On a recent post of mine, where I discussed some creative liberties I took in the creation of the image, Stan Rose posed the question, 'where do we draw the line'? Rather than mix the discussion and my image, I thought I'd move the discussion here, as it's a great topic to talk about.. even though we likely won't come to a consensus, and it gets brought up regularly.
So, what are your thoughts? As a landscape photographer/artist, how obligated do you feel to accurately/truthfully portray the scene? Will you clone out a distracting twig? Will you blend different kinds of light, whether it looks natural or not? Will you blend in a full moon photographed at a longer focal length? Would you mix seasons if it contributed to the scene and experience?
What does 'accurate' and 'truthful' mean? Is it what the camera captures, or what you see, or what you experience? Does it matter? The human eye and brain work in complicated ways, of course, as we all know, the dynamic range of the eye/brain is rather incredible, but our experiences are more than just a blink in time - there's some degree of temporal experiences and various other senses that all get integrated together to form a complete 'experience'. Should we try to capture that in a photo? Or just a flash in time?
At what point in time do you feel you need to inform the viewers? Or should you ever? Do you put up a tag that says it's been altered from a straight photograph, more than average (whatever that may be)? Or do you wait for someone to ask, and then be honest, or forgo honesty to keep the 'magic' secret so as not to 'ruin' the impact?
I'm sure there's many more questions that can be posed, and I urge you do so here, in addition to discussing your views. Of course, your opinion will likely depend on the end usage of the photo - so state that.
Also, let's leave the obvious things out (ie. don't submit a blended/composited image to a competition/magazine that strictly forbids that), and we can leave the HDR vs. blending discussion out too - that's been done enough. I think we can all agree that photojournalism should not make use of such image massaging. So, let's focus on the 'art' of landscape photography with the goal of creating a positive reaction from the viewer - be it emotional, a desire to 'be there', or triggering some environmental concern/care, etc etc. What is 'ok' when it comes to manipulation in your opinion for an image hanging in a gallery of nature/landscape photography?
Posted by Larry Puckett on August 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM
I would draw the line at adding and subtracting elements to or from the scene or radically altering it. My main goal is to capture what I am seeing the way I am seeing it. In that context the human eye and brain gather a lot of information when scanning a scene and then compile that information into the final image that we "see". Since our cameras may not be able to capture that image the same way that we "see" it I feel it is perfectly acceptable to do what our brains do for us.
For example when we view a scene our eyes automatically adjust to keep it properly exposed by adjusting the iris. They also keep all parts of the scene in focus for us. To do this with a camera may require taking multiple exposures and blending them later, or manipulating them in photoshop. Photographers have been doing this manipulation in their darkrooms for years without major criticism and now we do it in the digital darkroom.
The real question is how far do you go before you tell the viewing public what you have done? Well, as I said in my first sentence above I'd say that any time you add or remove something from an image its time to be honest about it. I think I would also add that any time you radically alter the original scene you're crossing the border too. In this case I'm thinking of all the "creative" digital filters that are available in photoshop (etc.).
I feel the strongest obligations to be honest with my clients. If I've altered things I tell them so. If I haven't I tell them that, too.
In the first case with alteration, that's more commercial art for me and very much client driven. Want a purple UFO right under Delicate Arch? Sure. Tell me if you want an alien waving out the window, too.
But that's very different in my mind than letting the arch and the light speak for itself, and trying to capture that moment for myself, much less for future viewers. I'm very much looking for an emotional reaction in myself and viewers with this type of photography.
Do you see the distinction? There's a place, and a good one for subtracted or added elements, but it's more to do with commercial art. Not for the pure love of the place and the moment, and an attempt to convey those insights to viewers.
Different strokes for different fates of the photos.
In an attempt to discover a philosophically consistent set of principles and guidelines for this sort of thing, I spent a few moments considering what I've actually done--or routinely do.
1. I've cloned out dust spots...twigs...garbage...graffiti etched or spraypainted onto a natural surface...even, on a few occasions, footprints. In one instance I cloned a single, small blurry (wind-blown) leaf out of a picture because it was driving me crazy even though I was told repeatedly by viewers that if I hadn't pointed it out to them they'd never have seen it.
The basic guideline behind all of this is that I feel okay about digitally removing things from an image if I felt that they detracted--or distracted the viewer--from the overall artistic ambiance of the visual. Obviously that's a judgment call. If I haven't stated this explicitly, it's a function of unintentional omission; I certainly am not in any way ashamed of the above, nor am I trying to hide it in any way.
2. I have certainly blended multiple exposures of the same scene to stretch dynamic range and I've stacked focus-bracketed exposures as well to extend depth of field. The guiding principle in this instance is--quantitatively and qualitatively--helping the camera approach the human eye's visual qualities. Again, no attempt has been made to mask this process.
What I have not done:
1. Clone anything into a scene--no animals, clouds, celestial bodies, rocks, trees, leaves...nothing. If it wasn't in the original scene, it's not in my processed scene either. Frankly, though this is my approach, as long as people are upfront about doing so, my sensibilities aren't offended if others do clone things in...but I don't do it myself.
2. As a clarifying extension of the above point, I don't composite parts of different scenes into a single image. I'll combine differing exposures and focus bracketed shots of the same scene into a single frame, but I will not, for example, take the sky from one scene and put it another. Again, if people are forthcoming about it, it's not a deal breaker for me as a viewer; I see this as a kind of artistic license..but I don't do this myself...never have.
Here's an illustration, I suppose, of where I personally draw the line--as it pertains to my own conduct, not necessarily that of anyone else. A couple of years ago, I posted this image in ESS. It was a combination of several focus-bracketed images to obtain the necessary DOF to render the entire scene sharp--as my eye saw it at the time. I fully disclosed that when I posted it. Among the comments in the ensuing thread, someone wrote something along the lines of: "I only wish that the moon was in the upper left-hand corner of the arch to help balance the butte in the lower right." Well, so do I. At the time I composed the shot, the very thought was on my mind. I even moved my vantage point to attempt to make it so, but that meant losing the butte entirely and more or less destroying any notion of balance as a result. And--believe me--it definitely occurred to me that it would be the easiest thing in the world to digitally move the moon right where I wanted it to be...and who would be the wiser? The answer? I would. That's where the moon was when the exposures were made; that's where it remains in my rendering. In the final analysis, I have to be comfortable with my own actions; and so I am.
