Benjamin Glatt and I began a discussion in this thread that we both agreed would be better continued in a forum than a gallery. Feel free to join in as desired.
The conversation thus far:
Benjamin:
…On a side note, do you think using Marc's "glow" technique has increased your artistic ability, or stifled it?
John:
If you define art as the "expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" it has increased it. It is another tool in the chest, and I believe the more tools we have to create art the better.
Artistically, I view all photographic tools like Marc's technique equally. I realize others have a strongly different view, but I don't really care if the tool is attached to my camera or not. I don't value the computer program in my Nikon over Photoshop, a layer mask over a grad filter, a wide-angle lens over stitching, or Marc's blowing on the lens condensation technique over his Photoshop glow technique. In fact, I find these separations to be somewhat arbitrary. (For example, using a computer program to artificially increase saturation is fine as long as the computer is in your camera and not on your desktop?) For me, they are all tools I happily use. Documentation on the other hand, is a different story, but I'm not trying to create documentation.
Benjamin:
It is convenient to rely on a dictionary's definition of 'art'. But honestly, it seems like everyone is trying to be like Marc, when in the end, they are sacrificing their own artistic integrity. As landscape photographers I think we should be comfortable with the limits of our camera and the few layer adjustments in photoshop that it takes to fine tune them.
John
I'm more than happy to allow you your choice of comfort, but when it comes to the “me” part of "we" I have to ask myself why? The limitation to a few layers is too arbitrary for my taste; I fail to see the logic. For my art, I'm as comfortable with six layers in Photoshop as I am with two. If you're mileage varies, that's totally cool…
Posted by Matt Anderson on April 8, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Depends on what you subscribe to ...
If your photographic school of thought is that of a purist ...
Do you follow an Artisan's approach of Fine Art ...
Documentary or Creative Vision ...
Are you trying to sell, please, impress the masses, document, illustrate ...
IMHO our photographic style, vision, conception, implementation, and presentation is what makes us Artisans ...
I also believe we have an obligation to keep the quality on a high level as a fine artist, accountability for our dialouge-honest and justified for fairness and integrity, and a indebtedness to share our ideas and intellect with others ...
Posted by Dan Baumbach on April 8, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Many of Marc's photographs have that glow to them. That is part of Marc's style and his photos are very beautiful. If everyone started producing photographs with a similar glow, I think it would start getting pretty tiring and viewers would long for something different.
Rather asking if your photos should glow or not, make photos that are true to your vision and if they glow, great. If they don't great.
I am always happy to learn new tools and new possibilities. They can serve as a launching pad for new approaches and continued creativity. As has already been said, we each need to develop our own style that reflects how we see the world, but we have a lot to learn from each other too.
Posted by John Williams on April 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM
After thinking about this a bit more, I have a few more thoughts I'd like feedback on.
If I try to limit my artistry to my camera and a few Photoshop layers, am I not guilty of sacrificing my artistic integrity by trying to be like others who do the same? This almost becomes a circular argument when I play it out in my head.
Will a technique such as glow be okay to use once we can apply it as an in-camera setting instead of as an additional Photoshop layer? If so, why? If not, how do we determine which in-camera settings are okay to use and which aren’t?
The main reason I was willing to move and continue this “immovable object meets an irresistible force” discussion, is that I think we need to be careful to not set up a Catch-22 situation in landscape photography. It would seem to me that those who would benefit the most from photographers disclosing how much Photoshop was used are those who appreciate a more traditional approach, yet it may be that using this information to criticize inhibits this very disclosure. Does criticizing Photoshop techniques lead to less Photoshop, or just less disclosure of Photoshop?
(Benjamin, I apologize if my posting a dictionary definition of art seemed trite. I only meant to make sure we were on the same page and weren’t arguing semantics.)
Posted by Dan Baumbach on April 8, 2009 at 12:14 PM
John,
Marc has used his glow technique as part of a distinctive style. However "Fog" filters have been around Hollywood since the 1920s or earlier. You can see many old movies where the highlights pop as a result of a fog filter. Before that, photographers put vaseline on their lenses. Obviously PS gives one a lot more control than a set of fog filters, but any technique is just part of a skill set that one can use to produce meaningful images. They're not an end in themselves.
I think there's a lot more to photography then whether or not you employ some method of processing. Your vision is what matters, and if the technique fits into your vision, then by all means use it. If you don't know what your vision (ie. style) is, then by all means try it, as well as everything else you can think of, until you start to get an idea for what your style might be.
I personally don't think my technique similar to Marc's glow has stifled or increased my artistic ability, it simply has helped me achieve results that I like more. For me, the creative part is all in the previsualization and composition, the processing is just a necessary part of the work to allow others to see that vision.
If we're talking about stifling artistic ability, I think the pervading theme of colorful sunsets with blah compositions, or over photographed icons, is more dangerous than anything else. There's a lot more out there than a colorful sunset!
Posted by Tom Nevesely on April 8, 2009 at 2:37 PM
With all of this talk lately about glow, I decided to try the various techniques on some of my images to see what all the fuss was about. In the end though, I still liked my original non-glow images best. The glow just isn't for me, if other people like it, all the power to them. How boring would our world be if all of our images were the same?
Pictorialism died in around 1920 or so when the masters discovered straight photography. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and others decided to stop overtly mimicking painters and use their lenses to record what they saw in a straight forward manner.
Now we have digital technology wth digital darkrooms in camera plus lots of computer power on our desks and laps. There seems to be two primary approaches -- use the computer power to recreate what was seen, and use the same power to create our own version of what was seen.
Marc seems to have moved from the first approach toward the second. Both approaches have merit. As others have written it depends on your vision.
In this month's Pop Photography Andreas Feininger is quoted
"For me photography is a mirror of life, and every photo that is even worth looking at must be a reflection of life -- of reality, nature, man and his activity, from art to war."
I agree. However our technology sometimes takes over. One fall I took a shot early in the morning in fog. There was a pond and fog covered the brilliant fall colors. When I processed the image it looked very gray with little bits of color after I first brought it up. Then I did something and the fog disappeared and the colors came through much more strongly than they looked to the eye at the scene itself. The photo looks like a rice mosaic of color, like the pattern in an oriental rug.
All I had done was set the gray point in levels.
So -- should I have left it gray and foggy? I couldn't resist the colors. They were there but hidden to the eye until Photoshop blew the fog away.
I like straight photography, only thing is I don't know if it is possible to achieve.
Posted by Chris Hodney on April 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I'm glad you started this discussion John, especially some of the other off-topics that have been floating around recently concerning PS work and the qualifications of 'good photography'.
Being a hobby photographer, but a professional designer, educated in art, theory, and composition in a different venue, my opinion somewhat straddles others I've heard around. I believe in the artist's creative vision, and I believe in purity as well. What I don't believe is that all photographs should swing to one way or the other. I think it's image-specific....and up to the artist ultimately.
From there, making an image to capture and share the grandeur, solitude...whatever emotion you experience is up to the photographer/artist to use the tools they're comfortable with and have at hand to the best of their abillity. Marc's 'Glow' technique, etc. is just one tool as John and others have mentioned, and with RAW imaging, really what is the difference theoretically of doing it in-camera and with filters, or just saving the time in the field to focus on light and composition.. I would certainly not discredit Marc as far as thinking we all could just use his Photoshop techniques, buy a 1ds III, and make images like that. His compositional and exposure tendencies alone set him apart, as they do for us all in our own ways. Knowing your subject and your tools still only take you so far.
That being said, I do from time to time find an image from Marc, Michael Andersen, the list goes on.....people whose work blows me away....but occasionally I find 'overworked'. But it really is image-specific and just a matter of personal opinion. The fact is that those images really were great out of camera due to composition, and handling of exposure, but they are enhanced as a work of art. The threshold of acceptability is up to the viewer.
It is funny that this comes up so much in Nature Photography. Architectural Photographers edit their photographs to a level that is almost sickening. But that's what their market demands (mostly the architects don't always like the way their buildings photograph).
I don't want to insult any photographers out there, but that is my view of photography .....very similar to Architecture in my opinion. Both take a skillful, meticulous ability to weave creative thought and ability with technical savvy. The process can be just as creative as the outcome.
Ok, a little more. If you want to be a purist, then fine. Use a film camera because EVERY digital camera has built in software to adjust aspects of the image...using default settings does not get around this. Digital uses the "purist" vision of the programmer of the digital software in the camera. RAW has the same limitation, so don't even try to go there. It may have less modifications, but it is not "pure" either. And you are going to HAVE to modify a RAW image. So, use a film camera if you want to be a purist. Hmmm. That brings up which film to use. Uh-oh. Purist problem here, too. This film is very contrasty, this film is not. This film is highly saturated and this film is not. This film does better on greens and this film does not. What's a purist to do? OMG, now what paper will a purist use? Each paper is known for the DIFFERENT qualities it will apply to the viewed image. Does a purist use only glossy or only matte? And that does not distinguish between digital or film. And then what size paper? An image may be cropped differently depending on the paper size. So two different papers sizes may give two different images - where's the purity in that? And then, what happened when the image was taken? A certain lens was used. Some lenses give super soft results and some give super sharp. Some lenses have characteristic deviations - nothing pure there. And then an f-stop was selected and a shutter speed selected. Minute changes in the exposure will give minute changes in the results. Which is the pure one? Ok, let's not forget to mention that different printers use different inks that give minute changes to the colors used. The same image printed on two different printers will have subtle differences. Let's not even get into wet developing times and chemicals which may be fresh or may be almost used up.
I guess I get a little bonkers when a photographer claims to be a purist. There is no such thing. If that is insulting to someone, its a tough world and I do not apologize.
Photography is an art as plain and simple as a painter (or as complex I should say). What we do with our images from viewpoint, camera selection, lens selection, output selection, filters used on camera, f-stop/shutter speed, download to computer or film to developing, any computer manipulation of the image or wet chemical processing for prints, monitor calibration for colors seen, paper selected is a part of the artistry of a photographer. Any one claiming to be a purist is a purist of someone else's programming, film chemistry, chip programming, printer programming routines, paper chemistry etc.. EVERYTHING in photography is up to decisions by the image maker right up to the point of clicking the shutter button. From there on out, the image is affected by all those things mentioned above. I personally like to see what the "artist" does AFTER the shutter is clicked. Sometimes the image is highly manipulated (both film and digital). If the results look crappy, then its a bad image - pure and simple. If it looks great, then power to the insight and ability of the manipulator. And many images look fine "right out of the camera". BUT don't be fooled into thinking you are a purist when you do that. I've already explained in detail above why there really is no "purity" in photography. If you disagree, then please read the above again!
And here is where the disagreement begins. Floris, you overlook what I consider an important point about landscape photography. I think we owe a duty of care and vigilance to ensure that our images are representing nature in an honest and faithful manner. Any image that goes beyond a reasonable sense of reality, in my opinion, should be placed in the photo art forum. Grads, contrast, sat adjustments, these are all accepted practices that allow the photographer to minimize the discrepancy between the image and the actual scene. Photography is an art, and within landscape photography I think there are two categories: one of photo art, and one of pure nature. I do not believe that just because we are "artists" that we should be allowed to post images that aren't faithful to the scene that we saw--unless, of course you post the image in the photo art forum.
I am afraid that most people subscribing to this forum believe that the more comments an image receives, the more successful or popular an image is. Marc always garners lots of comments, and his processing techniques are always questioned, and people are constantly trying to figure out how he gets such amazing colors and luminosity. Now that part of his editing process has been revealed, I have seen numerous images posted in the ESS gallery with this "glow" technique. I would hope that people are not trying to duplicate Marc's style in hopes of garnering more comments or appealing to the folks that browse this site.
Michael C.:
I agree with you, people can do whatever they want to their images to arrive at their "final print". But, with that said, people should not be given this creative license under the guise of nature photography and promote that it is reality, or that minimal photoshop was used. Do what you want with your images, but disclose your techniques and/or advertise it as something other than this "pure nature" category.
Troup, by focusing on the extreme semantics of constructing an image you are overlooking the deeper problem that we are discussing. It is obvious that no one can be a complete purist. But wouldn't you agree that there is a spectrum? A scale that measures the manipulation of an image...on one end you have a manipulated photo that looks nothing like the actual scene, and on the other side you have an image with very little editing. No one here is advocating for your definition of a purist. I am simply saying that a photo promoted as a "nature photo" should stay within a certain gamut within this spectrum. Creating an image through photoshop manipulation that brings it beyond a "reasonable form of reality" is fine, so long as it is advertised as such.
I mean no disrespect to Marc. I like what he does and I think its cool that he has shared some of his techniques with the public, but I don't want my images to look like his. I want my images to look like they are my own. At the same time, its absurd to think that we won't be influenced by other artists. Abstract expressionists and cubists were influenced by Cezanne, who was influenced by the Impressionists who were influenced by the dutch masters, on and on... The history of art builds on itself. At the same time, schools or groups sometimes emerge with a simultaneous style. For that matter, some artists train a school of apprentices to create work in their style to extend their commercial reach (eg Chihuly as a current example, but there are many examples of this in the past). I don't see Marc's imagery as unique without precedent or peer. I can easily see influences from the Hudson School, pictorialism and straight photographers and maybe a little Bob Ross in his style and I don't think that is accidental. But I also see that what he is doing is influencing the photos that others are taking, and I'm sure that he is influenced by contemporary photographers and styles that we see in the imagery that surrounds us each day.
The glow technique that he shared here is simply a technique or a tool. He uses it as part of his own signature style, just as Tony Kyuper is known for his use of luminosity masks and other tools. Throughout other venues of photography where photoshop plays a role, there are many techniques (skin smoothing, blue channel driven contrast in B&W, desat, X-process, etc...). Alot of them aren't used by nature photographers, but some of them find their way into our toolkits. I've found Tony's masking methods to be very useful at times, but I don't think that makes my photos look like his. I haven't tried Marc's technique, but I'm sure there will be some times when I find it very useful. Photoshop goes that way. There are so many styles and methods and techniques to apply to images. But content, vision, style, design, composition can take one tool and create very different results with different messages.
