I recently received submission guidelines from a local editor and it states-
1. No fake photos. This is an ironclad, no arguing, no ifs-ands-or-buts rule.
2.Okay to tinker with images as you might in a chemical darkroom, but no adding or removing objects, or turning day into evening.
I personally agree that this should be the guidelines for all digital photography and have no problem playing by these rules but how do you know if everyone else is playing by the same rules?
What are your thoughts on digital manipulation, should there be a standard policy or is it a personal issue for the photographer to decide?
I personally agree that this should be the guidelines for all digital photography and have no problem playing by these rules but how do you know if everyone else is playing by the same rules?
Bottom line - you don't know.
You can only be responsible for your own actions, and you'll ruin your life if you worry excessively about what others do. Be content with your own integrity.
Hmmmmmm. Hasn't this topic been discussed before? My personal views in regards to manipulation are pretty much in line with what that editor sent you. Not everyone feels the same way. They never will. There is no controlling it. There is nothing you can do about it. That is the world of photography we live in now - it's much more of and art and much less a truth that it ever was before. This is both good and bad IMO and who knows where it's all heading in the future. In the end, photography is whatever you make of it. Of course, all editors must make choices for their own publications and the same with galleries, contests, ect. The bottom line for me, is that significant manipulations are disclosed by the photographer when they are made.
Photography is an art, and art wasn't governed by rules last time I checked. As well as it shouldn't be outside of a contest. Of course manipulated images wouldn't be considered ethical in a journalism based environment, but for purposes of fine art / personal expression to each his own. Personally I'd rather see a natural appearing image than a double exposed moon / tobacco filtered shot, but thats' just my preference.
1) How do you define a fake photo?
2) This is inherently contradictory - you can add and remove objects in a chemical darkroom (and pretty much most everything else you can do in Photoshop). I am also yet to meet anyone, photographer, alchemist, or televangelist who can turn day into evening.
Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder, art is in the eye of the checkbook holder, and this editor needs to get his facts and guidelines in order.
The photographers perspective: All images are fakes, manipulations, artistic creations and fail in the truest documentary sense. Simply by passing light through a lens we manipulate reality.
The public perspective: Photography is the best tool we have for capturing reality and to manipulate a photograph during or post capture in a way that significantly alters the features or mood of what was actually seen at the time of the capture is a fake.
I think sometimes photo editors try to walk the line between these two viewpoints (they end up with self-imposed regulatory statements like the above). I know I do. I claim to be an artist that enjoys documenting all the magical things I've seen. I am both a creator and an observer. I depict reality, but press my own vision and my own style upon it. If my images were completely computer-generated fakes, they would mean very little to me. If my images were always exactly what I saw with a naked eye, I would have less fun being an artist.
This topic will continue bobbing up forever as new people come into the game. I cetainly have put my two cents in for several years on internet forums. Years ago when there were just a few of us working with digital images and Photoshop, we saw these controversies around the corner. Down the stack in Hot Topics you might read what I had to say in the prop thread:
The same thing applies to digital manipulation. Photographers can do whatever they like in terms of manipulating a scene or post processing and editing. However they ought to be up front and honest about what they do. And as I explained in the above thread that is the problem. Too many of those that manipulate don't want to have to explain what they do and thus appear innocently on the same level playing field with all the other photographers out there from those that regularly plunk Bambi into their scenes to those like me that are at pains to keeping it all real as practical. And that is where the problem lies.
...David
I don't believe that as a photographer I am obligated to tell people about the manipulations that were done to get the image to its final state. I also don't understand why some of you consider this to be a problem. I have never stated that my images are a true reflection of nature. If I had made such a claim then I agree that I should disclose any alterations that were performed. However, without such a claim (as to how real the image is) I don't have any qualms about not disclosing details of my post-processing work.
Since I am not doing documentary or scientific work, to me the original scene and the full set of manipulations are not important; what's important is the final image. Thankfully, so far I have not head a single complaint from any of the people I have shown my work to (these include paying clients and visitors at the galleries I have displayed at).
This has been the biggest change for me since switching over to digital photography by far. I must admit that I don’t miss throwing all those slides in the trash and it has made photography a lot more enjoyable.
I guess it comes down to personal opinion and what you plan on doing with the image in the end.
