Manipulation of landscape images

<i>It is amazing to me how seldom opinions like John MacKay's and Tom Foley's are seriously considered in these debates</i><p>Well they both start with the assumption that everyone sees photography through their viewpoint. One which is, while common on this forum, not readily found in other places where photography is discussed.<p>

 

And people have been making this clear for many years. In 1941, Clarence John Laughlin, who wrote insightfully about photography while being a photographer, said <i>It infuriates me to see people...try to stem the development of symbolic or hyper-real photography, and to force conformity upon all photographers.</i><p>

 

Laughlin's most successful book was <i>Ghosts Along the Mississippi</i>, which contained some of his heavily manipulated photos along with his text about Louisiana architecture, the subject of the book. Despite all the manipulation, it was a succesful book with several printings. It's worth picking up, although the first edition price is high.<p>

 

Similarly, Avedon produced heavily manipulated photos, and nobody said it wasn't photography. But he didn't have to deal with the denizens of Internet forums.

I absolutely agree with Tom. Carl, it's not that they're not taken seriously, but the pro-manipulation anything-goes crowd is active and loud in voicing their opinion.

 

Although I appreciate that Ansel Adams' landscapes are outstanding both in terms of technical quality and the emotion which they evoke in the viewer. Which can be very strong. However, a part of my appreciation in the image is due to the fact that I know that the shapes and forms of the image are a result of something that really existed at the moment of exposure. Then I know that the photographer had to find the scene and light, and work with those constraints. In the digital age, shapes are too easily changed and forms added to the scene. Which in my opinion invalidates the claim that the image is a photograph.

Holding Adams up as an example of no-manipulation? I don't understand this. In his book "Examples" Adams himself admits that Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico was underexposed and the sky was dull gray. He burned until it looked the way he wanted it to, not the way it was when he snapped the shutter. I've also read that Adams burned down the white rocks spelling out the name of the town in the background (or maybe they spelled out welcome), in any event they are no longer visible in the image.

<P>

I used to feel as many do that manipulation somehow invalidated an image. Jeff Spirer suggested I had a lack of understanding of the history of photography. It didn't take much study to figure out he was right.

SP ..., I did not mean to say that Adams did not manipulate his images. He did, I'm well aware of that. But <i>to my knowledge</i> he did not add clouds that did not exist, remove people or coke bottles that did exist, and combine elements from multiple images together, add parts to his images which were drawn rather than photographer, like many photo.net artists do. That's what I meant by forms and shapes. Changing the tones of parts of images is perfectly ok and acceptable in my book.

So what? Early photographers didn't dodge and burn, or enlarge. Big deal. Things change. People that can't adapt to change can put themselves in a box, but that's not about photography.

And I would guess you have no idea who Laughlin is.

Jeff, nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We're discussing what is acceptable in those individuals' opinion who are participating in this thread. Not some sort of law. It's just about what individuals think is acceptable to them. If you say us nay-sayers are irritating, I respond: a lot of people want to pour digital manipulations down our throats and then complain when their enforcement is not taken well. Trying to force acceptance of something is not any more noble than expecting certain codes to be followed in some branches of photography.

 

If you like to add shapes to your images from drawings or other images, that's fine, it's graphic arts. It's not pure photography. Calling it photography is IMO simply a lie.

 

And whether I know who Laughlin is doesn't invalidate my contribution to discussion on an internet forum. If I complained about everyone who hasn't got a clue about physics or technology talking about related topics here, I'd be fully occupied in the activity of complaining. Photographers are welcome in discussing the philosophy of photography here even if they didn't study it in college.

If you want to restrict what you do in order to obtain a stylistic homogeneity, that's perfectly acceptable. If you don't, then you don't. It's a free choice. However, when existing labels are attached to works of art, some of them carry the weight of the tradition in that field. If you for example do documentary nature photography, adding a horse bigger than a giraffe in an African landscape would certainly be considered questionable. If you label the photo published in a nature journal "Giant horse frightened the giraffes out of this region as shown in this picture", you're deceiving the audience and betraying the trust of the publisher and the readership. Now, this may be a bit extreme, but what is important is that the viewer has an understanding of what the photograph is and isn't. A lot of photography is in this way documentary. Landscape photography is in general more artistic than documentary. However, many viewers expect that what they see in the photograph actually is reflective of something that someone saw someplace within certain limits. Changing shapes is not within the acceptable limits in nature photography as defined by most people in the field.