The camera is the least important part of photography, it is only a tool. Half the human brain is dedicated to image processing and to my mind, one of the things many people with cameras don't appreciate is getting the camera to take what you see and not what the camera sees.
With digital, a lot of the post processing techniques which were out of the price range for many photographers, such as colour separation, are available to a great number of people in various software programs.
Digital has brought a lot of change to photography in that it allows a lot more latitude in post processing and begs the question what is photography? Photography has always evolved and is doing so currently at one of its most rapid rates in history.
Style is a very personal thing and it takes some time to acquire one's 'own style.' That being said there are many people who think the technology will do the work for them. Some here may recall how, when graphic design software first came out, employers threw a copy of Coreldraw on the computer of a secretary or communications officer and got publications that resembled ransom notes.
While it is my belief the definition of photography is going to broaden in the next few years, the practitioners who will have the greatest success will reflect that of earlier photographers who put vision ahead of the technology of the day.
Haha, since I'm betting my shot is one of the one's where the "glow" is copying Marc, I guess I will jump in. Marc is very creative, in all aspects, in field and on through to his final vision. (Maybe that comment will add my name to a thugs list) But at the same time, it wasn't the hardest thing to figure out. I used TK's luminosity masks to blur from. Once I figured that out,I tried it on a bunch of different images. It didn't really enhance them. But out in the field, looking through the backlit scene in a humid environment, you see that glow. So the glow is more accurate to the scene then about everything else I did to it. (bw conversion, contrasts, dodge/burn!) And now it is not anything like the scene, but it is what I saw.
I'm through with purists and people coming up to my shows and asking if its real. I tell them it is what I saw.
I'm appreciative of anyone (Marc, Tony Kuyper, Matt Anderson) that shares a tool/technique for enhancing our vision. Just like anything new, I'm sure this glow will pop up more for a time, but people will realize it has a place.
I don't know how to do the fancy quote lines so forgive my makeshift dashes. Also, I mean no disrespect to anyone, and am purely interested in discussing this, as I think it's worthwhile, and interesting... I hope that's the tone that comes across!
Ben:
---------------------
Floris:
----------------------
Your vision is what matters
----------------------
And here is where the disagreement begins. Floris, you overlook what I consider an important point about landscape photography. I think we owe a duty of care and vigilance to ensure that our images are representing nature in an honest and faithful manner. Any image that goes beyond a reasonable sense of reality, in my opinion, should be placed in the photo art forum. Grads, contrast, sat adjustments, these are all accepted practices that allow the photographer to minimize the discrepancy between the image and the actual scene. Photography is an art, and within landscape photography I think there are two categories: one of photo art, and one of pure nature. I do not believe that just because we are "artists" that we should be allowed to post images that aren't faithful to the scene that we saw--unless, of course you post the image in the photo art forum.
----------------------
First: I should disclose my opinion of nature photography. It is an art form that is grounded in reality, the goal of which is to create an image that elicits a visually, intellectually, or emotionally stimulating experience of the natural world.
As stated earlier, there is no 'pure' photography. What if I were to say that using a slight application of glow made the scene look more like how it did when I experienced it? We use grad filters, contrast, etc. for the same reasons.. so I actually see little to no difference, as long as the application is done sparingly and conscientiously.
A photograph is, by it's very nature of production, grounded in reality. No matter what you do in photoshop, that will never be lost. But I agree with you (and this is of course personal preference), that I prefer images that faithfully represent nature the way I *experience* it. That right there is the key point that should be discussed: accurate representation of nature, vs. experience. Since we can only experience nature through our body and all it's limitations, I argue that photography should represent nature as we experience it, not necessarily as it is. After all, the point of a good image (IMO), be it photography or a painting, is to invoke some sort of response (generally emotional), otherwise why would anyone care? To elicit a response, the image has to connect with our experiences.
Now, how does that relate?
Modern optics are much, much better than our eyes. Think about the stars, they have a distinct diffraction star pattern emanating from them (at least, with my eyes they do), which is a result of the limitations of our eyes. But when you look at a photo of them, they become perfect little circles with sharp edges.... is that faithful to our experience? I would argue no. How does that relate to glow? It's the same thing: diffraction. A modern camera and glass can simply see the details more clearly than the human eye, so it's up to us to do something to that detail to make it more like the human experience. That something, for me, is the 'glow' effect. I developed my approach independently of knowing Marc's PS approach, and based the method on the effect he achieved with his condensation technique, which enhances diffraction. The effect is to allow the highlights to bleed... which, in my experience, is what happens with my eyes in many cases. I assume that Marc developed his approach for the same reasons... and coincidentally we ended up with nearly identical effects. As any technique, it can be abused, and I've probably used it in places where it's not truly appropriate, but the fact remains, in many cases, it actually IMO makes the image look more like the experience. It certainly enhances the emotional impact.
I'm probably upgrading my status from mega-thug or whatever to superman thug by saying all this I certainly derive a lot of my inspiration from Marc's work, but by no means do I want to copy his style. I have my own style, sometimes it overlaps with his, or others', but in no way do I see that using this technique is copying him, and I certainly don't do it to get more comments on NPN. Heck, I was using this before the approach was posted on NPN, and in most cases no one even mentioned anything about glow, they just liked the results.
I gotta say I find it amusing that while you seem to against the application of 'glow' here due to it's 'over manipulation' you did ask me for the recipe
------ edit ------
Paul said exactly what I said, in less words.. so just read his post if you like
Posted by David Bostedo on April 8, 2009 at 10:14 PM
This is an on-going debate with regard to "truth" in nature photography, and there have been several good discussions on The Online Photographer. This is what I wrote there :
In reference to a photo that some may have termed "photo art" :
Much of the recent discussion on here about the nature of photography and its reality has been very interesting and informative. I feel like most people (not just photographers/artists) would agree that photos certainly can be a good representation of reality. The piece here, however, I think really illustrates the difference for me between an art photograph and a documentary photograph. (Note that as defined here, these aren't exclusive terms, and one photo can be both.)
As an example of what I mean, say as a nature photographer, I take a picture of mountains, meadows, a sunset, etc. I hope that someone feels the power, or pleasure, or quietness of being there. I think of it as art. It contributes something to your thoughts or feelings, and doesn't just document.
At the same time, I show this picture to friends/family/the public, who are amazed that such a place exists, and like looking at it and dreaming of being there. Then they find out that the mountains are actually 1000 miles from the meadow, and the sky is from another continent. To them it's art, but they feel it needs to be more documentary than it may be to the photographer. So now it's a forgery, or it's fake, and they couldn't care less about it.
Now take the same photo, and hang it in a gallery, among obvious digital creations, paintings, sculptures, etc. The average person (perhaps the same one looking at photos at a fair, or a friend or relative) viewing this may ask if it's real or not; But upon knowing either way, they may judge it on it's own merits, as either a fabrication, or a camera's representation of reality (documentary). They know that it's supposed to be art. They judge it based on that only, and not necessarily whether or not it's documentary.
Based on my (albeit limited) experience with people's reactions, I think their expectations play a large part in their perceptions. Photos certainly can be a rendition of reality - as most people understand them to be straight out of a camera or on standard film. They aren't reality, but they are close in most people's minds. So anything done to them moves it more toward the "art" distinction and away from the "documentary" distinction. And a lot of people seem to like/want beautiful and amazing documentary photos.
Saying that all photos are a lie and can't be "real" is a cop out, and a semantic argument against a generally held idea. When people justify Photoshop by saying something like "a photo is 2-D and reality is 3-D, so all photos are fake", I think they are totally missing the point. It's still, in most people's minds, a close approximation of reality. Cloning mountains out and adding clouds isn't a close approximation.
I think that most people are much more comfortable with photos that are obviously documentary, or obviously not documentary, whether they are "art" or not. The in-between if where people feel lied to, or cheated.
And regarding a reference to combining exposures :
It wasn't (for instance) a sky from one location with foreground from another. I read it as the technique whereby you overcome the cameras limitations by making multiple exposures of the exact same scene, then combine them to better show what was actually there.
So in this case, you have the reverse of most of this controversy - you're using digital manipulation/processing to make a more realistic scene (meaning closer to what your eye is capable of seeing). Kind of turns things on their heads, doesn't it?
The other problem with images like this being excluded (from what I've seen), is that typically the same people have no problem with GND filters on the camera, but do have a problem with someone doing the same thing in Photoshop.
I think the problem is sort of a trust issue - if X wasn't done in camera, then how do I know ANY of it was done in camera; What else might have changed?
Some would answer, "who cares?" But I agree that in many cases, not knowing that the scene as presented really exists, lessens the impact of the photo.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on April 8, 2009 at 10:40 PM
I gather the real issue is one of 'accurately ' representing reality in landscapes, but what is 'reality' in this respect. I have experienced the fascinating result of having two photographers work the same scene and arrive at two wildly different results without any post-processing worthy of mention. Which is the 'real' scene? Which is more accurate or representative of 'reality'. Both photographers had depictions of the scene that were readily recognizeable by viewers as to the location, both depictions were considered accurate representations by the viewers. How can this be?
Because we all see differently. There is no truly objective photograph any more than there can be an 'objective' painting. Light changes, compositions vary, equipment choices effect results as does the aim of the artist. Ansel Adams and Micheal Kenna both made the case that the real work was done in the processing/printing done from the negative. Did anyone ever criticize Mr. Adams work for being 'unreal'? Mr. Kenna falls into a different category, as his techniques clearly do not represent what anyone woud consider reality in the strict sense, yet he never uses Photoshop, being a strictly film photographer as was Adams. These two represent what might be considered the extreme opposite ends of 'traditional' b+w film photography and each is considered a master, and for good reason.
Mr. Glatt brings a traditional concern to the table, but it is one that doesn't stand under examination - provided no overt physical changes are made to what is portrayed as a 'true' representation of a particular location - say adding a dramatic tree, rock or mountain into a scene to make it more interesting to give extreme and obvious examples.
I thank Marc for publishing one of his 'secrets' for our use. Naturally, given a new technique we are going to want to play with it and I would be surprised if it didn't start showing up in the forums. I've used the Orton technique for some time myself, but found Marc's approach a wonderfully simple and adjustable variation. I went through my portfolio and tried the variation on quite a few images and learned some new things, which is always fun and exciting. But most were dumped after playing and learning. I saved a couple of new results that I found intriguing and these are now part of my portfolio.
I tend to use minimal processing as I consider the real skill to be able to get as close as possible to the desired effect with just the camera, but some photoshop work is unavoidable and equivalent to minor darkroom work - the latter which most seem to find acceptable for some reason. Photoshop simply makes the basics more controllable and repeatable as well as offering an impressive array of other options - which most do not use.
Lastly, the word 'reasonable' gives me a case of the chills. Maybe I've spent too much time around lawyers, but no word gives me a bigger case of the willies! Who defines what is 'reasonable' and what isn't? Do we start listing our processing steps and degrees thereof - and at some arbitrarily selected point get relegated to the art forum? That may come across as a bit snarky - unintended - but that is where you would be heading. There is just no way to make that work without engendering confusion and, ultimately, resentment.
Floris:
In my earlier statement I presented a spectrum concept--where at one end lies extreme manipulation and on the other end lies no manipulation. Never did I say that Marc's technique should not be used. If you use it sparingly, I think it (along with minor grad/filter work, and other minor ps work) has a place within the "acceptable" region of this spectrum (John's image is a fine example). And this "acceptable region" would be the region that I consider can faithfully represent nature. Anything beyond this region, is photo art. Some of Marc's images, I believe, lie outside this region and should be placed in the photo art forum. So just because I asked about your "secret recipe" doesn't mean that I could not have used it myself. So long as it's application keeps the image within this respectable range.
Oh, and Jim, I am pre-law at the University of California, so I understand the power of the word 'reasonable'!
I would jump in here, but my ps skills are so crude, and limited, that it really doesn't apply to my images that much. In addition, everyone here seems smarter, and more articulate then I (No joke intended. I am always impressed with the dialogue that takes place on the discussion forums here.) But I will say, I totally agree with what Dan said, and what Ben said, and what Troup said. And Floris, Jim, Paul, Chris, and just about everyone else here. Sorry if I left anyone out. I think as artists, it's up to us to decide how far we are willing to go to recreate our "vision". I also think we have a responsibility to stay true to nature, regardless of how we, as individuals saw it. One person might visually process reds as more intense than another. One might not be able to see red? Marc mentioned that highlites kind of glow to his eye. It's all about how we as individuals see, and respond to what we are seeing. I don't necessarily want to copy Marc's techniques, or his signature look. But I would love to know that I had the skills and ability to do so if I wanted to.( Referring to post processing, not in camera capture). Also, I don't think that any members here on NPN really cross the line of what is reality, and what is artistic vision. IMO, most images here look quite natural. There are some other forums around, that if you look, the images are rediculously over processed. I still think these images look good, just not natural.
Chris
Posted by Richard Wong on April 9, 2009 at 1:25 AM
I'm a bit confused as to what the purpose of this thread is but lets be honest here. We all look at each others work and probably see things we would and wouldn't do. If I see a photo that I like that Gary Crabbe happened to make, Marc Adamus or whoever then I wouldn't have any shame in trying to get something like that if the opportunity is there. I would put those situations into the experiment category. We should always be experimenting. (Chemicals at your own discretion).
