Art and Photography

I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I'm still not getting a good answer to a simple question I posed a while back, so here's another attempt.
Todd says:
"I don't consider myself a documentarian, I think of myself more as an artist."
I can relate to that statement. But I consider myself both. To me, It's ridiculous to separate art from reality when it comes to nature photography--they're one and the same to me. Nature is art. A successful photo is one that arises out of careful composition and great light/conditions. Using reality to generate those two things is what separates photography from other art forms in my opinion. Photography supplanted painting as a means of documentation, yet many people seem to forget the inherent documentary nature of photography.
Kane says:
"do as you please, no need to disclose"
The problem I see with that dangerous statement is that more and more photographers are using that philosophy as an excuse and rationalization for cheating. Take the dude who photographed the captive wolf for example, or the more recent example of the guy who took lots of stock photos of lynx and composited them with various backgrounds. I can garauntee you he was sleeping well at night, he just used Todd and Kane's excuse of "I'm the artist--I can do as I please--how dare those contest runners try to stifle my artistic creativity!"
So, once again, I'll pose a simple question: Here's a composite shot I posted in the Photo Art Gallery. It's not documentary, that's for sure! Why can't I post it in Landscape, using the rationale that Todd and Kane offer--I'm an artist, not a documentarian!?? Where and how do you draw the line on disclosure?
Heres the photo/art:

Why can't you post this in Landscape? Because like painting, photography has genres and the owner of the site wanted to differentiate between the two genres, as it has done for wildlife, flora, roadkill, etc. He hasn't done it to stifle creativity, simply to organize the site into recognized categories of interest. Same with contests, some have set rules as to how much manipulation can be done, not to stifle creativity, but to cater to their needs or expectations of their subscribers.

Where and when do you draw the line on disclosure? I think it comes down to the expectations and requirements of the "buyer". Someone who wants a pretty picture on the wall of their living room may only be concerned with aesthetics, while a newspaper may only care about accuracy. You said it yourself, "The problem I see with that dangerous statement is that more and more photographers are using that philosophy as an excuse and rationalization for cheating." To cheat, you need to have broken a rule. NG has them, contests have them, newspapers have them. Do you have any "rules" on your website? Do you state that all your photographs are strictly documentary, but then heavily manipulate some? It was interesting this topic came up today as a this morning I was drafting a paragraph for my website that specifically deals with this issue. I decided to include a statement so that I wasn't leaving it up to the buyer to assume anything. In short, I am going to state that the photographs represent my artistic impression of places I have photographed, as such there will be no false expectations.

I don't really see any use in drawing a line between the genres as that will always be an individual assessment. But in the example you gave about the captive wolf, did you ever hear of the guy responding to the charges? Did he come out and say 'I didn't cheat, I just interpreted the rules differently' or 'I'm an artist so anything goes'? No, he knew he cheated. If he sleeps soundly it is because he has no ethics, not because is claiming he is an artist.

Stan, definitely a question I wrestle with all the time. I try to create a mood with my pictures. I sometimes feel like I go farther than many, but without being able to put my "voice" into a picture I would lose interest in photography pretty quickly. I often find myself jealous of painters, not being constrained by reality in any way. Something I've been considering for some time is setting down the camera and starting into digital art.

There are a million shades of grey between white and black and white. When you look at some of the digital art that's being created, landscapes where the 1's and 0's were never anywhere near a camera, you have to admit they are landscapes still the same. Some digital art has its source in camera generated images, some of it, not at all. Not to steal the thread but I wonder about where in the spectrum between documentarian photography and pure digital pictures, does the "real" art lie.

To answer your question, the picture you posted above is art, no question, is landscape, no question, but the rub lies in the Nature "Photographers" Network heading. At some point in the above spectrum you leave photography behind. I suppose to me it's when you stop using anything created by some sort of camera and use digital means only. I'd say post it!

Russ
http://www.AlpineGalleria.com

Not sure how to even answer your last question as I guess it's a matter of opinion.

but

A successful photo is one that arises out of careful composition and great light/conditions.

