Where is the line when we take a photo and alter it (using whatever software or process) to suit our need or vision???
I have done ALOT of reading in this area, and of course opinions vary from "Anything altered in ANY way is not photography" to "A little touching up is OK" to "I'll do what ever the hell I want to my image, and it's still photography."
Many of these opinions spring from you, at this site, yet we all manage to coexist peacefully and helpfully.
I am becoming very adept with Photoshop, and most of my images are altered in the sense that I adjust sharpness, contrast, range of tone, saturation, and minor cloning. But then there are examples of Photo Art that I have drastically altered from the original, and the observer is acutely aware of the alteration.
Is this all just a series of gradients depending on no more than observer interpretation and arbitrary definition. Or is there a specific line that you consider when classifying photos and art??
Posted by Leann Greene on July 14, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I say clone out any lines.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 14, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I say it's a matter of personal taste. It's not something I worry about. I really don't see a "line."
Interesting over the years this one Brian. I've changed a lot over the years in what I will do for a result. To me and in my opinion, just do what ever it takes. Now days you would not believe the rubbish I take knowing what the end result will be. Complete junk shots I would call them, but its what going to happen to them afterward that counts and not so much the original shot. Why, well because its what I want and it tends to do rather well. So for me, its do what ever you want as long as its disclosed.
Everyone has different lines and some are very strange ones Brian. I've cropped an image outside the box only about 3 - 4 times in 35 years. Have not cropped for, aww heck, years M8t. So thats my line and yet, I get comments about cropping all the time . Don't hold your breath However, when it comes to hmmm, heavy manipulation, I'll throw everything at it, plus a bit more.
Strange the way we see and think sometimes. All the best Brian and as always, only in my opinion.
I think it depends on the task and subject. When I shoot nature I clone out branches and leaves. I do not move elements around or import elements from other images. I always disclose this heavy manipulation. However, I just shot a wedding for a friend and I happily cloned out people and moved a door from one frame to another to get rid of someone coming through that detracted from the scene. The bride was very happy with the result.
So, in nature photography moving and rearranging of elements, to me, should be disclosed and hardly done at all. in commercial photography, weddings and advertising etc, anything goes.
IMHO it's all a matter of perspective and purpose. What is the purpose of your photography? If your intent is journalism/documentation, then you should be very cautious of what you manipulate and how you manipulate it.
If you're going for art, however, you need to decide for yourself. I've seen things posted in Photo Art that, to me, don't even come close to qualifying. But it's the artists decision, and concience, not mine.
I wonder... If Ansel were alive to post Moon Over Half Dome on NPN, would he post it as Photo Art?
A photograph IS not reality and it CANNOT be reality. It's a 2 dimentional representation of a 3 dimentional world. If you include time, it's a 3 dimentional representation of a 4 dimentional world, with time being even more distorted than the other two dimentions. No matter how you look at it, depth is not represented in a photograph. Moreover, light is not represented correctly either. Film doesn't see what the human eye sees, and I doubt that it will in our lifetime.
Bottom line is, no matter what the purpose, a photograph is a document. It's not a copy of reality. It's at most a rough faxsimile.
Brian, the only lines we cross are those we establish within ourselves. There is no incorrect answer to your question. I'd only say that, if you've carefully considered what you believe is right and wrong regarding manipulation and have drawn your own line in the sand, cross it now and then and see how you feel about the results. It's always good to challenge our own conceptions. We often change our views over time, but experimentation can also reassure us that we made the right decision at the start.
Posted by Tom Webster on July 14, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Steve Foss hit the nail on the head. Now let's all go out and make images that meet our own criteria and let this sleeping dog lie.
Oh no...the photo vs. art debate rears it's head again
My opinion on this changes daily, but i have to throw in a couple comments, i just can't restrain myself!
First, i would slightly disagree with Curtis. A photo IS indeed a document, and as such, it is in fact documentary. I would argue that it is as much a "copy" of reality as our eye's vision, perhaps more so in some respects! It's light captured on film or sensor, most definitely seeing what is out there. What our eye sees may be different, but that doesn't take away from what the camera is doing.
Now, when you get to our involvement with the captured image, i've come to the conclusion that it's not worthy of snobbery or heated debate (as others above have mentioned), however
I do feel disclosure is important. If it's art, fine, label it as art. But, the last thing i want to see is a bunch of outrageously altered images that are supposedly "exactly as the photographer saw it". There is certainly pressure for people to do this, both for monetary and egoistic gain. All this does is create a false depiction of reality. I don't want to save the wilderness that exists 'in my minds eye'--i want to save the one that EXISTS!
Posted by David Senesac on July 14, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Danny >>>"...So for me, its do what ever you want as long as its disclosed. "
Agreed!
Curtis, your two arguments are a variation of ones I've heard and argued against many years. As if what Ansel did in B&W in his limited technical days bears on the greatly expanded scope of what photographic art has become including our much more technically advanced processes available for reasonable fidelity in todays work. And your other justification to throw the baby out with the bath water because it isn't perfect enough is simply overstated. ...David
LOL Mike. I've seen what lines you have broken and stepped over. So in your case, its not the line so much as how far you can lift and move it. You move it beautifully by the way M8t
I keep my nature photography pretty pure, mostly because I don't have the PP skills to do otherwise. The photography that feeds me though is a different subject. The 35 year old woman with crows feet around her eyes doesn't want to see that in a photograph. She wants a picture that resembles her with the skin of a teenager. Jowls and sausage arms disappear when you apply the liquid filter. Those red vessels on men's faces that scream, "yeah, I've drunk a few too many" go away with a click of the spot healing brush tool. I completely lie to people about what they look like. That I can do, and do well. That's why people come to me.