Posted by Scott Elliot on June 9, 2006 at 12:30 AM
My uncle made oil paintings of landscapes. I was very familiar with some of the locations and know that he removed or moved trees, rocks and other landscape features for the sake of composition. I don't remember anybody saying the paintings were no good because of that. Why should a photograph that is used for the same purpose be any different?
On the other hand, a scientific illustrator should not change his sketches for the sake of composition over scientific accuracy. How useful would Peterson or Sibley be if the illustrator edited the images to make them look better? Again, photos used for illustrative or journalistic purposes should be as accurate as possible.
Scott >>>"My uncle made oil paintings of landscapes. I was very familiar with some of the locations and know that he removed or moved trees, rocks and other landscape features for the sake of composition. I don't remember anybody saying the paintings were no good because of that. Why should a photograph that is used for the same purpose be any different? "
Not a problem. But one ought to be generally upfront at some reasonable level of information about what they are manipulating. Even vague is better than nothing. Yes again the fact that somewhat is manipulating an image is not a problem. Much of the public expects we photographers are taking "natural" images. Tell them that the amazing clouds in your image is a total tranplanted fake, that the deer beside the lake was cloned in, etc and lets see how many customers are going to be grabbing for their wallets. Still if that is the nature of your art and you freely make that obvious at least in some small way and some customers accept that, then fine, more power to you. The degree and amount of potential manipulation by someone with the skill would amaze those of you that are thinking in terms of minor tweaks. Any graphic arts pro can with enough time and effort make huge realistic images from parts of other images. When I studied Photoshop a decade ago, I regularly transplanted in whole skies with clouds. Where do we draw the line? If such images are quietly sold to a public that believe images are natural we as a community of photographers are certain to be increasingly criticized. Individual honesty is the best policy as there will never be an effective mechanism to force anyone what to do. ...David
Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder, art is in the eye of the checkbook holder, and this editor needs to get his facts and guidelines in order. >>>
I believe ALMOST all nature/wildife photographers are out there to capture a image of a specific time and to display that image as a true depiction of what they have captured on film/digital. I know I do, when I shoot a landscape I have shot it because it has somehow moved me inside to capture it on film. I have no desire to alter the image by adding or subtracting area of that image.
I want my images to move others as well and I also would like them to be assured no funny buisness has gone on with the image, It is as close as possible to the original tranny. Those that manipulate their images to be something else to me are deceptive to the buying public that also in most cases would like the image to be as close to what was captured.
But then that's just me and why I shoot.
What is art may be in the eye of the beholder and their checkbook but to me and my photography art is capturing a moment in time and making other people enjoy that moment without resorting to manipulation of that moment
To see it ' without resorting to manipulation of that moment ' means that you have to be there. Any photograph is an object based on what the photographer saw, but it's not what the photographer saw. Pete D.
Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder, art is in the eye of the checkbook holder, and this editor needs to get his facts and guidelines in order.
I agree this pretty much sums things up.I do want to say that 95% of my photography is of birds so this would be considered illustrative and the editors guidelines are based on these type of photos as well.
I don't think society as a whole has a problem with photographs being worked over. People who view photographs in an art setting (gallery, museum, etc.) know enough about art to not make a fuss. It seems like the biggest complainers come from within the photographic community itelf (ie. fellow photogrpahers, camera clubs, competition organizers and judges, etc.). As Michael correctly said, this is why photography continues to struggle for acceptance as an art form.
"...So why is it that 'we,' as a society, admire --or at least accept-- the well-established art of paintings that look like photographs but resist the idea of photgraphs that have been worked over like paintings? "
"We", as society, don't. We have long shown that we prefer the garish, artificial colours of photos taken with Velvia film to the more realistic colours of other films for nature shots. We want our portraits to look good, even if it means removing blemishes, softening skin texture, enhancing colour, using back lights to add highlights to our hair, posing to hide unattractive features, lighting to remove naturally occuring shadows and choosing a lens length that de-emphasizes how big our nose really is. We might even choose a closeup crop that doesn't reveal the shiney bald pate. Similarly when we pick a pretty picture to enchance the appearance of our home or office, the emphasis for most of us is to choose something that makes us feel good, regardless of the process that was use to create the image.
