Photography on steroids

[opus]

This is not a challenge, this is an absolutely sincere question that I'd really love to hear your responses to.

First of all, a little background. I first got into photography 22 years ago, then over the years got away from it until just recently. So I'm something of a "novice" as to the state of Photography today. I am not, however, a novice when it comes to computer graphics. I've been using Photoshop for ten years now, in an educational, professional, and personal setting.

I'm having a hard time, emotionally, accepting that it's OK to do extensive Photoshop editing and still call it "Photography." I don't know if I come from some really old-school thinking where I somehow think a shot should be great straight off the roll ... and such a thing is SO rare that anyone who can do such a thing somewhat consistently is automatically "great."

I know I could do a lot more with my work if I took more of into PS, so please give me your arguments on why this is a good and OK thing to do.

I come from a prepress background, so to me "Photoshop work" = "Manipulating for Advertising". I also see the value of it when creating Fine Art, where photography is the starting point, but I consider that the end result is no longer "photography", it's more in a "mixed media" category (photography + computer software).

I'm more than willing and open (and eager!) to have my heart changed on this, so give me your best arguments!

~Kelly

I'm OK with darkroom work, just not (extensive) computer work. I don't know why. Hmmmm...

[Michael Fanelli]

This is not a challenge, this is an absolutely sincere question that I'd really love to hear your responses to.

I'm having a hard time, emotionally, accepting that it's OK to do extensive Photoshop editing and still call it "Photography." I don't know if I come from some really old-school thinking where I somehow think a shot should be great straight off the roll ... and such a thing is SO rare that anyone who can do such a thing somewhat consistently is automatically "great."

I know I could do a lot more with my work if I took more of into PS, so please give me your arguments on why this is a good and OK thing to do.

I come from a prepress background, so to me "Photoshop work" = "Manipulating for Advertising". I also see the value of it when creating Fine Art, where photography is the starting point, but I consider that the end result is no longer "photography", it's more in a "mixed media" category (photography + computer software).

I'm more than willing and open (and eager!) to have my heart changed on this, so give me your best arguments!

~Kelly

I'm OK with darkroom work, just not (extensive) computer work. I don't know why. Hmmmm...

Oh no, here we are again! This is the same discussion that comes up all the time. Is "this" real photography? Is photography "art"? The real key for me is your very last comment: "I'm OK with darkroom work, just not (extensive) computer work." You're OK with changes as long as they are done using tools no later than a specific era of history. It annoys people to all end but this is what I call Amish Photography.

You also say "I don't know if I come from some really old-school thinking where I somehow think a shot should be great straight off the roll ... and such a thing is SO rare that anyone who can do such a thing somewhat consistently is automatically "great."

This is not true. A photograph is judged by the end result. If someone needs to know the mechanics of how a photograph was made to judge it "great" or not , then its a judgement of technology and history, not photography.

Photography, by it's very nature, alters reality. Nothing you do in photography, at any point in history, is/was even close to "real." There is nothing different these days other than the tools being used. "Photography" is "writing with light." That is what everyone is doing.

[opus]

hey thanks, I had no idea this comes up all the time. Is there a forum somewhere where this is archived?

it's a real emotional response for me, so I appreciate you addressing it. It's just that I look at some of the work, and I think, "wow, did they really see that and capture it like that?" but who knows if they did so much work in PS that no one could ever capture it in real life? It's confusing, especially when I'm looking for technical education. I want to know how to take better pictures from the start, so the extra PS work isn't helping me learn.

~kelly

[Michael Fanelli]

hey thanks, I had no idea this comes up all the time. Is there a forum somewhere where this is archived?

LOL! That would be way too simple!

it's a real emotional response for me, so I appreciate you addressing it. It's just that I look at some of the work, and I think, "wow, did they really see that and capture it like that?" but who knows if they did so much work in PS that no one could ever capture it in real life? It's confusing, especially when I'm looking for technical education. I want to know how to take better pictures from the start, so the extra PS work isn't helping me learn.

It's always an emotional issue. We have a large investment in what we know and what we are used to seeing. Education is a separate issue. Yes, if someone is learning about technique, knowing the mechanics can really means something. In that case, the end product, the photograph itself, is not judged. It's just an illustration of a technique.

As for "who knows if they did so much work in PS that no one could ever capture it in real life?", I hate to ask this but what is "real life"? When you look out at the world, your brain is changing "reality" much more than PhotoShop ever could. Do you fuss because your brain is "fixing" color temperature all the time? Does it bother you that everything you see is "really" upside down? Is a hand-colorized B&W image a photograph? How about B&W in general, or the numerous circus-like colors of Velvia film, or the too-literal interpretations of some digital images?

The problem with a question such as you posed is simple: the question can never be clearly defined so no answer is ever possible. One should enjoy photography for what it is, an emotional, heavily tainted, and inprecise view of the world around us.

[another view]

Yeah, this one might be at the top of the list for awhile if you know what I mean...

The short answer for me is that if you can do it in a darkroom, it's OK to do it in Photoshop. Other stuff too depending on circumstances. That also goes for some things you would do at time of exposure such as multiple exposures.

Personally, I draw the line at - for example - adding a full moon to a landscape shot. I did it once with film just to see how bad it really would look and was not disappointed! I don't do that with any form of photography (I shoot both film and digital). I also might clone out things like dust and lens flare or the blue wristband that was on my right wrist in my new avatar shot (long boring story). The recent LA Times story about the faked image from Iraq is really bad. My problem with that shot is that it was presented as the truth but obviously wasn't.

Some people don't realize that unsharp masking was originally done in the darkroom long before Photoshop existed. I don't have enough darkroom training to tell you exactly how it was done, but it's a similar result with a lot less work. That's probably true of most things in Photoshop. I have no problem with RAW and deciding the color temperature, etc of the image later. Some people may, but whenever you shoot color neg film and take it to a lab, they make all kinds of "corrections" - including filtering for color temperature - in printing.

[Michael Fanelli]

Personally, I draw the line at - for example - adding a full moon to a landscape shot. I did it once with film just to see how bad it really would look and was not disappointed!

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

[Outdoorsman]

For me this question comes down to nomenclature. To be honest, a heavily edited image (elements removed or introduced, etc) should be labeled as such. I prefer to call such images "photo art" or "computer art" or "digital art." As you know, the press often will label certain news images as being digitally altered, using labels such as the above. The question of ethics for me comes down to my own personal view of what photography is. I feel that photography is a documentation tool; therefore a photograph should be regarded as being a depiction of an actual scene that existed in reality. However, the way the scene being documented is interpreted by the photographer can vary greatly because we all use the functions of the camera and darkroom differently. I have no problem with toning or other darkroom techniques, whether they are used in the analog darkroom or the digital darkroom. But when items are removed/introduced or altered, the resulting image should no longer be considered photography. It should be seen as some other art form.
I would go back in history to think about how painting has been used as both a documentation tool as well as an art form. So can photography. But as a different medium, it should have its own subcategories to more accurately desribe the origins of the image being viewed. One might want to know whether a painting was an oil or a watercolor-- so be it with photography. I like knowing what sort of editing the image went through; this can identify to me the artist's intent in creating the image. Was it to show me accurately a beautiful scene in the Andes that I would never have been able to see in my life? Or was it to give me an digitally altered, artistic interpretation of a smoky nightclub at night? Both images would certainly please me to look at, but only one of them, I think, could be called photography. The other would be called digital art.
So, my answer would be that as long as elements/contents/subjects of a scene are not altered, removed, or introduced, the it is still a photograph.
Digital photography is still photography to me. It doesn't matter if the actual scene recorded is stored on an analog or digital format, so long as that scene remains intact.
I know I haven't covered all the bases here, please feel free to refute any or all of my statements- it's only my own personal view and it is most certainly is not the best view for everyone to have.
Don't whip me too bad...

[walterick]

I call this one "Drop" it's a favorite of mine and my friends. I've posted it up there once before, and I've put it in my gallery here at PR. I will say all of this with as much earnestness and humility as I can: I post is as an example of a shot that everyone thinks was done digitally. It's the first question everyone asks, unless it's a kid who's trying to touch the droplett through the picture frame glass Anyway, I use this is an example of "Found" versus "Created" photography. I specialize in "Found" photography, meaning it's my job to run around the world and "record" (in as far as any photograph is an accurate record of something!) what I've seen: the resulting image is a pictorial of what is there, what I found, what I saw, and an invitation to you to come find it, too. This type of work to me is most profound.

I think that "Creative" photography, ie manipulation of light, environment, postures and expressions, environment, telephone lines, etc; to make an image is an equally impressive form of the art of photography and worthy of every lot of praise it receives. I do not like it as much as "found" photography but that's an opinion. I do, for the record, dabble in "creative" photography as well, manipulating "time" with my star and moon exposure shots as I'm sure folks here are aware.

I take this to the film/digital or darkroom/photoshop debate because it mirrors my sentiments about digital "manipulation" or extreme darkroom manipulation versus "straight" printing (I am using quotes a lot because all of these terms are subjective!) I think that an image, straight out of the camera, on a slide to bypass the printing variable, is more profundly impactful than one that's been "retouched" in photoshop or the darkroom. That's just an opinion.

Now, take a look at the work of Hodgy up here on this site. His work is beautiful and I wouldn't change a thing. His photoshop technique is stunnning. It is manipulation, but it's not being "hidden." I see a vignette and I know it was put there. Hence, there is no deception. The trouble I get into emotionally with manipulation is when I feel I am being "duped" or when I have to stare and wonder "is that real? You can't ever tell know nowadays, you know."

As long as there is no intent to deceive, I have very little problem with it.

The Iraq photo mentioned sounds like an example of "deception," not just manipulation.

I don't know if I am fueling the fire at this point or just sounding off, or giving Michael something to get mad about (LOL Michael ) Hopefully I've at least explained my feelings on the subject if not helped you sort through yours.

All the best,
Rick

[Michael Fanelli]

I call this one "Drop" it's a favorite of mine and my friends. I've posted it up there once before, and I've put it in my gallery here at PR.

So, this fine image didn't involve a particular choice of film or digital settings? You did nothing to crop it in a way that evokes a feeling? I'm sure your eyes had the same DOF as the lens you chose. I'm sure you have a moving 3-D video version around, certainly nature is not flat and frozen. Natural light of course, never a flash. Your lens never changed the field of view or compressed/expanded what was there. In actual fact, you manipulated reality quite a bit to get that final image.

Until you define reality clearly and distinctly and list it's properties, you can't even start to define the parameters of either "found" or "created". Quite frankly, it isn't worth the effort to try. How would that effect the beauty of your image?

[opus]

I'm not saying that "true" photographs must grow on a tree somewhere, completely untouched by human hands. I guess my viewpoint is, is that it's discouraging when I get back a roll of film (or digital) and I'm really happy with the results, but in comparison to some stuff that's been altered in Photoshop, and NOT LABELED as such, I feel like, geez, what did they do that I'm not doing to get such stunning color, or whatnot. When all along, it would be impossible for anyone to achieve that shot using a camera alone.

For instance, here is a shot I got two years ago in London ... probably my fourth roll of film in my brand new Rebel Ti. Of course my eye didn't see color like this, it's impossible. The camera did. I know it's not reality, and reality isn't what I was after. I was after a new way of representing something. And that's what's so neat about photography, is to run around and capture images with the tool called the camera, with all its capabilities, and discover new ways of seeing things. There's nothing wrong with that.

Just as there's nothing wrong with discovering new ways of seeing things using the computer. But there should be some sort of labelling distinction, just so I don't get the idea that it would be possible to use the CAMERA tool to create something that is really only possible by using the COMPUTER tool. Both are valid, but I'd like to know which tool created what.

Basically I'm just trying to handle discouragement.

[walterick]

"So, this fine image didn't involve a particular choice of film or digital settings? You did nothing to crop it in a way that evokes a feeling? I'm sure your eyes had the same DOF as the lens you chose. I'm sure you have a moving 3-D video version around, certainly nature is not flat and frozen. Natural light of course, never a flash. Your lens never changed the field of view or compressed/expanded what was there. In actual fact, you manipulated reality quite a bit to get that final image."

"Yes!" to all the above

I did manipulate reality. Photography does that. However, I didn't try to deceive anyone with it.

"Until you define reality clearly and distinctly and list it's properties, you can't even start to define the parameters of either "found" or "created". Quite frankly, it isn't worth the effort to try."

I don't like being told that something's not worth the effort. I believe worth lies in the heart of the observer. What you're saying is it's not worth it to you, right?

"How would that effect the beauty of your image?"

How would defining "found" and "created" effect the beauty of an image? Only if it affected the image of the beauty to you.

Thanks for playing.

Rick

[villenadecorte]

I just wanted to say, I think everyone's responses are incredible.
Opions either way- you are all very considerate- and have such a respect for each other... I think it is something great that there aren't a hundred people on hear slamming each other with unstructured arguments/opinions.
You guys/gals are great This is why I love this board....


-VillenaDeCorte

[Chunk]

I just wanted to say, I think everyone's responses are incredible.
Opions either way- you are all very considerate- and have such a respect for each other... I think it is something great that there aren't a hundred people on hear slamming each other with unstructured arguments/opinions.
You guys/gals are great This is why I love this board....


-VillenaDeCorte

They are just tip toeing. The wailing and gnashing of teeth has gone on in the past with this subject.

I agree with Michael that any photographic recording is an interpretation of reality manipulated by choice of materials (which have been created to react in different specific ways to light), choice of camera/lens, choice of settings, and choice of after exposure processing.
The thing that I like about digital photography is that more of that manipulation is placed in my hands rather than sending it out for others to add their interpretation.
It always surprises me to see some local photo contests limited to non digital or having seperate categories for digital and non. It seems the more sensible thing would be to allow only works where all of the decisions were made by the photographer.

[Chunk]

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

I know that AA did extensive manipulation while printing to get his preconcieved images, but I don't think that "Moonrise..." is a composite. Here's the sort of story I have always heard regarding that shot (partway down the page).
http://www.aristos.org/whatart/adams.htm

BTW, you can buy your own copy of this famous print here.
http://www.anseladams.com/product3.aspx?Product_ID=1570

[megan]

Hi Kelly -
I come from a similar background - I worked in pre-press for four years, and saw how drastically ads [*cough*cindycrawfordvictoriassecretelizabethhurley nikitaylorandjoecamel*cough*] were edited using quantel paintbox, then photoshop when it got to quantel's level, beyond reality. I still do have similar unresolved issues about final product. I've gotten past the method of *capture* - film and digital each have their strong positives and negatives.

IMHO, and i'ts a point made previously in arguments on this board [which you were not around for ] extremely manipulated images should be termed photo illustration. I understand Michael Fanelli's point that we all make choices and no matter what we record, it's always interpreted and not an exact representation of the original scene, but I'm more with Rick in the sense that there is reasonable representation of a capture of reality, and then there is - well - photo illustration. At what point is it photo illustration? I'm not sure. Even before the advent of affordable digital capture and manipulation, photographers were using filters to manipulate light and create fantastic scenes not really found in nature. So it's a line that I, myself, can not quite pinpoint - I'm still mulling it over myself.

Megan

[another view]

FWIW, Ansel Adams did modifications such as this all the time ("Moonrise Over Hernandez, NM" is his most famous composite). I can't really express my disappointment!

Actually, no - it's not a composite. According to his autobiography, he had to quickly set up his 8x10 camera to capture the scene before anything changed. Setting up an 8x10 isn't exactly like whipping out an SLR, and the moon (seemingly) moves very fast at the horizon.

At least since he developed the Zone System, none of his negatives were ever intended for straight printing (that I'm aware of, but I wouldn't call myself an authority either). He never added something that wasn't on the negative or took anything away either.

I do have to re-think this whole composite thing though - when I shoot slide film, I sometimes use a graduated neutral density filter. When I shoot digital, I'd prefer to take two exposures (one for highlights, one for shadows) and combine them in Photoshop. I have more control with this - for example, ever wish the GND filter was just a little higher in the otherwise perfect shot ? Since nothing changed in the scene between the two exposures, it doesn't bother me but I guess I've also not really thought about it in this context before either. You could do this technique with either scanned film or digital capture, so it's not a film vs. digital thing. The final image would be represented as a "truthful" image - if it's done well it should look unaltered. This technique would be done only to compensate for the lack of exposure latitude available with either the film or digital sensor. Any other thoughts on this?

[another view]

Now, take a look at the work of Hodgy up here on this site. His work is beautiful and I wouldn't change a thing. His photoshop technique is stunnning. It is manipulation, but it's not being "hidden." I see a vignette and I know it was put there. Hence, there is no deception. The trouble I get into emotionally with manipulation is when I feel I am being "duped" or when I have to stare and wonder "is that real? You can't ever tell know nowadays, you know."

As long as there is no intent to deceive, I have very little problem with it.

The Iraq photo mentioned sounds like an example of "deception," not just manipulation.

I agree with you - Hodgy's work is excellent, but it isn't presented - nor does it need to be - as an absolute truth the way photojournalism has to be assumed to be. It's pretty obvious that Hodgy's work is manipulated in Photoshop (to us at least) but it's done tastefully (different conversation) and he's not trying to pull anything on us. He's using it as a tool to differentiate himself among other wedding photographers (IMO). I saw an exhibit by David Hume Kennerly, and his prints had "sloppy borders" to prove that they were full frame. Some PJ's take it to the point that they don't believe in cropping.

[adina]

Although I usually don't participate in these threads.

Unless you are shooting news/journalistic kind of stuff, ps all you want. Anything else is an individual interpretation of what was there. Unless you are actually recording a specific event, your photos should represent your view on something. And if your photo needs to be digitally altered to express what you want it to express, than so be it.

Photoshop is a tool. Not a fix all. A bad photo is a bad photo. Photoshopping it is going to make it a bad photo with ps.

Maybe because of the subjects I shoot, it is an easier decision for me. So if I ps out a stray hair, or the hand of a dancer who was off to the side, it isn't that big of a deal.

adina

[Acadia25]

This interested me, and I remembered differently, so I looked it up. According to Ansel Adams in his "Examples, The Making of 40 Photographs" there was only one hurried, desperate 8x10 camera exposure taken of "Moonrise." He knew he had an "unusual photograph" (understatement!) so he tried to take a duplicate, but failed to get one before the scene vanished.

He did work at printing the photo in his beloved darkroom over the years so it would match his previsualisation etc. At the same time, he said that even if the image was poorly printed, it's "romantic/emotional moment in time" would have still been appreciated (again, understatement).

The most interesting, compelling thing about photography for me is capturing the moment and, as has been said, using the tools at hand to do so. I think that it is that "wait, compose, capture" idea that make photography so exciting. What Jim Brandenburg did in "Chased By The Light", taking one exposure a day (on print film - he couldn't preview his work) for 90 days as a project, really impresses and excites me as a photographer and observer. I know he uses depth of field and shutter speed etc. It's means more to me that he used his skill to do it at the time and under extraordinary circumstances.

I think that I understand where Kelly (and the others) is coming from. It is impossible to determine where the point that photographic manipulation becomes too much, but I do believe that it is important that the vital elements of a photo were there at the time and the photographer had a very clear idea of the image in their head. This does not necessarily mean that lots and lots of manipulation is wrong, or not photography. It just isn't to my taste.

And, yes '"lots and lots" is subject to debate too... ;)

[Charles Hess]

Thanks, all, for keeping this discussion civil, intelligent, and good reading. Most of us are passionate about one thing or another in the photo world, so it's nice to see some point and counterpoint taking place with courtesy and decorum. :-) Me, I'm not smart enough to say anything useful here, lol.

[Hodgy]

Damn Straight I'll argue this. When I was shooting film, I would send the film to the lab and get my proofs. When prints were ordered, then I would do whatever custom printing needed to be done. When print competition came by, then we would do some really extensive lab work (but the lab would do it, unless you had your own lab), you would send the neg with detailed explanations as what you wanted done, this would usually cost alot of $$ too.

Now, I do everything. Every image my client get's is a "custom image", now it doesn't cost me as much $$ and let's be honest, there's more capabilities now than there was then. So why not do it? I can get the same shots if I shot with film, I would do alot more in camera, and alot more in the lab.

Also, this is digital, a digital photographer does not stop at the camera, a digital photographer is everything involving digital, which is PS. I have all my custom settings in my DSLR set to the lowest settings, this way I have 100% control over my images.

