Posted by Brian Jackson on December 14, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Rant start.
I know this topic gets under much heated debate, but I got my copy of PopPhoto (January 2010 Volume 74) this weekend as was looking at the end of year contest. This is suppose to be their best of 2009 photos. And the winning Action/Sports shot was fake. They didn't try to hide it. They explained how it was four shots combined, but all four were taken at different times. Two were real, one was in a studio, and one was a complete fake produced image. Then all four were combined. I'm all for using the digital tools to create a image that looks like what you saw, but come on. This is pure photo art, not photography. It's stuff like this that push honest photographers to push the boundaries to keep up.
Rant end.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Honesty and photography are certainly two very different subjects.
To understand my position on landscape photography, you have to understand that much of what we do in landscape photography is intimately tied to conservation movements and tourism. This goes all the way back to creation of the very first national parks. Both Yellowstone and Yosemite owe part of their creation to photography and landscape painting.
In the case of tourism, we need to demonstrate the strengths of place in such a way that real people might expect to see them. Certainly there is some room for exaggeration, but people feel resentment when they've been duped. Tourism will be short lived if the photographs don't hold largely to reality.
Conservation has a different set of goals, but plays along the same lines of human feelings. It draws on our ability to be mesmerized by the real world. A campaign to save the elephants would be short lived if it represented them as something they were not (say covered in the colorful plumage of a Macaw Parrot). People have an expectation see a part of the world that will awe them, but at the same time they hold the expectation that the image is true, that it reflects real places, real plants and animals and that the scene was not constructed on some Hollywood back-lot for the purpose of extorting money from the benefactors.
I think these two historical considerations are the reason why landscape and nature photography so often falls into a category more closely aligned with photojournalism than the more liberal photo art that may be permissible within other areas of photography.
Not surprisingly my own personal feelings and tastes orient towards restraint in the use of technical tools with landscape photography. I like images that pop, but don't need them to make my retinas bleed.
Posted by Jack Brauer on December 14, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Do you have a link to the image? I tried googling (briefly), got to PopPhoto's site, and eventually got to some slideshow that crashed my browser. Anyhow, I'm over it. I'm curious to see the image though.
Very well stated, Mel. It's why conservation photography is often called documentary photography - if we aim to preserve, we can ill afford to present our images in an unrealistic way. There will always be temptation to push beyond realism, and there is certainly a place for that. In our world, set-ups and captives that are presented as wild animals are examples that compromise trust of the general public. It will be interesting to see the image and how it is captioned - of course every image that we see has been manipulated and the early masters were masters of photo manipulation. It's always funny to see people's expressions when I tell them that Ansel was among the greats at manipulating photographs. As if black and white is "natural"!
Posted by John Mumaw on December 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM
This is the link to the winners and runners-up of that contest, Jack.
However, it's not online yet (..even though the current issue of the magazine refers one to this link!).
I agree with Brian...the winner in the 'Action/Sports' category is definitely "photo art" (a motocross rider seeming to outrun 3 tornadoes...I'm surprised he didn't insert a lightning bolt!! ). This is a slap in the face to all of the dedicated action/sports photographers out there who entered this contest.
Posted by Brian Jackson on December 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM
I'd agree with both of you, but you must of not seen the image yet. Jack, it looks like they haven't released the online version of the picture yet. You would have to have the paper version. I just can't see entering a contest with that image without it being a photo art category.
Basically it's a image of a person on a dirt bike riding though the desert with two tornadoes in the background. The person riding the dirt bike was taken in a studio and wasn't even moving as it's portrayed in the picture, and the two tornadoes in the background aren't event real shots of tornadoes but photoshop'ed by twisting clouds and manually created tornadoes.
Posted by Jesse Speer on December 14, 2009 at 8:51 PM
If the rules of the contest didn't prohibit composite images, then this doesn't bother me at all. But I want to see the image now, after hearing about the technique.
