Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: John Koerner on February 18, 2016, 11:40:47 am
-
It seems there is a disparity in values between Art versus Authenticity in both nature and landscape photography.
The prevailing thinking is, "I can do anything I want," in order to produce an artistic image (Photoshop what I want, position subjects how I want, remove in post what I want, etc.)
However, purists believe that, in order to call a photograph nature photography, any such manipulation is off-limits. E.g.:
- If I set up a bird feeder, and take photos of the birds it attracts to my backyard, is this really "nature" photography … or home-studio photography?
- If I capture a jumping spider, and place it on a leaf, positioning and repositioning until I get the shot right, is this really "nature photography" ... or, again, home-studio photography?
- If I go to a beautiful, scenic place, take a nice photograph, but decided some set of rocks (or flowers, or people, etc.) "don't belong" ... and so I Photoshop them out ... Is this now an authentic image, or is it now somewhat counterfeit?
I guess my questions are:
- Does every image have to be perfect?
- Is there something to be valued for the authenticity of imperfection?
- Shouldn't a truly perfect image, taken authentically, with no artificial manipulation to create it, nor any Photoshop removal to maintain it, be held to a higher regard than an imperfect image "made perfect" through manipulation/Photoshop?
- Should there be disclaimers/admissions as to any manipulation/Photoshopping done to create an image versus images that are truly in situ, umanipulated and unaltered through Photoshop (regular adjustments in post, sharpening and such, notwithstanding)?
Thoughts?
-
N
Y
Y
Y
-
N
Y
Y
Y
What about the first 3?
-
Is navel-gazing useful?
Jeremy
-
What about the first 3?
Bird feeder - it is a backyard photography. No, seriously, there are numerous competitions with that category, including the famed Smithsonian-sponsored one.
Jumping spider - it is a captive wildlife photography, again, a lot of competitions with that category
Photoshopped scenic - neither authentic, nor counterfeit, simply fine art
-
It all depends on what you are trying to demonstrate in the photograph. Anatomy of the spider? Posing is fine. Behavior of spider in normal hunting? Photograph it as you found it (flash is OK).
-
It seems there is a disparity in values between Art versus Authenticity in both nature and landscape photography.
There are disparate ideas about Art -- "Thinking Art: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art" (https://books.google.com/books?id=8nssGF_PP9MC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) -- which bring with them disparate ideas about authenticity, and different answers to your questions.
-
It all depends on what you are trying to demonstrate in the photograph. Anatomy of the spider? Posing is fine. Behavior of spider in normal hunting? Photograph it as you found it (flash is OK).
I actually believe ALL have their purpose ;D
What I don't like are people acting as if their staged, edited images can be held in the same regard as a truly authentic, natural photograph.
(To me its the difference between hitting a "home run" from a T-ball setup ... versus hitting a homerun from a Nolan Ryan fastball ...)
I also don't see the need to disparage a truly authentic photograph because a "rock" or "flower" was not removed from the image.
It may not be absolutely perfect, but if it authentically and un-manipulatedly approaches perfection it should be admired as an honest effort.
IMO, imperfection itself is part of the story (as well as open to interpretation: why did those flowers grow there?, etc.).
Speaking of the anatomy of the spider, sometimes the only way to ID spiders is to take a ventral-view photograph and submit the photo to a scientist.
The photo may not be "art," nor even be that good, but if it facilitates the ID then it served its purpose.
However, if Photographer A takes a razor-sharp image of a spider's underside, while holding it in a glass jar (Difficulty Level = 0);
While Photographer B takes a nearly-razor-sharp image of a spider's underside, naturally, while crossing from one leaf to another (Difficulty Level = 10) ...
Can you hold the image quality expectations to the same level?
Which is the image that should be in a nature magazine or book ...?
Jack
-
What I don't like…
No doubt others see things differently.
-
No doubt others see things differently.
With more than 7.4 billion people in the world, it is not surprising 'others' might see things differently.
Just curious, though, if you could answer the last 2 questions, honestly.
-
Just curious, though, if you could answer the last 2 questions, honestly.
It's just rude to suggest that others will not answer you honestly.
Can you hold the image quality expectations to the same level?
Which is the image that should be in a nature magazine or book ...?
Yes.
A (if that suits the purpose of the nature magazine or book author -- it's their "should").
-
Why not just be yourself and do what you enjoy. Photography is an illusion. It's a representation. It inspires thought in the viewers mind. There's nothing real about a photograph, other than the ink on the paper. The debate between modification and authenticity is a waste of time, nearly every photograph you've greatly admired has had post processing (even in the dark room), and if not hats off to the lucky SOB photographer. I'd love to take all my shots without bracketing or focus stacking and have the photo come out perfect every time. Just don't misrepresent yourself or your images.