Not sure what you mean by this either. To me a successful photo is one that I'm happy with regardless of composition, lighting, subject, etc. Could really careless what others view point is as long as I'm happy with the photo.

Russ, I think "real" art lies everywhere in the spectrum. Pure documentary photography can be done artfully. Even 'pure' documentary work requires the photographer to choose what he/she includes and excludes in the photograph, choose a viewpoint, compose, and choose settings to best convey the subject. It is my understanding National Geographic does not allow it's photographers to manipulate their photos, all post-processing work (which is minimal) is done in-house. Yet NG is known for the artistic quality of their photographs.

Wow, awesome artwork Stan! How'd you do it?

Having asked that, I'm fine with whatever people make, a compelling image is a compelling image. HOWEVER, all I ask is for transparency. Not really "how did you do it", more like "here's this image, I did [this] to get this look." If it took a camera and a lens and some software to get it there, then that's what it took. Just don't lie about it. (not YOU, just any of us in general, lol). Transparency (i.e. honesty) is paramount.

Seriously, that is a stunning piece of art you created. It's art. And it's a Landscape image. In fact, it was a Landscape image first, then with some additional seasoning and basting it became art. Landscape image art, of a landscape. It's obvious it wasn't a single-shot raw file, but regardless, it's a great thing to view. Oh, you must have cheated though... OK, it stinks.

Scott, I agree that artful decisions are made everywhere along that spectrum. One slightly different spectrum; I've seen lately was at a gallery I recently visited. There were these long landscapes, 4 or 5 feet long and maybe 8 to 10 inches tall. Absolutely flat horizons of things like plowed fields. I think anyone here could have produced the same in minutes. These sold for, to me, an outrageous price. On the other side of this spectrum, a Rembrandt. You might work at it for your whole life and never even get close to repeating his work. Does this define a progression toward art?

I could work for quite some time and still probably never get close to what Stan produced above. Its' pretty obvious there's artistic license taken there. I know that effort or price alone doesn't equate to art but to me it surely figures into the equation.

Russ
http://www.AlpineGalleria.com

How did you get that rock to look like a dog howling at the moon? First, just looking at the image I can tell it's not real. If I was to come into your gallery and you "sure it's real", then in my opinion you are out and out lying and sooner or later your reputation would suffer. If, on the other hand you said "this is a composite image with my visual interpretation to enhance it" then you have a work of art and you've properly disclosed it. By the way, this is a very nice piece of art!

thanks for the responses, ill have respond a bit later am running late right now, so will get back to this tomorrow

[sidebar]

Absolutely flat horizons of things like plowed fields. I think anyone here could have produced the same in minutes. These sold for, to me, an outrageous price.

Hey Russ, check this out.

[/sidebar]

Back to the discussion.....

Black and White vs Shot it as I saw it

Many photographers who say they are just representing what they saw, shoot black and white. Too my knowledge, very few
people "see" in black and white. For realisim to be real, only those with black and white vision would shoot black and white
photos.

Phillip, crazy isn't it! At least that shot had water and a road in it, the ones in that gallery didn’t' even have that drama. It reminds me of an old Robin Williams joke, "cocaine, (and that photograph) are God's way of telling you that you have too much money".

In all honesty I do feel a little pompous saying what it art and what isn't but this is only my opinion and I'd never propose to push that opinion on anyone else. I had this debate with my kid about a year ago and I was arguing for a more liberal definition of what art is and he was arguing for a more narrow definition. I do think that some amount of effort is required. In that effort, or work, decisions are made that begin to represent the artists' voice. Obviously Stan spent considerable time creating the picture at top making all kinds of decisions. Those decisions are half of the communication, seeing or experiencing the art is the other half. I can't imagine much message in the picture in that link you provided or teh shots I saw in that gallery.

Just my 2 cents, if it's worth even that.


Russ
http://www.AlpineGalleria.com

I recently wrote a blog post on this subject called "Does Authenticity Matter?" I'll post it here in hopes of getting some feedback.

