Brian Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 <P>I took some of my prints to be critiqued by a fairly eminent photographer (I won't name him to spare any possible embarrassment). He was fairly kind to my pictures but one comment he made about a landscape was that it would be better if I flipped it horizontally. He pointed out that it would naturally be read left to right and so the elements worked better if the photo was reversed. I took this on board as an artistic criticism but I wondered later if it was valid to do this to a landscape. It's an image of an actual physical assemblage, not some studio set or fantasy creation. How far should we go in manipulating "real" landscape images?</P><P>The image in question is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=3950642">here</a> for context, but I'm not asking for critiques of it.</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_borengasser Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 In the December 26th, 2005 issue of The Nation magazine there's a review of THE ONGOING MOMENT, a book by Geoff Dyer. (Pantheon. 228pp. $28.50). The title of the article is called The Look of Truth and it offers an interesting look back at manipulation of photographs. For example the article points out that early photographer Gustave Le Gray would take two photographs of a scene, using the second to make the sky look better. The article continues to note how from the beginning photographs have been altered to bring out ideal results. I guess we tend to think that photographic manipulation is a resultof the digital age. In fact, that wonderful photograph of a drivel-in theater with a plane on the screen, cars in the parking lot and a train going past was created using two negatives. So I guess the question is, how far from the original do you want to go. I'm a purist. I don't like to alter photos unless I'm making montages where the subject is no longer what I photographed. Hope it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 What's the harm? I imagine it's done frequently and perfectly valid if it improves the image. It's only unethical if you state up front that they are unaltered images when they really aren't. Otherwise, I consider the possibility that any photo I see was altered in some way. Besides, a photo isn't "real" anyway. Film and sensors don't see the world the way our eyes+brain do, non-normal lenses have a different field of view than we do, etc. What about colorblind people? Everything we see is "unreal" to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmoore Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 brian, you have to decide for yourself what photography is..is it a means to acurately depict in 2 dimensions with finite colors or gray values the physical world? or something more personal, more expressive, the experience of seeing and creating an image which depicts that experience? there are some landscape photographers out there who feel mandated to scientifically duplicate what comes through the lens, I for one am not interested in this type of work..there's a great book done by apeture called "the land". I think bill brandt put together many photographers landscapes and then a book was made. a nice range of syles, find yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 We can save time by providing all of the arguments now...and maybe this will be a shorter thread than the usual one on this topic. Arguments #1: [insert name of old master] manipulated ALL of his pictures and that means that you are completely justified in doing whatever you like. NOBODY ever used a picture right out of their camera, they ALL manipulated every aspect of their prints. Argument #2: Everybody is doing it today and so you are completely justified in doing whatever you like. Argument #3 Every picture you have ever seen has been 'manipulated' so, anything goes. Argument #4 ANY change to an image constitutes 'manipulation'. Adjusting contrast (dodging and burning) is the same as adding and removing objects in the scene. Cropping your image is the same as replacing the sky. Argument #5: Only the final image matters, not how you got there. Argument #6: NOBODY (old masters or current professionals) ever uses a picture right out of their camera, they ALL manipulate every aspect of their prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall ellis Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 The shot refered to by Matt is titled "Iaeger Drive-In" by O. Winston Link. <BR><BR> As to manipulation, my thoughts are that as long as you are willing to tell people who ask that you have manipulated the image, it's your call. While I don't have a problem with worked images, I do have a hard time respecting people who try to pass off manipulated images as being unmanipulated when asked. You certainly don't have to advertise that you have worked the image, but do answer honestly if someone asks. <BR><BR> Generaly speaking, I have a tendancy move right past images that <I>appear</I> manipulated or unreal while other appear to like them. Fake depth-of-field, fake motion blur, over saturation, etc. really do nothing for me at all. I feel the botom line on this issue is this: to each his own - but <I>you</I> must make your own call here because you will be the one to answer to the critics. <BR><BR> - Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 <P>Looking at the replies so far, I get the feeling my question sounded more naive than it really was. I manipulate all of my images. I have no problem with that.</P><P> However, many of my landscape pictures are of named places, and if I change them such that they are unrecognisable to another person who has visited that scene (e.g. by converting to a mirror image), what have we got?</P><P>I suppose the analogy to portraiture would be if you manipulated and distorted the portrait so that the sitter no longer recognised himself in the picture, could you call it a portrait?