 

If you don't care about what people expect, and what conventions are considered acceptable in nature photography circles, fine. But it is a good idea to respect the decisions of those who do feel the elements in a landscape photograph should indeed reflect what was there in terms of shapes and forms. Many nature photographers and nature photography organizations feel very strongly about the ethics of nature photography, including manipulation issues.

 

What I don't get is why photographers who do not understand nature, or science, complain about the associated principles. It's like I jumped in a boxing ring and asked them to pose for my shot in the middle of their fighting. Jeff, do think this is perfectly ok as long as the pictures are good? Why do you care about the rules in that sport,if you don't care about those in nature photography?

<i>Calling it photography is IMO simply a lie.</i><p>

 

Where's the explanation for what is a lie and what isn't? If it's just "IYO", it really doesn't matter to anyone but you, does it?

<i>Why do you care about the rules in that sport,if you don't care about those in nature photography?</i><p>

 

Where's the rule book?

Jeff, photography is defined "Main Entry: phoﾷtogﾷraﾷphy

Pronunciation: f&-'tä-gr&-fE

Function: noun

: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light"

 

in Merriam-Webster, a respected dictionary of English. Drawing in photoshop and making changes like that hardly qualifies as "producing images by the action of light". More like by the action of the mouse and hand.

 

According to Wikipedia, "Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of light". Again, I honestly dont' see how digital drawings and photo-compositions could be considered to be photographs as defined by these references. If you have other references which claim the contrary, please post some references, notjust individual photographers' opinions but actual references of established definitions.

 

If you want to know about rules in nature photography, I can look up some references. I am only familiar with the rules/guidelines of the Finnish nature photographer organization, and unfortunately these are on the web only in Finnish. Quick review of the manipulation part in the ethics code (rough translation): A member of the organization shall, when submitting their work for publication (or when otherwise presenting) clearly inform if 1. they have made changes in scale or color that clearly change the content of the picture, 2. moved, added, or removed people, animals, or objects by means other than cropping, 3. combined elements from different pictures into one. Also, if the photographic situation is unusual (like with captive animals), the photographer shall let that be know. The pictures shall be marked along the lines of "manipulation","photomontage", "aquarium photo", "zoo photo". If the montage was made of pictures photographed by at most two photographers, the names and the name of the person doing the manipulation shall be mentioned.

 

The code continues with rules relating to how the photographers shall act in relation to the animals and nature when photographing so that no harm is done, no garbage is left in nature, nature conservation laws shall be obeyed and so on.

 

Now, whether mirroring an image is acceptable by the above code, I don't know. I think it might be unacceptable since clearly the left and right sides are exchanged. But I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Obviously, every publication and context has their own standards. I just posted my comments because I feel that the nature photography commnunity traditionally is conservative about these things and this relates to the goal of conveying nature as it is, or was seen by the camera at the moment of exposure.

 

Obviously not all nature photographers care about rules, and some organizations and publications might not care about them either. But there are those of us who think there is a "scientific" and "documentary" aspect to nature photography and it should be respected.

 

I myself don't feel good about making any change apart from adjusting the contrast and colours to look reasonable to my limited vision, cropping and removing dust specs which are a result of the imperfect reproduction process. I feel that I don't want to change the shapes that were projected by the lens (I might burn/dodge but only to make the photo look more realistic or to compensate for the limited dynamic range of the medium). I don't care to do that often because it's time consuming. However, I find it infinitely more enjoyable to achieve a good shot at the moment of exposure, than have to sit at a desk and improve what I didn't get right in the first place.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not against manipulation of images in general, just I think that the viewer should have the right to know how the image was made if they want know, especially if the image is so realistic in appearance that it is not obvious which it is. If the content of the picture is clearly impossible, the viewer knows already. However, even then if I find out that the shot was staged in a studio and shot and printed, without objects moved/added/removed in the picture, I have more respect for the image and the photographer. It's a personal thing, I know.

