Can it really be called photography anymore?

I think photography has a particular, cultural, problem, in that, for some reason, people are far more inclined to accept a photograph as some kind of undisputed, incontrovertible proof.

 

As opposed to a drawing or painting, which they view with greater suspicion.

 

Presumably because the photograph looks 'real' to them.

 

 

In any art or trade, there comes a moment when the apprentice begins to understand some of the 'tricks of the trade', the 'dirty little secrets', if you like. It's then that they realise that not only is the Emperor not wearing any clothes, he never had any to begin with. Some of the magic is lost, never to be regained.

 

Photography's dirty little secret, or one of them, is that anything can be faked, or manipulated, either by omission, staging/reenacting or outright manipulation and fakery. And, if done well, the viewer can never be sure.

 

Even a Polaroid, that bastion of the legal system, can be faked with no need for a computer.

 

I think Tom is struggling to come to terms with this.

Until computers came along, most photos were not faked by the average guy. Sure, advertisers and other commercial experts had their tricks to make their products look better. But for the average camera buff, they believed what they shot and what others shot as well.

Edited October 28, 2020 by AlanKlein

most photos were not faked

Photos are no more "faked" than paintings, sculpture, theater, films, and other art. All these things are created.

 

It may be that some "camera buffs," however, have no clue about such things.

 

Those with silly expectations and a lack of savvy and know-how may feel "faked" out by post processing and various manipulations. The rest of us, I suspect, know the score—pun intended.

Photos are no more "faked" than paintings, sculpture, theater, films, and other art. All these things are created.

 

It may be that some "camera buffs," however, have no clue about such things.

 

Those with silly expectations and a lack of savvy and know-how may feel "faked" out by post processing and various manipulations. The rest of us, I suspect, know the score—pun intended.

That's not accurate. Viewers understand that a painter is using his mind to create the image. But traditionally, prior to computers, viewers thought pictures as something captured at an instant in time. That God did the creating and man just captured it.

 

Because of all the photoshopping, it has lost its authority and authenticity. If you can regularly create better results sitting at a computer, what's the point owning a camera? Why put in all the effort to go out and shoot pictures? At some point you look at some ten year old who handles a computer better than you do who can press a button to get pictures that outshine Ansel's. So you throw up your hands, put your camera on the shelf, and take up another hobby. There's no longer a point to shoot a camera. That's the sad thing I see coming.

The other point about photography is that it created a level playing field. For those of us who are not artistically capable when it comes to drawing, photography allowed us to use a craft to be creative as good as an artist who could paint well with oils. We had the same shot at great results as they did. Now we no longer do because of photoshop.

 

The computer has shifted it to where only some people can really do the fancy art work the computer gives us. So we can no longer compete on an equal playing field. We're back to where it was before photography when God created the image and you only had to find it and snap it. It's very disheartening for folks like me who are again competing with those kind of artistic skills in others. It's like I took up oil painting when I can barely draw stick figures and competing with Michelangelo when I don't know one end of a paintbrush from the other.

Photoshop can't "fix" a crummy photo. It can't fix bad lighting(or at least not to the extent that good lighting can).

 

If you want those golden hour morning or evening photos, nothing in PP will fix missing those. Yes, you can warm up the color balance, but the overall warmth isn't the only thing to that time of day-the sun angle has a whole, whole lot to do with it and you're not going to fix that.

 

Yes, PP can be used to make a "golden hour" photo really pop. So can choosing to shoot it on Velvia as opposed to Astia, or E100VS instead of EPP(although EPP has its own interesting rendering and it stuck around well past its prime for that reason). Adding a grad, particularly some of those wacky colored Cokin grads that use to be all the rage, can change it completely too, either ruining it if used incorrectly or helping if used consciously.

 

HIE(and other IR films, at least to a lesser extent), at least properly filtered, looks nothing like I can even imagine converting a daytime summer scene into if it's rendered in B&W. Ilford Ortho Plus chops off all the red of the spectrum and doesn't look like real life either. That's also skating past EIR and its weird, psychadelic color shifts.

