[jct us101]

Cameras see what's there. Our brains see what we want to be there, what we expect to be there, whether it's actually there or not. And our brains don't see what we don't want, don't expect, what we don't know. Perception is more complex than recording. Perception involves pattern-recognition, memory, expectation, emotion, as well as just the sensory inputs. We receive those inputs, process them, use them to synthesize perceptions and more memories. We are complex beings.

I used to diddle with AI, artificial intelligence. One standard there is the Turing Test -- you have a remote conversation with something, human or machine. If it's a machine and you can't TELL that it's a machine, then in passes the test. An early contender was the ELIZA program, which emulates a non-directive (Rogerian) psychoanalyst. You say (write) something to ELIZA; ELIZA turns what you've said into a question and returns it to you. ELIZA didn't pass the Turing Test -- no crazy enough.

So was speculation in the AI world: for a really human-like AI, must it be insane, like humans? Must it be unpredictable and moody and vicious and obsessed and paranoid and neurotic etc, like humans? Must it hallucinate?

I think that's the key to human vision and perception. We hallucinate; the camera doesn't. The camera is too honest. It's like Picasso said: Computers are useless, they only give you answers. Photorealism is honesty, maybe too much honesty. Photomanipulation is hallucination, seeing what isn't there. That's human. Honest photography isn't, it's more robotic. I could program the camera robot like so: enable trap-focus and continuous shooting, put on tripod, aim at bird feeder, latch the wired remote. The robot could take numerous perfect pictures of birds at the feeder, beautiful shots. That's nice. Nice robot. Do it again.

And that's why I'm not a purist.

Yes, that's how I meant it. I meant that our eyes see what we want the scene to look like, how our brain percieves it, and what we remember as what it was like when we were there. Our cameras aren't quite that exciting, they just capture the vanilla view of what it looked like there, abeit from us not knowing how to use our cameras and capturing something that doesn't even look like something a camera could possible see, or us.

When we want to remember something, we want it to look perfect though, which is why I think that we go and we edit our photos to the point of how we wanted them to look like when we were there. I remember when I got home last time from the Golden Gate Bridge and looked at my night photos in Lightroom, that they didn't look anything like what I remember seeing, so I edited them to look just like how I remembered them, or at least as best I could to that point (since there's so many other factors that make photos not look like how we saw something, like perception and other factors like that).

[rparmar]

Every picture tells a story, don't it?

No, actually.

Abstract pictures and those that are purely formal are not interested in narrative. Neither is conceptual art photography. Yet all of these I find interesting, even compelling, though they will never make it onto greeting cards.

We expend copious time and resources wandering the realm of reality, intent upon capturing the image.

A lot of the time I just chill out and shoot what catches my fancy. It is relaxing and helps me focus my mind on non-intellectual matters. This type of photographic activity has more to do with play than the economical model of energy expenditure and limited resources.

Renaissance artists had their production-line studios, structured in much the same way as modern cinema studios, with in-house and contract specialists, the work directed in its entirety by an individual or collective auteur, but the labor performed by crews of grunts, er craftspersons. Is it likely that serious still photography will go in the same direction, following the lead the the Warhol and Coombs art factories?

I don't see the parallel. The Fordist assembly line or the studio system benefit certain types of production but not others. There is simply not that much work in most photography, so there is little benefit in a division of labour and all the management and other overhead that entails. Making a film is, in most cases, thousands of times as labour intensive as making a photograph.

(And I think you mean Koons.)

For that, we have to think about whether a viable market for stills...

Thankfully I do not care about markets. At least, not more than 1% of the time.

So, except for pictures of news value or personal value, WHO CARES what an image is or looks like?

The person who made the photograph. The friends she shows it to. The people who randomly find it on Flickr. The people in the photograph. Their friends and relations. The people whose pets are in the photograph. The person who owns the diner whose milkshake glass is in the photograph. Many others.

A photograph might well be part of a relationship, part of the social. Restricting consideration to the economic value is missing the most important part.

Should the experimental photographer try a mix of art and porn and abstraction, with vivid titles to gain the attention of fast-surfing web-browsers?

That's not experimental, that's pandering.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what is the value of silence?

A picture is not worth a thousand words. A picture is beyond words.

And silence? Let me tell you about silence...

[rparmar]

I remember when I got home last time from the Golden Gate Bridge and looked at my night photos in Lightroom, that they didn't look anything like what I remember seeing, so I edited them to look just like how I remembered them, or at least as best I could to that point (since there's so many other factors that make photos not look like how we saw something, like perception and other factors like that).

Altering a photo so that it matches our perception or memory is far more interesting than not altering it at all. It is perceptual reality that we live in; how could it be any other way? As a result, it is safe to say that there is no objective world.

[jct us101]

Altering a photo so that it matches our perception or memory is far more interesting than not altering it at all. It is perceptual reality that we live in; how could it be any other way? As a result, it is safe to say that their is no objective world.

Well I don't know if I would say that, I don't think that it's that black and white (hey look a pun!) but I do think that a lot of it is our own perception and how we want it to look so that we can look at it and remember it.