Posted by Curtis Knight on July 15, 2007 at 11:56 AM
And your other justification to throw the baby out with the bath water because it isn't perfect enough is simply overstated
hmm... ya got me on this one David. I don't understand your analogy here.
My point about Ansel was rather poorly stated I think. Ansel used technology that didn't exist in the infancy of photography. we use technology that didn't exist when Ansel was working his B/W imagery. Every time there is a technological leap, this particular debate rages on, and eventually the technology is accepted, and we wait for the next big advance to come along so we can once again cry foul.
When processing was all done in the wet darkroom, it was possible then to "clone" things in and out of the photograph. It took a lot more time, effort and skill, but it was just as possible. But now that virtually every photographer can do it with limited skill and effort, suddenly it's a bad thing and every photograph is called into question.
Personally, I feel the need to disclose major cloning and color manipulation. What do I mean by "major"? Well, that's my own line I've drawn in my own mind, and when I'm processing, I know when I've stepped over it. I have a clear conscience regarding the integrity of my photography. What more can we ask of the photographer?
The way I deal with this whole controversy is to take each image and decide if I like what I see. If I like it, I like it. I don't much care whether it's heavily manipulated, and if it is, and the manipulation is not disclosed, that's not my problem. If the photographer has a clear conscience about it, who am I to judge? Why is that any different than a painter who can clone objects in and out at his pleasure and nobody gives a whoot. That said, by nature I don't generally like the way heavily manipulated or over processed images look, but I'm sure I've seen some that I like and didn't know they were so.
If someone has the skill to clone the log out of Punchbowl Falls and make it look real, I call that guy a highly skilled artist, rather than a dishonest photographer.
A photo instructor at the art school associated with my university told me this 36 years ago, "A photograph is its own reality." What ever you do to make the photo what it is, is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not it is a good photo. We were discussing photo art and not photo journalism, but as far as art is concerned, I think he was exactly right. It doesn’t matter what brush a painter uses, it is the quality of the painting that matters.
Curtis/Dave: I might call him a dishonest photographer, depending on how the photo is eventually used. Ive been a painter ten times longer than a photographer, and i can tell you there is a huge difference between the two pursuits. Analogizing them is a big mistake, IMHO.
Because, it does matter how the painting/photo is used ! The fact is, that photos have completely replaced "art" for "documentary" purposes! Where do you see most landscape photos? (aside from the web) You see them in books, magazines, calendars post-cards etc. Most of the time, these venues imply that the photo you are looking at is in fact a close (if not exact) depiction of reality. How would you feel if you bought a book about a certain national park, filled with stunning photos, then spent all your money to go to the park, only to discover the photos were all tremendously 'altered', and in fact the park looks like your local landfill? Photos don't exist in a vacuum, and they are more often used to sell things than they are used to hang as art in someone's living room. That's why you do
have a right to judge someone elses integrity or lack thereof.
I say do as little or as much as necessary to get what you "saw" when you made the exposure. And who is there to tell you that you can't? And who cares if it's still defined as "Photography"? What is photography anyway? In my opinion the definition of photography is not keeping pace with it's evolution.
I am in the middle of this debate on another forum. Funny how this discussion hasn’t gone away in 150 years!
I don’t want to get involved in the “is it right” discussion. That has been and will be discussed ad nauseam.
Stan, you have made some very strong statements, and I think it would be helpful if they included examples. Understand, this is not a personal attack on you or your views. I am simply looking for the examples of the situations you present.
You stated that “There is certainly pressure for people to do this [outrageously alter a photograph that is supposedly "exactly as the photographer saw it"], both for monetary and egoistic gain.” I have never been pressured to “outrageously alter” a photograph, let alone then be pressured to claim it was exactly as I saw it. Have you had publications pressure you in this way? Has anyone told you they would pay you for one of your images if it has been outrageously altered?
I have been told a particular photograph was not good enough, be it the light was not right, or the framing was off, or the subject was poor. I have also been given advice on how I could improve the photo, but in the end it falls back to not having it correct to begin with.
You also asked “How would you feel if you bought a book about a certain national park, filled with stunning photos, then spent all your money to go to the park, only to discover the photos were all tremendously 'altered', and in fact the park looks like your local landfill?” Again, I am hoping you can give me examples of this happening. Which books have you purchased (or have seen) that give a tremendously altered view of an area, which creates a false portrayal? I have seen photos that were specific to a certain time, or a certain light, or under specific rare conditions, that will probably not be seen by the majority of the visitors. Does this mean the images are not truthful?
There is a small SWA in which I shoot, and it has power lines across a number of views. I spend a great deal of time framing pictures to exclude these power lines. Does this mean I am being dishonest, since anyone visiting the area will very clearly see power lines? Don’t we, as photographers, do our best to capture the most beautiful, powerful, stunning photos? If I am shooting an area that has had a lot of human activity, I make great efforts to exclude this, like trash or cars, etc… I can shoot pictures of geysers in Yellowstone that will not include the boardwalks/trails, other visitors, or trash cans, even though these can be prominent features.
Again, I am not attacking your position, but rather hoping that you can give real world examples of your above statements.
