"My friends like 1b better than 1a and so do I."
"To aid me in facing this ethical problem..."
maybe minor dodging/burning.
I find it interesting though that most people I talk to about photography value unmanipulated photographs higher than the manipulated ones. People still value the truth more than they value Photoshop wizardry.
... Why now is a camera's jpg engine's rendition suddenly the holy grail?...
Also, in the public's eye "Photoshop" seems to be synonymous with manipulation.
Merriam-Webster Definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photoshop) of PHOTOSHOP: to alter (a digital image) with Photoshop software or other image-editing software especially in a way that distorts reality (as for deliberately deceptive purposes)
That's the controversy over the current WPP winning photo that has undergone significant manipulation, and that was manipulated heavily from the version that was originally published to the version that was submitted to the competition.
As for that controversy it was proven to be false.
Was that ever a rule in the darkroom days? Really? Did Life magazine or Magnum have a rule that you can't burn and dodge your pictures? Why now is a camera's jpg engine's rendition suddenly the holy grail?
As for that controversy it was proven to be false. However it does show the lie of why there is any point of claiming that a photo can show a truth. Case in point I doubt it was published alongside the funeral of the pregnant woman, her husband and children from the other side of that conflict. As such however true a photographer may be, the objectivity or truth of the photo is only as true as how it is represented and what the bias is of whatever media is showing the image. One side of the media is right wing, the other left wing but I don't think I've ever heard of a truly objective centre. So what does it matter? The photo may be pure but the way it will be used is rarely so. Might as well not bother IMO, it's all lies, all agendas, it's why I don't bother with the news any more, nothing new under the sun...
You're talking about the WPP issue? Proven to be false? Where?
"It is clear that the published photo was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing."
Digital photography experts confirm the integrity of Paul Hansen’s image files (http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/digital-photography-experts-confirm-integrity-paul-hansen-image-files)
Yeah, I've read that. Read it many days ago. It's one person's (or rather two) opinion.
... Hansen admitted to multi-processing the RAW file and merging the three images. That's compositing...
No, it is not.
I guess you'll believe what you want to believe :-)
(Belief is always the default, because the only reason people look at photographs is because of the long-standing implicit guarantee that this is a slice of reality. "This is something I haven't seen, and therefore I'm interested.")
In the case of "nature photography," the problem is...
... but I don't believe any kind of default-based false claim is being made merely by cloning out a power line and putting the result on a gallery wall. Whether any kind of aesthetic offence is being committed is of course another question.
Ben, I don't agree. If you're using different parts of different images, even of the same scene, and combining them - via automated software or manually - that's a composite image.
I think we need to regain the Victorians' sophisticated view of the art of photography.
Like many professional photographers, Avedon maintained a subtle and nuanced view of photographic veracity. He recognized that the exquisite realism of the camera image is often taken as a guarantee of authenticity, and he warned repeatedly against the common tendency to accept photographs at face value, summing up his views with his famous line, "All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
Substantial is Subjective. A photograph is created when light falls on a light sensitive surface. Why is it so confusing to people that when you begin to move some pixels and grossly alter (also subjective) the scene or original file or frame, then it is no longer a photograph, but now an Illustration or art piece of some kind.
"The minute you pick up the camera you begin to lie -- or to tell your own truth," he said. "You make subjective judgements every step of the way -- in how you light the subject, in choosing the moment of exposure, in cropping the print. It's just a matter of how far you choose to go."
Richard Avedon 1967, p157 Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop (http://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC)This exhibition was just at the National Gallery of Art here in Washington DC. Alas it closed on May 5. My photographer friend and I spent about 2 hours walking through and looking at all the images and it was fascinating. As I recall the earliest images were from the Civil War and about 95% of what was on display predated Photoshop.
It's the same scene, same picture, same RAW file, same pixels captured during the same single split second. I don't understand why you insist on calling it a composite? Applying different layers to an image (which is essentially what he did) is not and has never been called compositing however much you would like it to be.
As I recall the earliest images were from the Civil War ...
Compare the original as published to the one entered for WPP.
There probably are readers who haven't seen the photos, so -- World Press Photo of the Year 2012 vs Photo published in Dagens Nyheter (http://cdn.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/02/world-press-photo.jpeg)
So, what exactly is the controversy here?
Thanks, Isaac.
So, what exactly is the controversy here? Which one is manipulated more? Which one was published first (I assume the more colorful one)? To me, the difference looks like the difference between, say, Canon's Landscape camera profile (the bottom image) and the Neutral profile (top image). In that sense, the WWP one appears to be less "manipulated." What exactly is the "big deal" here?
Both photos show a very obvious distortion of reality. The walls are leaning precariously outwards. They look as though they are about to collapse any second.
... it shouldn't be a winning image due to the extent of the manipulation. Looking at the two images, particularly the rollover linked below, I don't buy that the images match up pixel for pixel...
The "aesthetic offence" would be not cloning out the 150' pine tree that blocked a lake view.I know what you mean. But that depends on your aesthetics. I have a bit of a soft spot for landscapes that leave in (or even clone in) the coke bottle or the power line.
I have a bit of a soft spot for landscapes that leave in (or even clone in) the coke bottle or the power line.
Looking at the two images, particularly the rollover linked below, I don't buy that the images match up pixel for pixel.
There probably are readers who haven't seen the photos, so -- World Press Photo of the Year 2012 vs Photo published in Dagens Nyheter (http://cdn.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/02/world-press-photo.jpeg)It looks about like the difference between Velvia and Provia: is one of those films unethical?
I'll repeat what I said in my first post, in a somewhat different form. You can do anything you want with your pixels, and I don't have a problem with any of it. What I have a problem with is when somebody says "I didn't manipulate these pixels," but he did. Most of the older fim-era manipulations aren't really problems because they're obvious.
So, what exactly is the controversy here? [...]. " What exactly is the "big deal" here?The "big deal" is that the photograph depicts something that some parties find politically uncoomfortable, hence the concerted campaign to de-legitimise it.
Good point, Ray. Looks like a perspective issue, due to the use of super wide-angle lens. However, we all know that focal length does not have any impact on perspective. Or does it, Ray? ;) ;D
The "big deal" is that the photograph depicts something that some parties find politically uncoomfortable, hence the concerted campaign to de-legitimise it.
Politics, that's just what this thread needs.Was already there, I think, since someone wrote ...
Right.
Only photographers.
Or only geeks.
Or only geek photographers...
... would argue that the power of a photo, showing children as casualties of war, stems from the pixel position.
???
Stirring the pot are we? My point was that in general no photo could lay claim to being an objective truth unless presented as such. Making claims as to the politics of posters is just trolling at this point.No stirring - just pointing out that your comment was misplaced, since you had already yourself introduced politics into the thread. Likewise your accusation of trolling misses the mark - nobody is making any claims about the politics of posters here, only about the politics of those who whipped up this storm in a teacup.
Slobodan,
My guess is the photographer did not use a lens that was wide enough. If he had, he wouldn't have needed to point his camera downwards, thus creating that impression that the walls are toppling over.
I don't think you can go to such an extreme to say that photography is purely subjective.
Photography is subjective. That is it fundamental nature.
Or that he was in an elevated position relative to the crowd.
Ray, such corrections would not be permitted in a documentary or PJ image.
In photography, most people still feel that it is a slice of reality snapped in a fraction of a second. We stop the clock and make a copy of an instant in time. 90% of pictures taken by the average person are not manipulated.I could only speculate about what most people feel. You may have a better source of information. I do know quite a few young people whose camera is their cell phone, who take manipulation through camera apps entirely for granted, whose images often look manipulated and who are a long way from either assuming or expecting that photographs depict any kind of unmediated reality.
IMO there is no such thing as an unmanipulated digital photograph. You either let the camera defaults do the manipulating or you do it yourself.
I could only speculate about what most people feel. You may have a better source of information. I do know quite a few young people whose camera is their cell phone, who take manipulation through camera apps entirely for granted, whose images often look manipulated and who are a long way from either assuming or expecting that photographs depict any kind of unmediated reality.
IMO there is no such thing as an unmanipulated digital photograph. You either let the camera defaults do the manipulating or you do it yourself.
... IMO there is no such thing as an unmanipulated digital photograph. You either let the camera defaults do the manipulating or you do it yourself.
With all due respect, Ken, this is just plain ridiculous...Slobodan, in calling default JPEGs manipulated, I am certainly stretching the meaning of the word, to make a point - the point being that in default JPEGs, settings have already been chosen by the software engineers for all the variables that are used for basic manipulation in post processing (brightness, contrast, color, saturation, sharpening, noise reduction etc), that they could have chosen different settings, and the photographer can usually adjust those settings inside the camera as well as outside it. Put that way, it sounds bleeding obvious, but I think it is worth pointing out as part of an argument against the view that what comes out of the camera has some special status as truth which is diluted by anything done in post-processing.
Degree matters...But I do not call default jpegs "manipulated." Which brings us back to the matter of opinion. Mine is that yours is ridiculous, and I am sure you think the same ;)
Bob,
Such non-corrections and distortions which are so obvious in the unaltered image I showed, will not be permitted by me. I would not be interested in submitting any of my photos to a documentary or photo journal, or photo competition, that have rules that exclude sensible corrections but allow ridiculous distortions that are sometimes produced by camera and lens.
IMO there is no such thing as an unmanipulated digital photograph. You either let the camera defaults do the manipulating or you do it yourself.
...why restrict it to digital. In the context you raise, there is no such thing as an unmanipulated photograph...
Whether such distortions would be permitted by you is, in the context, irrelevant. Whether you would submit images to a competition that had such stringent rules is, in the context, irrelevant. Whether you would work in the realm of documentary or journalistic photography is, in the context irrelevant.
The brain doesn't see in HDR. It allocates brightness, shadow, contrast. HDR flattens that out something the brain doesn't do. This is why so much of HDR looks unnatural.
Then there is no hope for such organisations that consider sensible opinion irrelevant.
The HDR camera-process requires multiple shots with different exposures. The eye and the brain also takes multiple shots with different exposures. Such shots are stored in the brain so the mind can create a composite image of the scene we might intend to photograph.
Indeed. In the context you raise, let me expand my previous statement as well: it is double ridiculous ;D
The eye, but not the brain, takes multiple shots with different exposures. That's the purpose of the eye's iris that acts like a diaphragm to limit the light. As long as the iris stay the same, the brain gets the same exposure for all parts of what the eye sees. The parts that are not focused on do not change in brightness as long as the diaphragm stays the same. Even if you were to focus on a shadow area and allow the iris to change, it mostly does not show the details within the shadow.
When you use HDR to open the shadows, you're seeing something in the photo that the eye isn't ordinarily seeing. You are compressing the range so that the darkest darks and lightest lights are closer together than the eye and brain sees. HDR overdoes the lighting range by compressing it beyond what the eye itself can do.That's why HDR shots look unnatural.
Oh bloody hell.
... Redirect your gaze..
If the question is how to get a picture showing "truth", then artificially limiting post processing is not the answer.I suppose we should also demand that the photgrapher includes an area around his subject so we can be sure that the impact of the photograph has not been enhanced by careful composition (as in, for example, the photos of the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein at Firdos Square http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/fird-a12.html ).
If your eyes, however, look at the scene that contains both very bright areas and deep shadows, without "redirecting your gaze," than you will see clearly either one or the other, but not both.That's true, Slobodan is correct here however the native DR of vision is still greater than almost (all?) cameras commercially available so it would not contradict, in principle, the rationale for HDR.
Ray, Why don't you post your HDR pictures and show how it's done right?
Ray, aren't you contradicting yourself with this? If you "redirect" your lens to a shadow area, autoexposure will compensate for it, just like our eyes do.
If your eyes, however, look at the scene that contains both very bright areas and deep shadows, without "redirecting your gaze," than you will see clearly either one or the other, but not both.
... the native DR of vision is still greater than almost (all?) cameras commercially available so it would not contradict, in principle, the rationale for HDR.
Also when one takes into consideration that our vision is very dynamic, flitting around a scene very rapidly without our being aware of it. This hugely increases the apparent DR of our vision.
Tony Jay
Hi Tony,I think there are 2 separate issues:
While technically correct, I would still dispute (up to a point) that our perception equals HDR rendering. When I was in Louvre, one of the big surprises (for me) is how dark the shadows are in many of the classical painting there. I guess old masters had a better idea how humans see than we photographers today (or shall I add HDR photographers).
So I tried the following experiment myself: I would look at a sunset sky with some trees and forest in the foreground, and, as long as I directed my gaze toward the bright part of the sky, the bottom, trees and forest, DID look like a silhouette, i.e., very dark. I would only be able to see details there if I "redirected the gaze" as Ray said. That's why I am arguing against the idea that our vision "justifies" HDR. Not that I am always against it, especially as an artistic tool. But the tool of "truthiness" it ain't :)
I think there are 2 separate issues:
1. What does our eye/brain see in a fraction of a second, and
2. What do we recall of a scene viewed for a few minutes...
I would agree with that.Yes, exactly.
I would assume that in #2, by "viewed for a few minutes" you meant that our eyes wandered around the scene, redirecting the gaze, AND paused long enough to adjust to different brightness. If, as in my example, you just keep staring for a few minutes at the same scene, it is not going change anything in our perception, i.e., the trees and forest would still be a silhouette.
While technically correct, I would still dispute (up to a point) that our perception equals HDR rendering.I would certainly NOT say that our perception equals HDR rendering.
The HDR rendering process is massively subjective and a lot of the resulting images make us shudder - mainly because the rendering so clearly portrays a scene in a way that is unnatural to our visual perception.IMO, the usual problem with "over the top" HDR is not so much the overall dynamic range as it is excessive local contrast and strange color. Done carefully I think it is fair to say that HDR does go some way towards duplicating the dynamic range of vision, given that when we look carefully at a landscape with significant shadow (or bright areas) we often do focus in to extract detail rather than simply giving the landscape an overall glance.
The HDR rendering process is massively subjective and a lot of the resulting images make us shudder - mainly because the rendering so clearly portrays a scene in a way that is unnatural to our visual perception.The white clipping and black noise-masking of LDR cameras is massively subjective and a lot of the resulting images should make us shudder - mainly because the rendering so clearly portrays a scene in a way that is unnatural to our visual perception. The reason why so many seems to accept it is (in my view) a result of cultural training, and not because it is inherently a "natural" mapping to our vision.
Who looks into shadows to see unimportant and barely recognizeable things? We don't do that with our eyes and brain. Why should we care to do it in a phtograph? Also, black portions of a photo add contrast making the photo "jump" out and be interesting. Flattening makes it boring as well as unnatural looking.
I think what's happending with HDR is that because we can do it (technologically), we think there is an advantage. But just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should. Often a light hand is better than a heavy one.
Who looks into shadows to see unimportant and barely recognizeable things? We don't do that with our eyes and brain. Why should we care to do it in a phtograph? Also, black portions of a photo add contrast making the photo "jump" out and be interesting. Flattening makes it boring as well as unnatural looking.HDR is only a tool, just like 100 megapixel cameras is. And just like megapixels, the output medium/viewing conditions can be a severe limit on what gains can be had.
I think what's happending with HDR is that because we can do it (technologically), we think there is an advantage. But just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should. Often a light hand is better than a heavy one.
So-called HDR images aren't. The tonemapped result of a merging of a bracketed series of source images at different exposure settings is an LDR image, not HDR. The LDR image doesn't mimic the way vision works because it's still a static image. Vision is dynamic. No static image process is going to be able to mimic human vision. Video can come close but we don't like the look of it because it's too slow. The time it takes for a camera recording video - on some auto setting - to react to changes in light is much longer than it takes our eyes and as a result we don't like the way it looks. Similarly the time it takes to adjust a VND filter or aperture on the fly in response to changing light is too slow. But that's really the only process that can remotely come close to approximating human vision.In my view, a regular LDR camera might be seen as a HDR camera with fixed tonemapping (clip whites, bury shadows in noise).
The problem with the debate on ethics is that it's such a broad subject and goes beyond just PJ type reportage shots. The biggest grumble is you're either a PP nut or a purist there is no middle ground. The reality is for some folks (quite a lot) they are very much in the middle ground, ie ok with some processing, but not into major manipulation or rendering type digital art.
When it "goes beyond just PJ type reportage shots" into the grumbles you describe, it's mutated from a debate on ethics into a debate on aesthetics where personal preferences are inflated into moral absolutes.Right on!
With HDR again there are 2 types, a more sensible trying to get more DR using multiple image, and a major render job that IMO frankly looks awful. It's just a fad people go through same as the selective colour phase and heavy vignette added in post. The problem with the debate on ethics is that it's such a broad subject and goes beyond just PJ type reportage shots. The biggest grumble is you're either a PP nut or a purist there is no middle ground. The reality is for some folks (quite a lot) they are very much in the middle ground, ie ok with some processing, but not into major manipulation or rendering type digital art.
Count me as firmly in the middle ground. I'm not a fan of what I consider to be over-processing. But neither do I consider it valid to proscribe to other people what they should & shouldn't do to or with their photos. When I read or hear the word should applied to photography, my dander goes up. There are no shoulds in creative pursuits. Violating norms is typically how people make creative breakthroughs. It may also lead to torrents of garbage...but that's okay. If we get 10 Salgados for every 90 Gurskys (feel free to reverse those figures based on your particular taste) it's worth it.
-Dave-
When it "goes beyond just PJ type reportage shots" into the grumbles you describe, it's mutated from a debate on ethics into a debate on aesthetics where personal preferences are inflated into moral absolutes.
Ethics are an issue be it a landscape shot or a photo for a magazine/news article.
I'm not out to capture pure reality, but I'm not here to create myths either. Adding/removing elements to a landscape shot are def no no's for me. Others can do as you wish.
... Aesthetics is not the word I use, it's well beyond that I'm afraid.
Anyone can argue every photo is processed (weak argument and too general)
We all make choices even at the capture stage, from the lens/aperture used, exposure, composition is by it's nature "selective".
Whether or not an individual photo looks (over)processed is another question.
Because...?
So it's a matter of personal preferences.
So it's a matter of personal preferences inflated into moral absolutes :-(
Adding/removing elements is deceitful and some would say cheating.
...and who imposed those rules?
...and present it as something you actually saw...That is the potentially deceptive bit. But you don't present a photograph as something you actually saw just by publishing it, unless it is in photojournalism or related contexts . Most viewers are much more sophisticated than that. Alteration in a landscape photograph is morally objectionable only if it is being used to advertise the landscape itself for sale. Otherwise, it is all aesthetics (where viewers evaluate photographs against their aesthetic preferences and not against "reality") and the personal preferences of photographers (which are entirely their business until they start attempting to foist them on others as moral principles, as too many can't resist doing).
Unlike art where the "picture" comes from the artist's head, a photograph captures light in a slice of time never to be repeated again.
"Profoundly dedicated to pure photography, [Frederick H. Evans] never altered the printing of negatives for aesthetic effects; rather, the eloquence of his images comes from his ability to capture the supremely expressive viewpoint at the most telling moment of light and shadow."
