When Does The Photography Stop?

[Pete E]

As I have decided to take the plunge and get a digital SLR, I would like to air some thoughts that have been niggling away at me for sometime now…

Since finding this site, I have been amazed at the quality of the work that is displayed; it has been a real inspiration to me. On reading the various posts though, it becomes apparent that a lot of the final impact of an image is often achieved in Photoshop….

So at what point does photography stop and the process devolve into computer manipulation?
At what point do people draw the line? At what point does a photograph owe more to its success to CS element skill than to basic photography? When an image is radically altered on the computer, should we stop considering as a “photograph” and maybe refer to it as “digital” art?

From a slightly different perspective, during the recent conflict in Lebanon , at least one Press photographer was hauled over the coals for manipulating his reportage pictures….I think most people would agree that manipulation in those circumstances is wrong, but what about the wedding photographer who is asked to add the image of a dead relative into a wedding photograph?

I have no idea where, if any, the lines should be drawn in these matters and I think what troubles me most is that when I try to get to grips with it, my own thoughts are often contradictory…

 

[moomike]

I have often pondered this question as it is mentioned to me a great deal regarding my illustration work - I work entirely on the computer yet have professional artists & painters emailing me to ask how I get my paint so smooth & textured . When I reply that I cannot help them due to this reason, the response is always varied - either compliments or criticism - I have even had one person tell me that I had never created a "proper" piece of artwork if I worked digitally :shrug: . As you may be able to guess, this is a major bugbear for me but people are entitled to their opinions.
Photography & digital work in harmony together with the advent of digital imaging but I definately think there is a point when you cross over into "digital art" for example, a recent post here (no criticism or offence intended here by the way as they were very skilfully done ) showed fractals that had been generated in photoshop or a program such as genuine fractals - this I do not consider photography as there was no image taken - it was generated so I believe this fits into the "digital art" category. - Possibly a new forum category titled as such would be suitable for this kind of work.

I believe that everyone has different thoughts, styles as well as abilities within the photoshop arena but it is very difficult to make a groundbreaking image in Photoshop if beginning with a bad photo & for this reason a certain amount of photographic skill is required.
I too share some of your contradictory thoughts - but really think photoshopping a dead relative into a wedding photograph is just plain morbid & I believe I would refuse to do it if asked, but then again, if it was a person I knew & felt comfortable around that was requesting this service, I would probably voice my opinions & if it was decided how important to this person it was, I may well reconsider (dunno whether I'd call that "digital art" tho ).
I have a great many thoughts on this subject (as you may have guessed by the stupidly long post ) but would be very interested to hear others opinions & viewpoints on this subject (great post by the way - I feel better for venting a little )

 

[Catdaddy]

I reckon you're gonna get a whole host of different answers to this one, Pete!

Just trawling the net in the past, I've seen some stuning images that have been obviously manipulated to the extent that the camera has just been used as a tool for capturing the 'elements' of a shot. (Some of these images have been used in portfolios for an examining board)

On the other hand, plenty on here will say that they prefer to get things right 'in camera'.

In addition, Photoshop was originally designed to enable the user to do everything on a computer that you could do in a darkroom... And digital images will often need a hint of sharpening anyway.

With regard to the other points you mention, you're talking two different markets here. A journalistic photographer should never manipulate his images for a news item to the extent that the image 'tells a lie'. On the other hand, if the wedding photographer has been asked by his/her clients to paste an image in of a dead relative, then why not - if that's what the customer wants... He's not going to be kidding anybody, is he?

PS You decided what you're gonna get yet?

 

[moomike]

PS You decided what you're gonna get yet?

Canon, Canon, Canon

 

[Catdaddy]

 

[CT]

LOL. Quite honestly, some of this makes me smile. Anyone who's never developed a film can be forgiven for thinking that film had some integrity which it never actually possessed. After all they sent their roll of film away to the processors and had no hand in it's developing and printing. Now they're confronted with editing choices which are essentially little different to developing and printing film. Over or under exposed negatives could be printed on different grades of paper, either to rescue a poor negative or to achieve a particular effect. developing times and temperatures could be altered for similar reasons. Actually printing the shot on the enlarger baseboard, there were numerous tricks which could be employed to give more or less exposure to a particular area, from shading with the hands to cutting out bits of paper to the shape of a particular area and holding them over the area during enlarger exposure on the ends of bits of wire. What were they if not selective masks by a different name? The terms 'dodging' and 'burning' were used and have been carried over into digital editing.

Ansel Adams will be revered by most, me included, and the man did everything he could to get the exposure right in camera to the extent that he invented his incredibly difficult Zone Metering System. The fact is he was also a master in the darkroom and spent many hours getting the results he wanted from his prints despite his preoccupation with exposure.

IMHO what matters is the image, not the means. A photo journalist obviously shouldn't manipulate his images to the extent that they're misleading the viewer. For most of the rest of us the only deception I can see is not being open about it.

Digital photography has brought hordes of new users to photography who probably wouldn't be here without the digital revolution, and revived the jaded interest of many who recognize the potential of the new media. We should be celebrating the incredible creative power the new media gives us, not fretting about whether or not our work is somehow not worthy or valid.

As for the dead relative, I was asked to clone a groom out of his first wedding photo from the side of his ex into the wedding shot with his new bride, because he liked his suit better in the earlier wedding... honest! He's the paying customer, what's up with that?

 

[moomike]

because he liked his suit better in the earlier wedding... honest! He's the paying customer, what's up with that?

That is just wrong!!
Agree completely with everything that you said though CT, Having never had the opportunity to play around developing film I had no idea these techniques were used by Ansel Adams - guess digital enhancement really isn't that far away a concept from film (ooooh, imagine the reaction I'd get on any other forum for saying that ). I don't think I could go back to using film & having my images developed now, I am a complete photoshop whore

 

[petemc]

We should be celebrating the incredible creative power the new media gives us, not fretting about whether or not our work is somehow not worthy or valid.

Exactly. At the end of the day, if its photojournalism it shouldn't be tampered with. If its not, its just art and art is appreciated in its final form. The technicalites can be impressive but its the end result that will make people talk.

 

[Matt]

another thing to remember is that a rubbish will still look like a rubbish picture, it simply becomes a processed rubbish picture!

 

[lee]

I have recently been questioning my own judgement to edit photos I took at my friends wedding, the bride has pretty bad skin as a result of acne. So I simply cleaned up in photoshop, and did a photobook from the day as my gift to them.

They are about to return from there honeymoon this weekend and will give it to them, but I've started to wonder if I did the right thing as it may offend her. My wife things I'm mad but I'm not sure

 

[CT]

I'd have done exactly the same Lee. I'm sure she'd prefer her wedding photos without the acne.

 

[lee]

Cheers CT, I thought that but you do wonder if your gonna offend people.

 

[fingerz]

another thing to remember is that a rubbish will still look like a rubbish picture, it simply becomes a processed rubbish picture!

I'd disagree there. I've taken several shots that looked crap on the camera screen (I only shot them because it doesn't cost anything on digital) but have surprised me when I decided to play with them in Photoshop. If you'll excuse the blatant plugging of my own work, all the following looked decidedly unimpressive 'straight from the box':

(clickable for bigger versions)















At the end of the day, artists can create lovely images in Photoshop starting from a blank canvas so it should be no surprise that a seemingly lacklustre photo can be brought to life with a bit of fiddling and a decent eye for detail.

 

[MattEg]

So at what point does photography stop and the process
devolve into computer manipulation?

IMO anything other than cleaning up the photograph using the accepted methods
(dust removal, levels, curves, sharpening, etc...) is manipulation, adding and/or removing elements, then
photograph becomes an image.

For most of the rest of us the only deception I can see is not being open
about it.

Totally agree with CT's point.
If a photograph is manipulated in such a way that it doesn't show the original
content, then the photographer should be honest and point out the fact.
I've known a professional photogs reputation being damaged, just because they
neglected to state an image was manipulated (and he isn't a journalist).

 

[Hacker]

As long is the picture is reasonably true to what was seen I don't have a problem with it. This picture for example was taken in my local wood and is almost straight from the camera as little PP is required.

 

[CT]

PMSL!! Nice one Hackers!

I really think of my stuff as images anyway rather than photographs. :shrug:

I don't think they're photographs anyway by strict definition?

photograph noun a permanent record of an image that has been produced on photosensitive film or paper by the process of photography. verb (photographed, photographing) tr & intr to take a photograph of (a person, thing, etc).
ETYMOLOGY: 19c.

Chambers Dictionary.

 

[CT]

Which raises the question... If we're not photographers, what are we?

Digitalists? Sounds a bit rude.

 

[Steep]

I reckon Matts' got it. In my view a photograph is what you take, an image is what you make of it.

 

[mrgubby]

another thing to remember is that a rubbish will still look like a rubbish picture, it simply becomes a processed rubbish picture!