Posted by Matt Anderson on August 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Customers are the divining rod ... IMHO (and really all that matters, although, one's ego may disagree)
Matt, maybe so, but customers are fickle, and what they like today may not be what they like tomorrow. What they like 200 years from now might be a stronger goal for the artist as opposed to the photographer-for-hire.
My own take is very close to Kerry's, if i have to manipulate the image to the point where im adding or subtracting elements to change the scene, then what's the point? There is none, for me, as a photographer as opposed to a photo-artist (and i make a distinction). I could easily change a sky in a shot of the Grand Canyon to make it more appealing, a nice colorful one instead of a drab gray one for example. But who am i kidding? How am i advancing my goal of bringing my viewer close to the original experience for me?--by changing the scene its no longer a true experience, it's a concocted lie, regardless of what i might claim ("oh yeah--that drab gray sky really felt like a colorful sunset---but just to me!"
Is there a difference if you do it yourself or if you allow a magazine editor or graphic designer for an ad company to do it?
Do your scruples allow you only to sell prints and never to publication or ad agencies, or to forbid the editors and ad agencies to make changes? It is after all your work.
I smell a moral dilemma right there in River City, my friends!
Thanks for all your thoughts folks. Overall I'm with Stan and Kerry, but when I started doing twilight photography, which combines images from several times of day, I had to think more carefully about the precise 'rules' I wanted to stand by.
Typically people (even many purists) will agree that blending exposures from the same scene is ok... but how long are you allowed to wait between those exposures? That's a hard question to answer.
What I settled on was that as long as I didn't move my camera, I could blend as many exposures as I wanted, taken whenever I wanted, provided that the lighting ended up looking natural in the final image. What that means is, I will never allow myself to merge some clouds from one shoot with another entirely separate image. But, if I set up my camera at 5:15am and there's some lovely low hanging mist, and at 5:30am the mist has disappeared but the clouds in the sky are now experiencing some nice light, I would be ok with blending those two exposures provided I can make it look entirely natural. My rational is that if conditions had been absolutely perfect, it would have been possible to get that combination at the same time. To keep the honesty of 'photography' there, I limit my 'palate' to only images taken from a single continuous session without moving my camera.
So rather than waste weeks and months to try and get it in one exposure, I'll take the artistic liberty to 'paint' my photograph from pieces. I would not, however, try to pass it off as a single 'purist' image - particularly if asked. However, if hanging in a gallery I probably wouldn't put a note there as I'd find that distracting, but if someone asked about details about the image I would happily share my process.
In my recent image linked in the original post, I was comfortable with the process, as the two exposures were only 5 min apart, and I believe that under exactly the right conditions I could have seen the display of light I ended up with in the final image. With regard to moving components, like the log, I find that perfectly acceptable. In fact, in many cases I think it can do a better job at portraying the scene/environment/experience as a whole even better than without - a photograph is limited by where we put the edges of the frame, the human experience is not. By bringing new elements into the scene I'm expanding the edges of the frame, while still abiding by the 'no moving the camera' rule, and thus in my opinion, 'photography' as a medium.
On a side note, I have on one other occasion blended an image taken before there was any direct light with one after the sun started hitting the scene - in that case it was primarily for controlling the dynamic range, it's makes it much easier to get the soft light look that my eyes seem to see at first light, than if you just use a single exposure after the sun has risen.
You might note from my 'rules', that blending a moon photographed with a longer focal length with a wide angle is not allowed. So far I've followed that 'rule', and I generally find 'blown up' moons a little discomforting. Moving a moon is entirely out of the question for me.
One other, slight twist, is that in wildlife photography I will on occasion crop and add canvas to better balance a scene. Generally this only refers to action photography, where I might have missed the composition a bit. This is only really possible if you can stitch images taken in a series, or if the background is smooth, so in sense it's just like stitching a panorama.
I think Kerry's conclusion was excellent, I, the artist, am responsible for the art I create, and need to be comfortable with the process (which in my opinion involves being comfortable sharing the process with viewers).
Posted by Darren White on August 11, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Hi, my name is Darren White and I sometimes add moons to my shots. This I am guilty of....sometimes the moons are really there but too small so I take 2 shots, sometimes the moon is not there and I add it to a nice clear sky.... This is the extent of my photoshop blending, layers, or whatever you guys do.....all other images are processed with one single image adjusted in ACR and finished in CS4, the end!
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 12, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Floris - great topic, although one could say it's a circular one...
I'm with Kerry's comments 100% in terms of my approach so I won't repeat it all, but I will add to it. Consider the small twig, beer can or other little distracting elements that we clone out. How about a specular highlight that we clone out? Adding to the discussion, I think we all agree that the camera will capture everything in front of the lens (discounting dynamic range issues for a second.) Our brain also captures everything - however, our brain does not process everything and send to our cognitive department. In other words, how many times have you, or heard someone say, "I didn't even see that branch sticking out in to the upper corner," Or "If I would have seen that beer can, I would have walked over and picked it up," etc. etc. In other words, our brains may record all that information, but it doesn't always register up front. So..... when I go to process/print that image and clone out that twig or piece of garbage, it's quite possible that I didn't know it was there in the first place - and thus I can have a clear conscious cloning it out. :-)
Clearly, the intent is to render the scene as accurately as possible with integrity. Blends, HDR, masks, etc. etc. are all used to capture the scene technically. Adding a physical element that wasn't there IMHO crosses the line and must be disclosed.
As far as the same scene at different times, I may have a different thought than Floris. IMO, same scene/same time works for me in terms of exposure/focus/light blends. In other words, the elements haven't significantly changed, but techniques are used to maximize the best capture. Same scene/different time/season to me, is like two different scenes, simply because a significant amount of time has passed and conditions have changed. I would consider "conditions" to be an element of a scene; for example clouds, angle of the sun, season, etc.
To your example of the night photography and using the same scene at different times of the day. First of all, I think your results are outstanding and I personally can enjoy and appreciate the photography. So for that scenario, when you post the image and make a comment (like you do) that says for example, "this is a multi-exposure blend. One image taken at dusk to capture the last light on the landscape and the second exposure was at midnight to capture the stars..." I'm totally fine with that.
The reason I think disclosure is important in most of these situations is not necessarily for the general public, trust and such, but for the other photogs out there, especially the beginner. Let's say for example, we take your example of the same scene, different times of day. Without disclosure, how many countless photogs who see that image on places like NPN go out and try to duplicate the technique. They go out at midnight and try and capture the stars and can't figure out why the landscape is dark. Of course most of us are not trying to duplicate other people's work, but I'm betting there is an even bigger group out there who don't participate in these forums, but who are trying to learn from them. And without that disclosure, there's a bunch of folks out there trying things that just aren't possible with a single exposure.
Hope that makes sense.
Lon
Posted by Richard Wong on August 13, 2009 at 9:15 PM
The way I see it is if I wanted to be a graphic designer then I would be one. There is a reason why I would rather be a photographer and that is to show what I can of the world through my lenses.
Posted by Doug Roane on August 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM
My approach is similar to the rest of you. However, on 1 or 2 images, I have replaced a sky, and on 1 photo, I have even created a reflection in a lake - in my own mind, though, it devalues the image for me. Posting in photog forums, I would always be compelled to disclose this. For clients, I would disclose only if asked, but would certainly be honest about it.
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 14, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Well lets talk about B&W, my favorite medium. Is it realistic? I think not. Ansel Adams was and still is my favorite photographer. Using different films and processing techniques, paper were standard techniques back in the day of film and darkroom work ........ and Cibachrome was the HDR of the past......
BTW - I do not like cropping, insertion of objects, (cloning out dust spots is OK, as well as human garbage) Anything I could not do in a dark room is out of bounds........ for me anyway. Blending is OK with limits...... Same time (within minutes), same place, OK. Some pics out there exceed these limits which is OK but not something I would do......
Eva
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on August 15, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Personally:
I do not blend, HDR, and I've only stitched once. All the rest of my shots are singles exposures with GNDs and sometimes a polarizer.
I have not added anything to a scene. I have occasionally done extensive cloning to remove things (e.g. removing horizon-line bushes).
Others:
I am fine with anything and I don't think disclosure is necessary. It is art, and I am happy to let the artist do whatever they like. I might not like the results though; moreover, I tend to prefer shots that reflect a reality with which I am familiar (or which don't reflect reality at all).
If people could produce restrained, subtle, seamless composites, I would be quite happy with that.
Questions:
Anyone know the work of Mehmet Ozgur? What do you make of his visionscapes? Do they challenge what you find acceptable?
I quite liked much his work featured in Lenswork 78, but, several of you would seem to have ethical qualms about it as landscape photography. Especially since he doesn't make it directly clear up front that the images are altered and distorted beyond what most would do.
Here is one of the frames that ran in Lenswork as posted on Photo.net: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7694886
Note that there was no comment about the altered reality with the posting; but, that he answered honestly when asked about it:
"If it is not clear already, my work does not end with the pseudo-realistic pursuit of traditional landscape photography. The reality is one my starting points. It is not my goal to make compositions that can be repeated endlessly by simply by owning a camera. It not my goal to have unattainably real or imaginary fantasy landscapes. All I want is to have pieces that will give me sense of pleasure when I look at them on my wall, nothing more."
As an artist, I think you draw the line for yourself with whatever you feel comfortable with. Everyone else will have their own opinion about it, and they can draw their own line. I also think there is really no limit to one's artistic liberty. It just comes down to disclosure. I think beyond minor cloning of distracting elements, and minor optimizing of color and contrast, it should be disclosed. I really like the idea of blending for light, and color. I never thought of that. But it's true that the light is better sometimes sooner, or later than the color. By blending two images one for each, you get the best of both. I think it's all about the light, and then great color, but not necessarily over composition. Since most people think they are looking at something the photographer actually saw for themselves, I think that blending images for light and color is approaching the edge. Since both didn't really happen simultaneously. But I also don't think that disclosing it would be a deal breaker either. When I am impressed by a photograph, it is usually by the grandeur of the scene, and conditions surrounding it. Or sometimes it is just because I tthought is was an awesome photograph. Or maybe something that I know may have been a once in a lifetime event for the person that captured it. personally, I don't really think there should be such a debate about it. If anyone thinks the so called purests form the hay days of film are displaying documentary images of what they saw, well hey, you should try and sell them some ocean front property in Arizona!!!!!! Digital imagery, and image editing software are just advancements in technology, and tools of todays photographer. Doctors didn't alweays have all this technology to practice medicine, but they sure do benefit from it today, and so do we. I mean there is always going to be something that comes along, and makes doing something better, or easier, or faster. It's not anything but different. So I say go for it as far as your artistic vision reaches. Just let people no when you venture too far from reality.
Chris
Posted by Stan Rose on August 18, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Ian, from what ive seen Mehmet crosses the line into photo-art, and it is someowhat disconcerting that you have to hunt deep to find any mention of the manipulations from him.
Frankly, i think the statement you posted from him shows a profound ignorance over what photography is all about. There can always be new comps taken in new conditions that wont be 'endlessly repeated'. (my latest ESS post for example, crappy as the blend may be )--that is the joy of traditional photography, nature will always offer you something new if you look for it! He, on the other hand, is essentially creating dreamscapes, nothing wrong with that and some of his stuff is very nice, but its photo-art as far as im concerned and not really photography in the traditional sense.
