Art photos are manipulations

markjwyatt said:

Let's say we did move the beer bottle. We as the photographer are no longer a neutral observer of the scene (and never really are, especially if people are in it). We have modified the scene. It is a fair question as to whether physically moving the beer bottle before the shot is less of an infraction (or even an infraction) than removing it digitally or in the darkroom. There is a cultural expectation that a photograph represents the moment in time as the photographer recorded it, and thus as it was when he came. I suspect the answer comes in terms of the magnitude of the modification. For instance, physically removing a beer bottle or a piece of dog poop form the scene to be photographed is physically very feasible, and unlikely to create an image which could not have occurred. Removing it digitally later would be an admission that you were not paying attention when you took the shot (or that things happened too fast, or you could not access the beer bottle). But it is modifying the recorded scene. I suspect this is less of an issue than adding a set of clouds that would never be seen in the locale whether ever or that time of year, or that time of day, etc. An even worse situation would be a set of clouds wholly inconsistent with the lighting on the ground. On the other hand such a move (inconsistent clouds) COULD be used for artistic purposes (to create a sense of mystery or unease). The question is, would it be better at that point to call it something other than photography? Maybe Graphic Arts? I don't know, and it is not going to matter much because people are going to manipulate images proportionally to the magnitude of the effect and the technological ease of doing so.

Click to expand...

TheFlyingCamera said:

I'd say you are imposing an artificial restriction on art - which is what we're talking about here. Intellectually it's the same argument that the classic painting Academies used against the Impressionists - it's not accurate enough, the subject matter is wrong, etc. etc. We're talking about art photography here, not documentary or evidentiary photography where there is an expectation of high verisimilitude. You have to start with what the intent of the photograph is before you can determine what is and is not acceptable in an image. I think it's a very restrictive and some would even say outdated idea to presume people are expecting 1:1 verisimilitude when looking at a photograph now.

I'll agree with you that after a point, major manipulation of an image ceases to be photography and is in fact Graphic Arts (I've even proposed this as the name for the current movement in photography). But it is hard to separate it out from photography when so many people practicing it self-identify as photographers. When it comes down to it, all photographs are illusions - they proffer a simultaneous high degree of verisimilitude and a complete absence of it - they're rich in detail, but they're tonally, dimensionally, and perspectively completely inaccurate. They offer the illusion of texture and detail, but don't actually provide it. And when zoomed in enough, be it pixels or grains, in the end they're just dots of varying tones arranged to provide the illusion of the thing they claim to represent.

Click to expand...

dpurdy said:

I adjust and manipulate pretty much everything in my life. Starting with myself, my mental state and my energy. My mental state is responsible for my visual interest and the choices I make regarding any art function. Deciding what or what not to have in my image is a total manipulation. The point of art is to make a statement. In every possible way, making a statement is a manipulation. Language is a manipulation of sound. Playing music on guitar is a manipulation of the vibrations of wire that has been manipulated to create various sounds. Singing is manipulating your voice. The art of cooking is manipulating the flavors and presentation of foods. If you are trying to make artwork with out manipulations you are making nothing..

Click to expand...

TheFlyingCamera said:

This. THIS is honesty about your work. Even if you don't "alter" anything recorded in the frame, you've already manipulated the photograph by virtue of taking it.

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

When someone looks at an oil painting, they understand the painting is from the artist's mind. If there's a cow in the scene, no one assumes the cow ever existed or even if the scene actually exists. It could be all made up by the artist and often is. Not so with a photo. There's a belief the picture is somewhat a depiction of the original scene. If there's a cow in the scene, most people assume the photographer saw a cow.

Click to expand...

jnantz said:

hi bluechromis -

yeah. .. every photograph is a manipulation. I never understand how folks who love straight photography don't acknowledge that that work is as manipulated as anything else, well maybe not jerry U, but .. you know ..

John

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

...If there's a cow in the scene, most people assume the photographer saw a cow.

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

When someone looks at an oil painting, they understand the painting is from the artist's mind. If there's a cow in the scene, no one assumes the cow ever existed or even if the scene actually exists. It could be all made up by the artist and often is. Not so with a photo. There's a belief the picture is somewhat a depiction of the original scene. If there's a cow in the scene, most people assume the photographer saw a cow.

Click to expand...

Vaughn said:

That boat sailed a long time ago. The group called "most people" no longer includes just us old folk anymore. There is more of 'them' than there are of 'us'. And they know better.

Click to expand...

faberryman said:

It depends entirely on the photograph. For example, if I take a photograph of the moon, and photoshop a cow jumping over it, nobody is going to assume the photographer saw a cow jumping over the moon. Anybody think Jerry Uelsmann actually saw the things in his photographs? When you look at a digital photograph, it is anybody's guess what the photographer actually saw. Assume at your peril that what is in the photograph comports to reality at the time of exposure. Just take a random tour of Flickr. Do many of those photographs look unmanipulated?

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

The issue is not manipulated photos that look manipulated. The viewer recognizes those as a form of art, like a painting. It's pictures that look like they haven't been manipulated and are presented as if they reflect what the camera actually captured. The viewer is fooled as to the basic depiction of what's in the photo.

Click to expand...

Vaughn said:

Images of distant nebula from Hubble are in black and white -- adding color to those images...is it manipulation or just is it creating more interesting images of what is there?

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

The issue is not manipulated photos that look manipulated. The viewer recognizes those as a form of art, like a painting. It's pictures that look like they haven't been manipulated and are presented as if they reflect what the camera actually captured. The viewer is fooled as to the basic depiction of what's in the photo.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

And therein is my concern with the misuse of FauxTow$hop and resultant distrust of digital photograph in general.

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

You know you're picture is in trouble when an innocent but impressed viewer asks, "Did you Photoshop it?" If you did, you might get a queasy feeling in your stomach like you just got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.. If you didn't, then you feel insulted and unappreciated because you remember struggling to get up at 3am in the morning to break your butt getting out there in time to catch that beautiful sunrise. Photoshop has done that to photography.

Click to expand...

faberryman said:

Why are such photographs an issue?

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

When these manipulated photos are represented in a scientific journal, they indicate that colors were added to separate the various gasses to clearly depict the makeup of the object being photographed. They state that the atual visual view by the eye is different and don;t have those colors. Sometimes they include the original photo what the picture looks like without the computer enhancements. There's no foolery because the caption states how the photo is being presented.

Click to expand...

Dali said:

It also has to do with the physiology of the eye unable to discern colors in low light. In this case, is the reality in color (what I believe from experience) or in black and white (what I see)? Where is the truth?

Click to expand...