The ethics of digital to B&W conversion

[Nh3]

Here is a scenario:

A photographer using a DSLR shoots RAW, processes the files in photoshop CS3. He makes large prints of his work and goes to a museum curator.

How would the curator respond?

Reject the work outright because of digital manipulation or consider it as he would any other images taken with B&W film?


I basically wish to discuss the ethics of conversion to B&W and digital manipulation and I would like those who're concerned to delve deep into this and lets see if we can come to an equilibrium. I also would like to emphasize that please don't compare digital post processing with darkroom manipulation because in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.

thanks,

[Kin Lau]

.... in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.


Ever heard of Panalure? http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g27/g27.jhtml

It was designed to make a B&W print from a colour negative.

[Nando]

In my opinion, if the photographs are excellent, it doesn't really matter how they are made.

I can see rejections made due to the technical limitations of using a digital medium being completely logical. For example, let's say a gallery rejected a digitally-captured, black and white landscape photo because it would look out of place among large Ansel Adams-style, big-camera photographs on display.

[charjohncarter]

Nh3, if I were the curator I would note that it was a digital conversion, just like I would note if it were a silver print. So yes, he should accept the image, if it meets the standards of the museum.

[Jason Sprenger]

The "art" itself is what matters.
If the image cannot be ignored, it will be shown.
The method is interesting only as the means to an end.

Of course, if the "art" is the method, then the resulting image is only a by-product.

[hitmanh]

Well, assuming the artist isn't trying to mis-represent the work by claiming that it's not manipulated, then I don't see what the problem would be.

Now how would the curator respond?

That's impossible to know... it depends on lots of variables. I believe the work should stand on its own merit.

Is digital manipulation exceptable?

Yes, manipulation of all kinds has been acceptable within the most parts of the photographic world since the beginning. I see no reason to change that view with digital work. Either you except manipulation (digital, darkroom, or whatever) or you don't, I see no valid reason to allow certain kinds but not others. Photography, as a technoolgy will continue to advance, there will allways be new ways to manipulate things in interesting ways.

Matt

[payasam]

To the extent that some part of photography is art, I do not see that any questions of ethics are involved; and to the extent that some part of photography is technique, the same is true.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think you're implying that it's "unethical" to convert to B&W because only B&W images taken with B&W film are "ethically B&W".

With which I disagree.

On the other hand, if digital images are passed along as B&W images, *pretending* to have made B&W images from B&W film, when in reality that's not the case, the issue isn't "ethics of digital to B&W conversion", but merely the "ethics of lying".

[robert blu]

Probably I make it too simple, but on one side I have "the subject" lit by more or less light, reflecting colours. On the other side I have a print, with black, whites and intermediate greys. If in between the light was captured by a film or by a sensor is for me just an intemediate, practical point and should not have too much influence on the evaluation of the final item, the print itself. Just my opinion, even if I like film.
robert
PS it s difficult for me to find the correct words in english, sorry.

[tripod]

B+W film converts images to B+W.

It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is.

[Rick Waldroup]

I convert almost everything I shoot to B&W. I do not try to pass it off as anything. It is what it is. If someone asks me how it is shot, I tell them. Most of the time, no one does and I have had a few things shown here and there, and not once has anyone asked me how it was shot or what method I used to acheive the final print.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Here is a scenario:

A photographer using a DSLR shoots RAW, processes the files in photoshop CS3. He makes large prints of his work and goes to a museum curator.

How would the curator respond?

Reject the work outright because of digital manipulation or consider it as he would any other images taken with B&W film?


I basically wish to discuss the ethics of conversion to B&W and digital manipulation and I would like those who're concerned to delve deep into this and lets see if we can come to an equilibrium. I also would like to emphasize that please don't compare digital post processing with darkroom manipulation because in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.

thanks,

This is certainly not an ethical issue.

No one cares in the least how a photo is made, from an ethical point of view. In fact many artists do not completely reveal their methods.

An ethical issue is -- a photographer pays assistants to take photos for him, which he then displays as his work, his role being the chooser. This of course has happened and the work is the artist's (e.g. Andy Warhol).

