A Disturbing Trend in Landscape Photography....

I am slightly alarmed at the amount of image manipulation/color enhancement that is prevelant on the web in landscape photography. I don't think it occurs as much on this site as others, but it still happens here too. Unfortunately, a few of the most talented and popular artists (from Europe and North America) occasionally (and sometimes more often than that) embellish this trend and I believe it creates a vicious cycle where others try to emulate their success by doing the same thing.

I am fully aware that as individual artists we can adopt any style we want to create our own personal interpretations through our art. I guess I wonder where do you draw the line from when landscape photography goes from capturing nature's most imtimate and beauitul moments to capturing a moment like that and producing an image that doesn't look anything like the scene (color wise) no matter how many times you go back and visit it and under any given set of conditions.

Let me also say that I know that we have all probably seen photos that we thought were completely over the top and in actuality were close to reality. It is one thing to disclose about image manipulation up front. In fact, some artists are known for their over-the-top style editing of nature images. However, it does bother me to see an artist present his or her images like that's the way the colors looked when they shot it; and yet the boundaries of what they captured were pushed so much during their processing the colors just aren't representative of reality at all. I am not trying to be a hater - I just think it sometimes comes across as being a little untruthful (especially to those who never have visited place before and are told that's the way it looks). Again, my opinion is completely subjective. This is just my two cents and I am interested in hearing how other's feel about this as well.

Velvia's colors weren't realistic either, so nothing has changed....

Hello, Michael!

This is an endless discussion. It was done a thousand times before and will be done until eternity. There's no wrong or right. If images speak for themselves, the topic is reduced to each individual taste. There might be discrepancies when people say that it looks like in reality but it's obvious that this isn't true. But most photographers don't claim to have produced a 100% accurate depiction of nature. It's up to their memories, emotions and artistic interpretations how far they want to go. You can decide for yourself if this works for you or doesn't.

We don't even want to start the "Analogue/Digital" discussion. As Mark said, Velvia is everything else but a window to reality. I've seen so many purple Velvia snowscapes, that I would never dare to reproduce from my digital RAW files. We can go even further and look at B&W photography - where's the reality there?

Walk around, take a look and enjoy what you like.

Cheers ... Andreas.

Hi Michael,

I'm not a landscape photographer so my opinion on this issue has little or no value/significance, but interestingly several of my associates in the field of wildlife photography (and some other non-photographer friends as well) have made the same observation (some go so far as to call it "the hyper-saturated world of landscape photography"). I've even heard it referred to it as an arm's race on saturation. While I'm sure it (or something similar) goes all in ALL disciplines of photography (including in wildlife photography as well), I find it interesting that lay-persons have noticed it the most in landscape work (at least according to my very limited experience) .

RE: the comment about Velvia and nothing changing - one qualitative difference I see is that Velvia didn't come with a saturation slider with near infinite adjustment (i.e., it was a level, albeit very saturated, playing field that everyone was forced to stay on).

I want to reiterate that ALL fields of photography probably have their OWN "digitally facilitated" trend going on - I doubt landscape photographers use Photoshop's cloning tool as much as the average wildlife photographer!!

Cheers...

Brad

There's the old saying, "There's your version of the truth, there's my version of the truth, and then there's the truth. Interpretation is everything. Landscape photography is not photojournalism and as as such I don't think needs to conform to it's more rigorous standards. In a perfect world the artist would describe what was done to the image, but that will never happen. For the most part I try to get an image to look like the concept of the image I saw in my mind while I was at the location. This means focusing on the part of the scene that attracted me to take the photo in the first place. This can be done with shutter speed to freeze motion or show motion, aperture for depth of field, focal length to show the whole landscape or an isolated part of it, and post processing to get the colors I remember or the other adjustments to get the quality of light I remember. I also have no problem accentuating anything to a degree to help the viewer "feel" what I felt when I took the image. I also don't have a problem telling people what I did, or even taking it to the point of listing every image as "photo art" if it makes people feel better. In the end I am taking am image to illicit an emotional response, mine or anyone else who wants to view the image, and in the end it doesn't matter to me that much if the image is 99% reality or 80% reality, because that is all subjective anyway.

Lets face it, unless you have a camera that exactly replicates the colors in nature and has the exact same dynamic range as the human eye, shoot at a shutter speed that freezes a single moment in time, shoot with an aperture that matches the depth of field of the human eye, shoot with a fixed focal length lens that matches the human eye, and do absolutely no post processing, including cropping, then you are artistically manipulating the scene.

One other thing, I took an image from a location and did very minimal "optimization" post-processing and had another photographer tell me that those were not the colors that were in that rock formation. He said he had been there many times before and it didn't look like that. I asked him if he ever was there before dawn, he said no but still insisted the colors were not right. A year later he called me up and said he had been there, before dawn this time, and had replicated the colors in my image. The reality of how a location "looks" changes by the minute with the weather, by the day, by the season, and over the years.

This video says it all.

Cheers,
Mark

Too funny Mark

Well an old topic will live for ever. Having done film work for 35 years before going digtal...... Nothing has changed. It was all about manipulation then too. Film type, chemistry, paper, chemistry..... So what has changed? Nothing and everything. I do agree saturation is way over done now. PS may be the tool of the devil but it is we who accept it. I did try HDR for a while but decided it was not for me. Guess it is a learning experience too, that we have to deal with both for ourselves and others. My favorite medium is B&W which is more alien then current fashion and I may end up back there where I started 35 years ago.

Good one mark

What I can say Michael, "Do your own thing and dont worry what others are doing"

I photo assisted some top photographers in my day and I will tell you this, there was allot of things going on in the dark room after the negs where developed

Yes Mark; that was too funny! I will go on to say that I am a relative newcomer to the digital manipulation world but have an extensive background in both 35mm and 2 1/4 format film. I can remember using the tools that were available to me over the years to render my landscape photos in a slightly different way than the next photographer. Cropping with the enlarger, burning and dodging; paper choices, deliberate blurring or sharpening.....I guess I would call this "artistic license" for want of a better term. I have asked myself more than once what I would have done with my pictures then if I had the technology of today. I think I would have been very happy to use whatever technique I could use to make the photo say something to the viewer. What is too much? I personally have no idea...I would think it's up to the individual artist and the person appraising his or her work to determine that. Just my two cents for what it's worth

John Vaughan
John Vaughan Photography
North Branch, Minnesota

I agree with Michael. It is an old topic and it will go on and go on, for sure. If I get Michael correctly, it is not so much the "rendering", "alteration" "enhancement" or yes the "manipulation" as such that bothers him. It is that attitude of many photographers to suggest (by the choice of words when describing the capturing and processing process) that the final product looks as close as possible to the actual scene. Or the other claim: Looks like "what I saw", or looks like "what I felt". I have said it already, but come on - it is simply not (always) true and not honest. Why the heck not just saying: This is the final look as I want it, as a result of conscious choice of film, filters, exposure, and post processing?

See Darwin Wigget's article.

I figure it this way...

If you (rhetorical) make photographs for yourself to hang on your wall, make them so that they please you. If you (again rhetorical) make photographs and market them for sale in order to pay your bills, then you have to make images that please that market.

If your personal vision/style/ethic requires manipulation and over-the-top color, when viewed by an outside observer, then; 'Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!' In the end, the only person you really need to please is yourself.

-P

Well said Preston.

I don't remember being blown away by too many "documentary" landscape images. Or "literal" landscape images. Sure, it doesn't take a lot of help, or manipulation to take a well exposed and composed image to a level that evokes an emotional response. I think that is what most of us are looking for. I also think I can tell when an image has been "grossly" manipulated. I wouldn't buy one, or be impressed by it. However, if one of the gross manipulators is having great succes with it, how can we blame them for doing it?

It's pretty much what Preston said. If your market requires something from you to be successful, then you will do that thing. If the only person you have to please is yourself, then you will do your own thing. If you have the backbone to do your own thing at the risk of not beeing successful(sales), then go for it. I don't sell much of my work. So I have not yet experienced a heavily positive or negative reaction to my work. I do enhance, or optimize my images to my taste. I have never had any one say they thought my work looked fake, or heavily manipulated. I did have one person say that he though some of my files had to be touched up. I said absolutely that they did. Then I showed him what a raw file looks like out of the camera. He seemed to understand.

I do agree that there are other photography forums on the web that almost every image seems way over the top. I never see anyone calling them on it. So it seems to me that it's accepted there.

Bottom line is that we all have the freedom to do whatever we want. We all have the freedom to accept, or dislike it too. You gotta do what's right for you. If becoming a succesful(sales) photography gets to the top of my list of goals. Then I may, or may not have to conform to the trends of the market. If what i want to do with my presentation doesn't conform to those trends, then I take my chances.

Chris

If you must draw a line, then draw it. But realize that the line you draw applies only to you and to those over whom you have influence. Others are free to draw their own lines wherever the please.

Post-processing is a part of digital photography. I judge an image by whether or not it pleases me. I may judge some images to have been 'over-manipulated', but it is not the manipulation per se that I don't like, it is that it was not done artfully.


Art implies control of reality, for reality itself possesses no sense of the esthetic. Photography becomes an art when certain controls are applied..