My point of view is more towards what Chris Chamberlain has said. Everyone has thier own style, what you are comfortable with. I prefer to be a photographer who shows what I can of the world through my lenses.
Posted by Jeff Pritchard on September 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Hi, I'm new here, so perhaps I should have lurked longer before posting. Forgive me if I'm all alone in my opinion.
I think this is one of the "religion" type of questions. I agree with the OP that no consensus can be reached. I enjoy the topic just because I get a glimpse at how differently we all think about a shared activity. I think a discussion like this is more about enjoying the discussion, and not about "solving some moral dilemma".
As one of the "for me, it is art, not photojournalism" crowd, I've never quite understood what the folks on the other side of this fence get out of their involvement in landscape photography. I'm hoping to understand that better from this thread. Maybe it is just that, like me, they are awestruck by the beauty that can sometimes be found on this planet and want to share that with someone else.
The enjoyment for me is in finding new ways to look at things that other people miss. I will sometimes find something along a footpath and just "know" there is a picture in there somewhere. I have been known to spend a great deal of time "looking" for said picture. I've actually had people walk by me while I was engaged in that pursuit, and then come back in the other direction after completing the hike, and stop and ask me if I'm "OK", because I've been in that same spot for what to them seems an unreasonable amount of time. :)
Rather than being embarrassed or defensive about how accurately/inaccurately I have reproduced something in front of my camera...I take pride in making an image that no-one else who has wandered by that way would ever recognize as having come from there.
I'm also notoriously bad at remembering where some of my favorite images are "from". "Somewhere in California" is usually about the best I can do for an image taken more than a year ago. In fact, I would say that for me that is part of the success of an image. If I can tell by looking at it where it was taken, I don't feel like I have brought anything unique to the image as "art". If every image I took had people saying "oh, I know where that is", or "hey, isn't that the General Grant tree in Sequoia NP?" I would feel like I had mastered the use of a camera, but nothing else about photography.
Just like a discussion about religion or politics, this probably comes down ultimately to each person's bias based on what they get out of the activity or how it has interacted with them on a personal level. I also think that our language is a bit imprecise in this area. There is a point at which a "skill" reaches a level that we tend to have the same feeling about it that we have for something that might be described as a "gift" (poor name in my opinion, but that is the vernacular).
Not everyone can use a camera well enough to make a wall-worthy image while standing in front of the Grand Canyon. Not everyone can make a wall-worthy image from something as mundane and common as a green maple leaf -- one which might not look like a maple leaf at all, but still captures people's attention in a good way. Are they both art? In our limited language yes, and both worthy pursuits...but not the same thing at all.
jp
Posted by bill meikle on September 24, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I think that we all have our own reasons for making our images the way we do and we need to answer to our own consciences. Personally I would remove dead twigs or a coke can from a scene and/or would remove them in PS later if needed. My objective is to portray our amazing planet in a way that reflects it's beauty as seen through my eyes. I want people to love and respect this planet and protect it for our sons and daughters.
I wouldn't use a PS filter or add a different sky without stating something to that effect on the description of the image unless it was so blindingly obvious that it didn't need stating.
Some customers prefer digitally enhanced images although I don't fully understand that.
When showing landscapes I would never blend two totally different images together, but that is just my personal attitude. I would do exposure blending and probably focus blending. I would show photographic art that is PS filtered and doesn't look much anything real if I liked the creation enough, and state it as such. I am fine with others doing whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt/cheated/disappointed.
Do anything. There are no rules! Just be OPEN about it.
Mark
Posted by Steve France on September 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Floris, this is very interesting, and is a topic that is discussed time and time again.
Technical advantages have really made photography so accessible to the public now. Anyone can pick up a camera and take a picture, buy photoshop and start playing. This is a great thing ! I think we all as nature/landscape photographers would welcome any changes or methods coming along to advance and benefit the great art form of photography.
But for me, the integrity of photography is being compromised. We all have differing opinons when it comes to how we all see and what we take image wise. No one should want to take and see the same old pictures time and time again. Difference in Vision and style is paramount in keeping photography exciting.
My own personal thoughts are 100% with Stan, Kerry and almost 100% with Lon.
I've never called myself a purist, but I guess I must be, as I dont conform to the way of many that view photography now, with its computer obsessed attitude.
Photography for me is about discovery, about how we see the world, how we interact with it, and simply, enjoying it and being thankful for getting the opportunity to see it, walk in it, and experience it. Its not about sitting at a desk, hours on end tinkering in photoshop. I just want to take pictures of places and times that move me, and I will do that simply, or I can get creative sometimes (long exposures, grads etc..)
Now, Im not slating photoshop..no way. Its a fantastic peice of software, and I couldnt live without it. But as you have stated in your own way of doing things, there is a lot done outside of taking the image, and enjoying the landscape. Mr Ansel Adams done so much in the dark room, that even many of his images can be perceived as not 'real'. But I think fine art development is different than taking an image at different times of day. The feel of a photo and its look due to processing is another great debating point LOL!
The created world has so much to offer in its most raw, and I agree with Stan, it really doesnt need to be played with, enhanced or maniplulated.
Of course removing an unsitely beer can left in the wilderness that you forgot to remove before taking a shot is of course necessary for the integrity of the image..and it wouldnt sell, if you do sell your images, being left.
Obviously technique now is so different from the classic era of pioneering landscape photographers, but for me, technology doesnt always mean advances. In many instances, it just complicates, and brings new burdens to bare, what with many photographers being obsessed with the 'perfect' image, details in shadows that weren't there for example.
Also the onset of digital processing has greatly i feel changed the finished look to photographs. Everything is now so saturated and contrasting. Even velvia doesnt get anywhere near most of the stuff taken with digital today. And many people are now so adapted to that look, anything looking 'natural' doesnt seem to look right. And that I think is a shame.
