The question of whether or not photographers should admit to the manipulation of photographs involves us all, but in my opinion, not to the same extent.
If you purchase a landscape photograph, or any photograph for that matter, believing that the image represents reality, you have a right to be informed if it doesn’t, if reality has been tampered with. In other words, has the photographer dropped in a nicer sky, inserted a cute little waterfall absent in the original scene, made a politician look credible or removed a wart from the end of your cousin’s nose?
I can’t speak for what happens in the US but I know that in Australia, some of the best known landscape photographers use the normal range of PS adjustments, plus a few more, to enhance their photographs. These manipulations make the images more attractive and more saleable (though not always more believable).
On the other hand, those who don’t make a living selling photographs are entitled to do whatever they like with our own cameras, computers and imaginations. There’s no law against manipulating a photograph to make it more attractive. And it’s a whole lot healthier than stealing cars or selling toxic default swaps.
We’ll always get righteous indignation from those trying to impose their ethical standards on the rest of us, but let’s not get too precious about it. These alleged standards have never been applied to those who paint for a living. None of the landed gentry ever insisted that Rembrandt, Rubens, Michelangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci include the town drunk in their daughter’s portrait because he was visible from the studio window. And if Bruegel’s paintings depict reality, we’re all in serious trouble.
So why are landscape painters but not landscape photographers permitted to rearrange reality? Why was Turner allowed to bend reality while modern photographers are tarred and feathered for committing that apparently heinous crime. ( You could suggest that without his wildly romantic imagination Turner’s paintings would have been boring, but that’s a subject for debate elsewhere).
In any event, different standards apply to photographers because we have always believed what cameras told us. And the mechanical process that produced the negative or slide had little scope for manipulation. What you saw was, for the most part, what you got. Apart from the use of filters during exposure, it was only when the film reached the processing stage, or the negative the printing stage, that manipulation was possible. And even then it was limited.
The most revered landscape photographer, Ansel Adams, said publicly that thanks to pre and post-exposure manipulation, most of his photographs deviated from reality because his perception of it was more pleasing than what he had been looking at. Are we now saying that Ansel’s work should be trashed because he failed to bring us inviolate reality?
And while we’re on the subject of who can manipulate and who can’t, what would the modern wedding or portrait business be like without PS? Talk about excluding the town drunk from the photograph! Here we have clients who not only approve of post capture processing but insist on it if it makes them look taller, richer, and more likely to make millions selling toxic default swaps.
It’s not that we need a new set of ethical standards to ensure that digital photography is honest. And in any case such a standard would be unenforceable.
But what might be useful is personal honesty. I’ll tell you right now, everything I post on this forum has been Photoshop’d to some extent. Sometimes more, sometimes less. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed of that. As I said, it’s my camera, my computer and my imagination, and as long as I’m not intentionally hurting or deceiving anyone I’ll do what I like with all three.
A problem occurs only if I present my images as a strict depiction of reality. But I’m not doing that. I’m not selling these photographs either, so I’m not telling a client, “This is what I saw”.
So it’s a matter of personal integrity. You either tell the truth or you don’t. Wedding and portrait photographers are not obliged to make people look ugly for the sake of editorial honesty. Photographers bringing the world into our homes have a less flexible commission.
And in the end, whether you’re National Geographic, The New York Times or Wombat Monthly, there’s only one way to tell an honest photographer from a dishonest one: ask him.
Barry Ashenhurst,
Lake Macquarie, Australia.
------------------
Posted by Ezra Schultz on August 24, 2009 at 8:27 PM
Thank you Barry, for sharing your thoughts. As moderator, I've edited your title to remove the all caps, I hope you understand. Also, note that we have a similar topic of discussion below: photo art vs photography.
Overall, while on the surface your argument seems noble from an artists point of view, I have several disagreements.
And if Bruegel’s paintings depict reality, we’re all in serious trouble.
Yes, so perhaps I shouldn't feel to bad about adding things in either But, I do, because I do photography because I appreciate the fact that it means that my art has a direct and tangible connection to nature. That gives it an emotional depth that can never be replicated by a painting. A painting, by its very nature, is not assumed to be a representation of reality, but rather a personal interpretation.
A problem occurs only if I present my images as a strict depiction of reality. But I’m not doing that. I’m not selling these photographs either, so I’m not telling a client, “This is what I saw”.
The trouble is, photography carries historical and cultural baggage. By its very nature, the medium of photography has a certain level of a built in honor code. So, by your displaying a photograph, it's implied in most people's eyes that it is in fact a relatively strict depiction of reality. When they find out they have essentially been lied to, and that it was in fact a manufactured image, it's a real downer for many people. That's the worst thing that can happen to a piece of art - losing value in the eyes of the potential buyer - it loses a form of authenticity. Furthermore, as people become more and more accustomed to manipulations, they start approaching every photograph with the a priori assumption that they are in fact manipulated. This devalues the inherent 'honesty' of the whole medium of photography that so many of us enjoy, and thus jeopardizes its journalistic value.
In my opinion, photographs where manipulation beyond traditional adjustments and a few other limited edits (see the post lower down for that discussion) should be clearly labeled*. If everyone was honest up front, then no one would have to wonder, "is that real, or isn't it?". I think preserving some level of honesty in photography is important for it to retain its power.
I recently had someone come up to me and say, "so, that image, it's completely fake right? The reflection wasn't there, the grass wasn't gold like that, the trees, they weren't dark, we're they?" Then I had to explain to him, no, in fact everything about the image was real (and it was, that image had the least amount of adjustments I've ever done in my life). That seriously opened his eyes. I think heavy image manipulators owe it to the guys who get their art honestly to clearly state that they have put in a fake sky and what not. If you're afraid to do that up front because it'll devalue your art, then I'm sorry, but you haven't created art. People who don't care if it's manipulated, won't be affected, those that do, won't inherently be lied to.
If photography still carried the inherent code of honesty, I wouldn't have had to explain to these people that in fact, nature actually is that beautiful! Lying about photography devalues the art (in many people's eyes), and it's journalistic code of honor. As a result, it devalues Nature itself. If people start believing every photograph is fake, then why would they give money to the save the polar bear fund, if polar bears could just as well be a Disney creation? Historically photography has been used with great success as a tool to preserving the wilderness. Nature needs as much help in retaining its face value as possible, so I say we should protect our best tool to do so, and keep photography honest.
And in the end, whether you’re National Geographic, The New York Times or Wombat Monthly, there’s only one way to tell an honest photographer from a dishonest one: ask him.
The trouble is, a dishonest photographer won't tell you they are dishonest, by their very nature. As a result, no one can trust an honest photographer, because how do they know he/she is being honest? So this doesn't really work in practice. Historically, the power of photography has been its inherent honesty. Out of respect for the photographers that do not add and remove significant features etc., and out of respect for Nature and the medium of photography as a whole, I believe we need to be honest up front. We should preserve a photograph's right to be "innocent until proven guilty", rather than being "guilty until proven innocent."
To give a photograph the same artistic freedom of a painting, it should carry a clearly visible tag, in one form or another, that it is not what it claims to be (ie. it is not a realistic representation of nature).
*The question of where the line of 'ok manipulation' vs 'you've gone too far', is a harder one. While some of my thoughts here may seem contradictory to things I've said in the past, I have never crossed my personal line, which I've discussed in the post below. And for every image that bordered the line, I've been honest up front. The more I interact with the public, the more I realize that we need to preserve the honesty of photography in the public's eye to the extent that it existed before the digital revolution. To prevent any ambiguity, on my artist statement I say exactly what edits I allow myself, and on my future website I will put a note on those images that border the line.
Everything you said is completely correct
i just think you have a little too much time on your hands
but you did a good thing with that time sooo...
amen
No, in my opinion his processing and printing methods, involving extensive dodging and burning, are perfectly acceptable. I use editing approaches like that on every image I take. But when it comes to replacing skies, adding moons, waterfalls and deer, I think there needs to be explicit disclosure (ie. not wait until someone asks, and make them feel duped). Processing methods such as dodging and burning don't change the fundamental nature of the image (assuming their used within reason).
