Art photos are manipulations

[bluechromis]

All art photo images are manipulations. Sometimes people get doctrinaire and make pronouncements that photography should be about an objective rendering of reality with no “manipulations” of the image. When I was 17 years old I remember talking to an older family friend that was a passionate amateur photographer. He was deeply invested in the f/64 “Straight Photography” aesthetic and a had been to numerous workshops with Ansel Adams. Naive as I was, I asked what he thought of the montage images by Jerry Uelsman not knowing what a minefield I was stepping into. He gasped as though I talking of devil and said “Oh no, one must never manipulate the image.” The idea from straight photography is that the photo should be an objective documentation of the external world. But that idea is rubbish, all images that are of value and are interesting are manipulations. Few or no images that are moving and artistically important are literal depiction of the external world. It is a myth, a canard, to think that. Adams himself admitted something to the effect the photo could not be an objective and scientific mapping of the exact tone structor of the original seen because that would be BORING. Instead it was necessary to enhance, to exaggerate certain features. In Adam’s famous “Snake River and Tetons” nobody standing next to Adams as he took the picture would have seen the exact thing depicted in the photo. Instead what the photo shows is something that suggests THE FEELING that someone gets from viewing the magnificent scene. But it’s an abstraction, a romanticization,
inspired by the natural scene, not objective rendering of it—never mind that we don’t see in black and white. There is no such thing as "straight photography" in the way the f/64 school wished for that is an entirely authentic documentation of "the world as it is", not slanted by the perspective of the photographer. No photographs are an exact duplication of reality. When cultural anthropologists got hold of video cameras they were excited because they thought the camera would give a neutral, non-biased way document non-western cultures. But they soon found out that there were huge cultural biases in where the camera operator choose to aim the camera. So yes, even the direction the camera is aimed is a kind of non-objective, value-laden manipulation. As an artistic discipline we need move beyond idea that some images are manipulations and some are not. If one claims some kinds images of not legitimate manifestations of photographic art they need to justify that in terms other than whether an image is manipulated or not, but in terms what kinds of manipulations were done.

 

[removed account4]

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

 

[ic-racer]

All photographs are two dimensional. How could they be anything but colored paper?

 

[Pieter12]

All art photo images are manipulations. Sometimes people get doctrinaire and make pronouncements that photography should be about an objective rendering of reality with no “manipulations” of the image. When I was 17 years old I remember talking to older family friend that was a passionate amateur photographer. He was deeply invested in the f/64 “Straight Photography” aesthetic and a had been to numerous workshops with Ansel Adams. Naive as was, I asked what he thought of the montage images by Jerry Uelsman not knowing what a minefield I was stepping into. He gasped as though I talking of devil and said “Oh no, one must never manipulate the image.” The idea from straight photography is that the photo should be an objective documentation of the external world. But that idea is rubbish, all images that are of value and are interesting are manipulations. Few or no images that are moving and artistically important are literal depiction of the external world. It is a myth, a canard, to think that. Adams himself admitted something to the effect the photo could not be an objective and scientific mapping of the exact tone structor of the original seen because that would be BORING. Instead it was necessary to enhance, to exaggerate certain features. In Adam’s famous “Snake River and Tetons” nobody standing next to Adams as he took the picture would have seen the exact thing depicted in the photo. Instead what the photo shows is something that suggests THE FEELING that someone gets from viewing the magnificent scene. But it’s an abstraction, a romanization inspired by the natural scene, not objective rendering of it—never mind that we don’t see in black and white. There is no such thing as "straight photography" in the way the f/64 school wished for that is an entirely authentic documentation of "the world as it is", not slanted by the perspective of the photographer. No photographs are an exact duplication of reality. When cultural anthropologists got hold of video camera they were excited because they thought the camera would give a neutral, non-bias way document non-western cultures. But they soon found out that there were huge cultural biases in where the camera operator choose to aim the camera. So yes, even the direction the camera is aimed is a kind non-objective, value-laden manipulation. As an artistic discipline we need move beyond idea that some images are manipulations and some are not. If one claims some kinds images of not legitimate manifestations of photographic art they need to justify that in terms other than whether an image is manipulated or not, but in terms what kinds of manipulations were done.

And your point is?

 

[bluechromis]

And your point is?

It is not hard to make the argument that the aesthetic ideology of the f/64 school has dominated art photography the last 70 years. The f/64 school itself was party to the trend in art called Modernism, which is long forgotten in other art disciplines but has the remained the stagnant paradigm in photography. The f/64 school and the earlier Pictorialist School were attempting to make photography a legitimate art form, which is to say that photography has felt inadequate compared other art disciplines. The Pictorialist tried to make photos that seemed more like paintings and more artistic and less a mechanical process. The the f/64 group felt that photography had arrived as a discipline and not longer needed to mimic other art forms. Their view was the essential esthetic of photography was one of hyper-realism and that we ought embrace that and those that did not were heretics that did not grasp the the true potential of art photography. My point is the f/64 group was fundamentally wrong and we should no longer blindly act as slaves to the misguided precepts of their seventy plus year old ideology. So what has this to to do with what has happening today with Photrio? A great deal. Many of comments and evaluations of photos are based upon values systems derived from the f/64 school without acknowledgement or without examination of where they come from. There is also the possibility to embrace a greater diversity of aesthetics including those that were suppressed by the f/64 school. For example, Jim Galli has led a resurgence of in interest in soft focus images which the Pictorialists would have loved and the f/64 school would seen as work of the devil. Lest you think I am being hyperbolic Ansel Adam publicly denounced the man he considered the arch enemy to the f/64 school, William Mortensen, as "The Anti-Christ" You may say, "Who cares about that doctrinal struggle many years ago?", just as who cares about the War of the Roses in English or who knows who Red Rose and who was the White Rose. That is PRECISELY my point. Although consciously few know about the ideological battles of the f/64 school and ultimate conquest of its opponents, unconsciously in our values and actions we frequently act as though the war never ended and we need to defend to death the precepts of f/64 school without even knowing why. Diversity is good and we have not had as much diversity in photography as we might think the last seventy years because it has dominated by single ideology which itself was not logically coherent.

 

[voceumana]

Portraying 3 dimensions in 2 is inherently a "manipulation". Just like all maps are "manipulations" unless they are printed on a spherical surface or section thereof. The discussion of manipulation in photography as a "valid" interpretation is inherently absurd. We don't reproduce the 3 dimensionality of our subjects, we don't reproduce the same light intensities, etc.,etc., etc.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I try to see my photography as recording a slice of time. There is a special joy I get out of not having to add or remove elements to create something that didn't exist in front of the camera when I pressed the shutter. Crop, adjust, manipulate either a negative or a digital file to my hearts content, but when I break out the clone tool to add or remove an element in the shot, it changes it for me. I do it, and realize sometimes it's part of the creative process, but it's no longer a recording of what was in front of the camera.

 

[Vaughn]

...Their view was the essential esthetic of photography was one of hyper-realism...

No, I disagree. There was never any pretence of creating reality on a piece of photopaper. AA never claimed to be after capturing and presenting reality. (edited to add: this is not to say it was not attempted, successfully or otherwise)

The Ansel Adam vs William Mortensen, IMO, is totally over-blown. On some accounts, Mortensen actually won the written arguments...but lost due to changing times and the quality of the work being produced by the F64 group and others...not through the pen of Ansel Adams. I think people give AA way too much 'power' over the world of Photography of that time...like others have said on this forum, AA was primarily a US thing...and not that well know internationally and not known as an innovator. People just got tired of Pictorialism, just as people get tired of F64...long live both of them.

Primarily I photograph light. The collection of various objects that make up the landscape are reflecting the light, but generally I do not allow them to dominate over the light itself...they co-exist in my image-making with attention paid to the forms light creates independent of any specific objects. I love playing with the light -- hyper-realism never enters into it. That's digital's strong point, never F64's.

PS...opinions expressed in this post are the author's and your mileage may differ.

8x10 Platinum/palladium print
Lost Man Creek, Redwood National Park

 

[btaylor]

bluechromis, yea, the f64 group had their influence. But that was a long time ago- just to refresh my memory I looked it up. 1932-1935. They had their day, as did the pictorialists before them. “Art Photography,” it’s a big tent, and from the work I look at the f64 aesthetic is a small part of it- I guess it depends on what you decide to view. I grew up in the Bay Area, and was introduced to the f64 group in the ‘60’s, but I was also looking at those that grew out of and away from that group. Imogen Cunningham was a favorite of mine, her early work was pictorialist, then she joined f64 and then she moved on- I prefer her work before and after f64.
Anyway, if the f64 aesthetic looks stale to you simply look elsewhere, there is a lot of great work out there.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Primarily I photograph light. The collection of various objects that make up the landscape are reflecting the light, but generally I do not allow them to dominate over the light itself.

This. I spend the vast majority of my photographic life waiting on and hunting down just the right light, not the objects it reflects off of. Which is why I enjoy shooting B&W, it distills the process down to the light.

 

[Vaughn]

Yes, it leads to a little different approach than being subject-orientated.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Yes, it leads to a little different approach than being subject-orientated.

Which is why I learned I can't shoot B&W and color in the same outing. For me the approach/vision is totally different.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Of course they are - all photographs are abstractions, even the most literally intended, un-thoughtful photographs (the picture of mom in the driveway with the new dog, part of her head cut off, etc). They're a two-dimensional, analogous representation of a moment in time. The only thing that really separates them from the cave paintings at Lascaux is the fact that their ability to render detail is exponentially greater. But they still tell a story that can be deprived of context and while the intent and meaning can be inferred without context, it is still highly subject to interpretation, fiction and error.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, you are wrong because at least one person does not manipulate the image shape to make an art photograph. Me. So now you can throw that argument in the trash as it has been proven false.

 

[KenS]

A single photograph is but recording of a moment in time. When i make/expose that which I "observed/framed/focused" on the ground glass and exposed onto film.... it is for "me" (as a 'moment in time) rather than a 'someone else' who (usually) is/was not present. Why should a 'viewer' of that image be 'allowed to criticize' what I considered worthy? Hence the 'adage' "to each his own"

Ken

 

[Dali]

All art photo images are manipulations..

Manipulation of what?

 

[bluechromis]

No, I disagree. There was never any pretence of creating reality on a piece of photopaper. AA never claimed to be after capturing and presenting reality. (edited to add: this is not to say it was not attempted, successfully or otherwise)

The Ansel Adam vs William Mortensen, IMO, is totally over-blown. On some accounts, Mortensen actually won the written arguments...but lost due to changing times and the quality of the work being produced by the F64 group and others...not through the pen of Ansel Adams. I think people give AA way too much 'power' over the world of Photography of that time...like others have said on this forum, AA was primarily a US thing...and not that well know internationally and not known as an innovator. People just got tired of Pictorialism, just as people get tired of F64...long live both of them.

Primarily I photograph light. The collection of various objects that make up the landscape are reflecting the light, but generally I do not allow them to dominate over the light itself...they co-exist in my image-making with attention paid to the forms light creates independent of any specific objects. I love playing with the light -- hyper-realism never enters into it. That's digital's strong point, never F64's.

PS...opinions expressed in this post are the author's and your mileage may differ.

8x10 Platinum/palladium print
Lost Man Creek, Redwood National Park

Nice image Vaughn. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You say that A.A. never claimed to be capturing and presenting reality. In the manifestos of the f/64 group they repeated proclaim that photography must be "straight", must be "pure" and must depict "the world as it is". What is meant by pure and straight? It seems to be something about the image goes straight from the scene to the photographic image with a minimum alteration of what the original scene was like. One of Adams early acclaimed photos, one that began his rise to fame, was taken of Half Dome where he used a red filter to dramatically darken the sky. I have heard it said that later on that the use of a red filter in that way would not have been permitted under the rules of f/64 school because it was not sufficiently realistic, was not depicting "The world as it is." It seems they were trying to draw lines in the sand to judge which images were pure because they objectively depicted reality and those that were not, those that "manipulated" and adulterated and distorted, had deviated from what was in the original scene. If the members of f/64 were not attempting to depict the reality of the scene, what is meant by their desire to depict "the world as it is"? Also the f/64 school clearly favored images that were in sharp focus. It would seem that that is going in the direction of hyper-realism as opposed to the dreamy, soft-focus approach of the pictorialists.

 

[bluechromis]

Manipulation of what?

All photos are manipulations in the sense that they are not a perfect visual duplication of the original subject, at most they are an interpretation of the original.

 

[Dali]

All photos are manipulations in the sense that they are not a perfect visual duplication of the original subject, at most they are an interpretation of the original.

Like you vision is interpreting reality. Nothing new here.

 

[faberryman]

Diversity is good and we have not had as much diversity in photography as we might think the last seventy years because it has dominated by single ideology which itself was not logically coherent.

What a ridiculous statement.

 

[faberryman]

All photos are manipulations in the sense that they are not a perfect visual duplication of the original subject, at most they are an interpretation of the original.

And this is important because?

 

[faberryman]

It is not hard to make the argument that the aesthetic ideology of the f/64 school has dominated art photography the last 70 years...

What book did you read that led you to these conclusions? It sort of sounds like you are writing a paper for a class you are taking. One suggestion I have is to break your long paragraphs into shorter paragraphs. It will certainly make it easier to read. It is also easier for the teacher to grade if there is white space for comments.

 

[awty]

"Adams himself admitted something to the effect the photo could not be an objective and scientific mapping of the exact tone structor of the original seen because that would be BORING."
Ant that the truth.
Personally I try to follow my own idiosyncrasies, not others.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

All art is a manipulation. For me, reality or my reality at least is boring. I'm a seeker of new experiences so I love to go to art galleries and museums. All good art manipulates my perceptions and leave a me changed a little bit. This allows me to go back to my boring reality with a fresh perspective on my life. I need escapism to function as a human being. If art doesn't manipulate materials, perceptions and ultimately reality, the artist is ineffective.

 

[dasBlute]

All photos are manipulations in the sense that they are not a perfect visual duplication of the original subject, at most they are an interpretation of the original.

<grin> physically impossible, you can't even know if "my blue" is the same as "your blue"...
then there's Plato's cave and all that... further, at a quantum level, even the act of looking changes the subject...

I think few ever try to claim "visual duplication" in any photographic effort... it'd be kind of silly
a lot of the f/64 folk had a love of "contrasty" prints