Is it real or manipulated? How do you respond to doubters?

Howdy.

I tend to browse a few too many websites I'd say , most of course nature photography ones, but also a lot of Colorado hiking and climbing sites like Summitpost.org, FourteenerWorld.com, etc. I recently started to browse a nice little forum over at 14ers.com. Last night, I made my first post in an answer to someones inquiry about bristlecone pines in Colorado. I uploaded an image from the bristlecones up on Mt Evans for the reply, and while doing so, I uploaded 5-6 other 14er images to my profile page on the site.

Anyway, today, a nice guy singled out one of my pics posted there as being a killer image. Very cool!!! Here is a link to that thread: 14ers.com thread It was the image posted above, shot from Guanella Pass looking at Mt. Bierstadt, way back in October 1998 I think. Well, the thread sort of degraded into questioning whether it was manipulated to get that crazy and intense. Even after I posted my response saying that no photoshop was used (except to resize for web), I got questioned. A few nice folks backed me up though, so that was cool.

So, just wondering if you all run across this type of thing very often, and how you respond. It got me kinda fire up, but I don't want to go over there and start spewing at folks. Kind of discourages me from posting anymore images though.

For the record again, this shot and the two others shot that same night (first, second) have not been manipulated at all, and no filters were used on camera either. Just great sunset, Fuji Velvia, and a little good timing!!

I think that all you can do is say that it was not photoshopped. You cannot prove it (easily), so you just have to hope that people will trust you. The colors are so extraordinary (but still realistic to photographers that have used Velvia), that I can see why some people are sceptical. Thanks for posting.

Even if it was, so what? Photo manipulation has been around since day one. Ansel Adams used the same clouds over and over in his landscapes when the sky was less than exciting. Dodging and burning and layering of negatives to bring out shadows, color, sharpen the edges were all around long before digital ever happened. The end result is what's important, not how it was achieved.

Rebecca.

My mentor and close friend William Edwards was trained by Ansel, I asked him and we are not familiar with Ansel reusing clouds over and over again. I am really curious as to where you found that information? It is totally possible we might have missed something. Just curious.

At any rate I agree with the basic premise (outside of the reused clouds) of Rebecca's point. Quite frankly I could care less how an image was manipulated. We are the artisits and our only mission is to convey what we see in our minds eye to the art consumers. As a B/W shooter I never produce images that even remotely look like the original scenes. My main goal is to convey what i feel to the viewer. Heck the same goes for color too.

Yes Velvia is a supersaturated film you know that. Heck all you gotta do is goto my website and look at the green in the rice terraces in the Philippines to see that.

Just some thoughts.

RichieV

PS --> Great shot

Another approach would be:
"Wow! That would be really cool if I could make clouds look like that by using Photoshop. Can you really do that?!"

Or tell them that if they'd like to buy a print of the image, they can stop by your place to pick up the print and check out the original transparency.

Velvia certainly punches things up quite a bit. To people who don't shoot these kinds of scenes and/or don't use films like Velvia, it can come across as a bit over the top. I lurk a little on those sites and many/most of the images are mid-day, maybe shot with a digital point-and-shoot. If that's the reference point for the guy who thinks you've doctored this, I can see why he thinks that. Or maybe he's never been out for one those incredible sunrises or sunsets...

I occasionally get similar questions when I put up a new print in my office - the very red/pink moonset over the flatirons gets the most scrutiny. I explain that that's what it looked like in person and leave it at that. I figure I'm not going to convince anyone of anything short of bringing in the tranny; it's up to them to do with the information what they want.

I think it comes down to two things - 1) most people have never experienced these colors in real life, their reference is how things look at mid day, like Rick said, and 2) A lot of people are suspiscious of what can be done digitally, and since all they ever did with film was take it to the drugstore for processing & 4x6 prints they don't think manipulations can be done with film.

Also, with digital capture and the trend of 'Epson prints on matte paper behind non-glare glass' people are used to subdued colors these days.

Isn't it Todd Caudle who reuses the same clouds over and over ?

When a photographer states that the scene is unmanipulated, I usually just believe them... I mean what kind of shmuck would actually lie about an image?

The sad fact is that viewers have the response you describe because they've gotten used to seeing oversaturated unrealistic photoshopped images... when a real one comes along it has lost it's punch and people's first reaction is skepticism instead of awe. Which makes me realize that these wonderful landscape images of ours do have emotional power for people... it's almost like people need to protect their internal reserves of awe and amazement - they don't want to run the risk of expressing any of that over what might possibly be fake or unreal.

I do agree with the obvious reality that photographers are free to do whatever the hell they want with their images - BUT - I do think that a bit of ethics is involved which should be respected. Every time someone oversaturates a sunset, pastes a moon, creates an artificial reflection, etc, it chips away at the impact and power of the real images.

Oh, btw, I had one guy email me through my site about a month ago. He said something to the effect of - "I like your photos, but I have to call bulls--t on your reflection shots". What? I wasn't sure what he meant... I explained in a reply how I use grad filters or double exposure blending to obtain a proper exposure... what's bulls--t about that? He never replied.