I think you mixing shots of one scene taken at different times of the day for me cant be viewed as photography in the classical sense. It may be considered a multiple exposure...and they after all arent a new thing. Just now they are blended using a computer, and not recorded using the same bit of film not wound on. But that I feel is different to what you are doing with exaggerate times of day.
Getting the moon exposed correctly at the same time your dusk shot was taken is I believe keeping the shots integrity.
More than that and I feel its not....again personal statement. Photography is subjective! LOL
I like Lon will only ever record the scene in front of me, one click. The essance of the landscape has captured me, and I want to record it. Yes we can all see it differently, and we can process it differently. But the actual scene moved me. We connected with it. We paint with light.... if the light is different and you blend...is that really photography ?
Is photography just image taking? Does it now mean so much more than that? Is photography the art of taking ONE photo?
As Lon said to, people do respond to what looks like an authentic image. One they can believe in. Even if it looks completely natural, if I knew it wasnt recorded all at the same time, something in me jolts....it just doesnt sit right. Does it matter you should tell that to your clients? Suppose it depends who your clients are. As someone stated, commercial photography I think doesnt operate in the same arena as we nature photographers.
One of my personal favourite photographers...Paul Wakefield... is a master large format photographer...and his fine art landscapes are sheer amazing. But his commercial work goes beyond fantasy...they look fantastic... but he's selling something.. and marketing is all about going OTT and selling ' a dream'. Its not real...its deceptive... and I think the heart of many landscape photographers want to capture natural beauty, and not deceive anyone.
I know people will say...you dodge and burn, and therefore manipulate the image. Film doesnt record exactly what we see either.
Processing is an art as we all know...but I still think even if much is done during it, if the integrity of the image isnt compromised...then thats good.
I guess its like using a sunset filter to add colour when there wasnt any in the first place.
Its a forced thing.... people know its not real...it was done deliberately. I think filters being used creatively is great.
Even DOF using movements isn't exactly real as far as how we see. But again, I dont think that in anyway rubbishes the integrity of an image. Its a technical skill, to get everything sharp, using a camera, out in the field, at the time of taking the image.
People can spend a lot of time on a computer, taking shots and blending..but im not trying to be a computer or digtial artist... i want to be a photographer... and that for me means using a camera, taking an image of the scene in front of me, and i can 'manipulate ' that by using grads, long exposures etc.. But at least it was there, and it was recorded then.
Very interesting views on here... Ive really enjoyed reading everyones thoughts..
Great topic and tough issue. Fully disclosure is always the best policy. Although I'm not a big fan of HDR, I view blending in CS4 as a tool which you are using to deal with exposure issues. You are not "altering" what is actually there, and the finished product is your vision of the scene and your experience in capturing it. That said, I certainly have removed distracting twigs and dust spots form images. In my view, when you composite two images to add an element not in the original scene, you are creating digital art. It maybe beautiful and creative, but its not reality, its digital art. Nothing wrong with that, it just needs to be disclosed. As Lon noted, there are probably folks out there who will assume everything they see on NPN is photography and not digital art.
Discussion
21 repliesSo, what are your thoughts? As a landscape photographer/artist, how obligated do you feel to accurately/truthfully portray the scene? Will you clone out a distracting twig? Will you blend different kinds of light, whether it looks natural or not? Will you blend in a full moon photographed at a longer focal length? Would you mix seasons if it contributed to the scene and experience?
What does 'accurate' and 'truthful' mean? Is it what the camera captures, or what you see, or what you experience? Does it matter? The human eye and brain work in complicated ways, of course, as we all know, the dynamic range of the eye/brain is rather incredible, but our experiences are more than just a blink in time - there's some degree of temporal experiences and various other senses that all get integrated together to form a complete 'experience'. Should we try to capture that in a photo? Or just a flash in time?
At what point in time do you feel you need to inform the viewers? Or should you ever? Do you put up a tag that says it's been altered from a straight photograph, more than average (whatever that may be)? Or do you wait for someone to ask, and then be honest, or forgo honesty to keep the 'magic' secret so as not to 'ruin' the impact?
I'm sure there's many more questions that can be posed, and I urge you do so here, in addition to discussing your views. Of course, your opinion will likely depend on the end usage of the photo - so state that.
Also, let's leave the obvious things out (ie. don't submit a blended/composited image to a competition/magazine that strictly forbids that), and we can leave the HDR vs. blending discussion out too - that's been done enough. I think we can all agree that photojournalism should not make use of such image massaging. So, let's focus on the 'art' of landscape photography with the goal of creating a positive reaction from the viewer - be it emotional, a desire to 'be there', or triggering some environmental concern/care, etc etc. What is 'ok' when it comes to manipulation in your opinion for an image hanging in a gallery of nature/landscape photography?
For example when we view a scene our eyes automatically adjust to keep it properly exposed by adjusting the iris. They also keep all parts of the scene in focus for us. To do this with a camera may require taking multiple exposures and blending them later, or manipulating them in photoshop. Photographers have been doing this manipulation in their darkrooms for years without major criticism and now we do it in the digital darkroom.
The real question is how far do you go before you tell the viewing public what you have done? Well, as I said in my first sentence above I'd say that any time you add or remove something from an image its time to be honest about it. I think I would also add that any time you radically alter the original scene you're crossing the border too. In this case I'm thinking of all the "creative" digital filters that are available in photoshop (etc.).
Larry
In the first case with alteration, that's more commercial art for me and very much client driven. Want a purple UFO right under Delicate Arch? Sure. Tell me if you want an alien waving out the window, too.
But that's very different in my mind than letting the arch and the light speak for itself, and trying to capture that moment for myself, much less for future viewers. I'm very much looking for an emotional reaction in myself and viewers with this type of photography.
Do you see the distinction? There's a place, and a good one for subtracted or added elements, but it's more to do with commercial art. Not for the pure love of the place and the moment, and an attempt to convey those insights to viewers.
