The ethics of modern day photography

[QT Luong]

As long as you don't state that the images are unmanipulated, I don't see why it would be unethical to manipulate them.

That said, the premise of your question that is interesting to me is why unmanipulated images should be considered superior ? I often see in the marketing statements of *color* nature landscape photographers that they insist that their images are true to the original scene and unmanipulated. Some of those photographers are amongst the most successful in that genre: Peter Lik, Ken Duncan, Rodney Lough, Michael Fatali, so it appears there is some support for this idea in the buying public.

Of course, we are talking about color landscape photography here. In the "Art World" (which hasn't really included color nature landscape, but this is material for another thread) some of the most prominent players use digital manipulation as an integral part of their work.

[Struan Gray]

There are a lot of assumptions in your original post Stephen, but perhaps the biggest one is that people value literal truth. Others have already pointed out that this is certainly not true at the exalted levels at the top of the art market. My impression from poster shops and the tourist memorabilia on sale at scenic locations is that it is even less true at the bottom end of the market.

People want an exemplar, not an example. That's why they lap up the golden-light super saturated versions of reality sold by the commercial landscape photographers. That's why they want wildlife photos which simulate closeness, while claiming to show an undisturbed wild. That's why almost nobody photographs birds in eclipse, grey days in the mountains, or houses that are twenty years old. How often do you see a photo of the interior of the Taj Mahal?

This is nothing new. Over the top etchings, sketches and prints were as common two hundred years ago as over the top photographs are today. The attached file actually isn't too bad (I've seen far worse), but something very odd has happened to Les Drus.

[willwilson]

Interesting thread. I enjoy discussing these types of issues, but I must say I don't believe they matter with respect to the value of photographic art. Art is art because of the artist. An artist's work should stand for itself without some statement of creation.

If your vision leads you to replace a sky or clone out a bench...then you should do it. I'm not sure doing so could really be the thing that pushes your work over into greatness but you never know.

Ethically, I think its fine as long as you don't mislead anyone about how you created your work. For instance, someone asks you how you get such dramatic skies in all your prints. You respond that you collect photographs of amazing skyscapes in order to allow you to combine them with your landscape images to fully express your artistic vision for the scene. I think that is fine if you are honest about your methods.

I personally print traditionally but as others have stated it doesn't really matter whether you are printing digital or silver, image manipulation has always been apart of photography.

[roteague]

So... when you move your camera up a little higher, or over a little to the left in order to exclude that park bench or those nasty telephone wires, aren't you just as guilty of "manipulating the image"? Whether you do it in camera, in the darkroom, or with Photoshop, every image is manipulated and "unethical" in some way. Unless you were some sort of cold robot documenting the world in a consistent grid -- and even that would be subjective -- I don't see how a thinking intelligent being could not be editing -- and therefore manipulating and constructing -- the images they make. I'd even call this manipulation "the creative process" and the most important part of making the image!

You are confusing "presentation" with "content". Presentation is primarily about compositional elements. The issue isn't with composing the image, rather it is about adding or subtracting elements that are not present within the composition. Yes, some of these things were done in the darkroom in the past, but, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Stephen Willard]

As long as you don't state that the images are unmanipulated, I don't see why it would be unethical to manipulate them.

That said, the premise of your question that is interesting to me is why unmanipulated images should be considered superior ? I often see in the marketing statements of *color* nature landscape photographers that they insist that their images are true to the original scene and unmanipulated. Some of those photographers are amongst the most successful in that genre: Peter Lik, Ken Duncan, Rodney Lough, Michael Fatali, so it appears there is some support for this idea in the buying public.

Of course, we are talking about color landscape photography here. In the "Art World" (which hasn't really included color nature landscape, but this is material for another thread) some of the most prominent players use digital manipulation as an integral part of their work.

QT, I hope and pray you are not a lawyer because your first sentence is what a lawyer would say, and indeed everything the banking industry engaged in the past eight years is was also legal, but far from ethical. I would like to think that in the art world, we artists rise to a higher standing than sleezy CEOs. There is something to be said about the ethics of transparent truth in our images.