Ansel Adams

"Then I may, or may not have to conform to the trends of the market. If what i want to do with my presentation doesn't conform to those trends, then I take my chances."

This statement is pretty much the bottom line, and I totally agree with it.

A couple of points that bear mentioning are:

1. All monitors show color values differently (Hue/Saturation/Lightness), so, unless the tonal values are really extreme, making an objective assessment regarding 'ok' or 'over-the-top' is iffy.

2. Those of us who plan to print our work, adjust our images for the Print, not for viewing on the Web. Some images may look over-saturated on the Web, but are perfectly acceptable in the print because a monitor image is transmissive, while a print is reflective. Even though my system is calibrated and profiled, I see the difference in my own work: It is subtle, but it's there. Since the print is my final goal for any image, I go with what makes the print look its best.

-P

Further to Preston's post I visit many photographer's sites that have highly saturated images for sale. In some cases these just could never be printed to match the screen. I have no great issue with such images but I do wonder what some purchasers make of what comes through there door when they compare it with the image on the screen.

My first post!

Brian

Very interesting discussion! Here's a link to an article I wrote with Darwin about the subject. I sense that there is a bit of a reaction brewing to the freedom we photographers/artists have had with the digital darkroom. In this case, I totally agree with Buck in his comments: it is not that images are manipulated; the reaction stems from the fact that the manipulation is done artlessly. I also agree with Michael Greene that we do ourselves no favours by parading our work as some objective reality. Let your image stand on its own legs.

Ok, I just saw your response in your article, Sam, and i completely agree with you there, so no point in adding another long-winded comment
I think what has been pointed out by several here is what really bugs me, that the less-than-artful stuff somehow survives and thrives becuase it is marketed to sell. It's no different in the music biz; great music/musicians are never heard often because the public as a whole has been brain-washed into thinking that the over-produced garbage is really gold. True talent languishes because its not 'saturated' enough. The same could be said for food...the list goes on and on...im so depressed now.

You make an interesting statement, and observation, Stan! I totally agree that a lot of great artists, or art work gets overlooked because it isn't in with the trend. I wasn't trying to say that if it sells, it's good. Just pointing out that we are at the mercy of the market trends, or the public perception of what is good. I imagine a lot, if not the majority of non photog people out there don't really have a clue as to what it takes to capture, and present a great image. So it's the bold colors and flashy scenery that they are drawn to.
Another point about what is good. Something can be skillfully created, and not be aesthetic. This is something that the general public ignorant to. You can capture an image that is expertly composed with a different perspective, in challenging light, at a remote(non iconic) location. That will be appreciated by photographers that understand what was needed to capture it. Even if it isn't aesthetic. It's the skill, vision, and creativity that is recognized there. But generally, we(the general public) don't do ugly! So if bold saturation, and starbursts, along with "dandelion" waves and smokey water is what's recognized as pretty, then that's what will be recieved by those that have that perception. I'm in no way trying to say that the other approach is ugly. But sometimes cannot be fully appreciated by the person viewing it.

When I first started, I didn't really like abstracts too much. I also didn't really like cracked dry mud as subjuect matter. Or complex chaotic scenes. Thay just cluttered up the pretty stuff. It took me a while to understand about composition(still learning) and the little nuances created by things that I otherwise would not have wanted in the comp. When I saw what a skilled person could do with cracked mud, or an abstract approach, those then became very enjoyable for me. Now I like dead trees in my forest scenes, or little dry leaves still hanging on to ganrled old oak trees and stuff like that. Anyway, I'm rambling on now. I do agree with, and aknowledge your point. It is depressing, but the way things are it seems.

Chris

Dietrich understands exactly what I am trying to communicate. It is also covered very well in Sam's article. Thanks to everyone for their participation in this forum.

I've always found it interesting that these discussions come up regarding color, but no one really cares (in this manner of speaking - the false claim of reality being represented by over-saturated images) when contrast is pushed around in a heavy handed manner. Neither photographers, nor the public. Why is that? What is it about color that we are sensitive about?

Good question, Floris. I dont know, but perhaps it has something to do with what Sam and Darwin point out in their article--that photography is a 2D device presenting a 3D world. Color looks essentially the same whether its in 2D or 3D. On the other hand, 3 Dimensions create more contrast--in the sense that a near object contrasts with a far one--so in most cases increased contrast brings the 2D shot closer to that 3D representation. .

For me, overly saturated (and contrasty) photos stick out like a sore thumb. I think it's far more artistic to let colors remain subdued, leaving the brilliance of an image to shine only at centers or interest. The challange in the photography of my interests is actually being there for those amazing moments, rather than 'creating' them on the desk top. An old commercial comes to mind: "Is it real or is it Memorex",

Floris - I believe a few weeks ago you actually touched on this topic when you wrote about manipulating the saturation levels through other adjustments without actually changing the saturation. Whether it is through contrast, masks, saturation, vibrance or whatever - I am just clumping it generically together and calling it "color'.

Michael - I was referring to pure contrast, so for example adjusting contrast and desaturating to correct for the color, or for example, in a black when white, when in general a high dose of contrast seems to 'work well'.

I find it funny that many dismiss that the "trend" that Michael talked about is not all a trend. Really? yes we had velvia, we had chemicals - but manipulation was never been so easy and available to mass. The scale at which this is happening is really the difference.

The dis-honesty factor is really alarming - but photogs are human too and they have to sell their work for food. If politicians can lie all the time, why can't starving artists do so too ?

"The dis-honesty factor. " I just don't get it. I guess that notion must arise from folks who don't consider photography to be art, not true art, not honest art, not real art.

What about Picasso? Jackson Pollack? Alexander Calder? Were they dis-honest? Ansel Adams, the great master of landscape photography manipulated his photographs. Was he dishonest?

Either you like it or you don't. Honesty has nothing to do with it.

For many, change and the introduction of a new process or technology becomes a threat to the established status quo. Again, art and the means of creative expression is not limited to one process over another or by the inability by some to accept the progress of change. Without change, art would be stifled and confined to the box of tradition and preconceived ideas.

“Photography, as we all know, is not real at all. It is an illusion of reality with which we create our own private world”. Arnold Newman

"What about Picasso? Jackson Pollack? Alexander Calder? Were they dis-honest? Ansel Adams, the great master of landscape photography manipulated his photographs. Was he dishonest? "

No he was not. I saw a documentary film where he is seen working in the dark room (don't know how they filmed it...). AA was very open about the processing he did. This is not dishonest.

The "dis-honesty factor" Arnab means is that the conscious processing efforts are downplayed, even denied by many.

Thanks Dietrich - that's exactly what I meant. Some photg almost pretend that they do minimal processing - while just a look at their images (by any experienced eyes) will reveal the degree of processing. That's the sad part of it - general people are also realizing it , but in a very wrong way. Now they even question a minimally or non-processed image - as they know we, photographers, can not be trusted in this digital age. This, in my mind, is a dangerous trend - it's all about perception.
AA wrote books on how he did post-processing - so did many other photographers

Hey Folks,

What I see as dishonest is the supporting arguments, particularly 'make the image appear as it did in my mind when I fired the shutter'. I'd submit that few, if any, times is this the case. I push the slider until it looks good to me at the time I'm moving the slider. And then oftentimes I'll adjust that later, as well. I expect this is the norm.

Similarly, the 'velvia' argument is dishonest. With color slide film, you got what you got. It never came with a slider. To say that 'nothing has changed' is weird - of course things have changed, and changed drastically.

Lastly, I'm not a big believer in simply justifying what we do because it suits the (economic) market - the question of the OP is an ethical one, though certainly personal, and I'd hope people never turn to the 'market' for some sense of ethical direction. Hopefully the recent financial system collapse illustrates why.

Landscape photography is, to me, photojournalism; that doesn't mean it's not artful, at all. Why do people like to discuss this as though 'fantasy' has a monopolistic hold on art.

Cheers

Carl

> Why do people like to discuss this as though 'fantasy' has a monopolistic hold on art.

Couldn't agree with you more, Carl.

These days it looks as if the "selection" aspect of photography (i.e. choosing what must be shown within the frame) is the least important thing. Folks use cookie-cutter techniques (also known as rules of composition) to keep producing the same-old, same-old pictures, while spending the bulk of the effort in post-processing. In some cases the final results can be startling but I find very little originality in such pictures. The folks whose work I admire always seem to thrill me with content rather than post-processing magic.

Regards

This is a question that I tend to try to stay away from, I have a hard-line stance on this one and Carl is in line to exactly where my feelings are on this topic. You can joke about beating a dead horse but to some of us photographers out here working as “color” natural history photographers, the landscape, the flora and fauna, really just nature as a whole, is the most important aspect in our line of work. Natural History Photography, which includes landscape photography, is photojournalism. To manipulate an image to the extreme to create a beautiful dream-like moment in time then promote it as the gospel is, to me, unethical. To make the statement that Ansel Adams manipulated his images so it's OK to manipulate mine is "BS". Black and white photography is a manipulation period and no one questions that, we do not see the world around us in black & white. When you work in color you are working a field that is as we see it with the naked eye. We see in color so our viewers evaluate at our images with a photojournalistic intent.

Mark you stated, “Velvia's colors weren't realistic either, so nothing has changed...”. Do you honestly believe that? Come on, really? There's been no time in our field that you could ever buy thousands of Photoshop actions and plugins that even the most inexperienced photographer can manipulate an image with a push of the button. When we used Velvia, Astia, E100VS, and many others, we all were still limited to our film. It was more of an embellishment of certain aspects of a scene not really a manipulation as we see it today. The comparison between digital photography today and film based photography of 10 years ago as one in the same is nonsensical.

I think that the difference is that lots of photographers will do what ever it takes to get those 40, 50, 60+ comments on their images when they post to the web or maybe published in print. I've witnessed photographers complain about other photographers that use heavy manipulation to gain huge popularity, then just months later those very same photographers fall into the same footsteps with manipulation to gain that same popularity.

I believe that we have to ask ourselves what is the most important. Is the landscape, the wilderness that we all love and respect, the most important aspect of what we do or is it just the popularity of ones photography? There is a major difference with regards to embellishment verses manipulation. I think that every one of us knows exactly where that line is but we use the gray in between for justification.

I believe that we must hold the wilderness that we work in sacred and we should not manipulate the soul of that wilderness out of our images for the sake of popularity.

There is a major difference with regards to embellishment verses manipulation. I think that every one of us knows exactly where that line is but we use the gray in between for justification.

Given the inherent limits of Web-based communication, the following questions might come across a smart-alecky loaded statements, but they really aren't meant to be; I just want to clearly state this upfront, because misinterpretation/misunderstanding in this venue is commonplace.

Is the implication of the above statement that we all, in our heart of hearts, know when we're crossing the embellishment/manipulation line in post processing? And is this line, whether we're aware we're crossing it or not, a subjective one or are we to infer that there's some objective standard by which this (i.e. lapsing from embellishment into manipulation) can be judged?

Id like to hear Jerry's repsonse to your question, Kerry--cause i think its a fair one.
That being said, I tend to agree with Carl and Jerry. A good many of the top landscape photographers on NPN have been quoted to say something along the lines of "I photograph the landscape to hopefully inspire others to appreciate the beauty and importance of our environment and the need to protect it". If the presentation is a subjective fantasy, then how is that ideal being promoted?? It becomes a sham, ideals held up by vapors, analagous to the financial market Carl refers to
You can't equate painting to photography--theyre different mediums, different forms of expression. A painting is not a photograph--live with it!!

In a very large sample of viewers, I think we can't quantify in objective terms when embellishment/manipulation is 'too much'. In a smaller sample, say, among photographers, it may be psossible, though unlikely to come to a consensus. The whole argument sort of goes along the lines of the old saying; "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like".

For myself, I have bounds regarding post processing that I will not exceed. I can't quantify them in so much as setting Hue/Sat to some invariable value, or the shape of a characteristic currve because each image is different, but I can tell when such settings don't work for me. Whether or not my prints work for another person is entirely up to them.

-P

Kerry,

I firmly believe that deep down we all know where the line is. Some of us are nature photographers working in and for nature and the wild places. Others are in it for different reasons, more of being noticed, almost like a photographic competition. I am not discounting the latter I just don't totally understand the logic. Those of us that work for nature, I do a lot of assignment work for major conservation groups here in the east, generally shoot with a more journalistic eye. My photography must represent the wild in a way that keeps it pure and true. It doesn't mean that I cannot kick the colors up a notch or work with a blend to even out the scene. But I will not use two different lighting situations or a different sky just to give my image more impact. Again, for me the soul of that scene must stay intact so manipulations beyond the normal is a non issue so I just don't do it. It's a real shame that some photographers believe that they have to take an ordinary scene and throw in some of that Photoshop magic to make a statement. They see no ethics issues claiming that it's what their minds eye witnessed that day (well, maybe that's true if you downed a little acid!).All the time justifying this by stating that they're an artist and not a photojournalist. If I wanted to create woodland fairy-tales then I'd have been a digital artist or a maybe graphic artist.

Nature photography is an unregulated environment. We are not obligated to conform to any limitations of image processing beyond personal preference. Personal preference will vary widely amongst photographers as will the grounds for personal preference. Whatever motivates your personal line in the sand - ethics, reality, artistic expression, trend, the good 'ol days, etc - you can be darn sure that you will not be able to convince everyone that your choice is correct.

The venue in which an image is displayed may be the key to this. If the venue has clear guidelines (as opposed to "expectations") on what post-processing is acceptable and what is not, then like-minded photographers can jump into the venue with their peers (and sneer at others on the outside). So maybe we can start sub-forums like:

"Earth Sea & Sky depicted as naturally as possible without excessive saturation (slider must be < 15), contrast (no curves allowed), or compositing (unless stitching a panorama that is within the periferal field of human eyes) but with mechanical manipulations acceptable such as increased DOF via tilt lens or glare reduction via polar filter or use of grossly saturated film. Cloners will be shot"

Seriously, unless there are clear and detailed guidelines provided by a competent authority for a specific venue that an image will be in (such as some photo contests), then the ONLY rule is our personal preference.

Ken,

Nature photography is regulated by the integrity of the photographer that is tripping the shutter. Undisclosed extreme manipulation will give all a snapshot of the ethics of the photographer that took the photo. It's just as simple as that. At that point all will know what is the most important, being a known photographer at all costs or caring and respecting the entity that fills our frame. You really cannot be both. BTW, this is pertaining to color photography only, B&W is NOT one in the same.

Jerry,

I understand your point but I don't agree with your premise. The degree to which one applies post-processing is not, to me, an ethical indicator. Rather it is meeting the expectations of the forum in which one places their post-processed images that matters, provided such expectations are stated. There are zero rules for post-processing images posted to NPN. Nor is there a clear community directive. So whatever the poster puts up is ethically fine (at least with regard to post-processing). On the other hand, if I were to post a composited image to a contest that specifically forbade composited images, then I think I would be treading into unethical.

I can certainly see the side of the argument that heavy post-processing moves an image away from its original integrity and is therefore bad. But that argument assumes that one holds image honesty paramount. I dont think that is a universal sentiment. Until it is (doubtful), ethical doesnt play into the discussion. Its simply personal preference. Others may hold artistic attributes in higher stead than realism. That is perfectly fine. And others may balk at having their artistic license infringed upon by those who prefer realism.

Also, I dont think we can know what motivates a photographer based upon their use of post processing. That is, I dont think someone who goes at the saturation slider with a heavy hand is necessarily looking for popularity at the expense of their subject. They may just think it looks pretty that way. I'm not going to interpret nefarious intent or moral deficiency from that.

In my earlier post I was joking about setting up sub-forums that have defined post-processing limits, but maybe that's not such a silly idea. It could provide a venue for those who feel strongly about post-processing gone wild in the regular forums.

Ken,

I cannot back away from the fact that I'm not a nature photographer for the sake of being a photographer/digital artist. I'm a nature photographer to be in and for nature and the wild places that I photograph. I believe that EVERY photographer that works in nature should work to protect and preserve our livelihood. This is where ethics come in to play for me. Throwing out the true soul of the wild with heavy manipulation DOES NOTHING for that wild place. It becomes a figment of an imagination and a "fairytale". With only the body left to represent, soul be damned. If the light isn't there, hell I'll make it with a little Photoshop magic! Then I'll play along as though it be the gospel. This is pure ethics!

I find it intriguing that we can have such diverse philosophical views about photography. Kinda like politics, I guess.

Jerry - believing that we all know where the line is is like believing that we all know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't know where the line is. I think maybe there isn't a line at all, other than an arbitrary one. However, I think I might understand where you draw the line. As a photojournalist, you believe that nothing can be added or subtracted from the photo. I'm fine with that. Photojournalists have lost their jobs, and rightly so, because they altered photos. But, I don't get your exclusion of black and white, the medium of a vast amount of photojournalism. If a photojournalist adds or subtracts something in a photo, does it matter if it's color or black and white? But as a landscape photographer, I'm not a photojournalist - I'm an artist. It's not my intent to document what I see, but rather to make pictures that I, and I hope others, like to look at. And Jerry, let me compliment you - I do enjoy looking at your photojournalism.

In a photograph of driftwood on a beach, if I were to discover a cigarette butt in the foreground that I hadn't seen before making the photo, as a photojournalist I guess my choices would be to publish the photo with the cigarette butt or to discard the photo. As an artist, I'm not going to publish the photo with the cigarette butt in it. Should I discard it? Hit the delete button? Gee, it's a fabulous photo, except for this tiny mar inflicted by some thoughtless slob. Should I refuse to share this photo with my friends and family? My fellow photographers? And, yes, even my customers? If I digitally remove that ugly little piece of trash, does that make me an unethical scoundrel. Have I perpetrated a fraud? But wait - some have said that it is not the alteration itself that is dishonest, but the non-disclosure. Can I can remain an honest man by proclaiming to one and all that this picture has been digitally altered? Would an asterisk and fine print suffice? Or do I need to be specific about my crime. Perhaps the only way to save myself is to entitle the photo "Driftwood on a Beach, Cigarette Butt Digitally Removed."