David A Bliss >>>"...you can give real world examples "
I believe his statement was hypothetical though over-emphatically extreme, not to reflect on actual examples or current situations but rather the potentials of how far levels of manipulation for end processes traditionally held to be ones of more fidelity by the public might reach in the near future. In any case there have always been a few who do such manipulations being freely creative ever since graphic arts pros that do all manner of advertizing art in the early 90s discovered the power there. Of course most of those label their creations as digital art. But given the current explosion of use by the masses any semblance of an ethical or artistic line is by now hopelessly blurred.
For the most part on the positive, the graphic content of images in magazines, landscape fine art, and nature prints have remained rather accurate despite any mechanisms inhibiting such beyond personal attitudes. However ever since Velvia came out two decades ago color saturation has generally been jacked up and color hues manipulated for "creative vision" and best aesthetic. And since digital cameras came on the scene this last decade and the masses discovered the powers of tools like Photoshop that has become an avalanche. One need look no further than the lowly post card art racks in most of our national outdoor playground convenience stores to see how comically bizarre some of that has reached. ...David
Brian, maybe it's just semantics but to me the final print is the product and anything leading up to it is "making", not "fixing" the image. I may "fix" things the camera got wrong (color, contrast, distracting elements I couldn't compose around etc.) but to me that is part of the art.
Using photographic mediums, I would say that art is defined by a process of "creating", as distinct from "recording". I do consider ALL my photographs as art, regardless of whether they only took slight sharpening or 20 layers of adjustment after the initial exposure.
I think I know better than the camera what I want to produce, and I have no problem enforcing my will on my own art, rather than letting the camera make creative decisions for me.
I am always surprised to see that even though someone wants to discuss things related to photography as art (ref. the subject line of this thread), folks waste no time bringing up examples of the medium's application for documentary purposes. As a result, I find it quite useless to have a meaningful discussion on art here on NPN.
To answer Brian's original question, I would like it if I never have to draw any lines. I don't see a purpose for them in my photography.
D Bliss: Thanks for your comments, i most certainly don't see them as personal attack, i think this is an interesting discussion and i have plenty of patience in hearing opposing views.
D. Senesac responded for me quite eloquently, (thanks David S, wish i had said that )
and i can only say he is right on target with what i am saying. Note that i used the word "tremendously" in my last post while you referred to "outrageously". There is a big difference: tremendous refers to amount, not the inherent ethics. In my first post, i used "outrageously" as an example of what "I don't want to see" (not what i do see).
I will only add that i most definitely see photography as "art"--that's why i like it! I am only saying that we as photographers need to be aware of how our work is seen by others. I believe we can't crawl up in a defensive 'artistic ball' and say "i don't care about lines, art is about crossing them!" The bottom line is that any (non-artist, for this example) one out there who looks at a painting knows that the painting is the artists impression of the scene.
This is not true of a photograph. Despite the public awarence of photo-manipulation, there is still generally an underlying implication that a photo is a direct representation of a scene--that it portrays "reality". Don't believe me? Then look at virtually every top landscape/nature photographer out there and read their websites and disclaimers about how they make "minimal alterations" and how they constantly seek to portray a scene "as closely as possible" to how they originally viewed it. I obviously wont name names, but id be pretty surprised if you hadn't seen these paraphrased statements before!
So, like it ot not, photos document. They most certainly can still be "artistic" but the art comes from the vision of the photographer, not the software manipulation. (and i am not referring to digital art--i have two distinct portfolios, photos, and digital art--i see them as different) In response to your specific example: i applaud your attempt to avoid the powerlines, and if i go to the same location and same vantage point, i wont see them! If you instead shot the scene with the powerlines, then cloned them all out, i might find that a bit dishonest (maybe not outrageously so!) if you didn't disclose what you did.
Thanks for your comments-S
OK, this will probably get me in a whole lot of hot water but what the heck, I've had a few glasses of wine ( whine? ) so here goes.
I think that, quite often, a lot of what gets portrayed as "Artistic Expression" via digital manipulation is really a cover up of shortcomings as a craftsman ( person).
I find it rather ironic that people , the same people that manipulate their images quite a bit, often complain when people compliment them on their Photoshop abilities.
Maybe I'm a little sensitive but I feel many people seem to think that a " documentary" type of image is less a work of Art than, I don't know , a heavily manipulated type of image. I get the feeling that many people think it takes less skill, even. I would argue the opposite.
I understand and even appreciate the expressionist type of image,. at least I think I do. It's more about what you feel than what you simply see. However , to be honest, I feel so many there is a point where the image is so much more about the photographer than what is being photographed that it becomes . . . I don't know, too self centered for me. It's like havng a conversation with someone, and no matter what the topic, it's all about them.
Hey Tim, you wont hear any complaints from me! I'll be applauding you the whole way (as i stand way back, with a bullet-proof vest, of course ) now...pass me that wine!
Posted by Curtis Knight on July 16, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Stan, I agree that it matters how the photo is used. I guess I was separating the creation of an work of art (the final photograph) from the dishonest representation of... a person. place... thing... what have you. A work of art and a fake document are different animals.
But I do agree with you, it does matter how it's used.
I have no problem telling you or anyone one else that part of the reason I employ digital post-processing is to make up for my shortcomings as a camera operator (actually, I am quite terrible when it comes to using a camera). Now given that this is out in the open, will your opinion of my work change? I'd like to know.
I don't think documentary work is any less artistic. Although I don't do much of it, I enjoy it all the same and appreciate the effort and skill of the photographers/artists that excell in this space. However, I am disappointed that whenever someone mentions any sort of expressive work that tends to go beyond documentary, he/she is categorized as being unethical (unless there is an explicit statement alongside their photo that it is not depicting reality).
