The Ethics of Photo Manipulation

[Ken Richmond]

"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

[RFPhotography]

"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

Where?  To whom?  But was that to 'give credit'?  You're ignoring an important fact; however.  Well, several facts, actually.  First, the camera-related information is now readily available in the EXIF data.  That data can also include the software used on the image and a date history from shot to digitised to edit.  Far more information than may have been noted with film.  Second, the camera settings, filter information and film say nothing about the processing of either the film or the print.  Nothing really different today with digital.  Was it disclosed that the print wax made on a Beseler 23c, what filter settings were used on the head, what dodging/burning instruments were used, in what portions of the print and for how long?

[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

[Ray]

Ray, I fail to see any way in which that essay adds to the discussion.

That's probably because there's nothing left to add other than to explain the bleeding obvious, which is what I've been trying to do.

Adding elements into the image or removing elements from the image which weren't present in the real scene, such as people, trees or horses etc, is clearly unethical if the image is presented as a documentary or journalistic shot.

All other image adjustments, such as altering the shape of people's heads (to correct for volume anamorphosis distortion), levelling horizons, making vertical what the brain interpreted as vertical when viewing the real scene, raising shadows which appear deeper in the unaltered image than the eye perceived them to be in the real scene, restoring color saturation that has been lost due to the technical inadequacies of the camera, applying noise reduction and sharpening etc etc, are all legitimate adjustments if the result is to produce an image which is closer to what the photographer saw.

However, if the photograph is intended to be no more than a work of art, then anything goes.

[kencameron]

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.

[jrsforums]

 
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

'Camera obscura' forbidden?

I guess the world's museums should start burning quite a bit of their art works.  

[RFPhotography]

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

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.  Except for filters.  All one need do is look at the EXIF information.  I knew you were likely referring to images provided for publication but, given the way this discussion has meandered, wanted clarification.  I still takenissue with your idea of 'giving credit'.  It's done to prove authenticity.  That you see it as contemptuous, defensive and uninformed is your problem.  I'd suggest it is you who are being defensive.  As far as how old I am, that is completely irrelevant and a distraction.  

[RFPhotography]

'Camera obscura' forbidden?

I guess the world's museums should start burning quite a bit of their art works.  

Similarly the genre of photorealistic painting which strives to replicate a scene precisely and could really not be considered 'of the mind' of the artist should be barred and all examples taken down from museums.

[jrsforums]

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.

+1

[Ken Richmond]

"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

[Isaac]

What puzzles me in all this is how easily some people slide from describing their own approach to derogatory descriptions of different approaches.

"Laughter as Diversionary Tactic: We fall into this fallacy, when, unable to come up with a reasoned response to an argument, we try to dodge it by pretending that it is not worth taking seriously."

Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking p122

[Isaac]

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?

Pretty picture.

[RFPhotography]

"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. 

[jrsforums]

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. 

Well said, Bob....

[Alan Klein]

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 NatGeo rules also include:

SOLARIZATION, MEZZOTINT, DUOTONE, ETC.: These are discouraged as being too gimmicky. There are a myriad of alteration "filters" available in digital photo software; try not to be swayed to use them. They may be cool and fun, but they won’t help you in this contest.

BLACK-AND-WHITE IMAGES: Acceptable

CROPPING: Acceptable

STITCHED PANORAMAS: NOT Acceptable

HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR) IMAGES: NOT Acceptable

FISH-EYE LENSES: Unless used underwater, they are NOT acceptable.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/digital-manipulation-notice/

[Alan Klein]

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.

[jrsforums]

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.

Thanks, I agree.

It is just a shame that people use NG standards as a definition for wall art.

[BJL]

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?

"...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

[jrsforums]

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.

[RFPhotography]

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.

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.