Truth In Photography

[Browncoat]

Hello,

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...

Do you still raise cows to get your milk? Because that follows the same logic.

​

 

[Grumpy Old Bag]

Hi Jake,

The truth in photography, to me, is not to purposefully mislead my viewer into believing I have captured an image that is not entirely my own work. As a learning hobbyist the truth in Photography has a different meaning, to me, than when I would have been a Commercial Photographer capturing images for a client trying to sell a product.

Maybe we should distinguish between a photograph, a digital image, a photographic image and a composite image. The question would be: what is a photograph, what is a digital image and when does a digital image become a photographic image?

 

[BackdoorArts]

The truth in photography, to me, is not to purposefully mislead my viewer into believing I have captured an image that is not entirely my own work.

I'd even be willing to shorten that to read, "The truth in photography, to me, is not to purposefully mislead my viewer." This allows me to incorporate outside images, provided I am up front about their use. If it's a single capture, it stands on its own. If it's any type of composite or manipulation of what was and wasn't in the viewfinder at the time, then it needs to be stated as such. Even when it's an in-camera multiple exposure - at least for me.

Maybe we should distinguish between a photograph, a digital image, a photographic image and a composite image. The question would be: what is a photograph, what is a digital image and when does a digital image become a photographic image?

This is the crux of it. "Photograph" is far too unspecific a term and allows for lots of ambiguity regarding how it was created, particularly in the digital realm.

I've taken to using "capture" to refer to anything that involves a single image with no overt manipulation. In other words, do as much as you like with the available light information and cropping, including the removal of noise, dust, and even ancillary objects in the image such as garbage on the ground, power lines and the casual human in the background, but do not manipulate perspective or proximity of objects, and do not add anything to the image that was not in the original capture or move it from one location to another (ie. don't move the moon from the left side of the image to the right). I believe anything in the realm of "photojournalism" must fall under within these parameters unless it's a purposefully stated and explicit manipulation.

Anything else is not a "capture" and can fall in a variety of other categories under the realm of "photograph" and I have no issues with them whatsoever - provided you don't tell me it's a "capture". They are all valid expressions of the photographer, and provided they are not presented as if taken in a single capture I would hold them as "truthful", even if they may leave the viewer wondering just how such an image was captured. It's only deception if you tell them it's one thing when it's not, not if they believe it on their own - that's deceptive, and I am more than OK with that in art photography.

 

[Browncoat]

Maybe we should distinguish between a photograph, a digital image, a photographic image and a composite image. The question would be: what is a photograph, what is a digital image and when does a digital image become a photographic image?

To what end? What purpose would it serve to make such distinction?

You're following the same logic that has plagued social classes for generations. The Nazis forced Jews to sew a yellow star or triangle into their clothing so that they could be distinguished from others. Other "non conformists" were also so labeled: criminals, homosexuals, political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses. That is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but it illustrates the point: Most classification systems are designed to elevate the status of one at the expense of the other.

Why would this be important to you? So that you can easily dismiss a photograph as "not real" or of lesser quality or significance because it was altered? ALL photography is manipulated. Be it by the chemicals of film or how different software interprets data, none if it is a 100% accurate reproduction of what was in front of the lens. It's all data, at its core, just binary code. A series of zeros and ones:

010010010001110101 could be a Word document
100101011001010000 could be a photograph of a waterfall

Photographers need to stop proclaiming SOOC as if it were a badge of honor. I've yet to see any straight out of camera image that truly impressed me. This purist vs. digital debate continues to be nothing more than a baseless means for photographers claim that in-camera technical prowess trumps artistic interpretation and creativity.

 

[Browncoat]

Just to drive this home, I submit to you OJ Simpson:



When Time magazine ran this cover, they gave their illustrator "creative license" to artistically interpret the image. This practice has been common with magazines for decades. All those beautiful women who grace magazine covers are altered: be it Cosmo, Elle, or Sports Illustrated's lauded swimsuit issue. Skin is smoothed, blemishes are removed, and even jewelry is added digitally.

Newsweek ran an unaltered photo of OJ's mugshot on their cover that same week, which was in stark contrast to the Time cover. Clearly their photo had been darkened and the prisoner ID# reduced in order to give OJ a more menacing appearance. This sparked nationwide outrage. Was Time trying to make OJ "more black" and therefore "more guilty", or was it merely trying to convey the dark overtones of the case?

