I had some photos on display last weekend and I ran into a recurring question that troubled me.
"Is this digitally enhanced?"
I shoot film and when I go to print, I strive to make the print as close to that original transparency as possible. I also mentioned this point in my artists' statement. Yet on several occasions, I feel that people had the perception that these were too good to be true.
When people asked, I explained to them what film I use (Velvia), my methods for printing an image, maybe the lighting conditions, etc. I guess what bothers me is the folks who possibly looked and thought "fake" and then moved on.
Before the days of digital imaging, I think people would look at an image and be in awe of it. Perhaps placing themselves in that moment, taking in a sunrise or sunset in all it's glory via the image. Now, it seems like digital gives people an easy excuse to assume that something was enhanced, or is not true to it's original subject.
I guess ultimately this perception is here to stay. I know that my images are true to form, but I guess it was a bit disheartening to have people judging the validity of it rather than just enjoying the image before them?
What experiences have you had at a display of your work, art fairs, etc?
This comment, along with "you must have a really great camera" are annoying and hard to avoid. Going into details about the scanning and printing process probably won't convince the naysayers. One thing you can try doing is bringing along a few slides and a portable lightbox for comparison to your prints.
Let's face it, if you're using Velvia, they're not true to form. But THAT'S OKAY! I'm in the business of taking pretty pictures. I also happen to enjoy doing it, about as much as breathing. Until I went to the Dark Side, I shot Velvia exclusively. If I had wanted to be a documentarian, I'd have chosen Kodachrome 64, never used a filter, only used a normal focal length lens, etc. Now that I shoot RAW files, I certainly take some liberties with any notion of absolute "truth" when processing an image. There are certainly limits I prefer not to exceed, but that's all such a subjective, personal decision. I just want to make images that I, and hopefully others, enjoy looking at. Boost the color a little bit to more resemble my long love affair with Velvia? Sure! Shoot two exposures and combine them to extend the dynamic range of a scene? Absolutely! No big deal.
I think it's just apprehension that accompanies any new technology and I fully believe that in time nobody will care.
View Camera magazine had a little anecdote some years ago - an old flyer from Kodak aimed at glass plate photographers who were concerned that using film may not be perceived as real photography since it takes much of the skill and hard work (coating plates, developing them, etc.) out of the craft.
Ultimately a good image is a good image. A digital image is no less of a good image just like a good car using fuel injection is no less a car than one using a carb.
It's just technology, and new technology is often intimidating at first.
Tony wrote:
I also agree with what Todd says above, but that argument doesn't work with a certain group of people.
In my experience, that certain group of people is probably not among the group of people who are actually buying photos. They are usually the self-important, pontificating type, and are likely to harbor hidden jealousies of the images they are criticizing.
I should have clarified, I only meant they are true to form in terms of what I see on the lightbox at home. The whole question of what is allowable manipulation of an image in is a much bigger topic, but one that I also find interesting.
Ultimately photography is all about manipulation from the moment we compose an image. I guess with the digital arena sometimes I feel dirty when I go in and tweak a color, adjust levels to compensate for a little overexposure, etc. (I know it's stupid...) And then it complicates things when a potential customer starts asking about it, and doesn't realize the inherent manipulation present in photography.
Did they provide any comments to suggest why they suspected digital "enhancement"?
i.e. colors too saturated?
I've visited art fairs where numerous photographers emphasized that their images were "real" photographs - film and darkroom, "untouched by computers". They were obviously using this to separate their hard work from those digital "cheaters". After listening to their stories, I'm sure a lot of people went to the next booth and asked about digital enhancement - are they buying a "real" photograph? That was two years ago. Hopefully marketing has changed as more photographers use digital in some part of their workflow. But, for the buying public, there still may be a residual concern left over from these previous "marketing" efforts.
Guys - if it’s not shot on film, preferably large format, and not using those new fancy-shmancy ready/quick loads of course, hand-developed, hand-printed in the traditional darkroom for at least 8+ hours per image, using caustic chemistry (and not the environmentally friendly kind please), printed on real silver, in driving snow, up-hill both ways, it AINT a real photograph.
It was mostly the color saturation that led folks to suspect enhancement. I had some shots from fall, sunrise, etc that were very saturated. I think those were the images that drew the most attention. I guess it just bugged me as I felt some were dismissing it as digital witchcraft (not that there is anything wrong with digital).
I look at the issue as being a little frustrating now, and see it being more so once I jump both feet into digital some day. Of course by then, I hope most of that BS "real vs digital" hype will have died.
Perhaps I should have said:
"I'm sorry it doesn't look like all those lame vacation photos you have tucked away at home in a shoebox"
"I'm sorry it doesn't look like all those lame vacation photos you have tucked away at home in a shoebox"
I think that actually has a lot to do with the types of reactions people express. For the average guy, the reference point is those family photos shot on Albertson's film and processed with a thousand other photos at a 1-hour joint. A lot of those photos are in midday light, indoor light, light that's way too dim. When people see an image that was carefully crafted from conception to print to take advantage of the optimum conditions, it's not 'normal' and they try to reconcile how it could be done. With computers and digital cameras being ubiquitous now, 'digital manipulation' might be the easy answer.
