Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RFPhotography on February 13, 2011, 10:54:36 am

Title: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 13, 2011, 10:54:36 am
I met with a gallery owner recently about having the gallery rep some of my photography.  Took in some framed and unframed pieces, including the one attached.

The gallery owner quite liked it but the first question he asked wasn't where it was taken or what it was but rather if the lighter area in the water was real or if I'd digitally created it.

So is this what it's come to?  Where everything people look at is considered 'fake' or a digital creation?

For the record, the lighter area in the water is real.

Details -
Where:  The Grotto, Bruce Peninsula National Park, Ontario, Canada
What:  The Grotto is in a part of the park that is on the shores of Georgian Bay.  There's a tunnel in the rock wall that goes from The Grotto out into the bay.  The lighter area of water is from sunlight on the bay refracted and shining through into The Grotto. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 13, 2011, 11:32:41 am
A very nice picture, and the highlighted blue is exactly what you do get in shots within caverns or sea grottos; there's a nice one on southern Malta and Capri has them too, I think, though I've only seen the latter island from the peninsula. That underwater illumination is the whole point about them!

As you ask, what's it comng to?

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 13, 2011, 12:09:56 pm
... So is this what it's come to?  Where everything people look at is considered 'fake' or a digital creation?...

Yes, unfortunately.

Presumption of innocence does not apply here, and you would have to go to great lengths to proactively demonstrate that your workflow does not involve digital creation or manipulation. If you care what others think, of course.

P.S. I often introduce myself, and only half-jokingly, as a photoshopographer :)
 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 13, 2011, 12:41:28 pm
Well, Slobodan, I do have the unretouched RAW file, of course.

Rob, it's the combination of the 'water window' and the colours in the rocks that make these spots so appealing, agreed. 

It's just unfortunate that such a high degree of skepticism is in force today. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: wolfnowl on February 13, 2011, 02:27:52 pm
Somewhere on the main Lula site is an excellent article by Alain Briot titled, "Just Say Yes".

FWIW, images have 'always' been manipulated: http://weburbanist.com/2010/10/27/politics-of-photoshop-15-shady-edits-for-political-purposes/

Mike.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 13, 2011, 02:53:22 pm
When asked a question like that, my initial response will usually be simply, "No, it really looks like that." If something in a photo looks unreal, even if it is real, I see no problem clarifying the issue a little.

But it is true that current fashions in photography do seem to tend to a sense of exaggeration and fantasy, especially in the use of colors, so I think we need to expect questions like this more and more.

Ironically, you seldom get such questions about B&W work, which is almost always totally transformed from reality.

Eric
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RSL on February 13, 2011, 03:49:45 pm
Bob, Are you sure the guy wasn't just aghast at the color saturation? I'll accept that the colors are reasonably accurate because that's what's what you see in that kind of grotto, but on first glance it looks as if the color saturation has been pushed hard. Give the guy a break; maybe he's been going to "art fairs" where almost all the photography clearly has been Photoshopped to the Marlboro ad level. Eric's right. There's too much color saturation hanky panky going on.

So is your stuff hanging in the guy's gallery?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RSL on February 13, 2011, 03:54:45 pm
Somewhere on the main Lula site is an excellent article by Alain Briot titled, "Just Say Yes".

FWIW, images have 'always' been manipulated: http://weburbanist.com/2010/10/27/politics-of-photoshop-15-shady-edits-for-political-purposes/

Mike.

Mike, Thanks for the link. It's been a long time since I've seen Trotsky disappear like that. That series ought to be a lesson to those who think it wasn't possible to manipulate a photograph until Photoshop came along. People who've never worked in a darkroom tend to believe that.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 13, 2011, 04:08:34 pm
Oh, I definitely agree, Mike.  Photos have always been manipulated in some way or other.  I think the difference is that now, in the digital age, a lot of people just assume everything is manipulated.  While I haven't read Alain's article from reading the title, my guess is it's somewhat similar in tone to a recent article Guy Tal published on his blog titled "Lie Like You Mean It" (http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/02/lie-like-you-mean-it/).

RSL, no, he specifically mentioned the 'water window'.  The saturation has been pushed, but not as much as you may be implying.  Given the darkness of the space, you're never going to get really rich colours.  We need light, after all, to see colour.  I'd have to go back and look at the exact settings but I do know that I also pulled down on the luminance of some of the colours because I felt they were too bright.  To answer your other question:  It will be.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 21, 2011, 12:10:28 pm
That's a lovely shot Bob!

I can see one side to the question that was put to you.  The gallery owner is doing due diligence on a new acquisition, and also attending to its selling points.  I could see any prospective buyer asking "what's that" while pointing to the bright spot in the water, and the gallery owner proudly telling them that "this is the results of refraction from etc, etc, and is a natural phenomenon."  Then I can see the prospective buyer taking out their wallet, because that's a good selling point. 

I can't remember the name of the Aussie nature photographer with a 3 letter name who has stores in Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, and NY.  But when I walked into his NY store, I was assured that all the images I saw were shot as they were.  Then I kinda went "huh" (that's the sound of being slightly impressed), I guess there is something to making the effort to find these things as they are and record them.  Not an easy kind of photography by any stretch. 

