when is it manipulation

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi everyone;

The recent threads got me thinking, and this is not a flame war, but i can really use some honest opinions. Here's my situation.

Currently I am chairman of the local heritage committe. Yep, I'm the guy who goes to city hall and begs for that old house not to be torn down because it's a heritage site. I loose 99% of the time. :)

In that vien, my B&W large format photogrpahy fits hand in glove - everything from archivally documenting current inventory to research on old historical photographs.

Now, in this light, and for the record, two things

- I do not like "aritifical" manipulation of photographs,
- second, in previous threads, all you guys who siad you see no moral difference between manipulation in the wet darkroom or digitally, I agree with all of you 110% - and then some. :)

Give you an exmaple - we have a 100 year old photograph of a church - large format of course - where, 100 years ago, an artist, by hand, drew in steeples that never existed and to this day do not exist. I cannot use that historical photograph at all becuase if I go before city council the first thing they will say is "hey, if those steeples are phoney, what else false?"

So for archival preservation and historical research, manipulation by hand drawing, in the darkroom or photoshop are all equally out the window.

Conversely however, to me, one point of photography is to bring out detail not easily seen by the naked eye. Example - I shoot infra-red film in 4x5 (Macho 820). Just becasue I cannot see IR light doesn't mean it's not there, and sometimes boosting the contrast on an IR print can bring out important detail lost long ago.

So here's the question - it's a big gray are where you cross the line between enchancement and maniputation. But where is the line? There's a famous court case years ago, a judge ruling on pornography who said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I feel like 'm in the same boat in a way.

So put yourselves in my shoes. Not photography in general per say, but if you were in my situation going up before city council to fight to preseve an old historic building, and you want to restore some old photographs to back up your case, or take some new ones that show how nice that old house is, at what point do you draw that line in that big grey area? Either in my wet darkroom or on photophop, where do I say "oaky, boosting contrast is okay, but not....."? See what I mean?

Maybe enough opinions might lead to a bit of a consensus. Maybe not. In any case, all ideas welcome, becasue it's an issue I face all the time, and i'd like to hear what others think

thanks

joe

[darr]

Photography serves a million purposes both artistically and commercially. To give you my opinion on your historic house situation:

"Give you an example - we have a 100 year old photograph of a church - large format of course - where, 100 years ago, an artist, by hand, drew in steeples that never existed and to this day do not exist. I cannot use that historical photograph at all because if I go before city council the first thing they will say is "hey, if those steeples are phony, what else false?"

Hire a Photoshop artist (in the old days they were called photo-retouchers) to work on your historic photo to bring it into closer proximity of the "real thing" and then present it. I really do not see what the objective is here other than doing a "truth in presentation"?

[darter]

I read a recent article on an old-time (speed graphic era) photographer who heavily manipulated scenes to create recreations of sports feats. He said he was not a photographer, but a "photo-illustrator." In my opinion, significant manipulations, beyond say burning in sky or dodging an overly dark area, makes the resulting image more of a photo-illustration than a photograph. Morality does not enter into the picture unless accurate rendition (at least up to the capabilities of the medium) is promised or implied.

[Leonard Evens]

I think you can do anything within reason, as long as you are completely honest about it. For example, you might present to them the old photo with the extra spires and also a version modified in Photoshop showing the spires removed. You should show them both and explain how you know the extra spires were never there.

The purpose of such photography should be to illustrate important features of the buidling which may help decision makers understand why it might be wise not to tear it down. Any picture is going to be a distortion of the appearance of the building at the site to the eye. For example, when you use a wide angle lens because you can't get back far enough for a normal lens, the buidling in the resulting image may appear smaller and less massive than it does to the eye. Instead of just showing the photograph, feel free to manipulate it any way that makes sense which will help people understand what is important about the building. Just make it clear that you've engaged in such manipulations for that purpose.