Does any one look at Ansel Adams "Winter Sunrise Sierra Nevada" and say that looks "darkroomed"? Clearly though it was manipulated in many ways (read his "Examples" for a discussion of this image". Film can be manipulated by exposure, choice of developer, enlarger light source, paper grade, saturation and contrast, burning and dodging etc. Even where you set the camera up and choice of format are manipulations. These are conscious decisions. All of this, if successfully integrated into the final image is the result of experience, craft, artistic vision and personal style. If you think the result is beautiful great. If others also think so, that is frosting on the cake! This is a great topic and we are the musicians playing the score with our various opinions and thoughts. So is a photograph. We each may interpret a scene differently and that is why we keep our cameras clicking away. We learn from each other but rarely can we exactly duplicate someone else’s interpretation of the "music" and most would not want to as Mel said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply posted by Benjamin Glatt on 04/08/09 at 7:18 pm EST
Troup, by focusing on the extreme semantics of constructing an image you are overlooking the deeper problem that we are discussing. It is obvious that no one can be a complete purist. But wouldn't you agree that there is a spectrum? A scale that measures the manipulation of an image...on one end you have a manipulated photo that looks nothing like the actual scene, and on the other side you have an image with very little editing. No one here is advocating for your definition of a purist. I am simply saying that a photo promoted as a "nature photo" should stay within a certain gamut within this spectrum. Creating an image through photoshop manipulation that brings it beyond a "reasonable form of reality" is fine, so long as it is advertised as such.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Benjamin and others,
Ok, I see your points, I think. If the deal is concentrated about what should be in a gallery called "Nature Photography", then maybe there should be some more guidelines. I think I explained that I like ALL images (Marc's' included) if they have been well done regardless as to how much pre (filters, lights, etc.) and post (photoshop, paper choice, ink choice, wet lab, etc.) processing has occurred. If the discussion is some "nature" images belong in "Nature with minimal processing" and some belong in "Nature with lots more processing" then where is the line drawn? Do graduated filters, flash used for highlights or to brighten foreground constitute more or less processing? And just because the same effect was accomplished after the fact with PS does that make it "more processing"? These are hard questions to answer by anyone depending on the resultant image. Again, if it is done well and it looks "real" (to whom?), then which gallery does it belong. If the image has been blown out of a sense of reality, then, I can agree that it belongs in a "Nature Artsy or More Processing" gallery.
My rant was aimed at those who claim to be purist and claim to "represent" the world better than the rest of us who use PS. There are a ton of them out there. You can find them on many of the photography forums. Interestingly, the worst cases of them are not on OUR forums, thank goodness!
If one wants to create something, he needs tools to do that. That “justifies” and confirms the use of all tools (Camera, Film, Filters, Processing (PS or darkroom) ) to every exent.
If one wants to control the final creation and the final response of the viewer, he would never let a machine do that creation for him. The creator is in the “drivers-seat” from start to finish.
Showing a picture of a scene that obviously is considered to be "available" in the "real" world (like a lake, mountain etc), implies the scene displayed "is" real. Applying to much of processing *can* be *perceived* as faking, manipulation or enhancement beyond what an eye-witness would have seen. (This is a statement. I give no value to that)
BUT
Writing a song and recording it, performed with a real instrument is not the same as assembling (composing) the same song with sound-samples already recorded by someone else – (adding color and effects, not present in the real scene). The creation (composition) is the same. But in the first example it is "real" the instrument (color) was "there" (physically). In the latter example the final product or creation is makes us of something that was not present physically...
Adding a glow-effect is adding a “physical” phenomenon that was not available in the original scene. It adds a distinct look and texture to the final photograph that differs from what a machine that only responds to physical phenomena would record.
Do I think this is “faking”? No!
Do I think one must disclose this processing? No!
Do I think one is a ”purist” if he applies such “effects”? No he is not! (But that's my view)
Do I think it is pathetic and hypocritical to obscure conscious processing by
statements “As close as what I saw when I pressed the shutter” YES! Such statements
obscure the deliberate and conscious effort to alter the original recording. As simple as
that.
It is neither a good answer to a clients question: Is this real?
I am not at all saying doing the ps-thing to whatever extent to achieve whatever effect is a bad thing – see beginning of my post. But frankly, I am not sure if obscuring the processing (if asked) by statements that try to direct the viewer to the emotional reaction of the creator is a fair approach.
Dietrich
Posted by Jim Sabiston on April 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and Jim, I am pre-law at the University of California, so I understand the power of the word 'reasonable'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin,
Ah! Condolences on the 'pre-law' thing. Any hope of recovery?
Just kidding, of course, but then you should certainly understand the mess that can result from trying to apply 'reasonable' qualifiers in what is by nature an extremely subjective environment. It will likely not end well.
I do understand your point and concern, but I also do not think it is a valid one in this context. If one were providing documentary or news images, ie: 'pure' unmodified-in-any-form-information, your case takes on an entirely different and far more critical weight. But even here a good lawyer will understand the limits of an unaltered photograph or video of an event. Both tools can be used or misused to prove something entirely unrelated to the truth of a scene or event depending on what is seen or unseen in an image or video. I recall a news report where a video was shown that left no doubt that a police officer assaulted an unarmed man. Days later another image (or video) surfaced, taken from another angle, that clearly showed a gun in the so called victim's hand. Where would that officer be if all judgement were based on the original video? Photography can be used the same way, changing the effect or message of an image by the careful inclusion or exclusion of details. All this without getting anywhere near Photoshop and reflecting the reality from that particular position or angle. Every photograph taken with a modicum of thought or intention has gone through this conscious selection process.
Sometimes even the truth becomes a matter of perception. It is a complex issue with no simple or clear resolution.
"Ohh....ohhh. " (- raising hand) "My turn, my turn..."
Benjamin Glatt wrote (way back)
I think we owe a duty of care and vigilance to ensure that our images are representing nature in an honest and faithful manner. Any image that goes beyond a reasonable sense of reality, in my opinion, should be placed in the photo art forum.
I've been really enjoying the read over this, and much of the talk around personal style and vision harks back to the roots of what Galen Rowell used to discuss, and which formed the basis for how I was "brought-up" in photography.
However, as much as I really enjoy & respect Benjamin's ability to express his opinion so well, (read: no flippin' surprise he's in pre-law), I have to disagree with this statement.
We're photographers first. We don't owe anyone a duty for anything. We all make our own choices. I do agree with your assertion that there is a spectrum involved; and where you lie on that spectrum is defined by how you choose to present your personal vision and photographs.
If you choose to be an artist that does nature photography as art, then no, I don't think they would owe me any duty consideration to keep their work faithful to what mother nature presents. It should be up to me as the viewer though to determine what is faithful, and what is interpretation. Like porn, I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it. - and see it... - and see it, opps, nevermind that! :)
If someone asserts themselves as a "Nature Photographer" there is an artistic spectrum that can be interpreted as to what is faithful. Merely underexposing an image to darken a sky or increase perceived saturation can stretch the purist bounds of faithful - but again, it's the viewers choice to decide, not the photographers duty to remain at a fixed point on a perceived spectra.
From my point of view, if a Nature Photographer adds certain artistic elements, but the scene remains relatively "intact" by a natural standpoint, meaning nothing (element) has been added pr removed, then I can accept that as on the more natural end of the scale. Sure adding more and more techniques may move you further from the purist end of the spectrum, but like imposed morals, I don't want anyone telling me what I "owe" them or that I should be more towards one end of the spectra or not.
OTOH, if you're shooting for National Geographic, Discovery, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Magazine, etc., you want to make darn sure you don't push the envelope trying to deliver "pretty". You make sure you deliver "accurate".
If someone pursues their own personal vision by adding techniques to 'enhance' the look or feel of an image, that's totally fine by me. I'm certainly capable in my own mind to determine if it looks 'natural' or not. - That's where the fuzzy part comes in, and the "too good to be real" factors must be weighed. If you're shooting for yourself, as a photographer, like you, me, Marc, or anyone else here, do what you want. The only line that should get crossed is if you add something that wasn't there, then you're now on the photo-art side. Is a "glow" technique adding something that wasn't there? Yes, but not on an elemental level. Rather, I'd say it's on an interpretive level, the same as dodging or burning. Those acts alone doesn't automatically make it "Art" to the exclusion of being "natural".
Don't even get me started on the topic of copy-catting and personal visions. That'll take up a whole other thread.
We're photographers first. We don't owe anyone a duty for anything. We all make our own choices. I do agree with your assertion that there is a spectrum involved; and where you lie on that spectrum is defined by how you choose to present your personal vision and photographs.
And, along with that, I feel like everyone should be up front about what they've done to images if asked, and not feel the need to be defensive. The more honest everyone is the better. After all, viewers/buyers also have ideas about where in the spectrum they'd like what they buy/look at to be, and I don't see the harm in informing them.
Is a "glow" technique adding something that wasn't there? Yes, but not on an elemental level. Rather, I'd say it's on an interpretive level, the same as dodging or burning.
Well now you've probably gotten into another spectrum - the tools used to create the image spectrum, and which are appropriate. Some (not me) would even say that dodging and burning aren't appropriate. And some would say they are, but can be taken too far. (Hmm...I guess among the spectrum of images there's a spectrum of tools with a spectrum of usages - lots of spectrums to pick your place in...)
Is landscape/nature photography leaning more toward the art than documentary? I'm more concerned about honesty. I was at a Peter Lik gallery yesterday and love his pictures - but i would never buy one because the salespeople always say there is absolutely no post-production done whatsoever.
I think people often tend to convince themselves they are Photoshopping their image back to what "they remembered" i.e. a true reflection of what they saw. Often honesty starts with not deluding oneself. I really appreciate when people post a picture and say what they've done - whether it's applying a glow technique or enlarging a moon. I appreciate art and photography, but i can't appreciate dishonesty.
After reading this, I find the original complaintent's case to have several components which have morphed throughout the course of the discussion, when convenient. Let's recap the crux of his greviances
1) That post processing techniques such as the "glow" technique stifle artistic ability.
2) That people sacrifice their artistic integrity when emulating the style of another, in this case Marc Adamus. Nevermind emulation on some level, as others have pointed out, has been integral throughout the history of art.
But he then makes the bold (and I think indefensible) leap of prescribing a formula that everyone should follow, specifically that any use of PS should be confined to a set number of layers, and that we should be comfortable with the limits of the camera.
3) Later he states his protests are based upon an appeal to accurate representation and disclosure (note that John made a full disclosure of his technique before Benjamin initiated his complaint). People should only attempt to replicate the actual conditions in a documentary manner, otherwise it's not nature photography, but photo art, according to him. You might want to talk to every photographer who's ever used Velvia in that case, and let them know they were practicing photo art all along.
However, later he admits to asking for instruction on how to create the glow look himself!!
So what was your main issue, Benjamin? Were you really that deeply concerned about John cultivating a rich creative artistic process? Or were you mainly concerned about disclosure, something I think is not necessary but which John did explicitly? Or that he’s borrowed a technique from someone else, a technique you yourself expressed an interest in learning? I'm sure you would have never used the glow technique in your own photos, though, lest you stifle your artistic ability and be branded an imitator.
Wow folks! What a thread. I believe honesty is fine - up until a point. Do any of you go home to your wife/husband and tell wife/husband what an awesome babe/hunk you saw today and what you felt like doing with same? Probably not - duhhhhhh. Sometimes keeping your yap shut is a good thing! Who can say whether that was an honesty thing or just using some good sense.
I have some photos of an endangered sea turtle that had been hooked by another person while fishing. I was able to take some images as it was reeled in to the boat. The turtle was handled with care, hook removed, and turtle let go asap. That was the best we could do out of a poor situation (we were not trying to catch sea turtles). I PS'd the images and removed the hook, line, and sinker from the image. I have the images framed on my wall. Also, they are on my website. They look really nice. People comment on what great turtle shots I have. I thank them and they leave with happy turtle thoughts in their minds. Some one finally actually asked me how I was able to take such great images. I then explained to that person what I just explained here. She said "Oh Wow! I like seeing the turtle this way (without the hook, line and sinker)". So, am I a bad person for that? It is a nature shot. No, it is not accurate to reality. I don't see why if someone glances at these photos and are happy that I should stop and force tell them in detail how I made them. If they happen to ask, then yes, honesty is my policy. These images are good enough to sell. But I have not even tried because "I" know they are not reality. On the other hand, I have made images that would make many people feel bad for the turtle if seen in reality that now make people feel happy. Why NOT sell these without explanations? Some people LIKE sea turtles and like seeing images of them, especially in the wild (which this was - even though it was during a capture situation). Why should they ever have to know the stark truth if they do not feel the need to ask?
I also have images of a sea gull with hook line and sinker (not from my fishing btw) hanging from his beak. This image is different from the sea turtle. It invokes a sense of guilt between the association of man and bird. There is no reason to PS the hook, line, and sinker out - otherwise it is just a drab shot of yet another sea gull. It evokes other emotions in different people. This image should always be displayed as reality.
So, this must show that there are different reasons for the alterations people do. Some need no explanation because the blunt reality is right there. Some may need no further explanation because they are simple pretty images - regardless of how the reality was. And if someone really wants to know how an image was made, then one should always be honest - even if it is brutal.
So, there is a limit to "pure" honesty in some events. And I think that is not a bad thing. However, if I lied to those who ASKED how I made the images, then that crosses the line of honesty and would be very bad.
Ummmm....I think I am finished now
Troup
Posted by Phillip Noll on April 10, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I once photoshopped out some bird poop on the sandstone walls of Antelope Canyon! I feel so ashamed! I don't know what I was thinking! A moment of temporary insanity. How could I do such a thing? I'm racked with guilt and I hope you all can forgive me....