Is the Orton effect dishonest? Is HDR a fraud? How about dodging or burning? Is it OK to use a graduated neutral density filter but not to try to achieve the same effect in post processing? Is it alright to change the perspective with a tilt-shift lens but verboten to do the same thing in PhotoShop? If the white balance was changed, which can make a dramatic effect in the color of a photo, does this fact need to be disclosed? "I accidentally shot this using the white balance for cloudy and later converted it to daylight white balance." or vice versa. If the RAW file has a heavy blue cast, am I absolved if I convert it to black and white rather than try to fix the color? If total desaturation, i.e. conversion to black and white, is acceptable, how about a slight desaturation. There seems to be a consensus that a large increase in saturation is objectionable, whether for dishonesty or simply garishness. How about a subtle increase in saturation?

I don't know where to draw the line, so I'd rather not draw one. I don't believe in dishonest art.

Look Buck, you are taking this to an extreme. Removing a piece of trash is NOT removing the soul of an image. The best thing to have done is pick the butt up and carry it out since the ignorant bastard was to stupid to do it him/her self. When I talk about extreme manipulation I'm talking about manufacturing light or completely changing a sky. Adding elements to a scene, Like an enlarged moon. These type of things without disclosure. Embellishing and image with a little more saturation or using ND grads, even replacing ND grads with a blend of two bracketed exposures of that same scene is not an issue. You're not manufacturing anything here. It's simple, portraying the landscape as beautiful as the moment allows. If you choose to use extreme manipulation, which I have no problem with, and disclosing that in the captioning. Well, the doing what is right. It's like a wildlife photographer shooting at a game farm and captioning it as in the wild or just not disclosing that it was captive. Again, I think anyone that have been shooting for sometime in the field knows where the line is. It's up to us to do what's right.

Jerry - thanks for you straightforward and clear thoughts, I'm completely with you. The goal, for me, is to stay 'honest' to nature, because while I tend to think of myself as creating art, it is very important that my work is a direct derivative of the wild natural world. With occasional experiments to help myself find that line of course If you come back to a picture you've edited a while later and feel something's not right... then you might have found a finer point of that line.

The one common theme which is emerging, which hopefully we all can agree on, is that disclosure is important. If you want to manipulate the heck out of something--great--but don't be deceptive. I think the main reason this whole discussion comes up so often is that we have all seen blatant photoshopping where the creator publically denies their manipulations, and that kind of unethical behavior makes us all look bad.

"...blatant photoshopping where the creator publically denies their manipulations, and that kind of unethical behavior makes us all look bad."

It's just that simple! Thanks Stan!

Is that really all this is about?

"Lying is bad"?

(Not be confused with the motto of Animal House's Faber College: "Knowledge is Good.")

Did it really take a 50-odd post thread to come to a consensus on this point?

Forgive me, but I got the distinct impression that at least some of the participants were suggesting that the entire practice of (significant, however that's defined) image manipulation was, prima facie, a bad thing.

I don't feel as though I really have a horse in this race, but I'm clearly having a difficult time understanding what at least some folks are saying about the topic that was raised at the head of this thread. The part about blatant dishonesty seems to have cropped up along the way and I haven't seen anyone suggest that this was acceptable.

Kerry,

I am suggesting for up-front disclosure on highly manipulated images from the photographer and please don't post something like "this is what I saw when I got there". Also, I believe there is quiet a bit of embellishment for certain photographers and the average person on here is reluctant (or maybe just apethetic) when it comes to constructive criticism. I am specifically referring to images that are taken to the extreme on purpose or accidentally and I am sure we all sometimes do it. Whether you care or not (or to what degree) what someone else's image looks like or represents and how they portray it to the public as well as the feedback they receive and how that influences others - is completely subjective.

So Kerry,

Does being a nature photographer mean nothing more to you than being an artist/photographer? Does that special wild place that you shoot mean nothing to you? Do you feel no connection to those places that you frequent to capture those images? Is sales and comment, when it comes to nature photography, all you care about no matter what you may be exploiting to get it? Do you care more about the camera and being known as an ARTIST than protecting the environment that you shoot in?

Michael,

The problem that I see is that most photographers follow a trend and will stop at nothing to get comments. But lets face it, posting on forums and getting lots of comments do nothing more than stroke the ego. IT DOES NOT EQUATE to sales of images. Our customers are not driving us to extreme manipulation, trying to become the "king of the hill" in internet forums is.

I will say that we all have a different set of ethics that we stand by. As a nature photographer with an environmental bias I tend to stay in the "slight embellishment" with nothing added to a scene. Normal adjustments apply and nothing more. I try to recreate the witnessed scene without over doing it, I'm not a fairyland photographer.

Michael, thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.

Does being a nature photographer mean nothing more to you than being an artist/photographer? Does that special wild place that you shoot mean nothing to you? Do you feel no connection to those places that you frequent to capture those images? Is sales and comment, when it comes to nature photography, all you care about no matter what you may be exploiting to get it? Do you care more about the camera and being known as an ARTIST than protecting the environment that you shoot in?

I'm not sure what inspired this salvo, Jerry, since I was merely asking for clarification, but I'll try to respond briefly.

Sales and comments...I do very little marketing and I'm so interested in comments that I've averaged roughly two image posts per month in the 7 1/2 years I've been a member of NPN (including a rousing zero posts in the last 10-odd weeks) and have seldom posted what I consider to be my best work. Can't suck up for comments if you don't post much. I think it's fair to say that sales and comments aren't among my most pressing priorities.

It's somewhat ironic, but I think that you and I actually have very similar, if not identical, m.o.'s when it comes to personal post processing guidelines. I strive hard to keep my landscape imagery believable; I don't ever recall anyone telling me that my prints were hypersaturated or surreal. I don't composite images--taking a pleasing sky from one image and inserting it as the backdrop in another, for example, or insert objects (celestial bodies, animals, etc.)...or insert anything, for that matter. I try to stay true to the scene, always.

But where I think we may part company is in our individual level of certainty that our personal philosophy ought to be a universal one. You seem quite certain that your position in the "right" one--something everyone should be doing. I'm far more ambivalent on this point; I'm convinced that my philosophy is right for me, but I'm something of a relativist on such matters. I see substantial merit in the "art" argument that others have made in support of actions I've chosen to eschew.

Now, you may say I'm being wishy-washy while you're showing the strength of your convictions. I'll concede that there may well be validity in that argument as well.

One thing you wrote I will take direct issue with: you've implied, repeatedly, that taking artistic license with a natural scene is disrespectful of that scene...and wild places and the environment in general. I think that's one heck of an inferential leap. This presumes, it seems to me, that you know what's in the heart of every photographer. Who's to say that someone's personal expression, even if it's somehow "not true" to the human eye's rendering of a place, can't represent the height of respect to the scene/place that expression is based upon? To suggest otherwise, it seems to me, states that only one perspective--a literal one--can be environmentally respectful and that any other approach is inherently--to use the term you've proffered yourself--egotistical. I simply don't see it that way.

In sum, I think we largely agree on personal approach. Where we may disagree is on the broader implications of that technique.

Kerry - I think the problem Jerry is trying to point out, is that the actions of people who do not follow the "slight embellishment and no more" ethic have a direct impact on the believability of YOUR images. They are whittling away at the inherent honesty which nature photography carries with it (or used to) - it is that honesty, that truth to the wild places, which makes photography a uniquely powerful tool for environmental preservation. No other medium can accomplish that... we damn better not lose it!

So, for the "greater good of nature", I agree with Jerry... and I admit I may have pushed the lines a few times more than I now feel comfortable with.. taking artistic liberties, even fully disclosed, impacts my and every other nature photographer's work who is relying on the honesty of the medium. (it might be a very small impact, but when you get lots of photographers out there doing it, ones with big names etc., then it becomes a serious issue).

Side note: have you really seen that many photographs where skies were dropped in, deer or moons added, etc. etc.? I actually think as a whole nature photographers tend to be on the "slight embellishment" side, it's just that saturation seems to be at an all-time high.

Floris:

Kerry - I think the problem Jerry is trying to point out, is that the actions of people who do not follow the "slight embellishment and no more" ethic have a direct impact on the believability of YOUR images.

Perhaps you could point out to me the sentence(s) in any of the above notes Jerry wrote where you drew that inference--because I've gone back and looked myself and I'm not seeing it.

But let's run with this notion for a moment:

They are whittling away at the inherent honesty which nature photography carries with it (or used to) - it is that honesty, that truth to the wild places, which makes photography a uniquely powerful tool for environmental preservation. No other medium can accomplish that... we damn better not lose it!

Forgive me, but haven't we already effectively lost it? Essentially everyone--not just photographers, but the public at large--knows that this sort of thing can be done. Hell, it has been done, and the attention it's drawn is the reason everyone knows it's doable. So doubt amongst the public has already kicked in. Once that's there, how does the average viewer know that any image hasn't been subject to "significant doctoring"? If done well, it's undetectable. And, as several people who have posted in this thread have stated, practitioners are apparently "lying about it" right and left. And how do we know they're lying? Well, it's obvious just by looking at the images. So if people who are doing this work poorly are lying about it, why should we believe that at least some people who are good at it aren't lying about it too?