[Eigengrau]

I agree that photomanipulation can get out of hand - I personally don't care much for photoshop, and don't even have a copy of it installed anywhere.

However, I respect the people that do use it, and use it well.

I just choose not to because it doesn't fit with what I want to do. The impressive part of photography for me is making the right decisions in the instant of the photograph, seeing the surroundings and connecting with the subject and taking an image at the 'decisive moment' that captures the most important parts of that chunk of reality.

Photoshop diminishes that for me, and so I don't use it. People can do awesome things with it, people can do hideous things with it, but I prefer to let the camera tell me what it wants to, and stay pretty true to that.

Making the pixels into what I wish they would have been seems like a distinctly different pursuit from photography, something more akin to painting.

[Nomad]

It is actually kind of funny that I don't realy like strongly manipulated images that look "gimicky" but I really love alot of alt pro film work!
I think that it may just be a bit of jealousy on my part as I do not own PS or CS yet for two reasons.

1. Simple economics. I purchased both myself and my wife full kits this Christmas so I can't just spend like a drunken sailor (especially with boating season coming right up!!).

2. I really want to learn the basics very well such as exposure and composition and not having PS dictates that I work with what I have captured and am only allowed minimal manipulation through picasa or other free software.

I will be getting PS this fall/winter and taking a course in it though but I still vow to NEVER insert the image of a bride onto the reflection of someones eye!!

[Eruditass]

The main point of these features is to make what were menial tedious tasks into much easier ones, to put the focus back on creativity.

Of course this can and will be taken advantage of.

[Dr_who]

I have to agree with those who say it's not so much new stuff as just making it easier. Who wants to spend 1hr doing clone and stamp effects to fill in areas or to get rid of details. Cs5 looks like it just packages a few more apps and pluggins you'd normally pay extra for and put it into one bundle. Other then that looks very similar to cs3 and cs4

[Pentaxie]

I believe there are 2 school of thoughts in this matter.

With the introduction of digital era, all forms of photography will rely on computer software for the end results. One school of thoughts will liken to the post processing done in the dark room or processing labs during the film era. So it is acceptable even if there are some "manipulation" done even to the extend the end result is not what the photographer shot. Examples are artistic pictures, abstracts etc.

Another school of thought will deemed that any adjustment done is definately is not photography. But this is just an opinion of the people.

To phrase what RioRico mentioned earlier : "Cameras see what's there. Our brains see what we want to be there, what we expect to be there, whether it's actually there or not. And our brains don't see what we don't want, don't expect, what we don't know. Perception is more complex than recording. Perception involves pattern-recognition, memory, expectation, emotion, as well as just the sensory inputs. We receive those inputs, process them, use them to synthesize perceptions and more memories. We are complex beings"

Well, IMO, what we want to consider - photomanipulation - is what we want the intended end-result to be. Nothing else matter.

[HypnoCin67]

I don't own a 64 bit computer yet, so it's a moot point for me, in regards to purchasing CS5, but I am excited to get it. I am hoping that CS5's HDR and pano-making abilities have both been improved again. CS4 did wonders for panos, but CS4s HDR is sadly lacking I'm afraid and I'd love to see if CS5's HDR abilities equal or surpass that of Photomatix, which I also love.

Cindy

[flippedgazelle]

Another school of thought will deemed that any adjustment done is definately is not photography. But this is just an opinion of the people.

I've seen quite a few people take this position. What I find interesting is that as soon as you shoot digital, you are manipulating the image. The camera is no longer just a "light box"*, but a little computer that chooses focus, sharpness, color, exposure, etc. for the user. There's a lot of PP and image manipulation done as soon as you press the shutter button.

* of course, even using the most basic mechanical camera, images are manipulated thru film choice and development technique, anyway.

[flippedgazelle]

I don't own a 64 bit computer yet, so it's a moot point for me, in regards to purchasing CS5, but I am excited to get it. I am hoping that CS5's HDR and pano-making abilities have both been improved again. CS4 did wonders for panos, but CS4s HDR is sadly lacking I'm afraid and I'd love to see if CS5's HDR abilities equal or surpass that of Photomatix, which I also love.

Cindy

What kind of computer do you have? Is it that the CPU is not 64-bit, or your Operating System isn't 64-bit?

[EyeSpy]

Relax. It's just another tool. Photos have been manipulated for over a century.

Yes. However, film is manually developed, bathed and sponged off. Possilbly clipped or enlarged. i.e. maniputaled. Maybe delightfully so.

Digital images are synthesized. Clinical. Sterile. Unvirle. Manatical. The latest computer game. Fun. Fashionable. Fad. Fanatical. Similar to Arizona Gun Laws.

I' m a dirty boy

[John K]

I'm still getting my ahead around some of the features in CS4, it'll be a while yet before I look at upgrading. I like the way RioRico put it on the human perspective. I'm all for using the tools available if it gets it to the way I want it to look. I still think you'd need a decent image to start with though - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (at least not until CS6?).

[rparmar]

Unvirle. Manatical.

I think your argument is rubbish but, as a poet, I really like these new words you've found.