I'm with fingerz on this , I was at Santapod recently watching loads of old American Muscle burning rubber on the drag strip and saw a lovely looking GTO thing (USA cars not my strong point). I took a few shots of it from different angles / DOF etc but when I got home it just didn't work. I sat down with PS & tried to Oldy-MuscleTM it and got the image that I wanted.

The image wasn't what the camera saw , it was what I was trying to see / show that was important


....if that makes any sense

 

[fingerz]

If we're not photographers, what are we?

Digital photographers.

 

[CT]

Digital photographers.

LOL. OK Jamie, I'll go with that. We don't want to have to rename the forum to something that's going to attract the wrong punters altogether!

 

[fingerz]

Talkdigits.co.uk?

 

[CT]

Talkdigits.co.uk?

I can think of worse!

 

[mrgubby]

Talkdigits.co.uk?

TalkB******s.co.uk more often than not

 

[CT]

LOL

 

[Hacker]

TalkB******s.co.uk more often than not

ROFLMAO!

 

[Sean_Mcr]

Photography is photography be it film or digital; The word photography comes from the two Greek words phos & graphos, it translates as light writing, which is why it's described as painting with light

It's content that makes a great photo, and you can't create content in photoshop. If the soul of the shot is there it's there, if it's not it's not

 

[Hacker]

It's content that makes a great photo, and you can't create content in photoshop. If the soul of the shot is there it's there, if it's not it's not

That's probably the best way of describing photography that I've come across.

 

[Witch]

I've deliberately responded to the original question before reading the other responses as I wanted to keep my mind uncluttered by responses to whatis a massive question while I gave my views. Apologies if this means that I have repeated what others have said....

I think personally that once a photograph is taken the subject matter of that hotograph should neither be added to or subtracted from. The example given above of adding a dead relative to a wedding pic - horrible horrible horrible. You can't change history - I would have loved for my Uncle to have been at my wedding - sadly he died from cancer 3 months before I met my husband - I am deeply sad that they never knew one another but not for a second would I have considered trying to visually turn back time. Another example which has been used in the past is the couple who break up and one party then has the other removed from pictures......presumably at the tije the shot was taken they were together so as far as the photo goes, that's the way they should stay. I touch on the subject briefly on the intro page of my website - the description I used there was "trying to change history" if I remember correctly. The number of times as a child I remember looking at my parents wedding pics with my Mum and her laughing over how windy the day was (Veil blowing all over the place) and how badly her dress crease (Clearly visible in the pics). Yes the weather wasn't kind to her and she would, with hindsight have chosen a differnt fabric for her dress, but she still had an amazing day and the photos show that - imperfections and all.

I regularly take portrait shots of our speedway riders up at Ipswich. e have a couple of lads in the side with bad skin and another who has some minor blackening to one of his front teeth. I will clone or heal out the spots as I feel that they are not part of the person. The teeth however for general purposes I leave alone.

I've been sorting out photos for a photobook of our shots from our Hebrides trip earlier in the year over the past week and have pretty much got my workflow down to a fine art now.......crop as needed, a bit of tweaking with levels, slight curves adjustment to warm up the light a little, resize and sharpen. The only real "alterations" I have made to any of them is the removal of a gull from the sky in one as it was too far away and looked like a black speck, and removing a bright orange boat from another which had edged its way into a nice rainbow shot and was proving a distraction - nothing that altered the subject of the shots in any way though.

Pictures should be of what the photographer wanted to capture, NOT what someone else wishes he had.

Will now read the rest of the thread to see if I'm totally out on a limb here!

 

[mrgubby]

*snip*
It's content that makes a great photo, and you can't create content in photoshop. If the soul of the shot is there it's there, if it's not it's not

PS is a tool , it can help reveal the soul of the shot , like a chisel finds the statue within the granite block.

It can be as much a tool as the camera itself .

 

[moomike]

I would never tell anyone I was anything other than a photographer just because I use digital. But if an image is manipulated I will fess up & say so - most people nowadays chime up & say "levels & contrast? thought so" so it comes as no surprise (or compromise) as most people expect a certain amount of manipulation.
Seans description is spot on IMO, & wheras I believe you can save a photo from the recycle bin with photoshop, should it be necessary? I learned how to rescue images in Photoshop years before I had any interest in Photography but I find myself trying my best to get a spot on image in-camera rather than relying on Photoshop anymore, if an image requires manipulation, it gets it but it's all down to personal choice & skill - a good balance of both in-camera & editing skills will see you through more often than not.