You said your art "has an emotional depth that can never be replicated by a painting". That's a big motza ball hangin' out there Floris! You sure about that? Michelangelo would probably disagree.
Never mind though mate, kick back and have a beer. If I was there I'd have one with you. (But not a VB).
I should clarify There is a type of emotional depth that is possible with an honest photograph, that isn't with a painting, due to the raw connection to reality. There are clearly emotional triggers that can be hit with paintings and sculture that cannot be done with photography. But I think the power of photo art gets the short end of the stick in many cases, simply because of the public's view of manipulated photographs being "false". And I would agree with you, that that is a shame, but I think it's solvable if it's made clear up front.
If we had anything other than bud light in the fridge, I'd be all over a beer right now
Posted by Larry Puckett on August 25, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Boy, you can tell its summer and there aren't a lot of waterfalls and falling leaves to keep you guys occupied!
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on August 25, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I think that one of the things that has held photography back from being considered a real art form is its tenuous connection with a perception of it being a representation of reality. I am entirely in favour of people manipulating their images in any way possible and I do not think there is any onus on them to make that fact a part of the public display of the image.
I suppose I would draw a line at suggesting your images are a representation of reality if they have been extensively altered. For example, titling them with place names when the images no longer truly reflect the places, would cross a line for me. Otherwise, in a fine art context, it should all be fair game. This changes in editorial and journalistic uses of course.
" . . . who get their art honestly . . ."
I also believe that image manipulation is not dishonest and should not be cast as such. There is no greater inherent value in producing your art without manipulating the images extensively than in not doing so (or, I believe, vice-versa).
I would also like to add here that I have personally seen an Ansel Adams print in which he duplicated a chunk of forest and removed the road through Yosemite from the finished image.
A lot of people who hold up Ansel Adams' work as a marking the edge of acceptable alteration, would never-the-less hold removing a whole road as going too far. Perhaps we should be more aware of what could be done on film before making this into explicitly an issue of the current times.
****
Lastly, I would like to add that I don't do any extensive computer-assisted manipulations myself. I have never blended, I don't have anything HDR in my folders, I don't even do stitching.
I occasionally feel that my work would be more worthwhile art (less derivative) if I put more of myself and less of a perceived reality into the finished products. I admire those who do so.
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on August 25, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I would also like to respond to the comment that people will "start approaching every photograph with the a priori assumption that they are in fact manipulated".
I think that would be a very healthy way to approach images in general. Expect that they might not show what they claim to show unless you can truly trust the sources and the image can be in some way verified. If the populace at large came around to that position, I don't see much of a down side.
For me the ultimate test of integrity in this context is what you allow to happen to them after you sell them to second-tier users such as magazines, ad agencies, and more. Do you allow them to be manipulated to the buyer's content, or refuse the sale? The ad agency, magazine and others are NOT going to tell viewers that your image has been manipulated. Frankly the loudest anti-manipulators I know are delighted to sell to companies that do so. I don't know of a single instance in which an anti-manipulator refused a sale because the user would commit the sin.
I'm up front with buyers and users when I've manipulated an image. Heck, I'll talk to them about it all day long. Nothing to hide here, and as long as the second-tier user respects my licensing agreement and their check clears, manipulate away.
I would also like to respond to the comment that people will "start approaching every photograph with the a priori assumption that they are in fact manipulated".
I think that would be a very healthy way to approach images in general. Expect that they might not show what they claim to show unless you can truly trust the sources and the image can be in some way verified. If the populace at large came around to that position, I don't see much of a down side.
I guess it just hurts me when people come up to my work and trash something because they think it's a complete fake... and then I have to explain to them that I did hardly anything to it all. I would like my photographs to be works of art, in addition to inspiring people to go out into nature to see it for themselves. If they think my work is fabricated, they won't have the awe and respect for nature, and thus won't be inspired to go out and explore, nor to support the environment. In my experience, nearly every "lay person" I've talked to would experience a loss in value in an image if they found out it was a fake... clearly the public appreciates the authenticity.
I think you propose the only possible solution.. If I want that effect in my work, I need to work hard to earn that trust, then no one can take that away from me. The trouble is, on occasion I do enjoy playing a little more with an image than some would consider "ok", to keep my trust, I need to make an explicit note to separate that image from the others.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on August 25, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I like to think of it this way... In the movie industry there are films with various amounts of truth in them. The movie "truth spectrum" has Documentary on one end and pure Fiction on the other end. Somewhere in the middle you’ll find "based on a true story" and "inspired by actual events" with "based on a true story" closer to Documentary and "inspired by actual events" closer to pure Fiction.
My photographs (and I would guess a lot of, if not most other photographers here) are somewhere near "based on a true story". What you see in my photos actually happened and existed. I don't add or remove things but I do play with the brightness, saturation and contrast.
In the end though, what is truth? Are we talking about my truth or your truth? And do we even remember the scene exactly as we saw it (the truth)? I know I tend to remember the good and forget the bad. For example, many times when I go on a hike that I've been on before, I'm surprised by the number of tough up hills I encounter. I remember how great the hike was and how great the views were, but I forget about the slog to get there. Is it the same with photography? Do I remember what I saw (the truth) or has my mind created an idealistic image in my memory?
No matter what you do, you’re going to end up disappointing someone. If you do nothing – no filters, no post processing, no anything, people will be disappointed because the photo is bland. If you do pre and post production, people will be disappointed because the photo is, as I often hear, “fake”.
The solution to all of this madness is simple. First and foremost, shoot for yourself. Do what makes you happy and let others worry about themselves.
My goal is to make photographs that are pleasing to me, as the number one priority. My secondary goal is to create work that others will also enjoy.
All my work has varying degrees of 'manipulation' beginning with my scan. I then use PS to further adjust tone, color, final crop, and cloning of dust and minor distractions such as a twig, or piece of paper. I do not add elements, replace skies, etc. So, I believe my work is at the high end of "Based upon a true story".
During the course of the shows I've done, or sales I have made, no one has asked me if I manipulated a photograph. I have had folks ask me about my printing process, or other aspects of the technical side, and I happily attempted to educate them. In most cases, but not all, the perceived value of the photo increased in their eyes.
To me, all art, whether photography or no (and especially photography) is a departure from 'reality'. The film or sensor and subsequent processing is only an approximation of that which existed at the moment the image was created. It is then up to the individual viewer to decide if the piece of art works for them.
I think we all try to violate the mathematical axiom that 'One cannot maximize two variables, at the same time.' i.e. we try to please the greatest number of people, all of the time. It can't be done, so why bother?
Honestly, I think artists (and art critics) are the only ones who are vociferous about this stuff; the vast majority of non-artists could really give a damn less, as long as the artwork is pleasing to them. Discussions such as this one, and the related topic on this forum, are insightful because I get to know my colleagues a bit better as artists and people--and that's a good thing.
The bottom line, for me, is that honor demands that I remain true to the ethical standards of a reasonable and prudent person, and have some good fun at the same time!
[quote]During the course of the shows I've done, or sales I have made, no one has asked me if I manipulated a photograph.[/quote[
Interesting.. I've had the opposite experience. Even on images that I really did nothing to, I've had people assume they are entirely fake. It's disheartening to me, because once I tell them that it's real, they are much more impressed. I'd hate to think there's people out there that think one of my images is a fake, and not take the time to ask and find out the truth.. thus my wish for there still to be some inherent honesty in the medium of photography. Personally I have no issues with people doing photo art, but it appears as though that trend might be disenchanting photography as an artistic medium in the eyes of many of the viewers I've met.. and I don't like that Of course, I process everything, but I do my very best to stay honest to nature in the process, as it's the connection between reality and the art that I find incredibly valuable.
I think your film analogy is a good one Tom, I might borrow a line from that if you don't mind
The last sentence in my post suggested that the viewer ask the photographer. You said that was pointless because the photographer could be a liar. Now you're saying the viewer should ask you if your image is manipulated.
