Gary_Yngve

Distel, an alternative would be estimating a depthmap of the image and blurring far away, as if you had taken the shot with a narrower depth of field or closer focus. Although future, cameras will allow you to change the focus/depth of field *after* capturing the image (it actually captures a 4-d lightfield). I can't put an estimate on the number of years, but a prototype was made at Stanford for about $30,000. Sounds like we both agree that the image would be more aesthetic without those peeps. We have different styles, and as long as neither of us lie about it, then all is cool. Jon, I totally agree with you on those moments that pass without capturing the photo. I have many such images burned in my mind's eye, and I've wanted a way to express those images so I could share them with other people as well.

More NW than N (from Sunrise), but http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gyngve/pano.jpg smaller version: Note that this image has been digitally enhanced. Aside from being a stiched panorama, a blend on the original shots would have looked like:

In general, I'm not opposed to this. I like looking through the notes of a Galen Rowell book to see the settings/film used to take each shot, as well as other comments. My main issue is when there's not room to add all those details, and you need to say your image is digitally altered, putting your saturation tweak in the same category as someone who produced the geoduck. If you digitally enhance your shots, you're immediately on the defensive, even if you're doing something that's the equivalent of a standard accepted film trick. In particular, being a graphics researcher, I can prove things about doing mathematical operations on images and the existence of a lens/filter that could have produced the same effect. I disagree though with the notion that a photo is not allowed to capture more than an instant of time. Certainly it does for motion-blur. I view a photo as a way of capturing what the eyes saw. When people are standing together for a group shot, nearly everyone has their eyes open, and if someone blinks, their eyes will be open soon. From our perception, we think everyone has their eyes open. But when we take a photo, we capture an instant, and very likely, someone is blinking. This photo, in my mind, is not capturing reality the way we perceived it. I think editing the eyes to all open is completely acceptable. Of all the images that I posted, my opinion is that the ski before/after, the deer, and the fog shot are not photographs, but I feel that the others, which have had digital equivalents of film tools applied to them, are honest photographs.

How do you feel about nature shots that required some form of staging (e.g. peeing on a rock to attract goats) or gardening (removing deadfall from a shot, pruning some plants, moving a rock, etc..)? Is this in-the-field making-of-the-image bad too?

Here's a webpage with some alterations I've done to images: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/gyngve/alterations/

I'd be happy to post photos going from original to finished product. I started to get some stuff together yesterday and then realized it would take a few hours...

I take a picture f(t). I take a picture f(t+1). I use both pictures to construct a middle picture, which is INDISTIBGUISHABLE from if I had taken f(t+.5). I fail to see how that violates journalistic integrity. In fact, I think it has more integrity than quoting someone out of context or finding a split-second frame of someone's facial movements that make them look weird. In the future, we won't be taking 2-d pictures any more. We'll be taking 3-d or even 4-d (lightfield) pictures. Artists will appreciate the greater flexibility with the new technology. Just as old technology was subject to abuse, the new will be too. And you'll still need an eye for subject, lighting, and composition to produce a fabulous result.

I find that attitudes of people here inetresting. I wonder how much of it is brainwashing from skilled photographers who are trying to preserve their jobs. I'm getting a definite vibe that digital manipulation is "unfair," just as using pitons once was and using bolts and rock shoes and cams. FOr me, I envision the ultimate camera as the Holodeck. It is capable of capturing a scene in 3D over a period of time. It is still up to the artist to figure out how to project that data into something aesthetic and powerful. The tools at the photographer's disposal now are incredible. Lenses have mathematical models. Want to change the barrel distortion or vignetting? No problem. Motion blur is an accepted film technique (the flowing waterfall shots). How is that different from a multi-perspective photo or a photo compositing multiple points in time (provided they are still representing the photographer's perception of the scene)?

And money/equipment. The example I gave was you had a before shot and an after shot, but you really wanted the middle shot (which DID exist). Unfortunately, you dodn't have a powerful camera capable of shooting a burst of 10 frames a second. So you reconstruct the middle shot from the before and after.

