Ektachrome false color infrared film (EIR: only available for 35 mm) is a prime source of PS accusations.
Ektachrome false color infrared film (EIR: only available for 35 mm) is a prime source of PS accusations.
There is no such thing as an un-manipulated photograph. Period.
Film sees differently than the human eye, lenses distort, coating/filters/development processes have varying characteristics, and of course - by virtue of capturing your image in digital form (running it through yet another optical device and applying any number of algorithms to it) you are already "manipulating" it.
This really is a question of degree, not of purity.
Guy
Scenic Wild Photography
There is no such thing as an un-manipulated photograph. Period.
There are degrees and limits, or none at all. If there are none at all, then why shouldn't we just drag some stuffed animals and portable lighting into more picturesque settings, photoshop the errors and stop working so damned hard at capturing the "real thing"?
I agree. In fact that's exactly what I meant by my last statement. There's obvious perceived value in the wild/real characteristics of the subject (especially in nature photography). Where things start to break down is in areas of color and contrast correction, etc. where some seem to think the toolset used trumps the end result. To me saying that one (manual/skilled) process is more valid than another to achieve the same goal is plain ludicrous.
Guy
Scenic Wild Photography
Well put, Guy. Much appreciated.
If as photographic artists we are expressing a feeling about a scene of course we are going to manipulate the image to best accomplish what we wish to picture.
Any different from the images of Picasso, Cezzanne, Caraveggio, etc, etc.
Why else are we photographers?
jj: you seen Sugimoto's Diorama photos? A long hard look at the bleeding obvious.
I'm pretty lucky since nobody thinks I'm smart enough to do anything with PhotoShop (and they are probably correct).
In my view, all photos that are in some way modifying the original scene to look unrealistic, even if more pleasing, are modifications.
The part of the photography art is dedicated to producing the most realistic photo possible is not manipulation even if techniques are used after the shoot. That could include use of software to correct for color errors of the film. Dodgeing during printing to the extent of making shadow detail realistic would also qualify as non-modifications.
I would call effects “Level 1 manipulation”changes that enhance photos contrast or color in an unnatural way no matter what the means. I would call “level #2 manipulation” where image substitution in areas of the image or area movement is involved.
I strongly believe all photographers should caption their photos as such when level #1 or especially level #2 manipulation is involved. That would keep people from guessing authenticity and keeping level #2 images from being used as evidence in litigation (even if innocent intent by the photographer) for example. Yellow journalism (ie. Gossip tabloids) photos, most people realize, are filled with level #2 photos, but I believe they must be captioned as such.
Photographers in this thread who practice no manipulation (or maybe level #1) in their art, are insulted when accused of #2 stuff. Other photographers who work hard at the art of level#2 are sometimes insulted when someone doesn’t realize their artistic efforts.
Examples of un-modified images: (The way I see it)
-Film shoot: traditionally printed negatives with dodging for shadow accurate detail.
-Film shoot: scanned to digital, modified in software for a color correction shift to correct for a shortcoming in the film/developer combo.
-Lens flair effects, light leak artifacts, dirt or air bubble flaws removed in software or airbrushed.
Examples of level #1:
-After shooting and processing film conventionally the photographer decides to enhance the shadow detail to make it artificially clear by dodging to the point where it is no longer realistic. It could also be done by "rubbing" an area of the print in the developer to increase density at that area.
-The photographer decides that higher than normal contrast is desirable and picks a high contrast paper (or RC filter) for higher than normal contrast. Another way would be for a higher contrast developer is souped. Since color paper doesn’t come in the contrast grades like B&W then either souping the paper developer or digitizing and manipulating contrast in software are the options.
-LF photographers often have the option of swinging the lens board and/or film plane to change the perspective when the shot is taken. The perspective is unnatural and is therefore a manipulation.
-On any format, perspective becomes "unnatural" whenever a 3D scene is shot with a lens with a focal length other than "normal" for the format. Fisheye lenses or other lenses with desirable aberrations also modify the original scene. Filters resulting in unnatural color are also modification of the scene.
-Grain enhancement or reticulation or also modifications.
-Now the affects of unnatural contrast control, (both general and dodged) perspective as in lens board tilt (but not focal length) , and distortions of color or geometric linearity (fisheye), granularity, and colormetry can all be mimicked in software such as Corel Paint Shop Pro (or even PS) easily, even on a batch basis, starting with “straight” photos.
Examples of level#2:
-Placing Grandma in front of the Eiffle Tower by using a Kodalith mask to replace an area of a scene or now on software to substitute an area or move an area would be what I would call
-Reprinting a wedding group photo but without cousin Ned in it using software to replace Ned with the background from another shot and smooth it out.
Most people recognize it a fabrication with a photo of President Bush and Osama Bin Ladin shaking hands, but what about after the tsunami when an ariel photo of a beach with the water receding before the wave causing swirls in the sand. A certain photo on then net was issued as real but criticized as “Photoshopped” with an image of snow swirled on a mountain superimposed on the beach. I’m guessing the photo was real and the rapidly moving water following the low spots on the beach just looked surreal. I would like the photographer to stake his reputation on declaring it real.
Your thoughts?
We've hit that brick wall in manipulation where sytles have to go their ways in the fork of the road. And the logic for editorial photography is never on solid ground.
--A photo not touched is boring and probably not going to yield anything useful. If it were possible, Apple would produce the iRobot Photojournalist with the Ansel Adams plug-in (Minor White plug-in comes with optional Yoga chart), and we'd be out of business.
Here are some thoughts:
--A line is drawn, at least in photojouralism and editorial work, that separates the 'enhanced' from the 'manipulated'. Laugh all you want. Be cynical all you like. Respond with how this idea is illogical until your you're blue in the face. That's the way it is. And if you think that statement bothers YOU, you should try dealing with it daily. That line is always moving.
--Photographers like AA and MW manipulated the hell out of their images to get their initial vision into the final print. Some of the large format work I see by young artists simply amazes me because they use the materials to express a creativity unknown to some of us boring white male types.
--If you're going to call yourself an artist, the sky is the limit on manipulation. If you're presenting something as editorial or journalism, your visual voice NEEDS to be restricted because the image isn't about you. Integrity and trust is something we build with readers over time and believe it or don't, most get it. Fine Art photographers have much more freedom to express themselves, even when the final product used a computer manipulation as a tool.
--One final thought I always leave on the table during a discussion about ethics, which is what this is: If ANYONE just happens to come across some sort of final universal TRUTH about ANYTHING please let me know. I'm always looking for a good project.
"I meant what I said, not what you heard"--Jflavell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks