tampering with photos - distortions

[marcofrancardi]

same subject again and again. there is a whole range of grays scales of opinions, definition and interpretations being applied. my stripped-to-the-bone way of seing it is: one thing is to correct distortion/contrast/color ect. and another is to add/subtract objects that were/were not there.

 

Q.G., I don't care about history or artists who cut and re-compose different photographs. they were exercising a different art, not "only" photography. that being said, I admire and love graphic art. don't have any prejudice on technology and I would have done the same thing you did on that beach. But I would know I were sort of shifting from photographing to picturing. I would do it happily, 'cause the result is excellent.

 

Actually, I'm starting to realize there is no issue here: two different arts happily living in symbiosis!

[willkeats]

Marco makes a good point that I failed to mention in my first post and that adresses Jeff's point quite satisfactorily - there is a distinct difference between "photography" and "graphic art" that uses photography as a medium. Personally, I would like to see artists voluntarily differentiate between graphic art and photography, but I also realize that that is an unreasonable request, for graphic art passed off as photography may be morally reprehensible to one artist and morally upstanding to another, and asking all artists to observe one system of objective morals is undoubtedly asking too much. Subjectivity is a large part of the appeal of photography, and visual art in general. Subjectivity allows for the incredible diversity of vision that keeps photography fresh and exciting, and by no means do I intend to belittle or discredit graphic art (or what I perceive as graphic art) as a legitimate art form by trying to separate it from photography.

 

Consequently, I see no problem with "re-creating [photography] with personal definitions," because what is photography but a personal endeavour? Graphic artists have just as much a right to create "photography" according to their vision as I do according to mine. I should hope that other photographers only take photos because it is personally satisfying, and not for any other reason, and adhere to a personal system of ethics, and not to any other system.

 

Q.G., I don't care about deception. As far as photojournalism is concerned, deception is unethical, but as far as photography is concerned, deception can be wonderfully creative. After all, abstract photography is nothing more than a deceptive re-presentation of a familiar subject, is it not? I say, the brilliance of your documentarians was their ability to pick out the beauty in an otherwise "offensve" town square, as I said earlier. I have to revert to Marco's averment that the difference between your documentarians and yourself is that the film makers are photographers and you are a graphic artist - you both have the ability (and vision and creativity and what-have-you) to create a "rosy" representaion of the square, but you go about it in different ways. Objectively, neither way is "better," but the former is, in my opinion, more ethical as far as photography is concerned.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Will,<br><br>Nobody want to be deceived.<br><br>But the greatest deception, by far, is the one where people make themselves believe that photography (the "recordist's" thing, as opposed to the "medium/tool" thing) is even remotely "honest".<br>There are selections and distortions in every single step involved.<br><br>This forum bears the name "philosophy" in its name. What better reference than the history of philosphy (world wide), which shows how people have over and again struggled to attain some 'honesty" in man's representation of the world. And failed every single time.<br>The greatest achievement in western philosophy was the systematic description of how "dishonest" are grasp of the world is, and why.<br><br>And that's when we, poor saps, are trying to match our own ideas and concepts on the 'world'. In photography, there is a tool, a complete "medium" shuffed in between us and the world.<br><br>Yes, some mediation between us and our world happens (mostly) unknown to the ones using the medium (but it's not that they couldn't, or do not know about that. Mostly, they choose to ignore it), while some other 'tricks' are applied fully intentionally and conciously.<br>So "photography" vs. "(photo)graphic art": it's a matter of degree. And of our willingness, courage, or even 'honesty' to accept that "honesty" in photography (and elsewhere) is illusionary.<br>And that's all there is to it.<br><br>So who is deceiving whom? ;-)

[willkeats]

I'm not sure how thoroughly you read my post. Deception in photography isn't a problem for me; when I mentioned that I feel tricked when I discover that a photo has been digitally altered, I was referring to nothing more than a personal response that I get as a result of the ethics that I subscribe to, and doesn't really warrant any further discussion (in this context).