On another note:
And yes in a darkroom you can turn a color slide into B&W print very easily, I have done it a few times, you just shoot an internegative, if you do so most make a 4x5. You can of course also make an interpositive from a negative.

I respect your question is a serious one, but as an artist, I can assure you NO ONE in the art world is the least bit concerned about how images are produced. I would right this off as naive.

This is only relevant in a court of law if the photo was being used as evidence.

[vrgard]

Probably I make it too simple, but on one side I have "the subject" lit by more or less light, reflecting colours. On the other side I have a print, with black, whites and intermediate greys. If in between the light was captured by a film or by a sensor is for me just an intemediate, practical point and should not have too much influence on the evaluation of the final item, the print itself. Just my opinion, even if I like film.
robert
PS it s difficult for me to find the correct words in english, sorry.

I rather like the way you put this, Robert. Following this line of reasoning it would make little difference whether the final b&w image was due to using b&w film to capture the image or, alternatively, color conversion of a scanned color negative or a digitally captured color image. As long as there is no misrepresentation then I see no problem with either scenario.

-Randy

[payasam]

"It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is."

I must disagree, Tripod. A finished print is an artifact and stands on its own merits. There is no doubt, of course, that other photographers (like us) will want to know how it was made: but the creator is free to not give details.

[Pherdinand]

it does not need to be stated anything. I agree with the sloppy pudding above.
An image in a museum is an image in the museum. Does it look interesting enough for the museum?or does it not.

[ruben]

I think you're implying that it's "unethical" to convert to B&W because only B&W images taken with B&W film are "ethically B&W".

With which I disagree.

On the other hand, if digital images are passed along as B&W images, *pretending* to have made B&W images from B&W film, when in reality that's not the case, the issue isn't "ethics of digital to B&W conversion", but merely the "ethics of lying".


I seem to perceive that Gabriel is saying that for Nh3, digital is somewhere unethical, per se and not only in the conversion case.

I am not sure. In any case Gabriel, would you like to translate for me "Ich bin ein jelly" ?

Cheers,
Ruben

[peterc]

I can't see how ethics would enter into it.
A print from a negative is an interpretation of that negative.
A print from a RAW file is an interpretation of that digital negative.
Both are manipulations to achieve a desired result.

[dexdog]

I don't see any ethical problems, as long as the photographer does not try to misrepresent the product. Other than that, I can't see why the museum director would care.

[BillP]

Okay, I have taken this seriously.

I went out today and found a museum curator. I asked him the question.

He said, and I quote verbatim:

"Who are you and why are you asking me such a daft question?"

I explained who I was, but was unable to answer his second query in any meaningful or sensible way.

Regards,

Bill

[nikonhswebmaster]

B+W film converts images to B+W.

It only needs to be stated that it's digital, and what the printing process and print medium is.

MOMA and other museums never state the origin of the image.

They only state how the image is presented e.g. inkjet, chromogenic, and the number of prints in the edition or if it is an A.P. (artist proof), a B.A.T (Bon á Tier), or Edition HC, etc.

As an example here is a web page I finished today, properly listing media, editions etc. http://www.bombsite.com/web-content/gala_2008/index.html

[Thardy]

Oh, I see this is the "Philosophy of Photography" forum.

[willie_901]

Unless you blatantly misrepresent how the photograph was produced I can't see how there is any ethical issue.

Lens selection manipulates the light before it strikes the sensor or film.

All photographs from a digital camera are manipulated. The data recorded by the sensor is processed by proprietary algorithms to produce am image with minimal manipulation (RAW) or one with much more manipulation (JPEG). The data recorded by the sensor is always processed mathematically by a process known as demosaicing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing). The result is a RAW image which may, or may not be subject to further manipulation (besides compression) to produce a JPEG. Cameras with Foveon sensors do not use demosaicing, but a RAW image must still be computed from data recored by the sensor. It may be that Foveon sensor images are subject to much less image processing than Bayer sensor images. The point is: all images recorded with digital sensors are manipulated to some degree by strangers and the photographer's results are affected by these decisions.