Regardless of where individuals stood on the issue, it was clear that most people felt that a magazine of some reputation should not alter its images at all. Is it because people consider Time is an unbiased source? EVERY news source pushes a political and social agenda. Why is it okay to make women look like supermodels on magazine covers, but not okay to take creative license with a mugshot? Or is this taboo solely because OJ is black? What if a magazine ran a Photoshopped photo of George Zimmerman on its cover? Would there be outrage?

There is no easy way out of that discussion. There is no way to come out smelling like roses. Someone or group of someones is always going to disagree or be offended. Time took creative license and got some backlash from it. Did they sell more magazines? Absolutely. Were people lining up with torches and pitchforks demanding resignations? No. And while just about everyone reading this will remember when this incident happened, almost none of you have thought about it at all since. Time has endured, and will continue to endure.

We don't live in a Joe Friday - just the facts, ma'am - kind of world. No matter how boring or droll your day-to-day routine might be or how conservative you are, we all crave a little drama, sensationalism, and controversy. Slapping photography with a label or disclaimer isn't going to solve anything. It only keeps the spark alive.

 

[grandpaw]

I guess I need to come clean on my photography starting with the fact that I shoot in aperture priority and like to control the depth of . Before I have even pressed the shutter button I have started manipulating the picture. I usually focus on the eye of the bird and throw the background out of focus so I have to confess that when I look at the scene without my camera that the background is much sharper than it is in my images that I post.

Yes I manipulate each picture but I try and do as little as possible. To me there is a differnce between tweaking a picture and creating it in Photoshop. To me, once you have taken your camera off of full auto you have started to control and change the picture so I think the big question is not IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING the image but how much manipulation in camera or by using software can you do to an image without going too far.

To me this is kinda like driving down the interstate on vacation and someone passes you doing about 90 miles an hour in a 70MPH zone and you get all huffy about their speed and make the statement that you hope there is a State Trooper around the corner that gives them a ticket. The funny thing is that you are doing 75MPH which is also over the speed limit but don't think there is anything wrong with your speed. I guess we just all have different ides about what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[Nathan Lanni]

@ OP

Is a camera produced JPEG an in-camera manipulation, or interpretation of the RAW data by the camera manufacturer?

Is an HDR image a manipulation of the image?

 

[BackdoorArts]

My point is not to argue over what is and is not manipulation or whether or not it should ever happen. Of course it happens all the time, and it should, because the art of photography is about putting the photographer's/artist's vision in front of an audience. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to go down that road, no, a camera produced JPEG is not a "manipulation". If you read my posts you'll see that I do not consider any adjustment of the light information captured by the camera's sensor to be a "manipulation". I also state that stacked photos for the purpose of producing an HDR or focus-stacked image is not something I consider "manipulation". For me "manipulation" is when you add something to the final image that was not originally "capture-able" by the photographer in the reflected scene. To which I would put forth that I do not consider star trails to be "manipulations" since they are stacked representations of the same scene over time.

But that's not the point of my original post at all. The point is as the question, when an image that could not have been captured by a camera in single place in a single orientation is presented as if it were with no attempt to make the viewer aware of this, under what circumstances would this violation of "truth in photography" cross some ethical boundary? For me it's only when the image is put forth in a journalistic context, with the intent of saying, "Had you been in this spot this is what you would have seen", and I believe it's the ethical duty of the photographer putting forward an image in that context to be clear about any deviation from those parameters. If it's stacked images, say so. If it's time lapse, say so. If it's a composite, say so.

The rest is all just photographic interpretation in which, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to use and ignore the available tools at your convenience.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

But that's not the point of my original post at all. The point is as the question, when an image that could not have been captured by a camera in single place in a single orientation is presented as if it were with no attempt to make the viewer aware of this, under what circumstances would this violation of "truth in photography" cross some ethical boundary? For me it's only when the image is put forth in a journalistic context, with the intent of saying, "Had you been in this spot this is what you would have seen", and I believe it's the ethical duty of the photographer putting forward an image in that context to be clear about any deviation from those parameters. If it's stacked images, say so. If it's time lapse, say so. If it's a composite, say so.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. If you use a technique, focus stacking, HDR, et al, why would you not want to be forthcoming about that? Concealing the truth, to my way of thinking, is just as much a lie a telling something other than the absolute truth.