"We" as photographers tend to be more aware and critical of any post shutter release manipulation. When I show a prized photo to someone I am very proud of the fact that it is full frame with no digital manipulation other than a bit of colour balance and contrast correction with just a little unsharp mask applied. Most people who are not photographers don't seem to care very much about these things. It is either a picture they like or a picture they don't.
Ethically I believe it is wrong to present something as a moment in time if it is actually creation in the computer room, but practically I don't think most viewers are as concerned as the photographer.
A documentarian presents a moment in time. An artists presents a creation. Why should they be measured on the same scale?
In some contexts a photographer is merely a technician or operator. In others s/he is the creative force that makes the image what it is. They are two distinct disciplines with two distinct sets of ethics.
Will you measure the output of a court stenographer by the same metrics as a novelist or a poet?
Anil >>>"...I don't think society as a whole has a problem with photographs being worked over."
Scott >>>"...Most people who are not photographers don't seem to care very much about these things."
Certainly some people do not. But some certainly do. The question is how many really do? We are not going to resolve that in this discussion. Those who continue to stress that point are just guessing that to be the case. And if that is the case then why not be upfront about it? Your customers are not going to care according to that speculation. Or is it down deep we are afraid that actually might effect some sales so minimize any information beyond the piece's title. If its art then tell people its ART. ...David
David: If you care to visit my web-site you will find a description of how I produce my prints under the "SALE INFO" section. I have clearly described the workflow, including the fact that I use a computer to alter the raw drum-scan to create what I refer to as my final visualization of the photographed scene. This information is also available right next to my prints at the local art gallery. So to answer your question - I am not afraid to say that my work is not a true representation of nature and so far this has not had any adverse effect on sales.
David, terms like "art", "manipulation" and "true representation" are nothing more than propaganda. Like all propaganda it is meant to influence the psyche rather than represent reality. As with political propaganda, one side is usually more pervasive/convincing with any given populaiton, usually due to ignorance, superstition, and/or coercion. Going as far as to coerce the "other side" to wear labels is well.. reminiscent of some very low points in human history.
I would argue that anyone who claims their images are "not manipulated" is asking for scrutiny. It's impossible to prove and therefore is nothing more than marketing fodder. For me to acknowledge it or be apologetic about it is simply ridiculous. I have nothing to gain from it and I have no interest in contributing to rampant misinformation of the public.
Sure, some people buy Coke over Pepsi because they truly believe it's the "real thing" but most people either can't tell the difference, enjoy/hate both equally, or simply don't care. By your logic you should go to Pepsi's board of directors and suggest they label their cans "not the real thing" to accommodate their competitor's propaganda.
Guy
Posted by Robert Helms on June 10, 2006 at 11:32 AM
I guess I'll add my perspective. Too far to me is if , for example, someone takes a grand image that inspires me to want witness the scene firsthand, and I travel to it only to be met with obstacles that were not evident in the image, man made or otherwise, and were clearly cloned out. I would personally feel very deceived in this situation. Yea, the lighting may not be the same or even the time of year, but if I'm purchasing the image I expect the features to be.
I've passed up images in the past, that I felt were really good, due to power line poles being in my composition. Let's say I took those images and cloned out the power line poles, then let's say someone loved the image and wanted to know where it was captured. I tell them, they go view it and then come ask me how I magically made them poles disappear. Would you stand up and proudly say- well I used this little clone tool and just clicked a little here and there, I felt it was a better image without them poles in it anyway - sorry I didn't tell you before you handed me your check? To me thats all fine if you are taking images, but not if you are trying to market them.
Somone mentioned Velvia up above. Sometimes it more color that I witnessed, other times it's about right ,and then there are times it still doesn't punch the color up enough to what I recall. IMHO the one thing that alters a scene more than any type of film, is a polarizer. I use both!
I could go on and on, but were never going to come to an end on this topic. I'll just say that I'm going to favor the photographer that puts in the field time to get the image. That photographer will always take the better image, regardless of the medium he or she uses to capture it.
Will all my images be reality? Not completely! Will all the elements that were present at the time be there? Absolutely!
Guy >>>"David, terms like "art", "manipulation" and "true representation" are nothing more than propaganda. Like all propaganda it is meant to influence the psyche rather than represent reality. As with political propaganda, one side is usually more pervasive/convincing with any given populaiton, usually due to ignorance, superstition, and/or coercion. Going as far as to coerce the "other side" to wear labels is well.. reminiscent of some very low points in human history.
I would argue that anyone who claims their images are "not manipulated" is asking for scrutiny. It's impossible to prove and therefore is nothing more than marketing fodder. ..."
I always see some truth with those arguments as you have well stated. Terminology is easily misinterpreted, and often of broader scope than we can effectively focus in brief statements, particularly on the web. But we do best with what our language offers without laboring an argument too verbosely. Of course this controversy of photography versus art has always been with the medium. Long before any of us came on the scene. In the beginnning days of colorless black and white it was at best pseudo art. One could state the captured forms were a visual 2-dimensional framed reflections of human visual reality enough to have some credibility with representing something that actually happened during one instant of time. When color photography evolved, the level of fidelity of that reflection underwent a major improvement. Still there were many factors that always limited what an eye saw versus what either film or medium captured. Additionally what was actually printed for normal viewing was also further constrained by many limitations of processes and materials.
So here is the point I would stress. Given use of readily available quality equipment, film, processes, and printing today, I would state that we can do a reasonable job of re-creating what the eye actually saw. The resulting film or digital capture often is lacking in ways we are all aware. But after processing and compensation, the resulting prints can adjust some of those limitations while at the same time are limited in other ways as gamut that don't come close to the vibrance of the raw medium much less what are wonderful eyes experience. So do we argue that as long as we cannot attain some arbitrary level of fidelity that we dismiss any who attempt to attain what is reasonably possible that chose to label their work as more realistic (or whatever appropriate term)? That what they create is just as much art as those that are a little more free about changing what was captured? That what they create is just as much still art as those that change what is captured grossly? Is there some validity to acknowledging we are discussing several valid forms of art or whatever visual reality term one might use? Or do we give up and just admit its useless and that we are all on the same level playing field and ought not label and differentiate?
As long as these controversies have been discussed there has been some frustrations on those on either side of the issue. I will represent what I capture as somehow representing some reasonable level of visual reality of a moment that can as an end product print stands out from those who's style is not so personally limited regarding fidelity. And I know there are those that will always disagree and do so with frustration. But we can agree that there are merits to both sides of the issue and let things be as they may. ...David
This is exactly why I mention two distinct disciplines with two distinct moral codes:
The value of a reporter or documentarian is derived from them making efforts to get to a scene at a point in time to capture something that is of interest to others. No argument there. The documentarian's skill and tools all lead to the message "if you were there, this is what you would have seen".
The value of an artist, however, comes from their own unique personal imagination and skill. The artist's message is far different: "here is something you would never have seen had I not created it".
There is simply no way to measure or compare these two different values by the same metrics.
Guy
Posted by Cliff Beittel on June 11, 2006 at 11:57 AM
"The photographers perspective: All images are fakes, manipulations, artistic creations and fail in the truest documentary sense. Simply by passing light through a lens we manipulate reality."--Marc Adamus
So if an editor asks for perfectly exposed images, we shouldn't hestitate to send one ten stops off, because who knows what perfect is, and being off a third isn't perfect either? The editor has the right to set whatever standards he or she wants. Photographers have the right to send images or not. If an editor asks for "A" and we send "B" disguised as "A," how does our business model differ from Enron's? If all images are manipulated, and any degree of manipulation is equally acceptable, why does anyone bother with glasses, contacts, or corrective surgery?
This is an issue very much of personal preference, or personal taste.
I occasionally make a photo with full knowledge that it has some blemish - a utility wire, a sign, some visually distracting element, that I will have to remove, or disguise digitally. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I would much rather not have to do it. I would prefer to compose the photo in such a way that such blemishes are not visible. I try to keep any computer editing to a minimum, not that I think that such editing is dishonest (as I guess some do)
I find nothing wrong with seeing a photo that is a skillful composite, and yet somehow I am disappointed to find out that an amazing photo was a computer fabrication.
I have a photo that has a full moon in a purple sky. It doesn't look real. A few months after making the picture, thinking I must have super-saturated the color, I checked the raw file. The color of the sky was pretty much the same in the RAW file as in the JPEG. Then I remembered that I had used a graduated neutral density filter - that must be responsible for the deep purple sky. Oh, well, that makes it OK. The picture still looks unreal to me so I don't show it off much, but it did impress the heck out of one non-photographer who saw it. Would it have made a difference if I had made the photo look the way it does digitally?