I think your image would be a good sell to anyone who doesn't have outright HDR prejudice.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 21, 2011, 03:01:02 pm
I think that's a good point, Luke.  I think it's more the way the question was posed than anything else that struck me. 

Are you thinking of Peter Lik?  Who recently sold a print for $1 million.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 21, 2011, 05:07:55 pm
Are you thinking of Peter Lik?  Who recently sold a print for $1 million.


Where do they find these people?

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 21, 2011, 05:27:05 pm
Well, reputedly, Lik has sold over $150 million in prints over the years. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: JeffKohn on February 21, 2011, 06:58:41 pm
Quote
I can't remember the name of the Aussie nature photographer with a 3 letter name who has stores in Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, and NY.  But when I walked into his NY store, I was assured that all the images I saw were shot as they were.  Then I kinda went "huh" (that's the sound of being slightly impressed), I guess there is something to making the effort to find these things as they are and record them.  Not an easy kind of photography by any stretch. 
IMHO that's a load of BS, just like it is when Michael Fatali says the same thing about his 8x10 film work. The fact that the image is not enhanced in Photoshop doesn't mean it's not an enhanced representation of the actual scene. Shooting Velvia (often with grad filters and/or polarizers) and printing Cibachromes results in prints that have much more contrast and saturation than the original scene, not to mention the color shifts inherent in these high-saturation slide films. The argument that this process is more realistic or "honest" just because no computer work was done is laughable.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Gordon Buck on February 21, 2011, 08:48:35 pm
what if the light were not so good on the day that I visited the same place so I took five shots, combined them to HDR and used some heavy duty tone mapping plus a little artful dodging to effect nearly the same image?  Would my image be fake? Worth less?  Worthless?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 21, 2011, 09:15:27 pm
what if the light were not so good on the day that I visited the same place so I took five shots, combined them to HDR and used some heavy duty tone mapping plus a little artful dodging to effect nearly the same image?  Would my image be fake? Worth less?  Worthless?


Although the image (i.e., end result) might be the same, it is the knowledge of the process involved that would make a difference. And to illustrate what i mean, I have to resort to a gross metaphor: it would be the same as the difference between a waiter spitting into your soup in the kitchen and doing it right in front of you. ;) In other words, knowing that a major manipulation took place would always make it worth less than the one with no manipulation.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 21, 2011, 11:27:27 pm
One would really look at the rest of the art market to understand how buyers perceive these things.  We might have our own philosophical take on the issue.  But there are market forces that are indifferent to us.  The entire process of the piece coming into being, and ultimately the path that it took to get into the gallery owner's hands, can be grounds for discernment among collectors. 

I was actually intrigued by Bob's picture, and mostly for the fact that it contained a good representation of an unusual natural phenomenon.  I might have liked it had that not been the case, but it would have left an open question.  Surely, anyone who looks at that pictures wonders what the bright spot is.  Of two possible answers -- that it is either natural, or painted in let's say -- I would be left scratching my head as to why it was painted in on aesthetic grounds.  If Bob then said "yes, I painted it in, but it represents a natural phenomenon accurately" then I would have been slightly more interested.  So it's aesthetic value is a function of some of these things. 

Not to suggest that Peter Lik or anyone else is more naturalistic, or that any use of the camera is really naturalistic in the final measure, with its artificial white and black points.  But the word "veridical" comes to mind here as the right one.  Some pictures /conform/ to the truth more than others.  There is a difference between a composite and a full scene capture, no matter how stylized.  I think this veridicality counts in the nature photography business, because part of the perceived value of the pictures involves whether the photographer stalked the ends of the earth to find the thing that happened once in a century.  Otherwise, you can construct beautiful landscapes that don't exist anywhere in the real world ad infinitum, but they wouldn't sell as nature photography.  You'd take that skill to Hollywood. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PhillyPhotographer on February 22, 2011, 12:40:05 am
What ever happened to the image itself being the most important part of photography, the end result, the reason why we take photographs ? Now there is such an emphasis on work flow that the image itself is secondary.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 22, 2011, 01:37:04 am
What ever happened to the image itself being the most important part of photography, the end result, the reason why we take photographs ? Now there is such an emphasis on work flow that the image itself is secondary.
Wouldn't you agree though that two identical images depicting -- let's say -- the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, one entirely faked, and the other entirely real, would be treated as having different value?  And when I say "value" I don't mean just news value, or historical value, but also aesthetic value.  It is part of the aesthetic value of the work whether or not it depicts a true or false event. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 22, 2011, 05:30:44 am
What ever happened to the image itself being the most important part of photography, the end result, the reason why we take photographs ? Now there is such an emphasis on work flow that the image itself is secondary.



You are absolutely right: the hell with the 'how', just settle for the image. To do otherwise is a nonsense. Does anyone ask how many drafts to write Hamlet? How many takes to get 'Psycho' right? How long and how convoluted was the production of 'Pet Sounds' or 'Stg. Pepper'?

