Hello All
The image comparison I’ve posted illustrates how we now seem to accept manipulation of images (beyond the basics) as part and parcel of the digital process. The images above are from the same shot but the viewer is asked to believe two very different things. The magazine image is supposed to convey a summer scene, with the dragonfly silhouetted against a bright yellow July sun. In reality, the ‘sun’ is actually provided by man-made factory lights! When I asked the editor about the idea behind presenting the image in this way, he replied “It was done to make the magazine jump off the shelf”. Fair point? I got paid, should I care?
Are we facing a credibility crisis as photographers because of digital imaging? Do we care? While we can’t stop technological progress, do we have a duty to promote integrity by being honest about our images? I ask for obvious reasons, but also because of the advent of HD video now being incorporated into DSLR’s; soon (once video resolution is high enough) we won’t need to wait for the ‘decisive moment’ before we trip the shutter. Instead, we’ll just select the best frame from minutes of footage shot at ?30, ?40, ?50 frames per second. What if such an image wins a major ‘photography’ competition? Does it matter?
These points are discussed in a podcast available from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year website. It makes for interesting listening:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/competition/podcast.jsp
Cheers,
Chris
Canon 1Ds2
500 mm + 25 mm e.t.
1.6 Sec @ f/5.6
Mirror lock up & cable release
Tripod
Full-frame
C&C welcomed
Posted by John Robinson on October 29, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Frightening to say the least, but we have all seen it coming. I was searching some old black and white images of mine done 50 years ago the other night. They are nothing compared to todays images but they were "as it was " and mean far more to me for that very fact.
You are right - the future no doubt is in freeze framed video. No doubt aboout that.
JohnR
Posted by eric weight on October 30, 2008 at 2:03 AM
In my opinion all these liberties will (already have?) become the accepted norm because they always do. Human beings would rather live in a fantasy world than the real one and as such the cash spending majority aren't interested in the rights and wrongs. I don't like it much, but I still work my images to make them pop and dull bgs to make them less intrusive which I guess many would say is the thin end of the wedge or even halfway up it. I edited a small angling magazine for a couple of years and despite the membership telling me that they didn't care whether the pics were in B&W or colour, as soon as I took over and produced it all in colour ,take up soared as did the amount of positive feedback. The point that I am making is that appearance is everything and that people say one thing and do another. We are stuck with it I'm afraid. Did you send the money back? The market rules and that is all there is to it and your images will be compared with them whether you or I like it or not. In a few years time we will be posting video stills if that is the way the market goes and the gear is good enough. I don't like it much either, but future generations won't give a monkey's.
Interesting post BTW
Just my opinion. Eric
Posted by David Sewell on October 30, 2008 at 6:19 AM
The thing I find interesting about this is that it has been going on since photography was first invented, and yet people treat it as a new phenomenon.
There is a famous picture of the Kearton brothers taken about 90 years ago showing these pioneers of bird photography photographing a bird nest about 10-11 feet up a tree. The camera is mounted on a wooden tripod and the brother taking the picture is doing so standing on the shoulders of the brother below.
Apart from being a remarkable act of balancing, there are a few little anomolies in the picture. Why does the weight of the brother on top not make the slightest indent on the jacket of the brother standing below him? Why, on one version of the picture, does the brother on top appear to be floating above the brother below? The answer is, of course, simple - the photographers of those days "cheated" in exactly the same way we do today. It simply took a little longer to do so and to get the image "right". If you read their biographies, many of them regarded such manipulation as a part of the photographer's art.
There is nothing new in the world!
David
Posted by Tim Gregory on October 30, 2008 at 6:50 AM
I don't think its really all doom and gloom.. The guy selling the magazine has malnipulated the image, as he obviously thinks it'll sell better. I'd bet my left arm that the editor is far more interested in magazine sales, than he is the accurate portrail of nature/wildlife photography, which has probably been the case in most other similar magazines, for many years.. I avoid buying any of them because they're all the same.