[Thilo Schmid]

Joseph,
if you write the minutes of a meeting or refer to some other ones minutes, you are allowed to highlight any text passage, circle words of interest or add a comment. You may even x-ray it to proof something. But you are not allowed to change the log or add something that has not been said. IMO, it’s much the same with Photography. You are allowed to express anything you wish to make an emphasis on, but you shall not pretend anything that wasn’t there. Otherwise, your result will still be a Picture, but not a Photograph in particular.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, Joe, I think in general you, as a "documentarian", are under the same restrictions as a photo journalist - add no person (or, steeple) not there originally. Manipulations of lighting, contrast, and such to convey the salient points of truth, however, are OK, I believe.

In your situation, I like Darr's suggestion of un-retouching the old photo, and Leonard's suggestion of presenting both with the appropriate background info.

[tim atherton]

From it's very earliest days, people have known that photographs quite often lie and rarely ever tell the whole truth.

And the uses of photography have run the whole gamut from scenes of crime, to medical photography to documentary to propaganda (in fact so called documentary has in actuality often been propaganda) to photojournalism to advertising to family snapshots to art and much more.

In those areas where photography has been used to try and convey some fact about something - medical research or scenes of crime for example - because it is known that the camera so easily lies, it almost always requires additional testimony of some sort to confirm what the photograph shows - the police photography giving sworn testimony in court etc.

In such case as yours, the integrity of the photographic document depends as much on the integrity (and perceived integrity) of the photographer as much as it depends on the photographs itself.

When it comes to other forms of photography art or advertising, as far as manipulation is concerned, really, anything goes - such photogorahs are either trying not try to convey facts (they may be conveying truth or lies) - but it is like trying to apply the rules of publication for peer reviewed scientific research papers to poetry - they may look similar - written words on a page - photographic prints - but they are really two completely different animals and the apparent similarities are incidental.

BTW - I presume all these photographs are in colour? :-) (it's interesting how we almost blindly accept some very obvious forms of manipulation but not others...)

[Hiro]

Joe,

Your situation reminded me of job application. Unless you adorn your resume with everything your creativity can contrive (without lying), you won't be even at the start line. Actors and actresses do the same with their audition photos. You are practically "selling the building," are you not? Then, making it look as attractive and important as possible (again, without lying) would be not an option but a necessity. I see no reason to avoid "general" darkroom/PS manipulations. Everything recorded on IR film is there, so it's also a scientific evidence to support your case unless you are allowed to submit only one photography.

I say presenting a photo with steeples that never existed as “historical” would be in Zone 0, but how about drawing in by hand (or by computer) steeples, walls, barn, etc. that “once existed”? I have no idea how these councils work but wouldn’t feel ethically guilty to use such an imaginary photograph as part of my petition (read "marketing”) package, provided that such additions are proven (documented) to be historical; that the photograph is presented as an “artist’s image” of it once was; and that it helps the cause.

[Bruce Watson]

So here's the question - it's a big gray are where you cross the line between enhancement and manipulation. But where is the line?

I think you know the answer. There is no line. Or, more properly, the line is in the mind of the beholder.

People tend to interpret most of my work as documentary. They'll say that I really captured the scene. When I tell them that the print they are looking at only vaguely resembles the scene, they often get indignant. I have to remind them that I'm the artist, and what they are looking at is my interpretation of the scene, not theirs.

You'd think that my B&W photographs are obviously an abstraction, yet a large number of viewers don't think that way. What I'm saying is, what is a minor edit to me, is often a major edit to someone else. The line, if it exists, is likely different for everyone you ask.

[Daniel Geiger]

There are also personal thresholds. I'm in the middle of a discussion with a colleague where we differ on how much photoshopping is ok. The medium here are scanning electron micrographs of shells; never mind the totally different technology, it still makes an image. It is very hard to clean these minute shells from dirt, so you always have a little speck somewhere.

I am of the opinion, that I can adjust global and local brightness/contrast/un-sharp mask, but the cloning tool is off limits. This is science, so image = data and you don't fudge data.

He thinks, the cloning tool can be used to remove blemishes such as little pieces of dirt in order to provide the reader with a pleasant image.