Now, if someone thinks using certain techniques, digital or otherwise, is somehow "less pure" than SOOC, I think that says more about the person holding the opinion than anything else. Go forth... Actuate and create as you wish and be willing to share what you've learned about new techniques for the betterment of all. This whole "looking down your nose" at those who avail themselves of the tools current technology provides is a display of the worst form of elitism and does nothing but (attempt to) stagnate the art form... Go inflate your ego somewhere else.

.....

 

[stmv]

nothing will get a photography community going then discuss Photoshop,, but,, from the very early history, the famous photographers where mixing and matching photos,, adding famous civil war generals into battles they were not there for, or perhaps the funniest/strangest/ironic pasting Lincolns head on a torso of a pro slaver senator to make Lincoln look better on campaign posters! My method is to attempt to get the photo right in the field,, angle/manual control/bracketing, whatever it takes, and if I know an object has to be cloned out, be aware of it while taking the shot. Edit than is more of a work flow,, adjust levels, sharpen selectively if needed, dodge/burn,, to make up for the lack of dynamic range of the sensor, so most are just the end product of the intended shot. then,, there is PLAY time,, fractals, filters, additions, replacements,, whatever I feel like doing, since after all, I enjoy the results, and frankly, if I don't like the results, then why do it? I think most of the time, my fancy edits are pretty obvious,, and then on the comment that don't worry, I'll fix it in PS,, WHAT? I must not be good enough in PS, because I find that if the picture is not mostly right in my camera, no amount of PS,, makes it shine,, once a pig, always a pig. course, pigs can be good too in the right light,, or mud,, actually not enough pictures on pigs, but I am off topic. Purist,, go ahead be purist,, and brag too if it helps your sells, and if you want to look down on the rest,, then laughs go ahead! ​live and let live I say,,

 

[Nathan Lanni]

This I wholeheartedly agree with. If you use a technique, focus stacking, HDR, et al, why would you not want to be forthcoming about that? Concealing the truth, to my way of thinking, is just as much a lie a telling something other than the absolute truth.

Now, if someone thinks using certain techniques, digital or otherwise, is somehow "less pure" than SOOC, I think that says more about the person holding the opinion than anything else. Go forth... Actuate and create as you wish and be willing to share what you've learned about new techniques for the betterment of all. This whole "looking down your nose" at those who avail themselves of the tools current technology provides is a display of the worst form of elitism and does nothing but (attempt to) stagnate the art form... Go inflate your ego somewhere else.

Fish, for the sake of conversation I was splitting hairs and I appreciate Hippie's clarification or amplification of his original question. Please allow me to defend myself by way of clarifying my question.

My point which is not relevant now, is that at some point there is always some level of manipulation going on. Even at the most basic algorithmic level a Nikon programer attempt to represent real life through digital coding. Or in the case of the d7100 creating a jpeg with its EFFECTS or SCENE modes, or if I radically alter White Balance for effect, etc., I can chose not to represent reality but again it's a programing algorithm. Somebody is always deciding what's real and what isn't.

The bottom line is I'm not that serious about it, and as stated I was splitting hairs in order to find the limits of Hippie's argument. Please forgive me - it wasn't my intent to sound elitist. For the record I love technology.

teagueAMX
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.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Fish, for the sake of conversation I was splitting hairs and I appreciate Hippie's clarification or amplification of his original question. Please allow me to defend myself by way of clarifying my question.

My point which is not relevant now, is that at some point there is always some level of manipulation going on. Even at the most basic algorithmic level a Nikon programer attempt to represent real life through digital coding. Or in the case of the d7100 creating a jpeg with its EFFECTS or SCENE modes, or if I radically alter White Balance for effect, etc., I can chose not to represent reality but again it's a programing algorithm. Somebody is always deciding what's real and what isn't.

The bottom line is I'm not that serious about it, and as stated I was splitting hairs in order to find the limits of Hippie's argument. Please forgive me - it wasn't my intent to sound elitist. For the record I love technology.

