Should realities of the city be the realities of the picture?

Few days ago I shaw some pictures of the city to a friend of mine. He said I should have to remove electric wires, ads and all this every-big-city-scrap away to make the picture clean and more interesting. From one hand,I agree with him. It's obvious that the picture will be definitely better without all that scrap.

From other hand, all this demonic electric nets, crying ads and etc. are parts of the city, parts of its todays reality, that will turn to be a history in few years.

What do you think? Should the photographer go for city reality or should he change the reality using PS or any other program?

I shoot film so I either would have taken the shot of what was there in such a way as to make it a good shot (tho I have plenty I have done that were not!), or not taken it.

 

If I had wanted to alter the reality I could have the film scanned and do so in Photoshop.

 

Personally, I opt for the less photoshop the better but I am a dinosaur.....

I also find the shots I took years ago that were at the time "technically" not so good ahve value today for historical significance, if only to me.

The "powerline question" was discussed extensively in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LKGa">this thread.</a>

BTW, see the "altered reality" thread here also. Photography changes "reality" instantly.

I agree with Nancy on this one. Youy never know what aspects of a photo might make it interesting or even valuable in the future.

What's wrong with keeping your original image and producing an altered version so that you have both?

"Personally, I opt for the less photoshop the better but I am a dinosaur....."

 

I agree (and also admit photosaurus status), even though all my prints are from scanned/Photoshopped negatives. However, I think it depends on the intended use of the image. If it was taken strictly for the sake of the art and not intended to represent a particular place and time, and a powerline is distracting, I see no harm in removing it. But if it was taken to document the reality of urban life - in other words, with journalistic intent - then it would be dead wrong to alter any aspect of the image.

I see...the world is a pristine place and the objects you've cited don't exist.

 

Not for me. I love power lines, telephone poles, jet trails, billboards, garbage, anything and everything that says "place" and "time." I would never eliminate them...make them part of the image and its design. They're intrinsic parts of an image that should be used as design elements. Look at Walker Evans' work - remove the billboards, signs, wires, telephone poles....and you have....?

Sure, all those things have their place if they fit, enhance or are the purpose of the image. The image I posted in the thread that Jeff referenced is one example. Here's another. It all goes to intent:

If the wires obstruct the picture you are trying to show people, then take them out.<p>

If they are part of the picture you want, leave them in.<P>

Often people mentally filter out those obstructions, and don't notice them. Consider the lampost growing out of head thing - we have to learn to notice that when taking photos. So sometimes, if you take out the clutter of wires, you are showing more closely what people normally see.<p>

But if you leave them in you may be emphasising a feature that people wouldn't usually notice.<p>

Hence I think you do what you want to do for any particular picture.<p>

William Kahn, I don't know about Prescott ( except for the constant drone of Cicadas ) But your photo looks like a 'Starter Home' in Jan Jose,CA. that would sell for a million-six. I agree that "It all goes to intent", Where's the rule that phone lines, con-trails etc., must be Photoshopped out of an image. Shouldn't that be the personal decision made by the photographer/artist?

Steve Swinehart, I'm in you're camp as well. I love 'texture'. Texture in a candid photo is the purest representation of truth. When I 'look' at things, the wires, con-trails, road-kill are part of the vision. Why delete them from the photograph? If you want a photo of a sunset, sans vapor trails, wait until there are none. A pristine landscape requires patience. That patience is part of the photo because anyone who sees the photo will appreciate what it took to get it. Your patience will be an intrinsic part of the image. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at a photo and wondered ' how long did the photographer have to wait to capture that'?

Is the photographer an artist or a snapshooter? It only matters what the photographer want's to shoot or what not to shoot. And the artist shouldn't and doesn't care what a critic thinks.

It all depends on the purpose of the photo. I've removed power lines before, but ONLY if they only cover up the sky and maybe 10% of the photo, thereby rendering them really purposeless. However, if they cross over the entire image, then they are part of the image, and that's that. I don't like to lie in my photos, even those photos I consider art. However, the more my photos have an artistic intent, the more I'm willing to remove things to make the artistic statement more strong and unified. However, the more I view my photos as some kind of recording or archival, historical purpose, the more I'm NOT willing to remove things.

It's what's there that I find interesting, and the fact that it is there, so personally I don't remove things, although I try to take the picture in such a way as to emphasize what I believe attracted me to the subject. I tend to like complexity and looking into layers..i.e. things "in the way". So for me powerlines,billboards, junk, whatever are I suppose textural elements if nothing else.

 

But ultimately I agree with what Keith is saying above. Take the picture you want to take and train yourself to really check out what's in front of you so you know what you're getting.

 

I think using the word "should" frames the question badly, it's distracting to me. This is photography, not ethics.

I agree fully with Dean G, especially about "should."

 

Some photographers actually do have clients :-) Those clients may not want power lines, just as they may not want wrinkles or red noses. Craft trumps "art" when you're paying bills.

 

Tourist galleries are full of shorelines, mountain streams, and sunsets. Why do you suppose they're not full of power lines?

