, figures and most of all examples.
Everybody will be very passionate about the subject one way or another, and therefore not really notice/worry about your stage fright. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:47:28 PM · #4 |
Have them take a picture, take the same negative to three different printers (such as Walmart, Costco, whoever). Have them note the differences in each. Even though each is supposedly "straight from the camera" they will all be different. Part of it will be due to the equipment. Part of it will be due to the operator running the equipment (a different time of day with a different operator at the same store may result in a photo looking different).
Now ask them ... what does it mean to be "straight out of the camera"?
Nobody prints straight out of the camera. Not even walmart. Every machine, every operator, tweaks the image along the way.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:56:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
It sounds to me like they don't actually want photographers in their group.
However, if I were making a case for it, I would equate it to painting. Painters make choices when they paint a scene, to highlight, deemphasize, add or eliminate elements as they see fit. They choose the colors, the medium, the brush stroke. When they recreate a scene they remember, they recreate it as they remember it or how they wish for others to see it. Altered photography is no different - it just uses a camera instead of oils or watercolors or pastels, and PhotoShop or other editing software as its brush. |
They actually have a whole blank wall dedicated specifically to photography. The more artists they can get to participate the less cost for the guild to fork over. I personally think it should be about the end result. If it looks good in a frame, it should be acceptable as art. Thats just me! lol
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:57:20 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Have them take a picture, take the same negative to three different printers (such as Walmart, Costco, whoever). Have them note the differences in each. Even though each is supposedly "straight from the camera" they will all be different. Part of it will be due to the equipment. Part of it will be due to the operator running the equipment (a different time of day with a different operator at the same store may result in a photo looking different).
Now ask them ... what does it mean to be "straight out of the camera"?
Nobody prints straight out of the camera. Not even walmart. Every machine, every operator, tweaks the image along the way. |
Good point! |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 07:59:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Sounds to me like you have nothing to lose - the way it is, it isn't for you, right? So worst case scenario every thing stays the same, best case scenario you make them see the light.
About your nerves....be prepared with solid reasons, figures and most of all examples.
Everybody will be very passionate about the subject one way or another, and therefore not really notice/worry about your stage fright. |
I don't have anything to loose, I guess. I could get a nice presentation together and end up standing there with a blank look as if someone wiped all trace of my memory... LOL I go totally blank when I get put on the spot. Would be good practice though. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:01:50 PM · #8 |
Some things to ask:
Who set the rule?
Why? What is the reason behind it?
Is that person/people still around?
How long ago was it?
Do the current officers agree?
Why or why not?
Sometimes the rules are the rules simply because no one has ever thought to question them. Best to know what the story is.
Message edited by author 2007-04-15 20:12:15.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:08:54 PM · #9 |
I would see if I could change their minds, since they seem to have little idea of what photography is all about. I would ask them why it is that they feel their Gallery it too good to show the works of Ansel Adams. Then I would point out that straight out of the camera is what a person taking snap shots does, and artist helps in the creation of the image, and it has been this way since the very beginning of photography.
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for getting their minds changed, but it sounds like they really need to be exposed to a few new ideas.
Scott
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:20:33 PM · #10 |
I think a number (read: huge number) of civilians (read: non-photographers) equate digital processing with the generic term 'photoshopped' ie - adding and deleting elements, putting bob's head on jane's body, adding a third eye to mystical cousin jim, etc.
My opinion is to open a dialog with said gallery-ites and show them what digital processing really is, how it is equivalent to darkroom techniques, and how all photos are processed ... even if they (the gallery-ites) believe them not to be. Every every every photograph is processed.
By their rules the equivalent would be painters shouldn't be able to mix paints, sculptors can't chisel bits off the marble, und so weiter, und so weiter.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:28:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I think a number (read: huge number) of civilians (read: non-photographers) equate digital processing with the generic term 'photoshopped' ie - adding and deleting elements, putting bob's head on jane's body, adding a third eye to mystical cousin jim, etc. |
This is my thought too -- I think what they mean (even if they don't know it themselves) is that they want things made pretty much in line with something like our Basic Editing rules here -- you might even print that out as an example of a workable rule set.
I'd also show them a couple of side-by-side prints made from the same capture, one printed directly off the card and one with minimal editing -- crop, tone adjustments, and sharpening should be a part of any "artistic" photographic workflow.
Maybe point out that they are an "art gallery" and not the CSI evidentiary storeroom. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 08:37:53 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe point out that they are an "art gallery" and not the CSI evidentiary storeroom. |
Exceptionally well put!!!!!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:10:36 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Have them take a picture, take the same negative to three different printers (such as Walmart, Costco, whoever). Have them note the differences in each. Even though each is supposedly "straight from the camera" they will all be different. Part of it will be due to the equipment. Part of it will be due to the operator running the equipment (a different time of day with a different operator at the same store may result in a photo looking different).