Seriously, unless you are strictly a documentary photographer, you have only ONE person to answer to as far as your photography is concerned. Be true to your self and your vision. Some people will like your work and others will not. If someone asks how you did it, tell them. If they are happy with that, great. If not, so what? Its not worth a second thought. They will move along to the next photographer down the line until they find one they're happy with.
My photography is my interpretation of the world. It is not meant to be an EXACT depiction of the scene (how boring!). And I'm not sure an exact depiction is even possible for the reasons described above. If you want "EXACT" then get off your butt and go experience it for yourself. My photography is my expression of not only what I saw, but (and probably more importantly) what I felt as I experienced the scene. Now, I don't add trees or mountains or fake light beams but I will remove distracting branches, litter, powerlines, a tourist (or 3), etc. In the end, the image I craft is still a valid and accurate representation of the scene and I still consider it Landscape photography. And I can sleep easy.
Posted by John Williams on April 10, 2009 at 2:28 PM
One final thought I have on the "art" or "documentation" ideas that we've been bouncing around is that we often confuse tradition with purism. For example I find it interesting that photographers who believe we should accurately represent nature don’t typically have a problem with black and white, even if the scene the photographer saw was in color. On the flip side of the coin I often see photographers criticize photographs that were achieved digitally just because it couldn’t be achieved in camera, even if it is a more accurate representation of the actual scene.
Posted by Jerry Greer on April 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
The camera is a point of reference, a bit like a compass though not nearly so predictable. It is the discipline and the opportunity of vision. In relation to the enclosure we call civilization, these pictures are not ornaments or relics, but windows and doors, enlargements of our living space, entrances into the mysterious world outside the walls, lessons in what to look for and how to see. They limit our comfort; they drain away the subtle corruption of being smug; they make us a little afraid, for they suggest always the presence of the unknown, what lies outside the picture and beyond eyesight; they suggest the possibility of the sudden access of delight, vision, beauty, joy that entice us to keep alive and reward us for living; they can serve as spiritual landmarks in the pilgrimage to the earth that each one of us must undertake alone.
Always in big woods when you leave familiar ground and step off alone into a new place there will be, along with the feeling of curiosity and excitement, a little nagging of dread. It is the ancient fear of the unknown, and it is your first bond with the wilderness you are going into. You are undertaking the first experience not of the place, but of yourself in that place. It is an experience of our essential loneliness, for nobody can discover the world for anyone else. It is only after we have discovered it for ourselves that it becomes a common ground and a common bond, and we cease to be alone.
And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles, no matter how long, but only by a spiritual journey, a journey of one inch, very arduous and humbling and joyful, by which we arrive at the ground at our feet, and learn to be at home. It is a journey we can make only by acceptance of mystery and of mystification — by yielding to the condition that what we have expected is not there.
Wendell Berry – “ The One Inch Journey” from The Unforeseen Wilderness
I think that the difference here is that some are smitten with the camera and it's tools. Others are with the wild places and use the camera to bring those places to the many that do not, or cannot get into the wild. Some use their photographs to help protect those very wild places. Yes, it can be all about the “Art” with no worries about misrepresenting those places. But I ask, why do we become nature photographers in the first place? Was it all about the “Art”or was it about using the camera and its tools to bring the viewer the true, believable, moment that we witnessed. Yes, I love those awesome PhotoShopped-up, beautifully lighted, landscapes but do they really do the wilderness any good without disclosing the real moment captured by the camera? They may get us kudos on forums or even a photo contest win. But without disclosure of the special techniques used to hype-up the image we are passing off a lie. It's just silly to hear those that state “ I'm recreating that moment in time that I remembered when I tripped the shutter”. Oh come on, if that be true, as to some of the images posted here on ESS, one would have to be dropping acid! Some of this stuff is borderline psychedelic!
I recommend that all read and reread the “One inch journey”. The most telling words for me are, “The camera is a point of reference, a bit like a compass though not nearly so predictable. It is the discipline and the opportunity of vision. In relation to the enclosure we call civilization, these pictures are not ornaments or relics, but windows and doors, enlargements of our living space, entrances into the mysterious world outside the walls, lessons in what to look for and how to see.”
As the complainant, I guess I should clarify my position.
Jay D:
Here is what I do not want to see:
A sacrifice of artistic integrity through the use of this "glow" effect in order to replicate or emulate the very unique style of Marc Adamus. Marc's images have a specific look, and I think it would be detrimental to try and process your images using his techniques in order to try and reach his level of internet acclaim (I say internet because I don't know how he is fairing outside the www). So if you are operating under the logic that "if I be more like Marc, I will be a more successful photographer", then I think you are definitely stifling you're own artistic ability. People should reexamine their own principles towards nature photography, and assess the ramifications of using techniques that stray from "pure nature". Severely processing nature images and advertising it as "this is what I saw" is disintegrating the very principle of nature photography in my opinion.
Furthermore, you unfairly assume that my request to review the "glow" effect somehow proves that I would want to use it in my work. You should not be astonished that I asked about it--I was simply curious! Honestly, I thought Floris' glow effect was some sort of saturation tool. Notice that I asked the question with regards to his wildflowers images--none of which were counter to a sense of reality.
Phillip:
You are misunderstanding the crux of this argument. Editing bird droppings out of an image does not alter the viewer's sense of reality. The sandstone still looks like sandstone, the dirt still looks like dirt, etc.. Now, had you doctored the photo to the point that the sandstone no longer looks like natural sandstone (umm..anyone seen Peter Lik's slot canyon work?), then I would have a problem.
Additionally, I would ask you to repeat your line: "you have only ONE person to answer to as far as your photography is concerned" to any nature photographer that operates his/her own gallery. You will undoubtedly hear a response that runs completely counter to your claim (Peter Lik is an anomaly). If you want to sell prints in a gallery, it is crucial that you maintain a level of honesty and respectable level of reality with regards to the scene you photographed. Mangelsen is a prime example--his unprecedented success is directly attributed to the fact that his images are so raw and pure looking. However, if you are content and happy with a population that disagrees with your editing practices, than you will surely not be a (monetarily) successful gallery photographer that advertises his work as "pure nature". There is a market for nature photography, and the market responds positively to those images that the public sees as being truthful and faithful representations of nature. If you want to sell images, the viewer must be able to relate to the scene.
In response to editing images to represent an exact depiction of what you saw, you say "how boring". I would wholeheartedly disagree. Nature is an incredibly beautiful subject without heavy manipulation, and successful photographers that have minimized their use of photoshop prove this. Recently I spoke with Jon Paul, a famous photographer based out of Tahoe, CA. He told me that he confines his digital darkroom work to a few levels and curves adjustments. That's it! And has his limited use of photoshop effected his success? Not a single bit. In fact, he prides himself on this fact.
As I stated earlier, I believe that there is a spectrum. A scale that measures the manipulation of an image...on one end you have a manipulated photo that looks nothing like the actual scene, and on the other side you have an image with very little editing. Let me emphasize that it is possible to use this "glow" effect while still keeping the image within a respectable region of this spectrum. Obviously though, this spectrum is inherently subjective. However, I think we are all capable of creating a boundary and confining digital darkroom techniques to ensure that an image is faithful and accurate to nature.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on April 11, 2009 at 4:03 AM
Phillip - OMG!!!! You ERASED the bird poo in Antelope Slot??? Geez, and to think, I was cloning in and adding copies of the bird poo to emphasize the natural pattern I 'envisioned'. That'll learn me.
Benjamin: I do respect the passion with which you write and express your ideas and opinions. However, a couple quick points if I may:
First, people have been playing copycat with landscape photography for years. It's been called trophy hunting. To some regard, it's not just the shot that people were copying, it was also the personal vision & style of the original photographer. In time, most develop their own personal vision and style.
In the last couple years, I've seen hordes of people shooting those in-your-face, low, wide-angle ocean wave shots at sunset with the sunstar behind rocks, clouds, or right on the horizon. Some copy it well, while others not so well. But nothing about this is new. I saw it 15 years ago with people racing around trying "get the shot that Galen got." I believe that when starting out in photography, most people don't have a real personal vision of their own, so they substitute a strong one that belongs to someone else. Then they use that like placing tracing paper over a magazine photo, and trying to recreate it as "their own". As they experience and develop more, each persons own style starts to emerge.
Second, to your quote, " If you want to sell prints in a gallery, it is crucial that you maintain a level of honesty and respectable level of reality with regards to the scene you photographed". I think I'd be free to do whatever I wanted in my gallery. To say something is crucial is to just define your opinion on a subject, and not the way something must be.
If I printed straight Raw files, there will always be people who will say, "It's fake. I'll bet it didn't look like that. That was done in Photoshop". To the contrary, I could have some wildly manipulated image, and someone will go, "Wow, that's amazing" and never question the post processing that went into the making of an image.
However, if I stick up a sign saying what has or hasn't been done to an image, I can at least say I wouldn't be misleading. It's no different than the captive wild animal 'disclosure' issue that's been raging for years and years and years.
Third, and speaking of photographers; first: Mangelson; have you seen his landscapes? I really like and respect his wildlife work, but his landscape work is (for me) completely uninspired, and if stuck in an anonymous gallery, likely would not sell well at all.
And Jon Paul... famous, um, I don't think so. How did you come to that? He's a really nice guy, hard working dad type. I was there when he first opened his gallery. I've had occasion to shoot with him one morning when we were at the same location. I saw his gallery again last year. He's done a great job with his gallery. His photography has improved nearly ten-fold with his more recent large format work and printing compared to years ago. But you would put him at the same level as a Muench, Clifton, Neill, Till, Hirshmann, Mangelson, Lanting, Nichols, Ketchum?? No offense, but that really had me raising a yellow flag. Don't get me wrong, I like Jon Paul, and some of his shots are nice, but our own Darwin Wiggett & Guy Tal are probably way more famous in the Nature & Landscape photographic communities.
Finally, I don't care what Jon Paul or anyone else says that did or didn't do in photoshop. Unless you're sitting there watching someone do the work, you just can't really tell what's been done to an image.
What you should do is set up a gallery of images that run the whole spectrum as you define it, make no statements about any post processing, and find out how people respond to the plain & boring, the nicely processed, the heavily processed, and the tweaked so badly it hurts the eyes processed. Now THAT would be interesting!! If you do try it, please let me know.
Cheers,
Posted by Jerry Greer on April 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM
John wrote “...I find it interesting that photographers who believe we should accurately represent nature don’t typically have a problem with black and white ...”
John, look at the reasoning for having any problem with B&W, it's right there in front of you, BLACK & WHITE! When you look at a B&W image anyone can understand that it IS NOT a true representation of a scene/landscape. As for heavily manipulated color images, some photographers are really good at it and are passing those images as true representations. It's that simple!
You also speak as if nature photography shot in a more documentary style is boring, I have to disagree. See, I feel that the whole cranked up, wild colorized, fairytale style of nature photography is somewhat boring because everyone is now doing it. Photographers are trying so hard to create that “perfect landscape image”, one without flaw. Every pebble in perfect harmony, no blade of grass out of place, the perfect wash of light over the scene, and for some completely changing a sky or major element to give it a more dramatic presence is not even questioned. Nature can be pretty perfect sometimes but not like some are portraying it as fact here on NPN and the web. Look at the images posted, almost EVERYONE is shooting (I should say processing) in the same style. Now that's boring.
Posted by John Williams on April 11, 2009 at 10:31 AM
When you look at a B&W image anyone can understand that it IS NOT a true representation of a scene/landscape.
Are you suggesting we need to more heavily manipulate color images?
You also speak as if nature photography shot in a more documentary style is boring...
Can you point me to where I spoke in that way? If I said that, I would like to add an edit to be better understood. If you inferred that, you inferred incorrectly. I don't have any problem at all with images that have seen little Photoshop; I've seen fantastic images that have never been digitized. I just don't have any problem with images that have seen a lot of Photoshop. To each his own is fine by me.
Posted by Phillip Noll on April 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Benjamin: Oh, I fully understand the crux of the argument. I just don't agree with you! I do photography for me--no one else. It is my way to express myself artistically. If others like my work--great! If not, move along folks...there's nothing to see here!
To say that I have to produce my photographs a certain way in order to be "successful" is just saying that my photographs have to meet your definition of nature photography in order to meet your definition of "successful". I am not you, and I don't have the same definition of "successful" as you do. That's like telling Georgia O'Keeffe "Sorry honey, but if you expect to sell paintings then you must use the same canvas, paints, and brushes as Monet and they must look just like Monet's." (OK, that's not quite the same--I admit. ) It boils down to "Documentary" photography vs. "Artistic" photography. I don't shoot photos for text books. I create photos as an artistic outlet. "Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art."---Ansel Adams
If an image I create generates an emotional response from me (or anyone else), I've been successful! If being out in the wilderness brings me joy (whether I capture a photo or not)--I've been successful. If I happen to sell a copy of that image, well, that's just icing on the cake. But I will NOT alter my vision just to make some cash (not yet anyway) Now if photography were my sole source of income then, yeah, I would study the markets keenly and deliver what sells. But that's not the case for me. (And note that "what sells" does not necessarily meet your definition of nature photography either. Thankfully, there is no accounting for taste! )
Regarding editing images. I wholeheartedly agree with you that "Nature is an incredibly beautiful subject". I would say the MOST beautiful subject on Earth! (Although Jessica Alba is a close second!) Which is why I photograph Nature in the first place (Jessica is never available and my wife might have a thing or two to say about it anyway! ). However, the camera is simply a box that captures light with no interpretation. To me, the scene and the light reflected off that scene are the raw materials (pun intended). The camera is a container for those raw materials. The computer is the canvas and the software the tools with which I recreate the scene as I remember seeing it and as I remember it made me feel. And BTW, emulating others and trying out new techniques opens doors to new possibilities. It hardly stifles artistic creativity--it expands it!
But back to the "purist" discussion.....