The genie's out of the bottle; there's no stuffing it back in. Even if every photographer in the world took a solemn pledge not to "excessively manipulate" (an admittedly impossible, absurd goal), who's to say some wouldn't still take some liberties on the QT?

It seems to me that, rather than trying to prevent an occurrence that's already taken place we'd all be better served dealing with the (relatively) new reality.

Side note: have you really seen that many photographs where skies were dropped in, deer or moons added, etc. etc.?

Off the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen cases on this Web site (I've seen plenty of examples--including animal paste-ins--elsewhere) that fit that description and were honestly revealed by the person posting the image. I particularly recall a scene from Bryce where the person who posted the image said he'd removed a plain blue sky and replaced it with the sky from another shot (which had threatening clouds). It was a totally believable scene and I doubt anyone would have known what had been done without the upfront admission.

Now, how many times have I viewed images here that fit that description and weren't revealed as such, but were done with such skill that I couldn't tell? I have no idea. No way to know, of course. But I wouldn't be entirely shocked if the answer was "plenty."

Perhaps you could point out to me the sentence(s) in any of the above notes Jerry wrote where you drew that inference--because I've gone back and looked myself and I'm not seeing it.

Sorry.. it was Stan, but Jerry who agreed, and further elaborated on the point, driving home the importance of photography as a medium for making environmental statements, or at least implied that. People who do gross manipulations threaten the medium's ability to continue making those important statements.

"...blatant photoshopping where the creator publically denies their manipulations, and that kind of unethical behavior makes us all look bad."

It's just that simple! Thanks Stan!

The fact that everyone knows it's possible, doesn't mean we all have to do it. It's a personal choice, of course, but I think those making the choice to grossly manipulate images should do so with the understanding that they are undermining what should (IMO) be a significant portion of the work: the fact that it is Nature we are photographing (if that doesn't make sense.. I think a week long solo in the mountains might be in order ). And furthermore, that it undermines the honest work of others. In the end, it's up to the greater institutions to uphold the ethical standards. While many photo magazines I won't name have miserably failed in that regard, others such as Nat Geo maintain a zero tolerance enforcement, which is critical to their ability to communicate to the public through a trusting relationship. So really, the only way to make a difference, is to have those institutions support honest work more, and not allow pasted in moons etc. But of course... they probably know what sells..

Kerry,

Again, it's all about personal integrity. There's no other way of putting it. For me, as I work for a number of conservation organizations, will not do it. But I believe that we all owe a bit of respect to the wild places that we photograph.

I can say for certain, if I am summoned to court with an organization that I've worked on assignment with and the opposition states that all photography is manipulated and fake and cannot be used as truth, I can prove that they are wrong. My images are not manipulated, never have and never will.

I had a great talk with Tom Mangelsen a few years ago about this very subject, he is an outspoken critic of game farm animal photography. Just as he is against game farm photography without disclosure, I'm against nature photography as a whole where extreme manipulation is used but not disclosed. I make no apologies and I don't expect anyone to obey my ethics ideals. I'll say it again, I do believe that we have an obligation to the environment that we work in. Some of us choose to work for it others choose to exploit it. I'm not a photoartist, I'm a natural history photographer. If that makes me a boring nature photojournalist, well, I guess that I'm just that.

Floris & Jerry: Thanks for expanding upon your thoughts. I certainly agree that, whatever someone does, lying about it is condemnable and unjustifiable.

But more noteworthy I think, I want to wholeheartedly concur with the statement that Jerry made at the head of his most recent post:

it's all about personal integrity

I couldn't agree more. In an earlier thread on this forum under the timely topic of "Photo Art vs. Landscape Photography," I made reference to an image of my own. I'll quote the relevant portion here:

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.

The relevant point of the story is that I wasn't comfortable moving the moon in the linked image, with or without disclosure...so I didn't. It was a violation of my personal ethics. I wasn't worried about "being caught" or being labeled a liar or anything like that. I can't even precisely explain why the notion of moving the moon in the image made me uncomfortable--but it did. It felt wrong to me somehow and that was that. It was a matter of being true to my own (admittedly in this case difficult to define) principles.

I suppose that is the bottom line--it really is about personal integrity, however one draws it up.

__________________________________________________________________________

it creates a vicious cycle where others try to emulate their success by doing the same thing.
___________________________________________________________________________

That's stated in the first paragraph here Jim, I think it is unfortunate because the only success they are emulating is forum appeal. If you take away the internet there is still a photographic world out there.

Hey Folks,

On the subject of “art vs documentary”, this film looks pretty interesting; check out the 2 min trailer.

Capturing Reality

Cheers

Carl

I very rarely comment in these forums, in fact never. I am and always have been a film user. I have shot both colour and black and white and have used Astia, Provia, Kodachrome, Velvia, Agfa Scala (black and white tranny). Each of these films has its own finite limits of saturation and quality none of which truly represent reality (de-facto). I now shoot with Velvia exclusively, its own finite limit and colour palette best represents the way I see the world through my eyes and so I can say in all truth to mis-quote Michael "this is what (( I )) saw when I got there".

When my film is returned from the processors and tumbles out of the post bag I look at them on a calibrated light box and hopefully spy some that please me. Eventually I scan the ones I'm interested in as accurately as possible and I place the original transparency on a light box beside me and use this as my visual reference (on the grounds of course that this is
(( my )) perception of the original scene with the limits defined by the film I use.

Any post processing I do and its usually very very minor is held to match the appearance of the original Velvia transparency as viewed on a calibrated lightbox. Now digital photography from what I have seen doesn't really have this visual reference, since the original RAW file as captured is usually a lack lustre dull affair that inspires nobody and I suspect rarely matches anybodys vision of the original scene let alone that witnessed by the photographer in the field - it needs and expects to be processed. The problem as I see it is the lack of visual reference, instead the photographer needs to work to their own faded memory of the scene that they originally saw which of course deterioates with time to final processing and therefore becomes prone to an undefined and in some cases wild interpretation of it.

Does it matter? Probably not to the photographer and possibly not to many other photographers, but I have held a good few exhibitions of my work and they are the buying public, my buying public and they are the ones that determine whether I feast or famine. The overwhelming feedback has been very positive, but not so the public perception of the way that photography has gone.

The fact is that most folk don't really believe what they see in a photograph anymore.

The public assumption is now one of - because they know that an image can be changed to an almost limitless degree - then it therefore must have been. - that doubt diminishes the magic and splendour of any scene presented to them, they sigh and say - "but was it really like that"!! I believe I answer that question truthfully, I pull out the original transparency and say "that is the original image out of my camera, I use a film that has its own particular colour palette - but if you'd been standing beside me at that time and place, that is what you'd have seen" - that information is usually sufficient to secure a sale and I don't feel any sense of mis-representation.

Needless to say I don't blend images,
I don't move stones, rocks or naturally occurring objects in a landscape
If I convert to Black and white which I do infrequently - I tell folk exactly what I've done.
As with Floris I try to maintain a sense of visual honesty within the parmeters available to me.

More to the point I don't expect anyone else to adhere to these personal guidlines they simply please me and make me feel good about my work.

I can't say I understand after all these years this debate has been going on why there is anything to debate at all! About the only thing I think we can all agree with is that if someone is aksed whether his or her image was digitally altered from the original capture (film, RAW, jpeg, what-have-you), one can respond either "yes" or "no". Simple. Direct. Honest. The next question the photographer might be asked would be "Is this how it really looked?". I think the "objective" answer would be "No" 99.99% of the time. Sorry, I simply flat-out disagree with anyone who claims to be doing "photojournalism" with landscape photography. I will grant you that you may be 100% ethical by your own standards and sincerely trying to stay as true to what you saw as possible. But you cannot capture a 3-d world that you see using curved sensors (retina) with a certain luminosity and color response (think of how "color" looks to you in very dim light) on a 2-d sensor (digital or film) with a completely different color/luminosity response (gamut, gamma, etc.). Sure, within margin of error, it is possible to reproduce a scene quite faithfully to the point that it is impossible almost to distinguish the real thing from the photograph. But, only within limited circumstances. I refuse to accept any image that used a wide angle lens for capture as being representative of how it "really looked". That's nonsense, and anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest. Think about how mountains look to your eye and how they look when captured using a wide lens. Sorry, no comparison. Similarly, telephotos capture a much narrower slice of a scene than humans normally see, often to the point that we can barely recognize the object being captured. This is 100% true for the iconic "Horsetail Falls" at Yosemite when it is back-lit in those 2 weeks n February. The actual scene as we see it is one of colorful by tiny trickle of water high up on a cliff face. There is simply no way that the iconic image we've all seen (and perhaps captured) is "how it really looked". Sure, it may be idientical to what we saw through our 200mm telephoto lens. So what? That is not how it "really looked" to our human eye unaided. How is using a tele or wide lens not "manipulation". It is to me egregious manipulation to use a tele lens to capture tha horsetail falls. After seeing so many iconic images, I had to shoot it for myself. Only when I finally got to do it in Yosemite, I could not believe how tiny the falls eally were. It was like a kick in the gut, the feeling of being duped by all those images. Yet, the colors in the images were true to what I'd seen. I cannot understand this obsession people have with color manipulation, which is so easy to spot as being "natural" or "faked" 90% of the time. I think the real issue is one of how we frame a scene. What is in it and what is not makes a huge difference. Leaving out an annoying huge powerline over an otherwise blissful scene is also a distortion of reality, it is a lie of omission. It leads the viewer of the image to believe in an ideal, untainted reality that does not exist. Yet we hardly harangue photographers into framing portions of the roadside and jet trails in their images. Just think of our forum of ESS on NPN. I can hardly think of a more popular yet unrealistic representation of reality. Who can claim that the photographs of Yosemite Valley on the ESS forums represent reality? Really? So that iconic valley never really saw "the hand of man"?!