A Sea of Steps, Wells Cathedral, Stairs to Chapter House and Bridge to Vicar's Close (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/66293.html), 1903
Unlike art where the "picture" comes from the artist's head, a photograph captures light in a slice of time never to be repeated again. When you change the objects that are in that picture, and present it as something you actually saw as opposed to photo art, you are fooling the observers who normally think what they see is what you captured. You're messing with God's work!
IME younger folks already get it.
Unlike art where the "picture" comes from the artist's head, a photograph captures light in a slice of time never to be repeated again. When you change the objects that are in that picture, and present it as something you actually saw as opposed to photo art, you are fooling the observers who normally think what they see is what you captured. You're messing with God's work!
Are you suggesting, Alan that only 'manipulated' photos can be considered as art?
It's this type that bothers me. Doesn't it bother you just a little?Good question, which I will take the liberty of answering as well. The answer is no, certainly when it comes to white horses which are a cliche of advertising and hence pretty much certain to have been photoshopped, and also in relation to other landscape photography. The reason is that I think of all landscape photography as being essentially artificial and fictional, as telling a story about the natural world to please viewers rather than as reproducing it.
Isaac, earlier on in the discussion we were talking about PJ.
Good question, which I will take the liberty of answering as well. The answer is no, certainly when it comes to white horses which are a cliche of advertising and hence pretty much certain to have been photoshopped, and also in relation to other landscape photography. The reason is that I think of all landscape photography as being essentially artificial and fictional, as telling a story about the natural world to please viewers rather than as reproducing it.
"The lie begins in the camera." See my blog "Dirty Tricks or Photographic Arts." www.artsconflicted.wordpress.com
(http://www.artsconflicted.wordpress.com)
... Third, fuck dictionary definitions and open your mind.
I think it's time for some folks to brush on their dictionary skills here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation
Photo manipulation (also called photoshopping or—before the rise of Photoshop software—airbrushing) is the application of image editing techniques to photographs in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means
That's quite a clear definition and the Wiki article demonstrated what manipulation means and many examples.
Now what that has to do with what many of us do, is basically nothing at all! Pretty much closed case. Adjustment or even enhancement are not manipulation, how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. It is very obvious to most of us, so maybe you guys who don't understand can try to convey what's so hard to grasp. You seem to apply an inappropriate term for describing all forms of processing being it in camera, at a lab with a roll of film, or do normal editing in software/raw. They are not manipulation that is quite obvious.
So again I reject the term all photos are lies, this is not the case.
When you catch a thief...
...Please explain where one ends and the other begins?...
... The nub of the issue remains unanswered -- What rules do you think are being broken and who imposed those rules?
To what exactly? Your point of view?
Another sophist-in-residence?
Another sophist-in-residence?
NGEO wants the raw with meta data. Any manipulation disqualifies the submission.
Ah, the sophists have joined the debate!
The eternal questions of the mankind:
How long is a piece of string?
What's pornography?
What's love? when does it begin and when it ends?
In all the above, the answer is simple: hard to define, but we all know it when we see it. It is even a part of a legal doctrine: "what most reasonable people would consider true."
The very lens that you chose will lie.
NGEO wants the raw with meta data. Any manipulation disqualifies the submission [from publication].
OK, so no one wants to consider the question of why anyone would or would not publish raw date alongside the post processed photograph...
Yes, in this thread.
There are cheaters and there are truthers. Period.
Cheaters believe everything is a lie and everybody cheats. Truthers believe there is a fundamental expectation of veracity in photography, and if you breach that expectation you should say so.
Just like between believers and non-believers, Leitz fans and Zeiss fans, medium format fans and FredBGG, gun nuts and gun-control nuts, etc. any dialog is futile.
First, I think that, yes, we all understand the technical definition.
Second, no educational institution will permit students to cite Wikipedia as a research source.
Third, fuck dictionary definitions and open your mind.
National Geographic Photography Contest
There are cheaters and there are truthers. Period.
And there's the fallacy known as false dichotomy.
Does NG publish the RAW no-manipulation photos or does NG post-process before publication?
Oh, I am sorry, I forgot there is the third kind: semantic masturbators.
"Ken, extending your analogy, a film photographer should credit Fuji for the excessive saturation of Velvia, or Tiffen for the polarizer which led to the lack of reflections, or .... To borrow a word: Bushwa!"
Yep, way back in the last century,( I love writing that) it was required practice to disclose camera settings, film specs, filters and always ALWAYS have the negative available. Not, I'm afraid, Bushwa.
Ken Richmond
Ray, I fail to see any way in which that essay adds to the discussion.
Constructive Alternativism, let's try it backwards. Suppose I take a photograph, print it out on matte canvas, then tediously paint over it, matching all color with acrylic? It is surely a painting, it could be art, but if any part of the intent of the painter is to have a viewer or purchaser believe the image was entirely of his mind, there is an ethical departure. He's painting by numbers - numbers that were put there by a mechanical/electronic process for which he is ethically forbidden to claim credit.