These concerns shown in the photo business are bullshit drummed up to create false values where, frankly, few real ones have ever existed.

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: stamper on February 22, 2011, 07:34:38 am
In my camera club days some members would ask - if you had taken a good image - did you Photoshop it? They would be the ones who shot film. Generally their images weren't as good so instead of giving you credit for a good image they tried to demean you by stating it was Photo shopped. Imo it was a combination of jealousy and some ignorance. Jealous you had shot a good image and ignorant because they didn't have the ability to enhance an image so they tried to bring you down to their level. :(
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 22, 2011, 08:45:42 am
Although the image (i.e., end result) might be the same, it is the knowledge of the process involved that would make a difference. And to illustrate what i mean, I have to resort to a gross metaphor: it would be the same as the difference between a waiter spitting into your soup in the kitchen and doing it right in front of you. ;) In other words, knowing that a major manipulation took place would always make it worth less than the one with no manipulation.

It's interesting that you categorise HDR as a "major manipulation".  Why do you consider it as so?  What's wrong with using the available tools to create the best result possible?  Does that inherently make everything the 'straight from the camera' people produce better and more valuable?  

How does one determine the veracity of an image though?  Are images taken with 10 stop ND filters that show long, wispy, cotton candy-like clouds through captured movement accurate?  Can we actually see that with our eyes?  Are, for example, Marc Adamus' prints less worthy because he uses Photoshop extensively?  Are Tony Kuyper's images less worthy because of his terrific use of luminance masks?  

This is, for me anyway, a very interesting conversation.  I'm going to post an example and see where it goes.

This image was also taken in Bruce Pen NP on the same trek as the Grotto image.  I found the colour of the blue rock to be an interesting contrast to the others around it.  And yes, it is actually blue.  The first image is a JPEG of the original RAW file out of the camera.  The second is the image I ended up with.  I don't claim this as a terrific example of good photography.  It's more an exercise in trying to illustrate what's 'real' according to what the camera captures and what's 'real' according to our vision.  The original is blah and lacks any visual interest at all.  The camera simply didn't capture the colours well.  The sky was overcast but there was some strong directional light that the camera didn't pick up too well either.  I've spent a lot of time with this image over the years since I first took it and have finally come up with something that I'm fairly happy with.  It was more an effort at seeing what my processing skills were like than anything else but the final image with the sheen on the rocks and the enhanced colour and contrast is a 'better' image in my view.  Putting aside the quality of the photograph from a composition/artistic standpoint, does the final version really have less 'value' because I took some artistic license with the processing?  For what it's worth, none of the colour in this image was 'added'.  It all comes from working with ACR, Vibrance, H/S, Curves & Levels.  Which also is a good indicator of how much may be available in an image that the sensor captures but that doesn't show up in an untouched RAW file.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 22, 2011, 10:08:23 am
Vicious circle. The first shot looks real and the second does not. Actually, I think that the tonal delicacy of the first makes for a superior image.

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PhillyPhotographer on February 22, 2011, 10:37:06 am
In my camera club days some members would ask - if you had taken a good image - did you Photoshop it? They would be the ones who shot film. Generally their images weren't as good so instead of giving you credit for a good image they tried to demean you by stating it was Photo shopped. Imo it was a combination of jealousy and some ignorance. Jealous you had shot a good image and ignorant because they didn't have the ability to enhance an image so they tried to bring you down to their level. :(

Some are so afraid to even touch the curves tool for fear of people screaming PHOTOSHOP !!!!! These nincompoops would drop dead if they watched a film photographer dodge & burn, add grain or tone an image in the darkroom.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PhillyPhotographer on February 22, 2011, 10:38:55 am
Wouldn't you agree though that two identical images depicting -- let's say -- the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, one entirely faked, and the other entirely real, would be treated as having different value?  And when I say "value" I don't mean just news value, or historical value, but also aesthetic value.  It is part of the aesthetic value of the work whether or not it depicts a true or false event. 

Apples and Oranges
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Peter McLennan on February 22, 2011, 10:40:48 am

These concerns shown in the photo business are bullshit drummed up to create false values where, frankly, few real ones have ever existed.

Rob C

Well said, Rob.  I'm compelled to draw similarities with the inkjet ink distributors, who derive usurious profits on a commodity familiar to art galleries touting "numbered editions".  Namely, artificial scarcity.

In my Photography classes, when confronted with anti-manipulation zealots, I ask them the following:  

My prospective landscape image has an annoying piece of dead branch in the foreground.  I can either walk over and move it, or I can clone it out in Photoshop.  Are you saying that it's okay to move it in the real world, but it's not okay to erase it later?

Manipulation begins as you lift the camera to your eye.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 22, 2011, 10:54:59 am
In other words, knowing that a major manipulation took place would always make it worth less than the one with no manipulation.

Slobodan,

I ask this in the most sincere way....why?