 

Are those "scenics" "art" or are they decorative pandering...doesn't "art" often boil down to decorative pandering? Don't those photographers want their prints decorating suburbia?

 

Isn't a "snapshooter" superior to an "artist" by being humble? Or is the "artist" superior because he says so?

 

To each her/his own.

The first purpose of photography was to record and document a scene as it truly was and as it might semi-statically represent a series of events that would occur, in contrast to even the best realistic paintings that were created over a longer time period or other styles that sought deliberately to stylize a scene to attempt to convey a greater meaning within experience.

 

When we remove things from a photograph, we attempt to be, or become, graphic artists, which is different from being a photographer, which is already a fine title in itself for a great searcher in human experience and expression. I think this places me with Nancy and Al on this, but I would go further to say that your own ability to interact with reality in the moment that you record it is the measure of your "photography". However, any of us might find greater fulfillment and accomplishment by extending our endeavors in photography into other arts that are another form of expression.

One day while out shooting with a buddy, he asked me to stand for a few pics. He was trying out a new digithingamagig. So I paused for a few shots and we went on. Later back at his place we looked at what he shot. When we got to the pics of me, I decided to use one for my community member page. So I picked the one that's there now. However, Mike started (as usual) going nuts with Photoshop by erasing the deep crevices between my eyes. I told him to stop, that I would use the original picture. "But you would look so much better without them" he said.

I told him I knew that but I still couldn't go down that road. It just wouldn't be me...in both concepts of the phrase.

What is the goal of the image? If Reportage or Documentary then no editing is acceptable.

Film lends itself to that honesty which says this is an artifact made on the scene, and

undiluted by injecting what we'd rather see. The Saigon Police Chief summarily executing a

suspected Viet Cong prisoner in the street: Should we crop out the soldier to his left

because we think his expression too distracting, or straighten the Chiefs' hair which is

mussed? I have seen both of these things done to the image I'm talking about, and it makes

no difference because the original unedited image is so widely spread, it will never be

mistaken for other than genuine. PS is an appropriate abbreviation I think, in rhyming slang.

<i>To each her/his own.</i><p>There is no reason to disagree with this, I'm not sure why people go to such lengths to tell everyone else what photography is or isn't.

Have a look at Lee Friedlander's book <i>Sticks & Stones</i>, which has urban and

sububurban landscapes "as they are": pictures of streets the way we really see them,

including the chain link fences -- indeed in some pictures the traffic, signs, chain link

fences or barriers take over. Very interesting photography of order and disorder,

Friedlander shows the beauty of the real, of the true, not someone who takes pretty

pictures of pretty scenes.

<p>

 

 

<p>

--Mitch/Potomac, MD

If they lend to what you want the photo to communicate...leave them in. If they are distracting from what you intend in the photo then either get rid of them or shoot around them.

i liked the pictures of marylin with the scar on her tummy. there's a german model who also

has a scar. i don't mind them. i don't mind cable lines either. i do mind the composition.

"Few days ago..."

 

Photograph and Photoshop, any way of your choosing as after all it's your mind's eye's creation.

 

Humanity and power lines, as well as photography didn't exist ten million years ago (give or take a few years) so if you see an image, and you don't want the power lines, pull them as it ain't no big thing unless you're in need of counseling.

 

With power lines or without; free choice as to if you want them there or not, for to me, it's no different than if you actively walk out into the field of an image, remove a piece of trash or remove it via PS. Power lines are the same. When one insists that they not be there, and they move the FOV, they're doing the same thing as they might do in PS. Six of this, or a half-dozen of the other. It just depends on how messed up you are or aren't and how dedicated you are to the perspective which makes you happy.

 

Wishing you well. :)

I agree that the most direct response to the poster, Art Y's question of "Should realities of the city be the realities of the picture?" would be to acknowledge that a picture can be created in whatever way with whatever tools appeal to the individual, but I wonder if Art Y deliberately chose the word "picture" instead of "photograph." It could be claimed that this is just a question of semantics, and I would agree and claim that the evolution of our perceived meaning of words informs a greater understanding of how we adapt and incorporate technology into our ideas even though at threshold periods in development, this adaptation might promote us to use a term in a way that is completely counter to its literal meaning.

 

Since a photograph is specifically a writing created by light, then a work of art or expression that has been manipulated in photoshop is no longer only a photograph. It is a photograph that has had another art applied to it, so it may be art, wonderful high art, expression or many other things, but it is no longer only a "photograph". I acknowledge that by this irrefutable definition, hand colored portraits are not photography either, but for me, that does not marginalize their value or appeal in any way.

 

If you sat at a sushi bar and complimented the sushi chef on his baking skills as he prepared your sushimi, I don't think any of us would be surprised if he was at first confused. (I recognize that the word "chef" is now essentially synonymous with "cook" and this makes my point about change. Perhaps I chose the wrong name for the guy who prepares my sushimi.)

<i>Since a photograph is specifically a writing created by light, then a work of art or expression that has been manipulated in photoshop is no longer only a photograph.</i><p>So a traditional print altered by bleach is no longer a photograph? Great, let's rewrite the history of photography.