Like I said - I find nothing wrong at all with digital manipulation, but somehow it seems, the less, the better. In my mind, digital manipulation, alteration, compositing, fabrication is alright. There's no good reason not to do it, but somehow, deep inside, it just isn't as good.
It's personal taste, a personal preference.
Posted by Robert Helms on June 11, 2006 at 9:05 PM
Jerry- I can't say I haven't been tempted, but I'm so use to not knowing what a near far comp. is that I really rarely seek them out anymore - there is just always something in the way it seems. Where I live I really needed to learn to see in a different way, then the one my mind really wants to. Make do with what I have, but with the recent ESS posts from down your way I may just move.
Cliff, you are taking my statement out of the context in which it was written. I stated my views on manipulations, art and photography clearly here and in other such discussions. Perhaps Pete said it better "Any photograph is an object based on what the photographer saw, but it's not what the photographer saw". And therefore, all photographs are an interpretation of what we saw, not the real thing. I totally agree with the point of not disguising major manipulations to an image if such manipulations are expressly forbidden. Similar could be said for I wildlife photographer submitting to a publication that asked for a wild image, and the image provided was taken in a zoo.
"Cliff, you are taking my statement out of the context in which it was written. . . ."
Marc, I understand that, and also that the rest of what you wrote was sensible. I didn't pick out those words to attack you, but to attack the words themselves--the sentiment--which one encounters all the time (and not just with respect to photography). "There is no completely objective truth, therefore a complete fabrication is OK too." Or, as you stated it (without endorsing it), just using a lens is manipulation, so any manipulation is OK.
There's also a lot of sentiment among photographers on threads like these (and in this very thread) that editors are just fools who don't get it. I think it makes more sense to assume they know their needs better than most of us do. For example, most say they don't want images sharpened, but many photographers obviously persist in sending sharped images, thinking it gives them an advantage. Just this week, I learned that come CYMK processes have sharpening built in. So if you send an image sharpened to look good on your Epson, it may end up oversharpened for magazine or calendar use. And just today or yesterday the photo editor at Birder's World confirmed on another forum that he rejects many images simply because they are overprocessed and/or oversharpened. Imagine, a little humility in following editors' guidelines could actually increase sales!
For other uses, anything goes. I personally like to improve my photos in Photoshop (though I like it better when they don't need improvement). But this thread began with a question about editorial guidelines.
CMYK processes really do not have built in sharpening but there is a different sharpening process for different resolutions vers. LPI. In fact, I do this all the time being that we do all of our prepress in-house. All of our printing projects are printed at 175 lpi with an image resolution of 350 dpi, so when sharpening we sharpen for 350dpi + 175lpi. Also, I really don't think that anyone here is stating that any manipulation is ok. Most of us believe that adding/removing a major element to/from a scene is overboard and a big case of manipulation. But, we also believe that enhancement is a normal thing when shooting digital (RAW) or when scanning a transparency. First, the transparency is an enhancement in its on right especially if you use Velvia or E100VS. We read it all the time, we use no digital enhancement and we match our prints as close as possible to the original transparency. Well, film is an enhancement, we don’t call it Disney-Chrome for nothing! Oh, and B&W, well can't get more enhanced that that.
Discussion
33 replies1. No fake photos. This is an ironclad, no arguing, no ifs-ands-or-buts rule.
2.Okay to tinker with images as you might in a chemical darkroom, but no adding or removing objects, or turning day into evening.
I personally agree that this should be the guidelines for all digital photography and have no problem playing by these rules but how do you know if everyone else is playing by the same rules?
What are your thoughts on digital manipulation, should there be a standard policy or is it a personal issue for the photographer to decide?
Bottom line - you don't know.
You can only be responsible for your own actions, and you'll ruin your life if you worry excessively about what others do. Be content with your own integrity.
42 is too far
All photographs are fake.
Pete D.
2) This is inherently contradictory - you can add and remove objects in a chemical darkroom (and pretty much most everything else you can do in Photoshop). I am also yet to meet anyone, photographer, alchemist, or televangelist who can turn day into evening.