Different strokes for different fates of the photos.
1. I've cloned out dust spots...twigs...garbage...graffiti etched or spraypainted onto a natural surface...even, on a few occasions, footprints. In one instance I cloned a single, small blurry (wind-blown) leaf out of a picture because it was driving me crazy even though I was told repeatedly by viewers that if I hadn't pointed it out to them they'd never have seen it.
The basic guideline behind all of this is that I feel okay about digitally removing things from an image if I felt that they detracted--or distracted the viewer--from the overall artistic ambiance of the visual. Obviously that's a judgment call. If I haven't stated this explicitly, it's a function of unintentional omission; I certainly am not in any way ashamed of the above, nor am I trying to hide it in any way.
2. I have certainly blended multiple exposures of the same scene to stretch dynamic range and I've stacked focus-bracketed exposures as well to extend depth of field. The guiding principle in this instance is--quantitatively and qualitatively--helping the camera approach the human eye's visual qualities. Again, no attempt has been made to mask this process.
What I have not done:
1. Clone anything into a scene--no animals, clouds, celestial bodies, rocks, trees, leaves...nothing. If it wasn't in the original scene, it's not in my processed scene either. Frankly, though this is my approach, as long as people are upfront about doing so, my sensibilities aren't offended if others do clone things in...but I don't do it myself.
2. As a clarifying extension of the above point, I don't composite parts of different scenes into a single image. I'll combine differing exposures and focus bracketed shots of the same scene into a single frame, but I will not, for example, take the sky from one scene and put it another. Again, if people are forthcoming about it, it's not a deal breaker for me as a viewer; I see this as a kind of artistic license..but I don't do this myself...never have.
Here's an illustration, I suppose, of where I personally draw the line--as it pertains to my own conduct, not necessarily that of anyone else. A couple of years ago, I posted this image in ESS. It was a combination of several focus-bracketed images to obtain the necessary DOF to render the entire scene sharp--as my eye saw it at the time. I fully disclosed that when I posted it. Among the comments in the ensuing thread, someone wrote something along the lines of: "I only wish that the moon was in the upper left-hand corner of the arch to help balance the butte in the lower right." Well, so do I. At the time I composed the shot, the very thought was on my mind. I even moved my vantage point to attempt to make it so, but that meant losing the butte entirely and more or less destroying any notion of balance as a result. And--believe me--it definitely occurred to me that it would be the easiest thing in the world to digitally move the moon right where I wanted it to be...and who would be the wiser? The answer? I would. That's where the moon was when the exposures were made; that's where it remains in my rendering. In the final analysis, I have to be comfortable with my own actions; and so I am.
My own take is very close to Kerry's, if i have to manipulate the image to the point where im adding or subtracting elements to change the scene, then what's the point? There is none, for me, as a photographer as opposed to a photo-artist (and i make a distinction). I could easily change a sky in a shot of the Grand Canyon to make it more appealing, a nice colorful one instead of a drab gray one for example. But who am i kidding? How am i advancing my goal of bringing my viewer close to the original experience for me?--by changing the scene its no longer a true experience, it's a concocted lie, regardless of what i might claim ("oh yeah--that drab gray sky really felt like a colorful sunset---but just to me!"
Do your scruples allow you only to sell prints and never to publication or ad agencies, or to forbid the editors and ad agencies to make changes? It is after all your work.
I smell a moral dilemma right there in River City, my friends!
Typically people (even many purists) will agree that blending exposures from the same scene is ok... but how long are you allowed to wait between those exposures? That's a hard question to answer.
What I settled on was that as long as I didn't move my camera, I could blend as many exposures as I wanted, taken whenever I wanted, provided that the lighting ended up looking natural in the final image. What that means is, I will never allow myself to merge some clouds from one shoot with another entirely separate image. But, if I set up my camera at 5:15am and there's some lovely low hanging mist, and at 5:30am the mist has disappeared but the clouds in the sky are now experiencing some nice light, I would be ok with blending those two exposures provided I can make it look entirely natural. My rational is that if conditions had been absolutely perfect, it would have been possible to get that combination at the same time. To keep the honesty of 'photography' there, I limit my 'palate' to only images taken from a single continuous session without moving my camera.
So rather than waste weeks and months to try and get it in one exposure, I'll take the artistic liberty to 'paint' my photograph from pieces. I would not, however, try to pass it off as a single 'purist' image - particularly if asked. However, if hanging in a gallery I probably wouldn't put a note there as I'd find that distracting, but if someone asked about details about the image I would happily share my process.
In my recent image linked in the original post, I was comfortable with the process, as the two exposures were only 5 min apart, and I believe that under exactly the right conditions I could have seen the display of light I ended up with in the final image. With regard to moving components, like the log, I find that perfectly acceptable. In fact, in many cases I think it can do a better job at portraying the scene/environment/experience as a whole even better than without - a photograph is limited by where we put the edges of the frame, the human experience is not. By bringing new elements into the scene I'm expanding the edges of the frame, while still abiding by the 'no moving the camera' rule, and thus in my opinion, 'photography' as a medium.
On a side note, I have on one other occasion blended an image taken before there was any direct light with one after the sun started hitting the scene - in that case it was primarily for controlling the dynamic range, it's makes it much easier to get the soft light look that my eyes seem to see at first light, than if you just use a single exposure after the sun has risen.
You might note from my 'rules', that blending a moon photographed with a longer focal length with a wide angle is not allowed. So far I've followed that 'rule', and I generally find 'blown up' moons a little discomforting. Moving a moon is entirely out of the question for me.
One other, slight twist, is that in wildlife photography I will on occasion crop and add canvas to better balance a scene. Generally this only refers to action photography, where I might have missed the composition a bit. This is only really possible if you can stitch images taken in a series, or if the background is smooth, so in sense it's just like stitching a panorama.
I think Kerry's conclusion was excellent, I, the artist, am responsible for the art I create, and need to be comfortable with the process (which in my opinion involves being comfortable sharing the process with viewers).