Brings to mind a John Fielder presentation I saw a few years ago - where he compared his images to those of William H Jackson. In one particular Colorado scene - photographed by both - Jackon's photo had a waterfall in a place where there physically couldn't have been a waterfall. It had likely been added for dramatic effect, and you could see the hints of manipulation. This coming from a pioneer of conservation photography. Even then, Jackson was feeling the pressure to "push the boundaries". Well, this is just photo art, right? And yet the imagery served the intent, of both the photographer and of those who commissioned him ... obviously on a grand scale. Still, it kinda shakes up the foundation that many "true to nature" photographers idealize, if you ask me.
I do not believe there is any such thing as an "honest photographer".
The ability to introduce manipulation into the process is the beauty of photography ... without regard to what degree this takes place. I personally don't see this as any different as blending two exposures to create one scenic. Oh sure, the "fakery" may be more obvious and blatant at times. But if Jackson can throw in a waterfall, and nobody notices (until 100 years later), does it make it any less rant-worthy - within the context of this discussion?
Key point ... they didn't try to hide it. Neither artist or publication. So, kudos for the honesty, I say. There's a place, and a market, for both the realists and the artists ... everything in between. I like to see photography continuing to change and evolve.
Posted by Arthur Lund on December 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I think the photo is documented very plainly as to how it was made.
It is time somebody posted the "rules of photography" somewhere.
I am confused.
If it is produced with a camera is it photography? It isn't watercolor, oils or pen and ink.
Lets see:
We can't use black and white, because most of us don't see in black and white.
We can't use blurring, because most of us don't have blurred vision unless we have a handicap. On and on.
Posted by Todd Caudle on December 15, 2009 at 1:10 AM
...I'm surprised he didn't insert a lightning bolt!!
HA! Good one, John.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 15, 2009 at 4:08 AM
I have to see the shot, but the bottom line is if it falls within the rules, all is good. If the rules need to be spelled out more, then they should be, period. If there's backlash against the rules, they'd probably get changed to suit the people who enter. It's that simple.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Again, I think that sports photography has historical ties to journalism. There are so many great moments to be captured in REAL sporting events that it seems unnecessary to choose as the winner an image that is a complete falsehood.
Real sport is filled with dramatic moments that there is really no need to embellish it with photo art. It sounds as if this image is fully within the rules of the program and I don't take issue with that. But why choose fantasy over a true sporting image when there must be thousands of excellent captures out there.
I agree with John that this is a slap in the face to dedicated sports/action photographers.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 15, 2009 at 9:48 AM
I dunno, Mel, i got to see the shot first. But to play devil's advocate, what is a "true sporting image"?--one could argue it's either A) a moment where the person just happened to be in the right place in the right time, requiring little skill or creativity (though admittedly persistence and the ability to 'get the shot'), or B) a shot that was contrived, requiring much planning and set-up, basically choreographing the action, in which case it's really not much more "true" than the "photo art". If the dedicated sports photogs arent happy with the choice, im sure the editors will find out about it, and theyll either change the rules to prohibit this kind of entry, or they'll suffer the consequences of a lot of dissapointed subscribers. The market has a way of working things out. It sounds like a pretty cheesy photo though
Posted by Bill Brennan on December 15, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Wonder what the editors were thinking when they set up the rules that permitted this composite of four photographs to be considered as a winning photograph.
Same applies to the Grand Prize winner, an image consisting of three verticals stitched together.
Hope the editors will explain their position.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Jimmy Gekas on December 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM
As a sports photographer, in general I call foul. However, if it is within the rules, I guess that is ok, but it shouldn't be considered a sports photo, imho. I'll play a little devil's advocate with Stan It takes more than just luck to get a good peak action shot or one that plays with the viewer's emotions.... think winning team in the background celebrating while a foreground player from the other team is in tears... It is not easy to do this consistently. Try getting the peak action in focus with a clean oof background while on the sidelines with a monster lens. Now, if we could photoshop out the background, insert a clean background that is oof, digitally move the ball, for instance, closer to the play....etc, etc.
Posted by Brian Jackson on December 15, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Interesting comments on both sides. I'll respect others opinions. Just to clarify, I have no problems with the image. It's actually a pretty cool image. I have no problem with digital manipulation, as I do it on rare occasions. What I have a problem with is that Popular Photography which is suppose to be the "largest circulation photography magazine in the US" has a year end best photo's and the best Action/Sports shot they can find is composite of multiple "fake" shots. Your telling me that they couldn't find a single "real" shot of some sports shot.