I could take the raw image (not a jpg mind you because the camera alters the image based on the "picture style" you selected) straight from the camera and print it, frame it, and hang it up in a Gallery (though I doubt any gallery would accept such images) and put a sign on it saying "This is pure "Nature Photography" because I have done no post-processing." First, the image would be dull and flat (in other words BORING) and second, it would hardly represent the actual scene at all. I could add a curves adjustment layer and the image may look a little better (and closer to the actual scene) but where does it end?
I would agree that there is a spectrum, as you say, between photography and photo art. How does one decide if they are at the "Photography" end or the "Photo Art" end or somewhere in the gray zone in between? In some cases its very clear (documentary), in others (art)---not so clear. From an artistic point of view, perhaps its not even for the photographer to decide? Perhaps we should concentrate on creating images that move us emotionally and let the viewer decide what to call it?
Gary: If you want, I'll make copies of the bird poo and email them to you for use in your "photoart"--royalty free even!.
Third, and speaking of photographers; first: Mangelson; have you seen his landscapes? I really like and respect his wildlife work, but his landscape work is (for me) completely uninspired, and if stuck in an anonymous gallery, likely would not sell well at all.
I would have to disagree. I have visited his gallery in Jackson Hole, and I was in awe. His images of Redwood NP are among the best I have seen. (He had one that was a 6ft. vertical pano that was just amazing). If you look at his site, his images may seem dull or sub-par. But you will surely be of a different mindset the second you enter his gallery and scrutinize his work.
And Jon Paul... famous, um, I don't think so. How did you come to that?
Famous in the sense that he has collectors across the world and in every state of the U.S. And I don't need to sit at his elbow and watch him edit his images. His word is good enough for me. Plus, even if he did something beyond a few layers in ps, he definitely didn't do anything that would bring the image out of a respectable sense of reality. (Look at some of his Tahoe work, some of it actually looks like it needs editing!)
Phillip:
To say that I have to produce my photographs a certain way in order to be "successful" is just saying that my photographs have to meet your definition of nature photography in order to meet your definition of "successful".
Phillip, I explicitly said that I was talking about being monetarily successful. If you run a nature photography gallery, you are obviously always pushing for success. I am just stating what the market reacts to, something that is really not debatable. Sure, go ahead and produce/edit images for you, but don't be disappointed if people don't purchase them.
I leave my "artistic expression" to the composition that I choose, and the light that I wait for. That is good enough for me. The photoshop layers that I add later are not part of my artistic expression. Instead, they are only a necessary part of my workflow that help adjust contrast and saturation issues that the RAW file doesn't show.
The computer is the canvas
This scares me. Why can't you be comfortable with the landscape as your canvas? Finding a good composition is surely the most challenging part of composing a good photograph. Relying on a computer program tells me that you aren't doing a good enough job in the field to capture the scene...or that you are out to make photo art, and not "pure nature".
"This is pure "Nature Photography" because I have done no post-processing." First, the image would be dull and flat (in other words BORING) and second, it would hardly represent the actual scene at all. I could add a curves adjustment layer and the image may look a little better (and closer to the actual scene) but where does it end?
Please read my text above. I specifically said that you are allowed a certain amount of photoshop. Any image straight out of camera is not going to accurately portray the scene. The contrast and saturation are off, and clearly do not reflect the scene you photographed. Photoshop is definitely allowed, but in a limited amount.
I respect your position that we should let the viewer decide. Create what makes you feel good, and then react to how it is viewed. That is the only way we can learn.
Posted by David Senesac on April 11, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I've lurked over this thread for some time amusing myself with the way different people are commenting. I'll leave the glow discussion alone haha. The usual situation is the discussion quickly vectors off from a narrow focus originally intended and covers several areas of contention that have been endlessly churned the last couple decades. Of course that makes the discussion difficult to address. Usually there are predictable over generalized, poorly considered comments by some that may be jumping into the fray for possibly the first time.
One can always expect some to bring up how Ansel did this and Ansel did that in his darkroom as though black and white work bears in all ways on modern color photography. And several will state how because being exact, totally natural, pure, etc is impossible blah blah blah, that then everything goes. So "I can do anything I want". Well of course any outdoor photographer can do anything art wise just as painters and other artists do. It's call art, a wonderful creative human process. Photography has a long history of special technical tools for creating results that bear little semblance to any sensory reality. Nothing at all to feel guilty or ashamed about... as long as one is honest about such with one's public audience. Whether that be documentary, reasonably representative natural, modestly manipulated at the status quo level of the day, or various levels of manipulation beyond, to whole Frankenstein levels of building images from multiple sources just as advertising graphic pros have been doing for decades. It's all fair game if presented as such. It amazes me how even after years of commenting on that perfect exact line of argumentation on boards way back to Usenet, that a few photographers continue grip that simplistic logic year after year like a bull dog's jaws on a ham bone. The simple argument against that is perfect exactness is not the goal of reproduction but rather that of "reasonably" accurate. If one magnifies even the graphic down to pixel or film grain levels it all becomes inaccurate. A two-dimensional rendition of 3-dimensional subjects will always be less than sensory natural. But such levels of accuracy don't bear on the human sensory experience or the resulting intent of photography creating imagery.
Most folks that witnessed an outdoor scene on a given day and moment could readily identify subsequent prints that reasonably represented what they experienced versus a wide range of manipulation that others might present. And that is absolutely the case for increasing graphic changes that add or delete elements. Sure there are elements of vagueness and personal sensory variation that will vary between different folks but so what. The same can be said when I have a transparency on a lightbox beside my color calibrated monitor that I am trying to match the slide to the resulting digital print file to. However I can get it reasonably accurate enough that anyone looking at such would easily be able to concur that it is in the ball park. On the other hand there is much being presented today without explanation that isn't just in the ballpark outfield stands, but far beyond the stadium, beyond the suburbs, into the countryside. As Benjamin related there is a range of relative manipulation. Again nothing wrong with such as long as the artist relates something about what they are doing and or their style or body of work. It is true there is something inherently more of value in photographs that reasonably represent human sensory moments in time. And such is what this person has long accepted as a personal style. And my body of work is just one example of how results can be every bit as aesthetically successful as those that choose more manipulative processes though admittedly attaining such is a more difficult goal.
Yes the problem today in photography is in honestly representing one's work. In photography that issue is unique because the public has long viewed some parameters as generally representing moments reasonably captured. Whether or not such is valid or not is not really the issue but rather that such is the general historic situation viewed by the public. With black and white, the graphic content has long been considered reasonably accurate while the luminance has been a valid artistically accepted area subject for darkroom print makers skills to change from what came out of a camera raw. With color photography the technical situation is of course more complex and the history of what the public expects is much less grounded and in fact has been in a continual technical evolution. Today many of those that manipulate color photographs given all the technical turmoil of the current decade, seem to want to present their work without any explanation to the public. They wish to present their work right beside those that are still more conservative in their presentations on equal footing in both the marketplace and now publicly on the Internet. That some have a subconscious fear of being cast out into a sub category of "photo art" is not at all surprising. I applaud those new photographers that haven't any problems with presenting their more creative "in their mind's eye work" honestly. And of course there are many in their public audience or customers of their work that don't and won't have a problem with it either. However as long as the majority of our community of we photographers continues to squirm about per the ongoing status quo, say nothing, admit nothing, trust with the public will continue to deteriorate.
For more about this subject and as it relates to my own reasonably accurate style, please read the Style and Philosophy feature on my website homepage.
David Senesac
http://www.davidsenesac.com
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 15, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I'm heading out for a trip into the Rock Creek rainforest with a good friend of mine. No trails, no people, just mile after mile of ferns, streams, rivers, huge old-growth, pure wilderness. It's going to be a lot of fun. While I'm out there, I'm going to use my eyes.
"Aye, there's the rub." I have a problem with the "Who" in who gets to determine what is too much manipulation and what is not. Because you see, "Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey."
Benjamin stated:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Here is what I do not want to see:
A sacrifice of artistic integrity through the use of this "glow" effect in order to replicate or emulate the very unique style of Marc Adamus. Marc's images have a specific look, and I think it would be detrimental to try and process your images using his techniques in order to try and reach his level of internet acclaim (I say internet because I don't know how he is fairing outside the www).
__________________________________________________________________________________
I submit that it doesn't matter in the slightest what you want to see. You can have your own opinions as to what is aesthetically pleasing, but it's not for you to do dictate which techniques I can or cannot use, or more absurdly how many layers I can implement. I appreciate your concern for the artistic integrity of photographers, but it is misplaced. Also, the assumption that someone would borrow a technique in a vainglorious attempt at fame is a wild one. Really, where do you come up with this stuff? It appears you have a fixation with Marc Adamus and his "internet acclaim." Nevermind that diffusion in photography has been around in some form for generations.
I believe if one were to express interest in a technique and then disavow its use after discovering the identity of the person who originated it (as it appears you may have), THAT would be a stifling of the artistic process.
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM
We spent 2 glorious days backpacking and hiking all 14 miles of Rock Creek through the wilderness. I carried around all the camera gear in hopes of capturing something telling of this thick rainfoest, but in the end, I know it was only in experiencing this place in person that I was able to know what was there, and enjoy it for what it is. A photograph would have never captured its essence. All photographs are just tiny fractions of what appeared for a split second through narrow glass and the back of the mind. I have learned you cannot let photographs be your eyes. You cannot expect photographs to tell you what is there.
Discussion
46 repliesThe conversation thus far:
Benjamin:
John:
Benjamin:
John
If your photographic school of thought is that of a purist ...
Do you follow an Artisan's approach of Fine Art ...
Documentary or Creative Vision ...
Are you trying to sell, please, impress the masses, document, illustrate ...
IMHO our photographic style, vision, conception, implementation, and presentation is what makes us Artisans ...
I also believe we have an obligation to keep the quality on a high level as a fine artist, accountability for our dialouge-honest and justified for fairness and integrity, and a indebtedness to share our ideas and intellect with others ...
Rather asking if your photos should glow or not, make photos that are true to your vision and if they glow, great. If they don't great.
- Dan.
If I try to limit my artistry to my camera and a few Photoshop layers, am I not guilty of sacrificing my artistic integrity by trying to be like others who do the same? This almost becomes a circular argument when I play it out in my head.
Will a technique such as glow be okay to use once we can apply it as an in-camera setting instead of as an additional Photoshop layer? If so, why? If not, how do we determine which in-camera settings are okay to use and which aren’t?
The main reason I was willing to move and continue this “immovable object meets an irresistible force” discussion, is that I think we need to be careful to not set up a Catch-22 situation in landscape photography. It would seem to me that those who would benefit the most from photographers disclosing how much Photoshop was used are those who appreciate a more traditional approach, yet it may be that using this information to criticize inhibits this very disclosure. Does criticizing Photoshop techniques lead to less Photoshop, or just less disclosure of Photoshop?
(Benjamin, I apologize if my posting a dictionary definition of art seemed trite. I only meant to make sure we were on the same page and weren’t arguing semantics.)
Marc has used his glow technique as part of a distinctive style. However "Fog" filters have been around Hollywood since the 1920s or earlier. You can see many old movies where the highlights pop as a result of a fog filter. Before that, photographers put vaseline on their lenses. Obviously PS gives one a lot more control than a set of fog filters, but any technique is just part of a skill set that one can use to produce meaningful images. They're not an end in themselves.
Use what works for you.
- Dan.
I personally don't think my technique similar to Marc's glow has stifled or increased my artistic ability, it simply has helped me achieve results that I like more. For me, the creative part is all in the previsualization and composition, the processing is just a necessary part of the work to allow others to see that vision.
If we're talking about stifling artistic ability, I think the pervading theme of colorful sunsets with blah compositions, or over photographed icons, is more dangerous than anything else. There's a lot more out there than a colorful sunset!
Now we have digital technology wth digital darkrooms in camera plus lots of computer power on our desks and laps. There seems to be two primary approaches -- use the computer power to recreate what was seen, and use the same power to create our own version of what was seen.
Marc seems to have moved from the first approach toward the second. Both approaches have merit. As others have written it depends on your vision.
In this month's Pop Photography Andreas Feininger is quoted
"For me photography is a mirror of life, and every photo that is even worth looking at must be a reflection of life -- of reality, nature, man and his activity, from art to war."
I agree. However our technology sometimes takes over. One fall I took a shot early in the morning in fog. There was a pond and fog covered the brilliant fall colors. When I processed the image it looked very gray with little bits of color after I first brought it up. Then I did something and the fog disappeared and the colors came through much more strongly than they looked to the eye at the scene itself. The photo looks like a rice mosaic of color, like the pattern in an oriental rug.
All I had done was set the gray point in levels.
So -- should I have left it gray and foggy? I couldn't resist the colors. They were there but hidden to the eye until Photoshop blew the fog away.
I like straight photography, only thing is I don't know if it is possible to achieve.
Being a hobby photographer, but a professional designer, educated in art, theory, and composition in a different venue, my opinion somewhat straddles others I've heard around. I believe in the artist's creative vision, and I believe in purity as well. What I don't believe is that all photographs should swing to one way or the other. I think it's image-specific....and up to the artist ultimately.
From there, making an image to capture and share the grandeur, solitude...whatever emotion you experience is up to the photographer/artist to use the tools they're comfortable with and have at hand to the best of their abillity. Marc's 'Glow' technique, etc. is just one tool as John and others have mentioned, and with RAW imaging, really what is the difference theoretically of doing it in-camera and with filters, or just saving the time in the field to focus on light and composition.. I would certainly not discredit Marc as far as thinking we all could just use his Photoshop techniques, buy a 1ds III, and make images like that. His compositional and exposure tendencies alone set him apart, as they do for us all in our own ways. Knowing your subject and your tools still only take you so far.