I'm with Kerry's comments 100% in terms of my approach so I won't repeat it all, but I will add to it. Consider the small twig, beer can or other little distracting elements that we clone out. How about a specular highlight that we clone out? Adding to the discussion, I think we all agree that the camera will capture everything in front of the lens (discounting dynamic range issues for a second.) Our brain also captures everything - however, our brain does not process everything and send to our cognitive department. In other words, how many times have you, or heard someone say, "I didn't even see that branch sticking out in to the upper corner," Or "If I would have seen that beer can, I would have walked over and picked it up," etc. etc. In other words, our brains may record all that information, but it doesn't always register up front. So..... when I go to process/print that image and clone out that twig or piece of garbage, it's quite possible that I didn't know it was there in the first place - and thus I can have a clear conscious cloning it out. :-)
Clearly, the intent is to render the scene as accurately as possible with integrity. Blends, HDR, masks, etc. etc. are all used to capture the scene technically. Adding a physical element that wasn't there IMHO crosses the line and must be disclosed.
As far as the same scene at different times, I may have a different thought than Floris. IMO, same scene/same time works for me in terms of exposure/focus/light blends. In other words, the elements haven't significantly changed, but techniques are used to maximize the best capture. Same scene/different time/season to me, is like two different scenes, simply because a significant amount of time has passed and conditions have changed. I would consider "conditions" to be an element of a scene; for example clouds, angle of the sun, season, etc.
To your example of the night photography and using the same scene at different times of the day. First of all, I think your results are outstanding and I personally can enjoy and appreciate the photography. So for that scenario, when you post the image and make a comment (like you do) that says for example, "this is a multi-exposure blend. One image taken at dusk to capture the last light on the landscape and the second exposure was at midnight to capture the stars..." I'm totally fine with that.
The reason I think disclosure is important in most of these situations is not necessarily for the general public, trust and such, but for the other photogs out there, especially the beginner. Let's say for example, we take your example of the same scene, different times of day. Without disclosure, how many countless photogs who see that image on places like NPN go out and try to duplicate the technique. They go out at midnight and try and capture the stars and can't figure out why the landscape is dark. Of course most of us are not trying to duplicate other people's work, but I'm betting there is an even bigger group out there who don't participate in these forums, but who are trying to learn from them. And without that disclosure, there's a bunch of folks out there trying things that just aren't possible with a single exposure.
Hope that makes sense.
Lon
BTW - I do not like cropping, insertion of objects, (cloning out dust spots is OK, as well as human garbage) Anything I could not do in a dark room is out of bounds........ for me anyway. Blending is OK with limits...... Same time (within minutes), same place, OK. Some pics out there exceed these limits which is OK but not something I would do......
Eva
I do not blend, HDR, and I've only stitched once. All the rest of my shots are singles exposures with GNDs and sometimes a polarizer.
I have not added anything to a scene. I have occasionally done extensive cloning to remove things (e.g. removing horizon-line bushes).
Others:
I am fine with anything and I don't think disclosure is necessary. It is art, and I am happy to let the artist do whatever they like. I might not like the results though; moreover, I tend to prefer shots that reflect a reality with which I am familiar (or which don't reflect reality at all).
If people could produce restrained, subtle, seamless composites, I would be quite happy with that.
Questions:
Anyone know the work of Mehmet Ozgur? What do you make of his visionscapes? Do they challenge what you find acceptable?
I quite liked much his work featured in Lenswork 78, but, several of you would seem to have ethical qualms about it as landscape photography. Especially since he doesn't make it directly clear up front that the images are altered and distorted beyond what most would do.
Here is one of the frames that ran in Lenswork as posted on Photo.net: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7694886
Note that there was no comment about the altered reality with the posting; but, that he answered honestly when asked about it:
"If it is not clear already, my work does not end with the pseudo-realistic pursuit of traditional landscape photography. The reality is one my starting points. It is not my goal to make compositions that can be repeated endlessly by simply by owning a camera. It not my goal to have unattainably real or imaginary fantasy landscapes. All I want is to have pieces that will give me sense of pleasure when I look at them on my wall, nothing more."
Chris
Frankly, i think the statement you posted from him shows a profound ignorance over what photography is all about. There can always be new comps taken in new conditions that wont be 'endlessly repeated'. (my latest ESS post for example, crappy as the blend may be
It is if you are really really colorblind, Eva
I think this is one of the "religion" type of questions. I agree with the OP that no consensus can be reached. I enjoy the topic just because I get a glimpse at how differently we all think about a shared activity. I think a discussion like this is more about enjoying the discussion, and not about "solving some moral dilemma".
As one of the "for me, it is art, not photojournalism" crowd, I've never quite understood what the folks on the other side of this fence get out of their involvement in landscape photography. I'm hoping to understand that better from this thread. Maybe it is just that, like me, they are awestruck by the beauty that can sometimes be found on this planet and want to share that with someone else.
The enjoyment for me is in finding new ways to look at things that other people miss. I will sometimes find something along a footpath and just "know" there is a picture in there somewhere. I have been known to spend a great deal of time "looking" for said picture. I've actually had people walk by me while I was engaged in that pursuit, and then come back in the other direction after completing the hike, and stop and ask me if I'm "OK", because I've been in that same spot for what to them seems an unreasonable amount of time. :)
Rather than being embarrassed or defensive about how accurately/inaccurately I have reproduced something in front of my camera...I take pride in making an image that no-one else who has wandered by that way would ever recognize as having come from there.
I'm also notoriously bad at remembering where some of my favorite images are "from". "Somewhere in California" is usually about the best I can do for an image taken more than a year ago. In fact, I would say that for me that is part of the success of an image. If I can tell by looking at it where it was taken, I don't feel like I have brought anything unique to the image as "art". If every image I took had people saying "oh, I know where that is", or "hey, isn't that the General Grant tree in Sequoia NP?" I would feel like I had mastered the use of a camera, but nothing else about photography.