This is teaching people that the only way they can win contests is to create these fake shots. Before long every winner in every category is going to be a "fake" shot.
Posted by Jimmy Gekas on December 15, 2009 at 3:00 PM
It is definitely lame imho that they had to chose a faked sports shot. Maybe they have an agenda. I dunno, but you're completely on target with your thinking that there's gotta be a ton of single, real sports shots. Geez.
Posted by Jesse Speer on December 15, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Alright, sorry in advance for what comes next, but I just blew a whole lunch break having fun with this ...
Brian, what if the "live shot" pool was indeed crap ... compared to the concept and execution of the winning "fake" image? You're really giving absolutely no credit to the PP editors - or the winning photographer. And to say that fakery is going to rule the day because of this, and similar events elsewhere, is very short-sighted. Give the rest of us photographers some credit there. There's plenty of room to find success along multiple paths in this big funhouse we call photography.
Sorry, but I'm calling a lot of "sour grapes" here ...
Kinda dilutes the terminology - using the phrase "photo art" to solely describe photography methods and techniques - especially within the context of "action/sports". WTF?! It's so common these days, and I admit it's a rant I have against photographer's rants. Where/how do you draw the line or make this distinction? And where are these commandments written? Since when does the success of one method or technology diminish the success of others - or even the personal choices we each make? Don't fads come and go? Don't good photographic images stand the test of time - regardless of technique? And what is really going to be remembered - the innovations of those who altered the paths of photo contests (or even photography as a whole), or the images of those who blend in with the crowd? Why is this really going to hurt you as a photographer?! Boy, if Ansel Adams had entered a Popular Photography contest back in his day, you all would be screaming bloody murder.
It's my belief that this is not an issue of historical context being ignored, as history only proves what is most popular in terms of methods, tools and styles ... and of course, the popular perceptions of what is acceptable to the masses. Contest rules and other standards set forth by popular publications play a part in creating these perceived standards. But they do not determine a set of rules that photographers (and publications) must follow ... nor do they describe the state of photography. At least from my perspective ... and for the sake of photography, I hope. If you are concerned about public perception, to whatever end, then play by the rules. But don't expect that everyone must do the same ... or think that you have been assigned to a losing path because of what you and your fellow photographers are doing. That is not what photography is about - where variety and freedom allow one person to blend composites, one to throw leaves on a scanner and one to to shoot with one lens and film type. And so on. Breaking popular convention is not a slap in the face of anyone or anything. It's often due to changing fads of contests and of those who buy photos. It can do nothing but keep maintain the vitality of the medium. None of this impacts the integrity of a particular group of photographers, or photography as a whole.
Photography is historically an art form of evolution and change. THAT's the historically important context here. We all benefit from this type of evolution taking place - even if it means you are now seeing digital "fakery" winning contests. Even if action/sports is still 99% journalism, there's still that 1% that can achieve success - and win contests. Again, show me the rules, please (Stephen Colbert hand extended). If that 1% of photographers are to be excluded - or even must be somehow discarded into a "fakery" category, I'm shelving the camera. Thank God that's not the case, and I have the choice to ignore publications that adhere to such arbitrary limitations. And in the context of those here, you can't really make a distinction between blending nature exposures and adding tornadoes behind an athlete (or a lightning bolt). Or better yet, it might mean that you shouldn't take up your pitchforks against those photographers/publications who take advantage of the freedom/variety allowed by photography. To do so is the real "slap in the face" to other photographers who don't adhere to your set of ideals.
Get used to it already. Ansel Adams. William H Jackson. And some well known "action/sports" photographers - whose studio or composite work has long appeared in the likes of Sports Illustrated, ESPN magazine and other venues that drive the genre. We should be more enraged at photographers who hide their methodologies, and ultimately dilute the integrity of photography. THIS is what discourages photographers, and makes the buying public so wary. There is nothing more honest than a photographer who proclaims their processes publicly. This is they very kind of action that should be applauded - even if you don't like the end result.