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: stamper on February 22, 2011, 11:19:24 am
With respect to the two above images my take is that the first is flat and needs some contrast and saturation to make it interesting. The second has had that done to it but is overdone. If it was my image I would have added contrast and saturation to the blue stone as portrayed in the second image but the rest of the image would have contrast and saturation added, but more muted. As to the anti Photoshop crowd I now believe it isn't worth arguing with them. Simply state what you have done to the image that pleases YOU and leave them to accept it or not. :) ;) ;D
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PhillyPhotographer on February 22, 2011, 11:28:24 am
What's considered manipulation ? What's considered too much ? Who decides ? Ever see the true original half dome of Ansel Adams and the print he did later ?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PierreVandevenne on February 22, 2011, 06:22:23 pm
You can also add "what's reality?"

Here's a shot of the moon I took a few years ago

(http://www.datarescue.com/life/kepler/moontests/moonincolor40d2007.jpg)

(note: other people have done it much better before)

The natural reaction is to think "fake!" - well, saturation has been increased, but it actually is a faithful representation of the geological structure of the moon.

What is reality? Is the moon a bright yellowish object? A patchwork of colors? A dark dull body that only seems bright in contrast?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 23, 2011, 03:27:43 am
Bob's example brings up an interesting issue -- the way things are in reality versus the way they look to us.

By supersampling the scene, Bob has been able to resolve the colors out to 32-bits in floating point space.  The camera is preserving and recording very fine gradations with high precision due to supersampling. 

But -- there are also cumulative effects that do not correspond to the effects of cumulative exposure with human vision. 

So -- on the one hand, you have a more accurate photographic record with HDR, but on the other hand, you have something that does not, phenomenologically speaking, "look" real.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 23, 2011, 04:43:28 am
Moon. Try as I might, I still can't see the Hasselblad.

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 23, 2011, 07:26:36 am
Bob's example brings up an interesting issue -- the way things are in reality versus the way they look to us.

By supersampling the scene, Bob has been able to resolve the colors out to 32-bits in floating point space.  The camera is preserving and recording very fine gradations with high precision due to supersampling. 

But -- there are also cumulative effects that do not correspond to the effects of cumulative exposure with human vision. 

So -- on the one hand, you have a more accurate photographic record with HDR, but on the other hand, you have something that does not, phenomenologically speaking, "look" real.

Luke, are you speaking of the second set of images of the beach rocks?  If so, no HDR was used in the making of that image.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 23, 2011, 12:36:05 pm
Luke, are you speaking of the second set of images of the beach rocks?  If so, no HDR was used in the making of that image.
My misteak.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Rob C on February 23, 2011, 01:14:15 pm
My misteak.


Hate the sight of blood: have mine well done, please!

Rob C
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 25, 2011, 05:05:48 pm
Slobodan,

I ask this in the most sincere way....why?

For the same reason a real Picasso is millions of times worth more than a fake Picasso (or any original vs. knock-off): rareness/scarcity/uniqueness. Econ 101.

A fake Picasso/Monet/Van Gogh/etc. might even look so the same that a good half of forgery experts would testify under oath that it is original. And as long as buyers believe it is original, they would pay millions for it (forgery). It is the KNOWLEDGE of the process involved (i.e., forgery) that makes the same painting go from millions to zero in an instant.

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: PierreVandevenne on February 25, 2011, 07:48:17 pm
Not necessarily ;-) I just remenber I read this

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/fake-israeli-painting-fetches-twice-the-original-s-value-1.279208

There was also Van Meegeren, the uber-faker who surfed on is reputation to sell his wares, only to be imitated by others.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 25, 2011, 09:07:58 pm
Not necessarily...

Especially if you disregard the last paragraph in the linked article:

"...Tirosh gallery director Dov Hazan said artists who are disappointed with price estimates often declare that a painting is a fake. He said that while he did read out Yaskil's letter at the auction, experts in the audience remained convinced that the painting and signature were authentic. "No one would bother faking a painting estimated to be worth $800," Hazan said."
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 25, 2011, 10:33:54 pm
For the same reason a real Picasso is millions of times worth more than a fake Picasso (or any original vs. knock-off): rareness/scarcity/uniqueness. Econ 101.

A fake Picasso/Monet/Van Gogh/etc. might even look so the same that a good half of forgery experts would testify under oath that it is original. And as long as buyers believe it is original, they would pay millions for it (forgery). It is the KNOWLEDGE of the process involved (i.e., forgery) that makes the same painting go from millions to zero in an instant.



Sorry, but I thought we were talking about manipulated photos, not fake reproductions of them. If the "original" photograph is heavily manipulated, i.e. that is the only version that is made public, then how could it be worth any less than an unmanipulated version?

No one is forging anything here.

Can you maybe give another reason?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 25, 2011, 11:34:22 pm
Sorry, but I thought we were talking about manipulated photos, not fake reproductions of them. If the "original" photograph is heavily manipulated, i.e. that is the only version that is made public, then how could it be worth any less than an unmanipulated version?

No one is forging anything here.

Can you maybe give another reason?
In response to someone's assertion that only the image mattered, I countered with a gedankenexperiment involving two identical images, each having a different origin, to show that the etiology matters when it comes to value, even when everything else is the same. 
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 25, 2011, 11:42:17 pm
Sorry, but I thought we were talking about manipulated photos, not fake reproductions of them. If the "original" photograph is heavily manipulated, i.e. that is the only version that is made public, then how could it be worth any less than an unmanipulated version?

No one is forging anything here.

Can you maybe give another reason?

Unmanipulated = authentic, original nature
(Heavily) Photoshopped = forgery, fake nature

It does not matter if it is "the only version that is made public", what matters is the KNOWLEDGE it was manipulated.

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 25, 2011, 11:58:53 pm
Unmanipulated = authentic, original nature
Photoshopped = forgery, fake nature

It does not matter if it is "the only version that is made public", what matters is the KNOWLEDGE it was manipulated.



OK, let me play devil's advocate here for a moment...

authentic, original nature....meadow with flowers and a tree.

forgery, fake nature....a Van Gough painting that does not include the tree. Is it worth less?

Vincent did not have Photoshop to manipulate or "forge" nature, he simply left out or added things and probably used colours different than the original subjects as he saw fit. Why can't we do the same thing with photographs?

So many people here are always talking about how photographers are artists, but refuse to let them use the same techniques and license as other artists.

Oh well, I guess most of my images are worth a lot less. I can deal with that :)













Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 26, 2011, 12:21:49 am
OK, let me play devil's advocate here for a moment...

authentic, original nature....meadow with flowers and a tree.

forgery, fake nature....a Van Gough painting that does not include the tree. Is it worth less?

Vincent did not have Photoshop to manipulate or "forge" nature, he simply left out or added things and probably used colours different than the original subjects as he saw fit...

You are changing the premise of the debate: we were talking about two images that are THE SAME in the end-result (appearance), but different in the process that led to the end result (one manipulated, the other not). We were not talking about images that differ from each other in alteration of elements or colors, as in your "devil's" example.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 26, 2011, 09:00:30 am
You are changing the premise of the debate: we were talking about two images that are THE SAME in the end-result (appearance), but different in the process that led to the end result (one manipulated, the other not). We were not talking about images that differ from each other in alteration of elements or colors, as in your "devil's" example.


Sorry Slobodan, I was referring to the original posting. Looking back over some of your comments and others, I see that indeed there has been mention of what you say. However...

The original posting mentioned that the gallery owner thought the image was manipulated to show "fake" colours, there was a posting showing two photos of rocks that were vastly different and there is a photo of the moon that some might think shows "fake" colours..I don't think any of these images would the THE SAME in the end result (appearance). For that matter, I can't see how two images could possibly look the same if one of them has been manipulated.

I will ask again, without my example. If we consider photography to be an art, why should we have to adhere to the notion that the artist cannot inject his/her own ideas into the image?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RSL on February 26, 2011, 09:40:50 am
Joe, It depends on how the photographer represents his photograph. If he doesn't claim the picture shows things as they really are he can get away with all sorts of "artistic" manipulations. But if he's claiming the picture is a faithful representation of reality, it had better look like reality. Of course no picture ever is a faithful representation of reality, but in situations like street photography or photojournalism or even realistic landscape photography the photographer is bound to come up with pictures people can accept as representations of reality.

But in the end, a good gallery owner probably is going to reject an over-saturated color photograph because of its tackiness.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 26, 2011, 10:03:34 am
Russ,

I agree vis-a-vis photojournalism. If you're reporting news, or documenting then you should definitely avoid manipulation of elements in the photo. However, if you're producing a picture for someone to hang on their wall, I say anything goes. Again, why should we be bound to faithful representations of reality? There's a whole universe of images that can be beautiful with very little relation to reality. We see this all the time.

Some galleries will reject what you call tacky, others will eat it up, knowing their client base will buy it.

Maybe I'm just a frustrated painter wannabe :)
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 26, 2011, 10:39:25 am
Even Ansel Adams manipulated his images with super special techniques like dodging and burning ...
He even developed a so called zone system to cheat us all and get unrealistically perfect results ...
He had a manipulator camera which allowed changing the alignment of image plane and object plane to cheat when focusing .....
Hell ....
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 26, 2011, 11:43:36 am
We're discussing whether the etiology of an image matters in judgments of value.  To make the point, we consider cases where two images are identical, but have different etiology, and we consider cases where two images differ and where the etiology is also different.  In all cases, what the etiology is and what we know about it affects our judgments of value.  The only thing I think we've shown is that it is more than just the image that matters.  When it comes to other things, concerns of one kind or another (artistic value, provenance, etc) may trump other concerns about etiology.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 26, 2011, 12:08:28 pm
e·ti·ol·o·gy also ae·ti·ol·o·gy  (t-l-j)
n. pl. e·ti·ol·o·gies also ae·ti·ol·o·gies
1.
a. The study of causes or origins.
b. The branch of medicine that deals with the causes or origins of disease.
2.
a. Assignment of a cause, an origin, or a reason for something.
b. The cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis.

Luke,

To be honest I had to look up the word. I think we might both have it only half right. The origin of a photo is only a small part of the story. It is incomplete without the photographer's input.