Well I've done very, very well out of heavily manipulated images, so why on earth would I want to change that in any way. Lets see, we love doing it, we have unique images to start with to do it with, they are all complete nature macro images, the manipulation side of it, there is no end to it. We can make a unique market because the images are original and no one can get a hold of those to start with. If we get compliments on our, eh, eh, Photoshop skills, it is regarded as a compliment, because thats what we do. By the way, I personally think that PS lacks the variety and versatility and is bloated to heck, so PS is not used.
So why the heck would we change it. I have no interest in not changing anything to a large degree with nature shots, for me anyway. If they are posted in a gallery here or any other forum, they go in the artie galleries. If they go into the other galleries, they are hardy touched at all, not even cropped and are out of the box, within reason.
Anyway, to compliment the, eh, eh PS skills is a real compliment IMO.
Danny.
Posted by David A Bliss on July 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM
David S wrote: “I believe his statement was hypothetical though over-emphatically extreme, not to reflect on actual examples or current situations but rather the potentials of how far levels of manipulation for end processes traditionally held to be ones of more fidelity by the public might reach in the near future.”
That’s my point here. These discussions [on “manipulation”] are always filled with extreme statements and worst case scenarios, while in actuality, this is rarely ever seen.
You yourself wrote: “…given the current explosion of use by the masses any semblance of an ethical or artistic line is by now hopelessly blurred.” This is a powerful statement, and one that should be backed up by some real world examples. Let’s not point out the weekend warrior who has purchased his/her first digital camera, and has discovered that, while they are not a very good photographer, PS can make the picture look better [in their opinion] with some creative blurring and color tweaking. I would like to see examples of publications using pictures that crossed the ethical line of which you speak.
Funny that you mention postcards. In my personal experience, while the postcards are much better photographs than before, I haven’t seen many that have been “comically bizarre” unless they were meant to be so. In fact, the one I remember the most is from my childhood (long before PS), which depicted a giant Jack-A-Lope looming over a Wyoming landscape.
“For the most part on the positive, the graphic content of images in magazines, landscape fine art, and nature prints have remained rather accurate despite any mechanisms inhibiting such beyond personal attitudes.” This, despite the fact that PS has been on the market for 18 years. When is this horrible crossing of fact and fantasy to come? Could it be that, while people (consumers) want stunningly beautiful and original photography, they do not want to be deceived, and the sellers of this work (magazines, fine art…) know this? The public is not as naive as many think. I would say that the public is willing, even prefers, to see photographs without power lines, trash, and other “human” elements that might actually be there, but would be quick to spot obvious trickery, such as a huge mountain peak behind the Manhattan skyline.
People understand that photography is about capturing a particular moment in time, not every moment in time. They understand that they will not see a stunning sunrise at noon, or a pristine snow field in summer. Landscape photography is still popular because people want to see these wonderful scenes, but, for the most part, are not willing to make the treks to see them in person. But they still want perfection.
The purists basically believe that an image is perfect and needs no alteration as it appears when it comes from the camera.
And those on the other side of this (admittedly ill-defined and arbitrary) fence seem to think that an image deserves alteration in order to appear as they understand it.
This is all well and good, but can every image be composed in camera so as to appear as you see it in your mind's eye? Does every image have to appear perfect in our viewfinders in order to be considered a photograph? Or art?
Isn't it a bit presumptious and egotistical to propose that an image can have no errors when the photons hit the film?
On the other hand, their are many instances when photography is documentary, but the image it documents is art in and of itself. Any photo can be seen in this way, but most of these photos manage to convey an object, scene, animal, etc. in a way that allows the viewer to see it differently.
Isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that these images can be digitally "improved?"
I don't really know. You guys haven't done much to help. No offense.
Merriam-Webster defines art (as we are speaking of it) as:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."
The long and short of it, per the dictionary, is that it is all art. I don't believe this either.
Maybe a better question is this: When is a photograph NOT art??
Posted by David A Bliss on July 17, 2007 at 12:03 PM
“…can every image be composed in camera so as to appear as you see it in your mind's eye?”
No. Mind’s eye or physical eye. Film and sensors do not have the exposure latitude to capture every scene the way our eyes see. This is simply the way it is. The key to your question is “every.” Can some? Absolutely. I absolutely have slides that were shot without filters, that look (as close as can be) exactly as I saw it.
You are questioning whether document photography should be touched up. Let’s look at photographs used for a bird book. Yes, those photographs are documents, not necessarily designed to be art. But, the purpose of a bird book is for identifying birds. What if the bird that was photographed didn’t have a highly predominant banding, but most others of the same species do. Would it be wrong to touch up that area of the bird, to make it more pronounced? Which is the more “accurate” rendition. I personally like my bird books to show the most common plumage, with the identifying features highlighted. A dull picture of a dull bird would make identification difficult or impossible.
Let’s look at art on the other hand. I want to use Mt St Helens here. When I was a kid, I had a poster of the eruption of St Helens. This would make it art, correct, since it was being displayed as a “fine art print.” Now, would it be right to add more ash billowing out of the crater? Would it be right to add more lightning, or any other element that wasn’t there? There will probably be differing opinions, but I think this shows an area where art mirrors documentation.
If you are looking for a black and white answer, I don’t think you will find one.