Manipulation is in the eye of the beholder, art is in the eye of the checkbook holder, and this editor needs to get his facts and guidelines in order.
Guy
The public perspective: Photography is the best tool we have for capturing reality and to manipulate a photograph during or post capture in a way that significantly alters the features or mood of what was actually seen at the time of the capture is a fake.
I think sometimes photo editors try to walk the line between these two viewpoints (they end up with self-imposed regulatory statements like the above). I know I do. I claim to be an artist that enjoys documenting all the magical things I've seen. I am both a creator and an observer. I depict reality, but press my own vision and my own style upon it. If my images were completely computer-generated fakes, they would mean very little to me. If my images were always exactly what I saw with a naked eye, I would have less fun being an artist.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=3196&b=vf27&st=0&la=46&ph=11&sid=9354&u=9354
The same thing applies to digital manipulation. Photographers can do whatever they like in terms of manipulating a scene or post processing and editing. However they ought to be up front and honest about what they do. And as I explained in the above thread that is the problem. Too many of those that manipulate don't want to have to explain what they do and thus appear innocently on the same level playing field with all the other photographers out there from those that regularly plunk Bambi into their scenes to those like me that are at pains to keeping it all real as practical. And that is where the problem lies.
...David
Since I am not doing documentary or scientific work, to me the original scene and the full set of manipulations are not important; what's important is the final image. Thankfully, so far I have not head a single complaint from any of the people I have shown my work to (these include paying clients and visitors at the galleries I have displayed at).
Regards.
This has been the biggest change for me since switching over to digital photography by far. I must admit that I don’t miss throwing all those slides in the trash and it has made photography a lot more enjoyable.
I guess it comes down to personal opinion and what you plan on doing with the image in the end.
Thanks for the feedback.
Pete D.
On the other hand, a scientific illustrator should not change his sketches for the sake of composition over scientific accuracy. How useful would Peterson or Sibley be if the illustrator edited the images to make them look better? Again, photos used for illustrative or journalistic purposes should be as accurate as possible.
Not a problem. But one ought to be generally upfront at some reasonable level of information about what they are manipulating. Even vague is better than nothing. Yes again the fact that somewhat is manipulating an image is not a problem. Much of the public expects we photographers are taking "natural" images. Tell them that the amazing clouds in your image is a total tranplanted fake, that the deer beside the lake was cloned in, etc and lets see how many customers are going to be grabbing for their wallets. Still if that is the nature of your art and you freely make that obvious at least in some small way and some customers accept that, then fine, more power to you. The degree and amount of potential manipulation by someone with the skill would amaze those of you that are thinking in terms of minor tweaks. Any graphic arts pro can with enough time and effort make huge realistic images from parts of other images. When I studied Photoshop a decade ago, I regularly transplanted in whole skies with clouds. Where do we draw the line? If such images are quietly sold to a public that believe images are natural we as a community of photographers are certain to be increasingly criticized. Individual honesty is the best policy as there will never be an effective mechanism to force anyone what to do. ...David
YO Guy. You are a damn good poet.
I want my images to move others as well and I also would like them to be assured no funny buisness has gone on with the image, It is as close as possible to the original tranny. Those that manipulate their images to be something else to me are deceptive to the buying public that also in most cases would like the image to be as close to what was captured.
But then that's just me and why I shoot.
What is art may be in the eye of the beholder and their checkbook but to me and my photography art is capturing a moment in time and making other people enjoy that moment without resorting to manipulation of that moment
I agree this pretty much sums things up.I do want to say that 95% of my photography is of birds so this would be considered illustrative and the editors guidelines are based on these type of photos as well.
I don't think society as a whole has a problem with photographs being worked over. People who view photographs in an art setting (gallery, museum, etc.) know enough about art to not make a fuss. It seems like the biggest complainers come from within the photographic community itelf (ie. fellow photogrpahers, camera clubs, competition organizers and judges, etc.). As Michael correctly said, this is why photography continues to struggle for acceptance as an art form.
