A Real Photography group?

[darkroomTed]

I've been a member of a leading photographic society for over 12 years, and in that time held back my views on the digital manipulation of photographs. In particular, so-called street photography or real life scenes, where elements have been removed, moved, or added to make the 'perfect' image. As Don McCullin said recently, "Images can no longer be trusted".

In the belief that there are like-minded people out there who share these principals, I would like to set up a Real Photography group. It would be based in NW London/The Chilterns, and meet monthly to share and discuss our photographs, our working methods and ideas etc.

Would anyone like to join me?!

[Tony Marlow]

It sounds an interesting idea and yes I would like to join you.

Tony

[mono]

Yes, I would join, too,
but unfortunately too far away!

[Ian Marsh]

Sadly a bit too far for me, but a great idea I wish you all the best with it.

[Mike O'Pray]

Yes I am in the same boat, namely too far away. Best of luck however with the venture

Mike

[pentaxpete]

In Brentwood Photographic Club we had a 'Minimally Manipulated' DPI Competition where members entered photos with nothing removed-- just sharpened and contrast adjusted as in darkroom.

[Michael]

I also like this idea. I hope, though, that the OP is not suggesting that manipulation of images is exclusive to digital photography. After all, multiple exposure and combination prints go way back to the early days, let alone the work of later people such as McBean and Heartfield. A Real Photography group might have to admit unmanipulated digital work, no?

[JimW]

multiple exposure and combination prints

Not forgetting airbrushing......

[John King]

I no longer belong to any photographic club simply because for me at least they have completely forsaken any reference to photography as it was and how I grew up to know it.

There is a new breath of life into club photography but not as I know it. The club I last belonged to had well over 120 members but I was the only who still used a darkroom, developed my own films and made my own prints. It was as if we were dealing with two different hobbies.

The final crunch came when I presented a print in a competition and the comments that were forthcoming from the judge included the term of 'over sharpened' and if I had used the 'contrast tool'. Normally I would swallow what was said but I did challenge her about the ill informed comments during the interval and was told that I needed to get into the modern age.

Since then I have ceased to accept what has been become the norm, in that, real over sharpened, over saturated and some quite uninteresting pictures are increasingly taking over. For this very reason I will not be renewing my RPS membership (I hold the ARPS distinction) because the standards are in my view too clinical and doctored after the fact, that they no longer represent true photography.

Living in the north of England as I do, the creation of a club that was only there to accept photography in it's original sense sound like a damn good idea but is about 230 miles too far away to get involved.

I agree that there has been some degree of manipulation probably from the very start, but the difference is they were done with the photographers own personal skill, rather than using an electronic tool and programme devised by a 3rd party.

Each to their own but I know what I would rather be doing than sitting in front of a computer monitor for hours on end.

[alexmuir]

I have not been in a photographic club since before digital was invented, but you could still get some pretty strange, ill-informed comments about prints and slides back then. I’ve recently been involved in both very old, and very up to date photographic imaging. In both worlds, more than 100 years apart, manipulation of the recorded image is very prevalent. It’s also interesting to read that, throughout the history of photography, people have differed over what is, and is not acceptable practice. I think it’s wrong, however, to conclude that images made by non-chemical processes are inherently inferior, or do not require skill to produce. I have noticed a certain ‘sterility’ about images that are currently produced by photographic artists. It seems to be a trend, but no doubt it will be overturned in due course by a New Modernist movement who prefer a bit of grit! I wish the proposed group every success. The emergence of reactionary movements seems to be the mechanism by which art progresses.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro