When Is A Photo Not A Photo

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
I read a very interesting article in a steam railway magazine about what at first glance was a stunning photograph but turned out to be about 10 images and 14 hours of Photoshop work.Now I am not averse to upping the saturation cloning out an offending branch or crisp packet in my shots but I do wonder if 14 hours of work in Photoshop and producing a result that bears no relation to what the photographer saw in front of him is really a photograph.
Or am I just being a hypocrite
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I read a very interesting article in a steam railway magazine about what at first glance was a stunning photograph but turned out to be about 10 images and 14 hours of Photoshop work.Now I am not averse to upping the saturation cloning out an offending branch or crisp packet in my shots but I do wonder if 14 hours of work in Photoshop and producing a result that bears no relation to what the photographer saw in front of him is really a photograph.
Or am I just being a hypocrite
Click to expand...

I have a running battle with my father about this. He's a keen hobbyist, but only on fillum.

I espouse the joys of digital and tattychop - he condemns the cheating.

He accepts, however, that in using filters etc, one is manipulating the photo.

When does a photo become a lie? When you stage it? When you clone something out? When you drop the saturation to make it look "older"?

I'm a fan of both pure in-camera captures, and massive manipulation. What I don't like is lying, though. I think if you're going to shop it, then make it clear.. If the colours aren't popping like you intended, then take the shot again. But then ...

Oh I don't know!
 
That's exactly it - the only thing wrong about manipulation, however extreme, is denying you did it.
 
As far as I am concerned photography is art, and therefore, it can be anything from a straight out of camera, raw, to a heavily processed 'shopped image - whether you like it or not is your choice, like whether you prefer Picasso or Constable. When does it stop being a photo? Almost impossible to draw a definitive line, it will vary for every processed image, therefore i take each image on merit, and if I can't 'see' the processing, admire the skill, if I can 'see' it but its done well anyway, with a purpose, admire it anyway for what it is.


BTW, the 14 hours of photoshoping - froma skilled 'shopper, or an amateur that had to work hard to achieve something an expert could do in under an hour? I ask because its sounds like a lot of work, but might have a bit of artistic licence on the part of the article writer ;)
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I read a very interesting article in a steam railway magazine about what at first glance was a stunning photograph but turned out to be about 10 images and 14 hours of Photoshop work.Now I am not averse to upping the saturation cloning out an offending branch or crisp packet in my shots but I do wonder if 14 hours of work in Photoshop and producing a result that bears no relation to what the photographer saw in front of him is really a photograph.
Or am I just being a hypocrite
Click to expand...

So, you've seen a very interesting image by the sound of it (please post a link if you can, I wouldn't mind having a goosie myself) and after you discovered that it was a manipulation, you no longer appreciate the image?

Would that be correct?

Although I'm at a loss why anything could take 14 hours I'm very interested to see the image myself.

Personally, the debate works like this for me:

The photograph(s) have been used to construct an image, but the finished result isn't directly a photograph. Simple?....maybe?...
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
So, you've seen a very interesting image by the sound of it (please post a link if you can, I wouldn't mind having a goosie myself) and after you discovered that it was a manipulation, you no longer appreciate the image?

Would that be correct?

Although I'm at a loss why anything could take 14 hours I'm very interested to see the image myself.

Personally, the debate works like this for me:

The photograph(s) have been used to construct an image, but the finished result isn't directly a photograph. Simple?....maybe?...
Click to expand...

No its still a stunning image Tomas and it clearly stated that it was manipulated,I suppose I am just an old Grumpy that finds manipulation at this level way over the top.
I cant find a link to the shot but if you pop into Smiths and have a browse (Sorry i mean buy a copy) at issue 122 of Heritage Railway its on page 70
 
CaptainPenguin said:
No its still a stunning image Tomas and it clearly stated that it was manipulated,I suppose I am just an old Grumpy that finds manipulation at this level way over the top.
I cant find a link to the shot but if you pop into Smiths and have a browse (Sorry i mean buy a copy) at issue 122 of Heritage Railway its on page 70
Click to expand...

Rightio, I wish I could pop into Smith's, bit difficult being an ex pat living abroad :lol: I'll just have to take your word for mate :thumbs:
 
I think that a bit of touching up is fine for a photo, but after too much manipulation it's no longer a photo but a picture.