The situation in analog photography is similar. Different film emulsions and dye granule technologies are also create different types of images and the photographer has no little over how the film responds to light. Of course it is easy to use to different film and impractical to use a different Bayer demosaicing algorithm (unless you use a different camera) – and most people could care less An analog print is effected by the type of paper used and by dodging, burning or numerous other techniques. A film transparency is usually not manipulated when viewed with an analog projector.


In my view, the main difference is: the analog print is manipulated by the photographer with full knowledge of the process. By contrast, in-camera digital manipulations are decided by software engineers, product developers and marketing types who decide what kinds of manipulated images might sell more cameras.

The photographer can consciously affect how the JPEG looks in most cameras by selecting options (sharpening, saturation, etc) before the photo is recorded. Photographers who use RAW images make similar decisions with more flexibility during the post-processing phase of their work. So, producing a photograph from a RAW image is more similar to production an analog print.

Many digital cameras let us select B&W as an option for in-camera JPEG images. This means the color information is destroyed and a color image is not available. Some cameras let the photographer select options that will effect how a RAW image is processed (automatically) by the vendor's proprietary RAW processing software, However the original data is not modified so the photographer can access the unmolested RAW image if needed.

In the example you cite it would be useful to say something like: a giclée print made from a RAW (or JPEG) image converted to B&W during post-processing production (or converted to B&W in-camera).

As others have posted, what really matters is the end result and how other judge the photograph's aesthetics.

[tripod]

MOMA and other museums never state the origin of the image.

They only state how the image is presented e.g. inkjet, chromogenic, and the number of prints in the edition or if it is an A.P. (artist proof), a B.A.T (Bon á Tier), or Edition HC, etc.

As an example here is a web page I finished today, properly listing media, editions etc. http://www.bombsite.com/web-content/gala_2008/index.html


That's what I meant by "process". Would they also not specify the medium: rag paper, fiber print, oil on canvas or wood, etc.? If I were a buyer, I'd insist on knowing what I was buying.

I have to admit I have no first hand knowledge about this aspect of art.

[Brian Sweeney]

I've got a Pop Photo article from the 70s on printing Color Negatives to Black and White paper. I used to do that myself in the 70s. It comes out a bit contrasty.

The modern twist is the chromogenic C41 process film. Monochrome negatives run though a color process, printed onto color paper.

A monochrome Digital camera will produce higher-resolution, and will not have color-aliasing as occurs with mosaic filters. But it is certainly a technical difference, not an ethical difference.

[polaski]

Ansel Adams was a master of photographic manipulation. He even told everyone else how to do it. He pushed photo technology of his day to its limits..

[nikonhswebmaster]

Unless you blatantly misrepresent how the photograph was produced I can't see how there is any ethical issue.


You guys (not the poster being quoted in particular) have to get out more, perhaps get a subscription to Artforum.

If I tell my dealer that I made the photographs in my mind, and they magically appeared in my printer's memory, when I communed with my Mac, if the images are on paper, then that statement is part of the history of the work.

There is no such thing as creative ethics, unless you are painting with human blood, from unwilling subjects.

[nikonhswebmaster]

That's what I meant by "process". Would they also not specify the medium: rag paper, fiber print, oil on canvas or wood, etc.? If I were a buyer, I'd insist on knowing what I was buying.

I have to admit I have no first hand knowledge about this aspect of art.

That is what I said, when posting I list inkjet, chromgenic etc, which would be assumed to be on paper. If not, e.g. on metal, it would be noted. Ditto with paintings, they are assumed to be on canvas, but if on panel or metal it would be noted.

The dealer will only disclose however, what he or she knows from the artist. The artist is free to do as he/she pleases regarding revealing process.

Less important work is often hyped by playing up the paper quality, archival quality etc, size of edition, how much it might be worth in the investment sense. Think of it this way the more pretentious the sales pitch, the less valuable the work.

[nikonhswebmaster]

"Psychology of Photography" ?

Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..."

And of course when confronted with a woman on his show with a gagel of children, Groucho Marx reportedly said.

"I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while"

It has always been a subject of debate if the exchange actually took place.

[kipkeston]

Interesting to learn this. I didn't know a digital photo could become a fine art print.

[BillP]

Interesting to learn this. I didn't know a digital photo could become a fine art print.

Why should it not?

Regards,

Bill

[nikonhswebmaster]

Why should it not?