Rules have to come from somewhere that can regulate. Who is regulating nature photography? Who is restricting the ability of rule-breakers (rules means that rule-breakers have to suffer)?

 

I'm not sure why you brought up boxing, but in the US, the states regulate boxing. If you break the rules, you get punished. If you don't like the rules, you can try a different state (Nevada is much less restrictive than California, so a lot of events happen in Vegas.) But something will happen to you if you break the rules.

 

From what I can tell, there are no rules for photography except around photojournalism, and even these are somewhat arbitrary and have no fixed consequences, and they don't really pertain to what you did but instead what you say you did. But for nature photography, other than submitting a photo and lying about it, which can have nothing to do with Photoshop (for example, a shot at one of those wild animal parks being passed off as the jungle), I'm unaware of anything. Do you lose your photography license if you violate the rule book, assuming there is a rule book?

 

The dictionary is no substitute for "rules."

No, I suppose the Finnish organization may kick you out of the organization if you break the code but that's all. Also, some nature photographers have gotten bad publicity because they have broken ethical rules.

 

I agree that the most important thing is that if you do something, and say that you did something different, this is a problem. As long as you represent your work honestly and don't use it to deceive, things are all right.

Forgive if I misapprehend, but from what I can see via the web, it seems that the defender of manipulation, Jeff Spirer, does very little of it, which if true, gives his view an interesting credibility; he is not defending his personal work, but speaking to the issue. (I especially appreciate Jeff's 35mm work.) If and when Mr. Spirer does make particularly transcendent works, they will be more interesting to me because of how he chooses to contrast with his earlier work.

 

That said, and perhaps wrongly, discourse is about limits, really. If everything is deemed correct, then nothing is.

"...is that rarely was a photograph manipulated to the degree possible by digital manipulation. The manipulation was limited by what could be accomplished in the darkroom, and the public had some awareness of those limitations. Because of the ubiquitousness of digital manipulation."

 

Once again, we have someone, who apparently, has not studied photography and its history to any extent. Do yourself a favor, and look at the work of Henry Peach Robinson, and then decide if your statement has any validty. Robinson "manufactured" photographs that are every bit as manipulated as anything you can do in Photoshop. Today, Joel Witkin manufactures photos that are equally as involved and seamless as any digitally manipulated photo. You may also want to reference the work of Jerry Uelsmann for manipulated photographs.

 

As far as the question of flipping the photo horizontally - it's really up to you. Jeff is correct, there are no rules or rule book for photography. If you feel uncomfortable about doing it, then don't do it. If flipping it doesn't bother you, then flip the image.

"That said, and perhaps wrongly, discourse is about limits, really. If everything is deemed correct, then nothing is."

 

This is laughable at best. The only limits in photography are the ones you artificially manufacture for yourself. There are no limits. If there are, show me the rule book, show me the limitations. People who believe in limits are the ones who have no imagination about what a photograph can be that's new or different from everything that has been done previously.

 

If your goal is to make photos that fall into a self-defined category, or pre-defined niches of what constitutes a "good" photograph, or an authentic photograph, or one that follows the "rules" (set forth by...?) - that's fine. But please, don't try and foist off some sort of pre-defined limits on me or what I do.

 

There are only two types of photos - the interesting kind and the boring kind. There are no rules associated with the interesting kind.

It's not about our lack of imagination. It's just that we feel there is so much to do within the traditional photograph and it's exciting as it is. It doesn't matter how much the art history knows people who manipulated images ... most of these I never liked and never will, digital or traditional darkroom.

 

On the other hand, Jeff doesn't have any landscape images on his portfolio (at least I haven't seen them if there are those). Of course his contributions to the discussion are valid, but he doesn't have a personal interest in landscape work, so it's easier for him to say that everything is ok and nothing matters.

Ilkka, a thought: if you as an artist decide to work within the framework of an arbitrary set of limitations (no cropping, no double exposures, only B&W film, etc.) then no one here would argue that that is not a valid form of expression.