</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_katz2 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Brian, Your question is relevant but not important. Painters have always looked in the mirror when doing self-portraits. Also it is a painters tool to assess their work more freshly by seeing it in the mirror or turning it upside down etc. Once we see something a certain way we develope a conditioned response to it. It reminds me of a time , at Art school when Peter Max ( who was ambidextrous and thought everyone else should be too) was a guest and conducted an experiment where he had a couple students wear a seeing devive that would make everything upside down for the whole day. It took some time but eventually the brain flipped and the students were actually able to accept the world upside down. Of course when they took the devices off at the end of the day they were so disoriented that they immediately threw-up. Reversing a known aspect of our lives is really rewarding and can teach us much about how we take our visual world for granted. A tree is still that tree when reversed, only from the opposite vantage point. A good exercise for photographers, I would think, would be to draw the scene first. By doing this a greater awareness of the subject will be gained, helping you to see the best shot better, in advance. To make you feel more comfortable i can asure you that over time the reversed image will beg you to flip it back. And so on infinitum. Best advise is to find the' best flow ' vantage point in your subject before you shoot. Or take lots of angles to cover all the bases. If you do this I think you will save yourself from going down the "flippin" hole. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_ob Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Brian ''I manipulate all of my images. I have no problem with that. However, many of my landscape pictures are of named places, and if I change them such that they are unrecognisable to another person who has visited that scene (e.g. by converting to a mirror image), what have we got? I suppose the analogy to portraiture would be if you manipulated and distorted the portrait so that the sitter no longer recognised himself in the picture, could you call it a portrait?'' Brian I think that when you see something you see oportunity for image not a reason for photograph. So I think you should remove names from that named landscapes and my answer to you is manipulate and it is very good think you can make for photography. And honestly I think that photographer made a fun of you. Have a nice day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gluteal cleft Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 "What's the harm? I imagine it's done frequently and perfectly valid if it improves the image." Even if it's not done intentionally, with film, it's done quite frequently as an accident. =) steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john mackay Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 <p>Manipulation and the embrace of deceptionラa conscious act to misrepresent.</p> <p>I see photographers who are quite prepared to accept manipulation of landscape photos as being acceptableラit makes no difference. However, how many of these same photographers are prepared to pre-disclose this manipulation to viewers of their apparently representational photos. The answer is very few indeed. I feel that it is this situation that speaks to the minds of us as photographers.</p> <p>Are we in fact, as photographers, deceiving ourselves? Specifically, if manipulation was no fuss then why not pre-disclose it to viewers. Heck! Why not celebrate it out loud. Tell everyone how we overlay dramatic skies, reverse images, clone out distractions or pop the colours. The truth is, that as photographers we <i><b>never</b></i> do this because we know in our hearts and minds that people will think less of itラwe want to hang-on to their adulation. Don't believe me? Then tell people as they view your images how you've manipulated them and watch their reaction.</p> <p>The stark truth is that we want people to believe that the scene, as depicted, really existed before the camera and we were there! That it was our prowess as a photographer to deliver the prefect scene with the perfect skies and the perfect light. In the process we are deluding the naive viewers and ourselves. We do this <i><b>not</b></i> to deliver <i>better than real</i> but to have their adulation. We do this <i><b>not</b></i> because we despise people or are self-interested but because <i>better than real</i> has become the visual ecstasy of westernised democracies, and we as photographers are the drug dealers feeding it's addictionsラgiving the people what they want.</p> <p>Real is not enough anymore :))</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john mackay Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Sorry for the spurious "?"'s. The html renderer did not know how to deal with the humble em-dash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_laycock Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 If the manipulation bothers you, then it's innappropriate, for you. It may not be for others, but that doesn't really matter. I do agree with another comment that outright lying about manipulation, or alteration is another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_ob Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 John Mackay 'I see photographers who are quite prepared to accept manipulation of landscape photos as being acceptable?it makes no difference.' John when you present yourself as a person (or how YOU say photographer) that make no difference between someone that says true and someone that says lie, please get some confidence in yourself and do not talk as WE or US. It is up to you to like and to say what ever you want, just, again, do not stick your character onto under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconey Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 There was a time, with film, that it was possible to feel that a landscape image was captured, not created. Maybe Fuji Velvia pushed the point a bit, but still a Cibachrome print seemed "real". Now, all my slides are scanned and I have to decide on lightness, color correction, saturation, and all those details. When i am working on a print, I frequently forget what the scene looked like as I strive to get the print looking best. What is real? There are limits to what manipulations can be made to a landscape and still truthfully be called real. Enhance vs add. Polish vs substitute. There are no reality police except in the head of the photographer. Disclosure is purity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john mackay Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 <p>Daniel, I interpret your comments to imply that you think me unqualified to use the term <i>photographers</i> in the wider context of discussion, in here of all places, the <i>Philosophy of Photography Forum</i>. I'm interested; is this just me who shouldn't invoke the plural <i>photographers</i> or does this ban apply to everyone else here at photo.net too? Are you saying that nobody should ever discuss the condition of photography outside their own individual context? If yes, how do you imagine this might impact on forum discussions vis-a-vis the <i>Philosophy of Photography</i>? </p> <p>And the last one... When is someone qualified to talk to the broader issues of <i>photographers</i> and how do you determine that--who gets your permission Daniel?