That being said, I do from time to time find an image from Marc, Michael Andersen, the list goes on.....people whose work blows me away....but occasionally I find 'overworked'. But it really is image-specific and just a matter of personal opinion. The fact is that those images really were great out of camera due to composition, and handling of exposure, but they are enhanced as a work of art. The threshold of acceptability is up to the viewer.
It is funny that this comes up so much in Nature Photography. Architectural Photographers edit their photographs to a level that is almost sickening. But that's what their market demands (mostly the architects don't always like the way their buildings photograph).
I don't want to insult any photographers out there, but that is my view of photography .....very similar to Architecture in my opinion. Both take a skillful, meticulous ability to weave creative thought and ability with technical savvy. The process can be just as creative as the outcome.
I guess I get a little bonkers when a photographer claims to be a purist. There is no such thing. If that is insulting to someone, its a tough world and I do not apologize.
Photography is an art as plain and simple as a painter (or as complex I should say). What we do with our images from viewpoint, camera selection, lens selection, output selection, filters used on camera, f-stop/shutter speed, download to computer or film to developing, any computer manipulation of the image or wet chemical processing for prints, monitor calibration for colors seen, paper selected is a part of the artistry of a photographer. Any one claiming to be a purist is a purist of someone else's programming, film chemistry, chip programming, printer programming routines, paper chemistry etc.. EVERYTHING in photography is up to decisions by the image maker right up to the point of clicking the shutter button. From there on out, the image is affected by all those things mentioned above. I personally like to see what the "artist" does AFTER the shutter is clicked. Sometimes the image is highly manipulated (both film and digital). If the results look crappy, then its a bad image - pure and simple. If it looks great, then power to the insight and ability of the manipulator. And many images look fine "right out of the camera". BUT don't be fooled into thinking you are a purist when you do that. I've already explained in detail above why there really is no "purity" in photography. If you disagree, then please read the above again!
Ok - that's my opinion on the subject
Troup
And here is where the disagreement begins. Floris, you overlook what I consider an important point about landscape photography. I think we owe a duty of care and vigilance to ensure that our images are representing nature in an honest and faithful manner. Any image that goes beyond a reasonable sense of reality, in my opinion, should be placed in the photo art forum. Grads, contrast, sat adjustments, these are all accepted practices that allow the photographer to minimize the discrepancy between the image and the actual scene. Photography is an art, and within landscape photography I think there are two categories: one of photo art, and one of pure nature. I do not believe that just because we are "artists" that we should be allowed to post images that aren't faithful to the scene that we saw--unless, of course you post the image in the photo art forum.
I am afraid that most people subscribing to this forum believe that the more comments an image receives, the more successful or popular an image is. Marc always garners lots of comments, and his processing techniques are always questioned, and people are constantly trying to figure out how he gets such amazing colors and luminosity. Now that part of his editing process has been revealed, I have seen numerous images posted in the ESS gallery with this "glow" technique. I would hope that people are not trying to duplicate Marc's style in hopes of garnering more comments or appealing to the folks that browse this site.
Michael C.:
I agree with you, people can do whatever they want to their images to arrive at their "final print". But, with that said, people should not be given this creative license under the guise of nature photography and promote that it is reality, or that minimal photoshop was used. Do what you want with your images, but disclose your techniques and/or advertise it as something other than this "pure nature" category.
The glow technique that he shared here is simply a technique or a tool. He uses it as part of his own signature style, just as Tony Kyuper is known for his use of luminosity masks and other tools. Throughout other venues of photography where photoshop plays a role, there are many techniques (skin smoothing, blue channel driven contrast in B&W, desat, X-process, etc...). Alot of them aren't used by nature photographers, but some of them find their way into our toolkits. I've found Tony's masking methods to be very useful at times, but I don't think that makes my photos look like his. I haven't tried Marc's technique, but I'm sure there will be some times when I find it very useful. Photoshop goes that way. There are so many styles and methods and techniques to apply to images. But content, vision, style, design, composition can take one tool and create very different results with different messages.
With digital, a lot of the post processing techniques which were out of the price range for many photographers, such as colour separation, are available to a great number of people in various software programs.
Digital has brought a lot of change to photography in that it allows a lot more latitude in post processing and begs the question what is photography? Photography has always evolved and is doing so currently at one of its most rapid rates in history.
Style is a very personal thing and it takes some time to acquire one's 'own style.' That being said there are many people who think the technology will do the work for them. Some here may recall how, when graphic design software first came out, employers threw a copy of Coreldraw on the computer of a secretary or communications officer and got publications that resembled ransom notes.
While it is my belief the definition of photography is going to broaden in the next few years, the practitioners who will have the greatest success will reflect that of earlier photographers who put vision ahead of the technology of the day.
All photography is a guise guys.
Pete D.
Accidental condensation on a lens
Shooting through dirty glass
The Orton Effect
Shooting in high humidity
Vasoline on a UV filter
*Theses are all things that a photographer has come across at least once in his life.
Most magazines have photos of moving subjects in backlit scenes with the sky glowing.
It's everywhere and just something you can not avoid as a photog, even the purist.
I find it funny that there is a long thread where the main point is just DIFFUSION.
I'm through with purists and people coming up to my shows and asking if its real. I tell them it is what I saw.
I'm appreciative of anyone (Marc, Tony Kuyper, Matt Anderson) that shares a tool/technique for enhancing our vision. Just like anything new, I'm sure this glow will pop up more for a time, but people will realize it has a place.
Ben:
---------------------
Floris:
----------------------
Your vision is what matters
----------------------
And here is where the disagreement begins. Floris, you overlook what I consider an important point about landscape photography. I think we owe a duty of care and vigilance to ensure that our images are representing nature in an honest and faithful manner. Any image that goes beyond a reasonable sense of reality, in my opinion, should be placed in the photo art forum. Grads, contrast, sat adjustments, these are all accepted practices that allow the photographer to minimize the discrepancy between the image and the actual scene. Photography is an art, and within landscape photography I think there are two categories: one of photo art, and one of pure nature. I do not believe that just because we are "artists" that we should be allowed to post images that aren't faithful to the scene that we saw--unless, of course you post the image in the photo art forum.
----------------------
First: I should disclose my opinion of nature photography. It is an art form that is grounded in reality, the goal of which is to create an image that elicits a visually, intellectually, or emotionally stimulating experience of the natural world.
As stated earlier, there is no 'pure' photography. What if I were to say that using a slight application of glow made the scene look more like how it did when I experienced it? We use grad filters, contrast, etc. for the same reasons.. so I actually see little to no difference, as long as the application is done sparingly and conscientiously.
A photograph is, by it's very nature of production, grounded in reality. No matter what you do in photoshop, that will never be lost. But I agree with you (and this is of course personal preference), that I prefer images that faithfully represent nature the way I *experience* it. That right there is the key point that should be discussed: accurate representation of nature, vs. experience. Since we can only experience nature through our body and all it's limitations, I argue that photography should represent nature as we experience it, not necessarily as it is. After all, the point of a good image (IMO), be it photography or a painting, is to invoke some sort of response (generally emotional), otherwise why would anyone care? To elicit a response, the image has to connect with our experiences.
Now, how does that relate?
Modern optics are much, much better than our eyes. Think about the stars, they have a distinct diffraction star pattern emanating from them (at least, with my eyes they do), which is a result of the limitations of our eyes. But when you look at a photo of them, they become perfect little circles with sharp edges.... is that faithful to our experience? I would argue no. How does that relate to glow? It's the same thing: diffraction. A modern camera and glass can simply see the details more clearly than the human eye, so it's up to us to do something to that detail to make it more like the human experience. That something, for me, is the 'glow' effect. I developed my approach independently of knowing Marc's PS approach, and based the method on the effect he achieved with his condensation technique, which enhances diffraction. The effect is to allow the highlights to bleed... which, in my experience, is what happens with my eyes in many cases. I assume that Marc developed his approach for the same reasons... and coincidentally we ended up with nearly identical effects. As any technique, it can be abused, and I've probably used it in places where it's not truly appropriate, but the fact remains, in many cases, it actually IMO makes the image look more like the experience. It certainly enhances the emotional impact.
I'm probably upgrading my status from mega-thug or whatever to superman thug by saying all this
I gotta say I find it amusing that while you seem to against the application of 'glow' here due to it's 'over manipulation' you did ask me for the recipe
------ edit ------
Paul said exactly what I said, in less words.. so just read his post if you like
In reference to a photo that some may have termed "photo art" :
And regarding a reference to combining exposures :
Those discussions can be found here :
Reality and Photography
PhotographicTerms
Because we all see differently. There is no truly objective photograph any more than there can be an 'objective' painting. Light changes, compositions vary, equipment choices effect results as does the aim of the artist. Ansel Adams and Micheal Kenna both made the case that the real work was done in the processing/printing done from the negative. Did anyone ever criticize Mr. Adams work for being 'unreal'? Mr. Kenna falls into a different category, as his techniques clearly do not represent what anyone woud consider reality in the strict sense, yet he never uses Photoshop, being a strictly film photographer as was Adams. These two represent what might be considered the extreme opposite ends of 'traditional' b+w film photography and each is considered a master, and for good reason.
Mr. Glatt brings a traditional concern to the table, but it is one that doesn't stand under examination - provided no overt physical changes are made to what is portrayed as a 'true' representation of a particular location - say adding a dramatic tree, rock or mountain into a scene to make it more interesting to give extreme and obvious examples.
I thank Marc for publishing one of his 'secrets' for our use. Naturally, given a new technique we are going to want to play with it and I would be surprised if it didn't start showing up in the forums. I've used the Orton technique for some time myself, but found Marc's approach a wonderfully simple and adjustable variation. I went through my portfolio and tried the variation on quite a few images and learned some new things, which is always fun and exciting. But most were dumped after playing and learning. I saved a couple of new results that I found intriguing and these are now part of my portfolio.
I tend to use minimal processing as I consider the real skill to be able to get as close as possible to the desired effect with just the camera, but some photoshop work is unavoidable and equivalent to minor darkroom work - the latter which most seem to find acceptable for some reason. Photoshop simply makes the basics more controllable and repeatable as well as offering an impressive array of other options - which most do not use.
Lastly, the word 'reasonable' gives me a case of the chills. Maybe I've spent too much time around lawyers, but no word gives me a bigger case of the willies! Who defines what is 'reasonable' and what isn't? Do we start listing our processing steps and degrees thereof - and at some arbitrarily selected point get relegated to the art forum? That may come across as a bit snarky - unintended - but that is where you would be heading. There is just no way to make that work without engendering confusion and, ultimately, resentment.
That's my two bits. Carry on!
In my earlier statement I presented a spectrum concept--where at one end lies extreme manipulation and on the other end lies no manipulation. Never did I say that Marc's technique should not be used. If you use it sparingly, I think it (along with minor grad/filter work, and other minor ps work) has a place within the "acceptable" region of this spectrum (John's image is a fine example). And this "acceptable region" would be the region that I consider can faithfully represent nature. Anything beyond this region, is photo art. Some of Marc's images, I believe, lie outside this region and should be placed in the photo art forum. So just because I asked about your "secret recipe" doesn't mean that I could not have used it myself. So long as it's application keeps the image within this respectable range.
Oh, and Jim, I am pre-law at the University of California, so I understand the power of the word 'reasonable'!
Chris
Can I get uber thug status now too?
Reply posted by Benjamin Glatt on 04/08/09 at 7:18 pm EST
Troup, by focusing on the extreme semantics of constructing an image you are overlooking the deeper problem that we are discussing. It is obvious that no one can be a complete purist. But wouldn't you agree that there is a spectrum? A scale that measures the manipulation of an image...on one end you have a manipulated photo that looks nothing like the actual scene, and on the other side you have an image with very little editing. No one here is advocating for your definition of a purist. I am simply saying that a photo promoted as a "nature photo" should stay within a certain gamut within this spectrum. Creating an image through photoshop manipulation that brings it beyond a "reasonable form of reality" is fine, so long as it is advertised as such.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Benjamin and others,
Ok, I see your points, I think. If the deal is concentrated about what should be in a gallery called "Nature Photography", then maybe there should be some more guidelines. I think I explained that I like ALL images (Marc's' included) if they have been well done regardless as to how much pre (filters, lights, etc.) and post (photoshop, paper choice, ink choice, wet lab, etc.) processing has occurred. If the discussion is some "nature" images belong in "Nature with minimal processing" and some belong in "Nature with lots more processing" then where is the line drawn? Do graduated filters, flash used for highlights or to brighten foreground constitute more or less processing? And just because the same effect was accomplished after the fact with PS does that make it "more processing"? These are hard questions to answer by anyone depending on the resultant image. Again, if it is done well and it looks "real" (to whom?), then which gallery does it belong. If the image has been blown out of a sense of reality, then, I can agree that it belongs in a "Nature Artsy or More Processing" gallery.
My rant was aimed at those who claim to be purist and claim to "represent" the world better than the rest of us who use PS. There are a ton of them out there. You can find them on many of the photography forums. Interestingly, the worst cases of them are not on OUR forums, thank goodness!
Troup
If one wants to create something, he needs tools to do that. That “justifies” and confirms the use of all tools (Camera, Film, Filters, Processing (PS or darkroom) ) to every exent.
If one wants to control the final creation and the final response of the viewer, he would never let a machine do that creation for him. The creator is in the “drivers-seat” from start to finish.
Showing a picture of a scene that obviously is considered to be "available" in the "real" world (like a lake, mountain etc), implies the scene displayed "is" real. Applying to much of processing *can* be *perceived* as faking, manipulation or enhancement beyond what an eye-witness would have seen. (This is a statement. I give no value to that)
BUT
Writing a song and recording it, performed with a real instrument is not the same as assembling (composing) the same song with sound-samples already recorded by someone else – (adding color and effects, not present in the real scene). The creation (composition) is the same. But in the first example it is "real" the instrument (color) was "there" (physically). In the latter example the final product or creation is makes us of something that was not present physically...