Sorry to ramble on, but there is so much more here than just a photo contest rant. And I've just used up several weeks of my RMNP posting eligibility. The truth of the matter ... "fakery" is simply more accessible these days, to both the photographer and the viewer. If anything, it should provide more opportunities for the "live action, talent in the flash of eye" shot to stand out that much more against a contrived studio shot ... especially in situations where the methods are proclaimed beforehand. Does it really matter what tools produce success? Hasn't this type of "fakery" appeared throughout history? Isn't the general public smarter than we give them credit for - and shown the ability to adapt throughout history? Don't fads lead to certain levels of success at times? Doesn't all of this make up the inherent beauty (and fun) of photography? Photography is alive and well.
Rant on rant done.
Posted by Brian Jackson on December 15, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Again interesting comments Jesse, as stated in my above post I'll respect others opinions. "Is this going to hurt me a photographer", No, I not a professional photographer and will sleep soundly tonight not even thinking about it. For me it was that I really feeling sorry for the people that took real "Sports/Actions" shots and were pushed aside. I really don't want to go down the "real" / "fake" issue as there is no way that argument can be settled, and probably will never be.
As for not giving credit to the winning photographer, ya I guess your right, but above I did give some credit saying that I thought was a "pretty cool image".
As for thinking that " fakery is going to rule the day because of this, and similar events elsewhere", I have to say I probably shouldn't have added that last line "Before long every winner in every category is going to be a "fake" shot." But I strongly feel that it is " teaching people that the only way they can win contests is to create these fake shot"
As for giving "rest of us photographers some credit" I'd say I give them a lot of credit. This forum has taught me more than I could have ever imaged about photography, and I've learned alot from yourself included. This group at RMNP is probably one of the coolest thing I have found.
The best statement you wrote in my opinion and you highlighted it was "There is nothing more honest than a photographer who proclaims their processes publicly" I couldn't agree with you any more.
I'll end my rant with a thanks for your comments and
peace
Posted by Jesse Speer on December 15, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Peace, and thanks for reading by book. It's healthy to rant.
Posted by Chuck Peacock on December 15, 2009 at 5:52 PM
"There is nothing more honest than a photographer who proclaims their processes publicly"
Bingo!
Don't be deceptive is my only "personal" rule.
Posted by Bob Falcone on December 16, 2009 at 1:12 AM
I just looked at my copy of the magazine, and my only comment is that I don't think it's even a good "photo" (or whatever you want to call it). IMHO, it looks SO contrived that I cannot take it seriously. For that reason alone, I would not make it the "best" sports photo.
As for how much photo manipulation is too much, I think that both sides of the argument have been well presented in this thread.
Discussion
20 repliesI know this topic gets under much heated debate, but I got my copy of PopPhoto (January 2010 Volume 74) this weekend as was looking at the end of year contest. This is suppose to be their best of 2009 photos. And the winning Action/Sports shot was fake. They didn't try to hide it. They explained how it was four shots combined, but all four were taken at different times. Two were real, one was in a studio, and one was a complete fake produced image. Then all four were combined. I'm all for using the digital tools to create a image that looks like what you saw, but come on. This is pure photo art, not photography. It's stuff like this that push honest photographers to push the boundaries to keep up.
Rant end.
To understand my position on landscape photography, you have to understand that much of what we do in landscape photography is intimately tied to conservation movements and tourism. This goes all the way back to creation of the very first national parks. Both Yellowstone and Yosemite owe part of their creation to photography and landscape painting.
In the case of tourism, we need to demonstrate the strengths of place in such a way that real people might expect to see them. Certainly there is some room for exaggeration, but people feel resentment when they've been duped. Tourism will be short lived if the photographs don't hold largely to reality.
Conservation has a different set of goals, but plays along the same lines of human feelings. It draws on our ability to be mesmerized by the real world. A campaign to save the elephants would be short lived if it represented them as something they were not (say covered in the colorful plumage of a Macaw Parrot). People have an expectation see a part of the world that will awe them, but at the same time they hold the expectation that the image is true, that it reflects real places, real plants and animals and that the scene was not constructed on some Hollywood back-lot for the purpose of extorting money from the benefactors.