Hey teague'; I don't want you to feel my post was directed at you, or any of your posts, in particular. That was not my intent at all and want you to know I absolutely respect your opinion.

Cheers, friend!

.....

 

[Nathan Lanni]

I have the highest regard for you and your posts/comments - I find them to be very helpful.

Thanks Fish!

 

[Browncoat]

For me "manipulation" is when you add something to the final image that was not originally "capture-able" by the photographer in the reflected scene.

For me it's only when the image is put forth in a journalistic context, with the intent of saying, "Had you been in this spot this is what you would have seen", and I believe it's the ethical duty of the photographer putting forward an image in that context to be clear about any deviation from those parameters. If it's stacked images, say so. If it's time lapse, say so. If it's a composite, say so.

It sounds like you're advocating that photographs advertise the level of editing they've received. I made this for you:





There is no truth in journalism, and that is a fact. You can not place the value of truth on perception, because your reality is not my reality. You can not reasonably assume that any series of events that unfolds before your eyes will be seen the exact same by everyone else. I'm taking some liberty here, because obvious false reporting accompanied by fake photography is out of bounds by just about any standard...but even that is not all-inclusive.

Any reporter/journalist is conveying their interpretation of events based on what they saw, witnesses they have interviewed, and laced with their own values, experience, and personal agenda. Look at the stark contrast of any major event that is covered by every news source simultaneously and this becomes very transparent.

A photographer is no different, even photojournalists and military photographers. On the battlefield, one photographer may choose to photograph our side being shot up and slaughtered when in fact they have strategically won the battle. The accompanying news story is written by an anti-war protester fresh out of college who's father was killed in WWII. Another photographer on the same battlefield chooses to capture the victory and comradarie of the troops, and a completely different story is written. Which is real journalism? Which is real photography?

No one has answered my questions.

Why is it important to you that edited/altered/digital/composite photography be branded with some kind of a label or disclaimer? There have been a lot of opinions posted about how people feel it's important that this label exist, but why?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Why is it important to you that edited/altered/digital/composite photography be branded with some kind of a label or disclaimer? There have been a lot of opinions posted about how people feel it's important that this label exist, but why?

Because I feel transparency should be the norm.

Conversely, and too amplify my point, *my* question is why shouldn't transparency be the norm here? What would motivate someone to want, or feel the need, to conceal the facts surrounding the construction of any particular photo?

That being said I'm not advocating labels or disclaimers, per se, I'd advocating the concept of transparency.

.....

 

[Browncoat]

Because I feel transparency should be the norm.

That being said I'm not advocating labels or disclaimers, per se; I'd advocating the concept.

Transparency, aka full disclosure. Why is that so important? When you purchase something new, do you require a list where all the parts came from? I don't get it.

And you are advocating labels and disclaimers, because there's no way around it from concept to implementation. Ultimately, let's call this what it really is: censorship.

cen·sor

[sen-ser] noun
1.an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs,letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral,political, military, or other grounds.

2.any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

3.an adverse critic; faultfinder.

And this is why I am vehemently opposed to it, because of what it really is. It is a form of suppression and control, and it has no place in the realm of creativity or the arts. Powers that be have tried to define this, that, or the other since the beginning of time in an effort to classify and control it. Censors ultimately lead to full bans because there is rarely universal agreement on "what is" and "what isn't".

I'm a fairly conservative guy. There are a lot of things that I find vulgar, profane, ugly, disgusting, questionable, and downright blasphemous. I despise music that drops the F-bomb every other word. I dislike abstract art that looks like color blobs on a canvas. I think those people with gigantic hole piercings in their ears are repulsive. I don't like that my daughter has taken to dying her hair a different color every other week.

But I would never seek to deny any of them the means to express themselves.

 

[stmv]

that is a bit silly,, every commercial product/add/and most photography ever taken would need some form of disclaimer,, I think then
that the disclaimer should be the other way around,, the purist can state on their photo,,, this photo is the RAW version,, with
zero human additive except for the looking thru a square hole for the framing, exposure and Fstop, the rest is as you see, be
amazed..

kinda like the food movement for all natural.

and if it helps you get more volume/respect/etc etc, great,, but don't expect the rest of us to change for what has been the
NORM for over a 100 years of photography.