I just happen to think that the photographer's input, additions, deletions and manipulations are far more important. Those are the things that make an image unique and differentiate us from one another.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 26, 2011, 12:57:37 pm
... If we consider photography to be an art, why should we have to adhere to the notion that the artist cannot inject his/her own ideas into the image?

I do not think that anyone here said you can not or should not. Certainly not me. As I already said in post #2:  I often introduce myself, and only half-jokingly, as a photoshopographer™.

My photographs, landscapes included, are often heavily photoshopped. Some are visibly so, some barely perceptible (at least to an untrained eye). One of my most photoshopped ones, where I spent countless hours manually blending two exposures, dodging and burning, and countless other local adjustments, turned out to be one of my most successful ones, ending on a cover as well. And yet I rarely got a question: "Was it photoshopped?". The closest comment to it was that it looks more like a painting. I like to believe that is a consequence of my quest for "believability", while manipulating a photograph.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2550316832_725468bcae_m.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/2550316832/)
Bass Harbor Lighthouse (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/2550316832/) by Slobodan Blagojevic (http://www.flickr.com/people/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2603617452_7e66d2ebcd_m.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/2603617452/)
Digital Photographer Cover (http://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/2603617452/) by Slobodan Blagojevic (http://www.flickr.com/people/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr

In other words, it is o.k. to manipulate an image, even heavily so, but we then cross into entirely different categories of photography, ranging from fine art to digital illustration, or to use examples, from Ansel Adams to Bert Monroy.

And not only we are talking about different categories, we are now talking about different classes of buyers too. Those who are excited by unspoiled nature, rare natural sights, unique natural beauty, are predominantly in love with the nature, not photographic art. And they want their nature presented with no or minimum manipulation (the likes of Peter Lik, Tom Mangelsen, and Michael Fatali). And apparently they are willing to pay millions for it. No matter what you and I think, whether Ansel is greater artist/photographer than, say, Peter Lik, buyers are voting with their money. We can argue until blue in the face that there is no reason why a heavily manipulated image should be less valuable, buyers apparently think otherwise. To use an example from the world of movies: is the biggest box-office hit of all times at the same time the best movie ever? I do not think so... but it did make the most money.

At the same time, there is another class of buyers, that would rather gouge their eyeballs out with a plastic spoon then put "yet another pretty mountain sunrise" on their walls, photoshopped or not. They would go for a different type of photography altogether (if at all).
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 26, 2011, 01:05:56 pm
Fair enough Slobodan,

Its difficult to argue with what you've said

Thank goodness, I don't have to concern myself with attracting buyers that are willing to spend millions :)
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 26, 2011, 01:25:17 pm
Unmanipulated = authentic, original nature
(Heavily) Photoshopped = forgery, fake nature

It does not matter if it is "the only version that is made public", what matters is the KNOWLEDGE it was manipulated.



Bullshit.  Complete, total, utter bullshit.

This 'it has to be unmanipulated to be pure' mantra is total nonsense and I'm frankly sick and tired of reading/hearing people pontificate about it.  Every photo is a manipulation of reality.  Every single one.  Whether it's through the choice of lens, framing, shutter speed, aperture every photo is a manipulation of reality and yes that includes PJ images.  

Similarly the idea that only a 'real' Picasso matters.  Do we know how many times he scraped paint off the canvas and started over?  Do we know how many times he painted over something to 'fix' it?  How many times he may have tossed the canvas into the trash and started over?  Insert any other artist for Picasso and the same questions apply.  Insert sketch artists and sculptors and the same questions apply.  What we see is the 'final' version of the work.  We have no idea how many attempts were made to get to that final, public version.  If you knew that Picasso had tossed out three earlier versions of his 'Blue Nude' would that make the final, public version less valuable?  Why should that be any different with photography?  In the two images of beach rocks, one is a copy of a RAW file straight out of the camera.  The second is a 'final' version after 'manipulating' it in the digital darkroom.  I added nothing.  I subtracted nothing.  I merely enhanced what already existed.  Everything in that second version was in the first, it just needed some work to be brought out.  Why is that so wrong in your view?  Let's take the argument even further.  Why should a photographer ever take more than one shot of a scene?  If every successive image is a cheap copy of the original, then we should only every photograph anything once.  We should never return to a spot many times over the years looking for that perfect lighting, perfect setting.  We should just go, shoot it once and be done with it.  'This is the best I can do because any other attempts will be pale imitations of this blah, flat, boring, completely lacking in any visual interest 'original'.

Your idea that the two images have to be the same is also fatally flawed.  If photographers are taken to task for cloning out a branch or inserting a moon, why aren't other visual artists held to the same standard?  Why is it OK for others but not for photographers?  

To move away from the extreme 'no manipulation, purity only' position for a moment and perhaps bring the discussion back to a more reasoned and realistic base; Luke's point is valid.  Origin should matter.  An image where the 'light window' doesn't exist naturally but is 'edited in' should be less valuable than an image where the 'light window' is naturally occurring.  There really should be no question about that.  And I wasn't questioning that with the original posting of this discussion.  My concern is of the, increasingly pervasive, mindset that assumes everything is a manipulation.  
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 26, 2011, 01:31:28 pm
e·ti·ol·o·gy also ae·ti·ol·o·gy  (t-l-j)
n. pl. e·ti·ol·o·gies also ae·ti·ol·o·gies
1.
a. The study of causes or origins.
b. The branch of medicine that deals with the causes or origins of disease.
2.
a. Assignment of a cause, an origin, or a reason for something.
b. The cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis.