Does authenticity matter? Or, to put it more precisely, does a photograph have greater impact if the viewer believes it to be an authentic record of a real event? Hollywood obviously thinks so. Why else does it proclaim that its latest movie is "based on a true story" even if the film bears only the most tenuous relationship to the truth? All of you have probably seen the famous photograph of the lone protester confronting the line of tanks in Tiananmen Square. If that photograph had been a publicity still taken from some Hollywood movie, would it have anywhere near the same impact that it actually does?

In an article in the October, 2011, issue of Popular Photography, the world's largest imaging magazine, Ian Plant, a well-known and well-respected professional nature photographer, urged readers to gather up colorful autumn leaves that had fallen along the trail, then place them strategically into intimate landscapes and onto foreground boulders when photographing waterfalls and cascades. He went on to suggest placing some of the leaves with their colorful sides down so the image wouldn't look "arranged." Clearly Ian believes that images that are perceived as authentic will have more impact. Equally clearly, he has no qualms about "enhancing" his images. Should the goal of nature photography be to construct beautiful images, even if they don't actually resemble what we saw? Is "enhancement" acceptable, indeed laudable, so long as the viewer is none the wiser? I mention this not to single out Ian, a superb photographer whose views on this issue certainly reflect those of the editors at PopPhoto, but rather to start a conversation about a broader question.

Here's an anecdote that helps illuminate the issue. Recently I was helping critique images at Denver Digital Photo Club. The club president, Dick York, who is an excellent photographer, showed a photo of a rodeo contestant as he was bucked off a bull. Dick's timing was perfect: he caught the peak of the action just as the cowboy's hat flew off his head. After the club members and I offered some well-deserved praise, Dick related how he had submitted the image to a local photo contest and taken second place. When prints of the images were displayed at a reception after the judging, however, the crowd gathered around his second-place image rather than the winner's. So Dick asked the judge why he had taken second. The judge replied that it looked like the cowboy hat had been dropped into the photograph in Photoshop. "Whether you did or you didn't, it looks like you might have, which is why I didn't give you first place." Dick has no compunction about "enhancing" his images, as the judge probably knew. In this particular case, however, Dick had not altered his image ‒ yet the mere suspicion that he might have was enough to degrade the quality of the image in the judge's mind. Should Dick have manipulated his straight image so that it looked less manipulated?

Over the past five years or so, sales of photographic prints for wall décor have declined dramatically both for me and for every professional landscape photographer I've talked to. The ongoing financial crisis is obviously one major cause. But the digital revolution is another. True, digital photography is easier and more fun than film-based photography, which has greatly increased the number of photographers hoping to sell their work. The market is saturated, and that has driven down sales. And true, digital distribution has made it possible for many more photographers to share their work with potential buyers than was ever possible before the invention of the internet. Increased supply means lower prices and fewer sales.

But I wonder if there's another reason, as well. As more and more people buy digital cameras and become aware of what editing software can do, has the buying public become jaded and cynical about photography in general? Is nature photography losing its ability to awe, impress and inspire? When consumers see a great landscape photo, is their first thought, "What a magnificent world we live in!"? Or do they think, "Wow, that guy really knows Photoshop!"?

If authenticity does matter ‒ if images perceived as authentic have greater impact than those that don't ‒ then landscape and nature photographers need to ask themselves another question: is the no-holds-barred pursuit of the perfect image actually destroying the value of their work?

"But it's an art form!" I can hear some photographers argue. "I should be able to do whatever I want!" Of course you can do whatever you want. But if your images only have impact because of the viewer's mistaken belief that the image is somehow an authentic record of an actual event, then there's trouble brewing. Are landscape photographers sowing the seeds of their own artistic destruction when they make alterations they don't want to divulge to the viewer?

Perhaps we should define a genre of photography we could call "nature photojournalism," which would adhere to the same code of ethics followed by hard-news photographers. News magazines are careful to label constructed and manipulated images as "photo illustrations" to distinguish them from the hard-news photos that dominate the pages. Perhaps manipulated nature images should also be labeled as such.