My point was, I would prefer it if the viewer didn't have to ask the photographer if an image was manipulated, but rather come to the image with the understanding that it is a (relatively) honest depiction of nature. But, if they are coming to my image under the assumption that it's fake, I'd rather have them ask then continue to live under a false presumption. Whether or not they believe me, I can't do anything about. That's precisely the problem. In my experience, much of the public (that I have had experience with) no longer believes photography as an 'honest' medium.
"But, if they are coming to my image under the assumption that it's fake, I'd rather have them ask then continue to live under a false presumption.
Floris, this reflects my sentiments, as well. Being a long-time teacher, I can't pass up an opportunity to educate.
'...much of the public (that I have had experience with) no longer believes photography as an 'honest' medium.
Again, I agree. In part, I think this attitude stems from the fact that fakery of what are (supposedly) photojournalistic images of newsworthy events that are exposed as such tends to foster the belief that all photography is 'dishonest'. It's a sad state of affairs, actually.
These are always interesting discussions. My personal belief is that any manipulation that can be done in a dark room is OK. In addition to that I don't mind telling anyone I brightened an eye or cloned out an errant branch. I do not however add elements to an image from another one. When I display my images I freely tell anyone what I did to create the image they are looking at. As Preston says we are creating art for ourselves first then for others. If what we create is a pleasing rendition of nature and moves the viewer in a way in which we intended then we were successful.
BTW, I read that Ansel admitted that his image from the top of El Cap had clouds from another image added to make it more interesting.
Ansel, Shmansel...most of the NPN photographers kick his butt anyways
I completely agree with Floris here, I hate hearing the endless "So, is that photo real?" and "Did you do something to that photo?" comments. It is counterproductive to what im trying to accomplish--showing the true beauty of nature, not the manipulated. Comparing photography to painting is ridiculous--they are entirely different art forms. If you don't understand this--please try some painting for yourself and you will soon understand the vast differences.
I said we're free to do what we like with our own cameras, computers and imaginations. You disagree with that do you, Stan?
I didn't compare photography to painting. I asked why the standards of so-called 'ethical behaviour' are not applied to both. And yes, I do understand your point. But if you didn't understand mine, perhaps you should read it again.
Yes, i do disagree. There are limits to freedom--you're not free to do anything you like because it can affect other people. I do a lot of "photo art", heavily manipulated photos, but I would never try to pass it off as "reality"--I consider that unethical. From your original statement, it appears you would agree with that as well. But, I think you are confusing your arguments, Barry. First you mention that people who arent selling their photos are "entitled to do whatever they like", then you segue right into the ethical standards of "professional" painters. You can't ask why standards are not the same for two artistic mediums without comparing the two mediums! As Floris correctly pointed out, there is an inherent difference between the two things. And it is that difference that answers your question about ethical standards--different mediums demand different standards. I think Floris explained it quite clearly, no need for me to say anything more--im just agreeing with him!
Ahh, the never-ending discussion. First, let's try a little semantic juggling. Replace the word "manipulated" with the word "enhanced". Sounds a bit different doesn't it? Manipulation implies trickery while enhancement implies an improvement. But, I bet I think differently about photography than most... A little background;
I was an Art Major in college. Between printmaking and painting my roommate became the editor of the college newspaper. He needed a photographer...tag, I'm it. But, this was a lampoon edition. They needed photos of bodies with different heads, tanks firing on the library,... what was known in the pre-computer age as "trick photography". I bought a SLR and started having fun in the darkroom. So my first introduction to photography was thinking of images and parts of images as components of something else. Something I was creating from imagination. These components were my new paint. This was a fun new media form to use and play with. A new media to create with. So comparing painting to photography has never been ridiculous to me. They are different media to be sure, but to me, they are still media to be used to create something interesting to the eye. I guess I'm more of an artist than a photographer. I just like using the tools of photography. Pixels are my new paint.
When asked if "that's real?", I say, "Heavens No!.. What fun would that be?". I'll then proceed to tell/show exactly what I've done to "enhance the image". That's the only thing I find to be a must... Honesty. If you're a traditional photographer that takes pride in capturing a realist image and showing the glory of nature, it's tough out there. It's not just the new tools that have made all images questionable, it's also Western culture's constant bending of reality from movies to advertising. The viewing public is skeptical about a lot of things... not just photography. Don't take it personally, It's about the viewer's questioning of the world around them and the general feeling they're being tricked. You're just an easier target to express this to than their boss or the current Federal Reserve Chairman.
To me, there are two types of photographers; The Reporter and The Storyteller. The reporter is interested in getting the facts of the story correct while the storyteller wants a colorful story. The Reporter is always offended when they are mistaken for The Storyteller. The Reporter's job is based on facts and they rightfully take pride in the job they do. Both professions are honorable... unless you're a Storyteller selling fiction as fact.
Posted by Eva McDermott on August 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Has anyone commenting actually done film and darkroom work? Not asking to be nasty, but just curious. I started in B&W film with many hours in the darkroom when I was in college many, many, many years ago (1972). BTW - I am a scientist and only artist part time (if people deem so). Also studied the chemistry and physics of photography since I am a chemist after all. I could change film and papers to get the effect I wanted (usually stayed with my favorites though since that is how I saw and interpreted things - that is key). Digital has so many more possiblities than ever possible with film. I try to (but may not always) stay within the realm of what I could do with film and different papers in the darkroom. Sometimes I stray because I can, but will spill the beans when I do. I love Ansel Adam's work (and he is still my favorite) and have practiced the zone system for sometime. He was and still is my inspiration. B&W is my favorite medium but many people can't relate to B&W images these days, so I do mostly color now, but not exclusively. Has anyone seen a Cibachrome print from a transparency? It has a metallic glow to it....... not quite HDR but close to some of the other effects I see people use these days in Photoshop. After B&W, I really liked Kodachrome and Ektachrome transparencies and then printing (in my own darkroom) Cibachrome prints. Pushed Tri-X (developed by me) was my B&W film of choice with printing on Ilford and Seagull papers. So what is different now?
........ a computer with MORE FREEDOM. Is it right or wrong? There is no answer to that. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...... but we definately need to be truthful in how we changed reality.
Blimey! I didn't know what I was starting with my original post on this topic. The response has been amazing. If nothing else it proves that this NPN forum is doing its job in stimulating spirited discussion.
But as one answer to your question Eva, yep, I've worked in darkrooms, professionally and for pleasure. My first 'darkroom' was in the bathroom when I was a kid. Mum and dad got sick of the awful chemical smells coming from that operation so they moved me into a large dog enclosure in the back yard. In plastic Patterson tanks I'd develop 35mm Tri-X in a dog kennel Dad built. I'd get the film stuck half-way on those notched reels and have a hell of a time in my 1mx1m cell trying to get it winding on again. Geez, that takes me back.
I spent years in various pro darkrooms after that, and enjoyed most of it when things were going smoothly, but I don't miss the smell of stop-bath and fixer. As a magazine photographer I'd never want to go back to film. Digital has made life so much easier in the publishing business.
Ill answer your question too, Eva, since you asked My film experience is limited. I played with my fathers 35 mm Exacta when i was a kid and i took a photography course in HS that involved lots of dark room work--i didnt really love it because i couldnt stand the chemicals. it's the DSLR that got me seriously interested in photography, it became a way i could rediscover my love of art--i was a painter for years until i largely had to quit due to lack of time. So, a good portion of my first photos with a DSLR were turned into "photo art", in fact i wrote a photo-essay published in 2005 that has numerous "heavily manipulated" pieces and a disclaimer in the preface to the book that particular photos have been transformed into fantasy. So, the connection between photography and other arts is very strong for me. It is how the peices are used and presented that is key and that involves the issues of integrity that have been discussed thus far.