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I think the only problem with manipulating landscape photographs is if you take magical pictures that, when manipulated, change the landscape just photographed. So, for example, if I were to change the colour of the sky in your pic to, say, lime green, and the real sky actually turned lime green then I think we'd have a problem. Otherwise, I think manipulation is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 One should never, ever manipulate a landscape picture. Never! However, it is okay to alter the landscape to make the picture right; bulldozers, dynamite, whatever it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terribletomterrific Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Brian Southward, Your hesitation in reversing the image is justified. For all of the posters who feel otherwise, here's my take: The legacy, the power and the authority of traditional photography is that it has a direct relationship to objective reality. Digital manipulation allows a photographic image to be morphed into something with no relationship to objective reality whatsoever, while still benefitting from the legacy, the power and the authority of 150 years of traditional photography. Again, the power behind that legacy is a direct relationship to objective reality. I agree that photographs of the past were often manipulated to some degree, but what some of you are not taking into account, 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, the public is now aware that there are virtually no limits, and photography is thereby losing its authority and power. Again I repeat, the authority and the power vested in photography by 150 years of depicting reality with a direct relationship to objective reality. When you manipulate a photograph beyond what can be accomplished in an ordinary darkroom, and name it a "photograph," you are co-opting a photographic legacy that does not belong to you: stealing. To avoid this charge, you might want to call it something else, an image, perhaps, and call yourself an "imager." That's tough to take, I know. "An imager?" Falls a little flat, doesn't it? Doesn't trip off the tongue easily, does it? Doesn't quite have the magic of calling yourself a "photographer." But then, you don't have the legacy of 150 years behind you. Why should you expect it? You work in a new tradition that hasn't earned it. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksa2fl Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 I can lay on my side or stand on my head, the landscape never changes just my orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksa2fl Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 To add to that, flipping an image does change what the actual landscape looked like, if you had photographed into a mirror to get the same effect would it bother you? What are the intentions of taking the photo? If the point is to document, then it probably wouldn't be a good idea, if the intention is for a beautiful photograph then go for it. Is it not valid to use photography to see what we otherwise might not be able to see? I don't think that digital photography is ruining the truthfulness of photography so much as it is putting the tools of manipulation in the hands of people that are not a smaller group of capable darkroom technicians. It is important though not to be ashamed of what you are doing, if you are unsure and present the image to someone, at best they get a half hearted statement from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Well in Israel, the image would be "read" from right to left and in Japan from top to bottom, so I guess it's all about where you are standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_ob Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Manipulation as lie or stealling in imaging is immune to police (or law) action, unlike in many other living activities. I think it is used as a fortune and opportunity for imagers to develop their own character, repeating the actions, and the same make me to think that all of that creatures are of low inteligence and character, even they call such activities artistical vision and freedom or democracy. This is sharp but their work is much worst and do not deserve better. I just never would like such a person behind my back. Well if I tell them they are not right, let see what a reaction is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 It is amazing to me how seldom opinions like John MacKay's and Tom Foley's are seriously considered in these debates. Instead, people throw around red herrings and rationalize their own approaches as being as valid as anyone else's in their application to all styles of photography. These same people probably would embrace "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in any other context of their lives. How deliciously inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Why not put the photograph aside and do nothing? Choose another that does not conflict with your gut feeling. Or don't. The choice you make defines, in part, your personal philosophy for that subject, genre, possibly all of your work. Personally, I feel that flipping a photograph is justified when it points to something (almost certainly nonobvious) about the original scene that is revealed only when reversed. Can anyone point to a scene that when reversed makes a statement about the scene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now