 

How many of you-either consciously or accidentally-have made a double exposure? Are those true to life?

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Oh well.

It's a pretty big leap to go from manipulation to creating from scratch. Sure, it can be done, but I'd dare say the skills to do it are in short supply.

 

Photorealistic painting has been a thing for...a long time...

 

Has anyone ever been concerned about those paintings taking the place of photography?

OK. Let me explain it a different way. You love bicycling. You start as a kid with a single gear, move up to three gears and now you're pedaling along with a dozen gears. You enter races, spend $5000 on a bike, practice day and night until you can cruise along at 45 miles per hour for a three hour stretch. Then some kid sticks a little electric, solar powered motor onto his $300 bike and cruises along at 50MPH without pedaling and wins the race. "Well" he argues. "It's getting there first that counts not how you got there."

 

Do you see my point?

they represented reality to us

That’s a sign of a lack of imagination. Photography, like any other art, can also create a new reality, can express feelings, can exaggerate a perspective, can transform by leaving out or framing, and can even indulge in flights of fancy.

So you throw up your hands, put your camera on the shelf, and take up another hobby. There's no longer a point to shoot a camera. That's the sad thing I see coming.

Then I would advise you to "throw up your hands, put your camera on the shelf, and take up another hobby." In the meantime, leave the rest of us alone. We're happy making photos in ways that you don't understand. Guess what, Alan, the fifties are long gone as is the 20th Century. No more segregated drinking fountains, gay people can get married, and the "average guy" can post process to his heart's content. Many folks no longer play vinyl records on their hi-fis. History marches on. Adapt or don't.

Edited October 28, 2020 by samstevens

OK. Let me explain it a different way. You love bicycling. You start as a kid with a single gear, move up to three gears and now you're pedaling along with a dozen gears. You enter races, spend $5000 on a bike, practice day and night until you can cruise along at 45 miles per hour for a three hour stretch. Then some kid sticks a little electric, solar powered motor onto his $300 bike and cruises along at 50MPH without pedaling and wins the race. "Well" he argues. "It's getting there first that counts not how you got there."

 

Do you see my point?

Yes. I see your point. You're for some reason concerned about what some little kid does and how what he does makes you feel. Who's the little kid in the story, though, him ... or you?

For me at least, when it comes to my hobbies, I care as much about the journey as the destination. Yes, I want the end result to be excellent, but I like the feeling of accomplishment from getting there.

 

Right now, my dearly beloved 1970 MG is in the shop and nearly finished with an engine rebuild. I had wanted to do it myself, but time and circumstances conspired to make it impossible. None the less, I did what I could, from selected and sourcing my desired combo of original and aftermarket parts to working closely to get things done EXACTLY as I would have had I done them myself. When they told me the cylinder head was cracked, I worked very closely with someone else not associated with the shop to have a specific casting number of head not just reworked but ported and polished to have it done. I spent hours analyzing camshaft profiles to pick the right one. I agonized over connecting rods and pistons(resize what was there, go to later, lighter style which had advantages for the pistons, or go to superlight aftermarket ones). I spent a few day at home doing what small bits I could to squeeze the last little bit out of it. I was darn proud, for example, of the intake manifold that was the product of hours opening up the ports carefully to allow more flow while keeping gas velocity as constant as possible. I'd grind with a dremel and/or electric drill, build up with an aluminum epoxy, smooth out the epoxy and shape it to where I wanted, build up more, and repeat until I had a product I was happy with. Then, I'd send photos to a guy who does this all day, and he'd keep suggesting tweaks. I was darn proud of the finished product, even though I was chasing an extra 2hp at the max assuming everything else was perfect.

 

When it's all said and done, I'll have a nicely street mannered MGB with an engine pushed to about the limit of what a primitive cast iron engine can do without a supercharger while also keeping it street mannered and using gas that I can get at any gas station in the country. I haven't driven the finished product yet, but my mechanic has already called it the fasted 4 cylinder MG he's ever driven. I could have spent less money and bought a 1990 Miata that would have been faster and better handling and been ready to go, but I also don't have the story to tell of where I started and where I end up.

