Capturing the reality was never the sole purpose of photography – it always used to tamper with imagination. But how far can we push photographic art before photography, at the dominance of digital tools and AI?
When I started my messer under the photon trail several years ago, I faced some boundaries. Most of those boundaries were bound in the art of making pictures, both in film processing and printing, with lack of my knowledge about the photographic process, but I was tied in the art of making my destiny, or at least a significant part in life. I consumed information at a unique rate – such as soaking the sponge water. If there was someone who was a “specialist” in the field and was available to talk or hear, then I was there to absorb whatever they had to say. When technical sales representatives for Kodak, Baseller, or Omega were in my local festival of photographic goods, I was there, raising their minds – which was one – until they allowed me. The reader should remember that these were ancient times, photographically. We just went through a paradigm change as a consumer product for “natural color” (color negative) as a consumer product, as it was becoming popular. We were going from C-22 and E-3 processing to C-41 and E-4, and then E-6 processing for color films. Interestingly, black and white films were easily available and have not changed much over those years. With a remarkable exception to the T-grain technology, Black and White films still work as they did when Tri-X Ortho and then the TRAI-X PAN came on the scene. At that time, the day’s cani photographers processed their own black and white films, and anything processed was printed in films and smaller dark. Saying that, our boundaries within that time limit were much more than now.
This picture, Soft of Virgin RiverThe first picture I had ever made, where I thought I started finding the creative possibilities available to me and was one of the first big format images I ever made what I liked. Interestingly, I used a very archaic Crown Graphic 4×5 camera with very limited movements and an old 135 mm Nikkor lens. So the sophistication of the devices you use is very low with realizing your photographic vision compared to your determination to find your voice in your photos. By the way, in this image, the wall in the distance was deep in tonity compared to my closest valley walls, so I used very primary equipment at that time that we had to make something out of the rhythm completely out of the rhythm at that time, in which the scene actually presented ourselves.
At that time, our content for weight dark processing was much limited than today, and digital photography was not yet a smile on a photographer’s face. As I read the books of Great American Photographers- Anell Adams, of course, but Edward Weston, Morley Bayer, Eliot Porter, Paul Strand, and many others, I came to know that I was not going anywhere near the creative ability from my images.
At that time the great creative question was, “How far should we take the creative process?” There were, and still, there are many people who think that we should only show real images because they came out of the camera – no jealousy, no dodge, etc. Many people realized that the image presented should be exactly the same as the photographic view or theme is visible, even the image crop is not allowed.
At that time, some very creative people came to know how to combine multiple images from different negatives on a piece of paper and made it so comfortable that it seems to be a real illustration. Now the dead photographer and dark genius Jeri Ulsman’s mind comes.
Ulsman’s work was always controversial for something, but was embraced by others. Some said that it was not an accurate depiction of reality – well, no, it was not. But any person watching it will immediately recognize it. Others were more subtle in their rendering.
Here, for your view, I have an image from many years ago. In the original image, the sky was empty with a single storm, so the light was to spread. But it was boring – was very boring – and I wanted to “kick” its visual interest. I rustled around my file of sky images until I found one who I thought he would fit and came out a way to print it.
The question for us is, does it change the character of the original image? Yes it does. Next, does it lie about the location of the image or presents something that can never happen? No, it’s not. The view is real, and the possibility of this sky is very real and promising. If one had to camp there for a long time, perhaps there would be a time when something like this – or even more interesting – may be. And in addition to being seen by bobcat or elk, it will be a solitary migration!
Here is another where I added one sky into an otherwise empty sky. The circumstances were very rigid. Juan de Fuka was having a 40-50 mph Gail, and it was so strong that before I could attach the camera to it, he really blew my trippai. In those situations, a large format camera is a lot such as a kite is attached to the trippai! There was a very cool sky above the structure, but the wind was flowing so hard that the sky was presented as a light brown blur at the original negative because the actual exposure time ends 90 seconds – not uncommon when using these large and unknown cameras. The problem was solved into the darkroom by creating a series of masks using a special dark film, which allowed me to print an interesting sky in the image without leaving a halo around the trees or burning in the structure. The goal was to add a sky and make it reliable. Then, does it change the character of the image? Yes it does! Does it presents the scene incorrectly and paint something that can never happen? No, this scene presented is very admirable. (By the way, in dark prints, there are 28 brown pelicans from a pile of sea for shelter from air!)
The arrival of digital cameras, lieters, photoshops and a dozen other photographic software programs has changed everything. And with the rise of AI, the question is all more pressure. how much is too much? In fact, no purpose is standard, because we are capable of changing photographs to our artistic priorities since photography begins. However, I believe that for a really photographic image, light must travel to a medium through an optical lens that responds to it and creates an image. I think anything is fine-I only ask that AI-borne images should be labeled in this way. While AI is very attractive and easy, there should be a time when AI images are separated from real photos because they are digital compositions. A clear understanding requires that an image was created using AI.
This is an interesting phenomenon and time we are living. People have said that an image I presented was to be done using AI. When I answer that not, it was done using the film, which usually solves the discussion. I do not claim that one medium is better than another. My only intention is to promote discussion, and I welcome a citizen discussion on this issue. I think it is important for us to have photographers “how much.”
(Information on lead photographs: I had a fine but boring image made in Badlands in Northern Arizona with a featureless sky.
I get all my spending supplies from films, paper and chemicals B & h photo video In New York – You will ever need suppliers of almost any photographic items.
Ulsman photograph Jerry Ulsman Estate, Maggi Taylor – was used with the permission of the administrator.