I started in photography in 1971 with a Canon FTb ( I still have it!). I did some darkroom work then, but really didn't do much with it until the early 80's when I worked as an instructional aide for the advanced photo class at our local community college. At that time, I dove heavily into the Zone System; developing and printing 4x5 (Tri-X mostly) in a variety of ways.
I shot thousands of 35mm and 645 transparencies, and today shoot mainly 4x5 Astia 100Fand Fuji 160 ProS color neg.
I have never done Cibachrome printing. I have my film processing done by a lab and then (for the most part) scan and print my stuff at home. If I need a really big print, I'll have the film drum scanned, do my own post processing and then have a service bureau make the prints.
Working in the darkroom has stood me in good stead. The experience has helped tremendously in the 'digital' end of my work. Studying, and working with the Zone System has postively impacted the full spectrum of my photography, from visualization to the final print.
-P
Posted by Paul Duval on August 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I can't believe I read the whole thing...Ouch my brain hurts and I can't have a beer I quit drinking and replaced it with photography. It is wonderful to see the passion of the group relating to this topic or rather the issue of where reality is bent into fakery. Obviously everyone seems to agree that adding items into a photograph to make it more pleasing or dramatic is deception of the worst sort. Like Mineral fakes to mineral Collectors.I think that's because mineral fakes are made with the purpose of deceiving the buyer and getting more money for the specimen. Just as it would be unethical to do the same to a photograph.
First of all I think the saturation that public absorbs in print media, TV and movies of " Fake reality" has seriously eroded straight photography's cachet of reality. Now straight photography does not imply just film, digital photography is designed to emulate film. Why else would I have f stops, shutter speeds and Iso settings on my digital camera if it wasn't duplicating what a film camera does. I don't believe there is an intuitive computerized camera that sees and records images they way my eyes, optic nerves and brain do. So really if you want to nail when we depart from "perceived" reality it is when the shutter is released and the image is captured on film or sensor. Where we take it from there in post processing is completely in the purveyance of the photographer and their sense of what is over processed into the realm of fantasy. If we are selling a piece and that comment or question comes up educating the public is certainly in order , but as we go farther afield and strive for that never before seen image, more and more it may be assumed to be "fake". Is it an insult or a compliment, that depends on what you have done to "create" your vision. If asked is that a "real" photo, and I have been true to what seems to be an unwritten code my answer would be Yes it's a "real" photo. I'm not being a smart alec here, my point is the whole topic and the mountain of words in response are the evidence that as a medium photography "film" or "digital" is a recorded instant in time that requires processing chemical or computer to be realized, whether or not it has lost it's public confidence as reality is not our fault unless we personally break the code. We all are the keepers of the "flame' so to speak, and we can only be responsible for ourselves and to convince our peers to be responsible if we want to call ourselves Nature Photographers.
As to Landscape painters like Turner and another famous one Bierstadt not portraying reality then they've never been lucky enough to see that magic light, I've seen several what I call Bierstadt sunsets right here in my own back yard. Was El Capitan and Cathedral Peak in the scene no, but the light the colors were there,they were real. These famous landscape painters went into the field and spent sometimes months making studies of the scenes they were going to make masterpieces off back in their studios during the winter. Many times they were accompanied by wet plate photographers like Carleton Watkins.
Posted by Buck Ward on September 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM
For photojournalists, fidelity to the subject is paramount. Documentation is the goal. Some have lost their jobs for minor alterations of photos. I'm not a photojournalist. My goal is to make artful photographs. For years I shot slides - WYSIWYG. They were viewed on a light box or projected on a screen. Slides were 'honest'.- with negative film, the print was never an exact representation of the image that came through the lens. Prints that were deliberately altered were said to be 'retouched.' With slides, I had to learn to get it right in the camera.
I haven't used slide film in several years. With digital photography, I have had to learn the techniques of post-processing. The term is workflow. I seldom do to an image what is sometimes disparagingly referred to as manipulation, but I do post-processing on virtually every image that isn't discarded. Doesn't everybody? Everybody other than rank amateurs and snap shooters, that is. In addition to levels, curves, contrast, brightening, dodging, burning, adjustment of white balance, and other such 'darkroom' manipulations, occasionally, I have an image that benefits from the judicious application of the clone tool. Is that fakery? What if I use a graduated neutral density filter? That can have a dramatic effect on an image. Is that kind of pre- vs post-processing dishonest? If someone says "Wow!", do I need to disclose that the actual scene was somewhat different, - that I enhanced it through the use of filtration?
In a black and white photograph, with white clouds against a black sky, do I need to say that the sky was really blue and that I used a red filter to make it seem so dark. What if I applied the red filter digitally in post-processing?
Was Michael Orton dishonest when he sandwiched two slides together, one sharply in focus and one blurred, to create the now-famous Orton effect? What about a double exposure, when two images are recorded on the same frame of film? Is that less dishonest than making a composite image?
I don't think there is a line to be crossed. I think it is a very broad gray area. I'm not at all comfortable with terms like fakery, dishonesty, unethical, when applied to art, whether the medium is photography or other. I have a painter friend who says, only a little bit tongue in cheek, "Art is whatever you can get away with."
BTW, Floris - By happenstance I perused a couple of the galleries on your website just before I read this thread. It is a wonderful exhibition and some are absolutely outstanding. It never occurred to me to question whether or not your photographs were real.
Hank... I have no idea what happened - I'm going to go look for that Chimp.
Posted by Eva McDermott on September 4, 2009 at 9:32 PM
So what is the bottom line here????? A lot of waffeling even on my part. For me, what ya can do on film and in the dark room is acceptable. Anything else is ??????? (since I reallly hate working on computers). ....but that is me..... as I write from Maine but being anxious on the ride up that I may not have an internet connection due to hurricane Bill a few weeks ago. Dah!
For me, what ya can do on film and in the dark room is acceptable.
Not to be facetious.. but that makes composites ok in your opinion? Sure they take a lot more time in the darkroom, but that doesn't make them any less possible.
For me, if the end result is honest to the overall scene at roughly the time of capture, it's ok. That means blending exposures for dynamic range, image quality, and subject motion, are ok. As is removing things you could have removed from the scene without causing damage to the natural environment had you had the foresight (or opportunity) to do so. ie. little twigs.
Posted by Stan Rose on September 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I'll agree with that. Can we take a vote and make it official, then persecute anyone who disagrees with us? Seriously, "crossing the line" in PS is no different than porn--you know it when you see it! (and thats from the Supreme Court )
Wow I cant believe I read all that. It's nice we can all share our thoughts and comments together on specific topics. I don't have a percent of the experience a lot of you have and being a serious amateur I have a lot to learn. My input is from a purist perspective so here it goes.
I'll start with the bottom line here. "The Motive" I guess it's all about motive. Why do "you" take pictures, to make money, be popular in the photography community, try and always top the next guy, or (hopefully like most of us) for passion. To me photography is about a love for nature and wildlife. I can sit on a log and watch chickadees dance around a tree, watch a beautiful sunset over a pristine northwoods lake, and stare at a small cluster of flowers in the middle of nowhere and be completely at peace. I hope someday to be as successful as some of you, have a gallery or prints in a gallery. Why, because I LOVE nature. Its not to try and out-do Stan, Floris, Eva, Marc, and on and on. Yes, I could go on and on because your all so talented.
To bring it home, yes we need to be honest. Honest with ourselves! When I am out shooting I dont think how would such and such shoot this. No, how would I shoot this. Its finding the creativity in "you" and being true to the person you are. I know as photographers we are competitive by nature. We want to post the next shot thats Mind-Blowing and different, but in all honesty some of the best shots are those that are simple and beautiful. The ones that are truly "your" style and have that passion tied to them. Thats what shows and if it moves you then shoot it, but shoot it well. Strive to be technically great and very little will need to be done in PS.