 

That's a lot of rambling to make a different point, though. For me, I want to my finished product to be an aesthetically pleasing, compelling photograph that suits my taste. The how I got there, whether it was a location/time of day I meticulously staked out or the trip to a particular location or the sheer happenstance of coming across it is the fun in it. Maybe I had camera trouble and still salvaged the image, or maybe I was using some combo of equipment that imparted that particular look(or limited what I could do). The post processing to get it there is all part of that also-basically I(mostly) enjoy everything from what's needed to frame the scene to getting a final print or image.

 

Someone who theoretically creates a "perfect" image from scratch in Photoshop will have a totally different story to tell, and it I'd be interesting in hearing how they did it. There again, similar results but different paths to get there, and again I enjoy the path I've taken. I'm not bothered if someone finds an easier way, rather I'll admire them and consider if I want to adapt or if I want to keep doing it my way.

It's good to see discussion like this, brings back good old memories.

My 2 cents, all this is almost the same conversation about scope of what to included into meaning of the word.

Like discussion about what is exposure really means, f-stop and shutter speed, or triangle including ISO, both could be right, depending how you define exposure, for me it's what my camera recording on film or memory card.

The same with photography, if final product based on image recorded using some kind light sensitive material I would call it photography, no matter how it was manipulated in post-processing, as I remember somebody was using x-rays and still it was called photography.

@AlanKlein I understand - and sympathize with - your point and it's a valid one. Thankfully there are still still plenty of photographers around - young ones too - who enjoy taking good, straight-out-of-the-camera photos, for which little or no post-processing is needed. It's also true that an increasing number of young, talented photographers have taken to film photography because they enjoy the experience and resulting photos more than they do with digital photography. I recently watched

. She explained that she was spending so much time in Photoshop (unsuccessfully) trying to give her digital photos a 'film look' that she eventually decided to just shoot exclusively with film.

 

I agree with @ben_hutcherson's point that no amount of post-processing can fix a crummy photo. Or to turn that around, the better out-of-the-camera-photos are, the better any post-processed photos will be.

 

There's a broad difference between visual/graphic digital art and photography but there's also an area where these disciplines merge into each other. For example, where photos are taken with the intention of incorporating them into a later artwork (digital or otherwise).

 

I personally dislike many highly-processed (especially over-saturated) photos of ordinary scenes simply because they've become a cliché. I do, on the other hand, like photos which have been deliberately post-processed to achieve a certain 'look/style' for a complete series.

Like @mikemorrell, I have no problem with photographers who want to work any way they want to work. I do have a problem with "camera buffs" telling photographers what the best way to make a photo is or that their work must be excluded from the field of photography because of how they work. That's the point here, just in case anyone has missed it.

 

Here's a photo I did a fair amount of post processing on. I exposed for and post processed to a result I wanted which expressed what I wanted. I was not thinking about reality. I had enough of thinking about reality when I studied Philosophy. I was thinking about story-telling. And I was thinking about the photo I was making ... and Andy's shoes!

 

Mike, out of curiosity, would you like a series of deliberately over-saturated photos?

If you would, check out Nan Goldin's work.

But traditionally, prior to computers, viewers thought pictures as something captured at an instant in time.

As did I (naive as I was at the time) - until I read Adams' books. It's not "fake it 'til you make it" but "fake it to make it".

Photoshop can't "fix" a crummy photo.

Yes it can - you can indeed polish a turd. You end up with a polished turd". On the other hand, sometimes a "crummy photo" is just a diamond that hasn't been polished yet.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Dieter Schaefer

People are lamenting the reduction in faith of the documenting function of photography. The manipulation of photography has always been there, although it is, arguably, much easier now. I understand what many do not like or appreciate about it. I think many of those who are defending the idea that photography has never been "real" or always was manipulated are probably not really being honest. There is a quantum leap in ease of technological fakery in the last 2 decades, and this is what the grumblers here are grumbling about. I understand it and share it to some extent. How many times do you see, say, a landscape that purports to be a scene taken on "my tour of Yosemite" and you see an absurdly over saturated shot with glowering clouds that are unlike anything you have ever seen in nature? It doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, but I for one tire of seeing them. It is a question of degree. Yes the Soviets faked their photos to show Trotsky never stood anywhere near Lenin, but I have always wondered how many people really believed them, it is a kind of self-delusion. I'd believe them too if the alternative was the gulag or execution. As to whether digital art works that use some amount of photographic imagery should still be called "photography" I don't really care, but personally I prefer the term digital art, or digital media, but I won't go to the guillotine over it if no one agrees.