 

Accordingly, I agree with you that photography is rarely, if ever, an unadulterated representation of "reality" but is rather a symbolic, affective interpretation of reality according to a photographer's whims. The distinction I would like to make is that of method; certain mediations between ourselves and reality are unavoidable, but the methods applied to actuate the intentional and conscious trickery that photography and graphic art rely on are very tangible and can easily be distinguished from one another with a little will.

[ericwarnke]

For photojournalism... a simple rule of thumb... If the image were suddenly used in a court of law, would you stand by the photo as an accurate representation of what was there when you took the photo; all of it. So as has been stated I have no problem with corrections to a journalistic image to better represent the scene shot.

 

For other photographic endevours have a field day, anything goes.

[ken_hughes4]

"but the content of the shot was never altered!"

 

sorry, you are very wrong about that. take " aspens new mexico (vertical)" and "winter sunrise from lone pine" as examples. He removed several leaves and lines in the aspens shot and in the sunrise image he retouched out the very large whitewashed letters of the lone pine high school that were on the mountainside.

[r_johnston]

If a photograph is not going to be used in court, do whatever you desire to create a piece of art. Art is anything which communicates our feelings to others. Whatever we need to do, in order to do that is valid.

 

Stating otherwise is like saying that because all artists using oil paints a hundred years ago, ground the pigments, and mixed their own paint, we must do it that way today.

 

Meryl mentioned out of millions of amateur photographers she doubted many of them ever entered a darkroom or had any experience in one. That is a misunderstanding of the truth. Even today, there are millions of photographers who have their own darkrooms, or rent one in their communities, and have one available in Photography classes etc. Ive been using a darkroom since 1937, and still use mine from time to time.

 

Ive taught thousands of Boy & Girl Scouts photography to get a photography merit badge, and still teach them to develop their own film, and make their own prints. We use in class to begin with, paper which can be developed with a 60 watt light bulb in the room, so they can all see the process more clearly, before working in a darkroom.

 

As a Fine Artist, I use ALL tools at my disposal to create a painting. Including multiple photographs I may take different elements from, to create a scene. Part of being an Artist is creating things we see in our mind, so that others can see them. Take a picture of the Grand Canyon at noon on an overcast day, and manipulate it so it appears to have been taken at sunset. We then are creating an image so others can see the way we see it in our mind. IF we do not ever manipulate a photo, we are never being a TRUE ARTIST, and not using our creativity.

 

IF so, then any person on the edge of the Canyon, can create the same "snapshot" we take of the Canyon with any automatic camera. Then we are NOT an artist, or have no creative ability. IF anyone manipulates an IMAGE IN THE CAMERA, they are doing the same thing some do in Photoshop... The D200, is a COMPUTER. So a person who manipulates it even in the slightest, alters an exposure time, aperture, lens opening, is ALTERING REALITY in front of them... Just because someone does it in Photoshop, because their camera cant do it at the scene, does not mean one person is doing any thing different than what the other is doing.

 

BOTH ARE ALTERING WHAT THE LENS SEES...

[r_johnston]

Will Keats

 

"When I see a photo that I like and find out afterwards that it was digitally manipulated, as I did with your above post, I feel like I've been tricked."

 

Why would you feel "tricked" any more than if the Photo was manipulated in a D200, to change the mood, by changing lighting effects, color balance, etc. Both take knowledge and experience of the Photographer. Both can be done in any Darkroom or in Photoshop. Personally I do things in Photoshop, that Ive been doing in the darkroom since 1937. Its less messy, quicker, and less expensive to do them in Photoshop. Yet, many who complain about doing them in Photoshop, do exactly the same things in a darkroom, without anyone thinking they are being Tricked.

 

For decades Ive used retouching methods to remove objects like trash cans from photographs long before Photoshop existed. Why is it manipulating photos and tricking people, to do it in Photoshop instead of on a light table or in a darkroom?

 

Photographers from the earliest, Ansel Adams, Weston, and thousands of others since the first photographs were created, have been manipulating light, processing, and etching or retouching glass plates, negatives, etc. from the beginning. My Aunt who taught me photography in her darkroom in the 30's had been doing what she taught me since the 1880's....