We both get our images published, so the community accepts either approach. For once, we do have it both ways. Now we are in the middle of a collaboration. Which way to go?

[Graham Patterson]

The journals will accept retouched SEM pictures? Come to think of it, when I was doing SEM work, Photoshop was just gaining a hold and we had real film in the cameras.

Documentary work needs provenance. Otherwise it raises doubts about the concepts it is supposed to be supporting.

[Daniel Geiger]

Hi Graham,

Now all SEMs are digital. On the Philips 512 it was 35 mm film, the old Cambridge 360 was retrofitted to take VGA images, also with Polaroid sandwich option. On the newer machines I've used (LEO 435: 800K file, Hitachi 3000N: 4 MB files; our Zeiss EVO 40XVP with 7 MB files) it is purely digital capture. I found out about my colleagues retouching when discussing his physical specimen cleaning techniques. I was quite amazed. Now I put into my M&M what manipulations were carried out, and which ones weren't. As an editor, I am also looking at images and if they are too good/clean, I will ask the authors. I think many people at scientific journals don't consider the possiblity and it is a don't ask, don't tell policy. I don't endorse it but that's reality. I don't think that photoshop is deliberately used to misrepresent the results, it is more the desire to make a visually appealing product.

Temporas mutantur and nos mutamur in illis. Or--quoting Monty Python-- "As we say in English, c'est la vie" ;-)

[Janko Belaj]

I agree with definition " can't define it, but I know it when I see it". But... photography is basically a "painting with light", so anything you created with light should be named "photography". Just look at rayograms (Man Ray). But than we have a lot of photographs manipulated with painting - ink or pencil. We call that retouch. Is that "clean" photography? If only dust have been removed, it should be, but what about montage and more complex illustrations based on photographs? We agree that those should be named "photo-illlustrations", but some galleriest won't agree, some art historians won't agree. I don't know.



Well, I haven't said anything new, but will tell now something from one of my exhibitions - I have photographed work of one baroque painter, and me and the art historian who researched that painter and discovered a lot of his lost work have made decision that we will not present his work as documentary photographs - that will be pointless because you could just jump in to the car and drove to the churches he have painted. We decided that I will go to digital retouching and reconstructing of his work. Because we wanted to show the beauty of his work, and not the negligence which devastated some of his work during those 250 years. Time, water, earthquakes, wars, humidity, communism, stupidity... last free the most - we have, in our archive, some color photographs from time between 2 world wars - so we know (and can imagine) the color and power of those paints.
Here is one example I have made:http://ik-ranger.net/otvorena_nebesa/007.php. The upper picture is the whole dome of one church, missing the central scene, I took elements from the same scenery that the very same artist have painted in same time in one other church, have changed a color just a bit so can be applied to this church and have got - "photo-illustration" presented in lower image. And I admit it. And I don't feel guilty at all. That was on purpose with purpose. And I don't feel guilty when I remove track of the plain in the sky, but I don't like to remove trunks from picture... don't ask me why. I rather won't take landscape with it.<br
Ah, that's all, I don't feel I'm able to bring any new light to this discussion... maybe we don't need at all?

[paulr]

i agree that when it comes to art, the line is going to be personal and subjective. in the world of journalism and documentation, though, they have lines drawn by consensus. there are definitely things that are permitted and things that are not. obviously, airbrushing out a former ally/current foe, Kremlin-style, crosses that line. i imagine there are some journalists/documentarians among us who can tell us more specifically about the ethics of those trades.

[Kirk Gittings]

I sometimes shoot the same architecture for advertising and then for editorial. For advertising anything goes, but for editorial I draw the line pretty early because the editorial images should reflect what a building actually looks like in the real world.

The strictest client in my business is the Historic American Building Survey. We generally don't even pick up trash for them. Sometimes though we have to artificially light an interior to even get a picture but that can really compromise the existing lighting.

Frankly I care more about these issues than any of my clients. Where i draw the line is always well before my clients reach their tolerance level.