There is a quantum leap in ease of technological fakery in the last 2 decades, and this is what the grumblers here are grumbling about. I understand it and share it to some extent. How many times do you see, say, a landscape that purports to be a scene taken on "my tour of Yosemite" and you see an absurdly over saturated shot with glowering clouds that are unlike anything you have ever seen in nature?

Right. Those are just bad photos. They're not fakery. That's obvious because you've even said that they're unlike anything you've ever seen in nature. You, like me, don't seem to be faked out by these, since you know what nature looks like and know these have been manipulated. When it is fakery, like Russian or Trumpian propaganda, that's dangerous, as it's always been. And, yes, it's easier to do these days.

This topic seems to be among PN's top perennial chew toys. Anyone ever read the Errol Morris book "Believing is Seeing"???

If the over-saturation made some kind of statement of had a 'style', probably yes.

Mike, out of curiosity, would you like a series of deliberately over-saturated photos?

As did I (naive as I was at the time) - until I read Adams' books. It's not "fake it 'til you make it" but "fake it to make it".

 

Yes it can - you can indeed polish a turd. You end up with a polished turd". On the other hand, sometimes a "crummy photo" is just a diamond that hasn't been polished yet.

I'm not too sure what Ansel had in mind when he said that. But I think people today, many kids in fact, are concerned about authenticity and tradition. Moving to vinyl records and film are examples. There's so much fake stuff around today, useless crap that has no point or value. I think we all seek values and standards to give purpose to life. Doing "your own thing" is good as much as it goes. But many people are looking for more.

One more thought … it's a thought-proving thread!

- some responses to this thread focus on definitions (and boundaries) of photography, digital imaging based on photography, visual art, etc.

- others (by extension) have focused on the goals of photography: to capture 'reality' on film/sensor, to produce edited images that best express our subjective experience at the time, to produce 'idealized images' of scenes. Or to produce images that that best express what we have 'envisioned' (with whatever resources/tools tools that we have at our disposal).

 

I'm in favor of a Wide Church'' in which everybody's welcome. What unites us is that we all want to to produce images that are relevant and visually interesting. We have widely different approaches which lead to different visual results. Definitions don't concern me much - any set is fine by me. I just note that no one process or result is - in principle - better than any other, just different. I have no problem with 'Church Members' identifying themselves with their personal 'imaging beliefs'.

 

The thing that connects all 'Church Members'' is that we all strive to produce interesting and relevant images in the best way that we know how. We have different approaches, processes and we deliver (visually) different results. But I firmly believe that the 'image viewing public'' is at least as diverse than the image producers. So IHHO, whatever process you follow and whatever results you deliver, some segment of the 'image viewing public'' appreciate your personal process and results.

 

Mike

But I think people today, many kids in fact, are concerned about authenticity and tradition.

I don't know "many kids" and therefore can't comment on whether or not they are concerned about authenticity and tradition (though I do hope they are). Personally, I have no desire to move back to vinyl or film. Also don't know anyone personally who does.

I think we all seek values and standards to give purpose to life.

I sure hope that there are more important things to seek than whether or not (over-)processing photos is going too far.

Photography is closed under the operation of adding photographic elements together

 

Group theory - Wikipedia

OK, but how about the case where the whole image is computer generated?

 

Just the solutions of some mathematical equations, but then converted into a visual image that, in our imagination, represents some scene?

 

I believe that the Pixar movies have some actual photographic input, but much smaller than the ones discussed above.