Art photos are manipulations

[markjwyatt]

1. markjwyatt refers to the concept that photography is an act of taking rather than of synthesis. As a result "When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one, and the emotions/ideas/etc. have a firmer grip in reality, and thus can actually have more impact than a fanciful painting. Because this is a scene from real life."...

I did not intend to emphasize differences between photo-chemical and digital imaging. I implied that due to digital technology scenes can be altered

When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one

However this applies to scanned negatives as well as images originating from digital sensors. So my points apply equally to photo-chemical and digital photography with recognition that digital technology can lead to significant alterations to the original scene (as captured in 2D space). In fact darkroom techniques can accomplish similar things with perhaps a bit more effort. Granted the potential for alteration may be higher for images originating from digital sensors. My only point is a in regards to a general expectation of the viewer.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Very clearly a film-based image. Also very clearly manipulated.

When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one

Looking at the above image from the 1930s, even then, someone would have to be pathologically naive to think that that was not a collage.

Many photographs, perhaps even a substantial majority, are single captures with little to no manipulation, even to contrast and brightness. Which is why the vast majority of photographs are dreary. NOTE- I am NOT saying that a photograph requires collaging, montaging, or profound alteration of the color balance or saturation to be an interesting photograph. My point is that 99% of photographs taken are taken as record shots - the "proof that I was here" pictures. We are discussing ART photographs here, at least as stated in the original question. Art photographs are NOT record photographs.

 

[Vaughn]

Soon there will be filters that will rearrange the composition on digital photographs before the shutter is tripped.

I would prefer digital cameras to just come with a auto-kill switch. One sets the skill level one desires (Selfie, Snapshot, For-My-Parents'-Wall, etc), , and the shutter will refuse to fire if the composition and other elements do not meet the specifications for that skill level...error codes provided.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Soon there will be filters that will rearrange the composition on digital photographs before the shutter is tripped.

Why bother even having a camera? Pretty soon, you'll be able to sit at your computer, and check off what you want in your picture: mountains: check. Sunset sky: check. 14 point buck: check. Autumn leaves: check. Hit GO and the computer generates a photo of a scene better than God could produce. Of course, if the camera can do it in camera, than you can still claim it's a photo.

 

[markjwyatt]

When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one

Very clearly a film-based image. Also very clearly manipulated.
Looking at the above image from the 1930s, even then, someone would have to be pathologically naive to think that that was not a collage.

Many photographs, perhaps even a substantial majority, are single captures with little to no manipulation, even to contrast and brightness. Which is why the vast majority of photographs are dreary. NOTE- I am NOT saying that a photograph requires collaging, montaging, or profound alteration of the color balance or saturation to be an interesting photograph. My point is that 99% of photographs taken are taken as record shots - the "proof that I was here" pictures. We are discussing ART photographs here, at least as stated in the original question. Art photographs are NOT record photographs.

But is that image a "photograph"? I agree to call it a collage. Also please note that in the original response I stated "In fact darkroom techniques can accomplish similar things with perhaps a bit more effort. " I only state that because you seem to be (and I apologize in advance if you are not) trying to move this conversation to some type of digital vs. analog discussion.

I am not sure I would call it a photograph, because the collage is clearly at least two photographs (i.e., two different images captured at two different times of two different scenes). FD Conard called it a "PHOTO". Perhaps "Print" may be more accurate; though PHOTO may be ok, since he could only be implying the collage was produced using "photo" sensitive materials.

I do like the image. Graphic Arts can produce interesting works, and photography can be part of that process.

 

[Vaughn]

I think it is important to remember that photography covers a broader range of images than is being discussed. Is a photomontage a photograph or is it a different art form that is not included in kingdom of photography? Chemicalgrams -- photographs? Making marks on photosensitive material using a penliight, etc. (literally drawing with light) -- a manipulated or unmanipulated photograph?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

When a viewer experiences a photograph, it is presumed (maybe less so today) that the scene is an actual one



But is that image a "photograph"? I agree to call it a collage. Also please note that in the original response I stated "In fact darkroom techniques can accomplish similar things with perhaps a bit more effort. " I only state that because you seem to be (and I apologize in advance if you are not) trying to move this conversation to some type of digital vs. analog discussion.

I am not sure I would call it a photograph, because the collage is clearly at least two photographs (i.e., two different images captured at two different times of two different scenes). FD Conard called it a "PHOTO". Perhaps "Print" may be more accurate; though PHOTO may be ok, since he could only be implying the collage was produced using "photo" sensitive materials.

I do like the image. Graphic Arts can produce interesting works, and photography can be part of that process.

Actually, if anything, I'm arguing AGAINST a digital-vs-analog divide. I posted that image to show that claims of "photography USED to be pure and unmanipulated before digital" are utter bullshit. People have been manipulating photographs almost since the invention of the medium. Claiming that photographs are somehow "Truth" (or factual) as an absolute, and that we as photographers are obligated to preserve that idea by only making "straight" photographs and that anything else is not a photograph is morally or otherwise compromised is, likewise, utter bullshit.

Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother", perhaps one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, was manipulated. Lange removed the thumb from the edge of the frame. That doesn't in any way reduce the value of the image, or its emotional or moral impact. If anything, that manipulation brings it into the realm of art.

 

[faberryman]

Let's say one side wins the argument over the other.* How does that affect anything? Is anyone going to make images any differently than they are now? At best, all we can say is that some guys on a photography forum think this, that, or the other.

*At this point I am not sure what the sides are or who is on them.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Actually, if anything, I'm arguing AGAINST a digital-vs-analog divide. I posted that image to show that claims of "photography USED to be pure and unmanipulated before digital" are utter bullshit. People have been manipulating photographs almost since the invention of the medium. Claiming that photographs are somehow "Truth" (or factual) as an absolute, and that we as photographers are obligated to preserve that idea by only making "straight" photographs and that anything else is not a photograph is morally or otherwise compromised is, likewise, utter bullshit.

Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother", perhaps one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, was manipulated. Lange removed the thumb from the edge of the frame. That doesn't in any way reduce the value of the image, or its emotional or moral impact. If anything, that manipulation brings it into the realm of art.

If a finger was removed from a photo that was making a statement about hard times of the era, rather than a photo as art, than what else did the photographer finagle? Are these really poor people in trouble during the Depression and Dust Bowl era? Or are they models? Was the photographer using the photo, fakely created, to influence Congressional legislation? Once you start finagling, and the viewers learn of it, then they have a right to suspect your whole presentation as being phony. The photographer and his work lose credibility. The alteration creates a trust issue.

The NY Times would not accept the removal. On the other hand, they would accept the lightening of the photo that bring out the shadow areas. Even though there's a big difference in presentation, an exposure change is considered to be "normal" due to the limitation of film in its ability to capture lighting "perfectly". Removal of objects are different. But the main point is that photos created as art are different than photojournalistic photos that are attempting to present facts.

 

[faberryman]

Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother", perhaps one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century, was manipulated. Lange removed the thumb from the edge of the frame. That doesn't in any way reduce the value of the image, or its emotional or moral impact. If anything, that manipulation brings it into the realm of art.

That thumb is the same as my second cow. I guess this is where Sirius Glass says he doesn't have the time of day for Dorothea Lange.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If a finger was removed from a photo that was making a statement about hard times of the era, rather than a photo as art, than what else did the photographer finagle? Are these really poor people in trouble during the Depression and Dust Bowl era? Or are they models? Was the photographer using the photo, fakely created, to influence Congressional legislation? Once you start finagling, and the viewers learn of it, then they have a right to suspect your whole presentation as being phony. The photographer and his work lose credibility. The alteration creates a trust issue.