To be honest I don't think anything new is going on - it happens in all walks of life under many guises.
I do find it annoying that an image of one thing, is being passed off as something else. However I've learnt to ignore it and just get on with my own game.
I got annoyed with Birdfair a few months ago, where the "art tent" contained probably the biggest collection of photographs of the same captive Barn Owls and Peregrines i've ever seen, all being presented as wild. Whilst the same old argument always crops up:
"well if its art it doesn't matter whether its captive or wild"
My argument is that the image is a lie because in most cases it conveys a scene which simply isn't happening, and therefore its neither a wildlife or nature image, because those 2 elements are manmade.
As for credibility crisis, I think the moment Photoshop was invented we've all had to face it.
With the advent of DLSRs becoming video cameras, and the obvious merging of the 2 different devices. I imagine there will become a time when we just record and pick a still frame. But again - this has been happening for years, the only difference is that average joe will be able to afford the kit.
And many people already do a similar thing when using a 10FPS 1D MkIII or a Nikon D3. When the Tiger starts doing the YMCA we hit the motordrive and look what we got afterwards... Its not such a far cry of things to come, we're all pushing it along by purchasing such kit.
The bottom line is that whatever the technology available some people will be pioneers and use it to push forward imaging boundaries showing aspects of the world as we've never seen them before, and do it with integrity. Others may do it with less integrity, and some with none at all. And the vast majority of the rest of us will try to emulate this work, with some content to photograph 'an owl on a stick' and call it fine art (or 'fart' if you prefer). The pioneers all know that nature can show us more wonderful sights than any fevered imagination and a copy of Photoshop can ever produce. New technology = new opportunities.
yes i definitely can agree that a fast motorwind is not that far from video anyway, and what about lighting? there's no flash that will keep up with constant exposure, and you still have to light the scene somehow.
as for imaging, there is a growing school that sees photography only as part of the imaging process, and that the end 'composite' is all what it's about.
anyway, pretty soon we all will have to compliment the photos we sell with a video clip of the same content. some already are.
I see nothing wrong with the original image posted here, it is taken for a specific purpose and it does the job very well. Manipulation of images has been going on since the dawn of photography. I think the main thing that has changed is that the means to do so are now widely accessible and pretty easy. Doing it well is another matter altogether.
In the past images were routinely manipulated in the darkroom. Few had any idea of the processes involved. Take an ansel adams photo for example - there is a huge amount of skill gone into the printing as well as the actual taking of the photo. A few years ago I had a go at unsharp masking an image in the traditional darkroom. I gave up in the end as it was so difficult.
I often think of the taking of a photo as an analogy of writing a piece of music. The print is the performance and open to interpretation.
Manipulating the image is in the end down to what you want to acomplish. Personally I'd class a lot typical very strong HDR images as more illustration than photography because they are often pushed too far into the unbelievable. The easier it becomes to manipulate images the easier it is to do it badly by people who do not have the vision nor skills. Done well and few would ever know anything had been changed.
In the end it is the composition and light of the original scene that ultimately makes a photo. No amount of automation can (predictably) place the camera in the right place at the right time - video or still.
Discussion
7 repliesThe image comparison I’ve posted illustrates how we now seem to accept manipulation of images (beyond the basics) as part and parcel of the digital process. The images above are from the same shot but the viewer is asked to believe two very different things. The magazine image is supposed to convey a summer scene, with the dragonfly silhouetted against a bright yellow July sun. In reality, the ‘sun’ is actually provided by man-made factory lights! When I asked the editor about the idea behind presenting the image in this way, he replied “It was done to make the magazine jump off the shelf”. Fair point? I got paid, should I care?