I was at a local mall yesterday and they had a fine art fair. Paintings, pictures, sculptures, and such. A majority of the photographs were over-saturated, heavily manipulated, and just not that engaging, yet many like that I guess. A walked by them and into Thomas Mangelsen's gallery who has one in that mall. When I see his pictures I see raw nature. Now I dont know his style of post-processing and I know he is almost all film, but it depicts the "real" to me. I use this to point out this. What do you want to portray? A sense of real nature or digital skepticism. I know many of us want to portray pure nature and it hurts us when someone asks "Is that fake". If we know it isn't then its just confirmation that nature is really that beautiful and then the challenge is persuading others that it is.
My final point: To be honest with ourselves, honest with others, excite others by your passion for nature, and hopefully our pictures will inspire others to go out and enjoy this beautiful earth. That it not only inspires us, but take action in preserving it as well. We dont want to be tripod to tripod with someone out in the wilds fighting for the best selling shot, right?
Its about Nature not us.
Posted by Jeff Pritchard on September 19, 2009 at 1:13 AM
I am of two minds about this thread.
...beer, yes
...truthiness, not so much.
I would argue for non-truthiness on two counts. First, every photograph has elements of untruth in it...even the ones that the authors above have been so proud of "not altering". I'm not disputing your efforts to make your photograph "untouched", only the practicality of truly duplicating what was in front of you. You made many photographic choices that effected the outcome, even if they weren't accomplished with photoshop. Maybe in my mind taking the image near sunset with an amazing cloud burst is "unrealistic". Most people would have started the return hike hours ago and would never see it that way. High noon with washed out colors would be much more realistic. :) Every photographic format and every lens makes a difference in the final image. Every cropping and timing choice makes a difference. A given "place" has many different moods. Who is to say which one is "realistic" for that place? Your choice of a particular film or digital camera implies a specific gamma curve that may make the final image look very different than a what a pair of human eyes (or the eyes of a coyote or owl) might see there at the same time. Universal Reality is an impractical concept. Reality is relative.
Second, I would posit that making an image that is very different from what the average person sees while out hiking is a very honest pursuit. It is a clear effort to show a point of view or a way of seeing the world; to elicit some particular feeling in the person viewing it. It is a performance, nothing more or less; an act of creativity. Whether that view of the world is "a strikingly beautiful view of a well-known mountain" which in the artists mind is a very accurate depiction of what he saw that day, or it is a barely recognizable image of a sunset captured from a fogged up car bumper...it is an artistic attempt to show something to the viewer in a specific way.
If "accuracy" were the goal, I could make a robot that takes much "better" pictures than you do. We need only define specifically enough what version of "accurate" we are going for. If, on the other hand, we are looking for images with a loftier goal, then you, my dear friends, will beat my robot every time. :)
There is no such thing as a non "manipulated" image. Maybe a negative hanging on a wall, but even that piece of photo sensitive material was "manipulated" or "altered" extensively.
In the digital age there is NO SUCH THING an image that has not been "Photo-shopped" (even an in-camera jpeg is originally a raw image that your little, but powerful, in-camera "Photoshop" made major decisions about and then created digitally with its own brand of specialized rendering).
All images need to be developed/manipulated to BETTER portray reality, but more often than not, when the public asks "is that manipulated?" or "is that Photo-shopped?" they are simply asking if substantial blatant digital fakery was used in the creation of the image.
As we get more proficient and masterful in development we slowly realize that ALL images need competent professional coaxing to overcome the substantial limits that restrain our ability to portray reality with our medium. Common methods such as dodging, burning, contrast masking, mid tone contrast masking, graduated luminance adjustments, color separation techniques, unsharp masking... are occasionally thought of as "manipulating" (as in "Photo-shopping") but when done subtly and professionally is merely "developing" or "optimizing" (bringing an image to its relative optimal state) an image. It is when these and more aggressive methods are done really bad, over done, or when major manipulations are done (compositing skies, complete hue shifts, adding or removing major elements...) that is really "Photo-shopping" and, I believe, should be openly disclosed if one sells their work and especially when asked.
Those working on the cutting edge of reality with a very concentrated effort at capturing the most surreal moments possible are always going to be walking an extremely fine line and will always come under some scepticism/disbelief because of the very nature of their work. I have many a client (photography students) that had some general scepticism about an image in my sell able library, be able to play with (and sometimes completely process/develop themselves) the actual original raw file and then find out that the reality portrayed was indeed quite authentic to the moment captured.
Another issue often not discussed much is in GALLERIES where sometimes fine art photographers come under attack (often by other "purist" photographers) for their images being too saturated or too contrasty... Especially susceptible are those who use silver halide, super gloss laser prints. These prints, when under controlled dark conditions and specialized direct gallery lighting, pop amazingly with contrast and color! Often what critics do not realize is that the paper itself (along with the specialized lighting) goes a very long way in creating this accentuated vivid presentation, not necessarily "Photo-shopping" (the popular quick accusation). Commonly when such a print is purchased and put into a more normal lighting condition (like maybe a persons living room) the image normalizes. Time and time again I have gone onto various photography forums where some photographers were bashing another professional landscape photographers gallery prints for being "too saturated" yet what they often don't know is that the lighting conditions are often the cause of this, not the saturation slider.
Discussion
38 repliesIf you purchase a landscape photograph, or any photograph for that matter, believing that the image represents reality, you have a right to be informed if it doesn’t, if reality has been tampered with. In other words, has the photographer dropped in a nicer sky, inserted a cute little waterfall absent in the original scene, made a politician look credible or removed a wart from the end of your cousin’s nose?
I can’t speak for what happens in the US but I know that in Australia, some of the best known landscape photographers use the normal range of PS adjustments, plus a few more, to enhance their photographs. These manipulations make the images more attractive and more saleable (though not always more believable).
On the other hand, those who don’t make a living selling photographs are entitled to do whatever they like with our own cameras, computers and imaginations. There’s no law against manipulating a photograph to make it more attractive. And it’s a whole lot healthier than stealing cars or selling toxic default swaps.
We’ll always get righteous indignation from those trying to impose their ethical standards on the rest of us, but let’s not get too precious about it. These alleged standards have never been applied to those who paint for a living. None of the landed gentry ever insisted that Rembrandt, Rubens, Michelangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci include the town drunk in their daughter’s portrait because he was visible from the studio window. And if Bruegel’s paintings depict reality, we’re all in serious trouble.
So why are landscape painters but not landscape photographers permitted to rearrange reality? Why was Turner allowed to bend reality while modern photographers are tarred and feathered for committing that apparently heinous crime. ( You could suggest that without his wildly romantic imagination Turner’s paintings would have been boring, but that’s a subject for debate elsewhere).
In any event, different standards apply to photographers because we have always believed what cameras told us. And the mechanical process that produced the negative or slide had little scope for manipulation. What you saw was, for the most part, what you got. Apart from the use of filters during exposure, it was only when the film reached the processing stage, or the negative the printing stage, that manipulation was possible. And even then it was limited.
The most revered landscape photographer, Ansel Adams, said publicly that thanks to pre and post-exposure manipulation, most of his photographs deviated from reality because his perception of it was more pleasing than what he had been looking at. Are we now saying that Ansel’s work should be trashed because he failed to bring us inviolate reality?
And while we’re on the subject of who can manipulate and who can’t, what would the modern wedding or portrait business be like without PS? Talk about excluding the town drunk from the photograph! Here we have clients who not only approve of post capture processing but insist on it if it makes them look taller, richer, and more likely to make millions selling toxic default swaps.
It’s not that we need a new set of ethical standards to ensure that digital photography is honest. And in any case such a standard would be unenforceable.
But what might be useful is personal honesty. I’ll tell you right now, everything I post on this forum has been Photoshop’d to some extent. Sometimes more, sometimes less. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed of that. As I said, it’s my camera, my computer and my imagination, and as long as I’m not intentionally hurting or deceiving anyone I’ll do what I like with all three.
A problem occurs only if I present my images as a strict depiction of reality. But I’m not doing that. I’m not selling these photographs either, so I’m not telling a client, “This is what I saw”.
So it’s a matter of personal integrity. You either tell the truth or you don’t. Wedding and portrait photographers are not obliged to make people look ugly for the sake of editorial honesty. Photographers bringing the world into our homes have a less flexible commission.
