Is film better for the truth?

[markjwyatt]

We already have alternate standards.

I think it is fine if you want to adopt a personal code of conduct for your photography, and if you want to add some tags to your image when you post it on the internet, so people know if it was taken with a digital camera or is a digital scan from a negative or a print. That's good informtion I guess, but I can't be bothered with it. Are you going to list all the values from your scanning and editing program too, you know, whether it is HDR, or super sharpened, or the contrast is all jacked up, or you changed the color balance, or you leveled the horizon, or you added vignetting, or God forbid you blurred an errant thumb? Where do you draw the line on which manipulations are okay and which are not, and which manipulations you are required to disclose and which ones you are not? But mostly, elaborate on why you made the decisions you did so that we know your reasoning and can evaluate whether it makes any sense, and whether it is consistent or simply ad hoc.

The amount to report would be up to each photographer. For instance, on Flickr now I usually specify the camera, lens, film, developer (sometimes the concentration), and sometimes other relevant details. By default Flickr shows I used a Fujiflim XT-2 , so I don't need to specify that. But once the picture leaves Flickr, that is not transferred (if I link it, it can be found). For example, much of my stuff might be

#Photrio[Negative, Digitized, Reversed; Film: 135 Ilford FP4+ {Dev: Rodinal (1:25, 9:00 min., 20 C )}; Digitization: Fujiflim XT-2 {Lens: enlarging, 75mm Komura-E f5.6 @f11; ISO: 200; Focus: Manual}; Reversal: ON1}]

And I am sure I could add more, but I choose not to. What I probably would use most of the time is

#Photrio[Negative, Digitized, Reversed; Film: 135 Ilford FP4+ {Dev: Rodinal}; Digitization: Fujiflim XT-2]

 

[cowanw]

I donl;t know about 5 photographs. But it does look like a composite with the guy and curtains in the background with the foreground pasted on.

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1410548/fading-away-photograph-robinson-henry-peach/

 

[faberryman]

The amount to report would be up to each photographer. For instance, on Flickr now I usually specify the camera, lens, film, developer (sometimes the concentration), and sometimes other relevant details. By default Flickr shows I used a Fujiflim XT-2 , so I don't need to specify that. But once the picture leaves Flickr, that is not transferred (if I link it, it can be found). For example, much of my stuff might be

#Photrio[Negative, Digitized, Reversed; Film: 135 Ilford FP4+ {Dev: Rodinal (1:25, 9:00 min., 20 C )}; Digitization: Fujiflim XT-2 {Lens: enlarging, 75mm Komura-E f5.6 @f11; ISO: 200; Focus: Manual}; Reversal: ON1}]

And I am sure I could add more, but I choose not to. What I probably would use most of the time is

#Photrio[Negative, Digitized, Reversed; Film: 135 Ilford FP4+ {Dev: Rodinal}; Digitization: Fujiflim XT-2]

This is simply technical information, and has nothing to do with whether the image was "manipulated"? The advisability of providing information of this nature would be better addressed as the topic of another thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So, I have a question for you: do you consider this to be a photograph?

This is also an example of what was common and acceptable with photography in the past that is not done now, photographing the dead as though they were living. This was also commonly done with still born and dead children. Today, this would raise eyebrows. Then there was the advantage that the subject would remain still long enough for the photograph. In this case, according to others this contains five photographs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1410548/fading-away-photograph-robinson-henry-peach/

Thank you for the reference. I did not know the provenience.

 

[markjwyatt]

This is simply technical information, and has nothing to do with whether the image was "manipulated"? The advisability of providing information of this nature would be better addressed as the topic of another thread.

#Photrio[Digital Image; UFO added in Post]

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is also an example of what was common and acceptable with photography in the past that is not done now, photographing the dead as though they were living. This was also commonly done with still born and dead children. Today, this would raise eyebrows. Then there was the advantage that the subject would remain still long enough for the photograph. In this case, according to others this contains five photographs.

Look into the history of the image- there were no dead people in the image. It was just an allegorical image. I picked that particular one because it is perhaps the most well known Henry Peach Robinson photograph, and an example of early 19th century photo montage.

Since you haven't declared for or against Henry Peach Robinson, what about this image?

 

[markjwyatt]

#Photio[SIlver gelatin print, Digitized; Modification (Print): Touch Up {Thumb subdued (lower right)}]

I resume you are referring to the thumb removal. The story behind the image is also disputed, but that has nothing to do with the honesty of the photograph itself, but maybe around who said what, etc.

 

[faberryman]

#Photio[SIlver gelatin print, Digitized; Modification (Print): Touch Up {Thumb subdued (lower right)}]

Do you really think adding "Touch Up {Thumb subdued (lower right)}]" is necessary? Do you have an overarching principal for when "manipulations" are (a) not permitted, (b) permitted with disclosure, and (c) permitted without disclosure?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I laugh at some of the responses here about truth in a photograph. This definitely from my experience, separates professional from amateur photographer.
Here is a quick example off the top of my head from my experience as a commercial photographer. And this one happened in every shoot of this type for over fifteen years of film based event photography, but we could also add portrait work in the studio and on location too.

I show up two hours before the wedding with my Hasselblad kit and assistant that hauls all the rest of the gear. I enter the bride's dressing room (I am female and have full access to the bride and bridesmaids while they get dressed, etc.). I give my hellos and the bride knows what is about to happen as she and I completed a photography checklist a month before the event and she was instructed it was her responsibility to tell everyone their scheduled time for "showtime."

My four or five film magazines are loaded with VPS III 220 and I am setting up. I make sure to add either a Softar 1 or 2 to the 150 lens prior to portrait taking depending upon the skin condition of my bride. If I do not add that to the film base, I cannot afford to pay someone either the money or time it would take to give my bride what she wants and expects (she hired a pro to deliver what she wants).

Truth be told: (1) the bride expects to be beautiful in her wedding photos, (2) the special sauce (Softar) is captured on film and will be reprinted on all prints

Do I need to write in the contract for wedding photography (1) the bride is paying me to make sure she is beautiful and/or (2) disclose someone's idea of BS that I as a professional photographer doing what I am paid to do, disclose technique, equipment and why it was use for truth?

Photography is many things for different people, but thinking it is truth of reality, truth for forensics, etc. is total pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Wouldn't you say there's a difference here since you're shooting a private session for a paying customer who bought the photos and has basically asked you to dress up the photos to make her look great? That's different than a photographer publicly showing a photograph that has been altered. Curious what their future husbands say about this?

Laws are in force in various countries that make it illegal to dress up photos in advertisements. Governments are considering it fraudulent. Of course, advertisements are different than art. Or are they?
https://www.pixelz.com/blog/photoshop-models-laws/
https://www.pixelz.com/blog/photoshop-models-laws/

 

[Sirius Glass]

Look into the history of the image- there were no dead people in the image. It was just an allegorical image. I picked that particular one because it is perhaps the most well known Henry Peach Robinson photograph, and an example of early 19th century photo montage.

Since you haven't declared for or against Henry Peach Robinson, what about this image?

The mysterious thumb is not a major object in the photograph, and to use a term that rubs you the wrong way, does not change the truth of the composition.

 

[Helge]

Look into the history of the image- there were no dead people in the image. It was just an allegorical image. I picked that particular one because it is perhaps the most well known Henry Peach Robinson photograph, and an example of early 19th century photo montage.

Since you haven't declared for or against Henry Peach Robinson, what about this image?

Lange instructed the kids to turn their faces away, since they couldn’t stop smiling.
The mother hated the photo and resented its popularity, since it cast her in a role she didn’t want to be in.
That’s already two versions of the truth.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lange instructed the kids to turn their faces away, since they couldn’t stop smiling.
The mother hated the photo and resented its popularity, since it cast her in a role she didn’t want to be in.
That’s already two versions of the truth.

The mother also never got any money only notoriety from the photograph.

 

[markjwyatt]

Do you really think adding "Touch Up {Thumb subdued (lower right)}]" is necessary? Do you have an overarching principal for when "manipulations" are (a) not permitted, (b) permitted with disclosure, and (c) permitted without disclosure?

Manipulations are possible, and if the photographer wants to notify viewers they were made it is their imperative to do so. If they don't and viewers find out later it is their imperative to be upset. The overarching imperatives are that it is the imperative of the photographer to pass whatever information they want, and of the viewer to accept/wonder/believe/disbelieve/question what they see.

 

[markjwyatt]

I laugh at some of the responses here about truth in a photograph. This definitely from my experience, separates professional from amateur photographer.
Here is a quick example off the top of my head from my experience as a commercial photographer. And this one happened in every shoot of this type for over fifteen years of film based event photography, but we could also add portrait work in the studio and on location too.

I show up two hours before the wedding with my Hasselblad kit and assistant that hauls all the rest of the gear. I enter the bride's dressing room (I am female and have full access to the bride and bridesmaids while they get dressed, etc.). I give my hellos and the bride knows what is about to happen as she and I completed a photography checklist a month before the event and she was instructed it was her responsibility to tell everyone their scheduled time for "showtime."

My four or five film magazines are loaded with VPS III 220 and I am setting up. I make sure to add either a Softar 1 or 2 to the 150 lens prior to portrait taking depending upon the skin condition of my bride. If I do not add that to the film base, I cannot afford to pay someone either the money or time it would take to give my bride what she wants and expects (she hired a pro to deliver what she wants).

Truth be told: (1) the bride expects to be beautiful in her wedding photos, (2) the special sauce (Softar) is captured on film and will be reprinted on all prints

Do I need to write in the contract for wedding photography (1) the bride is paying me to make sure she is beautiful and/or (2) disclose someone's idea of BS that I as a professional photographer doing what I am paid to do, disclose technique, equipment and why it was use for truth?

Photography is many things for different people, but thinking it is truth of reality, truth for forensics, etc. is total pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Commercial photographers operate on different sets of expectations than artistic, or journalistic, etc. If you want to stay in business as a portrait photographer, you WILL remove the zit on the 16 year old girl's forehead. No one looks at a portrait and thinks wow, she has perfect skin. They think think she is pretty, and likely the photographer removed any blemishes. Commercial photographs are some of the most manipulated because commercial photographers are selling a dream, and without manipulation they likely would be out of business. Artistic photographers have the most latitude [artistic license], and often it is obvious. Journalists and documentary photographers are held to the highest standards (like Dorothy Lange),

 

[markjwyatt]

Lange instructed the kids to turn their faces away, since they couldn’t stop smiling.
The mother hated the photo and resented its popularity, since it cast her in a role she didn’t want to be in.
That’s already two versions of the truth.

There is the truth captured by the lens, which is very high in this case (the thumb being one small deviation). Then there the instructions for posing, representations of what occurred, etc., much of which cannot be determined fully anyways, and goes to the truth of those who told the stories, not the camera. I do not see added clouds, a UFO, an elephant jumping over the moon in the background, etc. in that image.

 

[markjwyatt]

The mother also never got any money only notoriety from the photograph.

I doubt Dorothy Lange got a lot of money (just her pay as a federal contractor), but this is true. I do not think pay was expected either.

 

[Don_ih]

I laugh at some of the responses here about truth in a photograph.

Photography instruction books are full of tips as to how to make skin look better, make people look pretty, etc. It's an interesting issue, but it's separate from the worry that a photo can misrepresent something important.
You are right, though. It's not just portrait and event photographers, but stock photographers have to expect that their photos will be changed in any number of inconceivable ways in the hands of graphic designers.

The "Migrant Mother" photo is representative of a situation even if the mother herself was not. It actually doesn't matter what the photo is of once the idea associated with the photo gains acceptance. That the kids were actually laughing is irony.

Manipulating the content of a photo does not necessarily cause the photo to be a misrepresentation. It may make the photo more representative.

A camera isn't a mirror. It's a window.