 

But if you extend your requirements to others and then insist that they work under the same constraints or else their work is somehow not valid, then you have the discussion we're having now.

 

The history of photography has a very broad scope and as uncomfortable as you may be with manipulation it's been there from the beginning and has been accepted as part of the medium.

As a retired professional photographer (Commercial Illustrator), I can tell you there are all kinds of rules and standards set by advertising agencies and other clients. If you submit work which does not abide by those standards, your work will be rejected.

 

The same is true if you are submitting your images to a stock photo agency. They can't jeopardize their credibility by having a fabricated image ending up in a text book, encyclopedia, or other publication.

 

And then there are the magazines (Arizona Hwy. is very picky), news organizations, etc. Unless of course you are dealing with the National Enquirer, for the most part, the don't want fabricated images.

 

Photography contests usually have categories and rules by which one must abide in order to have your submission accepted.

 

Even Galleries will have their standards and rules, although often these are not printed or otherwise expressed, but are at the whim of the gallery owner. It behooves one to know what they are looking for before one approaches them.

 

If you simply want to be creative using digital images and software, I don't know who should care as long as the image is not represented to be otherwise. In my opinion, we are just talking about another art medium or combination of mediums.

 

I must say though, I don't care for the obviously heavily manipulated digital image which reminds me of the schlocky day-glow paint-on-black-velvet "art" displayed in bachelor pads back in the late 70s and early 80s.

One thing is what is accepted by the art community, and another is what the general population thinks is acceptable. I know many people who have more respect for a picture if they know that it was not substantially created in photoshop. I also know others who dont' care how it was created.

 

For example, if you're primarily a visual artist, it's understandable that you like making changes in Photoshop and are comfortable with them. On the other hand people who are adventurers and like to spend time in nature to enjoy it are more likely to find manipulation unacceptable. This is because they often take a photo as a record of what was there, more or less. In any case I think saying that "manipulation has always existed and has been accepted as part of the medium" is too broad a statement. The existence of these conversations on photo.net and their frequency is a sign that it's not accepted by everyone. To validate that statement it's not enough that a group of artists or gallery owners have accepted it.

 

I think it's weird that people who are pro-manipulation claim that not accepting manipulation is elitist. I think precisely the opposite: by saying that "manipulation has always existed and has been accepted" you place yourself and those who think alike above those who disagree. That's what elitism is about: thinking that because you're a part of some fancy art circles who think manipulation is great, we (the common folk) should take it as a matter of course that manipulation is acceptable.

 

Robert, thanks for pointing out that there are requirements specified by stock agencies and clients. That's interesting.

Pico: "That said, and perhaps wrongly, discourse is about limits, really. If everything is deemed correct, then nothing is."

 

Then "steve swinehart:

"This is laughable at best. The only limits in photography are the ones you artificially manufacture for yourself. There are no limits."

 

Mr. Swinehart - your penchant for reflexive disrespect is well-known. Please read what I wrote carefully.

 

I said it is about limits. You agreed! It is about limits one places on the scope of the discourse (subject/situation) in order to consider it rationally. There is no such thing as an "artificial limit" if a person makes that limit. If a person makes no constraints, possibly taking them randomly, then chances are good that he does not understand his medium or himself - he may as well be living and working on automatic, and has nothing to say but just that.

Swinehart again: "But please, don't try and foist off some sort of pre-defined limits on me or what I do."

 

Nobody said anything about shoving things down YOUR throat or anyone elses! It is not about YOU. Why do you think I (we) are talking about YOU?

 

And the value of a declaration of boring or interesting is meaningless. No context. Is the fog lifting?

 

Pure relativism is pure irrelevance.

"remove people or coke bottles that did exist"

 

sorry, wrong again, Adams removed, or had removed, several leaves from the bottom of one or both of the aspen tree pics. also the white washed letters of the local high school were retouched out of the manzanar hills photo.

 

doesn't this simply boil down to whether you call yourself an artist or a documentarian? figure it out and leave everyone else alone....

All these examples from Ansel . . . . . but it's B&W. How come nobody discusses his color work so we can compare apples to apples.