image manipulation in photograpy

[Steve J Murray]

I was looking at the Nov-Dec. issue of LensWork magazine recently. The portfolio of photographs by Nick Brandt caught my eye. It's a set of really gorgeous black and white photos of animals in East Africa. However, the more I looked at these photographs the more I realized something was strange about them. Opon closer observation it became obvious there had been a lot of manipulation done on these images, which made them very dramatic, but at the same time made them also seem less like "real" photographs, and more like "photographic art." In the technical section he states that he works with a Pentax 67 II, scans negatives into an Apple G 4, and does "dry dark room" work with Photoshop and a Wacom tablet. He prints on wide format Epson printers.

Now I know all photographers manipulate their photos to produce the best print that represents their vision. Manipulation may include everything from graduated neutral density and polarizing filters, special lenses, dodging and burning, etc. Brandt’s photos go a step beyond that. For instance, the photo entitled: Two Rhinos, Lewa Downs on page 71, shows two rhinos obviously. There appears to be a soft Gaussian blur on most of the image except for the heads of both rhinos, and the shoulder of the farther rhino. Taken literally, this would imply there are two planes of focus in this photo, since the rhinos are different distances from the camera. Since my brain “knows” a lens can’t do this, the photo begins to “feel” unreal to me. This photo and the others can be viewed on Brandt’s website: www.nickbrandt.com. You have to scroll to the right a bit to get to this particular image.

Now I may use some Gaussian blur to “improve” my bokeh from time to time, and photoshop is a wonderful “darkroom” tool for all sorts of image enhancements, but I’m wondering how many of you guys reading this forum use the power of photoshop to alter reality to the degree that Brandt is in these images. If you are, how far do you feel comfortable going before you no longer regard the image as a photograph and regard it more as a work of graphic art? Should there even be any technical distinction any more?

[Paddy Quinn]

"Now I may use some Gaussian blur to “improve” my bokeh from time to time,
and photoshop is a wonderful “darkroom” tool for all sorts of image
enhancements, but I’m wondering how many of you guys reading this forum
use the power of photoshop to alter reality to the degree that Brandt is
in these images. If you are, how far do you feel comfortable going before
you no longer regard the image as a photograph and regard it more as a
work of graphic art? Should there even be any technical distinction any
more?"

all photogrpahs alter 'reality". Strand got rid of manhole covers that spoiled the composition and at times added other elements that improved it.

Big question is, so what? Unless you are documenting scientific work or crime scenes etc it really doesn't matter. The photographs you talk about are "art" in the broadest terms - how they were made is really of little issue.

"The camera never lies" has always been the biggest lie of all, from the very first days of the medium.

[paulr]

I think there's still room for discussion. Visually sophisticated people know that the camera lies, but we also know, at least intuitively, that certain kinds of lies feel authentically photographic, while others feel added from the outside. There's obviously a huge gray area here ... it's one that photographers have been debating since the 19th century, and standards are certainly different for different kinds of photography.

I think what can seem disconcerting in the case that Steve brings up is that an image is using the syntax of a certain kind of photography ... one that can be trusted in certain ways ... but then contains elements that are jarring --that don't seem trustworthy in those same ways. We wouldn't experience this looking at something that we know to be a collage or a montage or a composited image, because we immediately know to expect a different set of conventions.

But when we read something at first glance as a "straight" photograph ... one that belongs to a certain tradition with certain rules, and then at second glance we see something that breaks that tradition and those rules, it can be jarring. The image stops working in the way we expected it to work ... so suddenly the burden is on the image to start working in some different way.

[Bruce Watson]

For me the question doesn't exist - I do what I need to do to create a print to match my vision. But then, that's why I'm working with an LF camera - to make art.

When I was working as a journalist, I did far more outrageous manipulations in the darkroom than I ever do with Photoshop today as an artist. I used hot straight Dektol to bring up the number on a player's jersey so his mom could read it, I used reducer, I pushed Tri-X until it screamed. I cropped so tight the image bled, I dodged and burned with abandon, and turn out prints so contrasty that you'd have thought I was blind. Until you saw the prints in the paper, where they took full advantage of what the press could, and could not, do. All under the gun of press deadlines. It was, as they say, a "learning experience."

Just because the image originates with a camera, doesn't make it "real" after all. It's already a 2D abstraction of a 4D world. If it's B&W, that's another abstraction. What's a little gausian blur compared to that? As long as he isn't telling you it's a documentary, I'm fine with it.

[Michael Gordon]

Brandt's images aren't being used as photojournalism in the pages of National Geographic, so who cares? Have you ever seen Jerry Uelsmann's work? All traditional silver, yet about as departed from reality as you can get. Any beef there?

Is this really about Brandt's images, or is yet another digital vs. traditional argument in disguise?

[Paddy Quinn]

One thing about the brand images is that in many ways they seem to draw as much on the havy (handed?) manipulations of the pictorialsts and their kin as anything else and for me look to the past as much as being anything avant garde.

"The image stops working in the way we expected it to work ... so suddenly the burden is on the image to start working in some different way."

Conversely, the burden is also on the viewer to give up their tightly held and perhaps cherished assumptions.

[paulr]

"Conversely, the burden is also on the viewer to give up their tightly held and perhaps cherished assumptions."

This can be true, too ... I think which matters more depends a lot on context. You won't get much love as a journalist if you composite events that never happened, as an extreme example.

In the case of Brandt, I've only looked a bit at his work. What I'm describing as expectations isn't really my own (or any viewer's) tightly held or cherished assumptions. It's a set of expectations set up by a common language. If an image or a whole body of work announces itself as belonging to the "straight" tradition, then a stray break with this tradition is jarring.

Work can claim a tradition or language through a whole range of visual clues, contexts, and bits of common language, that we who speak the languages have learned to interpret.

None of this is about accusing the artist of wrongdoing. It's just an observation about a common effect on viewers when work seemingly at random breaks with a tradition that it has adopted and from which it draws much of its power. This isn't the same as breaking a tradition because that tradition confined the artist's vision ... that kind of break is capable of explaining itself. A random break can briefly pull the viewer out of the world of the image ... leave him or her asking questions that are not the ones the artist was hoping for.

[Brian Ellis]

It doesn't sound like you carefully read the interview with Brandt that accompanied the photographs. He talks about the limited extent of his "manipulation" in Photoshop and in particular he discusses the soft focus effect to which you refer. He says he didn't get that effect by doing anything in Photoshop. He says that effect is in the negative.

Photographers have been manipulating photographs ever since there have been photographs. Eugene Smith changed the direction of people's eyes in the darkroom , the early photographers of the American West took skies from one photograph and moved them into another, the Pictorialists drew on their negatives with pencils and crayons, etc. etc. None of that stuff seemed to bother them and whatever Brandt did doesn't seem to bother him, nor should it. I thought these were absolutely stunning photographs.

[Richard Boulware]

I think Paddy Quinn's first posting on this fundamental question is worth more discussion. I certainly agree what we all know to be true and that is the camera can and does lie.

One of photography's greatest strengths was, and still is to some degree the 'public' view that the camera does NOT lie. If perception IS reality, like politics...then I think we might be getting in to an area that we all should be concerned about.

I don't have an answer for this question, but some sixth sense and decades of experience makes me very wary of this question. The question? Are we using these ultra sophisticated editing and manipulation techniques...and destroying what the public thinks is some kind of visual authenticity and a photographic truth produced by optical reality.

Let me put it this way. Every morning when guy's shave, we trust in the mirror to guide a razor over our face, lest we cut out throat. We trust that mirror, even though the image is reversed left to right. We adapt, and still trust the mirror. With all this electronic manipulation, are we rushing into this new-found creative freedom, and at the same time unconsciously destroying what the public feels is some kind of photographic/optical "truth". Dangerous ground here...perhaps.

As I said...I don't have the answer, but I sure as hell feel it is a question worth asking and an area well worth our serious contemplation, lest in our photo-shop zeal we throw the baby out with the bath water. It would be like trying to shave every morning using a rippled fun house circus mirror. (Arrrgh. Pass the Band-Aid's please.)

Richard Boulware - Denver

[Aaron van de Sande]

I am not sure what is worse, gaussian blur or 'unsharp mask'.

[Steve J Murray]

Brian: Yeah, I read that statement, but looking at that Two Rhino image I can't figure out how both those Rhino heads are in focus, unless he has a tilt/swing lens, which I doubt since he's using a Pentax 67.

Hey guys, I know people have been messing with their photos since the day it was invented. I'm not against it in any way, and I do it to all my images in some way. I do find images that have obvious and "heavy handed" manipulation a little disturbing, but that's just me.

Brandt does mention some of the negative were damaged, which he then "simply went further with it in the printing." He also mentions getting old polaroid negs and "let the chemicals get old and crudgy, then superimposed that on the image in Photoshop. The actual integrity of the underlying image of the animal within the landscape is all there on the negative."

My post was more of a query as to how many of you guys are using PS to this degree, not a rant against digital or PS or manipulation. As I make the transition myself from darkroom to PS I am doing a lot more image manipulation than I ever did before.

It just feels a lot more "graphic" and a little less "photo" than the old darkroom days.

[Aaron van de Sande]

It is much like a woman's makeup. If you notice it there's too much, unless it's halloween.

[Doug Dolde]

Aw quit being an old busy body. Who cares how he does his art?

[Mark_3632]

I've seen the brandt images in the flesh. Believe me a small publication of the image does not do them justice. I agree that they are printed a bit heavy handed but nothing over the top manipulation wise. I felt the heavy handed printing added to the image in his case. It is clear he is shooting wide open. and the manipulation is not disneyesque in the slightest. Having print sniffed the images I saw, I felt they were very well done. The only unfortunate part was the cheesy PS borders.

By the way. The photo gallery in Durango had his images up when I was there the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. They may still be there. Well worth the look.

[Ted Harris]

To what extent the image originally captured on the film is altered by the photographer/artist after capture is worht discussion I su[[ose but it has been going on, as noted since the dawn of photography. A specific discussion of digital manipulation is not, IMO, worth much discussion as there is very little (perhaps even nothing) you can do in photoshop that you couldn't do long before photoshop and personal computers arrived on our desks.

As I have said before, to me, the biggest difference between a digital and a traditional darkroom is that I now do sitting down in the light what I used to do standing up in the dark. Sometimes I do it a lot faster and sometimes no faster at all, sometimes it even takes longer.

[John_4185]

I don't mind if people photoshop their web-displayed work. As for printed images, did you know that you can identify not only if a print is from a recently manufactured inkjet, but the serial number of the printer as well?

[Paddy Quinn]

"I don't mind if people photoshop their web-displayed work. As for printed images, did you know that you can identify not only if a print is from a recently manufactured inkjet, but the serial number of the printer as well?"

I don't believe that's correct for most inkjet printers

[John_4185]

Correction - Many LASER printers. Not our printers. Duh. Guess it's bed time.

[Steve J Murray]

Well, I guess my question is answered then. It sounds like the consensus is that obvious and even "heavy" image manipulation (whether PS or darkroom is really irrelevant) is generally accepted in galleries and by well informed viewers such as you guys.

Nobody here offered to mention how much"obvious" manipulation they employed in their own work.

I was never talking about"removing manholes" or "shifting someone's eyes," which would not be obvious to the viewer. As for Uelsmann, I've never liked his work. Two uninteresting images superimposed on each other doesn't make an interesting image. Hey, that's my opinion. . . . . not yours.

Personally, I tend to agree with Aaron: "It is much like a woman's makeup. If you notice it there's too much, unless it's halloween."

[John_4185]

Photoshop is like silicone enhancement.

People will eventually be browsing old publications for Genuine Pre-Photoshop images.

Then Adobe will come out with a "Pre-photoshop" plug-in!

[Dan Smith]

Can only say one thing about these wildlife images. They are some of the few, the very few, B&W images of wildlife that I have seen that I like. They look as if they were done because he wanted to do them rather than "because B&W film is all I have".

They are very good. Would love to see more of his work.

[paulr]

"People will eventually be browsing old publications for Genuine Pre-Photoshop images."

sure, just like some people are into wet plate images, salted paper prints, daguerrotypes, or any other historical process. people will always be around who appreciate the old ways, just as people are always around who crave things that are new.

It will stop feeling like a turf war or a religious war after the last of the pre-photoshop generation is dead. Just like with all the older processes. Thank god we don't have to listen to any old guys calling us pussies for not using wet plates anymore!

if you want to use a wet plate, go wild, use it. if you want to use a cell phone cam, it's there for the taking. just don't think anyone is waiting up at night curious about some fringe group's opinion of what is and what isn't real photography.

