Photography or manipulation?

[root]

Eugene Scherba , apr 04, 2005; 02:59 p.m.

This whole thing is total nonsense."

 

No it isn't. This gets discussed in all kinds of places by all kinds of people. It is mostly about PJ and nature, but it comes up in other genres as well.

 

"If you want to create "rules" for yourself, that is to show only "unmanipulated" images whatever that means (personally I think that nothing unmanipulated exists out there as far as photography goes), then go for it and don't "manipulate" your stuff."

 

We all create rules for ourselves on this issue. You just said that nothing unmanipulated exists, so I guess it must be a matter of how much and under what circumstances.

 

"Show how great your are at "straight photography" (what a sexist term!) and shut up."

 

Ah, but that's the problem, you see. Miguel Lasa, for example, shows us a great capture, it makes, POW, and a bunch of folks accuse him of forgery.

 

"And don't try to enforce those rules on the whole site or on its participants."

 

Do you know what the flaming pear ersatz reflection filter looks like? Are you going to tell me you don't care in the least whether a distorted water reflection is real or not? When people gush all over the place about how it's a great capture, don't you feel inclined to set the record "straight" and show them what the real thing looks like?

 

Looking at your images, I suspect that no one has ever accused you of faking any of them. If and when that happens, I hope you'll remember this post.

[johnb]

Hey all read the <A href="http://www.photo.net/about-us" title="Click to Open Photo.net about us page" target="_blank">about photo.net</a> page<br><br>

It says :<i><b>"From its inception, the site has aimed to be a "photography learning community", in which more experienced photographers, both avid amateurs and professional, provide mutual support, as well as being a resource for those interested in learning about photography. "</b></i><br><br>

It doesn't say a "manipulation learning community", <br>

can't the site stick to Photography? <br>

I think we should.

[Spearhead]

<i>

It doesn't say a "manipulation learning community",

can't the site stick to Photography? </i><p>

 

So dodge and burn and toning and bleaching are all out, right?

[bobatkins]

Photographers have been manipulating photographs for the last 150 years.

 

The only questions are what consititutes "too much manipulation" and what techniques are "valid".

 

Neither question has an answer

[eugene_scherba]

<p>Carl, you put up some sound arguments, but you did not get the

"politics" behind my message. The issue is the following: except for

a few special cases (mostly conceptual art, Christo-like stuff), an

image the sole strength of which lies in its authenticity should not

be interpreted at artistic level but at the level at which its

authenticity is useful. Then, it becomes a vernacular, utilitarian

image.</p>

<p>This condition immediately takes out most of photojournalism from

our discussion. The corollary to the above is: if somebody brings up

a question of your image being manipulated, then you are already in

a

hole (from an artistic perspective) and have always been in a

hole.</p>

 

<p>I am not even speaking of nature photography, give me a break on

that.

Nature photography is no different than "cat photography" or "car

photography"

or "pastry photography." It has its uses, and it has its buyers,

and that's

about it.</p>

 

<p>Now, I can outline my "politics" that I mentioned above. There

exists

a certain tendency (this tendency is not as pronounced right now as

it was, perhaps,

a century before) to place a special value on things that are

<em>authentic</em>,

<em>natural</em>, <em>original</em> (not in the artistic sense,

though), <em>pristine</em>,

<em>unique</em> (in the sense of capturing a moment in time),

<em>primeval</em>, <em>immaculate</em>, <em>untouched</em>,

<em>pure</em>,

<em>virgin</em>, you name it. A whole bunch of spiritualism from the

Victorian era, all the "good qualities to seek in a woman." This has

to end.

It had ended, in fact, it's been dead for the past one hundred fifty

years,

it's just that not everybody can smell its corpse rotting out

there.</p>

 

<p>As Nietsche said, "Armies, churches, states... Which of these

dogs wants to die?"</p>

[root]

" . . . an image the sole strength of which lies in its authenticity should not be interpreted at artistic level but at the level at which its authenticity is useful."

 

For many shooting styles, that might be true. . . . . but not mine.

 

" . . . if somebody brings up a question of your image being manipulated, then you are already in a hole (from an artistic perspective) . . ."

 

I understand your point, but my comment above still holds.

 

"Nature photography is no different than "cat photography" or "car photography" or "pastry photography." It has its uses, and it has its buyers, and that's about it."

 

I'll let the landscape folks defend themselves, but I assure you that the comparison with cats, cars, and pastry would not sit well. For openers, landscapes are about the actual experience of the place, separate from recording it on film.

 

"There exists a certain tendency . . . to place a special value on things that are authentic. . . . This has to end."