I suppose there is a fine line between the two!
 
My view on the matter is that a photo has to be a "capture" of time, as un-edited as possible. Images like those in most fasion magazines of models arent photos at all, but images.

if anyone saw the last episode of "the genius of photography" they would of seen a canadian "photographer" who firstly stages HUGE! scenes (which is allowed, its been done since the begining of time/photography) but then, after he takes the pic on the massive super-large format camera, he develops the neg then gets it photoshoped to the extreme, removing things adding things, changing the colours etc. Its at that point that I draw the line. Too much editing just doesn't make it a "photo" anymore. It makes it an image.

Having said that, most of the "great/classic" photos we know of today (W. Eugene Smith's from Pittsburgh, Man-Ray, Robert Capa etc- a huge number) have had their photos edited in the darkroom. There is more you can do fiddling round with multigrade filters (ive known people cut out their entire photo out of different contrast filters, and put them in different places etc to get the perfect pic). Then comes the masses of chemicals that can be added to improve shots too.

The use of that kind of thing in the darkroom, i think os ok (though I wouldn't go to such extremes myself) because its hours of painstaking labour to get a good shot out of it, wheras photoshop can get it done with a click of a button! It takes the "soul" away from the image.... perhaps i'm just a hipocrate.
 
AleksanderLoesch said:
if anyone saw the last episode of "the genius of photography" they would of seen a canadian "photographer" who firstly stages HUGE! scenes (which is allowed, its been done since the begining of time/photography) but then, after he takes the pic on the massive super-large format camera, he develops the neg then gets it photoshoped to the extreme, removing things adding things, changing the colours etc. Its at that point that I draw the line. Too much editing just doesn't make it a "photo" anymore. It makes it an image.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even call that guy a photographer to be honest as he has someone else to actually press the button! I'd call him an art director. But I totally agree with what you say :)
 
What's been described doesn't sound like something i'd call a photograph. Computer generated art certainly, incorporating photos, definately.
Not better or worse for that in my mind but different.
All art forms can offer things that are wonderful and move us. They can also all generate a lot of poo.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Rightio, I wish I could pop into Smith's
Click to expand...

We have W H Smith's, do you not have A T Virtanen's? :D

Surely a photo is always a photo, unless it's a drawing, or a painting, or a banana, etc. It's either just au natrel, slightly tweeked (digitally or darkroom), or manipulated ranging from mild to completely *******ised.
 
foodpoison said:
The way I feel on the subject is "Who cares?!"
Click to expand...

That's the way I feel about it now really.

In the big picture, as long as it works, then it doesn't matter. If the final result can't have existed without the use of a camera and lens, then it's still an area of photography and it still gets judged if it's good or not.

Critics or rather folk who feel compelled to condemn the styles that do not interest them, slam photographers like Dave Hill, a chap who has a very unique, individual and highly distinctive post production work flow.
It really bares no significance at the end of the day, he's still here, he's still working and he's still doing what he loves.
 
foodpoison said:
The way I feel on the subject is "Who cares?!"

You still took the photo in the first place, there's no getting rid of that!
Click to expand...


Yeah, but it would leave me with a fealing of emptyness knowing that (eg- a photo of a model) was in a magazine, and its nothing like the original because its gone back and-forth between the editor of the mag, and a photoshop editor.

its been known for peoples heads to have been replaced by others etc... does it really count as your work.

I have to say though, looking at the cash that (some) of those togs get for that work, would I really be so negative about it if I where one of them???

*slaps himself* aagh, better not think about it!

and I agree, that canadian guy, he is an "art director"/artist, but NOT a photographer. Although, I have seen some photos that he DID take, and DIDN'T edit, and well, they where quite good!

what do you do then:lol:?
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
That's the way I feel about it now really.

In the big picture, as long as it works, then it doesn't matter. If the final result can't have existed without the use of a camera and lens, then it's still an area of photography and it still gets judged if it's good or not.

Critics or rather folk who feel compelled to condemn the styles that do not interest them, slam photographers like Dave Hill, a chap who has a very distinctive post production work flow.
It really bares no significance at the end of the day, he's still here, he's still working and he's still doing what he loves.
Click to expand...