"We", as society, don't. We have long shown that we prefer the garish, artificial colours of photos taken with Velvia film to the more realistic colours of other films for nature shots. We want our portraits to look good, even if it means removing blemishes, softening skin texture, enhancing colour, using back lights to add highlights to our hair, posing to hide unattractive features, lighting to remove naturally occuring shadows and choosing a lens length that de-emphasizes how big our nose really is. We might even choose a closeup crop that doesn't reveal the shiney bald pate. Similarly when we pick a pretty picture to enchance the appearance of our home or office, the emphasis for most of us is to choose something that makes us feel good, regardless of the process that was use to create the image.
"We" as photographers tend to be more aware and critical of any post shutter release manipulation. When I show a prized photo to someone I am very proud of the fact that it is full frame with no digital manipulation other than a bit of colour balance and contrast correction with just a little unsharp mask applied. Most people who are not photographers don't seem to care very much about these things. It is either a picture they like or a picture they don't.
Ethically I believe it is wrong to present something as a moment in time if it is actually creation in the computer room, but practically I don't think most viewers are as concerned as the photographer.
In some contexts a photographer is merely a technician or operator. In others s/he is the creative force that makes the image what it is. They are two distinct disciplines with two distinct sets of ethics.
Will you measure the output of a court stenographer by the same metrics as a novelist or a poet?
Guy
Scott >>>"...Most people who are not photographers don't seem to care very much about these things."
Certainly some people do not. But some certainly do. The question is how many really do? We are not going to resolve that in this discussion. Those who continue to stress that point are just guessing that to be the case. And if that is the case then why not be upfront about it? Your customers are not going to care according to that speculation. Or is it down deep we are afraid that actually might effect some sales so minimize any information beyond the piece's title. If its art then tell people its ART. ...David
I would argue that anyone who claims their images are "not manipulated" is asking for scrutiny. It's impossible to prove and therefore is nothing more than marketing fodder. For me to acknowledge it or be apologetic about it is simply ridiculous. I have nothing to gain from it and I have no interest in contributing to rampant misinformation of the public.
Sure, some people buy Coke over Pepsi because they truly believe it's the "real thing" but most people either can't tell the difference, enjoy/hate both equally, or simply don't care. By your logic you should go to Pepsi's board of directors and suggest they label their cans "not the real thing" to accommodate their competitor's propaganda.
Guy
I've passed up images in the past, that I felt were really good, due to power line poles being in my composition. Let's say I took those images and cloned out the power line poles, then let's say someone loved the image and wanted to know where it was captured. I tell them, they go view it and then come ask me how I magically made them poles disappear. Would you stand up and proudly say- well I used this little clone tool and just clicked a little here and there, I felt it was a better image without them poles in it anyway - sorry I didn't tell you before you handed me your check? To me thats all fine if you are taking images, but not if you are trying to market them.
Somone mentioned Velvia up above. Sometimes it more color that I witnessed, other times it's about right ,and then there are times it still doesn't punch the color up enough to what I recall. IMHO the one thing that alters a scene more than any type of film, is a polarizer. I use both!
I could go on and on, but were never going to come to an end on this topic. I'll just say that I'm going to favor the photographer that puts in the field time to get the image. That photographer will always take the better image, regardless of the medium he or she uses to capture it.
Will all my images be reality? Not completely! Will all the elements that were present at the time be there? Absolutely!
I would argue that anyone who claims their images are "not manipulated" is asking for scrutiny. It's impossible to prove and therefore is nothing more than marketing fodder. ..."
I always see some truth with those arguments as you have well stated. Terminology is easily misinterpreted, and often of broader scope than we can effectively focus in brief statements, particularly on the web. But we do best with what our language offers without laboring an argument too verbosely. Of course this controversy of photography versus art has always been with the medium. Long before any of us came on the scene. In the beginnning days of colorless black and white it was at best pseudo art. One could state the captured forms were a visual 2-dimensional framed reflections of human visual reality enough to have some credibility with representing something that actually happened during one instant of time. When color photography evolved, the level of fidelity of that reflection underwent a major improvement. Still there were many factors that always limited what an eye saw versus what either film or medium captured. Additionally what was actually printed for normal viewing was also further constrained by many limitations of processes and materials.