Ken Richmond
Where? Bob, you're straining somewhat defensively here. Everywhere you wanted to be published. You sent the negative and any dodgng/burning was done either in a lab or in house. Are you telling us you have never camera settings and lens information under published photography? How old are you? Exif data is not on negatives, what are you talking about anyway?
Someone/anyone takes the time to write a brief thoughtful essay and you pick out a single sentence to launch ballistically. Give us all a break and respond as thoughtfully. I'm vitally interested in your reasoned opinion and consideration of each of the ideas I proposed.
BTW I have elaborate and very convincing sets in my digs that magically transport live subjects to dramatic locations, so this entire subject in one of intense interest to me. Why cloud it with: (1) Contempt (2) uninformed criticism (3) Defensiveness?
Ken Richmond
'Camera obscura' forbidden?
I guess the world's museums should start burning quite a bit of their art works. :)
Nobody is arguing that it isn't appropriate to fully disclose how an image was made or that making images in certain ways shouldn't preclude them from consideration in certain contexts. National Geographic essentially does photojournalism with nature as the subject and appropriately forbids certain kinds of manipulation. Art photographers may have very different objectives which don't involve any claim that the image records a specific scene at a single moment. Their ethical obligation is satisfied by telling the truth in artist statements and in response to questions. What puzzles me in all this is how easily some people slide from describing their own approach to derogatory descriptions of different approaches. Photography is nothing if not a richly diverse practice.
What puzzles me in all this is how easily some people slide from describing their own approach to derogatory descriptions of different approaches.
When you lift the photograph to the wall it boils down to intent. NGEO has it just about right, there shouldn't be any deception. Why are you putting it up there?
"Ken, if you'd extract your cranium from your anal sphincter you'd see that what I was saying was that all those things you mention are included automatically with digital."
You write as tho' you might have been drinking more than I did last nite. Look, I set forth 4 ideas and you respond with one liners. If your response to those critical of photoshopping images is that "I photoshop until my client is satisfied with the product." or "I photoshop until I'm satisfied with the product and hope that others who view it are as moved as I am by the result." or "I photoshopped it because I think I can improve the reality." does not answer the question I'm seeking an answer to. The issue you fail to address is the subject of the thread: Ethics. You obviously feel that you have identified all of the related issues and have satisfied yourself that they are resolved to your satisfaction.
Exactly what is the purpose of participating in the thread? Is it to share an opinion with factual and logical support and await reasoned responses? Or is it better to sling insults back and forth? How does the quote above advance anything here?
Ken Richmond
Perhaps I don't feel the need to write a novel where a line or two will suffice. Odd for me actually because I'm generally fairly verbose. But said verboseness is also within the bounds of making a direct point and not prattling on merely for the sake of prattling.
WRT the idea of ethics, I have addressed it quite extensively through the course of the last 10 pages. I agree with the NG approach for their purposes. I've stated, quite clearly, that when it comes to journalism and documentary there should be very minimal post-capture work done. I've said that when it comes to advertising/commercial I'm pretty liberal although I think the concept of truth in advertising has value. I've said when it comes to art, all is fair game. All that can be found by a quick read through this discussion. I've said that competition organisers can put in place any rules they want and if one doesn't agree with the rules, one doesn't have to enter the competition.
Insofar as the bit you quoted above, I really don't care whether you find it tasteful or useful or anything else. I find obtuse statements and arguments boring and entirely unuseful. References to arcane concepts from 'the good ol' days' don't advance the discussion and are, as I pointed out, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant today.
I suggest one read their "comments on manipulation". One may argue whether NGEO is a photographic standard setter, but there is no argument about their distaste for image manipulation. The un-manipulated images they select and publish are evidence enough of skillful, artistic photography. As journalism? I don't think so, but it's arguable.
"...A message about digital manipulation from the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic magazine:
Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real, and that capture those special moments in time. The world is already full of visual artifice, and we don’t want the National Geographic Photography Contest to add to it. We want to see the world through your eyes, not the tools of Photoshop or setup photography.
Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs (beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness). If you have digitally added or removed anything, please don't submit the shot. We look at every photo to see if it's authentic, and if we find that yours is in any way deceptive, we'll disqualify it. In case of the winners, we will ask for the RAW files, if available, to be submitted for review.
DODGING AND BURNING: Dodging (to brighten shadows) or burning (to darken highlights) is fine, but please don’t overdo it. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be to adjust the dynamic tonal range of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw.
COLOR SATURATION: Just as with dodging and burning, your goal should be to make it real. Please avoid significant over- or under-saturation. A lot of photographers make the mistake of over-saturating color, making their images look cartoonish.
Ken Richmond
The reason that NatGeo follows rules especially for their magazine is that the photos support the written article. If the photo is phony, then no one will believe the article. NatGeo would lose it's audience.