I have to say, for me, its not because I don't like these other styles (ie heavily edited) I really like some of that canadian artists work, BUT! I still wouldn't call them a photographer, rather an artist.

also I didn't realise that Dave Hill did the images/photos for the rapper so dumb, he has to have his name written on his own glasses...... (sorry, thats another rant about to begin there!)
 
Myky D said:
When does a photo become a lie? When you stage it? When you clone something out? When you drop the saturation to make it look "older"?
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to understand why the photo has to (by some undisputed convention) necessarily show precisely what was captured?? In this respect I can only see 2 uses for such a thing - journalism and snaps - both benefit of having image exactly as the eyes saw it.

Ansel Adams used to promote the visualisation approach to drive each true photographic intention. I.e. you visualise the scene in your mind (what you want to achieve in the image), then take the picture and get to the final physical version of your visualisation by post-processing (in film times it meant dark room and printing which may have included quite substantial alterations to the image). This to me is more like a painter will paint the picture - you think about what you want it to be, then go and do it.

This process does not imply at any stage that the image have to be purely captured and puristically not touched (if it would be so we would have used Polaroids for everything). So I don't see anything wrong with manipulating as soon as the image benefits from it. I myself is not a Photoshop expert in any way but I still admire what some people can create in it and in that case I don't even care how their original capture(s) looked like as soon as I like the result. What is wrong with that??

I don't think any of the "purists" would actually look at Van Gogh sunflowers and wonder if it was actually exactly as he saw them - they wouldn't appreciate it less or despise Van Gogh if the painting was even figment of his imagination and didn't exist in reality wouldn't they?

I guess my point is - photo is never a lie. It never meant to only display truth or act only as a capture of the moment - it is so much more now. Camera and postprocessing software are merely a tools like brushes in painter's hands...
 
My opinion is a photograph is something that comes straight off the camera, in whatever form that comes (negative, digital file, polaroid etc.). Everything after that is something different - an image, art, a printout, an enlargement or something else. But I believe it doesn't matter. I don't believe there is anything sacred about a photograph or an image or how you came to produce that photograph or it's resulting image. The end result is the important bit, that's not to say how an image or the circumstances around how it came to be aren't necessarily unimportant or uninteresting. Often they can be more interesting than the actual image itself.

At the end of the day, I don't think it's anyone's place to say what is or isn't a photograph, it's just opinion and I think it's quite interesting to discuss the subject! So, I care!
 
For me a photograph is what the camera sees and reproduced by one format or other for people to see

When a photograh has been altered considerably in an editing suite it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a picture.

Bazza
 
realspeed said:
For me a photograph is what the camera sees and reproduced by one format or other for people to see

When a photograh has been altered considerably in an editing suite it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a picture.

Bazza
Click to expand...


Just a question, do you feel that when an image is manipulated in a darkroom it is acceptable or not? The reason I ask is that as soon as a film is taken into anywhere to be processed it is manipulated. When it is printed the minilabs that are used automatically do colour corrections and adjust the exposure that each individual print requires.
 
realspeed said:
For me a photograph is what the camera sees and reproduced by one format or other for people to see

When a photograh has been altered considerably in an editing suite it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a picture.

Bazza
Click to expand...

What's your definition of "altered considerably"? When is the line drawn as to when a photograph is considerably altered and thus a picture and when it's still a photograph?
 
Welly you can't catch me out with that question

Easy answer , its when the final result is different from the original photograph.

Sharpening/resizing a photograph for example isn't altering the photograph, just making it clearer or getting the photograph to the size wanted.

When you start enhancing/altering the picture with an editing suite (electronic painting) to make it look better than it actually is then it becomes a picture.



Remember the better the photograph when taken , the less editing required.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
....Remember the better the photograph when taken , the less editing required.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Sorry Realspeed but that represents the purist approach and only one way of getting a result. In this day and age trying to achieve results using a single approach is detrimental.

Your forgetting that even the most extreme purists used to dodge and burn images to improve and enhance areas of their frames from film rolls.

Some photo's or projects require very advanced and highly skilled editing even when getting all elements as correct or as desirable as possible in camera.
It depends on the photographers/author's intent and the nature of the assignment.

I think more accurately your referring to fixing or repairing an image and not the editing post processes in general.

That's why this argument falls down for me, it has no relevance and has no real merit other than to amuse and entertain. Think about it:

'That's not a photo, it's been through photoshop and had things done to it :nono:!'
'Oh yes it is! :nono: It was taken with a camera! :rules:'
'Oh no it isn't, it's not the original frame, it's been turned into something else and now it's no longer a photo and the person who took it is no longer a photographer :|'

and on and on.....:cuckoo:

Conclusion or not, it doesn't change a single thing, photographers, yes photographers! are still producing inspiring and influential work and still making a living, still traveling the world, still here whether this pointless argument is won or lost.

I'll say it again, In the big picture, as long as it works, then it doesn't matter.
If the final result can't have existed without the use of a camera and lens, then it's still an area of photography and it still subjected to the same judgement.
 
realspeed said:
Welly you can't catch me out with that question

Easy answer , its when the final result is different from the original photograph.

Sharpening/resizing a photograph for example isn't altering the photograph, just making it clearer or getting the photograph to the size wanted.

When you start enhancing/altering the picture with an editing suite (electronic painting) to make it look better than it actually is then it becomes a picture.



Remember the better the photograph when taken , the less editing required.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

But every picture is altered by the digital camera it's taken on, if you shoot jpeg the camera applies some sharpening and colour ajustments, if you shoot raw then your software applies a conversion based on the make and model used, yes you can ajust it, but then you altered it.

This is the question, at what point does it stop being a photo and become art? is it when you remove the old coke can?, or maybe when you blur the distracting background a little? or maybe after 14 hours of "tweeking" or is it art as soon as you press the little button???
The debate continues... Wayne
 
realspeed said:
Welly you can't catch me out with that question

Easy answer , its when the final result is different from the original photograph.
...
Remember the better the photograph when taken , the less editing required.
Click to expand...

That can and will severely limit your options as a photographer. Neither current (digital) nor older (film) technology won't be capable capturing full breadth of what even your eyes can see (and I am not saying about how you want to visualise the scene that you are seeing). So how is it possible to capture the scene then without any post-manipulation? The graduated filters or other devices destined to aid this limitation at capture time won't do it in all the cases and neither will they allow to capture it as "your eyes saw it".

In film era there was a darkroom manipulation which allowed photographers achieve this. True your negative has to be as close to perfection as possible to get more juice out of it but still some amazing alteration were performed and some photos have not even resembled the original. I don't see why this should not be applicable to digital.

Then again there is an issue with pre-manipulation. Why exactly is that I can use scene manipulations (by means of filters and so on which may alter the scene significantly) before I take the photo and I am not allowed to do the same thing after I take the photo without loosing entitlement to call my image a photo?..
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Conclusion or not, it doesn't change a single thing, photographers, yes photographers! are still producing inspiring and influential work and still making a living, still traveling the world, still here whether this pointless argument is won or lost.

I'll say it again, In the big picture, as long as it works, then it doesn't matter.
If the final result can't have existed without the use of a camera and lens, then it's still an area of photography and it still subjected to the same judgement.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more with this - very well said :clap:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
I'll say it again, In the big picture, as long as it works, then it doesn't matter.
If the final result can't have existed without the use of a camera and lens, then it's still an area of photography and it still subjected to the same judgement.
Click to expand...

dalex_257 said:
Can't agree more with this - very well said :clap:
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
realspeed said:
Welly you can't catch me out with that question

Easy answer , its when the final result is different from the original photograph.

Sharpening/resizing a photograph for example isn't altering the photograph, just making it clearer or getting the photograph to the size wanted.

When you start enhancing/altering the picture with an editing suite (electronic painting) to make it look better than it actually is then it becomes a picture.



Remember the better the photograph when taken , the less editing required.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Erm ... no.

What about deliberately choosing a faster or slower fillum to get a certain result? What about using filters? What about cropping? What about zoom? What about manipulating the light so that the model looks different? What about exposure in the dark room? What about using certain inks and paper to achieve certain effects?

Exactly what is "the original photograph"?
 
A photo stops becoming a photo when someone sees it and it moves them... At that point, it's no longer a photo. It's a part of who they are.

Shouldn't matter how it got to that point. As long as it gets there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top