Art photos are manipulations

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

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 I think it's a very restrictive and some would even say outdated idea to presume people are expecting 1:1 verisimilitude when looking at a photograph now.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.

 

[markjwyatt]

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.

My intent is not to impose anything. I am saying something similar to you "I'll agree with you that after a point, major manipulation of an image ceases to be photography and is in fact Graphic Arts". Other than that I am exploring the ideas involved, and where that line may lie. I suspect it lies in different places for everyone, and probably shifts for all of us too. Not everything has to come down to some hard conclusion.

 

[PFGS]

The most useful thing I heard in my photojournalism classes a few years back was, "What? You already have a wife and a kid and a house? Don't become a photojournalist unless you want to lose all that."

The second most useful, and what might pertain to this thread, was to reframe some of these questions not as matters of "truth" but as matters of "honesty." Truth is a notoriously slippery concept that philosophy has struggled with for ages - but every little kid knows what honesty is.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one wants to deal with things as they are, then use a camera. If instead one want to move things around then a paint brush is the right tool to use.

 

[dpurdy]

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..

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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..

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Scott why are you so hung up on manipulations? There is a big difference between common darkroom procedures and swapping parts of photographs. Are you trying to justify some types of darkroom procedure or is this just a discussion?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

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?

 

[KenS]

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

If 'EVERYTHING' recorded to a sheet of film is 'in-focus' using 'swings, tilts and/ or the lens f-stop', is 'sharp' It seems more than just possible that the resulting image is similar to what the hominid 'eye/brain' combination 'sees' over a period of time somewhat longer than that required than that required when being 'recorded' to film....I have to ask...

How might that be considered 'manipulation'?

I 'might' however, consider using colour filters in front of the lens in use, an often 'required' (and acceptable) 'artistic' manipulation of contrast'

Ken


After some 60+ years 'under the dark-cloth' i will never consider the 'everything in focus 'in/on' to be regarded as a 'manipulation'?.

Ken

 

[Vaughn]

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

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.

 

[dpurdy]

I think maybe a couple of adjectives would be helpful in this purposeless conversation. Perhaps "darkroom" manipulations or "digital" manipulations.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Nicely stated.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

And exactly for that reason I always suspect digital photographs taken by people [I am excluding spacecraft.] with great suspicion until proven well beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise.

 

[Vaughn]

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Why are such photographs an issue? Let's say I take a photograph of two cows in a field. For aesthetic reasons, I decide to remove one of the cows. Who cares?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

I am not sure why you think you are "in trouble". Maybe you feel like you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar or conversely insulted or unappreciated. I dare say not everyone would feel the same way. Your feelings in response to the question are the result of your own views on the use of Photoshop, not Photoshop itself. Maybe in time your views will change.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why are such photographs an issue?

See my last post for one answer. The other answer is that shooting photos is the last resort for a person to be an artist without having the ability to draw or paint. People like me who can't draw better than stick figures. So now because of Photoshop, the average photographer cannot keep up with those who have computer artistic skill unrelated to snapping a picture. Their skills are more related to painters who are creating their pictures with their hands rather than capturing the scene with a camera. The whole excitement of capturing a beautiful scene in a landscape, or compelling content in a street or editorial shot, are less important since they can be created at home at your desk. It forces people who have no interest in computer art and manipulation to forgo photography totally. Making meaningful photos in a camera as an artform is being lost as an art in itself. That's unfortunate.

 

[Dali]

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.

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

If it's not what our eye-brain "sees", then any manipulation should be indicated in the caption, especially if shown in a scientific journal. We assume that's what something looks like if we were just looking at it when we snapped the shot.