-
It's just rude to suggest that others will not answer you honestly.
Not really. Your own answer (below) proves my point about a lack of honesty in many responses.
Yes.
I refuse to believe that you are being honest here. (At the very least, you're not thinking deeply.) It defies anything genuine to suggest that getting a clear, perfect photograph of the underside of a spider while it is sitting motionless in a jar carries with it the same difficulty level as trying to obtain an in situ, unmanipulated photo of a spider's underside, in the wild, in a fleeting moment while it is crossing from one leaf to another.
A (if that suits the purpose of the nature magazine or book author -- it's their "should").
Have to agree here.
-
Why not just be yourself and do what you enjoy.
I can't be anything but myself. Sadly.
And, unfortunately, my work schedule precludes me from doing what I enjoy, most of the time.
Photography is an illusion. It's a representation. It inspires thought in the viewers mind. There's nothing real about a photograph, other than the ink on the paper. The debate between modification and authenticity is a waste of time, nearly every photograph you've greatly admired has had post processing (even in the dark room), and if not hats off to the lucky SOB photographer. I'd love to take all my shots without bracketing or focus stacking and have the photo come out perfect every time. Just don't misrepresent yourself or your images.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but these points are irrelevant to the topic.
Photography is not an illusion, otherwise images wouldn't be allowed in a court of law.
I believe the very fact images are admissible in a court of law underscores my point, and negates your claim that "photography is an illusion."
A factually-altered image IS an illusion, that is part of my point, and (in a court of law) such an image can be viewed as perjury, a misrepresentation.
A factually-accurate image, however, is admissible and can be all that is needed to get a conviction.
So, in essence, this is my point:
"Art" would not be admitted in a court of law.
A factually-accurate image would be.
Minor post-processing is fine and admissable in court.
Removing FACTS from the image, through Photoshop, would render the image devoid of truth and therefore inadmissable.
Being "yourself" is not the point; that is all anyone can do.
It's what are you striving for: Truth or Art?
Or, perhaps, Art in Truth?
Art through fantasy is valid also ... but it cannot be properly called valid "nature" photography ... while finding "Art in Truth" would be the goal of nature photography.
JMO ...
Jack
-
I'm just a Layman in the photography field but do "artist" who paint with a brush have to disclose if they add clouds to a bare sky? Maybe because photography is suppose to be "reality" and painting is more of an imaginary "art". Does this sort of thing get discussed in the painting world? I don't know the answer to Art vs Authentic but I feel better when there are no rules as to what we can do with our imagination. :)
-
I refuse to believe that you are being honest here. (At the very least, you're not thinking deeply.) It defies anything genuine to suggest that getting a clear, perfect photograph of the underside of a spider while it is sitting motionless in a jar carries with it the same difficulty level as trying to obtain an in situ, unmanipulated photo of a spider's underside, in the wild, in a fleeting moment while it is crossing from one leaf to another.
Someone expresses an opinion different to yours and all you can manage is to question both their honesty and intelligence. So much for -- "it is not surprising 'others' might see things differently."
You didn't ask if there was "the same difficulty level".
You asked "Can you hold the image quality expectations to the same level?" and the answer is -- Yes, that's exactly what we do. -- no one cares how hard you worked, only that you produced the best for their purposes.
-
If my book is a morphologic identification book, I will take the ideal studio shot.
If my book is an ecology text or a naturalist's esthetic images book, I will take the natural shot that might not be ideal from the standpoint of showing every single feature of the spider, but does show the spider in action in its normal environment. Personally, I prefer the technically mildly suboptimal photo of organism in its environment and showing a characteristic / interesting behavior over the ever-popular "bird on a stick" portrait where it is just sitting there in someone's garden.
-
Is a painter who paints nature not a nature painter?
So, why can't a photographer who photographs nature be a nature photographer if they choose to use the photographic tools at their disposal to create?
This dithering back and forth about what is "authentic" and what isn't, is just a lot of hot air.
To take this discussion to the nth degree : None of it authentic because it's ink on paper or pixels lit on a screen.
All of it is manipulated in some way. Using a filter or a Clarity adjustment or altering exposure or adding a grad mask or... is all manipulative of nature. Was the sky really that colour? Was the grass really that tactile?
What about black and white?
So, it's not a great stretch from here to remove and/or add physical objects using tools from the same toolbox.