So here is the point I would stress. Given use of readily available quality equipment, film, processes, and printing today, I would state that we can do a reasonable job of re-creating what the eye actually saw. The resulting film or digital capture often is lacking in ways we are all aware. But after processing and compensation, the resulting prints can adjust some of those limitations while at the same time are limited in other ways as gamut that don't come close to the vibrance of the raw medium much less what are wonderful eyes experience. So do we argue that as long as we cannot attain some arbitrary level of fidelity that we dismiss any who attempt to attain what is reasonably possible that chose to label their work as more realistic (or whatever appropriate term)? That what they create is just as much art as those that are a little more free about changing what was captured? That what they create is just as much still art as those that change what is captured grossly? Is there some validity to acknowledging we are discussing several valid forms of art or whatever visual reality term one might use? Or do we give up and just admit its useless and that we are all on the same level playing field and ought not label and differentiate?
As long as these controversies have been discussed there has been some frustrations on those on either side of the issue. I will represent what I capture as somehow representing some reasonable level of visual reality of a moment that can as an end product print stands out from those who's style is not so personally limited regarding fidelity. And I know there are those that will always disagree and do so with frustration. But we can agree that there are merits to both sides of the issue and let things be as they may. ...David
The value of a reporter or documentarian is derived from them making efforts to get to a scene at a point in time to capture something that is of interest to others. No argument there. The documentarian's skill and tools all lead to the message "if you were there, this is what you would have seen".
The value of an artist, however, comes from their own unique personal imagination and skill. The artist's message is far different: "here is something you would never have seen had I not created it".
There is simply no way to measure or compare these two different values by the same metrics.
Guy
So if an editor asks for perfectly exposed images, we shouldn't hestitate to send one ten stops off, because who knows what perfect is, and being off a third isn't perfect either? The editor has the right to set whatever standards he or she wants. Photographers have the right to send images or not. If an editor asks for "A" and we send "B" disguised as "A," how does our business model differ from Enron's? If all images are manipulated, and any degree of manipulation is equally acceptable, why does anyone bother with glasses, contacts, or corrective surgery?
Robert, dude, I'm taking out the pole!
I occasionally make a photo with full knowledge that it has some blemish - a utility wire, a sign, some visually distracting element, that I will have to remove, or disguise digitally. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I would much rather not have to do it. I would prefer to compose the photo in such a way that such blemishes are not visible. I try to keep any computer editing to a minimum, not that I think that such editing is dishonest (as I guess some do)
I find nothing wrong with seeing a photo that is a skillful composite, and yet somehow I am disappointed to find out that an amazing photo was a computer fabrication.
I have a photo that has a full moon in a purple sky. It doesn't look real. A few months after making the picture, thinking I must have super-saturated the color, I checked the raw file. The color of the sky was pretty much the same in the RAW file as in the JPEG. Then I remembered that I had used a graduated neutral density filter - that must be responsible for the deep purple sky. Oh, well, that makes it OK. The picture still looks unreal to me so I don't show it off much, but it did impress the heck out of one non-photographer who saw it. Would it have made a difference if I had made the photo look the way it does digitally?
Like I said - I find nothing wrong at all with digital manipulation, but somehow it seems, the less, the better. In my mind, digital manipulation, alteration, compositing, fabrication is alright. There's no good reason not to do it, but somehow, deep inside, it just isn't as good.
It's personal taste, a personal preference.
Marc, I understand that, and also that the rest of what you wrote was sensible. I didn't pick out those words to attack you, but to attack the words themselves--the sentiment--which one encounters all the time (and not just with respect to photography). "There is no completely objective truth, therefore a complete fabrication is OK too." Or, as you stated it (without endorsing it), just using a lens is manipulation, so any manipulation is OK.
There's also a lot of sentiment among photographers on threads like these (and in this very thread) that editors are just fools who don't get it. I think it makes more sense to assume they know their needs better than most of us do. For example, most say they don't want images sharpened, but many photographers obviously persist in sending sharped images, thinking it gives them an advantage. Just this week, I learned that come CYMK processes have sharpening built in. So if you send an image sharpened to look good on your Epson, it may end up oversharpened for magazine or calendar use. And just today or yesterday the photo editor at Birder's World confirmed on another forum that he rejects many images simply because they are overprocessed and/or oversharpened. Imagine, a little humility in following editors' guidelines could actually increase sales!
For other uses, anything goes. I personally like to improve my photos in Photoshop (though I like it better when they don't need improvement). But this thread began with a question about editorial guidelines.