What value are Scanned Images ?

[Graham_of_Rainham]

The majority of images presented in forums, magazines and exhibitions have associated with them information about the camera, lens, exposure settings etc..

More and more we are seeing images that were originally produced as prints or slides, yet for some reason the original infomation remains associated with the image and rarely do we see data relating to the scanner.

Surely a print that has been digitised can no longer remain associated to the original equipment, film or production process, as it is now an entirely new digital image. If a photo is taken of an original work of art the exif data is that of the camera at the time of the exposure, so should we not be seeing scanned images having the correct technical data at the time of scanning?

There is a lot of credibility given to images by virtue of the equipment used to produce it. Should the scanned version maintain this?

It's much like the debate over live vs recorded music and once recorded how and what the media adds to, or subtracts from, the purity of the original.

So by way of debate, can I post an image and say it was taken with Hassleblad kit, and Kodak film or do I say it was produced by an Epson V700, 24bit, best quality, 300dpi, medium unsharp mask filter, etc., etc...

[Gez]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

Image is everything. To me the whys, hows and wherefores are secondary unless you are are a techno fiend. How many fans know what type of gloves the World heavyweight used to win his last fight etc.

[Rodbender]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

The majority of images presented in forums, magazines and exhibitions have associated with them information about the camera, lens, exposure settings etc..

More and more we are seeing images that were originally produced as prints or slides, yet for some reason the original infomation remains associated with the image and rarely do we see data relating to the scanner.

Surely a print that has been digitised can no longer remain associated to the original equipment, film or production process, as it is now an entirely new digital image. If a photo is taken of an original work of art the exif data is that of the camera at the time of the exposure, so should we not be seeing scanned images having the correct technical data at the time of scanning?

There is a lot of credibility given to images by virtue of the equipment used to produce it. Should the scanned version maintain this?

It's much like the debate over live vs recorded music and once recorded how and what the media adds to, or subtracts from, the purity of the original.

So by way of debate, can I post an image and say it was taken with Hassleblad kit, and Kodak film or do I say it was produced by an Epson V700, 24bit, best quality, 300dpi, medium unsharp mask filter, etc., etc...

I'd like to take this one stage further. Can we now in the age of digital and computers give the same level of credibility to the creators of images. I ask this in the light of images posted on forums for critique and then modified and or corrected according to the comments etc. that are then presented in competitions and win. These are no-longer the work of the original photographer. Modern technology allows modification to the original work far to easily. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with today's methods, but I can't look at images these days thinking "What a great photographer produced this". I'm not too bothered by the equipment used as we all know that good equipment dose not = good images. Credibility belongs to the creator.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

I'd like to take this one stage further. Can we now in the age of digital and computers give the same level of credibility to the creators of images. I ask this in the light of images posted on forums for critique and then modified and or corrected according to the comments etc. that are then presented in competitions and win. These are no-longer the work of the original photographer. Modern technology allows modification to the original work far to easily. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with today's methods, but I can't look at images these days thinking "What a great photographer produced this". I'm not too bothered by the equipment used as we all know that good equipment dose not = good images. Credibility belongs to the creator.

This too is a valid point. However in days of old photographers would often send their negatives to printers, who specialised in the art of producing prints, there were even quite prestidgeous printers awards. Today there exists many more "specialists" who will manipulate images to present them to targeted viewers.

Which brings me back to my original point (from a slightly different angle), what is the point of attaching all the exposure info and equipment details if the image is far from being "original"

[Rodbender]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

This too is a valid point. However in days of old photographers would often send their negatives to printers, who specialised in the art of producing prints, there were even quite prestidgeous printers awards. Today there exists many more "specialists" who will manipulate images to present them to targeted viewers.

Which brings me back to my original point (from a slightly different angle), what is the point of attaching all the exposure info and equipment details if the image is far from being "original"

There's no point if the information refers to the original and you are viewing a modified image. Exif data can be edited but who would go to those lengths to update the information. If an image has been "tweaked" then the viewer should be made aware what changes have been made to achieve the final image.

[Patrick]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

If an image has been "tweaked" then the viewer should be made aware what changes have been made to achieve the final image.

Why?
I challenge you to find any of the great and famous photographs that have not had help in the darkroom at the printing stage, cropped, dodged, burned, toned, selective bleaching, graded papers to control contrast, the list goes on & on.
Photography has been subject to this sort of manipulation since Fox Talbot.
The only difference now is its done in the computer, true we can easily go further now, but we still need skill to do it well as we did in the darkroom.

Many of the terms used in Photoshop came from the darkroom or printing houses. Dodge. Burn, Unsharp mask, layers, and many more.

I accept when it comes to images that represent news events then such manipulation should be applied in a way as not to change the truth, whatever that is.

Patrick

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

...
I challenge you to find any of the great and famous photographs that have not had help in the darkroom at the printing stage, cropped, dodged, burned, toned, selective bleaching, graded papers to control contrast, the list goes on & on.
Photography has been subject to this sort of manipulation since Fox Talbot.
The only difference now is its done in the computer, true we can easily go further now, but we still need skill to do it well as we did in the darkroom.

Many of the terms used in Photoshop came from the darkroom or printing houses. Dodge. Burn, Unsharp mask, layers, and many more...
Patrick

And I doubt that you will find any reference to the equipment manufacturers associated with any of the "great & famous" photographs. The name of the photographer and the image as it was presented was the only factor in assessing the "value" of the picture. Today we seem to place a huge amount of "value" on the image by virtue of the equipment that was used to produce it.