When I see a pretty image, I just think "what a nice image". I don't think "what a lovely place". The reason is I have the experience of being a photographer and know better than to think what I see in a photo is what I would see in the flesh. That's the mistake the general public makes. Why do we feed that misperception by pretending (or really believing) that as photographers we can capture reality accurately?

I read this entire thread and almost just have to step back and smile. There are some excellent points all around and by no way do I feel I have the right answer. I just want to bring out some FACTS. By no means am I trying to pick people out. I'll try to be as respectful as possible.


Jerry Greer says
"I firmly believe that deep down we all know where the line is"

Jerry you make a bunch of great comments throughout this thread and I for one would agree with the majority of what you have said. But the comment above I'm not sure about. On the forum you have some people that don't think they are really doing any manipulation as long as they don't change the entire photo. Others in the forum think your doing manipulation if you don't take a shot at 50mm and then just post it. Now I would agree that the majority would fit in the statement, but not all. You are always going to have people way on the left and way on the right.


Jerry Greer says
"I think that the difference is that lots of photographers will do what ever it takes to get those 40, 50, 60+ comments on their images when they post to the web or maybe published in print. I've witnessed photographers complain about other photographers that use heavy manipulation to gain huge popularity, then just months later those very same photographers fall into the same footsteps with manipulation to gain that same popularity."

I'd agree 100%. The unfortunate problem is that there are 100's if not 1000's of amazing photographers on the forum that post some amazing photos. How do you get noticed? My option is the what you have said above.

Again I really don't want offend anyone but I'll pick a high profile photographer on this forum. Marc Adamus. Don't get me wrong, this guy produces some amazing stuff. He's got a real eye for it and a amazing talent. But either he is in the right place at the right time all the time (like in the right place that would produce that sky 1 in 1000 days) or he's doing some really good manipulation. If you believe the first one then again I will quote Jerry Greer "Do you honestly believe that? Come on, really?" I'm sure if you asked him he's just doing slight adjustments here and there, but again "Do you honestly believe that? Come on, really?" I for one could spend a day looking at his stuff, it's just amazing. But the funny thing is, that when I go and look at his posts I see lots of names here in this thread that are complaining about not being honest and going way overboard in manipulation commenting on how awesome his stuff is and getting him his 40, 50, 60+ comments. Why aren't you same people stepping up and saying "hey let's be honest" Again this just doesn't apply to Marc, as there are several people on here, I just used him as a example.


Ian Cameron says
" I now shoot with Velvia exclusively, its own finite limit and colour palette best represents the way I see the world through my eyes and so I can say in all truth to mis-quote Michael "this is what (( I )) saw when I got there"."

Ian I really wish I could see like you. That must be amazing.


Ian Cameron says
"Needless to say I don't blend images,"

I always chuckle when I see old school film people talk about manipulation. You say you don't do blends but when I go to your website you have a picture of your camera with a split ND filter. First of all I give you credit for being honest and explaining how you take your photos. Honesty goes a long way in my book. But at the end of the day you are doing the same thing as blending two photos in photoshop. You can argue till the cows come home, but it's the same result, it's just a different way of doing it.

Pushing, pulling, filters, lighting, dodging, burning, it's all the same thing, it's all manipulation. I understand that some of the film guys will just not get it. Now to Jerry's point, it's just a whole lot easier and more accessible to do it in digital, and the result is, you tend to have way more manipulation in the digital world then the film world.


Kartik Venkataraman
"Sure, it may be idientical to what we saw through our 200mm telephoto lens. So what? That is not how it "really looked" to our human eye unaided. How is using a tele or wide lens not "manipulation". It is to me egregious manipulation to use a tele lens to capture tha horsetail falls. After seeing so many iconic images, I had to shoot it for myself. Only when I finally got to do it in Yosemite, I could not believe how tiny the falls eally were. It was like a kick in the gut, the feeling of being duped by all those images."

Again sorry to call you out, but your complaining about being kicked in the gut that when you arrived at Yosemite because its just so different then what the photo's looked like because people used 200mm or ultra wide lens. Again I go to your website and I see you have posted the exact same images. Horsetail falls at 145mm.

Sorry for the long post and again I really don't want to offend any of the persons that I called out in this post I just think sometimes people need to step back and think about what they are saying and "practice what you are preaching"

Mike

Mike certainly no offence taken by me. I live in a rose tinted world, one that makes me extraordinarily happy and one that is completely realistic to me, of course I tend to forget that I have my eye glued to the eyepiece of my camera the majority of the time so I feel I should amend my earlier statement certainly for the benefit of Kartik and for the benefit of fact from....

"but if you'd been standing beside me at that time and place, that is what you'd have seen"

to

"but if you'd been standing beside me at that time and place, and looked through my camera, that is what you'd have seen"

Lastly Mikes issue with blending, I refer of course to digital blending something that occurs after the point at which the image has been taken. I choose to do it with filters at the time of taking the picture and perhaps you rightly call it a manipulation, though I think that is a photographers perception rather than one that is held by the general public. The long and short of it is I get a single image directly out of my camera which ((I)) feel represents what I saw, at one instant in time, (no matter how long that single instant lasts for) whereas the digitally blended equivalent usually requires two (minimum), if I blended transparencies in this way, neither one of the seperate exposures would independantly survive the round filing cabinet beneath my desk. My experience has been that it is photographers that don't wish to see a difference and it is the buying public that most assuredly do.

However I re-iterate what I said earlier, in the end it is for the photographer and the photographer alone to decide his own ethical approach. I am happy with mine and I assume everyone else is happy with theirs.

A very classy response Ian. I thank you for your explanation. Again I enjoyed how on your website you went into to details explaining how you captured your images.

"but if you'd been standing beside me at that time and place, and looked through my camera, that is what you'd have seen"

Does your ground glass have the light response of velvia? That's pretty sweet man!

I go back to the top of the pile of comments to what Chris Chamberland said. Not being a professional photographer, myself, and doing stuff for me, my family, my friends, my pleasure, I do what I like. While the lattitude of manipulation availible today was not available in my darkroom days (especially for color) when I started many years ago, I try and stay within MY bounds. There is too much computer assisted "art" IMO. I do like to experiment..... now and then but I have limits (both in understanding how to do it, and what I really want to do). I'll try stuff, but always go back to the more natural approaches and always say if I did something out of the ordinary to get the effect.

Looking back on my work over the years....... Are my B&W solarizations or experiments with graphic arts film (extreme B&W) hanging on any of my family's or friend's walls...... NO. .....But some of my Cibachrome prints (developed in my dark room) from 20 - 25+ years ago still are. Some of the print papers people use today for digital try to mimic it at great expense so there must be some appeal. If you want to talk about metallic, non-realistic look, find a vintage Cibachrome print and tell me what you think. We can't forget, people see in color and are impressed by color. If you were to ask my dog what he thinks, he would pick the B&W for sure..... I think. So bottom line... do what you like to do, but do it well and please "your "audience...... as many others have said in the pile of comments above.....

Just last week I was showing a co-worker a calendar I put together from my trip to the Canadian Rockies. She loved it and said it was beautiful. She further said she was planning a trip to the Canidian Rockies next summer but said "I'll never see what you see". I thought about what she said for a while then asked her, "Were my picture to wierd, to saturated, too whatever?"...... No she said. "I am not going to get up at 3Am for a moonrise, or at 4 am for sunrise, or skip dinner to get the ulimate sunset, or wait on a stromy beach to catch a spectacular break in the clouds for spectacular light." I am going on vacation." No she won't try and take images out of the ordinary realm of non-photographer's lives ....but that is what we all tend to do to...... go to the extremes to get the best, dramatic light we can. Waiting for the right moment. ..... a different moment than most people see.

I do think the majority of us on NPN do try to keep it real even with today's unlimited possibilities with our computers. So, just my 2 cents..... again...... and we as photographers..... professional or not, do "see" things differently..... through rose colored glasses or crystal spectacles...... If I were on Deviantart right now, I would put a link to a to a Donovan song on Youtube..... but you're all to young to know who Donavan is anyway..... but I will anyway..... BTW - It is about seeing things differently...... and not what some may think....... for me anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAMRJLWw204&feature=player_embedded

...but you're all to young to know who Donavan is anyway...

I'm not! I remember when those were 'new' songs!

-P

Hmmm. I might shoot exclusively Black & White.

What would Ansel do ?