I think these two historical considerations are the reason why landscape and nature photography so often falls into a category more closely aligned with photojournalism than the more liberal photo art that may be permissible within other areas of photography.
Not surprisingly my own personal feelings and tastes orient towards restraint in the use of technical tools with landscape photography. I like images that pop, but don't need them to make my retinas bleed.
However, it's not online yet (..even though the current issue of the magazine refers one to this link!).
I agree with Brian...the winner in the 'Action/Sports' category is definitely "photo art" (a motocross rider seeming to outrun 3 tornadoes...I'm surprised he didn't insert a lightning bolt!!
Basically it's a image of a person on a dirt bike riding though the desert with two tornadoes in the background. The person riding the dirt bike was taken in a studio and wasn't even moving as it's portrayed in the picture, and the two tornadoes in the background aren't event real shots of tornadoes but photoshop'ed by twisting clouds and manually created tornadoes.
Brings to mind a John Fielder presentation I saw a few years ago - where he compared his images to those of William H Jackson. In one particular Colorado scene - photographed by both - Jackon's photo had a waterfall in a place where there physically couldn't have been a waterfall. It had likely been added for dramatic effect, and you could see the hints of manipulation. This coming from a pioneer of conservation photography. Even then, Jackson was feeling the pressure to "push the boundaries". Well, this is just photo art, right? And yet the imagery served the intent, of both the photographer and of those who commissioned him ... obviously on a grand scale. Still, it kinda shakes up the foundation that many "true to nature" photographers idealize, if you ask me.
I do not believe there is any such thing as an "honest photographer".
The ability to introduce manipulation into the process is the beauty of photography ... without regard to what degree this takes place. I personally don't see this as any different as blending two exposures to create one scenic. Oh sure, the "fakery" may be more obvious and blatant at times. But if Jackson can throw in a waterfall, and nobody notices (until 100 years later), does it make it any less rant-worthy - within the context of this discussion?
Key point ... they didn't try to hide it. Neither artist or publication. So, kudos for the honesty, I say. There's a place, and a market, for both the realists and the artists ... everything in between. I like to see photography continuing to change and evolve.
It is time somebody posted the "rules of photography" somewhere.
I am confused.
If it is produced with a camera is it photography? It isn't watercolor, oils or pen and ink.
Lets see:
We can't use black and white, because most of us don't see in black and white.
We can't use blurring, because most of us don't have blurred vision unless we have a handicap. On and on.
HA! Good one, John.
Real sport is filled with dramatic moments that there is really no need to embellish it with photo art. It sounds as if this image is fully within the rules of the program and I don't take issue with that. But why choose fantasy over a true sporting image when there must be thousands of excellent captures out there.
I agree with John that this is a slap in the face to dedicated sports/action photographers.
Same applies to the Grand Prize winner, an image consisting of three verticals stitched together.
Hope the editors will explain their position.
Bill Brennan
This is teaching people that the only way they can win contests is to create these fake shots. Before long every winner in every category is going to be a "fake" shot.
Brian, what if the "live shot" pool was indeed crap ... compared to the concept and execution of the winning "fake" image? You're really giving absolutely no credit to the PP editors - or the winning photographer. And to say that fakery is going to rule the day because of this, and similar events elsewhere, is very short-sighted. Give the rest of us photographers some credit there. There's plenty of room to find success along multiple paths in this big funhouse we call photography.
Sorry, but I'm calling a lot of "sour grapes" here ...
Kinda dilutes the terminology - using the phrase "photo art" to solely describe photography methods and techniques - especially within the context of "action/sports". WTF?! It's so common these days, and I admit it's a rant I have against photographer's rants. Where/how do you draw the line or make this distinction? And where are these commandments written? Since when does the success of one method or technology diminish the success of others - or even the personal choices we each make? Don't fads come and go? Don't good photographic images stand the test of time - regardless of technique? And what is really going to be remembered - the innovations of those who altered the paths of photo contests (or even photography as a whole), or the images of those who blend in with the crowd? Why is this really going to hurt you as a photographer?! Boy, if Ansel Adams had entered a Popular Photography contest back in his day, you all would be screaming bloody murder.