 

[jewel]

another thing to remember is that a rubbish will still look like a rubbish picture, it simply becomes a processed rubbish picture!

I'm a testemant to that! Wise words there Matty.

Jewel

 

[Matt]

maybe i will quantify what i say...if the picture is out of focus, or really badly composed(to a degree that it cant be cropped to recompose)or the exposure is so bad etc then its silk purse sows ear time, IMHO if a picture can be made to look good with processing then it wasnt a bad picture to start with, make sense??

 

[Sean_Mcr]

Frank Hurley was the worlds top war photographer during the first world war. Maybe the most famous photographer of his generation He was brave to the point of insanity, he was with shackleton on the Endurance. That famous shot of shackleton returning to rescue his men, was actually a shot of him leaving

These three shots were taken by Hurley during the first world war. They are merged negatives, yep super imposed.

There's more here
http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-hurley.html


Now he did take astounding images, he was fearless, truly fearless and i have great admiration for the man. But anybody that thinks that manipulation came with the digital age is a pixel short of a sensor. It's nothing new at all, it's just a new dark room.

Who recalls the shots of the girls with the fairies? Sir Arthur conan doyle was convinced that they were real, as were many many others. Two children made that, they were OAP's before they came clean


There is nothing new under the sun

 

[Pete E]

Interesting responses; thought provoking too...

CT,

I dabbled with B&W photography in school so I'm aware of the amount of manipulation that occured, and its sometimes drastic effects on an image...In addition, even before the shot is taken, you could also class the use of filters as a form of manipulation...

I think for me, the distinction between these techniques, and the use of Photoshop, is that the traditional methods were based (for the most part)around the physical manipulation of light and that is the direct link to photography...

Sean,

I've read your posts with regards cropping...How do you reconcile such a purist approach on one hand, to support the manipulation of a photograph with Photoshop?

A couple more questions for everybody else….

Have you ever photoshopped part of somebody else’s image into one of your own to improve it? I am thinking of such things as “pinching” somebody else’s perfect sky for instance….

Secondly, if I submitted a photo here for critique, and somebody edited it such that it resulted in a better picture, who deserves the credit?

Regards,

Pete

PS Chris, sorry mate I’ve already bought a 30D!

Having said that, If ever have the urge to buy an old classic 35mm SLR , I would certainly consider a Nikon though…It would be like buying a slice of history…I’ve often browsed around the local camera shops looking at various used cameras, and wondered what tale they could tell if they could speak…

 

[mrgubby]

Interesting responses; thought provoking too...

*snip
Secondly, if I submitted a photo here for critique, and somebody edited it such that it resulted in a better picture, who deserves the credit?

Regards,

Pete

Now , That's what I call a can of worms

 

[Pete E]

Sean,

Those images undoubtedly "existed" and would have been observed by Hurley and I would guess that he choose that method as the best way of recreating them perhaps his only way of recreating them given the equipment of the period...

It does show how ethics are often like quickstand and change far more easily than people will admit...

Regards,

Pete

 

[Sean_Mcr]

Interesting responses; thought provoking too...

CT,

I dabbled with B&W photography in school so I'm aware of the amount of manipulation that occured, and its sometimes drastic effects on an image...In addition, even before the shot is taken, you could also class the use of filters as a form of manipulation...

I think for me, the distinction between these techniques, and the use of Photoshop, is that the traditional methods were based (for the most part)around the physical manipulation of light and that is the direct link to photography...

Sean,

I've read your posts with regards cropping...How do you reconcile such a purist approach on one hand, to support the manipulation of a photograph with Photoshop?

A couple more questions for everybody else….

Have you ever photoshopped part of somebody else’s image into one of your own to improve it? I am thinking of such things as “pinching” somebody else’s perfect sky for instance….

Secondly, if I submitted a photo here for critique, and somebody edited it such that it resulted in a better picture, who deserves the credit?

Regards,

Pete

PS Chris, sorry mate I’ve already bought a 30D!

Having said that, If ever have the urge to buy an old classic 35mm SLR , I would certainly consider a Nikon though…It would be like buying a slice of history…I’ve often browsed around the local camera shops looking at various used cameras, and wondered what tale they could tell if they could speak…

I never said i supported manipulation, i was merely pointing out that it was nothing new. It was done in the dark room it will be done in PS and when the day comes when new way of capturing images arrives, it will be done still.

But manipulation is nothing new