 

[faberryman]

There is the truth captured by the lens, which is very high in this case (the thumb being one small deviation). Then there the instructions for posing, representations of what occurred, etc., much of which cannot be determined fully anyways, and goes to the truth of those who told the stories, not the camera. I do not see added clouds, a UFO, an elephant jumping over the moon in the background, etc. in that image.

Don't forget the truth that the individual viewer assigns to the photograph. Take a group of students to a photo gallery and ask them what the photographs mean. You'll get all sorts of answers.

 

[markjwyatt]

Don't forget the truth that the individual assigns to the photograph. Take a group of students to a photo gallery and ask them what the photographs mean. You'll get all sorts of answers.

Of course. A photograph may be worth a 1000 words, but it is not always clear which 1000 words!

 

[markjwyatt]

Truth in a photograph:

Cropped photo- man is standing on a balcony pointing a pistol down at a woman who is looking up at him intently, but cut-off at her neck.
Uncropped photo- reveals the woman is pointing an AK-47 at the man.

Cropping can be used to change the scenario or even lie. Neither photograph is lying, but the cropper may be. Either photograph is honest in what it shows.

Photo3: Either of the first two, but add a UFO in the background digitally or otherwise (sandwich a neg, etc.). Now the photograph itself is manipulated, and depending on how it is presented could be said to be dis-honest.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I doubt Dorothy Lange got a lot of money (just her pay as a federal contractor), but this is true. I do not think pay was expected either.

Dorothy earn money in photography but one would hardly say it made here wealthy, money-wise.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I thought we all agreed there is no thruth in photography!!! I thought we agreed that, "truth" is a concept ( used in a social context) . . ." to create a focal point upon which to argue "what is and what is not" and that if we got rid of the term "truth" we wouldn't argue about the line in the sand, or even where the line in the sand is placed!! Moreover, the term and meaning of "truth" is a rouse, no more, no less. trying to define it,iis a misdirection, started by some dude along time ago who wanted people to argue, so they would get mad at each other, and go to war!!! the concept of truth was invented by some Royal ugly dude, who just wanted to kill people. that is all folks. so . . . . . don't buy into "IT". Oh. by the way, same is true for the concept of "religion" " Government" . . . ... . ETC. . people just like to kill people, and they need to find a way to do it.. I think most concepts are made in order to maintain power, or "let other people lose power" . . . . Truth" is one of those copncepts that is brought into civilization for the sole purpose of "power". . .. .

 

[greg zinselmeier]

"stand on its on first"? Art? . .. . . I see so much commercial work that is completely vapid and unoriginal. . .i.e. someone just yesterday did a "copy" of A "copy" of A "copy" to be paid. it's work, it's commercial, the person doing the work knows it's a hack job. it's not art though, it doesn't stand on it's own, ughhhh oh, btw, it si not " a first" . .. it;s one of those images that just gets recycled so people can pay their bills. its all done with a wink and a nod.


everyone( not just in visual work) every where in the owrld. . . . is selling a dream, with and without manipulation. Cruel!!!! life is cruel.

these high standards is a gimmic started by those who edit and control the "culture revolution" Every "famous Photags body of work is highly editied, the narrative of their life and success story is also highly edited. Dorethea lange is no exception. it's always about who controls the story to get you to beleive, insureing credibility, and then insuring profit, because we now have believers!!!! it's all a fix people. it's just about money and war

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I would prefer "Swartz" instead of "peace be with you" so . . . "May the Swartz be with you" That is a Spaceballs (movie)reference.. ( smiley face) DARR, but yes seriously, times have NOT changed, . . . . It is still a "confidence" game (rouse) out there. . .. HOWEVER there are more tricks, more sophisticated tricks that people turn to, TO SURVIVE. . . . Remember that, "this" ( whatever ALL This "is" ) is all to serve the sole purpose of survival. If i am a curator, then I need to make someone famous so I can Curate their show>>>> look up Bernice Rose, drawing Now. She was a New york gal, who went around to all the studios in new york to find what the young Baby boomers where up to. She put a show together at the MET, I guess she had connections. That show made her and many others placed on the map, you still gotta remember somebody is always climbing the latter.