[Steve J Murray]

"Can only say one thing about these wildlife images. They are some of the few, the very few, B&W images of wildlife that I have seen that I like. They look as if they were done because he wanted to do them rather than "because B&W film is all I have".

I have to agree with Dan Smith that Brandt's images certainly have a large amount of "wow factor," which you really have to admire. You have to have a really great image to start with. He adds to these images certain dramatic elements to create an even more eye popping effect. I'd love to see these up close even though I still feel some of his choices in expression are a bit heavy handed.

Yeah paulr, too bad these discussions always become so polemic. I'm still wondering innocently how far folks go with the special effects as they create their masterpieces. Can you achieve a huge wow factor without adding special borders or distressing the negatives or greatly exaggerating pictorial elements?

I've thought about doing some of this stuff with portraits and not so much with nature shots, but maybe I need to expand my vision, get more of that wow factor going.

[Mark_3632]

You don't use wet plates!!!! You pussy. :)

[John_4185]

paulr Thank god we don't have to listen to any old guys calling us pussies for not using wet plates anymore!

pussie

[paulr]

yeah, ok.

should have seen that coming :)

[paulr]

"maybe I need to expand my vision, get more of that wow factor going."

you can join the folks that have been getting that wow factor for over a decade now, without photoshop, and without wow images-- just print HUUUUUUUUUUGE!

[Van Camper]

I'm interested in doing art, not journalism. I like the advantages a traditional painter has, he can add what he wants, and remove flaws in landscapes. If it is okay for him, its okay for me to remove hydro lines in photos, or add a tree here or there if it will improve the composition. I am not trying to convince anyone a scene is real, I just want to create something beutiful for myself and the customer to enjoy on the wall. I chose to paint with light, rather then a pencil, pen/ink, acyrlic, oils, etc. It's about creating something beautiful...I'm not interested in the cameras technical accuracy to record images from a morgue. You can use a camera in more then one way....to record things accurately, or as the foundation for artistic expression.

[John_4185]

You can use a camera in more then one way....to record things accurately, or as the foundation for artistic expression.

You can use a camera as a hammer, too, or an ashtray, a small planting pot, a stash; an SLR can be a difficult vanity mirror and with a whistle mounted on the front board, a view camera can play a tune: these are few of my favorite things.

Forgive me - Under the influence Shots magazine before coffee.

[Ted Harris]

As a short aside here .... we have a Congregational Church in town that is one of the landmarks folks are proud of. It is a typical photogenic New England church complete with clock tower. It is also complete with the normal complement of power and utility lines. Last month, as part of my preparation for Christmas Art Fairs around New England I took an image I had made of the church some years ago and painstakingly removed all the power lines. I then made the image into a greeting card that has been selling like crazy. I smile when people say it is the best picture they have ever seen of the church, knowing it is because they picture it in their mind sans the power lines but have never seen it reproduced that way (unless they have seen pre 1920 or so images of it).

[Steve J Murray]

For me the issue is not removing power lines or manhole covers or making subtle additions that the viewer is not aware of as being an alteration. It is the intentional inclusion of obvious elements in the photo that were NOT part of the original scene in order to dramatize and increase the visual impact (wow factor) of the image, such as superimposing old polaroid borders on the image, or spreading around a bunch of gaussian blur and selectively sharpening other features, or adding clouds from another image, for instance.

I know this is a very grey area to define, and maybe it can't be. My thought was that the more we add extra elements to the image, the more we are creating something called "photographic art " and moving away from an actual photograph. I'm not condemning the practice at all, just making a distinction. I do find there is for me a little bit of a let-down when I was thinking of the image as a photograph and come to find there are so many alterations that it looks more like a painting, digital or not.

Just a side note: when I peruse through photo.net its obvious many of the most popular images are just that: heavily altered images bordering on cartoonish. People seem to eat this stuff up.

Whew. That's all folks.

[steve_782]

"There appears to be a soft Gaussian blur on most of the image except for the heads of both rhinos, and the shoulder of the farther rhino."

You could do exactly the same thing in the darkroom using Vaseline, tissue paper, rubber cement, varnishes, etc. Make the entire photo in focus, and then distort the image during printing - really quite easily done.

I've done much the same thing using a simple clear sheet of acetate over the top of the negative, and then applying "things" to the clear sheet. Joel Witkin does much the same thing by placing glass over the printing paper and then applying Vaseline, wet / dry tissue paper and other things on top of the glass that will distort the image; and then exposing the paper through the stuff placed on the glass.

You seem to want to single out digital manipulations as if they're so hugely different than what photographers have been doing for at least 100 years. How do you feel about Rejlander or HP Robinson? Both of whom purposely built images from numbers of individual exposures, and purposely tried to make them look like they were done with a single exposure?

I truly hate the digital dimage assumptions as they can be proven so patently false by either knowing alternative darkroom techniques; or just a little of the history of photography.

The whole "purity of photography" idea makes me laugh - there's no such thing. It's always self-defined by people who think they're continuing on, or part of, some "legacy" that they desire to identified with by association - usually one that's long gone. They pine nostalgically for the days of yore when photography was "pure" (Bwaaaa...haaaaa...), and people knew photographs told "the truth."

Remember, just use a really big view camera (the bigger the better), and ONLY make contact prints on Azo - that will assure that you're making truly great photographs - no matter how poorly seen.

[John_4185]

Steve made this good point: You seem to want to single out digital manipulations as if they're so hugely different than what photographers have been doing for at least 100 years.

There is usually a subtext running through the manipulation issue, and in our case I believe some people lament, resent, or do not respect the ease of making manipulations today.

Ease obviates certain intentionality that HP Robinson, Ulsman, et al. imposed. Ease also relates tangentially to an issue I call simply vividness which we can discuss in a separate thread.

[Ted Harris]

I am not sure I understand the relationship between ease and vividness. I am also nut sure I understand to what is wrong with ease.

I have an 11x14 hanging on the wall here from one of my most successful shoots with my favorite model of some 30 years ago. She was posing in a curly white sheepskin coat and I wanted accentuate the contrasts between her dark hair and eyes, skin and the coat. I did so by transforming the original negative into a stark two tone print by making many generations of kodalith negatives to reduce the image to pure black and white. Many many hours of painstaking darkroom work. Now I can do the same thing far more comfortably, with more control, sometimes in less time, sitting down in the light using Photoshop ..... that is EASE. Is there something worng with that?

[John_4185]

Ted, I never said there was a problem with ease, and I have no problem with it. Others do, and it is interesting how they mask their arguments.

[paulr]

" I like the advantages a traditional painter has, he can add what he wants, and remove flaws in landscapes. If it is okay for him, its okay for me to remove hydro lines in photos, or add a tree here or there if it will improve the composition."

this only causes problems when other qualities of the work give your viewers the message that the work is unmanipulated (according to the vague conventions of straight photography) and therefore build a certain kind of trust ... which the work for no immediately justifiable reason breaks. which isn't "wrong," but it has the effect of alienating or confusing viewers, in ways are not likely what you're after.

if your work, through its context and visual cues introduces itself as a part of the pictorialist tradition, or as montage, collage, or composited digital work, then no trust or understanding is violated. the viewer can more easily be drawn into the world of your work without interruption.

[Steve J Murray]

"Steve made this good point: You seem to want to single out digital manipulations as if they're so hugely different than what photographers have been doing for at least 100 years. "

Arrrrhhhhgggg!!!!!!!!!

This was most definitely not my purpose to single out digital manipulation. I simply used Brandt as my example because his photograph triggered my response, and he makes it abundantly clear he uses digital methods (Wacom tablet, no less). I could have as easily choosen a purely non-digital photographer as well if I had been looking at a different image.

This is not about digital! Drop this assumption immediately! That's a different issue.

This is about distorting photographs to increase impact; subtle vs extreme and how much is too much. Get it?

[tim atherton]

"This is about distorting photographs to increase impact; subtle vs extreme
and how much is too much. "

Bear in mind that increasing the Impact (which seems to imply a certain wow or in your face factor) may not be the primary goal of "distorting" (or "manipulating") the image. It may much more simply be about expanding the meaning of the photograph. Now that may have a greater impact - but in a more subtle sense than the wow factor, to my mind.

Simply put, by means of such manipulation, the photographer may be seeking to say more

[Dan_5988]

if you are very interested in this, and very brave,

check out some photography books by Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth, Thomas Demand, James Casabere, Joan Fontcuberta-

This is stuff that is probably hated in this forum, but its stuff ive come to love once I put the effort into trying to understand it (and that took me 2 years to get to the point im at with it)...its all 'photographic art' that deals with the notions of what is true, what constitutes a photograph, and a lot of impenitrable art-speak.

Also check out Books like "crisis of the real", "the contest of meaning" "See"

many careers have been built on something you just scratched the surface by asking-

[Doug Keyes]

Let's face it, it's always been photographic art. The minute you press the shutter, you've made a subjective decision altering "reality". Not to mention all the other subjective decisions to get to that point. (film, subject, light, cropping, etc, etc) People assigned truth to it because it looked accurate to reality. What's reality? That's a whole other discussion. The fact that anyone with a computer can change that "reality" with relative ease is what makes contemporary photographs exciting these days. (I think people believe that video tells the truth more than photographs these days, anyway) Dan mentions some of the heavy hitters in the field that have been dealing with this issue for awhile now. For the photographer documenting what is going on in the world of news media, this is another discussion. One that is more meaningful than a wildlife photographer manipulating their image. What is more disturbing? Adding dead bodies to a war scene or not showing any bodies at all? (see Iraq coverage, etc.) Either way it's propoganda. The difference now, is that it's harder to tell what is propaganda based on the time we take to discern it more than the quality of the propoganda. I think if more people looked at ALL images with a critical eye like Steve Murray, this would be more than a small discussion on this website.

Back to Steves original question "how many of you guys reading this forum use the power of photoshop to alter reality to the degree that Brandt is in these images". I use less in photoshop (color editing, occasional power line deletion, etc) and most in camera (multiple exposure). So, in a way, I'm more truthful with my image by adding time to the equation. Of course, it looks abstract and more like "art".

[Dan_5988]

I think there is at least a slight shift...

Back in the day, a dicerning eye or expert could refute or athunticate photos that were thought to have been manipulated, now thats not the case. Unless the person doing the manipulating says they are doing so, photoshop and such is at the point where it can be impossible to tell...especially with digital images.

[Steve J Murray]

Thank you Tim, Dan, Doug, paulr. This was the kind of discussion I was after.

I just realized that you could maybe seperate image manipulation into two broad catagories: 1) for the purpose of making the photograph "more realistic" in terms of capturing the full tonal range using the zone system, dodging, burning, masks and any other means to overcome the limitations of film/paper (or pixels). This might also include removing power lines, birds, and trash for some people, others not. Moderate image enhancement like dramatically darkening skys I think would still be in this catagory.

2) the second catagory is to go beyond "realism" and add or subtract to the image in such a way that it is not trying to capture the actual scene, but enhancing it or distorting it for artistic reasons. I guess I was impacted by Brandt because I started out thinking he was like most photographers using catagory 1, and upon closer inspection seemed to be in the second camp. That got me wondering how others here in this forum viewed this phenomenon and did they practice it themselves.

As paulr mentioned a couple of times maybe if one is expecting typical realistic type of manipulation and finds out its more liberal than expected " it has the effect of alienating or confusing viewers, . . ." and I think that was my reaction.

[tim atherton]

"I think there is at least a slight shift...
Back in the day, a dicerning eye or expert could refute or athunticate photos that were thought to have been manipulated, now thats not the case. Unless the person doing the manipulating says they are doing so, photoshop and such is at the point where it can be impossible to tell...especially with digital images."

Again, I wouldn't say that's entirely the case - since at least the 30's there has been an immense amount of such manipulation (airbrushing etc) and down right cutting and pasting used in advertising (and propoganda - see The Commissar Vanishes I think it is) and while some of it was crude, most was extremely skillful and many times indetetcable (even when it was obvious from the context hanges had been made - and many times it wasn't). The population at large quite happily accepted this (well, maybe happily isn't the right word for the Soviet people's acceptance...) and technically, much was seamless.

[paulr]

Tim, are you still bitter about that picture Kruschev had you airbrushed out of?

you should have thought twice before joining him on the balcony wearing that "I'm with stupid" t-shirt.

[darr]

paulr: I LOVE your sense of humor and intellect!

[paulr]

ha! i'm glad somebody does. it's lonely being the only one laughing at my own late night wisecracks.