Image

With the rise of the digital era, it has become easier than ever to remove unwanted elements from an image. I have never done more than make basic adjustments (color balance, levels, curves, etc.) to any of my photos, but by reading the photo gallery forums I know a lot of people don't give a second thought to making minor (or major) adjustments to an image to improve the composition.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue, and would be interested to hear the thoughts of others. I know I disagree with adding elements to a photo - such as additional animals - to give a totally false impression of what was viewed. I think photography is meant to depict the world as it exists. I'm not really comfortable with removing background elements to make the image cleaner, either. At what point is the photo no longer a truly accurate depiction of what you saw? How often are people not up front about the manipulation of an image?

Again, I'm not at all trying to pass judgment on those who use such common techniques. I'm just a young photographer trying to figure out where my ethics stand on such issues, and would love to hear your thoughts.

I know there's a similar post below about adjusting lighting on photos, and the comments there are very interesting. I guess I'm interested specifically in adding/removing content from an image, and how common of a practice this really is. I decided to ask this now after looking at the Fauna gallery, and reading several suggestions for doing things like cropping a bird out of an image.

Monika Wieland
http://orcawatcher.blogspot.com

Well, I guess this is an individual opinion sort of thing so here's mine. I personally have never published a photo that has had anything done to it other than basic mods to light, contrast, saturation, and sharpening. Actually I did do a sky replacement once but that was just a tutorial to show how to do it. There are so many new things that you can do now using PhotoShop and other software but it still comes down to whether you are capturing an image with the camera or creating one with the computer. When it comes to making the creative decision I draw the line based on what I used to do using the settings on my camera, selecting the film type and speed, using various filters, then a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom. So I'm not spending my time learning how to cut things out and put things into photographs. However there are a few neat things like blending 2 shots to increase dynamic range and various digital filters that I now am experimenting with as a way to lighten the weight of my camera bag--Larry

These replies in a recent thread may interest you.

I agree with Larry. I never do more than a little contrast,saturation, and lighting adjustment. But I tend to be a bit of a realist in many ways. I have no issue with people who do more but I that it should be stated as such so a buyer knows what he/she is getting.

Basically, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or does....the only thing that matters is what you feel comfortable with.

I also agree with Larry. To me a painting can be whatever you want, but a photo is when you record something as it is - if you change it in any way I feel it should be noted on the photo information when you share or post a photo. I have only used a few things like saturation, contrast or gamma correction - and a few other elements that enhance what is already there, but I really don't like changing what I actually saw - changing colors or "fixing" a bad background. I guess I just want to keep the things in my photos as I saw them, not in some fantasized image that isn't true to life.

Having said that, I have seen some wonderful photos that others have taken and manipulated to get them the way they like, and if that is how they make them wonderful, well, that's their choice - I guess what I am saying is, if I can TELL it's a fabrication, I don't like it as much as if something natural, no matter how wonderful it may be. Just my two cents! (SMILE)

This issue gets raised quite often. In fact, I just raised it myself in a comment on an ESS post, from the perspective of "why not alter it?". I was much more of a "purist" when it comes to this issue a couple years ago, but ive grown beyond that. When i hear statements like "not true to life" or "fabricated" or "depict the world as it is" it really doesn't gel with me anymore. Everything about a photo is "fabricated", and it doesn't depict the world "as it exists", it depicts the world the way the camera saw it, as interpreted by the photographer. Even the act of composing a shot is not necessarily a "documentary" action, it involves input from the photographer to present a certain view.
I will definitely say that disclosure is important, but there are degrees of manipulation and no real black and white line. Removing a couple obtrusive distant fence posts or birds doesn't really materially alter a shot, IMO, so i don't have a problem with that. Taking out or adding significant elements is another story, but you are the only one who can determine when it becomes significant or material! Personally, I have an easy out because i spend an equal amount of time on my "Photo Art" as i do with my "regular" photos. When a shot crosses my subjective line into the land of dreams and fantasy, it get's pushed over the Art portfolio

Depends on your needs. It does matter to some degree professionally whether or not you manipulate your images beyond contrast and saturation. Some magazines, most newspapers and science textbooks for example don't allow for anything beyond that.

I think that it all is how you view your photography. Do you view is as a form of journalism, or as a form of art. The amount of manipulation that is done in a photograph will depend on what my intent is. A work of fiction should be noted as such, but even in journalism minor details not important to the story are often eliminated. Just MHO.

My thinking is it's my photo and I'll do what I want. If I want a photo of a pink penguin fighting over a salmon with a bald eagle, that's what I'll make. I'm not playing by 19th century rules any more. I routinely remove distracting bits from my images as needed.


Kent in SD

I liked Kent's simple explanation to this and pretty much agree. The only thing I wold add is that adding or taking away major elements or other significant alterations should be duly noted to the viewer when the photo is presented.

I don't think journalism and "art" are mutually exclusive. The only difference is the philosophy in which the photographer gets there.

Stan, I enjoyed reading your thought on this issue. I guess what you said is how I feel about it - once you turn it into Photo Art it is a totally different thing. And I do like photo art! I just feel it has a different place in the photography world. (SMILE)

Richard, thanks for the link to "Field Report Photographers" - I guess that's what I "think" I am - I like to document what's there, be it extra twigs or branches or other animals and plants and all....(SMILE)

Hope no one took my comments as personal attacks! I have YET to see any photos here that I don't like! (SMILE)

Back in the olden days of the chemical darkroom, the practice you're asking about was known as retouching and it was widely practiced. An example to a famous retouched photograph is in the Library of Congress - Migrant Mother by Dorothea Lang. This photo was retouched to remove the woman's thumb on the tent pole. Both the retouched version and unretouched version can be seen at this link: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/fsaall:@filreq(@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b29516))+@field(COLLID+fsa)):displayType=1:m856sd=fsa:m856sf

In a couple of famous cases recently, photojournalists lost their jobs because they altered photos. I agree that photojournalists should be held to the highest standard, but art... that's a different animal. I have an watercolorists friend who says, "Art is whatever you can get away with."

Retouching a photo, to me is not in the same category as, say, doping in the Tour de France. I tend to agree with my friend regarding art, but I would rather get my photos right in camera rather than in post-processing. I would probably delete rather than show a photo of a bird with a branch in front of it, unless it were otherwise spectacular. For me (not a photojournalist) retouching is undesirable, but not unethical.

Thanks Barbara, i don't think your words would be interpreted as personal attacks. Photography is about capturing a moment in time, so there's nothing wrong w/ your view. I'm kind of from the same train of thought.