"...A message about digital manipulation from the Executive Editor of Photography at National Geographic magazine:
Please submit photographs that are un-manipulated and real ...
DODGING AND BURNING: Dodging (to brighten shadows) or burning (to darken highlights) is fine, but please don’t overdo it. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be to adjust the dynamic tonal range of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw.
...
HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR) IMAGES: NOT Acceptable
I agree that National Geographic has a somewhat documentary mission, so it makes sense to restrict the extent of manipulation in a way that would be over-restrictive for other more "creative" areas of photography.
But am I the only one who sees an inconsistency in allowing modest dodging and burning while totally forbidding HDR processing?
When they talk about HDR, I do not believe they are talking about the tone manipulation as much as the blending of images. I would say that using multiple images to create one image is a can of worms they do not want to open...in the interests of journalistic realism.
... It is interesting that they don't allow fisheye lenses except underwater. I don't see what the difference is, really....
The NatGeo rules also include:
STITCHED PANORAMAS: NOT Acceptable
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/
I'd agree with that, but would say it also likely includes tonemapping to prevent people sending in the 'bad' type of HDR. That would, I think, be consistent with their requirements vis a vis solarization and the like. It is interesting that they don't allow fisheye lenses except underwater. I don't see what the difference is, really.
It's interesting with all this reference to NatGeo and it's standards, I seem to recall some controversy around some of their photos in the past.
When they talk about HDR, I do not believe they are talking about the tone manipulation as much as the blending of images. I would say that using multiple images to create one image is a can of worms they do not want to open...in the interests of journalistic realism.That might be the intention, but the rule is too rigid: it seems to allow manipulations like using a grad ND filter, but not handling the same situation with two exposures taken a faction of a second apart with the camera on a tripod. The rules would be better if they addressed primarily the end goal of realism, as in NG's words about dodging and burning: "Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be to to adjust the dynamic tonal range of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw."
Thanks, I agree.
It is just a shame that people use NG standards as a definition for wall art.
That might be the intention, but the rule is too rigid: it seems to allow manipulations like using a grad ND filter, but not handling the same situation with two exposures taken a faction of a second apart with the camera on a tripod. The rules would be better if they addressed primarily the end goal of realism, as in NG's words about dodging and burning: "Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be to to adjust the dynamic tonal range of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw."
"If you want your work to represent your own truth, embrace the lies and lie like you mean it! No product of human conception can objectively contain all the dimensions of an experience. And if it could it would not be art since it will leave it up to the viewer to decide for themselves how to interpret and feel about it. In my mind, art and objectivity do not mix. An artist is one who creates meaning, who expresses their own personal sensibilities and relays their own inspiration through their work. If an image represents “reality” in an objective fashion, by definition it cannot be “art” since it expressly excludes the artist’s personal interpretation..." Guy Tal
I very much like the spirit of this paragraph... I'm guessing one may appreciate it most if the spontaneous conscious impulse as one breathes out on making a capture has already been experienced almost as poetry during still and quiet rests in heightened awareness.
Bob, I understand what you are saying.
It may just be me, but I look at tone mapping or manipulation as everything from brightness/contrast, highlight/shadows, dodge/burn, curves, etc. up to the most sophisticated HDR routines.
John, I completely disagree. Surprising, right? ;D Where is the moral imperative to disclose what was done in an artistic image? Art is an entirely subjective arena. Gursky created the scene as he saw it, or wanted to see it. The goal, with documentary/PJ is to try and maintain objectivity....
Who has time to entertain "Photographers" who photoshop an image? Get lost! your not a photographer and can't cut it as one. Your a photoshop techician and have to rely on Jeff to get an acceptable product. You don't belong in the same category. Find another forum!
Take a photograph and get it right the first time to show me you know what your doing the first time. Otherwise you suck as a photographer. How's that?
Ken Richmond
Fisheye gives a circular image. They may not want it for aesthetic and editorial reasons but willing to go along because of the nature of underwater photography. I wonder if that is their reason?
... Whyu would nuyou faile mton dislcose your phototoshopping? Ashamend? m Fet the f out pof everybodies life. You contribute nothing to thew discussion. Gp Pjotodshope an picture and leave.!
A bunch of us here have a few Ipads out watching this thread as the studio fills with sherry cask aroma from aged Irish refreshments.
John, I completely disagree. Surprising, right? ;D Where is the moral imperative to disclose what was done in an artistic image? Art is an entirely subjective arena. Gursky created the scene as he saw it, or wanted to see it. The goal, with documentary/PJ is to try and maintain objectivity.
I'd suggest a read of this essay by Guy Tal, http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/02/12/lie-like-you-mean-it/.
...To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.
... that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera.