Everyone has an opinion on "enhance" vs "manipulated" and we all know they can get heated. As far as your situation, Brent, my take is to quote from John Fielder: "The most difficult part of being a Nature photographer is being in the right place at the right time." 99% of the people on the planet will never see colors like this because they don't have the stones to crawl out of that warm bed or sleeping bag in order to be at this particular place at this particular time. As for the enhancement or manipulation, as long as someone discloses what they've done, I have no problem with anything that goes on and I've seen enough Velvia images to know that, Yeah, it does produce this kind of color.

Personally, I don't do much in PS beyond correcting color cast, contrast, exposure, cropping, and burning and dodging. Same stuff I did for 20 years in the conventional darkroom. When I do remove or add an element via PS, I disclose it.

I know there are purists out there that disagree with any kind of manipulation and believe that PS images are not "true" photographs but I don't really care. Quoting another friend, "it sucks to be them."

Killer image, Brent. Keep the good stuff coming.

Bill

My response would be, "I do contrast adjustment, color balancing, cleaning and spotting dust, saturation adjustment (up or down), and finally cropping to get the look I saw with my eyes under the light at the time. I consider this the bare minimum that all photos whether shot digitally or with film requires. Photography is an art, not an exact science with rigid guidelines. Everyone needs to make their own decisions on how to display their art and then how to label it. If the end result is something different than what I actually experienced at the time, then it was manipulated, and it will be labeled as such, up front and before anybody can even ask."

Don

This, of course, is an argument as old as photography, and has really reared it's ugly head since digital has become so popular. My point has always been what Darren said. Photography is manipulation. If you shoot an "unmanipulated" picture, it will not look the same as your eye saw it. To get it to where it looks the same, then you need to "manipulate." Filters, saturated film, color correction, dodging and burning, double exposure, and even cloning have been around a lot longer than photoshop.

I just posted a similar comment on another forum. What most people don't understand when they buy a DSLR is that in doing so, they are taking on the responsibilty of processing. Like Tony said, most people don't realize how much processing was done by the lab when they made film prints. Especially when shooting RAW, it is now the photographers job to adjust contrast, color cast, saturation, etc... This is no more manipulation than what a film lab would have done. I absolutely had labs redo prints back in my film days, because I wasn't happy with something, and they would "manipulate" the print to get it to my specifications.

Maybe someday the general population will learn that processed photos are nothing new. Or else it will just quite down. Either way, a pandoras box has been opened, and there is nothing we can do to close it. We just need to move forward with what we feel is best. Process your pictures as much or as little as you feel comfortable. If you want to adjust the color cast, either with an on camera filter or with PS, then do it. If all you want is to scan in your slides, and post the images "as shot," that is fine as well. It is all a matter of personal taste, personal beliefs, and ART.

Darren (and others) stole my thunder about Velvia. Choosing to use Velvia is a manipulation in and of itself. But so what? Brent, you and I don't try to take documentary photos, we take pretty pictures, pure and simple. And outside of Mark Hobson's universe, there's nothing wrong with that. No, Ansel Adams did not reuse elements like clouds in his photos (what a ridiculous statement - sorry Rebecca), but Adams' work, and any b&w master's work, begins and ends with manipulation, since we don't live in a b&w world. Same goes for those of us who use punchy films or "restore" the color to our RAW files that we're absolutely convinced was there when we snapped the shutter.

Take the easy approach with doubters, though. Just tell them to f*ck off.

Bingo Todd!!!!

RichieV

We have to be realistic, and by the way this is a fascinating discussion, film processing modifies the image by its very nature, it can't be a perfect representation, and digital cameras process the image through the code in them, no image can ever be "untouched" or "perfect" or "unmodified" when replicated with a mechanical instrument. Let's face it our eyes are all different too. I think its fine to work on an image to try to make it more like we remember the scene or more pleasing to look at.

just my 10c,

Bill Meikle
Fort Collins.

I usually just tell the doubters that I'm not smart enough to use Photoshop - unfortunately everyone accepts that without hesitation. Then I offer to show them the transparency.

It's a damn good thing that that approach has always worked for me because Plan B involves brute force and intimidation. I mean, it's not like they were going to buy the picture any, right?

Damn, I didn't know TC has a 'specially ordered' colorado clouds.
I will also say, ask them to buy a print and let them see the huge 4x5 slide on light table.

I think we have all gotten this kind of reaction at some point in our pursuit of photography. As has been said above, we strive to capture that magical moment. We get up way too early, wait out storms, sit patiently for 30 minutes for the perfect lull in the wind to capture a grouping of flowers. The list goes on and on.

These people don't know just how intense or remarkable that a sunrise/sunset can be in the right conditions. They jump out of the car, take that photo in atrocious midday light, and then throw it in a shoebox once they get it back from the lab. Geez - wonder why??