The problem is too many people for too many years have been incorrectly sucked into the allusion that photography is somehow "real" and "authentic". While it has the potential to be more authentic than painting, it never has been. In fact, photography is a whole lot more deceptive because it looks real.
I guess it's easy to draw the line at addition and removal of things that are/aren't there, but it would be an arbitrary line as the concept of reality and authenticity is impossible to define with a creative medium.
So, I guess one must decide, as an individual, what's more important: the authenticity of nature (which can view by stepping outside) or the authenticity of the medium.
Those painters have it so easy compared to we photographers who ponder, debat and hash out these oh so significant questions! ;)
-
Perhaps a better way to explain my meaning would be to consider the difference between model photography and street photography.
Both have their place; both have their purpose.
Models standing under staged light, with carefully-chosen clothes, assuming carefully-choreographed stances, and feigning various facial expressions may have definite commercial application ... but can this appropriately be labeled "street photography?" :o
The entire essence of "street photography" is to capture the un-self-conscious expressions and un-self-aware body postures of the human condition, and a search for this kind of "human authenticity" has become a genre of photography unto itself.
The existence of "street photography" does not negate the value and worth of model photography, but by the same token you cannot properly call "model photography" authentic street photography either. (It's posed/staged photography, the very antithesis of street photography.)
This is the essence of what I'm saying the difference between actual nature photography and staged/posed/manipulated photography of wild subjects.
Me taking my pet parrot out, with his clipped wings, and arranging him on a perch outside, with foliage behind him, baiting him with food to stand "just so," cannot in any way be called nature photography.
It's a studio shot of the bird in my backyard and should not be held in the same regard as an authentic wild parrot photograph actually taken in the Amazon rain forest its natural environment.
To revisit the analogy: the former is a "model" shot; the latter is a "street shot" (albeit in nature).
As mentioned in the beginning, the boundaries of raw art are limitless, and don't require anyone's explanation.
But when you begin to categorize kinds of art, there have to be some definitions.
Again, in order to call something an authentic "street shot," there are certain criteria which have to apply, boundaries as to what qualifies as a street shot or not.
Me assuming my best, most fully self-satisfied smile "for the camera" is not a street shot ... but if someone in the room (unbeknownst to me) happened to capture my facial expression, in a moment of authentic happiness upon the arrival of an old friend I hadn't seen in years, that genuine expression of joy could properly be called a street shot.
It's the difference between "making up" art and finding "art" in reality.
This is the difference I'm trying to articulate; sorry if it is causing confusion.
-
If my book is a morphologic identification book, I will take the ideal studio shot.
Agreed, as will (have) I.
Some species are simply impossible to find by the naked eye, have to be collected in a sweep net, set up, and photographed in-studio.
If my book is an ecology text or a naturalist's esthetic images book, I will take the natural shot that might not be ideal from the standpoint of showing every single feature of the spider, but does show the spider in action in its normal environment. Personally, I prefer the technically mildly suboptimal photo of organism in its environment and showing a characteristic / interesting behavior over the ever-popular "bird on a stick" portrait where it is just sitting there in someone's garden.
"Bird on a stick," lol
For taxonomy of some small critters, specimens need to be microscopically-photographed dead, because they're about the size of a hyphen.
No way is it possible to take a natural, highly-detailed ventral shot of something like that.
I agree with the consensus there is no "right" way to photograph, overall. Do what you want, at that time and at that place.
But my point is there are certain criteria that have to be met to be labeled a "kind" of photography ...
True "nature" photography of authentic wildlife versus staged images of (manipulated/tame) animals;
"Street" photography of authentic expressions of the human condition versus posed photos of people who know they're being photographed.
Etc., etc.
-
But my point is there are certain criteria that have to be met to be labeled a "kind" of photography ...
... and they vary depending on who is doing the labelling.
-
... and they vary depending on who is doing the labelling.
I love folks who think in (and can only write) one-liners ;D
Really?
So I guess there are no boundaries, no guidelines, no general consensus?
Is that why someone posted a photo of a staircase in a Nature/Landscape forum, then? :-X
Architecture photography, street photography, wildlife photography ... no guidelines ... all the same? ::)
Why is this web forum divided up into different categories then?
It's all entropy? :o
-
Photography is not an illusion, otherwise images wouldn't be allowed in a court of law.
I believe the very fact images are admissible in a court of law underscores my point, and negates your claim that "photography is an illusion."
So, in essence, this is my point:
"Art" would not be admitted in a court of law.
A factually-accurate image would be.
It's what are you striving for: Truth or Art?