David S: Im the first to admit im being extreme! My underlying primal fear is that some arsonist will burn down three trillion acres of forest, rendering our once pristine wilderness a blackened sea of trees (soon to be paved over for easier access) that i'll never again be able to enjoy. But, no problem, we can just use PS to bring the trees back to life and remove the roads. It's kind of the opposite reaction to most landscape photographers, who think that by presenting stunning nature images the public will be more likely to want to preserve what's left. I personally haven't seen this philosophy come to fruition during my lifetime. The way i see it, Big Macs are presented as really pretty things, good for you, that's why they sell! Really, they'll mess you up if you eat enough. So, yeah, i'm paranoid. I'm gonna go backpacking now (take some photos of course), gotta go see it before it's only there in photos
(BTW, you can't have it both ways--can't complain about hyperbole when you talk about mountains behind Manhattan)
Actually, I don't think I am having both ways. I preceded "huge mountain peak behind the Manhattan skyline" with "obvious trickery," while your statement implied that as nature photographers we are constantly being pushed to outrageously alter a photograph. But, semantics aside...
I'm sorry you feel that landscape photographers (or anyone else for that matter) haven't had an impact on land being preserved. In 1970 there were 247 million acres of protected land in North America, which has risen to 741 million acres today, which is about 15% of North America's land surface. When the current administration proposed drilling for oil in the ANWR, there was significant backlash. I would say I feel pretty good about how the majority of people in this country feel about their landscapes. Of course, we all know that it only takes a few to spoil it for many, so we definitely have more work to do.
But I don't want to take this too for off topic...
I've agonized over this one for awhile, so I decided to clarify my thoughts on it (to myself, anyway) by writing a commentary on it. In fact, I have two essays that are related to this issue on my website. So...if you're bored, check them out:
David Bliss >>>">>>I would like to see examples of publications using pictures that crossed the ethical line of which you speak. "
This thread has already exploded into 360 degrees of the usual hijacked discordant issues surrounding these manipulation subjects so haha I'm not going to get pulled into some useless series of examples and discussions while all the rest of the thread babbles on incoherantly. Besides I'm all packed up with gear at my front door to hit the road on another 5 days of backpacking so ain't gonna be around. But I will provide this short anecdote.
A decade ago when another photographer and I arrived in Moab, we went to the area's new visitor center in downtown. In a quest for some clues that would improve our search for good subjects, we looked at posters on the wall, opened many of the photography books, looked through all the post card racks. Really quick we were bent over laughing at this post card of glowing alpen glow on Delicate Arch. I wouldn't get near it much less touch it for fear of radiation poisoning.
Took us a few minutes to blow our noses and wipe the tears out of our eyes. ...David
Ok, me again. This time I'm drinking beer. In my opinion Art is about truth, the struggle to express the truth. Who's truth? The artist's. Now before you start typing all that crap about how a photograph doesn't or can't represent the truth . . . I agree . . . especially if you don't try.
Let's say this isn't Nature Photography we are talking about here, let's, just for a moment pretend it's . . . I don't know . . . the photography of young people . . . children photography.net. Ok, here's my point, the Art of that type of photography is expressed in what makes a child unique, again, in my opinion. So, images that show the innocence of youth, the independence of spirit that young people have . . . the struggle of life's lessons the . . . the attempt to demonstrate those characteristics of what makes up the real life of a young person, in our world, that truth . . that's Art.
At it's worse, nature photography that is so overdone with manipulation etc. is akin to representing children as extras in a Little Miss Sunshine contest. Dressing the subject up so much that it distorts all reality. Basing the evaluation of beauty on , I don't know, somebody's scale of what's pretty, not what is meaningful.
OK, blast away again . . . Tim
Posted by Richard Wong on July 18, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Discussion
38 repliesI have done ALOT of reading in this area, and of course opinions vary from "Anything altered in ANY way is not photography" to "A little touching up is OK" to "I'll do what ever the hell I want to my image, and it's still photography."
Many of these opinions spring from you, at this site, yet we all manage to coexist peacefully and helpfully.
I am becoming very adept with Photoshop, and most of my images are altered in the sense that I adjust sharpness, contrast, range of tone, saturation, and minor cloning. But then there are examples of Photo Art that I have drastically altered from the original, and the observer is acutely aware of the alteration.
Is this all just a series of gradients depending on no more than observer interpretation and arbitrary definition. Or is there a specific line that you consider when classifying photos and art??
Kent in SD
Everyone has different lines and some are very strange ones Brian. I've cropped an image outside the box only about 3 - 4 times in 35 years. Have not cropped for, aww heck, years M8t. So thats my line and yet, I get comments about cropping all the time
Strange the way we see and think sometimes. All the best Brian and as always, only in my opinion.
Danny.
So, in nature photography moving and rearranging of elements, to me, should be disclosed and hardly done at all. in commercial photography, weddings and advertising etc, anything goes.
hope I didn't offend.
Ed
If you're going for art, however, you need to decide for yourself. I've seen things posted in Photo Art that, to me, don't even come close to qualifying. But it's the artists decision, and concience, not mine.
I wonder... If Ansel were alive to post Moon Over Half Dome on NPN, would he post it as Photo Art?
A photograph IS not reality and it CANNOT be reality. It's a 2 dimentional representation of a 3 dimentional world. If you include time, it's a 3 dimentional representation of a 4 dimentional world, with time being even more distorted than the other two dimentions. No matter how you look at it, depth is not represented in a photograph. Moreover, light is not represented correctly either. Film doesn't see what the human eye sees, and I doubt that it will in our lifetime.
Bottom line is, no matter what the purpose, a photograph is a document. It's not a copy of reality. It's at most a rough faxsimile.
My opinion on this changes daily, but i have to throw in a couple comments, i just can't restrain myself!