 

Why?

 

It amuses me no end to show extractions or juxtapositions in the real world that often go unnoticed. Do I have to mess it up in PS or the darkroom in order to call it art? Who gets to decide? Ultimately, the curators of the venues where I show my work, right?

[Spearhead]

<i>For openers, landscapes are about the actual experience of the place, separate from recording it on film.</i><p>

 

Sez who? I sure don't see it that way.

[paul e. wog]

Would it really hurt anything to clearly define the bountries between manip and non and assign an icon to the image denoting what it is?

[Spearhead]

There is no definable boundary. It's just that simple. There is no way to draw the line without a whole bunch of issues.

 

Besides, great photography has always been full of manipulation. Go to the art museum, there are plenty of traditional prints by great photographers (Laughlin, for example) that are full of manipulation, but nobody ever said what they did wasn't photography. In the end, it will all be considered photography except by people that need to put things in boxes.

 

Art would still be paintings of the Madonna and child and nothing else if the crowd here ruled art for the last 500 years.

[Brad_]

<I>So dodge and burn and toning and bleaching are all out, right?</I><P>

 

As well as B&W film, unless you can produce a note from your doctor that you are color

blind, permitting you to buy a roll.

[mike dixon]

<i>Would it really hurt anything to clearly define the bountries between manip and non ...</i><P>

In addition to using the term "non-manipulated" in a completely aribitrary manner, it would muddy people's understanding of the nature of photography rather than clarify it. The debate here on this issue is not between manipulation and non-manipulation--it's between "manipulations I'm comfortable with" and "manipulations I'm not comfortable with."

[michael_spencer3]

What exactly is wrong with manipulation. Everyone does it; the masters are better at it than the masses. Every type of artistry has its own set of useful and common manipulations: painting, weaving, pottery etc. The Egyptions were famed for 'distorting' their huge figures so they would look 'right' from the ground level. The portraitists who could 'capture the soul' of the subject (what manipulations did THAT involve?!) were preferred.

 

Since real artists (Adams, ManRay, Michangelo, Add Your Favorite Name) don't waste their breath arguing about manipulation, they simply go out and do whatever pleases them, why does it keep coming up? I keep forgeting what the problem actually is. Why is this important?

[john falkenstine]

Edward Horn brought up an interesting topic that COULD be related to photography...Motel room art...I travel frequently and one of my brothers does as well. On occasion we call each other to describe the art in each other's motel rooms...at times I buy this kind of stuff at sidewalk sales (It has to be in good condition) It is then hung in people's houses without telling them as a good joke....

[ilkka_nissila]

I think among most amateur photographers, manipulation (in the sense of creating Dali-like scenes like in photo.net top rated gallery) is neither practiced nor considered photography. The difference is that the essential forms of the scene are altered. Among artists, anything goes but many of them still restrict to doing things using a set of methods which they are comfortable with and which they consider appropriate. I'm sure even the famous Jeff Spirer does not have intimate contacts with every photographer in the world so how would he know what is acceptable or not among the community as a whole. No one knows, we can only guess based on those other photogs we speak with. And I can pretty much guarantee that photo.net is a community of photographers which has a high bias towards accepting digital manipulations as opposed to the rest of the world, simply because it is a digital-based (online) forum.

 

Why is it interesting to consider amateur photographers? Because they do it for the love of photography (by definition), not because they have to make their living from it. Having to make a living from art can corrupt one to accept anything as long as it sells.

 

What would be interesting is that photographs on photo.net could be separated from graphics arts by a simple category division. The former would include images which consist of a 2D projection of the forms in a scene which at the time of exposure existed in reality. The latter could be anything. It's that simple. Why does photo.net have to refuse this wish ... it is time after time requested again.

[mike dixon]

Photo.net added the "manipulated/unmanipulated" check box in response to people going on and on about this issue. Most people don't pay much (or any) attention to it. That certainly hasn't stopped people from continuing to go on and on about how important that arbitrary distinction is . . .

[Spearhead]

<i>The former would include images which consist of a 2D projection of the forms in a scene which at the time of exposure existed in reality. The latter could be anything. It's that simple.</i><p>

 

It's not that simple. I have lots of "unmanipulated" shots that are not the least bit like a "2D projection of the forms in a scene which at the time of exposure existed in reality." While we're at, please define "reality."