Adding a glow-effect is adding a “physical” phenomenon that was not available in the original scene. It adds a distinct look and texture to the final photograph that differs from what a machine that only responds to physical phenomena would record.
Do I think this is “faking”? No!
Do I think one must disclose this processing? No!
Do I think one is a ”purist” if he applies such “effects”? No he is not! (But that's my view)
Do I think it is pathetic and hypocritical to obscure conscious processing by
statements “As close as what I saw when I pressed the shutter” YES! Such statements
obscure the deliberate and conscious effort to alter the original recording. As simple as
that.
It is neither a good answer to a clients question: Is this real?
I am not at all saying doing the ps-thing to whatever extent to achieve whatever effect is a bad thing – see beginning of my post. But frankly, I am not sure if obscuring the processing (if asked) by statements that try to direct the viewer to the emotional reaction of the creator is a fair approach.
Dietrich
Oh, and Jim, I am pre-law at the University of California, so I understand the power of the word 'reasonable'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin,
Ah! Condolences on the 'pre-law' thing. Any hope of recovery?
Just kidding, of course, but then you should certainly understand the mess that can result from trying to apply 'reasonable' qualifiers in what is by nature an extremely subjective environment. It will likely not end well.
I do understand your point and concern, but I also do not think it is a valid one in this context. If one were providing documentary or news images, ie: 'pure' unmodified-in-any-form-information, your case takes on an entirely different and far more critical weight. But even here a good lawyer will understand the limits of an unaltered photograph or video of an event. Both tools can be used or misused to prove something entirely unrelated to the truth of a scene or event depending on what is seen or unseen in an image or video. I recall a news report where a video was shown that left no doubt that a police officer assaulted an unarmed man. Days later another image (or video) surfaced, taken from another angle, that clearly showed a gun in the so called victim's hand. Where would that officer be if all judgement were based on the original video? Photography can be used the same way, changing the effect or message of an image by the careful inclusion or exclusion of details. All this without getting anywhere near Photoshop and reflecting the reality from that particular position or angle. Every photograph taken with a modicum of thought or intention has gone through this conscious selection process.
Sometimes even the truth becomes a matter of perception. It is a complex issue with no simple or clear resolution.
Benjamin Glatt wrote (way back)
I've been really enjoying the read over this, and much of the talk around personal style and vision harks back to the roots of what Galen Rowell used to discuss, and which formed the basis for how I was "brought-up" in photography.
However, as much as I really enjoy & respect Benjamin's ability to express his opinion so well, (read: no flippin' surprise he's in pre-law), I have to disagree with this statement.
We're photographers first. We don't owe anyone a duty for anything. We all make our own choices. I do agree with your assertion that there is a spectrum involved; and where you lie on that spectrum is defined by how you choose to present your personal vision and photographs.
If you choose to be an artist that does nature photography as art, then no, I don't think they would owe me any duty consideration to keep their work faithful to what mother nature presents. It should be up to me as the viewer though to determine what is faithful, and what is interpretation. Like porn, I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it. - and see it... - and see it, opps, nevermind that! :)
If someone asserts themselves as a "Nature Photographer" there is an artistic spectrum that can be interpreted as to what is faithful. Merely underexposing an image to darken a sky or increase perceived saturation can stretch the purist bounds of faithful - but again, it's the viewers choice to decide, not the photographers duty to remain at a fixed point on a perceived spectra.
From my point of view, if a Nature Photographer adds certain artistic elements, but the scene remains relatively "intact" by a natural standpoint, meaning nothing (element) has been added pr removed, then I can accept that as on the more natural end of the scale. Sure adding more and more techniques may move you further from the purist end of the spectrum, but like imposed morals, I don't want anyone telling me what I "owe" them or that I should be more towards one end of the spectra or not.
OTOH, if you're shooting for National Geographic, Discovery, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Magazine, etc., you want to make darn sure you don't push the envelope trying to deliver "pretty". You make sure you deliver "accurate".
If someone pursues their own personal vision by adding techniques to 'enhance' the look or feel of an image, that's totally fine by me. I'm certainly capable in my own mind to determine if it looks 'natural' or not. - That's where the fuzzy part comes in, and the "too good to be real" factors must be weighed. If you're shooting for yourself, as a photographer, like you, me, Marc, or anyone else here, do what you want. The only line that should get crossed is if you add something that wasn't there, then you're now on the photo-art side. Is a "glow" technique adding something that wasn't there? Yes, but not on an elemental level. Rather, I'd say it's on an interpretive level, the same as dodging or burning. Those acts alone doesn't automatically make it "Art" to the exclusion of being "natural".
Don't even get me started on the topic of copy-catting and personal visions. That'll take up a whole other thread.
Cheers & Carry on,
And, along with that, I feel like everyone should be up front about what they've done to images if asked, and not feel the need to be defensive. The more honest everyone is the better. After all, viewers/buyers also have ideas about where in the spectrum they'd like what they buy/look at to be, and I don't see the harm in informing them.
Well now you've probably gotten into another spectrum - the tools used to create the image spectrum, and which are appropriate. Some (not me) would even say that dodging and burning aren't appropriate. And some would say they are, but can be taken too far. (Hmm...I guess among the spectrum of images there's a spectrum of tools with a spectrum of usages - lots of spectrums to pick your place in...)
I think people often tend to convince themselves they are Photoshopping their image back to what "they remembered" i.e. a true reflection of what they saw. Often honesty starts with not deluding oneself. I really appreciate when people post a picture and say what they've done - whether it's applying a glow technique or enlarging a moon. I appreciate art and photography, but i can't appreciate dishonesty.
andy
1) That post processing techniques such as the "glow" technique stifle artistic ability.
2) That people sacrifice their artistic integrity when emulating the style of another, in this case Marc Adamus. Nevermind emulation on some level, as others have pointed out, has been integral throughout the history of art.
But he then makes the bold (and I think indefensible) leap of prescribing a formula that everyone should follow, specifically that any use of PS should be confined to a set number of layers, and that we should be comfortable with the limits of the camera.
3) Later he states his protests are based upon an appeal to accurate representation and disclosure (note that John made a full disclosure of his technique before Benjamin initiated his complaint). People should only attempt to replicate the actual conditions in a documentary manner, otherwise it's not nature photography, but photo art, according to him. You might want to talk to every photographer who's ever used Velvia in that case, and let them know they were practicing photo art all along.
However, later he admits to asking for instruction on how to create the glow look himself!!
So what was your main issue, Benjamin? Were you really that deeply concerned about John cultivating a rich creative artistic process? Or were you mainly concerned about disclosure, something I think is not necessary but which John did explicitly? Or that he’s borrowed a technique from someone else, a technique you yourself expressed an interest in learning? I'm sure you would have never used the glow technique in your own photos, though, lest you stifle your artistic ability and be branded an imitator.
I have some photos of an endangered sea turtle that had been hooked by another person while fishing. I was able to take some images as it was reeled in to the boat. The turtle was handled with care, hook removed, and turtle let go asap. That was the best we could do out of a poor situation (we were not trying to catch sea turtles). I PS'd the images and removed the hook, line, and sinker from the image. I have the images framed on my wall. Also, they are on my website. They look really nice. People comment on what great turtle shots I have. I thank them and they leave with happy turtle thoughts in their minds. Some one finally actually asked me how I was able to take such great images. I then explained to that person what I just explained here. She said "Oh Wow! I like seeing the turtle this way (without the hook, line and sinker)". So, am I a bad person for that? It is a nature shot. No, it is not accurate to reality. I don't see why if someone glances at these photos and are happy that I should stop and force tell them in detail how I made them. If they happen to ask, then yes, honesty is my policy. These images are good enough to sell. But I have not even tried because "I" know they are not reality. On the other hand, I have made images that would make many people feel bad for the turtle if seen in reality that now make people feel happy. Why NOT sell these without explanations? Some people LIKE sea turtles and like seeing images of them, especially in the wild (which this was - even though it was during a capture situation). Why should they ever have to know the stark truth if they do not feel the need to ask?
I also have images of a sea gull with hook line and sinker (not from my fishing btw) hanging from his beak. This image is different from the sea turtle. It invokes a sense of guilt between the association of man and bird. There is no reason to PS the hook, line, and sinker out - otherwise it is just a drab shot of yet another sea gull. It evokes other emotions in different people. This image should always be displayed as reality.
So, this must show that there are different reasons for the alterations people do. Some need no explanation because the blunt reality is right there. Some may need no further explanation because they are simple pretty images - regardless of how the reality was. And if someone really wants to know how an image was made, then one should always be honest - even if it is brutal.
So, there is a limit to "pure" honesty in some events. And I think that is not a bad thing. However, if I lied to those who ASKED how I made the images, then that crosses the line of honesty and would be very bad.
Ummmm....I think I am finished now
Troup
Happy turtle thoughts.... happy turtle thoughs.....
Seriously, unless you are strictly a documentary photographer, you have only ONE person to answer to as far as your photography is concerned. Be true to your self and your vision. Some people will like your work and others will not. If someone asks how you did it, tell them. If they are happy with that, great. If not, so what? Its not worth a second thought. They will move along to the next photographer down the line until they find one they're happy with.
My photography is my interpretation of the world. It is not meant to be an EXACT depiction of the scene (how boring!). And I'm not sure an exact depiction is even possible for the reasons described above. If you want "EXACT" then get off your butt and go experience it for yourself. My photography is my expression of not only what I saw, but (and probably more importantly) what I felt as I experienced the scene. Now, I don't add trees or mountains or fake light beams but I will remove distracting branches, litter, powerlines, a tourist (or 3), etc. In the end, the image I craft is still a valid and accurate representation of the scene and I still consider it Landscape photography. And I can sleep easy.
Always in big woods when you leave familiar ground and step off alone into a new place there will be, along with the feeling of curiosity and excitement, a little nagging of dread. It is the ancient fear of the unknown, and it is your first bond with the wilderness you are going into. You are undertaking the first experience not of the place, but of yourself in that place. It is an experience of our essential loneliness, for nobody can discover the world for anyone else. It is only after we have discovered it for ourselves that it becomes a common ground and a common bond, and we cease to be alone.
And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles, no matter how long, but only by a spiritual journey, a journey of one inch, very arduous and humbling and joyful, by which we arrive at the ground at our feet, and learn to be at home. It is a journey we can make only by acceptance of mystery and of mystification — by yielding to the condition that what we have expected is not there.
Wendell Berry – “ The One Inch Journey” from The Unforeseen Wilderness
I think that the difference here is that some are smitten with the camera and it's tools. Others are with the wild places and use the camera to bring those places to the many that do not, or cannot get into the wild. Some use their photographs to help protect those very wild places. Yes, it can be all about the “Art” with no worries about misrepresenting those places. But I ask, why do we become nature photographers in the first place? Was it all about the “Art”or was it about using the camera and its tools to bring the viewer the true, believable, moment that we witnessed. Yes, I love those awesome PhotoShopped-up, beautifully lighted, landscapes but do they really do the wilderness any good without disclosing the real moment captured by the camera? They may get us kudos on forums or even a photo contest win. But without disclosure of the special techniques used to hype-up the image we are passing off a lie. It's just silly to hear those that state “ I'm recreating that moment in time that I remembered when I tripped the shutter”. Oh come on, if that be true, as to some of the images posted here on ESS, one would have to be dropping acid! Some of this stuff is borderline psychedelic!
I recommend that all read and reread the “One inch journey”. The most telling words for me are, “The camera is a point of reference, a bit like a compass though not nearly so predictable. It is the discipline and the opportunity of vision. In relation to the enclosure we call civilization, these pictures are not ornaments or relics, but windows and doors, enlargements of our living space, entrances into the mysterious world outside the walls, lessons in what to look for and how to see.”
Jay D:
Here is what I do not want to see:
A sacrifice of artistic integrity through the use of this "glow" effect in order to replicate or emulate the very unique style of Marc Adamus. Marc's images have a specific look, and I think it would be detrimental to try and process your images using his techniques in order to try and reach his level of internet acclaim (I say internet because I don't know how he is fairing outside the www). So if you are operating under the logic that "if I be more like Marc, I will be a more successful photographer", then I think you are definitely stifling you're own artistic ability. People should reexamine their own principles towards nature photography, and assess the ramifications of using techniques that stray from "pure nature". Severely processing nature images and advertising it as "this is what I saw" is disintegrating the very principle of nature photography in my opinion.
Furthermore, you unfairly assume that my request to review the "glow" effect somehow proves that I would want to use it in my work. You should not be astonished that I asked about it--I was simply curious! Honestly, I thought Floris' glow effect was some sort of saturation tool. Notice that I asked the question with regards to his wildflowers images--none of which were counter to a sense of reality.
Phillip:
You are misunderstanding the crux of this argument. Editing bird droppings out of an image does not alter the viewer's sense of reality. The sandstone still looks like sandstone, the dirt still looks like dirt, etc.. Now, had you doctored the photo to the point that the sandstone no longer looks like natural sandstone (umm..anyone seen Peter Lik's slot canyon work?
Additionally, I would ask you to repeat your line: "you have only ONE person to answer to as far as your photography is concerned" to any nature photographer that operates his/her own gallery. You will undoubtedly hear a response that runs completely counter to your claim (Peter Lik is an anomaly). If you want to sell prints in a gallery, it is crucial that you maintain a level of honesty and respectable level of reality with regards to the scene you photographed. Mangelsen is a prime example--his unprecedented success is directly attributed to the fact that his images are so raw and pure looking. However, if you are content and happy with a population that disagrees with your editing practices, than you will surely not be a (monetarily) successful gallery photographer that advertises his work as "pure nature". There is a market for nature photography, and the market responds positively to those images that the public sees as being truthful and faithful representations of nature. If you want to sell images, the viewer must be able to relate to the scene.
