Related Posts

25 thoughts on “Elliott Erwitt”

  1. I’d have asked him,when does the manipulation start?in lab and lately with scanning negatives thaz manipulation as well,innit?

  2. Of course scanning negatives is manipulation – in fact just taking a photo is manipulating reality! However, in my opinion digital photography and editing is graphical designing, that’s a form of art just as well as photography Though I clearly understand some of Mr. Erwitt’s points I do certainly not perceive post editing as unacceptable – it’s art, and when doing art one must break the rules to create something new..!

  3. I don’t think scanning a negative is manipulation, the image remains the same. Taking a photograph i also believe is not manipulation because all you’re doing simply is recording light and dark, reality remains the same. Now you can say manipulating is art but it’s not necessary good art. Just like when ready made art came out, yeah it’s art, but crappy art.

  5. I mean more like the way that one can use filters to enhance colors, but used on a black and white film. But also doing dodging and burning with shading light off when exposing. But when I say scanning negatives is manipulation then I mean the light that you record isn’t necessarily the same as you would see with your own eyes!
    Sure Erwitt has done some great stuff – but techniques that are used in the dark room are just applied in a slightly different way with software and digital photography..

  6. You’re so right! Analog photograpy is just as manipulative, and anything else one could say in this context, as digital photography… Digital isn’t too easy or anything – the basics are the same for both analog and digital – but you have to know your camera to capture good photos – sure dslr etc. have full auto but that mode is just crap! – Eg. a dslr will calculate an exposure while taking all the pixels into account and thus exposing a black background grey – think about concert photography!

  7. It is indeed true that the “old” analog folk are affraid of digital photography – it’s really strange! People always become sceptic when new technology and tools are invented… More people are able to take average photographs easily, however, it’s still as challenging as before creating a new image – think about composition, telling a story with some images etc. The challenge of photography isn’t tech or a camera, but instead being creative and seeing things in new ways through a camera!

  9. You’re probably right. I don’t doubt both of your posts. And film is probably going to be replaced by digital.

    But in my eyes, a b&w fiber print from a b&w negative is much more beautiful than any digital b&w prints I have seen in. It is also quite rewarding to make wet prints. For me anyway.

    As for colour, I like both and I use both.

  10. He is a master. I assume he is not talking about the day to day dodging and burning that will no doubt be used by the printers on his own work. Dodging and Burning and chemical and paper use “manipulate the image”. For me manipulation is changing the subject.

  11. For that matter, you can’t work in b&w photography and say you don’t “manipulate.” The eye doesn’t see in b&w, so when you snap the shutter with a film camera loaded with b&w, you’ve “manipulated” right there.
    He makes valid points, of course, but it’s all a matter of degree, not one of being absolutely “real” vs absolutely “imaginary.”

  12. bw films have always been there. the images are still the same but in different colour.

    however, if you take one crap picture and manipulate it using photoshop and makes it look 10 x better, i wouldn’t call that an honest work anymore.
    like what he said, it’s fine if you want to manipulate your images but you should let people know that it’s a manipulated image. i think it’s only fair.
    i do believe manipulated images are still art. it’s just different to photography in my opinion.

  13. i really do think someone should come up with a name for ‘manipulated images’.
    it’s still art but if you do 90% of your work on photoshop, i wouldn’t call it photography anymore.
    we should call it by a different name.

  14. The comments on this video are the worst crap I’ve ever seen. “It’s too easy to capture pictures digitally?” Jesus… Since when was photography about making it harder for ourselves? Isn’t it all about the product? “Digital photographers only shoot what’s not interesting and Canon and Nikon competing for the fastets camera”? The speed of the camera are mostly for nature photography. Shooting pictures of birds and so on.

    Whats the matter with people? Seems like the most of you have issues.

  17. No I don’t agree. Photography can be ‘what it is’ but it can also be ‘What it could be’

    The only people that usually have a problem with that are old peeps with romantic ideals.

  19. finaly someone with a brain! you will be a good photographer with that attitude.I think the same way.Every photograph that has been manipulated should be marked as digital art,not be called a photograph.I was telling my friend that we should get a pettition going to get people who manipulate images to change there proffesion names to artists,not photographers,

  21. So he blows bicycle horns to make people turn around. He barks at dogs to get a reaction in order to set up a shot, but photography is about “what is” and not what you conjure up? hmm ok… looks like he exploits all of the tools that that he has the ability to operate in his tool box. Underexposing for a moody scene, slower shutter speed to accentuate motion, dark room tricks etc. So should he slap a ‘MANIPULATED IMAGE’ disclaimer on his work? Sounds a little contradictory if you ask me.

  22. @topdeckdog there are dark room techniques where you require no manipulations, just a correctly shot negative.

  24. @jgda9rs The good grade is a great thing. He still acknowledges the uses of digital photography. At the end of the day, it’s the image, no matter how you got there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.