It's very unfortunate that people now simply assume that something is just manipulated in Photoshop if it is truly an inspiring, beautiful photo.

And if all else fails - give them the TC response!

Is a TC response PC?

RichieV

I think it might just be the composition that's throwing people off. This appears to me to be a telephoto shot, so it's only showing a small portion of the sky that evening. Compare Brent's shot to another shot of a nice sunset, like the one someone else linked to in that original thread. No one seems to question that shot, because it's more typical of a view you normally see. However, if you were to zoom in tight to different parts of that image, you will get a composition with a completely pink/orange sky. I think the people who are questioning the color in the image just don't understand that they are seeing only the best color of what was probably a typical nice sunset.

I get a decent amount of "is it real" about a few of my shots - mostly the images with fog in them. People don't normally get out of bed several hours before dawn to see this kind of imagery (including myself)! Not many people stay around through dinner and sit up in the middle of nowhere (or even the middle of kind-of-somewhere) and wait for the sunset to make a scene magical. Blue skies and generic sunsets are believeable; early morning radiation fog and magical skies are not, however real they may be.

You just have to be honest about your images and your technique. People who still don't believe you, well, it's their loss to live in that kind of mindset. Failing that, BFI might be a last resort...

I just finished reading a newly printed book:

Stephen Johnson on Digital Photography.

I recommend it.

It has one whole chapter on : Photography and Truth-Imaging Ethics in the Digital Age
It has lots of examples as to why people don't believe photos.

When all is said and done, I think that the biggest reason they are skeptical, is that they
have never looked thru a telephoto lens, particilarly at that time of day.

Art L.

Manipulation? Almost every digital camera itself manipulates the picture itself.

Those of us digital shooters who use something less than the 4 x 5 (48mp) Better Light Model 6000 Scanning Digital Camera, start out with manipulation thru the use of the
Bayer-pattern interpolation in the camera.

We follow that manipulation up with the interpolation that occurs
in increasing or decreasing the size of the print.

Art L.

"My mentor and close friend William Edwards was trained by Ansel, I asked him and we are not familiar with Ansel reusing clouds over and over again. I am really curious as to where you found that information? It is totally possible we might have missed something. Just curious."

I've seen it mentioned many times, about keeping cloud negatives handy, though a quick search this morning didn't turn up any examples. It may be an urban legend, I never thought to check, honestly, since it's always used to illustrate a point about no photographer being the end all be all, everyone uses tricks, etc. Do a google search for "ansel adams" and "same clouds" and you'll see what I mean.

I really enjoyed reading through this thread. Fairly new to digital photography, and still an idiot at photo editing, I often wonder what can and should be done to enhance photographs. Thanks for bringing up such a great topic, Brent, and keep sharing those wonderful images with us!

Denise

Per your suggestion, I did a Google Search on "ansel adams" and "same clouds". I cant find anything for the life of me. Additionally, I cannot find anything in my "bible" --> Ansel Adams - The Print where he talks about building a "combined print". I haven't heard about him doing this in the past so I am really surprised that you say you have seen it mentioned many times. Maybe we should put a post over on Large Format Info and see if any of them have a clue. Some of the people who follow that forum knew Ansel personally.

If by tricks you mean calibrating your film/paper, building developers from scratch (ie; Divided D23, D76H, Pyrocat etc), using chemical toners like Selenium and buiding registered contrast masks Ansel is very guilty. I guess I just dont like the term "tricks". By the same token a gifted Photoshop artist uses his/her own tools (not tricks) to achieve a final product.

I am open minded to learning new techniques and ideas so I never rule out anything. If there is anything I have learned it is to never say never. But by my researching here I cant find anything referring to Ansel reusing skies (or anything else for that matter). When you find the information please make sure to let us all know.

Ciao,

RichieV

I get this question occasionally, as well; but have no better answer than "I generally use minimal Photoshop techniques...".

By the way, during my last visit to Galen Rowell's gallery in Bishop, I notice several (duplicate) slides sitting on a light box. There was a small sign nearby that essentially read, "No, the prints are not manipulated!". Guess he had the same issue.

Ken

It is funny that after printing custom prints in a professional lab for 15 years, alot of the things I do on the computer is the same I did in the darkroom. The only thing different is the equipment and the technique. When we wanted something removed from an image, instead of using photoshop, we would
just airbrush it out. From using Kodak enlargers to using Lambda digital printers, it is all about making a representation of what we saw. Anyway, that is my take on it.

I wouldn't get too hung up over the "is it manipulated?' question because as others have pointed out, every photo is manipulated. The more relevant question to me is "is that what it really looked like?". You can still have a discussion about what it means to be "real" since no photo can be 100% accurate but whether or not photoshop was used seems totally irrelevant to me.

Sorry to bring back this old thread. I just wanted to note that a new article just came out on Luminous Landscape about this very issue. It is well written and looks at the deeper issue of why people think this way. I thought some of you might enjoy it. Of Cameras and Art by Alain Briot