Meanwhile, let's see if Bob Fisher, the scatological clown, has courage enough to post his be pre and post photoshop work for all of us to evaliuate for "veracity" and "ethics>
Ken Richmond
Okay, I read the essay, and you know, it doesn't do much for me, because it doesn't reach any kind of defensible conclusion. Like you, I think all kinds of artifice is allowable in art. (I'm more of a painter than a photographer, and though my images look somewhat realistic, they obviously aren't an image of any scene that anybody's ever experienced.) But photography presents a peculiar and singular problem: that is, since its inception, photos have been presented as images of a certain kind of objective reality. It hasn't always been that, and there have been manipulations from the beginning, but of the billions of photos taken since the beginning, probably 99 percent are unmanipulated, straight-out-of-the-camera family photos, cat photos, snapshots, etc. Few iPhone photos are post-processed, because that's not what iPhone photos are for. And it's true, as Tal said, that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera. So: the default position of a photo is that it's unmanipulated. It always has been that, and in general, manipulations before Photoshop were self-disclosing.
Art photos may either be manipulated or unmanipulated. Either is equally acceptable.
However, if you present for sale a landscape photo that gives every appearance of being unmanipulated, which is the default state of out-of-camera photographs, and in fact you manipulated, but then essentially deny the manipulation, you're being unethical. You're lying. Painters essentially can't lie about the images in their works: the images are what they are, individual creations that spring from the minds of the artists. But photographers, because of the peculiar mechanical method of making a photo, and because of photography's history as an "objective" medium, can lie, and they do, and that behavior is unethical. It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying.
To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.
Scato-Bob gets no more slack on the scam scale. I've got a new hobby - watching his posts for insult opportunities.
Ken Richmond
"The point with artistic photography is that it shouldn't matter. It's art."
Hey Bob, give us one of your examples of art and show us how it's done.
Ken Richmond
By this post, it has been a while since you contributed anything much except increasingly intemperate abuse of those who disagree with you. Nobody is criticizing your chosen practice. it sounds fine to me, and I am happy to believe that it produces great images. Why do you feel the need to insist that it is the only way to go, to the point of claiming some sort of right to tell people with a different practice or different views that they don't belong on the forum? Who do you think you are to be telling anyone that? Go take some photographs or something. Come back when you are prepared to listen as well as rant.
John, that is an interesting example. While I agree with your reasoning, let me introduce a twist.
When I was in Yosemite, I had a full moon in the scene. Given the inherent dynamic range limitations of slide film, I got the scene mostly right, but the moon overexposed. I had another camera with me, loaded with a negative film, and I snapped the same scene perhaps minutes apart. Now, I was thinking of taking the moon from the negative film (which has a greater dynamic range) and photoshopping it into the slide film scene. This would satisfy your requirement ("Does this represent what actually happened out there?"), yet it will be not only photoshopping, but compositing as well. So, if I say "Yes," would I be unethical?
... It is my hope that you knew what your were going to do in post when shooting the scene...
... I'm convinced that the glance that made you raise your camera is where the truth lies. You can dork around in Photoshop all you want, but if you have a developed instinct the best result is going to show what made you raise the camera in the first place...
One further comment.
We're asking about the ethics of manipulation.
Why wouldn't you tell somebody what you'd done? There's nothing inherently wrong with manipulation.
If a friend was admiring a composited nature photo as a brilliant example of nature in the raw...would you lie to him, and tell him, yes, that's what it is?
If a potential buyer said, "I only buy straight unmanipulated photography, is that straight?" would you say it was, to get the sale, when it wasn't?
If a photo contest specified "No post-processing," and you post-processed a photo, would you enter it anyway, hoping to get away with it?
If a friend was admiring a composited nature photo as a brilliant example of nature in the raw...would you lie to him, and tell him, yes, that's what it is?No.
If a potential buyer said, "I only buy straight unmanipulated photography, is that straight?" would you say it was, to get the sale, when it wasn't?No.
If a photo contest specified "No post-processing," and you post-processed a photo, would you enter it anyway, hoping to get away with it?No.
... there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera.
Where were you then?Missing in action, I guess. And your observation that the photoshoppers "spoil it for the rest of us" leaves me at least understanding (if not agreeing with) where you are coming from on all this. I have deleted the post you were referring to, as it resulted from a late night rush of blood to the head.
If a potential buyer said, "I only buy straight unmanipulated photography, is that straight?" would you say it was, to get the sale, when it wasn't?
...if you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo ...Would you be more inclined to buy exactly the same image if you were in no doubt at all that the moon was right there in the arch when it was taken?
... The discussion about how much is OK seems irrelevant as it implies there is some virtue in minimal or no manipulation.
I am not sure what that virtue is...
That virtue is the essence of photography.The essence of "photography", maybe. But if so, then "photography" isn't the only interesting thing people do with cameras - or have done with them ever since they were invented - or (increasingly, IMO) will do with them in the future. So maybe we need a new word for everything people do with cameras.
...above this post lie acres of irrelevance...Broad acres. Extending only that far down ? ;)