[Rodbender]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

Why?
I challenge you to find any of the great and famous photographs that have not had help in the darkroom at the printing stage, cropped, dodged, burned, toned, selective bleaching, graded papers to control contrast, the list goes on & on.
Photography has been subject to this sort of manipulation since Fox Talbot.
The only difference now is its done in the computer, true we can easily go further now, but we still need skill to do it well as we did in the darkroom.

Many of the terms used in Photoshop came from the darkroom or printing houses. Dodge. Burn, Unsharp mask, layers, and many more.

I accept when it comes to images that represent news events then such manipulation should be applied in a way as not to change the truth, whatever that is.
Patrick

Why you may ask. What use is the exif data if the original image is manipulated beyond all recognition of what came out of the camera. There are plug-in progs. for Photoshop that can even change the DOF. Aperture and focal length are totally meaningless after this type of manipulation. Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from against tweaking images, God knows I have done the same both in the darkroom and on the computer. The question was "is there any point in displaying exif data that refers to the original image" I think not.

[Patrick]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

Why you may ask. What use is the exif data if the original image is manipulated beyond all recognition of what came out of the camera. There are plug-in progs. for Photoshop that can even change the DOF. Aperture and focal length are totally meaningless after this type of manipulation. Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from against tweaking images, God knows I have done the same both in the darkroom and on the computer. The question was "is there any point in displaying exif data that refers to the original image" I think not.

I have known photographers in film days keep note books recording info of every photo, for those Exif data is heaven sent.
Most images that are manipulated remain basically the image that was originally captured simply brought to life through a few tweaks and modifications, in this case yes it continues to have its original value. Same can apply to a scanned image from film, the note taker can implant his/her info into exif, the scanner used may be if interest I don't know.
As to is Exif data relevant when the image is manipulated, as you put it "beyond recognition" probably not particularly if the end result is a composite of a number of images possibly exposed at different dates and exposures even possibly different cameras.
It depends on where the line is drawn and this will be different for different photographers.

Patrick

[Rodbender]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

I have known photographers in film days keep note books recording info of every photo, for those Exif data is heaven sent.
Most images that are manipulated remain basically the image that was originally captured simply brought to life through a few tweaks and modifications, in this case yes it continues to have its original value. Same can apply to a scanned image from film, the note taker can implant his/her info into exif, the scanner used may be if interest I don't know.
As to is Exif data relevant when the image is manipulated, as you put it "beyond recognition" probably not particularly if the end result is a composite of a number of images possibly exposed at different dates and exposures even possibly different cameras.
It depends on where the line is drawn and this will be different for different photographers.

Patrick

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it digital images produced from RAW would show the camera settings. The image can have it's white balance and exposure altered during processing. This now leaves us with false information in the exif data. So even standard processing of an image starts to make exif data redundant.

[Patrick]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it digital images produced from RAW would show the camera settings. The image can have it's white balance and exposure altered during processing. This now leaves us with false information in the exif data. So even standard processing of an image starts to make exif data redundant.

I don't see why the info becomes redundant, it still remains how the image was captured. Nor do I see it as false information. The fact there are changes is I think irrelevant, in the darkroom changes were made during printing, those that kept notes at the taking stage would most likely to record how the image was printed. We have this saved if we keep our manipulated image with all its layers, lost if we flatten.

Lightroom when manipulating an image RAW, Tiff or JPG saves the changes made for each image in a file attached to the image, the original file of the image remains untouched.

Patrick

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

So with differing opinions I'm left with the feeling that the infomation associated with an image is really only of value when the image is original. Any manipulation, from a simple crop through to extensive manipulation, either in a conventional darkroom or with software on digital data, renders the image info to be of no value.

I'm still left wondering why so many magazines insist on presenting images with info about the equipment used. I can only believe it to be an attempt to advertise the cameras by associating them with the images. Last year when I visited the wildlife photographer of the year exhibition, I noticed that here too the equipment details was printed alongside the image.

When we look at works of art do we ever stop and think about what manufacturer made the brushes that were used to paint the works of great artists or who made the sculpters chisel? I doubt it very much...

Anyway great debate guys, if you have come to your own conclusions, please share them

Thanks

[Stephen]

Re: What value are Scanned Images ?

So with differing opinions I'm left with the feeling that the infomation associated with an image is really only of value when the image is original. Any manipulation, from a simple crop through to extensive manipulation, either in a conventional darkroom or with software on digital data, renders the image info to be of no value.

Thanks

I'm going to have to disagree with this conclusion. I've often been of the opinion that giving exif data with pictures can be irrelevant when so much adjustment is made in Raw software. However it depends how the information is used and what conclusions or lessons can be learnt from having access to it. I mean who is going to slavishly copy settings with a view to emulating similar results? It just is pointless unless we can glean something else from it.

Todays (17.11.08 ) POTD is a case in point. Peter has used a slow shutter speed to get the effect he wanted from the water, how did he achieve that? By using a small aperture, low ISO and to control the sky with an ND Grad filter. 3 of the 4 settings can be got from the Exif data, and therfore to the beginner, or to someone to whom its not so obvious, this is useful info. The fact that further adjustments may have gone on in the Raw conversion software etc, makes no difference and does not change the fact that the camera setting gave the raw material to achieve the result.