I recognize the difficulty of defining "manipulated." There's a large gray area in between absolutely straight photography and clearly surreal images. But there is also a clear line beyond which everyone can agree, "That's not what you saw." Adding elements that weren't there and subtracting elements that were is certainly beyond that line.

I have always told my customers, truthfully, "What you see in my prints is what I saw through the lens." In your view, does that enhance the value of my work? Or am I shooting with one hand tied behind my back?

You can read my blog at: www.glennrandall.com/blog.html.

I would say it's knowing when to distinguish between Digital Art and Photography. Both of which are fine methods of artistic expression. Only the photography purists out there have an issue with it apparently. I guess the message is: welcome to the Digital Age.

This is always an interesting topic. It’s been mentioned by others here, and I agree that the venue in which a photograph is displayed is a big factor that defines what is documentation and art, where the line is between them as well as what is/isn’t considered “cheating.”

Does a photographer disclosing their shooting and processing methods help viewers better understand and examine an image from a technical aspect? I think so, especially when the photographer is asking for opinions of how effectively the specific elements of an image (color, composition, contrast?) are working together. However, is disclosure of those details required for viewers to react to an image from an aesthetic or emotional aspect? I don’t think so. For the viewer, knowing how a photo was made isn’t necessary for that photo to evoke the same feeling of awe of what witnessing a thunderstorm in the Grand Canyon might be like. While I know Stan's photo in this post was technically a composite of images of Earthly origins, I also feel like this is a scene I could be witnessing from the seashore on an alien world.

Can photographs have an imbalance between the technical and aesthetic? There can be images which have the potential to be emotionally powerful but are encumbered by distracting technical deficiencies. There can be images of high technical quality that don’t evoke much emotion. I think everyone has a different level of acceptable balance between these two qualities in determining what photographs they “like” or not. That’s what makes critique interesting IMO.

Stan, I think you've hit on what may be the greatest philosophical conundrum for many photographers. I apologize for the teaser but this is also the topic of two lengthy articles I will have in a couple of online magazines in the next few weeks. I can post the links here if anyone is interested.

A few things worth considering:

1) There are no absolutes. Different people will draw the line in different places and they are all equally valid. If my own observations are to be given any credibility, I also think it is an issue of maturity. The more experienced a photographer is, the more inclined they seem to seek more complex and creative outlets for their work and the less important the documentary aspects becomes. Obviously there are exceptions.

2) The "art world" went through a huge shift in the early 20th Century with Modern Art rebelling against the classics. The rule of the day was to throw away anything previously considered art and starting from scratch to promote new ideas and aesthetics. In my opinion this included throwing some babies out with the bathwater, primarily the elimination of realism, beauty and the voice of the artist from what was considered worthy art. You can't start this discussion without knowing something of the history of why this transition occurred. It's not as clear cut as some might think.

3) I personally think it is absolutely idiotic to assume that all manifestations of photography have just one purpose (to represent objective reality) and one set of ethics. It will be like saying that all writing must be in the form of journalism. There's room for a wide spectrum of uses, purposes and value judgments. You simply can't judge the value of an artistic photograph by the same criteria as an editorial one. They are different things.

4) Humans like to think they know what "reality" is. Truthfully not a single human that ever lived or will live will have this understanding. We can already prove mathematically that reality is far greater and vastly different from what we can sense or even imagine. Going back to point #1: there are no absolutes. Or, as Nietzsche said: there are only interpretations. And interpretations are dependent on who is doing the interpreting.

If you want to know my personal bias: strictly documentary images cannot, by definition, be considered art. They can be beautiful, inspiring, interesting, rewarding and a lot of other wonderful things but art requires more than all of these. It requires creativity and meaning beyond what's in the frame.

Guy

...strictly documentary images cannot, by definition, be considered art. They can be beautiful, inspiring, interesting, rewarding and a lot of other wonderful things but art requires more than all of these. It requires creativity and meaning beyond what's in the frame.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Portraiture is essentially documentary in nature. Portraits document the appearance of a person. Would you say that Yousuf Karsh's portraits aren't art?

I would say that "portraits" do not imply art. Some are and some are not. Open your local paper to see dozens that are not.