Jack
Well fortunately, we're not currently in a court of law. Otherwise I'd be paying someone $300/hour to have this discussion of semantics. The fact is that in substance all a photograph is typically, is ink on paper, this isn't a point I'm arguing, I'm simply stating a fact. Most of the time these days, we see images, not pictures, and they are displayed as pixels on a screen. To your point, yes it represents something.
The unmodified landscape guys are always saying, I've modified this to the best of my ability to display it the way my eye saw it at the time... And it's shot on a 16mm lens that has most of the frame in focus. Did this photographer really have wide angle eyes? Did the photographers eye suddenly learn to put a 10stop filter on itself and gather light for 5 seconds to give motion to the water? The fact is that if I modified everything to the way my eye sees things I'd have round images, that would progressively get darker towards the edges in a gradient.
What they are trying to say is that they've modified the photograph to allow the viewer to most closely experience the same thing the photographer experienced at the time they were there. This is where the beauty of it all hits. Where the Art rubber hits the road and starts running. Now I'm telling you I want you to share the experience the way it "actually" was while I was there. EXCEPT we're going to remove the feeling of wind, the smell of the air, the taste of the air, the emotions of fear as the lightning crashed down, the slippery rocks beneath my feet, it won't smell like saltwater, you won't hear the ground rumbling, or the crashing of the waves. But sir, I've done my best to give you as close to an experience through this image as while I was there... Blasphemy. I've tied your senses behind your back, except for sight!~ How could I possibly expect you to share that experience?! Well it's through the illusion of being there, the viewer grabs on to their experiences with the things they see in the image, and they can remember what it was like for them when they were in a similar place. Suddenly your photograph sells, because to this viewer, your photograph is special. It conjures the illusion of being somewhere.
Does the client asking me for quotes on licensing care that my image has been digitally altered?: (https://farm1.staticflickr.com/757/20754237291_c78ed3b270_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xBYTFr)Reflecting upon Moonlight (https://flic.kr/p/xBYTFr) by Maddog Murph (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130403473@N07/)
Has it actually even really been digitally altered for removing an airplane trail, and enhancing shadow detail. Let's say I hadn't done those things... would the como in the corners be an inaccurate representation of what it was really like? Do the artifacts have to be removed in order for it to be real? Are the artifacts required to remain in order for it to be "unaltered"?!
To them the image still represents the experience of being in this place, and what it might be like to be there yourself. Digitally altered or not. To us, or a trained eye, it's quite clear that alterations have been made. Actually most of the time the only "factual" alterations I make are removing people from landscapes, or enhancing color/light/detail. Nevertheless if anyone ever asks me if "photoshopped" I simply reply that most good images have been post processed, so yes, of course. Why wouldn't you utilize technology? It's what the old guys dreamed of before they went out of business because retouching became as easy as clicking a mouse button. An entire line of business went kaput overnight, why you might ask? Well it's because images no longer needed to be real. They didn't need to build sets that looked like anything, they could now take two pictures and merge them. Saved billions. Don't be a dinosaur, embrace technology.
If you get a client that wants things unaltered, go for it. If I could skip post processing and printing, and just shoot beautiful landscapes all over the world, pump out JPG's for people ... well I'd love that. I'd also love lots of other things that aren't going to happen.
-
Liars and cheaters argue that everybody lies and cheats. By the same token, photo cheaters argue photography is a lie to begin with.
-
This is a truly novel thread? Art and the undersides of spiders in the same post. John it distinctly looks like you are arguing with yourself and being aided by Isaac to tie your thoughts into a knot?
-
....
Nice image.
Facepalm to the rest of what you said.
-
This is a truly novel thread? Art and the undersides of spiders in the same post.
If you want to reduce to the ridiculous, yes.
John it distinctly looks like you are arguing with yourself and being aided by Isaac to tie your thoughts into a knot?
Lol, perhaps so.
I argue with myself more than I care to admit; debating pros and cons comes with the territory.
Hopefully I do so without moving my lips when I am in public.
Hey, if people want to photograph planted flowers in their garden, and ducks in the local park, and call that "nature photography," who am I to argue?
And if you want to call a photo of your mom and Aunt Sue smiling for the camera "an authentic street shot," be my guest.
Purists will disagree with both, however.
(Nothing wrong with photographing plants in your garden, ducks at the park, or family photos either ... just call them what they are.)
Do carry on ...
-
Hey, if people want to photograph planted flowers in their garden, and ducks in the local park, and call that "nature photography," who am I to argue?
If you want to restrict your photography in narrow terms, who am I to argue.
-
Nice image.
Facepalm to the rest of what you said.
Oh c'mon you really want to be in a court of law? I can pretend to represent you, change my argument, and you can pay me $300/hour ^_^