First, i would slightly disagree with Curtis. A photo IS indeed a document, and as such, it is in fact documentary. I would argue that it is as much a "copy" of reality as our eye's vision, perhaps more so in some respects! It's light captured on film or sensor, most definitely seeing what is out there. What our eye sees may be different, but that doesn't take away from what the camera is doing.
Now, when you get to our involvement with the captured image, i've come to the conclusion that it's not worthy of snobbery or heated debate (as others above have mentioned), however
I do feel disclosure is important. If it's art, fine, label it as art. But, the last thing i want to see is a bunch of outrageously altered images that are supposedly "exactly as the photographer saw it". There is certainly pressure for people to do this, both for monetary and egoistic gain. All this does is create a false depiction of reality. I don't want to save the wilderness that exists 'in my minds eye'--i want to save the one that EXISTS!
Agreed!
Curtis, your two arguments are a variation of ones I've heard and argued against many years. As if what Ansel did in B&W in his limited technical days bears on the greatly expanded scope of what photographic art has become including our much more technically advanced processes available for reasonable fidelity in todays work. And your other justification to throw the baby out with the bath water because it isn't perfect enough is simply overstated. ...David
Danny.
hmm... ya got me on this one David. I don't understand your analogy here.
My point about Ansel was rather poorly stated I think. Ansel used technology that didn't exist in the infancy of photography. we use technology that didn't exist when Ansel was working his B/W imagery. Every time there is a technological leap, this particular debate rages on, and eventually the technology is accepted, and we wait for the next big advance to come along so we can once again cry foul.
When processing was all done in the wet darkroom, it was possible then to "clone" things in and out of the photograph. It took a lot more time, effort and skill, but it was just as possible. But now that virtually every photographer can do it with limited skill and effort, suddenly it's a bad thing and every photograph is called into question.
Personally, I feel the need to disclose major cloning and color manipulation. What do I mean by "major"? Well, that's my own line I've drawn in my own mind, and when I'm processing, I know when I've stepped over it. I have a clear conscience regarding the integrity of my photography. What more can we ask of the photographer?
The way I deal with this whole controversy is to take each image and decide if I like what I see. If I like it, I like it. I don't much care whether it's heavily manipulated, and if it is, and the manipulation is not disclosed, that's not my problem. If the photographer has a clear conscience about it, who am I to judge? Why is that any different than a painter who can clone objects in and out at his pleasure and nobody gives a whoot. That said, by nature I don't generally like the way heavily manipulated or over processed images look, but I'm sure I've seen some that I like and didn't know they were so.
If someone has the skill to clone the log out of Punchbowl Falls and make it look real, I call that guy a highly skilled artist, rather than a dishonest photographer.
Because, it does matter how the painting/photo is used ! The fact is, that photos have completely replaced "art" for "documentary" purposes! Where do you see most landscape photos? (aside from the web) You see them in books, magazines, calendars post-cards etc. Most of the time, these venues imply that the photo you are looking at is in fact a close (if not exact) depiction of reality. How would you feel if you bought a book about a certain national park, filled with stunning photos, then spent all your money to go to the park, only to discover the photos were all tremendously 'altered', and in fact the park looks like your local landfill? Photos don't exist in a vacuum, and they are more often used to sell things than they are used to hang as art in someone's living room. That's why you do
have a right to judge someone elses integrity or lack thereof.
I don’t want to get involved in the “is it right” discussion. That has been and will be discussed ad nauseam.
Stan, you have made some very strong statements, and I think it would be helpful if they included examples. Understand, this is not a personal attack on you or your views. I am simply looking for the examples of the situations you present.
You stated that “There is certainly pressure for people to do this [outrageously alter a photograph that is supposedly "exactly as the photographer saw it"], both for monetary and egoistic gain.” I have never been pressured to “outrageously alter” a photograph, let alone then be pressured to claim it was exactly as I saw it. Have you had publications pressure you in this way? Has anyone told you they would pay you for one of your images if it has been outrageously altered?
I have been told a particular photograph was not good enough, be it the light was not right, or the framing was off, or the subject was poor. I have also been given advice on how I could improve the photo, but in the end it falls back to not having it correct to begin with.
You also asked “How would you feel if you bought a book about a certain national park, filled with stunning photos, then spent all your money to go to the park, only to discover the photos were all tremendously 'altered', and in fact the park looks like your local landfill?” Again, I am hoping you can give me examples of this happening. Which books have you purchased (or have seen) that give a tremendously altered view of an area, which creates a false portrayal? I have seen photos that were specific to a certain time, or a certain light, or under specific rare conditions, that will probably not be seen by the majority of the visitors. Does this mean the images are not truthful?
There is a small SWA in which I shoot, and it has power lines across a number of views. I spend a great deal of time framing pictures to exclude these power lines. Does this mean I am being dishonest, since anyone visiting the area will very clearly see power lines? Don’t we, as photographers, do our best to capture the most beautiful, powerful, stunning photos? If I am shooting an area that has had a lot of human activity, I make great efforts to exclude this, like trash or cars, etc… I can shoot pictures of geysers in Yellowstone that will not include the boardwalks/trails, other visitors, or trash cans, even though these can be prominent features.
Again, I am not attacking your position, but rather hoping that you can give real world examples of your above statements.
I believe his statement was hypothetical though over-emphatically extreme, not to reflect on actual examples or current situations but rather the potentials of how far levels of manipulation for end processes traditionally held to be ones of more fidelity by the public might reach in the near future. In any case there have always been a few who do such manipulations being freely creative ever since graphic arts pros that do all manner of advertizing art in the early 90s discovered the power there. Of course most of those label their creations as digital art. But given the current explosion of use by the masses any semblance of an ethical or artistic line is by now hopelessly blurred.