Guy

Incidentally, Karsh himself would likely also disagree that portraits are purely documentary:

"If it's a likeness, alone, it's not a success." --Yousuf Karsh

Guy

Guy, I'm not saying portraiture is purely documentary, only that it's essence is documentary. Obviously, some portraiture is quite artistic. Likewise, Audubon's bird paintings are prized as works of art yet they are essentially documentary.

Then we don't really disagree. My statement above was that *purely* (I used "strictly" but with the same intention) documentary images, by definition, cannot be considered art.

If the photographer brings no added value to the work other than transporting the camera and operating its controls, what makes them an artist?

Guy

It seems we are pretty much in agreement.

Just to play devils advocate, one could argue that the artistry is in the operation of the camera controls. The photographer makes artistic decisions when choosing what to include or exclude, what should be in focus or out of focus, how to handle subject motion (stop action or blur), and, of course, what to point the camera at in the first place.

In my mind anything that is related to technical skill is really more craftsmanship than art; however composition (deliberate inclusion/exclusion, visual effects, etc.) and anything else that is a deliberate choice made by the photographer can absolutely be applied creatively and artistically if the photographer so chooses.

To me the differentiating line is whether the photographer's decisions directly alter the viewer's impression, making it different from what they may have experienced if they just happened to be at the same place at the same time.

Here's the passage from one of my upcoming articles that speaks to the difference between a creative photograph and an illustration (i.e. documentary image):

The purpose of illustration is to say: “Here’s what you would have seen had you been there.” The purpose of art is to say: “Here’s what you would not have seen had I not shown it to you, even if you were standing next to me.”

Hence my earlier statement that an illustration, by (my) definition, cannot be art.

Guy

I like that passage. It's similar to my feeling that God gave us the gift of artists to help us see the world around us in different ways.

I look forward to reading your articles.

Thanks for all the terrific responses, folks!

Scott F: I hear you, but you're talking about the 'rules'; I'm talking about the rationale behind the rules--whether it is a wise idea to differentiate between genres. I think it is, and the rationale is more than just 'organization'--its recognizing the differences in genres.

Look at the top pros on this site and go to their websites. I bet half of them say something in their artist statements something like they are photographers "to glorify (God's) creation" or another popular one is "to inspire conservation of our natural areas". Are these goals furthered by creating a false impression of what is out there in nature? I don't think so. See Glen's piece above--which i totally agree with.

Russ: Interesting. I actually started off doing mostly digital art (since i was a painter since age 11 or 12) and only went to 'straight-forward' photography cause i was interested in documenting my hikes. In my first (and only) book I 'documented' a bunch of trips using both digital art and photos, and I mentioned the manipulations in my preface. But I actually see reality as liberating, not constraining.
To me, there's a clear distinction between the two and it is as follows:

Nature Photography depicts what you see/experience/feel
Photo Art depicts what you imagine/create

Those distinctions may not mean much to some here, but to me they are rock solid and crucial.
BTW--i spent maybe 40 minutes on this piece cause i was in a hurry to post it in response to a similar argument i was having with Tony K (im always arguin ) If i spent more time i could have made it more convincingly real.

Paul D: I completely agree. And that's why i started this thread, cause i was shocked to hear two of my favorite photographers suggest (imply, maybe they didnt mean to come off that way) that honesty doesn't matter.

Arthur L: I disagree. B&W in many ways is MORE documentary in nature than color--there's no argument about what the subjective color is cause you've eliminated it. The change is transparent, NOT hidden as color manipulation is. That's one reason I like B&W.

Glen: thanks for the thoughtful response, obviously I agree with you that the questions are important and shouldn't be thrown under the rug. I get the 'Is this real or Photoshop?' question all the time. I had to argue with someone in the Fatali gallery the other day when I heard him 'educating' a tourist on how film is more 'real' than digital...we have a tough hill to climb here!
Are landscape photographers sowing the seeds of their own artistic destruction when they make alterations they don't want to divulge to the viewer? Yes! Precisely why I started this thread, cause i see it happening around me in slow motion.
Seeing is certainly subjective--we all see things differently. It's tough to judge someone's honesty when they say "this is what I saw" But at least applaud them for making an effort to do so.

