[EssJayEff]

"I'm working on a presentation for 25 May titled "Sacrifices at the Altar of Photographic Alteration" for a local genealogical society. The description tag for the talk is, "Photography can be seen as a history of limitations, producing slivers of time and place extracted from larger life using the technology then available. What happens, however, when we apply new technologies to old photographs? What do we gain and lose when we sacrifice an original photograph to produce a new incarnation?" My presentation will be "an examination of the practice and ethics of image alteration from the "First Photograph" to Photoshop." This virtual meeting and presentation is open to all, but registration is required. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for comments on this thread that might be useful for my talk (with due credit, of course, if it's an original thought!)

[AggieDad]

Not many other examples yet, so here are two that I don't think work in B&W.

The first is The Lady of Shalott by J.W.Waterhouse. It is a scene from Tennyson's poem of the same name and one of my favourite paintings. It is a portrait, a landscape, and it is gothic - what's not to like! I write gothic poetry myself. Waterhouse was effectively a second-generation Pre-Raphaelite, a movement of near-photographic painting with fanatical attention to detail, even in the background - no bokeh for them! I believe that some inspiration for this painting came from Millais' earlier Death of Orphelia, a scene from Hamlet, the second picture. Millais was one of the original Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.

The Orphelia scene in Hamlet, and Tennyson's poem, are full of colour. The colourful tapestry that the Lady of Shalott is weaving in depiction of the outside world is central to the poem, and of course that is lost in B&W, although it is still not a bad picture.

Thanks for these. I really like the Waterhouse. You are definitely correct – neither really translates to monochrome. And that's no different than what we photograph.

"I'm working on a presentation for 25 May titled "Sacrifices at the Altar of Photographic Alteration" for a local genealogical society. The description tag for the talk is, "Photography can be seen as a history of limitations, producing slivers of time and place extracted from larger life using the technology then available. What happens, however, when we apply new technologies to old photographs? What do we gain and lose when we sacrifice an original photograph to produce a new incarnation?" My presentation will be "an examination of the practice and ethics of image alteration from the "First Photograph" to Photoshop." This virtual meeting and presentation is open to all, but registration is required. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for comments on this thread that might be useful for my talk (with due credit, of course, if it's an original thought!)

I wish you the best of luck with your Zoom presentation. I am a retired teacher and quite accustomed to making presentations to adult groups. During the pandemic I have given 3 or 4 presentations and never felt as though any one of them was completely successful. I found audience participation very difficult to generate and consequently never really knew exactly whether I had them engaged or not. This happens when there are slides on the screen and the participants can't be seen.

[mee]

This is such an interesting idea! Thanks for sharing and for all who have contributed.

[hadi]

I dont like the notion that some people have about photography ONLY to be used to capture "real" life. that anything altered pre/post is not photography, and that 'art form' is not a true representation of 'life'.

i find life boring. traditional things seem to irritate me. why cant someone sit upside down on a bench to read a paper? why cant the sky be green? why cant there be no bokeh?

art, to me, is about fun and expression. I dont use art to depict reality. So if i want something in black and white, even if its a sunset that shows vivid colors in the sky, then i will do just that.

[AggieDad]

I dont like the notion that some people have about photography ONLY to be used to capture "real" life. that anything altered pre/post is not photography, and that 'art form' is not a true representation of 'life'.

i find life boring. traditional things seem to irritate me. why cant someone sit upside down on a bench to read a paper? why cant the sky be green? why cant there be no bokeh?

art, to me, is about fun and expression. I dont use art to depict reality. So if i want something in black and white, even if its a sunset that shows vivid colors in the sky, then i will do just that.

I totally agree. The people who think that altering any part of a photo is sacrilege remind me of mimes in non-existent boxes. They are, in their own way, trapped, and can't find their way out. So, instead, they want others to come in and join them.

[hadi]

I totally agree. The people who think that altering any part of a photo is sacrilege remind me of mimes in non-existent boxes. They are, in their own way, trapped, and can't find their way out. So, instead, they want others to come in and join them.

I like that analogy

I also counter that view point with makeup artists, and fashion.
makeup artists either hide, or enhance a person's features. *LIES! someone who JUST got out of bed is at their most natural. Anything altered from that point is a misrepresentation. Imagine brides without makeup, or hair done. where will that industry be?

plus, certain fashion outfits help hide/enhance a person's looks. vertical stripes makes a person look taller. black makes a person look skinnier. properly fitted outfits makes the person look more in shape. all lies! only a person in a toga should be tolerated. anything else is fictitious and should be abolished right away.









(for those who didn't pick it up, i am being sarcastic)

[EssJayEff]

Gee . . . at that rate I figured you'd end up in a nudist colony, not a toga!

only a person in a toga should be tolerated

[AggieDad]

Gee . . . at that rate I figured you'd end up in a nudist colony, not a toga!

I, on the other hand, will want (need) a properly-fitted, vertically-striped, black outfit along with some “post-processing.” Oh, and some rose-colored glasses for those looking at me.

[hadi]

Gee . . . at that rate I figured you'd end up in a nudist colony, not a toga!

like theres something wrong with that? :P

it would work for the purists out there

[EssJayEff]

like theres something wrong with that? :P

Nothing wrong with that at all!

---------- Post added 05-06-21 at 09:55 AM ----------

like theres something wrong with that? :P

Nothing wrong with that at all!