I'd guess that before the days of digital, people had the same questions but didn't have an easily accessible "cause" to point to. Now that everyone can print an image in their own home, they now know enough to question the process.
This phenomenon is nothing new. I visited Galen's studio in Bishop a few years ago and in the corner was a light table with dups of several sample prints as proof, I suppose, that (by golly) it really WAS the lighting and skill of the photographer that was able to create that great looking print! It seems he also had enough people questioning his work that he went to the trouble to offer up the evidence!!
Discussion
15 repliesI had some photos on display last weekend and I ran into a recurring question that troubled me.
"Is this digitally enhanced?"
I shoot film and when I go to print, I strive to make the print as close to that original transparency as possible. I also mentioned this point in my artists' statement. Yet on several occasions, I feel that people had the perception that these were too good to be true.
When people asked, I explained to them what film I use (Velvia), my methods for printing an image, maybe the lighting conditions, etc. I guess what bothers me is the folks who possibly looked and thought "fake" and then moved on.
Before the days of digital imaging, I think people would look at an image and be in awe of it. Perhaps placing themselves in that moment, taking in a sunrise or sunset in all it's glory via the image. Now, it seems like digital gives people an easy excuse to assume that something was enhanced, or is not true to it's original subject.
I guess ultimately this perception is here to stay. I know that my images are true to form, but I guess it was a bit disheartening to have people judging the validity of it rather than just enjoying the image before them?
What experiences have you had at a display of your work, art fairs, etc?
Let's face it, if you're using Velvia, they're not true to form. But THAT'S OKAY! I'm in the business of taking pretty pictures. I also happen to enjoy doing it, about as much as breathing. Until I went to the Dark Side, I shot Velvia exclusively. If I had wanted to be a documentarian, I'd have chosen Kodachrome 64, never used a filter, only used a normal focal length lens, etc. Now that I shoot RAW files, I certainly take some liberties with any notion of absolute "truth" when processing an image. There are certainly limits I prefer not to exceed, but that's all such a subjective, personal decision. I just want to make images that I, and hopefully others, enjoy looking at. Boost the color a little bit to more resemble my long love affair with Velvia? Sure! Shoot two exposures and combine them to extend the dynamic range of a scene? Absolutely! No big deal.
View Camera magazine had a little anecdote some years ago - an old flyer from Kodak aimed at glass plate photographers who were concerned that using film may not be perceived as real photography since it takes much of the skill and hard work (coating plates, developing them, etc.) out of the craft.
Ultimately a good image is a good image. A digital image is no less of a good image just like a good car using fuel injection is no less a car than one using a carb.
It's just technology, and new technology is often intimidating at first.
Guy
I should have clarified, I only meant they are true to form in terms of what I see on the lightbox at home. The whole question of what is allowable manipulation of an image in is a much bigger topic, but one that I also find interesting.
Ultimately photography is all about manipulation from the moment we compose an image. I guess with the digital arena sometimes I feel dirty when I go in and tweak a color, adjust levels to compensate for a little overexposure, etc. (I know it's stupid...) And then it complicates things when a potential customer starts asking about it, and doesn't realize the inherent manipulation present in photography.
Good discussion!
i.e. colors too saturated?
I've visited art fairs where numerous photographers emphasized that their images were "real" photographs - film and darkroom, "untouched by computers". They were obviously using this to separate their hard work from those digital "cheaters".
I need to visit a few art fairs this summer!
Guys - if it’s not shot on film, preferably large format, and not using those new fancy-shmancy ready/quick loads of course, hand-developed, hand-printed in the traditional darkroom for at least 8+ hours per image, using caustic chemistry (and not the environmentally friendly kind please), printed on real silver, in driving snow, up-hill both ways, it AINT a real photograph.
…and everyone knows that!
It was mostly the color saturation that led folks to suspect enhancement. I had some shots from fall, sunrise, etc that were very saturated. I think those were the images that drew the most attention. I guess it just bugged me as I felt some were dismissing it as digital witchcraft (not that there is anything wrong with digital).
I look at the issue as being a little frustrating now, and see it being more so once I jump both feet into digital some day. Of course by then, I hope most of that BS "real vs digital" hype will have died.
Perhaps I should have said:
"I'm sorry it doesn't look like all those lame vacation photos you have tucked away at home in a shoebox"
I think that actually has a lot to do with the types of reactions people express. For the average guy, the reference point is those family photos shot on Albertson's film and processed with a thousand other photos at a 1-hour joint. A lot of those photos are in midday light, indoor light, light that's way too dim. When people see an image that was carefully crafted from conception to print to take advantage of the optimum conditions, it's not 'normal' and they try to reconcile how it could be done. With computers and digital cameras being ubiquitous now, 'digital manipulation' might be the easy answer.
I'd guess that before the days of digital, people had the same questions but didn't have an easily accessible "cause" to point to. Now that everyone can print an image in their own home, they now know enough to question the process.
Right on.
Ken