Or you could have carried a high-quality wide-angle/fisheye lense. What's the difference?

You take a pic of a group of friends, and darn it, one of them has their eyes closed. You take another pic and someone else has their eyes closed instead. You merge the pics so everyone has their eyes open. You take a pic, except darn it, a bug flew in front of the camera. You remove the bug. You take a pic of a reflecting pond, except there is a small branch in the middle that distract from the composition. Do you wade into the middle, remove the offending object, and wait for the water to settle, or digitally alter it later? You take a picture with some birds flying in the air. You take two pictures in rapid succession, but it turns out the picture you really wanted for best composition was one timed in the middle. You digitally alter the image to reproduce that timing. Which of these do you disagree with? None of them violate my notion of interpreting the scene I was experiencing. But I also don't sell my photos for money.

wfinley: very nice photos!

Speaking of Dirk, check out the 2nd row 4th image of one of Joe Puryear's galleries: http://www.cascadeimages.com/featuredimages/climbers.htm

ok, what will his next avatar be?

But should I feel dirty about it? (I'm not sure if I'll enter anyway -- most of the images I'd contribute are already posted here, the prizes honestly aren't that enticing to me right now, and by not entering, I'll be able to say that my images could have won if they were entered )

Many of the pictures I have posted on this site went through Photoshop, most for cropping and saturation, but some more, such as a digital split filter. A few have had more significant alterations for composition or have been a montage of multiple images. As long as there's no journalistic integrity at stake (e.g. someone posting a de-powerlined image of climbing at The Bluffs and claiming that shot is in wilderness), I think it's ok. I think techniques to reproduce these effects are completely legit, and as a graphics researcher, I enjoy dabbling with them. For me, I relish the surpise of a well-placed moon. I clearly don't get that same experience when faking it. I wouldn't add it to one of my shots because it would conflict with my memory. The exception would be if I were whoring the shot for money.

Can you clarify this point? What are people's opinions in general? Cropping an image? Rotating an image? Tweaking contrast or saturation? What about an image scanned from a slide? The slide has much greater dynamic range than a digital image. To what extent can the digital image be enhanced to respect the original slide? Is it ok to Photoshop out dust and scratches from a scanned image? Is it ok to Photoshop out a powerline or tree branch for better composition? What about photoshop tricks that are equivalent to film tricks using filters (ND filter or split filter) or to darkroom magic (dodge and burn)? What about the old super-large moon double-exposure film trick? If I were to digitally and undetectably insert a moon into a shot? I understand that there's much concern about journalistic integrity of an image. But a good photo is a work of art, and art has no rules.

The point is that much giving, secular or religious, has an ulterior motive. Patagonia donates to conservancy organizations so it can have a good image and folks will buy their products. BillyBob volunteers for the soup kitchen so he can meet the hot chicks who are also volunteering. Religion gets very touchy with this. There are good ecumenical organizations that are charitable and don't do much preaching, e.g. Habitat for Humanity, but there are plenty of other organizations that aggressively proselytize under the guise of feeding the hungry.

and that is more likely coming from the people of the poorer states on the list. And what if those people are giving because they don't want to go to Hell? Sounds like an ulterior motive to me.

word, sounds like we weren't misbehaving enough to attract their attention. A PM did the trick.

Shawn has been variable today. The 3-and-out by Seattle in the final minutes was almost as inexcusable as the missed fieldgoal.

modz, please move to events. The UW show is on Wed. The B'Ham show is on Thurs. Wed show is 7:30 PM at the HUB West Ballroom at UW. Tickets $10, all proceeds go to Access Fund. Ticket sales at PMS (206-522-1677) or HUB Ticket Office (at the door sales at HUB Ticket office). WWU show is 7 PM Thurs. Contact is trepanc at cc.wwu.edu or 306-650-7533.

The game's fucking hilarious to watch with all of the false-start penalties on the Giants.

Shawn's been impotent so far today.

Giving is virtuous, generous, and meaningful if there is no ulterior motive.