Fauxtography

[Photo Engineer]

While sitting in a waiting room at the Doctor's office today, I ran across an article condemning the alteration of photographs using things like Photo Shop. Not so much for quality but for calling it Photography.

The writer of the article proposed the name Fauxtography for the altered pictures no matter what the source. This was to distinguish it from real photography. He did not separate out analog or digital as the source of the image though, just the naming of the final, altered result.

I thought I would post this and see what people thought of this here.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are a few references to "fauxtography" here on APUG. Here's the oldest from Jorge in July 2005--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I think I've seen it on Mike Johnston's blog as well, The Online Photographer.

 

[juan]

I've seen the term used mostly to distinguish photojournalism in which the photograph is altered generally by using Photoshop to add something that wasn't actually there.
juan

 

[vdonovan]

Where do you draw the line as to what is photography and what is not? Ansel Adams wasn't shy about extensive dodging and burning, to the point where the emphasis of the composition changed. He himself said that his photographs were not representations of nature but rather his own interpretations.

He obviously had his own, somewhat arbitrary, line. He would retouch out dust spots and etc but didn't do extensive photo retouching after the print was made.

Photography is just making images with light, so I think digital photography and its post-processes *is* photography.

Any art form is about both process AND result. We judge a fuzzy, uneven wet-plate collodion image with a different eye than a sharp, full color image made with a digital camera. So I'm not worried that some people are Photoshopping their images while I'm spending my afternoons in stinky darkrooms. I judge my work, and others judge it too, by what I've achieved using the process I've chosen.

I'm not a digital fan myself, but I am excited by what the young art students at the rental darkroom where I print are doing with digital/analog hybrids. Many of them started in digital and have since discovered analog. They don't follow rules or dogma or definitions but are just creating beautiful, thoughtful work.

 

[jd callow]

The moment you choose to shot in B&W you are departing from reality, add an orange filter you move a little more, push or pull to increase or decrease contrast you move some more, dodge and burn... You get the picture. It is like the WC Fields joke where he asks a women if she'd marry him for a million, she says yes so he asks if she'll sleep with him for x dollars. Trying to belittle one and make noble another, when both 'real' and faux deceive is, in my mind, hypocrisy. Whether or not digital is real photography was not the OP.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Isn't the real line between what is craft and what is not? Any subjective experience, whether it's a photograph or a cello solo or a nice meal, these are all products of the materials and methods by which they were created. These are products of craftsmanship, and their DNA is the materials and methods.

You can hand AA's negatives to anybody on the street, tell them it's a gold mine, go make prints. Chances are the materials would be destroyed by the time the person learned the craft of printing. The same cannot be said of a master file. Load paper, hit print. (I know there is a little more to it than that, but not much.)

That's a good observation, of the Donovan's art students, that they create "thoughtful" work. This is enlightening to hear, because the #1 comment I hear from digital (amateur) folks is how great it is they can take 248 pictures and pick the best three, while an analogue guy like myself comes home with maybe 12 frames. It is difficult for them to understand that just because I did not push a button 248 times, it says nothing about what I saw and evaluated. This is where the "thoughtful" part comes in.

Perhaps it is the difference between a purposefull act, and one that is devoid of meaning.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Realism in photography is dependent on conventions external to the photograph itself. A B&W picture is a departure from reality, but within certain norms and expectations, can also be considered a truthful rendition of reality.

Don't look at pictures for truth; look at humans.

 

[jd callow]

I think we are talking about two different things. If I shoot a scene with the intent to enhance reality, I lose the 'faux' argument. Most photographs are building on what we actually see.

 

[removed account4]

believe none of what you see and half of what you hear ...
its all photography/fauxtography ...

i've never seen vivid reality like those from velvia,
or a muted or a black and white reality like something else, or many streetscapes
with no trash or "street furniture" ( benches, trash cans, mailboxes)
or telephone poles or ...

we all look to edit in one way or another, our memories and our photographs.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

If I shoot a scene with the intent to enhance reality, I lose the 'faux' argument. Most photographs are building on what we actually see.

I think I'm saying the same thing: being real or false begins with an intent.
If your intent is to enhance reality, then you shan't be accused of being faux, or deceitful.

If on the other hand your intent is to have a verifiable account of reality, and you play around too much with the colours, then you can be accused of being faux.

 

[vdonovan]

The term "Fauxtography" is trying to say someone isn't really *doing* photography, they are not using a photographic process.

I say if you are working with light and light-sensitive material (including a digital sensor), it is a photographic process.

 

[cdholden]

i've never seen vivid reality like those from velvia...

Wow. I'm glad the college I attended had students on campus with LSD and mushrooms. I can't imagine what my photos would be like without those experiences so many years ago. I don't think the vision would be quite the same. Who needs those time lapse photos of street traffic to remember trailing lights? Ah, the good ol' days.

 

[jd callow]

I think I'm saying the same thing: being real or false begins with an intent.
If your intent is to enhance reality, then you shan't be accused of being faux, or deceitful.

If on the other hand your intent is to have a verifiable account of reality, and you play around too much with the colours, then you can be accused of being faux.

what is too much? For that matter why does there need to be a connection between the photographer's intent the viewer's interpretation. If we've established that as a whole we (the viewing public) accept a photograph at face value, then were does the photographer's responsibility begin and end? Must s/he be pure, or should s/he not care and disconnect him/herself from the viewer's experience/expectations?

It is all a bit silly to me.

The norm that says photo's are real is wrong. From there it's tough to build a foundation. 2d objects with an image of something on them are not what is represented in the image, but a facsimile. Add all the other inputs and they become less real. Where is the line drawn? Is it ok to layer multiple negatives or a neg and multiple masks or 4 exposures in photoshop to create an HDR (manipulations used to make the image more 'realistic'), or is the limit simple dodging and burning? A thoughtful burn can be as deceitful as the most arduous ps manipulation and yet neither may be any different or as deceitful as putting a red filter over the lens to reduce the acne on a subject. I think there is manipulation that starts out as minor and can end up as gross, but I'm don't see a clear line as to where one becomes the other and it loses almost all value when the medium from jump street lies.

 

[eddym]

So I'm not worried that some people are Photoshopping their images while I'm spending my afternoons in stinky darkrooms.

I beg your pardon. Maybe your darkroom stinks, but mine doesn't.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Outside of straight-up documentation, there is no line. The world is quickly filling with L-lenses being used to precisely capture what the photographer sees, and project precious little about what he feels. I don't believe I can accurately project, photographically, what I feel by using tools designed by an anonymous code-writer in a cubicle in San Leandro. But that's just me.

 

[SuzanneR]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Magritte

Seems to me, it's a photograph when a light sensitive medium is used, whether or not it's manipulated... it's not life. It's a photograph.

If more of the elements of an image are generated without the use of light sensitive material, then it could be better described perhaps as illustration, but these are semantics over the medium. Fauxtoraphy doesn't really tell me about what the medium is, so I don't like the term, because it doesn't add any clarity to learning how an image may have been made.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While sitting in a waiting room at the Doctor's office today, I ran across an article condemning the alteration of photographs using things like Photo Shop. Not so much for quality but for calling it Photography.

The writer of the article proposed the name Fauxtography for the altered pictures no matter what the source. This was to distinguish it from real photography. He did not separate out analog or digital as the source of the image though, just the naming of the final, altered result.

I thought I would post this and see what people thought of this here.

PE

I like it. If you disagree with me your opinion can be post processed with Photoshop!

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

It doesn't matter what you believe or I believe. Words are not photography, but photography only exists as a word or action. There are prints and other things that are the physical artifacts of the process of photography, and that is as far as you can get before you become the purveyor of grunts and postures.

 

[nemo999]

While sitting in a waiting room at the Doctor's office today, I ran across an article condemning the alteration of photographs using things like Photo Shop. Not so much for quality but for calling it Photography.

The writer of the article proposed the name Fauxtography for the altered pictures no matter what the source. This was to distinguish it from real photography. He did not separate out analog or digital as the source of the image though, just the naming of the final, altered result.

I thought I would post this and see what people thought of this here.

PE

Long experience indicates that when analog photographers resort to puerile derision, they're all out of arguments - in particular, they have lost faith in their ability to demonstrate through the production of images that analog is superior to digital.

When analog guys criticise digital image manipulation, all that says is that they've never heard of Henry Peach Robinson, the awesome composite printer of the 1850s, and the many who came later. If they say that making a digital print is just a matter of pushing a button, with no skill involved, this simply shows that they are ignorant of traditional photofinishing equipment, designed to allow virtually untrained staff to make mundane "machine prints" by pushing a button, with no skill involved.

Or it may simply indicate that they have such poor visual acuity that they just can't see the difference between a first-time print (analog or digital) and a fine print, which is likely to be a 3rd- or 4th-time print, a situation which seems to persist no matter how skilled the printer (the standards go up with experience, the paper wastage doesn't go down). I am fine with the term "digital photography" -let those who will, choke on it.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

what is too much? For that matter why does there need to be a connection between the photographer's intent the viewer's interpretation.

