Manipulation of landscape images

<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>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

<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>

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.

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

"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

<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>

Sorry for the spurious "?"'s. The html renderer did not know how to deal with the humble em-dash

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.

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.

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.

<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>

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.

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.

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

I can lay on my side or stand on my head, the landscape never changes just my orientation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?