What would Ansel do?
Ansel Adams manipulated his images in his darkroom. If he were creating digital images today, he would manipulate them digitally.

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." ~Ansel Adams

Reply posted by Buck Ward on 12/05/09 at 12:15 pm CST
Registered on 12/08/03, 28 Topics, 400 Replies

What would Ansel do?
Ansel Adams manipulated his images in his darkroom. If he were creating digital images today, he would manipulate them digitally.

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." ~Ansel Adams



Well it seems it worked out well for him ...

Floris: Does your ground glass have the light response of velvia? That's pretty sweet man!

With the addition of my rose tinted spectacles to be sure it does.

Interesting comments all around. I'd have to agree that main goal is just to be honest. Try to produce what you actually saw, not what you what you would have like to see. If you disclose what you did then there's no questions. As others have stated, people are already questioning anything that looks to good to be true, but if you explain the steps you took, like blending, filters, dodging, saturation boosts, etc, then most people IMO will accept it. It's when you try to pass one by them by saying that it's straight out of the camera that frustrates people.

Hi Mike (Wallace), I don't believe you were calling me out, because I was not lying about what I shot. You're right I shot the same Horsetail falls at 145mm. I think you completely missed the point I was making - that photography is NOT about documenting "what the human eye sees", certainly not in my case. I'm point out specifically that photographers can take the puritan stand of not digitally altering even saturation let alone adding/removing things that were not in the scene - and it would still not represent "reality as the eye saw it" if all they did was to use a wide angle or telephoto lens. Sure, it was a kick in the gut to see how reality paled in comparison to the photograph, but the opposite happens just as often. That was the whole point I was making. I simply look for an appealing image, I don't take it to represent anything my eye would see! Re-read the last few lines of my original post, or easier still, here it is again:

"When I see a pretty image, I just think "what a nice image". I don't think "what a lovely place". The reason is I have the experience of being a photographer and know better than to think what I see in a photo is what I would see in the flesh. That's the mistake the general public makes. Why do we feed that misperception by pretending (or really believing) that as photographers we can capture reality accurately? "

I think that clearly states my position. So were you really "calling me out"? Come on, really? Do you honestly believe that?

Kartik and the others that care,

What kind of photographer are you? I'm a natural history photographer, specializing in conservation and landscape imagery. I try to create a photograph that take the viewer to that place, a place of reality and no fairytale. I don't manufacture light and I want the colors to be pretty true to the scene. If I grant a usage license of my image I must make certain that it depicts the scene as closely as possible. Again, I'm a "Natural History" photographer. As for being misguided to believe that the photograph can be true to the wild that I photographed, no misguidance here! I'll say it again the images we take should remain true to the scene if we are going to advertise it as so. If it a composite then it should be posted as well. It's that simple!

Here's a prime example of exactly what I've been talking about for years, http://bit.ly/6GcwhB My guess is that he thinks that manipulation is OK too! Hummm, what goes arough comes around don't you think?

Oh, and being that the wild places that I photograph are as important to me as the photography, I don't see any great nature photograph as just a pretty picture. If the photographer has done his/her job correctly then I see/feel that place. For me, it's all about that place, the image must have that "sense of place" feeling to be successful. Without it then, well who really cares!

Okay,
that wolf photo does have a lot of similarities to the evidence photos. The wolf however, does not look beyond the shadow of a doubt to be the same animal, at least to me. If it is fakery, then it is one of the best cloning jobs I have ever seen. And it would be what I would describe as gross manipulation, and mis representation. I don't think it would need to approach this amount of manipulation to raise some eyebrows. And personally, if someone wants to do this kind of thing then fine. Just call it photo art or whatever. It is a cool shot!

Chris

Chris,

Sure, if they want to do it that's on them but lets look at the issue here. Cloning wasn't the issue and if you read the article you would see that he allegedly set this shot up with a tame wolf and then tried to hide that fact and pass it as a wolf in the wild. The deal here is the Spanish photographer knew that images with captive animals were given less weight than wild, as they should. The rules state that the photographer MUST disclose captive animal and it looks as though he tried to hide that fact. If he broke the rules then he should be disqualified. It's that simple!

Hey Jerry,

Yes, I agree with you 100%!

Chris

Like Ian, I rarely comment on these forums...but this particular post caught my attention.

Isnt a silhouetted shape captured on a film against a brilliant sunset manipulation of reality that you see with your own eyes?

Photo manipulation has been going on for longer then most of us realize. Check this out: http://photographybyvarina.blogspot.com/2009/09/check-this-out-top-ten-doctored-photos.html

Knowing this...does this debate really matter? Just my 2c...

-Jay

Isnt a silhouetted shape captured on a film against a brilliant sunset manipulation of reality that you see with your own eyes?

Not sure what you're getting at, Jay, when i look at a shape against a brilliant sunset, it does look like a silhouette to me

I think the debate does matter. And it's a matter of degree. People go on and on about how image manipulation has been around for ages, but to me it's like saying bad tv shows have been around for ages--well sure they have, but reality tv takes things to a whole new level! Or that pornography has been around for ages--as if anyone could foresee how the internet would turn it into a mulit-billion dollar extravaganza! I think your reference to the Times article on doctored photos makes Michael's point all the stronger: many of those photos were altered for political reasons (rather than personal ambition or greed); some were things no one here is complaining about (like the Kent State shot--very few here are bothered by the idea of minor cloning); and others are papparrazi or media shots that simply point out how hideous it would be if landscape/nature photography went the way of tabloid photography. Sorry, Jay, i beg to differ.

Stan, I think what Jay is referring to is that we rarely if ever see a 100% black shadow even with sihouettes in the real world. I certainly haven't. Surely we can all agree that at least in the days when Velvia/Kodachrome ruled, black shadows were what you got when you exposed for highlights, and no GND would help if you were shooting a tree silhouette! And I think we can also agree that what we would see with our eyes were shadow details (albeit with reduced color perception), not pure black. So, what film captured was different from what we would have seen with our eyes.

Jerry, it seems to me that you are compounding multiple levels of "manipulation of reality" with your belief that there are some who "do" manipulate images and those who "don't". I think that such a divide is artificia, and that the reality is in shades of gray (no pun intended). While you may consider yourself a nature historian, I for one would consider any uncropped image you shot with any lens outside of 40 - 60mm focal length (35mm equivalent) to be non-representative of "reality". I for one, don't composite images - I do not add skies that were not there, etc. I am all about great light and good composition, and IMHO there's no substitute for that. And I would do whatever digital PP required to obtain the image rendition I find most pleasing. In my case, that is a rendition that I find realistic, but with occasionally some added punch to it. I for one would never add a wolf to a scene that did not have one, for example. I would however clone out a piece of trash or a jet trail. To each his own.

What concerns me here is the "puritan" streak that many here seem to have. I find all arguments self-serving, mine included. The problem is that those who try to stay true to nature, so to speak, find themselves producing images that may appear less appealing to the public who seem to love the "wow" factor of images that have been manipulated. That is not to say they are any less talented of course. Merely that their product might have smaller "market appeal". And that fear, whether they are conscious of it or not, makes them decry those of us who do not share those views. To be fair, the "manipulators" accuse the "puritans" of robbing them of their artistic license. But folks, there is no moral or ethical issue here as long as honesty is intact. If I don't lie about what went into making any image of mine, where is the harm? Frankly, I find it easier and more honest to tell (or should I say educate) people in no uncertain terms that 90% of the imags that so amaze them are digitally altered - including (sometimes especially) ones that appear 100% "natural". And that is the truth. Jerry, can you honestly say that a shot of an eagle taken with a 500mm lens and a 1.4x teleconverter represents a reality anyone would see with their naked eye? You may do no manipulation to the image after the shot was taken, but just by magnifying it, you have taken it out of the realm of unaided human perception. For that matter, polarizing filters should be considered taboo for the enormous impact they have on images.

If a sense of place is important, capture it in a non-idealized way. Show the roads in the area leading to the dramatic view you have captured. Show the parking lot and the occasional trinket shop nearby. Show the people crowding the area. Heck, show the photographer and his camera gear! lies of omission are lies nonetheless. Your truth is not truth for everyone. I frankly have a higher standard for truth as a scientist. I don't claim my images represent reality, I simply try to make images that appeal to me, and hopefully to others. If you however claim to document reality accurately, you will have a very tough sell with me at least, if not others.

I'm not much for a plain burger, tastes much better with a little Levels, USM and saturati... er, I mean salt, pepper and ketchup...

Kartik,

I don't give a CRAP what lens you or anyone else here uses! Lens choice is NOT manipulation and why some of you seem to like to use this statement, I just don't get it. What I'm talking about is the blatant manipulation that goes on without any disclosure and some go as far to say that it's how they recall the scene. That's really all! I am a natural history photographer that specializes in conservation/environmental imagery of the Blue Ridge/Southern Appalachian/Southeastern USA. Some of us WORK for the wild places that we photograph in, we love the land that we shoot. Others love the internet glitz and a lot of "great shot" comments! Some make it big with manipulated images and some make it big with natural history style images. With my clients, natural history photographs are a must and they do not purchase manipulated photos. So to say the public likes the glitz more is reaching at best. Now, if you want to state that most photographers on these forums like the glitz better, well I'll go with that.