Guy T: thanks much for the response, if and when i get some sleep ill check out your links if you post.
I understand your #1/4, but I do make a distinction between reality and fantasy. Some people believe in a demon-haunted world (to quote Carl Sagan). I don't. There are all sorts of snake oil being used to defraud gullible buyers. I also agree with your 3d point. I'm not trying to be dogmatic here, im just saying that disclosing methods etc should be encouraged, not discouraged.
I don't think a 2D photo will ever be 'documentary', inherently it can't capture reality, so I don't have a problem with your last statement. It comes down to personal accountability--which again I am encouraging.

Mark: thanks for debating Guy cause it made it faster for me to read through the responses

Kane and Todd: where Art Thou???

In my opinion, it is hard to make a photograph of merit that maintains a strong connection with the real world. One way to circumvent this difficulty is to distort the truth and rely on exaggerations as the primary artistic tool.

The purpose of art is to say: "Here’s what you would not have seen had I not shown it to you, even if you were standing next to me.”

I am in full agreement with Guy's thoughts on the purpose of art. However, I feel let down when photographer after photographer must reply on Photoshop trickery alone rather than purity of vision to show me something I would not have seen otherwise.

IMO, intent and interpretation are the only differences between art and documentary. The image above, from this website is a good example. This could easily be a "documentary" image accompanying an article on bridge repair with no intent to express anything creative; purely illustrative. Or, it would be right at home decorating the wall of an industrial loft, the product of a creative process.

Everybody can have an opinion on the interpretation; only the artist can speak to the intent. But if either considers it art, imo, it's art.

Stan - to answer your original question of why the composite shot can't go in the Landscape gallery.... I don't think it has anything to do with art vs. documentary. The various NPN galleries, and the associated criteria, have been established to aid in organizing the site into categories, in order to simplify viewing, commenting, critique, etc. It doesn't matter that "it's not documentary"; it matters that it meets the NPN definition of photo art, and there's a separate gallery for that.

You could debate the NPN definitions for "landscape" vs. "photo art", but unless you want those descriptions to grow into 4-page legal documents attempting to remove all ambiguities, recognizing the spirit of the definitions answers the original question.

Just to be clear, Rick, I am not suggesting landscape photography can't be art, it certainly can be for the reasons you suggest in your first response. It can also be documentary. I'm talking about the distinction between photo art (digital art that uses a photo) and nature photography; i see a distinction between the two (see my def above). I disagree that the categories in NPN are soley for organization; maybe Jim E looked at that way, but i know some of the moderators feel differently, at least some folks see value in keeping a shot like the one i posted above out of the mix of landscape images.

Here is one reason why: say I post this shot of Bandon Beach with aurora in Landscape (after spending 6 hours in PS to make the blending seamless and the aurora a bit more realistic) and claim I shot this during the annual aurora bust at Bandon every January For some crazy reason, the photo becomes real popular and within weeks dozens of Bandon Beach Aurora shots start appearing in the Gallery. Kane E (im still trying to provoke him to join the conversation...) gets all excited and flies out to catch the great auroral display in Oregon. Imagine his disappointment when he discovers that the auroras are really just some clouds that people were blurring in PS....
I am saying there is value and ethics in keeping our nature photography real! (and disclosing when it isnt)

Stan, I understand. Perhaps you misunderstood my post. You asked why, given that your image is art, not documentary, you can't post it in the landscape category.

My simplified response is that all of the NPN galleries are repositories for art, and your image fits into a specific one based on how you created it - the photo art gallery.

Regarding your comment about keeping nature photography real and disclosing when it isn't... I agree that there's tremendous value. I think it's a grey area, and up to the photographer to determine when the distortion of reality is of such magnitude - and not immediately obvious - that it becomes significant in the final presentation. I agree with Art L. that b&w is a significant distortion of reality, but it's an obvious distortion that the viewer can easily recognize with no add'l info from the artist.

p.s. either Kane has a great sense of humor, or you owe him some airfare... Or both.