Luke,

To be honest I had to look up the word. I think we might both have it only half right. The origin of a photo is only a small part of the story. It is incomplete without the photographer's input.

I just happen to think that the photographer's input, additions, deletions and manipulations are far more important. Those are the things that make an image unique and differentiate us from one another.
The photographer's input, additions, /reasons/, etc., are all a part of the etiology of the image.  

I used the word, obscure as it is in everyday use, to point to a thread in analytical philosophy, in the part of theory where these views are underwritten.  
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 26, 2011, 01:56:46 pm
Bullshit.  Complete, total, utter bullshit...

Classy... but it does not add any weight to your (mostly) straw-man arguments.

P.S. Have you read my reply #49?
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 26, 2011, 02:15:23 pm
I think there is no single rule concerning the value of modified images.  Not all unmodified images will be considered more valuable than modified images.  There is a certain amount of commonsense being appealed to in most judgments I would say.

I keep going back to Bob's original image.  So Bob captured a rare optical phenomenon in nature in his example by happening to be there in vivo at the right time.  You can examine the image more closely in the hope of discerning something special, of even learning just a little bit about the natural world.  You can feel privileged in its scarcity.  This is the play of the image upon the mind as stimulated by your knowledge of its causal history.  This is where the gallery owner, though he might have started out with some prejudice, began to see the possibility of selling the picture.  And there is where, plausibly, the buyer will scratch his chin and pull out his wallet.  Ultimately, you have to look at the etiology of the /sale/ separately, to understand what brought the buyer to the point of committing.

But this does not count against wholesale invention of an image, or extreme manipulation.  One has to examine those cases individually.  In some cases, the image will be judged to have an aesthetic value independent of whether or not it is a veridical representation.  In some cases, the image will fail aesthetically if it is judged to misrepresent itself, for example by the explicit or implicit suggestion that an image is a veridical image when it is not.

Back again to the two identical images depicting Jimmy Hoffa's murder, one imagined, and one real.  They might both have value, but their value would be based on different things.  The imagined image may evoke a shared cultural response and be considered a great work of art.  The real image, of course, would be one of the most historically valuable images ever made.  Only the etiology is different.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Kirk Gittings on February 26, 2011, 02:20:06 pm
To me the answer is simple. I am an artist not a copy machine. My traditional silver prints are highly expressive and by necessity highly manipulated. Why would my digital work be any different?

I have gotten into many arguments with photographers about this issue. Usually it comes up when I am looking at work in a gallery or on the web that is clearly manipulated but the photographer claims that it isn't. This seems especially common amongst color landscape photographers. I think people who deny their artistic intervention into an image are doing themselves, the profession and the public a profound disservice.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 26, 2011, 02:35:10 pm
To me the answer is simple. I am an artist not a copy machine. My traditional silver prints are highly expressive and by necessity highly manipulated. Why would my digital work be any different?

I have gotten into many arguments with photographers about this issue. Usually it comes up when I am looking at work in a gallery or on the web that is clearly manipulated but the photographer claims that it isn't. This seems especially common amongst color landscape photographers. I think people who deny their artistic intervention into an image are doing themselves, the profession and the public a profound disservice.
Usually (as well you know) these arguments that people engage you in are pitched in the wrong direction in the first place.  The aesthetics of your images clearly have to do with a love of form and beauty, and you are able to bring out the beauty in the architecture itself.  Clearly also, you do not misrepresent the real forms that you are photographing.  So there is considerable room for manipulation in this view that produces positive value. 

[PS--I like your work, and would go to your site more often if it didn't resize my browser window.]
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 26, 2011, 02:56:06 pm
We were writing at the same time, Slobodan.  Yours got posted just before mine.  I read it after I'd posted.

Based on what you wrote in the responses I was referencing when I wrote my last one, there was nothing straw-man about my comments.  I referenced your comments specifically and addressed what I felt was their validity (not much).  And, it does, quite honestly move away from what the original intent of the thread was.  

As far as whether you find the tenor of my response to be 'classy' or not, it doesn't matter.  My point was unambiguous and that was the intent so the purpose was served.

I've got an example similar to yours.  Probably many of us do.  Big deal.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/4078346466_dd1dd299ce_z.jpg)

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2661/4077959771_9038a9bd9a_z.jpg)

In this case, the editor didn't ask if the image was manipulated.  In point of fact, this is an HDR image.  The editor liked the image, felt it would work well with the theme of the issue and licensed it.  Terrific.  Similar to your Bass Harbor image, it's pretty much tailor made for that purpose due to the large areas of negative space.

Kirk, I would agree.  Disclosure and transparency are laudable.

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RSL on February 26, 2011, 03:58:16 pm
Some galleries will reject what you call tacky, others will eat it up, knowing their client base will buy it.