The NY Times would not accept the removal. On the other hand, they would accept the lightening of the photo that bring out the shadow areas. Even though there's a big difference in presentation, an exposure change is considered to be "normal" due to the limitation of film in its ability to capture lighting "perfectly". Removal of objects are different. But the main point is that photos created as art are different than photojournalistic photos that are attempting to present facts.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from removing the thumb because it was distracting to "these aren't real Dust Bowl victims, but paid actors to push a conspiracy theory". And since the first post in this thread, the question was not about photojournalism or photographs that are used as evidence, but ART photographs. It's in the title of the thread - "Art Photos are Manipulations". My argument has been all along that getting your panties in a twist about how much manipulation is too much is artificial and misplaced since by its nature, a photograph IS already a manipulation of reality. Yes, if I were submitting photographs to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs claiming to show Iranian nuclear missiles ready to launch, I would want to have as little alteration as possible and as much documentation as possible to show that the photograph depicts what I claim it depicts. But that's not the kind of photograph we're discussing here. We shouldn't insist that because the one kind exists, the other kind shouldn't, and that people are incapable of perceiving the difference between the two kinds.

 

[Vaughn]

Let's say one side wins the argument over the other.* How does that affect anything? Is anyone going to make images any differently than they are now? At best, all we can say is that some guys on a photography forum think this, that, or the other.

*At this point I am not sure what the sides are or who is on them.

Let's say there are no sides, just different opinions...and people poking sticks into the ant nest.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from removing the thumb because it was distracting to "these aren't real Dust Bowl victims, but paid actors to push a conspiracy theory". And since the first post in this thread, the question was not about photojournalism or photographs that are used as evidence, but ART photographs. It's in the title of the thread - "Art Photos are Manipulations". My argument has been all along that getting your panties in a twist about how much manipulation is too much is artificial and misplaced since by its nature, a photograph IS already a manipulation of reality. Yes, if I were submitting photographs to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs claiming to show Iranian nuclear missiles ready to launch, I would want to have as little alteration as possible and as much documentation as possible to show that the photograph depicts what I claim it depicts. But that's not the kind of photograph we're discussing here. We shouldn't insist that because the one kind exists, the other kind shouldn't, and that people are incapable of perceiving the difference between the two kinds.

I wasn't addressing the OP point about art. I was addressing the Dust Bowl picture post which was a journalistic picture not art at least not art to begin with. It shouldn't have any appearance of fraud. It's like a witness at a trial. If you catch him lying about one thing, then you don't trust any of his testimony.

 

[Vaughn]

Photojournalism was pretty new back then, as was street photography. The rules were still being figured out. Some of these folks (such as Lange) were also trained artists/photographers before doc and news photography were an established thing. Roger Fenton may have moved cannonballs in Valley of the Shadow of Death, but do we apply journalistic 'laws' ex post facto?

I need to track down some of Lange's early street work (pre FSA).

 

[MattKing]

I wasn't addressing the OP point about art. I was addressing the Dust Bowl picture post which was a journalistic picture not art at least not art to begin with. It shouldn't have any appearance of fraud. It's like a witness at a trial. If you catch him lying about one thing, then you don't trust any of his testimony.

I don't consider removal of the thumb to be a lie. And no court would find it to be a lie. As photographs are documentary in nature, rather than inherently probative, the only lie that might occur would be if there was a representation that the thumb had been edited.
It would be a false if the photograph was designed to document hands, but it isn't false when the photograph is documenting circumstances.
Removal of the thumb is in no way material to the photographs meaning and power and capacity to document what it documents. And if the issue came up in a court of law, the court would merely note the non-material alteration.

 

[faberryman]

Does anyone think they need to re-evaluate Dorothea Lange and her work in light of the missing thumb?

 

[Vaughn]

Probably not, but AA certainly removed Lone Pine permanently from the scene (okay...just the LP.)

PS...good thing he never claimed to be a photojournalist...and was not on a documentary project on the town at the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't consider removal of the thumb to be a lie. And no court would find it to be a lie. As photographs are documentary in nature, rather than inherently probative, the only lie that might occur would be if there was a representation that the thumb had been edited.
It would be a false if the photograph was designed to document hands, but it isn't false when the photograph is documenting circumstances.
Removal of the thumb is in no way material to the photographs meaning and power and capacity to document what it documents. And if the issue came up in a court of law, the court would merely note the non-material alteration.

Maybe the gun was removed as well as the thumb falsely proving the innocence of the actual murderer. How would anyone know? A competent lawyer would call the photographer to testify at trial and ask him if there was anything else he modified in the photograph? That would create doubt in the minds of the jurors about the truthfulness and completeness of the photo.

This is such an important issue, the NY Times standards will not accept photos that have been modified like this. Changing exposures, etc. are allowed. Because the moment it is learned that a photo had information removed, modified or deleted, the truthfulness of not only the photo is in question, but the the ethics of the newspaper. An editor that would knowingly ignore these edits could be fired.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would prefer digital cameras to just come with a auto-kill switch. One sets the skill level one desires (Selfie, Snapshot, For-My-Parents'-Wall, etc), , and the shutter will refuse to fire if the composition and other elements do not meet the specifications for that skill level...error codes provided.

Now that would be a much needed improvement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why bother even having a camera? Pretty soon, you'll be able to sit at your computer, and check off what you want in your picture: mountains: check. Sunset sky: check. 14 point buck: check. Autumn leaves: check. Hit GO and the computer generates a photo of a scene better than God could produce. Of course, if the camera can do it in camera, than you can still claim it's a photo.

That is now possible with FauxToe$hop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That thumb is the same as my second cow. I guess this is where Sirius Glass says he doesn't have the time of day for Dorothea Lange.

Do not put words in my mouth. If I had photographed it and the thumb bothered me, I would have cropped it differently. No cows were injured nor killed in this post.

 

[removed account4]

people have been retouching photographs since 1839, not sure what the difference is between retouching with leads, dyes, cut+paste, combination printing and with photoshop. one of the most famous photographs of Abe Lincoln was combination printed, as were some photographs of the civil war, Prussian War, ww2, nearly every portrait made by Karsh, Hurell and every mom and pop portrait photographer in every town. not sure what the problem is. art not art, does it matter? photography has never been about truth anyways but about the truth someone wanted to tell.

 

[Vaughn]

... art not art, does it matter? photography has never been about truth anyways but about the truth someone wanted to tell.

nice..

 

[MattKing]

This is such an important issue, the NY Times standards will not accept photos that have been modified like this. Changing exposures, etc. are allowed. Because the moment it is learned that a photo had information removed, modified or deleted, the truthfulness of not only the photo is in question, but the the ethics of the newspaper. An editor that would knowingly ignore these edits could be fired.

Only for news reportage,
Not for art or commerce (advertising).
And probably not for the sort of story that Migrant Mother would have been used to illustrate.
And If the NY Times published the photo, they would most likely have cropped it to eliminate the thumb.
This thread isn't about reportage or documentary photos.

Maybe the gun was removed as well as the thumb falsely proving the innocence of the actual murderer. How would anyone know? A competent lawyer would call the photographer to testify at trial and ask him if there was anything else he modified in the photograph? That would create doubt in the minds of the jurors about the truthfulness and completeness of the photo.

We have had this discussion before. Courts don't use photographs to prove things (traffic cameras and surveillance photos being an exception). Courts use photographs to support and illustrate testimony - the testimony is the probative evidence.
The only time a photographer is called as a witness is when the photographer happens to be a good source of that probative testimony, or, if the photographs that are intended to support testimony create difficulties of their own because due to their technical shortcomings they distort reality instead of reporting it.
A police photographer may very well choose to crop a photo to take out a distracting foreground item that isn't relevant to the issue at hand. The full frame image will have to be disclosed to all parties anyways, so if anyone has any issues, production of the full frame can be required,

 

[Helge]

The thumb was removed because it made it clear that it was a transitory moment and not the gleaming, forever in time frozen moment, iconic slum-romanticizing of a mud-Madonna she was aiming for.
The manipulation is troublesome.
In the same way that when it is said something “is not about sex”, it’s more about sex than ever.

Unless the photo is clearly ethereal and fantasy, finding out that the photo was manipulated is always some kind of disappointing.

The more well steeped in photography will accept burn and dodge as the equivalent of eloquence and rhetorical technique.
But removing and adding elements on anything with the pretense of being documentary, will always be troubling, no matter how many internal and external excuses you can come up with.