As practice by Adams, that truth lies in preserving the optical reality of the original scene. When a photographer crosses that then line things are different. If the composition is contemporary or abstract in form, and it is clear the image is not real then the ethics of transparent truth is preserved, but if he crosses that line and then displays it as the real thing, then it becomes a lie and is not worthy.

I do believe it is okay to practice the standards employed by Adams of minipulating the gray scale (and color scale) to alter the mood of the composition to express the artist's emotional state of mind when he created the photograph. My images are in many cases expressive in nature, and thus, are a construction of what I saw and FELT. In fact I borrow from fiction, using a story thematic approach to creating an expressive image. My narratives on my website are the story and the theme lies in the symbols I give to the elements and colors in the composition. I do to color photography what Adams did to b&w photography and perhaps more in methods only. I only wish I was as good as he was in his art.

My website is still a prototype, and that is why I do not end my postings here with my website because it is incomplete. My intent is to have lots of discussion about all of this on my website so that I do not mislead people. And for the record, if you view my images on a flat screen they will look pumped up when in fact they are not. I have tried to address that problem with the Adjust Viewing page, but it has not worked as well as I hoped.

Crossing the line and altering the optical reality of the imaging with photoshop and then hanging it in public as a real live image, I beleve will backfire on you guys. At that point the photograph becomes nothing more than a cheap fake.

[Rick Moore]

Are you going to try and tell me that your prints are not highly manipulated? I haven't seen colors like that in the landscape since the 60s.

http://www.stephenwillard.com/galler...p?retailid=SAW

I thought I was having a flash-back for a second.

[willwilson]

cheap fake

Aren't all photographs cheap fakes to some extent? I think the more important questions are is the work moving? Does a particular photograph have a voice beyond color, line, form, contrast, etc.

Stephen you mentioned Ansel; I'm sure most of us that have seen his prints can agree they are breathtaking. I personally don't care that clearing winter storm did or didn't exist as printed, although its pretty neat that it is a real place in Yosemite Valley. That's about as far as it goes for me, neat. Its not good because of its optical purity. It is good because it is one hell of a print made by a master of his craft. It's interesting to learn how Ansel created his work and his motivations behind it, but none of those details make it art. Those details just add to the work's story.

I have to agree with QT if you don't misrepresent your digital or traditionally modified and enhanced work then it is perfectly ethical.

[Donald Miller]

All photographs are conventions that attempt to convey experience. They fail miserably in that attempt but they are as near as we have come to date.

There seems to be a "purist" mentality inherent in some of those who are by and large representationalists. That does not make them artists...nor does it make them particularly "pure" in my view.

To engage in a creative endeavor would seem to indicate a creation of something that did not exist. I would go so far as to say thanks to digital we have more tools available to be truly creative.

[domenico Foschi]

All photographs are conventions that attempt to convey experience. They fail miserably in that attempt but they are as near as we have come to date.

There seems to be a "purist" mentality inherent in some of those who are by and large representationalists. That does not make them artists...nor does it make them particularly "pure" in my view.

To engage in a creative endeavor would seem to indicate a creation of something that did not exist. I would go so far as to say thanks to digital we have more tools available to be truly creative.

Donald, I like you so much better now that you have cleaned up your act.

[Scott Davis]

Again it is not what I think, but rather how the buying patron will react should they perceive digital landscape photography as highly manipulated fakes. Of course, this may never happen, but there is a very real possibility that it could. I just believe that digital landscape photographers are treading on thin ice.

You're talking about the same audience who thinks Thomas Kinkade is a great artist, "the painter of light". Who somehow manages to paint images of an Earth with three to five different suns in different locations in the sky at the same time.

This may be kind of like mortgage loans and credit card practices the banking industry has engaged in for the past eight years. What goes around can catch up with you guys and completely undermine your discipline. I am not saying it will, but there is a real possibility that it could. Personally, I hope it does not because if that happens, then it would have a negative effect on all photographic landscape art which includes me.

That's a rather arrogant statement.