Regards,

Bill

It remains difficult to sell inkjet prints however, it is still a chromogenic world out there. My guess is the latest printers may change this prejudice finally.

[peterc]

Interesting to learn this. I didn't know a digital photo could become a fine art print.
Check out Pete Myers' work. He has used both digital and film for B&W.

[tripod]

I remember a time when museums and art galleries would only accept colour photographic prints if they were made by dye transfer or Cibachrome since they were concerned with archival-ness.

[Spider67]

The Art world will also or already is creating a sve haven for BW-photographzy thanks to the fact that "traditional" prints heve become something "crafty" in their eyes (thanks to the fact that BW prints exist for more than 100 years) when compared to othe prints which are "only" made by using computers (thus forgetting the abilities of the person who does the work)
Unethical?
It would be so if you sell something to a museum or a buyer stating it to be a limited fien art print whereas you curb it out by the dozen. Happened to an american guy who bought two Bugattis in Germany that happened to be extremely well made Argentinian replicas

[BigSteveG]

If the digital photos were being sold as "fine art" they should be less expensive than traditional prints. There is a time consuming craft to creating an individual silver based print and that calls for a premium. Digital, while also requiring manipulation can be identically re-produced en masse once the changes are made. Other than that, it really doesn't matter as long as the photographer is honest about the photos' creation.

[amateriat]

Galleries don't care how images are produced. They don't care whether it is digital or film, color converted to black and white, selenium toned or toned with coffee. What an odd thread.
But they might care about how the print was made, depending on who you're dealing with: there are various ways to spray ink on paper, and in some circles (at least up until relatively recently) any of these forms was looked upon with a bit of suspicion, mainly on account of issues surrounding print longevity. Some galleries will be extremely interested in knowing what materials were used in making the print, dye versus pigment vs. carbon, clay-based surface versus swellable polymer, and so on.

So far as how the image itself was made? Outside of basic curiosity, why should it matter?


- Barrett

[Bill Pierce]

Most curators will be concerned if they think an inkjet print will be prone to early fading (and some of them are). But the photographic curator of one of the most important museums in the world has said he would accept black-and-white pigment inkjets that have been treated with a protective spray.

Bill

[kipkeston]

Why should it not?

Regards,

Bill

I'm not saying it should not be, It's just that it never occurred to me. I just assumed fine art print meant individually hand made. But I see that's no longer the case. If museums are cool with it, then I guess I am too.

[Nh3]

You guys are not making it easy for me.

In traditional dark room the photographer spend a lot of time until he finally got what he wanted. in Photoshop it takes seconds and everything is automated. How can these two methods be compared or made relative is beyond me.


I posted this thread because I have a lot of my digital shots turned into b&w and I was feeling sort of guilty about it... But judging from this thread it seems an overwhelming majority of those who responded have no problem with doing the same thing.

But I should mention that I'm still not totally convinced and I need to explore this issue a bit further... I just feel that digital images turned into b&w don't have the same "artistic integrity" as a shot made with b&w film...

[peterc]

I just feel that digital images turned into b&w don't have the same "artistic integrity" as a shot made with b&w film...
Isn't the "art" in the composition of the subject and the interpretation of the negative?
Whether you use a P&S digicam or an 8x10 view camera to get the "negative" shouldn't really make a difference.
And it can take as long in PS as it does in a wet darkroom to get just the right print.

[Nh3]

Isn't the "art" in the composition of the subject and the interpretation of the negative?
Whether you use a P&S digicam or an 8x10 view camera to get the "negative" shouldn't really make a difference.
And it can take as long in PS as it does in a wet darkroom to get just the right print.

... But photography is a craft before it can be considered an art. A photographer should know what his doing and he should know how to control his pictures. Just shooting and leaving the hard work for photoshop is not photography but digital imaging.

We live in a lazy age where everything is expected to be easy, but if its easy then its not art or craft.

[nikonhswebmaster]

... But photography is a craft before it can be considered an art. A photographer should know what his doing and he should know how to control his pictures. Just shooting and leaving the hard work for photoshop is not photography but digital imaging.

We live in a lazy age where everything is expected to be easy, but if its easy then its not art or craft.

Great work is never "easy," but has nothing to do with how hard you work, or how much "craft" you acquire.

Truly great artists know how to make art, it is all they have to know. Many of the world's greatest photographers have never been in a darkroom, but have had all their prints made by others.

Art is not about craft. There may be craft in some art, but that art does not spring from craft.

"Photography" covers a lot of ground. There are dentists taking photos of your teeth, journalists recording our lives, and arts using photography as a medium.

You are taking a most pedestrian view of art.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Most curators will be concerned if they think an inkjet print will be prone to early fading (and some of them are). But the photographic curator of one of the most important museums in the world has said he would accept black-and-white pigment inkjets that have been treated with a protective spray.

Bill

Funny... I was just thinking about prints when I changed my avatar, the current one is a 24x36 inch Cibachrome, made from a 4x5 (shot from my 35mm slides), in about 1990, the last cibas I made. Even then they were expensive, as I remember about $300 a print. But a print that particular edition hung in my studio, under a 4x8 foot skylight for 15 years without fading!

I keep waiting for them to show up in NYC, so far not (at least not at MOMA). I keep looking at those little tags (have you noticed they get smaller as you get older?) and they keep saying "chromogenic."

Just the fact that a curator believes that UV spray is the answer, shows how very far we have to go in educating collectors, and those showing work.

I do think the newest generation of pigment inks may do it.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I'm not saying it should not be, It's just that it never occurred to me. I just assumed fine art print meant individually hand made. But I see that's no longer the case. If museums are cool with it, then I guess I am too.

Well hand-made yes, but the hand may be pushing a mouse around a mouse pad. But generally work is still not mass produced.

Not that mass produced art would not still be art, if mass production was the intent of the artist.

[infrequent]

@nikonhswebmaster - is cibachrome prints strictly from slide film or can this process be done with negatives?

[nikonhswebmaster]

@nikonhswebmaster - is cibachrome prints strictly from slide film or can this process be done with negatives?

When I was making them, they were made using inter-negatives made from my 35mm positives (slides). However Kodak is no longer making inter-negative film, and I have not had a chrome printed in years, frankly I don't even know if their successor Ilford's Ilfochrome is still being made. But in answer to your question yes they were made from negatives.

Anyone?

Correction ?? -- they may have been inter-positives, since the Cibas were a reversal paper. Too long ago!

[peterc]

Just shooting and leaving the hard work for photoshop is not photography but digital imaging.
I'd have to disagree here. If we're talking art, and your skill (or craft) is in Photoshop, what is wrong with doing the heavy lifting in PS? The "artist" might start with an imperfect photograph and bring it all together in PS.
This is no different than the photographer who takes a couple of shots of a scene at different exposures to preserve highlight and shadow detail and combines them in the darkroom to make a perfectly exposed print.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I've spent years learning to use Photoshop and editing photos with it still takes longer than "seconds." There is a lot of difference between using Auto Levels on an image and spending hours at times carefully burning, dodging, color correcting, sharpening and toning an image in Photoshop.

Clearly you did not get CS3-A the special "automated" version of photoshop, which I believe is only currently available for the SGI Irix platform (I am so glad I kept my SGI Indigo Elan).

You don't have to do anything but load your photo, choose from a number of options like "Smith-it", or Capa-it, and the photo is automatically converted, in seconds.

[infrequent]

@nikonhswebmaster - i asked because i found a studio that does this in adelaide, and they claim its straight off the positives without any conversion to neg...hmmm.

[nikonhswebmaster]

@nikonhswebmaster - i asked because i found a studio that does this in adelaide, and they claim its straight off the positives without any conversion to neg...hmmm.

It may well have been -- since I do think that it was positive to positive paper, so those may have been inter-positives. My prints were made by Duggal in NYC.

I have been printing digital for so long now I have forgotten a lot of details. Some I am going to have to relearn.

[infrequent]

Some I am going to have to relearn.

thats okay...you prolly have forgotten more abt photography than i have learned in my life : )

[craygc]

I've spent years learning to use Photoshop and editing photos with it still takes longer than "seconds." There is a lot of difference between using Auto Levels on an image and spending hours at times carefully burning, dodging, color correcting, sharpening and toning an image in Photoshop.