And in the end, whether you’re National Geographic, The New York Times or Wombat Monthly, there’s only one way to tell an honest photographer from a dishonest one: ask him.
Barry Ashenhurst,
Lake Macquarie, Australia.
------------------
Overall, while on the surface your argument seems noble from an artists point of view, I have several disagreements.
Yes, so perhaps I shouldn't feel to bad about adding things in either
The trouble is, photography carries historical and cultural baggage. By its very nature, the medium of photography has a certain level of a built in honor code. So, by your displaying a photograph, it's implied in most people's eyes that it is in fact a relatively strict depiction of reality. When they find out they have essentially been lied to, and that it was in fact a manufactured image, it's a real downer for many people. That's the worst thing that can happen to a piece of art - losing value in the eyes of the potential buyer - it loses a form of authenticity. Furthermore, as people become more and more accustomed to manipulations, they start approaching every photograph with the a priori assumption that they are in fact manipulated. This devalues the inherent 'honesty' of the whole medium of photography that so many of us enjoy, and thus jeopardizes its journalistic value.
In my opinion, photographs where manipulation beyond traditional adjustments and a few other limited edits (see the post lower down for that discussion) should be clearly labeled*. If everyone was honest up front, then no one would have to wonder, "is that real, or isn't it?". I think preserving some level of honesty in photography is important for it to retain its power.
I recently had someone come up to me and say, "so, that image, it's completely fake right? The reflection wasn't there, the grass wasn't gold like that, the trees, they weren't dark, we're they?" Then I had to explain to him, no, in fact everything about the image was real (and it was, that image had the least amount of adjustments I've ever done in my life). That seriously opened his eyes. I think heavy image manipulators owe it to the guys who get their art honestly to clearly state that they have put in a fake sky and what not. If you're afraid to do that up front because it'll devalue your art, then I'm sorry, but you haven't created art. People who don't care if it's manipulated, won't be affected, those that do, won't inherently be lied to.
If photography still carried the inherent code of honesty, I wouldn't have had to explain to these people that in fact, nature actually is that beautiful! Lying about photography devalues the art (in many people's eyes), and it's journalistic code of honor. As a result, it devalues Nature itself. If people start believing every photograph is fake, then why would they give money to the save the polar bear fund, if polar bears could just as well be a Disney creation? Historically photography has been used with great success as a tool to preserving the wilderness. Nature needs as much help in retaining its face value as possible, so I say we should protect our best tool to do so, and keep photography honest.
The trouble is, a dishonest photographer won't tell you they are dishonest, by their very nature. As a result, no one can trust an honest photographer, because how do they know he/she is being honest? So this doesn't really work in practice. Historically, the power of photography has been its inherent honesty. Out of respect for the photographers that do not add and remove significant features etc., and out of respect for Nature and the medium of photography as a whole, I believe we need to be honest up front. We should preserve a photograph's right to be "innocent until proven guilty", rather than being "guilty until proven innocent."
To give a photograph the same artistic freedom of a painting, it should carry a clearly visible tag, in one form or another, that it is not what it claims to be (ie. it is not a realistic representation of nature).
*The question of where the line of 'ok manipulation' vs 'you've gone too far', is a harder one. While some of my thoughts here may seem contradictory to things I've said in the past, I have never crossed my personal line, which I've discussed in the post below. And for every image that bordered the line, I've been honest up front. The more I interact with the public, the more I realize that we need to preserve the honesty of photography in the public's eye to the extent that it existed before the digital revolution. To prevent any ambiguity, on my artist statement I say exactly what edits I allow myself, and on my future website I will put a note on those images that border the line.
i just think you have a little too much time on your hands
but you did a good thing with that time sooo...
amen
Never mind though mate, kick back and have a beer. If I was there I'd have one with you. (But not a VB).
If we had anything other than bud light in the fridge, I'd be all over a beer right now
I suppose I would draw a line at suggesting your images are a representation of reality if they have been extensively altered. For example, titling them with place names when the images no longer truly reflect the places, would cross a line for me. Otherwise, in a fine art context, it should all be fair game. This changes in editorial and journalistic uses of course.
" . . . who get their art honestly . . ."
I also believe that image manipulation is not dishonest and should not be cast as such. There is no greater inherent value in producing your art without manipulating the images extensively than in not doing so (or, I believe, vice-versa).
I would also like to add here that I have personally seen an Ansel Adams print in which he duplicated a chunk of forest and removed the road through Yosemite from the finished image.
A lot of people who hold up Ansel Adams' work as a marking the edge of acceptable alteration, would never-the-less hold removing a whole road as going too far. Perhaps we should be more aware of what could be done on film before making this into explicitly an issue of the current times.
****
Lastly, I would like to add that I don't do any extensive computer-assisted manipulations myself. I have never blended, I don't have anything HDR in my folders, I don't even do stitching.
I occasionally feel that my work would be more worthwhile art (less derivative) if I put more of myself and less of a perceived reality into the finished products. I admire those who do so.
I think that would be a very healthy way to approach images in general. Expect that they might not show what they claim to show unless you can truly trust the sources and the image can be in some way verified. If the populace at large came around to that position, I don't see much of a down side.
I'm up front with buyers and users when I've manipulated an image. Heck, I'll talk to them about it all day long. Nothing to hide here, and as long as the second-tier user respects my licensing agreement and their check clears, manipulate away.
I guess it just hurts me when people come up to my work and trash something because they think it's a complete fake... and then I have to explain to them that I did hardly anything to it all. I would like my photographs to be works of art, in addition to inspiring people to go out into nature to see it for themselves. If they think my work is fabricated, they won't have the awe and respect for nature, and thus won't be inspired to go out and explore, nor to support the environment. In my experience, nearly every "lay person" I've talked to would experience a loss in value in an image if they found out it was a fake... clearly the public appreciates the authenticity.
I think you propose the only possible solution.. If I want that effect in my work, I need to work hard to earn that trust, then no one can take that away from me. The trouble is, on occasion I do enjoy playing a little more with an image than some would consider "ok", to keep my trust, I need to make an explicit note to separate that image from the others.
My photographs (and I would guess a lot of, if not most other photographers here) are somewhere near "based on a true story". What you see in my photos actually happened and existed. I don't add or remove things but I do play with the brightness, saturation and contrast.
In the end though, what is truth? Are we talking about my truth or your truth? And do we even remember the scene exactly as we saw it (the truth)? I know I tend to remember the good and forget the bad. For example, many times when I go on a hike that I've been on before, I'm surprised by the number of tough up hills I encounter. I remember how great the hike was and how great the views were, but I forget about the slog to get there. Is it the same with photography? Do I remember what I saw (the truth) or has my mind created an idealistic image in my memory?
No matter what you do, you’re going to end up disappointing someone. If you do nothing – no filters, no post processing, no anything, people will be disappointed because the photo is bland. If you do pre and post production, people will be disappointed because the photo is, as I often hear, “fake”.
The solution to all of this madness is simple. First and foremost, shoot for yourself. Do what makes you happy and let others worry about themselves.
All my work has varying degrees of 'manipulation' beginning with my scan. I then use PS to further adjust tone, color, final crop, and cloning of dust and minor distractions such as a twig, or piece of paper. I do not add elements, replace skies, etc. So, I believe my work is at the high end of "Based upon a true story".
During the course of the shows I've done, or sales I have made, no one has asked me if I manipulated a photograph. I have had folks ask me about my printing process, or other aspects of the technical side, and I happily attempted to educate them. In most cases, but not all, the perceived value of the photo increased in their eyes.
To me, all art, whether photography or no (and especially photography) is a departure from 'reality'. The film or sensor and subsequent processing is only an approximation of that which existed at the moment the image was created. It is then up to the individual viewer to decide if the piece of art works for them.
I think we all try to violate the mathematical axiom that 'One cannot maximize two variables, at the same time.' i.e. we try to please the greatest number of people, all of the time. It can't be done, so why bother?