[Spearhead]

While we're at it, why don't you explain what facts you have that makes this true:<p>

 

<i>Having to make a living from art can corrupt one to accept anything as long as it sells.</i>

[john falkenstine]

Michael, I remember watching Ansel Adams at work in a series on PBS, shortly before he passed away. He was working his homebuilt enlarger, the size of a large oven, which contained numerous "COLD"light bulbs. (Some old Zone VI workshop Books have pictures of this "device"). When the print didn't come out as he liked, he would tear it up. Ansel certainly was an EXCELLENT PHOTOGRAPHER and took numerous images that folks rarely if ever see, (of prison camps in WWII) but are free to be viewed on line from the library of Congress. He was also extremely skilled AT MANIPULATING THE PHOTOGRAPH, but at the end the image was still the image. ...BTW, fesss up, how many of you have AN ELVIS ON VELVET???

[guyscrivner]

Perhaps there are three different types of photographers, the documentary photographer, the artist photographer and the technical photographer. How do we tell the difference?

<p>

It would appear that a documentary photographer such as a photojournalist would be betraying his /her purpose if any detail of the image were manipulated in any manner. We can all think of instances where this has happened and the photographer has been called on it. I recall the recent Newsweek cover with a slim Martha Stewart body that was really not hers.

<p>

But, then there is the artist photographer who feels called to manipulate the image.

Pablo Picasso said that art is a lie that makes us realize the truth. This seems to say that only by reshaping reality ( manipulation ) as we perceive it, can we hope to move another person to see something new in a truly new way. This would appear to be the objective of this type of photographer.

<p>

And then there is the technical photographer. Perhaps this individual is just fascinated with the new technology that allows the manipulation of images and does so without giving it much thought.

<p>

It would appear there are all three types of photographers on this site. That is my opinion. I could be wrong.

[Spearhead]

<i>It would appear that a documentary photographer such as a photojournalist would be betraying his /her purpose if any detail of the image were manipulated in any manner.</i><p>

 

That's a very idealistic view.<p>

 

Jacob Riis, a pioneer of photojournalism in the US, posed his subjects, a much stronger manipulation than many PS manipulations that people complain about. Yet nobody says that diminishes the truth of his photos, they just complain about Photoshop.

[graham boyd]

I work as a translator and this sort of issue comes up in that field too. Basically, all translations can be placed somewhere on a spectrum that ranges from "literal" to "complete fiction." Since no translation can ever be exactly the same as the original, the question of where to draw the line between truth and fiction often comes up. Should the translator be perfectly literal even though this may distort the meaning, or should he or she say what a native speaker would have said in that context? Or does a translator have the right to completely alter the text/speech as he sees fit? Valid arguments can be made for any answer to any of these questions, and most of these arguments sound much like what people are saying here.

 

The issue is mainly decided by the law. If you would not swear to a translation being an "accurate" or "literal" redition of the original in a court of law, it is not. If you will, it is.

 

Seems this basic rule can be applied to photos as well. If you would be willing to swear that a photo is an accurate redition of the scene ("unmanipulated") in a court of law, then that's what it is. If you are not willing to so swear, then it has been manipulated.

 

How do you get people to honor this? That's another question.

[kent_tolley2]

Gene Smith posed his subjects too or had them re-play the scene till he got the photograph he wanted. He also pasted objects into the foreground of prints under his enlarger. Is this art or truth? If the "truth" expressed in the photo is something that comes from within the photog is this less valid than "objective truth" captured methodically by the scientific photographer? The truth expressed by the artist is what I'm seeking. And the objective truth is too much a flat file for me to deal with. One is science and the other is art. And photography is a little of both.

[kent_tolley2]

I guess I object to "bad art" and we each have our own definitions. For me, clumsy PS manipulations are bad art.

[jlobb]

I'm tired of seeing "digital alteration" photos. there are getting to be far too many of them. I see people taking shitty pictures and then chopping them up, adding colors, adding objects, etc. and trying to pass it off as art.

 

Now, my photos may not be national geographic quality, but at least I try to take good pictures and know when to not post a picture.

 

I think that the people who take pictures and go into photoshop and do so much to them that they are unrecognizable from the original should take those pictures and take them to a photoshop or imaging specific website. There ar eplenty of them.

[bevan_burns]

I think the most important thing here is that people are honest with what manipulations

are taking place. We all know that choice of film will affect the colours and contrasts and

that the printing/scanning process can be a source of endless variations. Obviously all

images are "manipulated" somehow, I just like to know how. I think PS cut and paste

composite images certainly can be considered art, and that other colour and tonal effects

can certainly enhance the aesthetics of the image. I'm not angry that people do these

things (though they're not something that I like to do, as a rule) just don't pretend that

you're not doing them.