I'm pretty sure Kane is ok with me being obnoxious (you never know with Todd...) If he isnt he could always invite me on some 'easy' hike in the Sangres and then push me over some 2000 ft cliff while im distracted

Stan, this one reaks of a rant. From your whipping boy's perspective, it appears you're having trouble answering your own question and for some reason feel the need to drag Todd and I into the mud to fix your conundrum.

Here's the scene...I'm at work, in an elevator with a few moments to waste, decide to check out NPN, see the " Need Honest Critique on Grand Canyon Image." Next, I look at a freaking thumbnail on my cell phone of the Grand Canyon and do a quick reply "you're the artist; do as you please, disclose as you please. " BTW, much different than your repost of my words ""do as you please, NO NEED TO DISCLOSE."



"Disclose as you please" is a world away from "no need to disclose."

Now you know my stance on your question. It's a personal decision left up to the artiist. I basically draw the line witth a composites.


BTW, we need to get out again soon.

And, that's a cool shot you posted. I just bought a ticket to Portland Oregon. Can't wait to get that Wizard of Oz/Green Hornet lighting behind the killer sea stack!

OK--sorry for the misquote...

I still think the better advice is: Disclose if the result is not what you saw/experienced. No personal decision--either you saw it or you didn't.

Have fun in rainy Oregon!

Stan, how does that work for us film shooters? Films like Velvia and E100VS record colors and contrast well beyond what the eye sees. That's the reason I use those films. I generally disclose the type of film but to the growing number of people who have never shot film that information is meaningless. When people look at a print made from a Velvia transparency they often ask if it's real or 'shopped. The answer is either "both" or "neither". Both answers are correct. I use Photoshop to make the print look like the slide but I'm under no illusion that the slide accurately recorded what my eye saw.

I disagree, Stan. It would be ridiculous to label any product with disclosures about all the things it is not. When an image is labeled as art your default expectation should be that it is NOT representative of objective reality.
Anyone who labels their work as both art and "unmanipulated" is either being dishonest with their audience or with themselves.

Guy

Those are fair questions, Mark, and I'm not sure I have a good answer for you. Before digital became popular I would see some film prints and think "There's no way this represented what the photographer saw" and to me that wasn't a good thing, although clearly that wasn't hurting the photographer's gallery sales any. I never particularly cared for the outlandish film styles of certain well known photographers, to me it was defeating their own stated goals (the ones I hinted at above, 'revealing the beauty of nature', promoting protection of our natural areas etc.) But at least you knew basically what you were getting, you knew how certain films and even filters affected the result--all of that is hidden now by whatever digital tricks the photographer has in his or her bag. The bottom line is I'm arguing for 'transparency', which is the opposite of keeping things hush hush. There's a lot of resistance to that idea, as seen in some of the responses here. Some folks want to turn photography into a high-tech form of painting--I'd rather keep it as photography. I hope I'm being clear, even if you disagree with me.

Guy, I knew you would respond cause my response to Kane sounds pretty harsh, let me try to explain: I am saying it represents what the artist saw/experienced, which is not really "objective reality", it's "subjective reality" (if there is such a thing )
When two people look at the same objective subject, they see two different things. It's that difference that results in an infinite number of interpretative looks at a single subject. Obviously two photographers given the same subject will usually come up with two different compositions. I certainly don't have a problem with 'manipulation' (my photos are loaded with manipulation) but my goal is to use manipulation to come closer to what I am seeing and experiencing, not further away. I am trying to approach my 'subjective reality' rather than diverge from it and head towards the realm of fantasy. Maybe you disagree with that, and you think its perfectly fine to create fantasy with our nature photos (and I'm ok with that too so long as it's disclosed) But I would argue, as Glenn hints at in his blog piece above, that if that is our philosophy as nature photographers (creating fantasy rather than reality) than we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
As an aside, I agree with some of the posts above (Rick, Mark) that art doesnt have anything to do with 'manipulation', it's about intent, and about aestheticism (appealing to our own sense of order in the universe).