Are we facing a credibility crisis as photographers because of digital imaging? Do we care? While we can’t stop technological progress, do we have a duty to promote integrity by being honest about our images? I ask for obvious reasons, but also because of the advent of HD video now being incorporated into DSLR’s; soon (once video resolution is high enough) we won’t need to wait for the ‘decisive moment’ before we trip the shutter. Instead, we’ll just select the best frame from minutes of footage shot at ?30, ?40, ?50 frames per second. What if such an image wins a major ‘photography’ competition? Does it matter?
These points are discussed in a podcast available from the Wildlife Photographer of the Year website. It makes for interesting listening:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/competition/podcast.jsp
Cheers,
Chris
Canon 1Ds2
500 mm + 25 mm e.t.
1.6 Sec @ f/5.6
Mirror lock up & cable release
Tripod
Full-frame
C&C welcomed
You are right - the future no doubt is in freeze framed video. No doubt aboout that.
JohnR
Interesting post BTW
Just my opinion.
There is a famous picture of the Kearton brothers taken about 90 years ago showing these pioneers of bird photography photographing a bird nest about 10-11 feet up a tree. The camera is mounted on a wooden tripod and the brother taking the picture is doing so standing on the shoulders of the brother below.
Apart from being a remarkable act of balancing, there are a few little anomolies in the picture. Why does the weight of the brother on top not make the slightest indent on the jacket of the brother standing below him? Why, on one version of the picture, does the brother on top appear to be floating above the brother below? The answer is, of course, simple - the photographers of those days "cheated" in exactly the same way we do today. It simply took a little longer to do so and to get the image "right". If you read their biographies, many of them regarded such manipulation as a part of the photographer's art.
There is nothing new in the world!
David
To be honest I don't think anything new is going on - it happens in all walks of life under many guises.
I do find it annoying that an image of one thing, is being passed off as something else. However I've learnt to ignore it and just get on with my own game.
I got annoyed with Birdfair a few months ago, where the "art tent" contained probably the biggest collection of photographs of the same captive Barn Owls and Peregrines i've ever seen, all being presented as wild. Whilst the same old argument always crops up:
"well if its art it doesn't matter whether its captive or wild"
My argument is that the image is a lie because in most cases it conveys a scene which simply isn't happening, and therefore its neither a wildlife or nature image, because those 2 elements are manmade.
As for credibility crisis, I think the moment Photoshop was invented we've all had to face it.
With the advent of DLSRs becoming video cameras, and the obvious merging of the 2 different devices. I imagine there will become a time when we just record and pick a still frame. But again - this has been happening for years, the only difference is that average joe will be able to afford the kit.
And many people already do a similar thing when using a 10FPS 1D MkIII or a Nikon D3. When the Tiger starts doing the YMCA we hit the motordrive and look what we got afterwards... Its not such a far cry of things to come, we're all pushing it along by purchasing such kit.
yes i definitely can agree that a fast motorwind is not that far from video anyway, and what about lighting? there's no flash that will keep up with constant exposure, and you still have to light the scene somehow.
as for imaging, there is a growing school that sees photography only as part of the imaging process, and that the end 'composite' is all what it's about.
anyway, pretty soon we all will have to compliment the photos we sell with a video clip of the same content. some already are.
regards,
mark.
In the past images were routinely manipulated in the darkroom. Few had any idea of the processes involved. Take an ansel adams photo for example - there is a huge amount of skill gone into the printing as well as the actual taking of the photo. A few years ago I had a go at unsharp masking an image in the traditional darkroom. I gave up in the end as it was so difficult.
I often think of the taking of a photo as an analogy of writing a piece of music. The print is the performance and open to interpretation.
Manipulating the image is in the end down to what you want to acomplish. Personally I'd class a lot typical very strong HDR images as more illustration than photography because they are often pushed too far into the unbelievable. The easier it becomes to manipulate images the easier it is to do it badly by people who do not have the vision nor skills. Done well and few would ever know anything had been changed.
In the end it is the composition and light of the original scene that ultimately makes a photo. No amount of automation can (predictably) place the camera in the right place at the right time - video or still.
Just some rambling thoughts,
Tristan