Honestly, I think artists (and art critics) are the only ones who are vociferous about this stuff; the vast majority of non-artists could really give a damn less, as long as the artwork is pleasing to them. Discussions such as this one, and the related topic on this forum, are insightful because I get to know my colleagues a bit better as artists and people--and that's a good thing.
The bottom line, for me, is that honor demands that I remain true to the ethical standards of a reasonable and prudent person, and have some good fun at the same time!
Kind Regards,
-Preston
Interesting.. I've had the opposite experience. Even on images that I really did nothing to, I've had people assume they are entirely fake. It's disheartening to me, because once I tell them that it's real, they are much more impressed. I'd hate to think there's people out there that think one of my images is a fake, and not take the time to ask and find out the truth.. thus my wish for there still to be some inherent honesty in the medium of photography. Personally I have no issues with people doing photo art, but it appears as though that trend might be disenchanting photography as an artistic medium in the eyes of many of the viewers I've met.. and I don't like that
I think your film analogy is a good one Tom, I might borrow a line from that if you don't mind
I need another beer.
Floris, this reflects my sentiments, as well. Being a long-time teacher, I can't pass up an opportunity to educate.
'...much of the public (that I have had experience with) no longer believes photography as an 'honest' medium.
Again, I agree. In part, I think this attitude stems from the fact that fakery of what are (supposedly) photojournalistic images of newsworthy events that are exposed as such tends to foster the belief that all photography is 'dishonest'. It's a sad state of affairs, actually.
-P
BTW, I read that Ansel admitted that his image from the top of El Cap had clouds from another image added to make it more interesting.
I completely agree with Floris here, I hate hearing the endless "So, is that photo real?" and "Did you do something to that photo?" comments. It is counterproductive to what im trying to accomplish--showing the true beauty of nature, not the manipulated. Comparing photography to painting is ridiculous--they are entirely different art forms. If you don't understand this--please try some painting for yourself and you will soon understand the vast differences.
I didn't compare photography to painting. I asked why the standards of so-called 'ethical behaviour' are not applied to both. And yes, I do understand your point. But if you didn't understand mine, perhaps you should read it again.
Barry Ashenhurst
Lake Macquarie,
Australia.
I was an Art Major in college. Between printmaking and painting my roommate became the editor of the college newspaper. He needed a photographer...tag, I'm it. But, this was a lampoon edition. They needed photos of bodies with different heads, tanks firing on the library,... what was known in the pre-computer age as "trick photography". I bought a SLR and started having fun in the darkroom. So my first introduction to photography was thinking of images and parts of images as components of something else. Something I was creating from imagination. These components were my new paint. This was a fun new media form to use and play with. A new media to create with. So comparing painting to photography has never been ridiculous to me. They are different media to be sure, but to me, they are still media to be used to create something interesting to the eye. I guess I'm more of an artist than a photographer. I just like using the tools of photography. Pixels are my new paint.
When asked if "that's real?", I say, "Heavens No!.. What fun would that be?". I'll then proceed to tell/show exactly what I've done to "enhance the image". That's the only thing I find to be a must... Honesty. If you're a traditional photographer that takes pride in capturing a realist image and showing the glory of nature, it's tough out there. It's not just the new tools that have made all images questionable, it's also Western culture's constant bending of reality from movies to advertising. The viewing public is skeptical about a lot of things... not just photography. Don't take it personally, It's about the viewer's questioning of the world around them and the general feeling they're being tricked. You're just an easier target to express this to than their boss or the current Federal Reserve Chairman.
To me, there are two types of photographers; The Reporter and The Storyteller. The reporter is interested in getting the facts of the story correct while the storyteller wants a colorful story. The Reporter is always offended when they are mistaken for The Storyteller. The Reporter's job is based on facts and they rightfully take pride in the job they do. Both professions are honorable... unless you're a Storyteller selling fiction as fact.
........ a computer with MORE FREEDOM. Is it right or wrong? There is no answer to that. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...... but we definately need to be truthful in how we changed reality.
But as one answer to your question Eva, yep, I've worked in darkrooms, professionally and for pleasure. My first 'darkroom' was in the bathroom when I was a kid. Mum and dad got sick of the awful chemical smells coming from that operation so they moved me into a large dog enclosure in the back yard. In plastic Patterson tanks I'd develop 35mm Tri-X in a dog kennel Dad built. I'd get the film stuck half-way on those notched reels and have a hell of a time in my 1mx1m cell trying to get it winding on again. Geez, that takes me back.
I spent years in various pro darkrooms after that, and enjoyed most of it when things were going smoothly, but I don't miss the smell of stop-bath and fixer. As a magazine photographer I'd never want to go back to film. Digital has made life so much easier in the publishing business.
Barry Ashenhurst
Lake Macquarie,
Australia.
I started in photography in 1971 with a Canon FTb ( I still have it!). I did some darkroom work then, but really didn't do much with it until the early 80's when I worked as an instructional aide for the advanced photo class at our local community college. At that time, I dove heavily into the Zone System; developing and printing 4x5 (Tri-X mostly) in a variety of ways.
I shot thousands of 35mm and 645 transparencies, and today shoot mainly 4x5 Astia 100Fand Fuji 160 ProS color neg.
I have never done Cibachrome printing. I have my film processing done by a lab and then (for the most part) scan and print my stuff at home. If I need a really big print, I'll have the film drum scanned, do my own post processing and then have a service bureau make the prints.
Working in the darkroom has stood me in good stead. The experience has helped tremendously in the 'digital' end of my work. Studying, and working with the Zone System has postively impacted the full spectrum of my photography, from visualization to the final print.
-P
First of all I think the saturation that public absorbs in print media, TV and movies of " Fake reality" has seriously eroded straight photography's cachet of reality. Now straight photography does not imply just film, digital photography is designed to emulate film. Why else would I have f stops, shutter speeds and Iso settings on my digital camera if it wasn't duplicating what a film camera does. I don't believe there is an intuitive computerized camera that sees and records images they way my eyes, optic nerves and brain do. So really if you want to nail when we depart from "perceived" reality it is when the shutter is released and the image is captured on film or sensor. Where we take it from there in post processing is completely in the purveyance of the photographer and their sense of what is over processed into the realm of fantasy. If we are selling a piece and that comment or question comes up educating the public is certainly in order , but as we go farther afield and strive for that never before seen image, more and more it may be assumed to be "fake". Is it an insult or a compliment, that depends on what you have done to "create" your vision. If asked is that a "real" photo, and I have been true to what seems to be an unwritten code my answer would be Yes it's a "real" photo. I'm not being a smart alec here, my point is the whole topic and the mountain of words in response are the evidence that as a medium photography "film" or "digital" is a recorded instant in time that requires processing chemical or computer to be realized, whether or not it has lost it's public confidence as reality is not our fault unless we personally break the code. We all are the keepers of the "flame' so to speak, and we can only be responsible for ourselves and to convince our peers to be responsible if we want to call ourselves Nature Photographers.
As to Landscape painters like Turner and another famous one Bierstadt not portraying reality then they've never been lucky enough to see that magic light, I've seen several what I call Bierstadt sunsets right here in my own back yard. Was El Capitan and Cathedral Peak in the scene no, but the light the colors were there,they were real. These famous landscape painters went into the field and spent sometimes months making studies of the scenes they were going to make masterpieces off back in their studios during the winter. Many times they were accompanied by wet plate photographers like Carleton Watkins.
I haven't used slide film in several years. With digital photography, I have had to learn the techniques of post-processing. The term is workflow. I seldom do to an image what is sometimes disparagingly referred to as manipulation, but I do post-processing on virtually every image that isn't discarded. Doesn't everybody? Everybody other than rank amateurs and snap shooters, that is. In addition to levels, curves, contrast, brightening, dodging, burning, adjustment of white balance, and other such 'darkroom' manipulations, occasionally, I have an image that benefits from the judicious application of the clone tool. Is that fakery? What if I use a graduated neutral density filter? That can have a dramatic effect on an image. Is that kind of pre- vs post-processing dishonest? If someone says "Wow!", do I need to disclose that the actual scene was somewhat different, - that I enhanced it through the use of filtration?