Absolutely...

...the real benefits of digital editing are the degree and accuracy of control, in conjunction with the decoupling of those control processes from their traditional time constraints (which includes being able to reverse actions).

[peterm1]

Unless you were entering a competition (say) in which you were asked to use only film, why on earth would there be any ethical issue? What matters is the end result of the creative process (apart, that is from any pleasure that the photogrpaher might derive from the process of making the image itself.) All that digital does is give the photographer more creative control over the final outcome.

[kuzano]

Art is not about the work it takes to make it, nor is it about the medium in which it is presented. It is about having the courage to present an item as art and letting the public eye determine both it's collectability and value.

The same is true of marketing any item in the arts markets. By my estimation, some truly horrible work is deemed desirable and collectable by the public, while other very worthy work languishes in the closets of the people who created it, because of the lack of courage to present it to the world, or a sense of privacy of some sort.

As far as ethical questions raised by curators... wrong people to make ethical decisions. Ethics is way down on the list of duties on a museum creators job description. First comes decisions about how the work will enhance the image of the museum in terms of collectable work and increases in value.

If you are attempting to imply that digital capture and digital imaging is any more perverted or incorrect than cave art and petroglyphs, you are waging an uphill battle and missing out on a lot of image and photo capture time.

[DaveSee]

Here is a scenario:

A photographer using a DSLR shoots RAW, processes the files in photoshop CS3. He makes large prints of his work and goes to a museum curator.

How would the curator respond?

Reject the work outright because of digital manipulation or consider it as he would any other images taken with B&W film?


I basically wish to discuss the ethics of conversion to B&W and digital manipulation and I would like those who're concerned to delve deep into this and lets see if we can come to an equilibrium. I also would like to emphasize that please don't compare digital post processing with darkroom manipulation because in darkroom you could not turn a color negative into a b&w one.

thanks,

If the viewer, "museum curator" or your uncle saw a bad picture, likely not the fault of image processing... oh, and this is not to say a well crafted "wet" print makes a better picture.

Process is amoral, like house pets: its what you do to get the meal. If this curator later finds you've taken change from coffee-bar tip jars to finance your work, well, if it draws interest to your work...

Speaking of which... isn't work displayed in coffee-bars more likely seen than in museums these days? If so, I'd tip well... you've already paid for the software ;)

rgds,
Dave

[DaveSee]

Clearly you did not get CS3-A the special "automated" version of photoshop, which I believe is only currently available for the SGI Irix platform (I am so glad I kept my SGI Indigo Elan).

You don't have to do anything but load your photo, choose from a number of options like "Smith-it", or Capa-it, and the photo is automatically converted, in seconds.

What? Last I knew, an Indigo wouldn't run greater than IRIX 5.3... so, if Adobe's still supporting IRIX, and you have an Indigo, that "Smith-it" filter would likely take 20-30 minutes to complete, no?

No, wait, you got me... too much Madonna in my playlist, my bad!

rgds,
Dave

[tripod]

Cibachrome is a positive to positive process. You make the print directly from a positive transparency. (slide) I still have several prints that I made, oh, 30 years ago. A great guy, Ted Zuber, was my instructor for that college course. Permanent diazo dyes IIRC.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Cibachrome is a positive to positive process. You make the print directly from a positive transparency. (slide) I still have several prints that I made, oh, 30 years ago. A great guy, Ted Zuber, was my instructor for that college course. Permanent diazo dyes IIRC.

yep, so I guess those were 4x5 inter-positives that Duggal made for me of my 35mm. Not much matter, there was no way I was going to be making 24X36 prints myself. There is a limit to home technology, and Ciba in large sizes far exceeded it.

[georgef]

"Psychology of Photography" ?

Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..."

...which implies that most times it is NOT! he he

I dont get what ethics have to do with any of this:
1. A colour image enters the lens, hits the plane and is recorded (changed to BW on BW film)

2.A colour image enters the lens, hits the plane and its recorded. Then in the computer its changed to BW.
Is it the "sequence" you are considering unethical? And unless it is meant to be a true representation of an event or subject for scientific or archival purposes, why is there a question about ethics?:confused: