Truth In Photography

The advent of Photoshop has made it possible to create images that the viewer can marvel at, while never really knowing whether or not they were actually captured that way. Personally, I have no issue with extreme image manipulation, provided that it's never passed off as if it came out of the camera that way. And I have no issue with minor manipulation when it "fixes" small distractions from the image, such as dust spots, power lines, etc., provided that it does not manipulate the perception of the viewer purposefully (i.e. removing high tension wires running along a property from a real estate photo). Photography for arts' sake can do what it wants. Editors can choose to manipulate a photographer's work to make a model look thinner, taller, what-have-you, that's on them - again, provided that they do not ever try to pass off the photo as specifically being "unaltered".

I found a kindred spirit in this blog on the subject. I thought it was a good read and takes a lot into account about the ethics of commercial photography and how it falls on both the photographer and the client to ensure that truth is passed as truth.

STORY BEHIND THE IMAGE: Questioning the Ethics of Photo Manipulation in Digital Photography Today

The way I see it there are valid points on both sides. It all depends on who you ask. Some think it's wrong, some think it's ok.

I do post processing to "Make" the photo look like what my mind "Saw" when I shot it.

Very interesting article. Look at JPEG. It's edited right out of the camera. RAW makes us edit. It's almost the norm now...

There is nothing inherently wrong in anything, only in it's use.

I see both sides, but lean more towards the side of displaying what I saw and not manipulate it to the point of fantasy. I like the fact that the better I get the less post-processing I have to do. I may one day venture down the other side, but it will be a while. But I still have a long ways to go.

I feel like overly processed pics in PS is cheating...But agree with removing distractions is acceptable..

Photography as art is no different than painting or music - no restriction or inhibition on the artist's ability to create purely imaginative images - "Let's see, do I want tree here next to the stream, or maybe not?" The camera is a means to an end.

Let's face it, the great master painters attempted to emulate still life, human likeness in portraits, etc., for people to admire, and landscape artists created massive landscape painting of the unsettled western US because photography was poor quality. We don't have Renaissance style master painters today because cameras made them obsolete.

IMHO, the problem today is 99.9% of the human population don't know or care how an image was created. That is not going to change and the knowledge gap will continue to widen. But, for people that likely would know the difference in any field that touches on the arts, especially during this huge transitional period we're going through (computer generated whatever), the infidelity of it all is somewhat disturbing.

I wrestled with the notion - however back in the day there was a "darkroom" photos were manulated in the developing process. It's always been there.

Just so I'm clear, I have absolutely no issue with fully utilizing the art of the darkroom, digital or otherwise. Photography is about creativity, and layering multiple images to create art is not something I have any issues with. I love the idea of realizing something surreal conceived in the mind from images you've taken. When presented as "digital art" they are what they are and should stand on their own merits. When presented as "photographs" the lines become blurred, and I believe there are ethics involved with how we present a "photograph" to the outside world. Post processing is not what I'm talking about here, as even printing from a negative is "post processing", whether simply exposing or dodging and burning to even an image - that's simple photography. 99% of my post processing is simply manipulating the light information already there. Most of the rest involves removing distractions from the frame, like power lines, dust spots and things like random tourists who got in the shot. I do not believe these manipulations alter the perception of what is in the photo away from reality. It's when something is added to an image that wasn't captured in the original frame that I believe the photographer has the obligation to present it differently. It's no less valid as photography, but to me it's no long "a photograph". I like the term the author used, a "composite photo", as it clearly states that multiple images were merged. It's truth in advertising. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it - until you try to pass it off as something else.

Making pictures can be as varied as painting a scene - you have many, many choices in how precisely you are going to produce your art, and that's a fantastic thing. The idea of a photograph as a "capture", however, is very specific, and implies a single instant in a single view of a singular place and time in infinite history, and to present anything else as that, for me at least, is a violation of the truth of that particular art form, but not of photography in general.

Here's something to consider for truth in photography:


Not sure if I first saw this article on this forum or not, but aside from the incredible sum of money the "photo" brought at auction, it is art and Andreas Gursky makes no claim this photo is "truth" other than to call it "Rhine II". I haven't been to the Rhine river, but my guess is the only elements of the image that resemble the Rhine are the greenish and blueish-grey colored pixels. The artist's quote is what fascinates me.

BBC News - Andreas Gursky's Rhein II sets photo record

BBC News and Enterainments Arts:

Gursky has spoken of "a particular place with a view over the Rhine which has somehow always fascinated me, but it didn't suffice for a picture as it basically constituted only part of a picture".

He said he "carried this idea for a picture around with me for a year-and-a-half".

"In the end I decided to digitalise the pictures and leave out the elements that bothered me," he added.

Christie's said the viewer was "not invited to consider a specific place along the river, but rather an almost 'platonic' ideal of the body of water as it navigates the landscape".

Click to expand...

I saw the article and, to me, this is the perfect example of "photo as digital art". Perfectly valid under the label "photography", provided that it was never passed off as something other than what it is. The artist/photographer explains precisely what it is and what his vision of the end product is. It's a digital painting, in my opinion.

Now we can argue over why anyone would pay that kind of money for it, but... LOL

I think the key is disclosure.

And I love your "Hot on the heels of my post about truth in photography" thread.

BackdoorHippie said:

... It's when something is added to an image that wasn't captured in the original frame that I believe the photographer has the obligation to present it differently. It's no less valid as photography, but to me it's no long "a photograph".

Click to expand...

In light of this, how do you feel about things like digital "art" filters, focus stacking and/or HDR?

I ask out of what is, really, nothing more than idle curiosity, by the way.

.....

The perennial what is "real" photography debate continues to rage on. Photo manipulation has existed for nearly as long as the craft itself, so I really see no need to continue to rehash it. Editing has become far easier and widespread in the digital age, but that doesn't make it any more taboo or controversial than it ever was.