For the most part on the positive, the graphic content of images in magazines, landscape fine art, and nature prints have remained rather accurate despite any mechanisms inhibiting such beyond personal attitudes. However ever since Velvia came out two decades ago color saturation has generally been jacked up and color hues manipulated for "creative vision" and best aesthetic. And since digital cameras came on the scene this last decade and the masses discovered the powers of tools like Photoshop that has become an avalanche. One need look no further than the lowly post card art racks in most of our national outdoor playground convenience stores to see how comically bizarre some of that has reached. ...David
Using photographic mediums, I would say that art is defined by a process of "creating", as distinct from "recording". I do consider ALL my photographs as art, regardless of whether they only took slight sharpening or 20 layers of adjustment after the initial exposure.
I think I know better than the camera what I want to produce, and I have no problem enforcing my will on my own art, rather than letting the camera make creative decisions for me.
Guy
To answer Brian's original question, I would like it if I never have to draw any lines. I don't see a purpose for them in my photography.
D. Senesac responded for me quite eloquently, (thanks David S, wish i had said that
and i can only say he is right on target with what i am saying. Note that i used the word "tremendously" in my last post while you referred to "outrageously". There is a big difference: tremendous refers to amount, not the inherent ethics. In my first post, i used "outrageously" as an example of what "I don't want to see" (not what i do see).
I will only add that i most definitely see photography as "art"--that's why i like it! I am only saying that we as photographers need to be aware of how our work is seen by others. I believe we can't crawl up in a defensive 'artistic ball' and say "i don't care about lines, art is about crossing them!" The bottom line is that any (non-artist, for this example) one out there who looks at a painting knows that the painting is the artists impression of the scene.
This is not true of a photograph. Despite the public awarence of photo-manipulation, there is still generally an underlying implication that a photo is a direct representation of a scene--that it portrays "reality". Don't believe me? Then look at virtually every top landscape/nature photographer out there and read their websites and disclaimers about how they make "minimal alterations" and how they constantly seek to portray a scene "as closely as possible" to how they originally viewed it. I obviously wont name names, but id be pretty surprised if you hadn't seen these paraphrased statements before!
So, like it ot not, photos document. They most certainly can still be "artistic" but the art comes from the vision of the photographer, not the software manipulation. (and i am not referring to digital art--i have two distinct portfolios, photos, and digital art--i see them as different) In response to your specific example: i applaud your attempt to avoid the powerlines, and if i go to the same location and same vantage point, i wont see them! If you instead shot the scene with the powerlines, then cloned them all out, i might find that a bit dishonest (maybe not outrageously so!) if you didn't disclose what you did.
Thanks for your comments-S
I think that, quite often, a lot of what gets portrayed as "Artistic Expression" via digital manipulation is really a cover up of shortcomings as a craftsman ( person).
I find it rather ironic that people , the same people that manipulate their images quite a bit, often complain when people compliment them on their Photoshop abilities.
Maybe I'm a little sensitive but I feel many people seem to think that a " documentary" type of image is less a work of Art than, I don't know , a heavily manipulated type of image. I get the feeling that many people think it takes less skill, even. I would argue the opposite.
I understand and even appreciate the expressionist type of image,. at least I think I do. It's more about what you feel than what you simply see. However , to be honest, I feel so many there is a point where the image is so much more about the photographer than what is being photographed that it becomes . . . I don't know, too self centered for me. It's like havng a conversation with someone, and no matter what the topic, it's all about them.
OK, fire away!
But I do agree with you, it does matter how it's used.
I have no problem telling you or anyone one else that part of the reason I employ digital post-processing is to make up for my shortcomings as a camera operator (actually, I am quite terrible when it comes to using a camera). Now given that this is out in the open, will your opinion of my work change? I'd like to know.
I don't think documentary work is any less artistic. Although I don't do much of it, I enjoy it all the same and appreciate the effort and skill of the photographers/artists that excell in this space. However, I am disappointed that whenever someone mentions any sort of expressive work that tends to go beyond documentary, he/she is categorized as being unethical (unless there is an explicit statement alongside their photo that it is not depicting reality).
So why the heck would we change it. I have no interest in not changing anything to a large degree with nature shots, for me anyway. If they are posted in a gallery here or any other forum, they go in the artie galleries. If they go into the other galleries, they are hardy touched at all, not even cropped and are out of the box, within reason.
Anyway, to compliment the, eh, eh PS skills is a real compliment IMO.
Danny.
That’s my point here. These discussions [on “manipulation”] are always filled with extreme statements and worst case scenarios, while in actuality, this is rarely ever seen.
You yourself wrote: “…given the current explosion of use by the masses any semblance of an ethical or artistic line is by now hopelessly blurred.” This is a powerful statement, and one that should be backed up by some real world examples. Let’s not point out the weekend warrior who has purchased his/her first digital camera, and has discovered that, while they are not a very good photographer, PS can make the picture look better [in their opinion] with some creative blurring and color tweaking. I would like to see examples of publications using pictures that crossed the ethical line of which you speak.
Funny that you mention postcards. In my personal experience, while the postcards are much better photographs than before, I haven’t seen many that have been “comically bizarre” unless they were meant to be so. In fact, the one I remember the most is from my childhood (long before PS), which depicted a giant Jack-A-Lope looming over a Wyoming landscape.
“For the most part on the positive, the graphic content of images in magazines, landscape fine art, and nature prints have remained rather accurate despite any mechanisms inhibiting such beyond personal attitudes.” This, despite the fact that PS has been on the market for 18 years. When is this horrible crossing of fact and fantasy to come? Could it be that, while people (consumers) want stunningly beautiful and original photography, they do not want to be deceived, and the sellers of this work (magazines, fine art…) know this? The public is not as naive as many think. I would say that the public is willing, even prefers, to see photographs without power lines, trash, and other “human” elements that might actually be there, but would be quick to spot obvious trickery, such as a huge mountain peak behind the Manhattan skyline.
People understand that photography is about capturing a particular moment in time, not every moment in time. They understand that they will not see a stunning sunrise at noon, or a pristine snow field in summer. Landscape photography is still popular because people want to see these wonderful scenes, but, for the most part, are not willing to make the treks to see them in person. But they still want perfection.
The purists basically believe that an image is perfect and needs no alteration as it appears when it comes from the camera.
And those on the other side of this (admittedly ill-defined and arbitrary) fence seem to think that an image deserves alteration in order to appear as they understand it.
This is all well and good, but can every image be composed in camera so as to appear as you see it in your mind's eye? Does every image have to appear perfect in our viewfinders in order to be considered a photograph? Or art?
Isn't it a bit presumptious and egotistical to propose that an image can have no errors when the photons hit the film?
On the other hand, their are many instances when photography is documentary, but the image it documents is art in and of itself. Any photo can be seen in this way, but most of these photos manage to convey an object, scene, animal, etc. in a way that allows the viewer to see it differently.
Isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that these images can be digitally "improved?"
I don't really know. You guys haven't done much to help. No offense.
Merriam-Webster defines art (as we are speaking of it) as:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."
The long and short of it, per the dictionary, is that it is all art. I don't believe this either.
Maybe a better question is this: When is a photograph NOT art??
No. Mind’s eye or physical eye. Film and sensors do not have the exposure latitude to capture every scene the way our eyes see. This is simply the way it is. The key to your question is “every.” Can some? Absolutely. I absolutely have slides that were shot without filters, that look (as close as can be) exactly as I saw it.
You are questioning whether document photography should be touched up. Let’s look at photographs used for a bird book. Yes, those photographs are documents, not necessarily designed to be art. But, the purpose of a bird book is for identifying birds. What if the bird that was photographed didn’t have a highly predominant banding, but most others of the same species do. Would it be wrong to touch up that area of the bird, to make it more pronounced? Which is the more “accurate” rendition. I personally like my bird books to show the most common plumage, with the identifying features highlighted. A dull picture of a dull bird would make identification difficult or impossible.
Let’s look at art on the other hand. I want to use Mt St Helens here. When I was a kid, I had a poster of the eruption of St Helens. This would make it art, correct, since it was being displayed as a “fine art print.” Now, would it be right to add more ash billowing out of the crater? Would it be right to add more lightning, or any other element that wasn’t there? There will probably be differing opinions, but I think this shows an area where art mirrors documentation.
If you are looking for a black and white answer, I don’t think you will find one.
(BTW, you can't have it both ways--can't complain about hyperbole when you talk about mountains behind Manhattan)
I'm sorry you feel that landscape photographers (or anyone else for that matter) haven't had an impact on land being preserved. In 1970 there were 247 million acres of protected land in North America, which has risen to 741 million acres today, which is about 15% of North America's land surface. When the current administration proposed drilling for oil in the ANWR, there was significant backlash. I would say I feel pretty good about how the majority of people in this country feel about their landscapes. Of course, we all know that it only takes a few to spoil it for many, so we definitely have more work to do.
But I don't want to take this too for off topic...
I've agonized over this one for awhile, so I decided to clarify my thoughts on it (to myself, anyway) by writing a commentary on it. In fact, I have two essays that are related to this issue on my website. So...if you're bored, check them out:
¥ Reality in the Age of Digital Photography
and...
¥ Digital Manipulation vs. Digital Correction - Towards a Standard?
This thread has already exploded into 360 degrees of the usual hijacked discordant issues surrounding these manipulation subjects so haha I'm not going to get pulled into some useless series of examples and discussions while all the rest of the thread babbles on incoherantly. Besides I'm all packed up with gear at my front door to hit the road on another 5 days of backpacking so ain't gonna be around. But I will provide this short anecdote.
A decade ago when another photographer and I arrived in Moab, we went to the area's new visitor center in downtown. In a quest for some clues that would improve our search for good subjects, we looked at posters on the wall, opened many of the photography books, looked through all the post card racks. Really quick we were bent over laughing at this post card of glowing alpen glow on Delicate Arch. I wouldn't get near it much less touch it for fear of radiation poisoning.
Took us a few minutes to blow our noses and wipe the tears out of our eyes. ...David
Let's say this isn't Nature Photography we are talking about here, let's, just for a moment pretend it's . . . I don't know . . . the photography of young people . . . children photography.net. Ok, here's my point, the Art of that type of photography is expressed in what makes a child unique, again, in my opinion. So, images that show the innocence of youth, the independence of spirit that young people have . . . the struggle of life's lessons the . . . the attempt to demonstrate those characteristics of what makes up the real life of a young person, in our world, that truth . . that's Art.
At it's worse, nature photography that is so overdone with manipulation etc. is akin to representing children as extras in a Little Miss Sunshine contest. Dressing the subject up so much that it distorts all reality. Basing the evaluation of beauty on , I don't know, somebody's scale of what's pretty, not what is meaningful.
OK, blast away again . . .