Ignacio Palacio - Image Manipulation

[Isaac]

Few are brave enough to openly discuss that many of the leading landscape photographs today are artistic renderings as opposed to 'objective' depictions.

Few are brave enough to caption their pictures -- Lofoten, fake aurora; Antelope Canyon, fake light shaft; Fitz Roy, fake alpenglow …

Perhaps there's too much risk that -- Lofoten, aurora; Antelope Canyon, light shaft; Fitz Roy, alpenglow -- would be preferred.

[John Camp]

Few are brave enough to caption their pictures -- Lofoten, fake aurora; Antelope Canyon, fake light shaft; Fitz Roy, fake alpenglow …

Perhaps there's too much risk that -- Lofoten, aurora; Antelope Canyon, light shaft; Fitz Roy, alpenglow -- would be preferred.

+1

[amolitor]

I am sort of astonished to find an active discussion of reality versus photographs on LuLa forums. I think of this place as a little more sophisticated than that.

This is the sort of thing that people who don't know anything and haven't read anything think is interesting. And, god love 'em, we were all young and naive at some point, and you gotta think stuff like this through for yourself. I just thought most of those people were on other forums.

[John Camp]

I am sort of astonished to find an active discussion of reality versus photographs on LuLa forums. I think of this place as a little more sophisticated than that.

This is the sort of thing that people who don't know anything and haven't read anything think is interesting. And, god love 'em, we were all young and naive at some point, and you gotta think stuff like this through for yourself. I just thought most of those people were on other forums.

I am sort of astonished not by the fact that this discussion takes place on LuLa, but by the fact that it takes place so often, and it always starts with (to state it generally) assertions that there is there is no objective reality to be photographed, and even if there were, photographs are abstractions incapable of representing reality, and therefore -- and this is always the central element of the discussion -- that it really makes no different what we do with a photograph as long as it is artistically interesting or "valid", whatever that means. Some us reject all of this. And it's an important argument. But you're right in one way: a lot of it seems fairly sophomoric. But sophomores have to go through this, right? And what better place to do it? For me, the most distressing part of the whole discussion is that, discernible in the background, most of the time, is a suggestion that we might be able to pawn these things off as actual representations of an objective reality, if we can only get the manipulation right. In other words, if we fake it well enough, we can make a buck. In most fields outside of art, that would be called fraud. I believe fraud should be discouraged.

I don't know what "reality vs. photographs" even means. They're both real.



 

[pegelli]

In my mind this thread and the article it refers to is not about "photography" vs. "reality", but it is about how much and what sort of image manipulation people find acceptable before a photograph becomes a "photoshopgraph" (or digital art)

[Paulo Bizarro]

In my mind this thread and the article it refers to is not about "photography" vs. "reality", but it is about how much and what sort of image manipulation people find acceptable before a photograph becomes a "photoshopgraph" (or digital art)

Exactly. We all understand that photographs do not represent reality, even when they are not "changed". The selection of shutter speed, aperture, filters, etc, all that turns a photograph into an interpretation of reality. Let's say I take a landscape photo, and I captioned it with the camera and filter settings: 24mm lens, f11, 300 minutes, Lee Big Stopper. I could then add the WB, contrast, saturation, clarity, sharpness, etc, settings in the RAW developer. My usual workflow.

When photographers start compositing from several photos, stretching, adding, deleting elements, etc, and then want the rest of the world to believe that the scene was like that, that is fraud and fake.

[HansKoot]

When photographers start compositing from several photos, stretching, adding, deleting elements, etc, and then want the rest of the world to believe that the scene was like that, that is fraud and fake.

I tend to agree with that. In a way the same rules as for the "newsphoto of the year" are applicable, though maybe a tad less strict. But, when you are clear that its artwork based on photos, there in fact is no limit in what you do, and it may be a very appealing result. There is always a point however where it becomes a thin line between them.

[laughingbear]

If you think photographs are pictures of reality, your problems is with reality, not with photographs.

 

- N.

THAT will grace a place on the wall above my Epson 11880!

Thanks and best wishes!
Georg

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Some us reject all of this...  

Amen, brother!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... We all understand that photographs do not represent reality, even when they are not "changed"...

Count me out.

[Isaac]

We all understand that photographs do not represent reality, even when they are not "changed".

Do you think a pencil sketch can "represent reality"?

[Paulo Bizarro]

Do you think a pencil sketch can "represent reality"?

Ok, whatever...

[Isaac]

Whatever?

http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/r/representational

[mezzoduomo]

Yes, Isaac: WHATEVER. Good God, give it a rest. Its Friday, go get some fresh air.....

[Bruce Cox]

There is an implied shared experience in landscape photography - that the photographer stood at that place and witnessed a scene and that the viewer could have been there also. You invite the viewer to share the experience.

How do you talk to a client about an image with a fake shaft of light in it? This is what I can't understand. There are a gazillion images of Antelope Canyon with shafts of light - what is the purpose of faking it? Do you tell your client - well I was there but I was disappointed in what I saw so I decided to add some awe in photoshop??  I would buy a work by Mr. Uelsmann that is an obvious depiction of a fantasy but I would never buy a landscape that is a deception and a fake shaft of light - a fake aurora are just that.

There is a reason to take real landscape photographs and you can debate whether any of them are art or not. But our world changes constantly and a beautiful record of that world is something a landscape photographer can leave behind. We really don't need fake landscape photography - spend the time in the field to get that shaft of light or the aurora. Or do as Isaac suggested and put the word "fake" in the title.

I disagree with the philosophy expressed in Lula articles that says that moving rivers, swapping skies, faking shafts of light has anything to do with landscape photography. It is digital art at its worst.

Sharon

I think photographic documentation is bad.  It is a perverse substitute for being there yourself, though such compromises are sometimes necessary.

I prefer art.

Bruce

[Isaac]

How do you talk to a client about an image with a fake shaft of light in it?

A picture titled - Antelope Canyon, fake light shaft - would, of course, be commentary on the state of popular landscape photography ;-)

I think photographic documentation is bad. … I prefer art.

I think you may have misrepresented the words you quoted.

[Bruce Cox]

Bruce a truthful photograph can be art. A fake shaft of light can be art too, I guess, but it's not landscape photography.

Sharon

I think trying to separate truth and beauty is a bad idea.

I think art infects most of what people do, though perceived amounts may vary.

Bruce

[Bruce Cox]

I had to take a brake from wrangling kitty pictures to be this wise, but it was worth it.

[prairiewing]

I enjoy reading these discussions for several reasons, among them: To see if anything new has been added to the debate; to see how certain some are that their opinion is the absolute correct opinion; to see if anyone will ever say, "I think you're right and I'm wrong, I've changed my mind."

[mezzoduomo]

I enjoy reading these discussions for several reasons, among them: To see if anything new has been added to the debate; to see how certain some are that their opinion is the absolute correct opinion; to see if anyone will ever say, "I think you're right and I'm wrong, I've changed my mind."

Don't hold your breath.