In a black and white photograph, with white clouds against a black sky, do I need to say that the sky was really blue and that I used a red filter to make it seem so dark. What if I applied the red filter digitally in post-processing?
Was Michael Orton dishonest when he sandwiched two slides together, one sharply in focus and one blurred, to create the now-famous Orton effect? What about a double exposure, when two images are recorded on the same frame of film? Is that less dishonest than making a composite image?
I don't think there is a line to be crossed. I think it is a very broad gray area. I'm not at all comfortable with terms like fakery, dishonesty, unethical, when applied to art, whether the medium is photography or other. I have a painter friend who says, only a little bit tongue in cheek, "Art is whatever you can get away with."
BTW, Floris - By happenstance I perused a couple of the galleries on your website just before I read this thread. It is a wonderful exhibition and some are absolutely outstanding. It never occurred to me to question whether or not your photographs were real.
There's very little in my life that I'd like the courts decide... how I use photoshop isn't even on the horizon
But.. out of curiosity, is there a list of court allowed adjustments that someone who doesn't speak "legal" can read?
Who the hell removed my original post, quoted from it, and reposted a reply to my post using my name?
Moderator? Oh, moderator?
Has your chimpanzee been playing with your computer?
Not to be facetious.. but that makes composites ok in your opinion? Sure they take a lot more time in the darkroom, but that doesn't make them any less possible.
For me, if the end result is honest to the overall scene at roughly the time of capture, it's ok. That means blending exposures for dynamic range, image quality, and subject motion, are ok. As is removing things you could have removed from the scene without causing damage to the natural environment had you had the foresight (or opportunity) to do so. ie. little twigs.
I'll start with the bottom line here. "The Motive" I guess it's all about motive. Why do "you" take pictures, to make money, be popular in the photography community, try and always top the next guy, or (hopefully like most of us) for passion. To me photography is about a love for nature and wildlife. I can sit on a log and watch chickadees dance around a tree, watch a beautiful sunset over a pristine northwoods lake, and stare at a small cluster of flowers in the middle of nowhere and be completely at peace. I hope someday to be as successful as some of you, have a gallery or prints in a gallery. Why, because I LOVE nature. Its not to try and out-do Stan, Floris, Eva, Marc, and on and on. Yes, I could go on and on because your all so talented.
To bring it home, yes we need to be honest. Honest with ourselves! When I am out shooting I dont think how would such and such shoot this. No, how would I shoot this. Its finding the creativity in "you" and being true to the person you are. I know as photographers we are competitive by nature. We want to post the next shot thats Mind-Blowing and different, but in all honesty some of the best shots are those that are simple and beautiful. The ones that are truly "your" style and have that passion tied to them. Thats what shows and if it moves you then shoot it, but shoot it well. Strive to be technically great and very little will need to be done in PS.
I was at a local mall yesterday and they had a fine art fair. Paintings, pictures, sculptures, and such. A majority of the photographs were over-saturated, heavily manipulated, and just not that engaging, yet many like that I guess. A walked by them and into Thomas Mangelsen's gallery who has one in that mall. When I see his pictures I see raw nature. Now I dont know his style of post-processing and I know he is almost all film, but it depicts the "real" to me. I use this to point out this. What do you want to portray? A sense of real nature or digital skepticism. I know many of us want to portray pure nature and it hurts us when someone asks "Is that fake". If we know it isn't then its just confirmation that nature is really that beautiful and then the challenge is persuading others that it is.
My final point: To be honest with ourselves, honest with others, excite others by your passion for nature, and hopefully our pictures will inspire others to go out and enjoy this beautiful earth. That it not only inspires us, but take action in preserving it as well. We dont want to be tripod to tripod with someone out in the wilds fighting for the best selling shot, right?
Its about Nature not us.
...beer, yes
...truthiness, not so much.
I would argue for non-truthiness on two counts. First, every photograph has elements of untruth in it...even the ones that the authors above have been so proud of "not altering". I'm not disputing your efforts to make your photograph "untouched", only the practicality of truly duplicating what was in front of you. You made many photographic choices that effected the outcome, even if they weren't accomplished with photoshop. Maybe in my mind taking the image near sunset with an amazing cloud burst is "unrealistic". Most people would have started the return hike hours ago and would never see it that way. High noon with washed out colors would be much more realistic. :) Every photographic format and every lens makes a difference in the final image. Every cropping and timing choice makes a difference. A given "place" has many different moods. Who is to say which one is "realistic" for that place? Your choice of a particular film or digital camera implies a specific gamma curve that may make the final image look very different than a what a pair of human eyes (or the eyes of a coyote or owl) might see there at the same time. Universal Reality is an impractical concept. Reality is relative.
Second, I would posit that making an image that is very different from what the average person sees while out hiking is a very honest pursuit. It is a clear effort to show a point of view or a way of seeing the world; to elicit some particular feeling in the person viewing it. It is a performance, nothing more or less; an act of creativity. Whether that view of the world is "a strikingly beautiful view of a well-known mountain" which in the artists mind is a very accurate depiction of what he saw that day, or it is a barely recognizable image of a sunset captured from a fogged up car bumper...it is an artistic attempt to show something to the viewer in a specific way.
If "accuracy" were the goal, I could make a robot that takes much "better" pictures than you do. We need only define specifically enough what version of "accurate" we are going for. If, on the other hand, we are looking for images with a loftier goal, then you, my dear friends, will beat my robot every time. :)
jp
In the digital age there is NO SUCH THING an image that has not been "Photo-shopped" (even an in-camera jpeg is originally a raw image that your little, but powerful, in-camera "Photoshop" made major decisions about and then created digitally with its own brand of specialized rendering).
All images need to be developed/manipulated to BETTER portray reality, but more often than not, when the public asks "is that manipulated?" or "is that Photo-shopped?" they are simply asking if substantial blatant digital fakery was used in the creation of the image.
As we get more proficient and masterful in development we slowly realize that ALL images need competent professional coaxing to overcome the substantial limits that restrain our ability to portray reality with our medium. Common methods such as dodging, burning, contrast masking, mid tone contrast masking, graduated luminance adjustments, color separation techniques, unsharp masking... are occasionally thought of as "manipulating" (as in "Photo-shopping") but when done subtly and professionally is merely "developing" or "optimizing" (bringing an image to its relative optimal state) an image. It is when these and more aggressive methods are done really bad, over done, or when major manipulations are done (compositing skies, complete hue shifts, adding or removing major elements...) that is really "Photo-shopping" and, I believe, should be openly disclosed if one sells their work and especially when asked.
Those working on the cutting edge of reality with a very concentrated effort at capturing the most surreal moments possible are always going to be walking an extremely fine line and will always come under some scepticism/disbelief because of the very nature of their work. I have many a client (photography students) that had some general scepticism about an image in my sell able library, be able to play with (and sometimes completely process/develop themselves) the actual original raw file and then find out that the reality portrayed was indeed quite authentic to the moment captured.
Another issue often not discussed much is in GALLERIES where sometimes fine art photographers come under attack (often by other "purist" photographers) for their images being too saturated or too contrasty... Especially susceptible are those who use silver halide, super gloss laser prints. These prints, when under controlled dark conditions and specialized direct gallery lighting, pop amazingly with contrast and color! Often what critics do not realize is that the paper itself (along with the specialized lighting) goes a very long way in creating this accentuated vivid presentation, not necessarily "Photo-shopping" (the popular quick accusation). Commonly when such a print is purchased and put into a more normal lighting condition (like maybe a persons living room) the image normalizes. Time and time again I have gone onto various photography forums where some photographers were bashing another professional landscape photographers gallery prints for being "too saturated" yet what they often don't know is that the lighting conditions are often the cause of this, not the saturation slider.