In response to editing images to represent an exact depiction of what you saw, you say "how boring". I would wholeheartedly disagree. Nature is an incredibly beautiful subject without heavy manipulation, and successful photographers that have minimized their use of photoshop prove this. Recently I spoke with Jon Paul, a famous photographer based out of Tahoe, CA. He told me that he confines his digital darkroom work to a few levels and curves adjustments. That's it! And has his limited use of photoshop effected his success? Not a single bit. In fact, he prides himself on this fact.
As I stated earlier, I believe that there is a spectrum. A scale that measures the manipulation of an image...on one end you have a manipulated photo that looks nothing like the actual scene, and on the other side you have an image with very little editing. Let me emphasize that it is possible to use this "glow" effect while still keeping the image within a respectable region of this spectrum. Obviously though, this spectrum is inherently subjective. However, I think we are all capable of creating a boundary and confining digital darkroom techniques to ensure that an image is faithful and accurate to nature.
Benjamin: I do respect the passion with which you write and express your ideas and opinions. However, a couple quick points if I may:
First, people have been playing copycat with landscape photography for years. It's been called trophy hunting. To some regard, it's not just the shot that people were copying, it was also the personal vision & style of the original photographer. In time, most develop their own personal vision and style.
In the last couple years, I've seen hordes of people shooting those in-your-face, low, wide-angle ocean wave shots at sunset with the sunstar behind rocks, clouds, or right on the horizon. Some copy it well, while others not so well. But nothing about this is new. I saw it 15 years ago with people racing around trying "get the shot that Galen got." I believe that when starting out in photography, most people don't have a real personal vision of their own, so they substitute a strong one that belongs to someone else. Then they use that like placing tracing paper over a magazine photo, and trying to recreate it as "their own". As they experience and develop more, each persons own style starts to emerge.
Second, to your quote, " If you want to sell prints in a gallery, it is crucial that you maintain a level of honesty and respectable level of reality with regards to the scene you photographed". I think I'd be free to do whatever I wanted in my gallery. To say something is crucial is to just define your opinion on a subject, and not the way something must be.
If I printed straight Raw files, there will always be people who will say, "It's fake. I'll bet it didn't look like that. That was done in Photoshop". To the contrary, I could have some wildly manipulated image, and someone will go, "Wow, that's amazing" and never question the post processing that went into the making of an image.
However, if I stick up a sign saying what has or hasn't been done to an image, I can at least say I wouldn't be misleading. It's no different than the captive wild animal 'disclosure' issue that's been raging for years and years and years.
Third, and speaking of photographers; first: Mangelson; have you seen his landscapes? I really like and respect his wildlife work, but his landscape work is (for me) completely uninspired, and if stuck in an anonymous gallery, likely would not sell well at all.
And Jon Paul... famous, um, I don't think so. How did you come to that? He's a really nice guy, hard working dad type. I was there when he first opened his gallery. I've had occasion to shoot with him one morning when we were at the same location. I saw his gallery again last year. He's done a great job with his gallery. His photography has improved nearly ten-fold with his more recent large format work and printing compared to years ago. But you would put him at the same level as a Muench, Clifton, Neill, Till, Hirshmann, Mangelson, Lanting, Nichols, Ketchum?? No offense, but that really had me raising a yellow flag. Don't get me wrong, I like Jon Paul, and some of his shots are nice, but our own Darwin Wiggett & Guy Tal are probably way more famous in the Nature & Landscape photographic communities.
Finally, I don't care what Jon Paul or anyone else says that did or didn't do in photoshop. Unless you're sitting there watching someone do the work, you just can't really tell what's been done to an image.
What you should do is set up a gallery of images that run the whole spectrum as you define it, make no statements about any post processing, and find out how people respond to the plain & boring, the nicely processed, the heavily processed, and the tweaked so badly it hurts the eyes processed. Now THAT would be interesting!! If you do try it, please let me know.
Cheers,
John, look at the reasoning for having any problem with B&W, it's right there in front of you, BLACK & WHITE! When you look at a B&W image anyone can understand that it IS NOT a true representation of a scene/landscape. As for heavily manipulated color images, some photographers are really good at it and are passing those images as true representations. It's that simple!
You also speak as if nature photography shot in a more documentary style is boring, I have to disagree. See, I feel that the whole cranked up, wild colorized, fairytale style of nature photography is somewhat boring because everyone is now doing it. Photographers are trying so hard to create that “perfect landscape image”, one without flaw. Every pebble in perfect harmony, no blade of grass out of place, the perfect wash of light over the scene, and for some completely changing a sky or major element to give it a more dramatic presence is not even questioned. Nature can be pretty perfect sometimes but not like some are portraying it as fact here on NPN and the web. Look at the images posted, almost EVERYONE is shooting (I should say processing) in the same style. Now that's boring.
Are you suggesting we need to more heavily manipulate color images?
Can you point me to where I spoke in that way? If I said that, I would like to add an edit to be better understood. If you inferred that, you inferred incorrectly. I don't have any problem at all with images that have seen little Photoshop; I've seen fantastic images that have never been digitized. I just don't have any problem with images that have seen a lot of Photoshop. To each his own is fine by me.
To say that I have to produce my photographs a certain way in order to be "successful" is just saying that my photographs have to meet your definition of nature photography in order to meet your definition of "successful". I am not you, and I don't have the same definition of "successful" as you do. That's like telling Georgia O'Keeffe "Sorry honey, but if you expect to sell paintings then you must use the same canvas, paints, and brushes as Monet and they must look just like Monet's." (OK, that's not quite the same--I admit.
If an image I create generates an emotional response from me (or anyone else), I've been successful! If being out in the wilderness brings me joy (whether I capture a photo or not)--I've been successful. If I happen to sell a copy of that image, well, that's just icing on the cake. But I will NOT alter my vision just to make some cash (not yet anyway
Regarding editing images. I wholeheartedly agree with you that "Nature is an incredibly beautiful subject". I would say the MOST beautiful subject on Earth! (Although Jessica Alba is a close second!
But back to the "purist" discussion.....
I could take the raw image (not a jpg mind you because the camera alters the image based on the "picture style" you selected) straight from the camera and print it, frame it, and hang it up in a Gallery (though I doubt any gallery would accept such images) and put a sign on it saying "This is pure "Nature Photography" because I have done no post-processing." First, the image would be dull and flat (in other words BORING) and second, it would hardly represent the actual scene at all. I could add a curves adjustment layer and the image may look a little better (and closer to the actual scene) but where does it end?
I would agree that there is a spectrum, as you say, between photography and photo art. How does one decide if they are at the "Photography" end or the "Photo Art" end or somewhere in the gray zone in between? In some cases its very clear (documentary), in others (art)---not so clear. From an artistic point of view, perhaps its not even for the photographer to decide? Perhaps we should concentrate on creating images that move us emotionally and let the viewer decide what to call it?
Gary: If you want, I'll make copies of the bird poo and email them to you for use in your "photoart"--royalty free even!.
I would have to disagree. I have visited his gallery in Jackson Hole, and I was in awe. His images of Redwood NP are among the best I have seen. (He had one that was a 6ft. vertical pano that was just amazing). If you look at his site, his images may seem dull or sub-par. But you will surely be of a different mindset the second you enter his gallery and scrutinize his work.
Famous in the sense that he has collectors across the world and in every state of the U.S. And I don't need to sit at his elbow and watch him edit his images. His word is good enough for me. Plus, even if he did something beyond a few layers in ps, he definitely didn't do anything that would bring the image out of a respectable sense of reality. (Look at some of his Tahoe work, some of it actually looks like it needs editing!)
Phillip:
Phillip, I explicitly said that I was talking about being monetarily successful. If you run a nature photography gallery, you are obviously always pushing for success. I am just stating what the market reacts to, something that is really not debatable. Sure, go ahead and produce/edit images for you, but don't be disappointed if people don't purchase them.
I leave my "artistic expression" to the composition that I choose, and the light that I wait for. That is good enough for me. The photoshop layers that I add later are not part of my artistic expression. Instead, they are only a necessary part of my workflow that help adjust contrast and saturation issues that the RAW file doesn't show.
This scares me. Why can't you be comfortable with the landscape as your canvas? Finding a good composition is surely the most challenging part of composing a good photograph. Relying on a computer program tells me that you aren't doing a good enough job in the field to capture the scene...or that you are out to make photo art, and not "pure nature".
Please read my text above. I specifically said that you are allowed a certain amount of photoshop. Any image straight out of camera is not going to accurately portray the scene. The contrast and saturation are off, and clearly do not reflect the scene you photographed. Photoshop is definitely allowed, but in a limited amount.
I respect your position that we should let the viewer decide. Create what makes you feel good, and then react to how it is viewed. That is the only way we can learn.
One can always expect some to bring up how Ansel did this and Ansel did that in his darkroom as though black and white work bears in all ways on modern color photography. And several will state how because being exact, totally natural, pure, etc is impossible blah blah blah, that then everything goes. So "I can do anything I want". Well of course any outdoor photographer can do anything art wise just as painters and other artists do. It's call art, a wonderful creative human process. Photography has a long history of special technical tools for creating results that bear little semblance to any sensory reality. Nothing at all to feel guilty or ashamed about... as long as one is honest about such with one's public audience. Whether that be documentary, reasonably representative natural, modestly manipulated at the status quo level of the day, or various levels of manipulation beyond, to whole Frankenstein levels of building images from multiple sources just as advertising graphic pros have been doing for decades. It's all fair game if presented as such. It amazes me how even after years of commenting on that perfect exact line of argumentation on boards way back to Usenet, that a few photographers continue grip that simplistic logic year after year like a bull dog's jaws on a ham bone. The simple argument against that is perfect exactness is not the goal of reproduction but rather that of "reasonably" accurate. If one magnifies even the graphic down to pixel or film grain levels it all becomes inaccurate. A two-dimensional rendition of 3-dimensional subjects will always be less than sensory natural. But such levels of accuracy don't bear on the human sensory experience or the resulting intent of photography creating imagery.
Most folks that witnessed an outdoor scene on a given day and moment could readily identify subsequent prints that reasonably represented what they experienced versus a wide range of manipulation that others might present. And that is absolutely the case for increasing graphic changes that add or delete elements. Sure there are elements of vagueness and personal sensory variation that will vary between different folks but so what. The same can be said when I have a transparency on a lightbox beside my color calibrated monitor that I am trying to match the slide to the resulting digital print file to. However I can get it reasonably accurate enough that anyone looking at such would easily be able to concur that it is in the ball park. On the other hand there is much being presented today without explanation that isn't just in the ballpark outfield stands, but far beyond the stadium, beyond the suburbs, into the countryside. As Benjamin related there is a range of relative manipulation. Again nothing wrong with such as long as the artist relates something about what they are doing and or their style or body of work. It is true there is something inherently more of value in photographs that reasonably represent human sensory moments in time. And such is what this person has long accepted as a personal style. And my body of work is just one example of how results can be every bit as aesthetically successful as those that choose more manipulative processes though admittedly attaining such is a more difficult goal.
Yes the problem today in photography is in honestly representing one's work. In photography that issue is unique because the public has long viewed some parameters as generally representing moments reasonably captured. Whether or not such is valid or not is not really the issue but rather that such is the general historic situation viewed by the public. With black and white, the graphic content has long been considered reasonably accurate while the luminance has been a valid artistically accepted area subject for darkroom print makers skills to change from what came out of a camera raw. With color photography the technical situation is of course more complex and the history of what the public expects is much less grounded and in fact has been in a continual technical evolution. Today many of those that manipulate color photographs given all the technical turmoil of the current decade, seem to want to present their work without any explanation to the public. They wish to present their work right beside those that are still more conservative in their presentations on equal footing in both the marketplace and now publicly on the Internet. That some have a subconscious fear of being cast out into a sub category of "photo art" is not at all surprising. I applaud those new photographers that haven't any problems with presenting their more creative "in their mind's eye work" honestly. And of course there are many in their public audience or customers of their work that don't and won't have a problem with it either. However as long as the majority of our community of we photographers continues to squirm about per the ongoing status quo, say nothing, admit nothing, trust with the public will continue to deteriorate.
For more about this subject and as it relates to my own reasonably accurate style, please read the Style and Philosophy feature on my website homepage.
David Senesac
http://www.davidsenesac.com
I'm heading out for a trip into the Rock Creek rainforest with a good friend of mine. No trails, no people, just mile after mile of ferns, streams, rivers, huge old-growth, pure wilderness. It's going to be a lot of fun. While I'm out there, I'm going to use my eyes.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Here is what I do not want to see:
A sacrifice of artistic integrity through the use of this "glow" effect in order to replicate or emulate the very unique style of Marc Adamus. Marc's images have a specific look, and I think it would be detrimental to try and process your images using his techniques in order to try and reach his level of internet acclaim (I say internet because I don't know how he is fairing outside the www).
__________________________________________________________________________________
I submit that it doesn't matter in the slightest what you want to see. You can have your own opinions as to what is aesthetically pleasing, but it's not for you to do dictate which techniques I can or cannot use, or more absurdly how many layers I can implement. I appreciate your concern for the artistic integrity of photographers, but it is misplaced. Also, the assumption that someone would borrow a technique in a vainglorious attempt at fame is a wild one. Really, where do you come up with this stuff? It appears you have a fixation with Marc Adamus and his "internet acclaim." Nevermind that diffusion in photography has been around in some form for generations.
I believe if one were to express interest in a technique and then disavow its use after discovering the identity of the person who originated it (as it appears you may have), THAT would be a stifling of the artistic process.