Now I can take any of my images and do the same processes that the lab does, boost color, adjust contrast, cropp. If I wanted a nice soft haze look to it, then I would have used my Pro4 filter system and my full soft filter. If I wanted vignetted, I would have slapped that filter on too. If I wanted retouching done to it, burning/dodgining, and any other special enhancement, then the lab would do it. So what's the difference? IM DOING IT, IM THE LAB, IM THE PRODUCTIONIST!.

The one BIG advantage is now with actions and such, we have more of "choice" of what our images is going to look like. We can simply "apply" the filter, and leave it, or try another. You can do this whith film and conventional ways, but it would cost you more money for lab bills.

When I shoot, I go for composition, exposure, and white balance, find the emotion, find the light. Then in PS I do my post work. Not all the images the B&G get look like the ones I posted, most of them are just converted to B&W or Sepia and a little burning or a crop. I sometimes know what the finished image will look like immediately at the time of capture, but im learning so many techniques and special effects, who's to say I will not change it? I know it's discouraging, but it's still a photograph, it's still made by the photographer, it's just the means of creating it or on a different level.

[opus]

I'm wondering if there aren't perhaps two different arguments going here. I am completely in favor of using Photoshop to shape your photographic vision. But the fact that there is repeated debate about this topic makes me think that there is an unresolved problem that exists at the basic level, and I think that it has to do with labeling.

I loved how Outdoorsman compared it to painting. I think the issue is exactly the same. If someone creates a painting using oil paints, pastels, and gum wrappers, but the painting is only labeled "oil", it's misleading. The final result is completely valid, but the label is not.

Why does it matter, you ask? Well, I feel that the viewer is entitled to a basic but truthful synopsis of how the painting was constructed. It's a very basic educational tool. A misleading label effectively misleads what the medium is capable of.

And I think that's where my personal line exists. I would draw the (labeling) line at anything that goes beyond what would have been reasonably possible, with your best effort, to capture with the camera alone.


Like I said, I think there are two arguments going on here. The other argument is, is it "right" to use photoshop (or other darkroom tools) to alter a picture? I think it is perfectly acceptable, but capturing an image without using them is much more powerful. Can you imagine Henri Cartier-Bresson nudging the shadow a bit lower and cloning in a bit of glistening water between the shadow and the foot? The image would be neat, but not nearly as powerful.

[Franglais]

This interested me, and I remembered differently, so I looked it up. According to Ansel Adams in his "Examples, The Making of 40 Photographs" there was only one hurried, desperate 8x10 camera exposure taken of "Moonrise." He knew he had an "unusual photograph" (understatement!) so he tried to take a duplicate, but failed to get one before the scene vanished.

He did work at printing the photo in his beloved darkroom over the years so it would match his previsualisation etc. At the same time, he said that even if the image was poorly printed, it's "romantic/emotional moment in time" would have still been appreciated (again, understatement).

The most interesting, compelling thing about photography for me is capturing the moment and, as has been said, using the tools at hand to do so. I think that it is that "wait, compose, capture" idea that make photography so exciting. What Jim Brandenburg did in "Chased By The Light", taking one exposure a day (on print film - he couldn't preview his work) for 90 days as a project, really impresses and excites me as a photographer and observer. I know he uses depth of field and shutter speed etc. It's means more to me that he used his skill to do it at the time and under extraordinary circumstances.

I think that I understand where Kelly (and the others) is coming from. It is impossible to determine where the point that photographic manipulation becomes too much, but I do believe that it is important that the vital elements of a photo were there at the time and the photographer had a very clear idea of the image in their head. This does not necessarily mean that lots and lots of manipulation is wrong, or not photography. It just isn't to my taste.

And, yes '"lots and lots" is subject to debate too... ;)

I went to one of Ansel Adams last lectures (in London). I seem to remember him saying (about Moonrise..) that he was driving along, saw the image, stopped and set the camera up in a mad hurry, didn't have his exposure meter to hand so he used used the only value he recognised in the scene - the moon - which he set on Zone 7 I guess. Did one exposure - and the light went out. And that was the end of it.

Charles

[Hodgy]

I dissagree with you too. Having entered National print competitions, the judges don't give a rat's ass on how the image was created. They look at the final print, and judge it at that.

When I look at kickass image and think "wow, this totally blows my mind" and then someone says "ya, but he added that, and he removed that", I go "So? Then the photog knows what he's doing then."

[opus]

Hodgy, who do you disagree with?