Just like a discussion about religion or politics, this probably comes down ultimately to each person's bias based on what they get out of the activity or how it has interacted with them on a personal level. I also think that our language is a bit imprecise in this area. There is a point at which a "skill" reaches a level that we tend to have the same feeling about it that we have for something that might be described as a "gift" (poor name in my opinion, but that is the vernacular).
Not everyone can use a camera well enough to make a wall-worthy image while standing in front of the Grand Canyon. Not everyone can make a wall-worthy image from something as mundane and common as a green maple leaf -- one which might not look like a maple leaf at all, but still captures people's attention in a good way. Are they both art? In our limited language yes, and both worthy pursuits...but not the same thing at all.
jp
I wouldn't use a PS filter or add a different sky without stating something to that effect on the description of the image unless it was so blindingly obvious that it didn't need stating.
Some customers prefer digitally enhanced images although I don't fully understand that.
When showing landscapes I would never blend two totally different images together, but that is just my personal attitude. I would do exposure blending and probably focus blending. I would show photographic art that is PS filtered and doesn't look much anything real if I liked the creation enough, and state it as such. I am fine with others doing whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt/cheated/disappointed.
Mark
Technical advantages have really made photography so accessible to the public now. Anyone can pick up a camera and take a picture, buy photoshop and start playing. This is a great thing ! I think we all as nature/landscape photographers would welcome any changes or methods coming along to advance and benefit the great art form of photography.
But for me, the integrity of photography is being compromised. We all have differing opinons when it comes to how we all see and what we take image wise. No one should want to take and see the same old pictures time and time again. Difference in Vision and style is paramount in keeping photography exciting.
My own personal thoughts are 100% with Stan, Kerry and almost 100% with Lon.
I've never called myself a purist, but I guess I must be, as I dont conform to the way of many that view photography now, with its computer obsessed attitude.
Photography for me is about discovery, about how we see the world, how we interact with it, and simply, enjoying it and being thankful for getting the opportunity to see it, walk in it, and experience it. Its not about sitting at a desk, hours on end tinkering in photoshop. I just want to take pictures of places and times that move me, and I will do that simply, or I can get creative sometimes (long exposures, grads etc..)
Now, Im not slating photoshop..no way. Its a fantastic peice of software, and I couldnt live without it. But as you have stated in your own way of doing things, there is a lot done outside of taking the image, and enjoying the landscape. Mr Ansel Adams done so much in the dark room, that even many of his images can be perceived as not 'real'. But I think fine art development is different than taking an image at different times of day. The feel of a photo and its look due to processing is another great debating point LOL!
The created world has so much to offer in its most raw, and I agree with Stan, it really doesnt need to be played with, enhanced or maniplulated.
Of course removing an unsitely beer can left in the wilderness that you forgot to remove before taking a shot is of course necessary for the integrity of the image..and it wouldnt sell, if you do sell your images, being left.
Obviously technique now is so different from the classic era of pioneering landscape photographers, but for me, technology doesnt always mean advances. In many instances, it just complicates, and brings new burdens to bare, what with many photographers being obsessed with the 'perfect' image, details in shadows that weren't there for example.
Also the onset of digital processing has greatly i feel changed the finished look to photographs. Everything is now so saturated and contrasting. Even velvia doesnt get anywhere near most of the stuff taken with digital today. And many people are now so adapted to that look, anything looking 'natural' doesnt seem to look right. And that I think is a shame.
I think you mixing shots of one scene taken at different times of the day for me cant be viewed as photography in the classical sense. It may be considered a multiple exposure...and they after all arent a new thing. Just now they are blended using a computer, and not recorded using the same bit of film not wound on. But that I feel is different to what you are doing with exaggerate times of day.
Getting the moon exposed correctly at the same time your dusk shot was taken is I believe keeping the shots integrity.
More than that and I feel its not....again personal statement. Photography is subjective! LOL
I like Lon will only ever record the scene in front of me, one click. The essance of the landscape has captured me, and I want to record it. Yes we can all see it differently, and we can process it differently. But the actual scene moved me. We connected with it. We paint with light.... if the light is different and you blend...is that really photography ?
Is photography just image taking? Does it now mean so much more than that? Is photography the art of taking ONE photo?
As Lon said to, people do respond to what looks like an authentic image. One they can believe in. Even if it looks completely natural, if I knew it wasnt recorded all at the same time, something in me jolts....it just doesnt sit right. Does it matter you should tell that to your clients? Suppose it depends who your clients are. As someone stated, commercial photography I think doesnt operate in the same arena as we nature photographers.
One of my personal favourite photographers...Paul Wakefield... is a master large format photographer...and his fine art landscapes are sheer amazing. But his commercial work goes beyond fantasy...they look fantastic... but he's selling something.. and marketing is all about going OTT and selling ' a dream'. Its not real...its deceptive... and I think the heart of many landscape photographers want to capture natural beauty, and not deceive anyone.
I know people will say...you dodge and burn, and therefore manipulate the image. Film doesnt record exactly what we see either.
Processing is an art as we all know...but I still think even if much is done during it, if the integrity of the image isnt compromised...then thats good.
I guess its like using a sunset filter to add colour when there wasnt any in the first place.
Its a forced thing.... people know its not real...it was done deliberately. I think filters being used creatively is great.
Even DOF using movements isn't exactly real as far as how we see. But again, I dont think that in anyway rubbishes the integrity of an image. Its a technical skill, to get everything sharp, using a camera, out in the field, at the time of taking the image.
People can spend a lot of time on a computer, taking shots and blending..but im not trying to be a computer or digtial artist... i want to be a photographer... and that for me means using a camera, taking an image of the scene in front of me, and i can 'manipulate ' that by using grads, long exposures etc.. But at least it was there, and it was recorded then.
Very interesting views on here... Ive really enjoyed reading everyones thoughts..
Thank you Floris for starting this one..