We all have our own personal opinions as to how much is too much, or how far is too far to stretch the "truth". Frankly, if photography were limited to merely reproducing an exact copy of what is in front of the lens, it would be pretty boring. We've all witnessed a sunset, a flower, a little girl, or a man on the street. What we haven't witnessed is how the artist sees it. THAT is what makes photography special.

We need to rid ourselves of this manifesto that photography has to be our own self-inflicted definition of "real" or "pure". Ask 100 photographers to take a photo of the same scene and you're going to get 100 different submissions. A good majority will be similar: they'll obey the rule of 3rds and perspective, and take a textbook style photograph. But the ones that are unique will always garner the most attention. The ones who dare to stand outside the box.

Everyone longs to be where the wild things are.

Browncoat said:

The perennial what is "real" photography debate continues to rage on. Photo manipulation has existed for nearly as long as the craft itself, so I really see no need to continue to rehash it. Editing has become far easier and widespread in the digital age, but that doesn't make it any more taboo or controversial than it ever was.

We all have our own personal opinions as to how much is too much, or how far is too far to stretch the "truth". Frankly, if photography were limited to merely reproducing an exact copy of what is in front of the lens, it would be pretty boring. We've all witnessed a sunset, a flower, a little girl, or a man on the street. What we haven't witnessed is how the artist sees it. THAT is what makes photography special.

We need to rid ourselves of this manifesto that photography has to be our own self-inflicted definition of "real" or "pure". Ask 100 photographers to take a photo of the same scene and you're going to get 100 different submissions. A good majority will be similar: they'll obey the rule of 3rds and perspective, and take a textbook style photograph. But the ones that are unique will always garner the most attention. The ones who dare to stand outside the box.

Everyone longs to be where the wild things are.

Click to expand...

QFT

What continues to surprise me is there is no end to people lamenting the change, or passage, of how things were to how are and will be. Change is the only constant.

Horoscope Fish said:

In light of this, how do you feel about things like digital "art" filters, focus stacking and/or HDR?

I ask out of what is, really, nothing more than idle curiosity, by the way.

.....

Click to expand...

No issue with them whatsoever, and to be clear I have no issue with any use of any technology when it's passed as "art" and not as journalism.

In almost all cases the tools you mention are still used to capture "a single moment". In most of these cases it's going to be a matter of nothing being added to the image other than "more light information", and in some cases in HDR ghost reduction could remove extra information, but it's still a view of a moment, albeit across moments. If anything other than light is significantly altered I would want it to be mentioned, and in particular if the photo is presumed to be a journalistic representation of an event, or if it is, say, entered in a contest that prohibits such manipulation specifically, then I would consider this a breach of ethics.

The only thing that bothers me personally is intentional misrepresentation.

Jill Greenberg's photographs of then Presidential candidate John McCain immediately springs to mind. Greenberg is a bleeding heart liberal, and was contracted by Atlantic magazine to photograph McCain for their cover. She snapped several photos and poses, all with harsh lighting and from a low perspective (which every portrait photographer knows is a huge no-no) in order to portray him in the worst possible light. She then Photoshopped and posted photos on her site of evil red eyes and monster teeth on McCain's face along with the text "I'm a bloodthirsty warmonger". There's another candid of McCain laughing that she captured, and added "I called my wife a c_nt in front of reporters". There was a lot of backlash from what she did, but not enough in my opinion. Greenberg is still a noted photographer of celebrities.

On the other end of the spectrum are artists like Dash Snow. Here's a guy who made a lot of money with street photography of prostitutes, people using drugs, and gangbangers. Snow himself was a junkie who died before he was 30, yet his work...which often featured collages held together with his own semen, blood, and spit, has been in premier art galleries around the world. I don't get it.

Our society is full of people who push beyond the boundaries of the norm. Some of them are heralded, some of them are loathed for their efforts. When it comes to art, there really are no boundaries. There are acceptable practices among certain aspects of photography, such as the photojournalist...but those are fading away quickly. News outlets are letting staff photographers go in droves in favor of crowdsourced photos from viewer submissions. Where is the integrity or quality control? Gone. Does it really even matter anymore? Not when you can report a sensationalized story one day and apologize for it the next, and no one is held accountable. It's all forgotten about by Friday when the next big thing hits.

Hello,

This is something I wrestle with all the time and argue with people. I agree that photography is an art form and there is licence to see the image in the way the artist would like to perceive it. Where the issue for me is when you cross the line between changing colour saturations or if you have changed the image by adding elements that were not there in the first place. I think realism in photography is what we strive for. Its a real problem in that we have so blurred the lines between what is real and what is fake. The bar has been set low we cross over it and don't even know we did.

I was once on an outing with a new photographer and she was about to take a photo and then turned to me casually and said I will just fix it Photoshop later. At which point I said NO take the picture right the first time. She thanked me later as I cut her post production time in 1/2 she told me. Ansel Adams used to complain about this subject too, but then would spend hours in the dark room manipulating a photo.

Its an interesting topic and that's why though even photo journalism photos are changed an manipulate to some degree, at least the moment in time is truly captured.
Regards

Photosail said:

Ansel Adams used to complain about this subject too, but then would spend hours in the dark room manipulating a photo.

Click to expand...

True enough, but remember, in his day everything was a one shot with no way to save and undo your work. We can tweak and re-tweak, do and undo in real time with software like Lightroom and Photoshop, and even come back to it days later and restart from "history step 19" and not from an untouched RAW file (i.e. negative) when we decide we no longer like the looks of something. He couldn't remove that 2 second dodge over Half Dome while leaving everything else intact. I'm not surprised he spent hours.