Photography is an ART Form in which the work after the fact is part of the overall journey. but if you want to label your
work as pure,, please do so,, its your work.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Transparency, aka full disclosure. Why is that so important? When you purchase something new, do you require a list where all the parts came from? I don't get it.

It's okay by me if you don't "get it". I don't get how you're saying transparency = censorship. No where did I indicate that anyone needed to submit any kind of documentation regarding their works. Nor am I denying anyone the right to express themselves; I'm advocating artistic clarity.

At this point, however, I'm choosing to back out of the conversation. Accusations of censorship aside, the rhetoric is getting a bit heated in here so I think I'll just show myself the door.

.....

 

[BackdoorArts]

It sounds like you're advocating that photographs advertise the level of editing they've received.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm merely suggesting that there are ethical considerations to presenting your photographs in certain specific arenas, and where reality is expected and not presented, that should at least be made known to the site doing the presenting. If that's a photographer's blog then it's on them to say something. As stated by the photographer in the original linked piece, when handing in a photo to a customer who expects realistic shots of their property, letting them know that one shot delivered is in reality a composite of two shots taken 100 feet apart was important for him to do, if only to allow the customer to decide on whether or not it mattered to them. That is my point - presentation ethics on the part of the photographer when it makes a difference. I could give a fig about how most photos I view were taken and/or how they were processed, outside of possibly learning the techniques. But when I'm browsing through a bunch of news photos, if something is a composite (and not an obvious one) then say it in the caption. It doesn't have to be complicated, and I'm not looking for more rules and regulations. I'm looking for personal honesty and ethics in presentation, that's all. Don't pass your stuff off as something that it's not when that matters.

 

[Browncoat]

There's no need to tuck tail, Fish. Heated debate is a good thing, and this topic comes up rather often. There has been no name-calling or rules broken here, and I'd hate to see yet another actual *real* discussion on these boards fade away into the abyss in favor of hand-holding and let's all get along soup. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't like or your or mean disrespect towards you. Maybe you don't see it that way, but we are in fact talking about censorship here. There's no way around it. I'll play a bit of Devil's Advocate and tackle your question: "Why shouldn't transparency be the norm?"

Historically, any censorship movement has a front man. The guy on the pulpit with a bullhorn predicting the end if we don't change our ways. It has to be someone out there on the lunatic fringe, a figure of some reputation who has his own forum. I can think of no one better than Ken Rockwell. His anti-RAW stance is well known and documented, so with a tongue-in-cheek timeline, let's see how these events would play out if transparency were the norm.

2014: Mademoiselle magazine features a cover photo of Miley Cyrus eating a red Sno-Cone. A few months later, Ms. Cyrus discloses in a behind the scenes interview with Rolling Stone that she was in fact posing with a blue Sno-Cone for that photo shoot, but the photographer thought red would look better since it matched the lipstick she was wearing and gave the photo more "pop".

Ken Rockwell is sitting in his mansion, and upon reading the article, the collar of his freshly-pressed yellow Polo shirt curls up with rage. He abandons his normally calm sweeper salesman demeanor and his site becomes a beacon for anti-RAW sentiments and the effects of edited photography on society.

2016: Rockwell is elected to Congress. One of his first acts is the creation of D.O.P.E. - Democratic Organization for Photographic Excellence, which intends to serve as a watchdog group for edited photography.

2017: Rockwell lobbies for full disclosure of all published photography with the Support My Growing Family Act. The new law is passed, and in it are sanctions against RAW formats, editing software, and any form of photography that is not deemed as "pure".

2018: Adobe closes its doors, putting thousands of people out of work. Camera manufacturers including Nikon, Canon, and Olympus stop producing cameras that include RAW formats, and later that year several incidents of public camera burnings take place around the country as old DSLRs are tossed into the flames. The public rejoices in its newfound transparency.

2020: Rockwell is elected President and decrees that all citizens are to wear yellow Polo shirts, buttoned to the top. The only acceptable hairstyle for men is his own Howdy Doody style coif. Non conformists will face a fine, possible imprisonment, or be forced to edit his ridiculously long website for hours on end.

Save yourselves. Just say no to transparency.