Now ask them ... what does it mean to be "straight out of the camera"?
Nobody prints straight out of the camera. Not even walmart. Every machine, every operator, tweaks the image along the way. |
Take this request a step further. You have to ask them to humour you since they clearly don't think the lab does anything to adjust from the negative. Have them indicate that they want the negatives printed as is, meaning no adjustments what soever.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:31:26 PM · #14 |
Hang THIS on their wall...
:) |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:35:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hang THIS on their wall... |
For comparison, can you post the film equivalent -- perhaps a frame cut from a roll of negatives with a pushpin through a sprocket-hole ... : ) |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:38:28 PM · #16 |
| I think that when the folks in the gallery said that, they probably don't know exactly what straight out of the camera means. Even resizing would be considered post processing, as would cropping. I think they probably want to avoid combining photos, adding graphics or clips, and probably processing with strange colors, though I have seen some beautifully artistic photos done with some tweaking of color. Anyway, go, talk to them, find out if they understand what they mean, and definitely bring plenty of samples. Once they see some of the wonderful treatments done to photos, I think they will agree that artistic license should be just as applicable to photography as it is to oils, acrylics, and sculpture. Besides, even adjusting the printer can cause a difference in contrast, sharpness and color balance. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:43:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hang THIS on their wall...
:) |
What a hoot! I love it!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:44:25 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Hang THIS on their wall... |
For comparison, can you post the film equivalent -- perhaps a frame cut from a roll of negatives with a pushpin through a sprocket-hole ... : ) |
ooo a good idea for a stock shot!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:47:03 PM · #19 |
A lot of good info and ideas. I'm feeling like I could actually do this now. It might well prove to be good thing in the long run. (for them as well as myself) If I don't actually change anyones mind, I will get a bit of practice making a presentation.
Thank you everyone for your encouragement!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:48:13 PM · #20 |
Show them some pairs like this, and see if they still have a problem ... also point out that the way the sensor "sees" the light is different than the way the human eyes senses it, and that what you are doing is essentially restoring the printed image closer to what your eye saw at the time. They can have the guideline be results-based rather than tool-based.
Resized original:  Edited: 
Also, if you can shoot in RAW format, "straight from the camera" still allows quite a bit of flexibility. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 09:51:25 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
If I don't actually change anyones mind, I will get a bit of practice making a presentation. |
If you have a laptop with your editing software on it, just take it and show them how you edit a couple of photos ... |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 10:01:38 PM · #22 |
this situation is rather humerous to me. i just went to an art show and had a chance to chat with a few photographers who make their living creating and selling fine art. a handful were shooting digital, but still playing with film, some were just starting to dabble in digital, and some were still absolute large-format film diehards. the neat thing was, they all looked at the camera as a tool for realizing a vision--regardless of the format. and, after closely inspecting some of their works, i don't think too many people would be able to tell what was shot digitally and what was shot with film, let alone what was post-processed.
that being said, i think that if i were involved with this group, i would simply describe my work as "images i took with my camera," and if i was asked about post-processing, i would probably answer, "i'm not quite sure what you mean, but this image was captured by my camera."
i was asked about my bubbles image, whether or not i had edited it. i asked the person what they meant, and they asked how i got the bubbles. all i could tell her was that the swimmer blew them out of her nose and i took a picture of them...
it's one thing to fool with the dpc SC, because you do not want to be smitten; however, when talking to lesser fools inquirers, you really don't need to give them any more information than what they can handle. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 10:08:03 PM · #23 |
After your "argument", if they don't change the rules, you could say, as you were leaving.
Oh, I had an original Ansel Adams I was going to donate to the gallery, but it's manipulated in the darkroom, i.e., not straight from the camera. Too bad...
...and leave.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2007 10:10:22 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
They actually have a whole blank wall dedicated specifically to photography. |
I am very much an anti-manipulation type but did it occur to them that it might be their expectations that is the reason for the blank wall? Maybe relax their expectations a little to get stuff on the wall - if they are serious about wanting some. |
|
|
|
04/15/2007 10:12:59 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
After your "argument", if they don't change the rules, you could say, as you were leaving.
Oh, I had an original Ansel Adams I was going to donate to the gallery, but it's manipulated in the darkroom, i.e., not straight from the camera. Too bad...
...and leave. |
You might actually be able to afford to donate a copy of his book The Print -- actually most of the principles in it still apply, whether the "negative" is glass, celluloid, or digital data ... |
|