Question 1, I couldn't say precisely, because that standard varies. But if I present you a picture of blue oranges and tell you I actually shot blue oranges, you'll say I'm faking it. That's the joy of categorization.

Question 2, because as viewers we always project a certain intent. When we appreciate a work of art, we appreciate it as the product of someone's work. Sometimes we even go so far as to admire nature and attribute it a Maker.

Finally, as for realism in photography, it is nothing more nor less than the realism one could accomplish with a drawing. But it is possible for a photograph to have some connection to reality, ditto for a drawing.

 

[vdonovan]

I beg your pardon. Maybe your darkroom stinks, but mine doesn't.

Maybe I should shower more often...

 

[jd callow]

Michel,
I'm just not getting it. Photo's of blue oranges, that are in fact oranges are not more fake than grey oranges. If they are round, and dimpled our brains will make the connection and yet neither is real and they require the same kind of mental leap that one would need to do to connect an artist's painting of an orange coloured sphere in a setting that suggests fruit. Yet the photographer generally won't tell you its an orange -- he may have meant it be an abstraction or who knows what -- its our subjective analysis that makes us say real or fake, not necessarily the artist's. This topic is a way to appease the viewer of the image. You, I or most people may tend to look at traditional works of art and wonder about context and intent, but what gives the work real, not academic, value is how it impacts us. Except for things meant to be literal (such as documentary work be they illustrations or photographs) it is the viewer who has faked themselves as much or more than the photographer by assuming a photograph is 'real.'

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

John, I think what you're getting at is to separate the documentary uses of photography from the artistic uses thereof.

I don't think we should artists accountable as artists for the truth of their photos. We hold journalists accountable for the relative truth of their photos, and we all know the history of fakery, and most of us would agree that it's dishonest in that context.

But I'm not so sure that once we're into artistic territory that truth has no place to be anymore. Truth has no essential relationship to art, I think. But when an artist also claims something about truth, then I think they become accountable to being actually truthful. Not morally so: outright lies can be part of the artistic fabric of a work of art. But it remains that the truth/falsity of these statements is part of the artwork, not just their impact.

Anyway, regardless of my ramblings on truth and art, I seem to discern that the original point was that once photographs become so manipulated as to look like something that a camera could never produce by itself, it stops being photography. In other words, the medium of photography has a limit, and eventually it becomes illustration or graphic arts.

I'm not sure there is a real distinction in the first place.

 

[haris]

For me, as long as photograph represent actual scene, it is not faux. No matter of cropping, contrast/colour alteration or posing.

For example, shooting scene with 15mm lens, and not changing camera position, but using 300mm lens and shooting what that lens gives from same scene is also cropping. So, it is not matter if it is done during shooting or at priniting stage. BUT, if on both images are "things" which actually existed in front of lens at moment of photograhing, it is not faux.

Contrast: Well, shooting scene with white clouds on blue (gray) sky and getting on photograph "white" sky and not blue (gray) as it was at time of shooting is not representing of existing scene. So, orange or graduate filter or burning during printing to get that sky darker gray (or blue) with white clouds and simillar as it was at time of shooting is not faux, it is actually getting to reality with help of technique.

Posing: Well, if I make scene at time of shooting, it exsists, so I am photographing exsisting scene.

Of course, if we talk of journalism and documentary, then posing, and even heavy contrast/colour manipulation is not allowed.

For me, any manipulation which as result have image which does not represent real scene in front of lens in time of pressing shutter, however is made, is faux.

And yes, if someone tells that aiming lens at particular scene or its part or using longer lens, and not have "whole" scene is also manipulation through cropping, well, there is no lens which collect whole Universe on photograph, and thus every photograph is cropping wrom whole reality. But, we are talking in terms of reality and possibility and practice.

 

[Chuck_P]

While sitting in a waiting room at the Doctor's office today, I ran across an article condemning the alteration of photographs using things like Photo Shop. Not so much for quality but for calling it Photography.

The writer of the article proposed the name Fauxtography for the altered pictures no matter what the source. This was to distinguish it from real photography. He did not separate out analog or digital as the source of the image though, just the naming of the final, altered result.

I thought I would post this and see what people thought of this here.

PE

IMO, photography is photography............there is no nuance in its meaning. An altered photograph is still a photograph, either in PS or by darkroom gymnastics.

IMO, what's important is the intent.........is it meant to decieve, or does it have integrity? I do not consider b&w tonal manipulations to be deceitful, even though it is clearly a departure from the reality of the actual "thing" itself. As long as the photograph is, singularly, a true representation of the optical image formed by the lens on the camera, then it has integrity---------if it is not, then it is "fauxtography", still a photograph, but meant only to deceive the viewer, IMO.