It's my belief that this is not an issue of historical context being ignored, as history only proves what is most popular in terms of methods, tools and styles ... and of course, the popular perceptions of what is acceptable to the masses. Contest rules and other standards set forth by popular publications play a part in creating these perceived standards. But they do not determine a set of rules that photographers (and publications) must follow ... nor do they describe the state of photography. At least from my perspective ... and for the sake of photography, I hope. If you are concerned about public perception, to whatever end, then play by the rules. But don't expect that everyone must do the same ... or think that you have been assigned to a losing path because of what you and your fellow photographers are doing. That is not what photography is about - where variety and freedom allow one person to blend composites, one to throw leaves on a scanner and one to to shoot with one lens and film type. And so on. Breaking popular convention is not a slap in the face of anyone or anything. It's often due to changing fads of contests and of those who buy photos. It can do nothing but keep maintain the vitality of the medium. None of this impacts the integrity of a particular group of photographers, or photography as a whole.
Photography is historically an art form of evolution and change. THAT's the historically important context here. We all benefit from this type of evolution taking place - even if it means you are now seeing digital "fakery" winning contests. Even if action/sports is still 99% journalism, there's still that 1% that can achieve success - and win contests. Again, show me the rules, please (Stephen Colbert hand extended). If that 1% of photographers are to be excluded - or even must be somehow discarded into a "fakery" category, I'm shelving the camera. Thank God that's not the case, and I have the choice to ignore publications that adhere to such arbitrary limitations. And in the context of those here, you can't really make a distinction between blending nature exposures and adding tornadoes behind an athlete (or a lightning bolt). Or better yet, it might mean that you shouldn't take up your pitchforks against those photographers/publications who take advantage of the freedom/variety allowed by photography. To do so is the real "slap in the face" to other photographers who don't adhere to your set of ideals.
Get used to it already. Ansel Adams. William H Jackson. And some well known "action/sports" photographers - whose studio or composite work has long appeared in the likes of Sports Illustrated, ESPN magazine and other venues that drive the genre. We should be more enraged at photographers who hide their methodologies, and ultimately dilute the integrity of photography. THIS is what discourages photographers, and makes the buying public so wary. There is nothing more honest than a photographer who proclaims their processes publicly. This is they very kind of action that should be applauded - even if you don't like the end result.
Sorry to ramble on, but there is so much more here than just a photo contest rant. And I've just used up several weeks of my RMNP posting eligibility. The truth of the matter ... "fakery" is simply more accessible these days, to both the photographer and the viewer. If anything, it should provide more opportunities for the "live action, talent in the flash of eye" shot to stand out that much more against a contrived studio shot ... especially in situations where the methods are proclaimed beforehand. Does it really matter what tools produce success? Hasn't this type of "fakery" appeared throughout history? Isn't the general public smarter than we give them credit for - and shown the ability to adapt throughout history? Don't fads lead to certain levels of success at times? Doesn't all of this make up the inherent beauty (and fun) of photography? Photography is alive and well.
Rant on rant done.
As for not giving credit to the winning photographer, ya I guess your right, but above I did give some credit saying that I thought was a "pretty cool image".
As for thinking that " fakery is going to rule the day because of this, and similar events elsewhere", I have to say I probably shouldn't have added that last line "Before long every winner in every category is going to be a "fake" shot." But I strongly feel that it is " teaching people that the only way they can win contests is to create these fake shot"
As for giving "rest of us photographers some credit" I'd say I give them a lot of credit. This forum has taught me more than I could have ever imaged about photography, and I've learned alot from yourself included. This group at RMNP is probably one of the coolest thing I have found.
The best statement you wrote in my opinion and you highlighted it was "There is nothing more honest than a photographer who proclaims their processes publicly" I couldn't agree with you any more.
I'll end my rant with a thanks for your comments and
peace
Bingo!
Don't be deceptive is my only "personal" rule.
As for how much photo manipulation is too much, I think that both sides of the argument have been well presented in this thread.