The purists, which I'm not, are not robbing you or anyone else of anything! All anyone is asking is for every photographer to disclose any major manipulation. That's it! I'll post it again for here's a prime example of what I'm talking about http://bit.ly/6GcwhB

Jerry, you seem to be getting quite worked up rather than debating points of view. While you don't care about lens choice, and honestly nor do I (but in my case because the image stands alone in its own right), there might be those that do. And while your clients may want "real" images, there are those who might have just as many clients who don't care. Think Art Wolfe and Tim Fitzharris don't do well as "nature" photographers? They both are known for what you term "manipulation". Now, it seems you are taking a stand against the act of compositing images and declaring them to be real. Fair enough. I'm with you on that. All I'm pointing out is that "manipulation" is a spectrum of activities, and everyone does it to some extent or the other. Do you consider levels/curves/USM adjustments "manipulation"? Some people do. How about saturation/contrast? There are many who do, in fact, it's been htly debated on these NPN forums. You might be peeved by composites, so am I, but if that's the only thing you call "manipulation", I disagree. I think the accurate statement you can make is that your final image contains only and wholly what appeared in your camera's viewfinder at the time of capture. The same applies to 99% of my images, the 1% where it does not is only because I've cloned out trash/jet trails/powerlines etc.

I'm neither a "purist" or a "manipulator" - please note I always used those terms in quotes, in order to denote that these were words of convenience to broadly compartmentalize people with different philosophies, rather than as labels. And if you read what I wrote closely, I said "To be fair, the "manipulators" accuse the "puritans" of robbing them of their artistic license." I did not claim to be a manipulator or "manipulator", nor that you or anyone else was actually robbing me (or anyone else) of my artistic license (because I too don't give a CRAP).

Finally Jerry - you and the "purists" (please note the quotes and their intended meaning!) are not the only ones who love nature and care about it. You have the good fortune to make a living doing that, that's good for you. I have a hard time imagining you or anyone else loves nature any more than I or other "manipulators" do. There's a reason I travel the world rather than click a mouse button to create images. It's just that while I love photographs as well, I do not share your view that they are merely windows to nature, or some such idealized belief that one can somehow distill all of nature's grandeur to a simple 2-d print. I'd rather see them as separate entities. I have a Platonic view of nature, where nature is the realm of idealized forms and as a photographer I'm merely Demiurge creating imperfect renditions of it.

For some reason those that tout the "I'm an artist for the sake of art" like to make the entire issue out to something very complicated and it's really not. It has nothing to do with focal lengths, or filters, or trash, or contrails. It is about disclosing blatant manipulation like the guy in this article http://bit.ly/6GcwhB. Ever heard the statement "KISS" keep it simple and stupid! Again, I'm not a purist, I remove contrails if I need to. I usually go and pick up trash and put it in my pack and not just leave it and clone it out when I get home. Well, unless a might die retrieving it. If I'm in a situation where I cannot get around a twig creeping into the image I may remove it in the computer. The thing I will not do is add things or manufacture light, which can be done these days. I try to retain the color as it was but will accentuate ones that stand out a touch for more impact. Things of that nature. What I want do is pull a sky from another photo and insert it to give it more impact. I want setup a shot like guy in the article in order to win a contest or post on a forum to wow the viewers. Again, keeping the soul of the place intact is my own ethical boundary and if I decide to play with composites I'll for sure post it in the correct location and I'll disclose all.

Guy Tal put it in words better than anyone has ever before "...I strongly believe that photography is the most restrictive of the visual arts but at the same time also has the potential to make the most impact with the viewer for one simple reason: photographs have a binding connection with real events, real elements, real light, and real moments in time. Any obvious departure from these realities will cause an image to be dismissed outright regardless of any other aesthetic qualities it may possess. The photographic artist's tools are primarily well-crafted composition and careful adjustments of the captured image within very narrow margins...." Thanks Guy!

In my field of conservation/environmental photography one must remain true to the place and time that an image is taken. Photographs are the driving force of the conservation movement. See from this image, not all the time do you want to remove trash from a photo! This is one of my images that will accompany Bill McKibbens prose in a college text book on environmental disasters. This is a photograph of the aftermath from the Kingston Fossil plant fly ash slurry pond breach that sent billions of ton of toxic coal waste into the Emory River. Focal length of a lens does not change anything here. This image is NO LIE, it is the real thing. Not all photography is a lie and not reality as some proclaim, some of it IS real. This image is a major part of the story that visually shows the destruction that happened 12/22/09 in Kingston, TN.

Jerry, looks like we're on the same page in terms of what goes into our photographs. Everything you just described about your technique to produce images mirrors my own methods. It's just that some people, myself included, do not see the real world the same way we see photographs. Note that it has nothing to do with adding or subtracting elements from the scene/image. You seem to be focusing (no pun intended!) on compositing images as a manipulations of reality - yes, of course those are blatantly obvious manipulations. Few people would ever challenge that those sorts of images are anything but "art". Who cares as long as the artist is not claiming it to be "real"? My point is that "line" between art and reality is really a huge band. Focal length IS important - I've been fooled far more by focal lengths than by over-the-top color tweaks and cloned-out powerlines/trash. Come on, do you really think that a magnificent mountain range looks the same in an image captured with a 17mm wide angle lens as it does in the flesh? Really? I'll never forget seeing the Tetons from Schwabacher landing for the first time in the flesh - it blew my mind how much bigger and imposing they were compared to the countless wide angle shots I'd seen of them. Similarly, when I saw Yosemite's iconic Horsetail Falls, I couldn't get over how tiny it was in the flesh, after seeing so many telephoto shots of it. How about the super-impressive "Fire House ruins" shot - the image of an Anazazi granary from Mule Canyon in Utah? The flame-like appearance of the sandstone is hugely enhanced by using a wide lens, getting close to the ground, and tilting the lens up. This is how every photographer has shot it. And it looks nowhere near as impressive in the flesh. The wide angle image makes the roof look over 15 feet high - the actual granary ruin is barely 6' tall. Focal lengths MATTER. At least to me, and several other people I know. Nobody said all photography is a lie, but neither are all the truth. Fixating on composite images is really demolishing a straw man - nobody would consider those "real".

Many nature photographers religiously approach the photography like some kind of photojournalism.
The photography must show the reality as it is. Any manipulation is absolutely forbidden and is even considered a violation to the true spirit of pure photography.
I DO NOT second this religion. In fact, I am completely not interested in watching nature "as it is". I am more interested in photographer's message, in his/her vision, than the place itself. The place itself I can watch without the photograph. I am not interested in it. I want to see the place through the photographer's eyes. The objective rendition of the place completenly does not interest me.
Another question - what is "manipulation"? Is shallow DOF a "manipulation"? The eyes do not see the nature in shallow DOF, then shooting nature with f/2.8 is "cheating", correct?
Is b/w manipulation? The eyes do not see b/w, unless you are color blind. Thus b/w is "manipulation", or "cheating", correct?
Is panning a photograph, thus showing the motion blur, a "manipulation"? Of course it is!
Is increasing contrasts and saturation a "manipulation"? Of course it is! So then what? Should we just dump raw images from camera to the forum?
Is using filters a "manipulation"? Of course it is! Is burning technique in the darkroom a "manipulation"? Of course it is!

For me talking about digital manipulation is just a voice of those, who cannot agree with digital era of photography. For them any intervention to the picture is OK as long as it is not digital. You can do any tricks with films, filters, chemicals, enlargers, they are "ok manipulation", but anything with the computer is wrong, wrong, wrong! They mean the end of the world. The world is falling apart, because there is photoshop!
For me photoshop is just an extension to the darkroom. Nothing more, nothing less. You just have clean and dry hands, you don't need to sit for hours in the dark inhaling fumes, you do exactly the same plus much much more, but by sitting comfortably in the chair drinking pina colada.

Last question: is Monet's painting a "manipulation"? Then what? Monet will tell you that it is not. He saw the sunrise exactly the way he painted it. And can you argue with that?

Cezar, I'm 100% with you. Photos are "real" in what they are: images. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the idea that they are (or can be) somehow 100% accurate depictions of a scene that is not real! Hence the term "realistic" is what needs to be used, rather than "real". It seems to me the debate is the same as the realist vs. impressionist painting styles.

I never jump into these discussions until they are near their end. Actually I've vistied this site little since last summer. Way back in the 90s off and on for years I debated Ctein and others at Compuserve on some of the same ethical issue members are bringing up on this thread. Much of the same mis-information is being repeated by some above. A usual tact has always been to smear manipulation across everyone's work so their personal style doesn't stink as bad. Arguments easily rejected with a bit of work. As I've often stated, there isn't anything wrong with nature and landscape photography manipulation as long as one is up front and honest with their audience in at least in a minimal way about what one is doing. At the moment I don't have the time to respond to much of the above as I'd like to if I had the time. I would like to defend a number of things Jerry has nicely posted though might frame them a bit differently and some of it I've posted on this board in the past. Just too busy to bother at the moment but at some point I will write some essays on these subjects and add them to the Style and Philosophy page on my site.