Joe, you're quite right, but I qualified my statement with the term "good gallery." Plenty of galleries, perhaps the majority of galleries, specialize in tacky art work.

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 26, 2011, 04:02:39 pm
That's getting into a very subjective area; however, in trying to determine what's 'tacky' and what isn't.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Joe Behar on February 26, 2011, 04:06:12 pm
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Elvis paintings on black velvet and dogs playing cards are in the tacky category, but apart from that I'm hesitant to make a call on tacky or classy.

Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RSL on February 26, 2011, 05:03:20 pm
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Elvis paintings on black velvet and dogs playing cards are in the tacky category

From what I've seen there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't agree.

Quote
but apart from that I'm hesitant to make a call on tacky or classy.

But I'm not.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: LKaven on February 26, 2011, 05:35:04 pm
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Elvis paintings on black velvet and dogs playing cards are in the tacky category, but apart from that I'm hesitant to make a call on tacky or classy.

Don't forget the practice of taking these artifacts and putting them in a new context where they will be subject to ironic interpretation.  The word "camp" comes to mind.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 26, 2011, 05:48:20 pm
... The editor liked the image, felt it would work well with the theme of the issue and licensed it...

If I want to be mean, I would say something like this: of course it worked well with the theme... "dreamscapes"... as dreams = unreal. Had you moved your sliders a bit more to the right, the editor would have had to change the title to: "nightmarescapes". But I do not want to be mean, so I will not say it.  ;)
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 27, 2011, 09:47:39 am
Yeah, now that's really classy too, Slobodan.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: JeffKohn on February 27, 2011, 01:31:35 pm
Quote
And they want their nature presented with no or minimum manipulation (the likes of Peter Lik, Tom Mangelsen, and Michael Fatali).
This is where I call BS. These guys sell Cibachrome prints from Velvia chromes, that in many cases were shot with on-camera filtration (polarizers, grads, maybe color-compensating filters). Just because they're not using photoshop, doesn't mean they're not enhancing their photos. Velvia colors can be called a lot of things, but accurate is not one of them (not with a straight face, anyway).

IMHO, to argue that a Fatali/Lik print is more "authentic" or "honest" than a digital photographer using curves, saturation, even exposure blending to achieve the same end result is utter nonsense. I'm sorry but I just don't see how anyone who knows anything about photography can honestly argue otherwise. The fact that Fatali/Lik have used such claims to increase sales just illustrates how many suckers are out there. IMHO Fatali/Lik are being disingenous at best when making such claims in their marketing.

Now if you want to argue that their photos are more "authentic" than somebody who added or removed objects to the image in a way that misrepresents the reality of the scene depicted, then OK I can agree with that. But it's not fair to assume that such manipulations have occurred to any image that has had computer post-processing done (which is what the anti-digital folks will often imply if not argue outright).
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2011, 01:57:29 pm
Yeah, now that's really classy too, Slobodan.

You know... being nasty and personal is not just your divine privilege. You opened the door.

P.S. I have very little interest in continuing this on a personal level, as the subject has nothing to do with me or you personally. It does raise some interesting and valid points, and I will continue to address them accordingly.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2011, 02:35:43 pm
What's considered manipulation ? What's considered too much ? Who decides ? Ever see the true original half dome of Ansel Adams and the print he did later ?

Michael, you might remember that I stated several times in the past that I love your photography, so nothing that I say about image manipulation in general should be interpreted as a comment on you or your photography.

The questions like these above have tortured mankind since the dawn of philosophy, and even today whole Phd dissertations could be written (and are) trying to answer it. But, for the purpose of this debate, I will limit my answers to my own rule of thumb:

What's considered manipulation? Like pornography, hard to define, but you'll know it when you see it.

What's considered too much? When they ask you: "Was it photoshopped?".

Who decides? Buyers.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 27, 2011, 03:56:27 pm
You know... being nasty and personal is not just your divine privilege. You opened the door.

P.S. I have very little interest in continuing this on a personal level, as the subject has nothing to do with me or you personally. It does raise some interesting and valid points, and I will continue to address them accordingly.

There was nothing 'nasty' in my remarks.  You don't want your arguments torn apart, make better arguments.  There was nothing ad hominem in my remarks either.  If you think there are valid points being raised, I invite you to address them.  You haven't as of yet.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 27, 2011, 04:18:15 pm
There was nothing 'nasty' in my remarks.  You don't want your arguments torn apart, make better arguments.  There was nothing ad hominem in my remarks either.  If you think there are valid points being raised, I invite you to address them.  You haven't as of yet.

If you consider labeling my arguments as "Bullshit.  Complete, total, utter bullshit" constitutes "tearing them apart" and not nasty and personal, then we live on different planets. If you called my posted examples "big deal" sarcastically, and if you told me that I have no idea what I am talking about, and you do not consider that nasty and personal, then we live on different planets.

As whether I addressed any of the valid points raised, and how well, I will leave to others to judge. However, the fact that you did not like what I said is a completely different matter.
Title: Re: Is This What It's Come To?
Post by: RFPhotography on February 27, 2011, 05:10:24 pm
.