Manipulation of landscape images

[mike dixon]

<i>I don't understand why someone would want to modify a nature image to make it less documentary.</i><P>

I don't understand why someone would spoil a pleasant nature walk by lugging around a bunch of photo equipment. Does that mean that nature and landscape photography isn't a valid genre?

[peter_nelson1]

<I>I spent virtually all my time at the opening reception to my exhibit last month answering questions about how these kinds of images are seen.</I><P>

 

As digital manipulation becomes more common and the tools become more powerful and easier to use people will no longer expect that such shots are the result of "seeing" and instead assume they are the result of your creativity. But they will still ask you how you came up with it.<P>

I have shots in my portfolio (e.g., a nude jumping throgh smoke) that people are <B>convinced</B> were done in Photoshop when there was no Photoshop involved - just straight, literal photography. I have other shots done with Photoshop that people think are documentary.

[Spearhead]

<i>I spent virtually all my time at the opening reception to my exhibit last month answering questions about how these kinds of images are seen.</i><p>

 

I had a different experience at my last opening. Nobody asked me how I see my images. People talked to me about how my images made them feel. I'd much prefer that to any kind of process issues, which aren't even interesting to me.

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>I don't understand why someone would spoil a pleasant nature walk by lugging around a bunch of photo equipment.</i>

<p>

Because the act of taking photographs makes me more perceptive and appreciative of nature. Also, it allows me to show nature's beauty to other people.

<p>

<i>Because it represents a feeling or an emotion that these scenes brought out in them. Maybe you don't get that, but it's really what art is about. And some of us are very interested in art and not

</i>

<p>

Art means different things to different people. There is skill involved in being perceptive to nature and find interesting subjects and light. This is an art, for example. It's not necessary to introduce artificial objects into an image to create a work of art.<p>

<i>

simple recording. If recording were all there were too it, a surveillance camera or a camera sitting somewhere with an interval timer for a few days would suffice. But some of us are interested in what goes way beyond that simple recording action.</i>

<p>

It's not the recording action that interests me. But you knew that didn't you. The search is one of the most interesting parts for me. What difference does it make if a piece of art is made by selecting where to walk and position your tripod, and precisely when instead of thinking which way to move the mouse? Decisions are made either way. Obviously the selection process invokes one's perceptions of what is beautiful and worth recording, and in this way the photographer affects the result. Also, print-making can be used to enhance photographs without putting stuff which is totally false and artificial to the images.

[mike dixon]

<i>Because the act of taking photographs makes me more perceptive and appreciative of nature. Also, it allows me to show nature's beauty to other people.</i><P>

I didn't ask why you like taking nature photographs. I asked whether shooting nature and landscapes was an invalid form of photography because someone doesn't understand why you do it.

[root]

""I spent virtually all my time at the opening reception to my exhibit last month answering questions about how these kinds of images are seen.""

 

"I had a different experience at my last opening. Nobody asked me how I see my images.

 

Presumably because the seeing part was pretty straightforward, as with most photographs.

 

"People talked to me about how my images made them feel. I'd much prefer that to any kind of process issues, which aren't even interesting to me."

 

There's a big difference between the seeing process and the post process process. The first is an art; the second is a craft. You don't really think there was any less of an emotional response to my images compared to yours, do you? If they didn't respond emotionally, they wouldn't have bothered to ask about how they're seen?

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>I didn't ask why you like taking nature photographs. I asked whether shooting nature and landscapes was an invalid form of photography because someone doesn't understand why you do it.</i>

<p>

Where did I suggest that nature and landscapes was an invalid form of photography?

<p>

[mike dixon]

That's disingenuous bullshit. You're obviously not going to address my question, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Mike, I really don't understand your question. I really, really can't see what you're getting at. If the question is: what does it matter what some individual thinks about someone's methods or art?

Obviously it matters only to the artist and viewer. But the world is made of individuals. Obviously you can work using whatever methods you like. I'll just look elsewhere (instinctively).

 

One of the things that I find irritating about PSd landscapes is that the light and shadow are correctly rendered in the photograph part but incorrectly around the area which was tampered with. Now, in a painting it's understandable if things are not quite realistically rendered, but the same characteristic exists throughout the painting, and good painters can do this well. However, when a photograph is modified in PS, it's too easy to do it so that the realism of light is lost. This is because anyone can add a fish to a pond in PS but few of them have the skill to do it so that it actually is realistic. If the final result is coherent, I have no objection to it being a work of art. This is just an incredibly rare thing. To me it seems that most people who manipulate photographs digitally do so in order to create something surrealistic. That makes me turn away.

[robert x]

to come back to the "sport" question raised much earlier:

 

"Photography is not a sport. I believe a photographer can do whatever is cessary to

improve their photo." Bill Brandt (from memory but pretty close)

 

I don't think Brian should flip his picture - I don't think it would make it any better. Also,

flipping seems a bitweird really - unless you set out to take a phot you were going to flip. I

also don'tthink flipping comes in to the "digital alteration" debate, as you can flip a

negative.

 

I think bad PS is an awful blight.

 

The following links to a picture that was composed of elements from 100 seperate

photographs from two locations. I didn't know this unitl long after I had been arrested by

teh picture in a magzine a few years ago and so discovered a new name of people whose

work i liked a lot. I don't care if its defined as photograpy or whatever really. I would rather

look at this man's work than most others at the moment.

(and this guy is Daniel Ob proof, because he claims to be an "artist" I bleieve - not a

photographer, AND he is canadian)

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/

rm11_flooded_grave_lrg.jpg

 

Here's another pic - there was a row of buildings that got PS'd out. Again, Gursky makes

no secret of this.

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/learning/studydays/globalisation/cont_glob4.htm

 

Robert

[robert x]

sorry for the typos........

[thomas_sullivan]

robert's <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm11_flooded_grave_lrg.jpg"><u>link</u></a> repaired

[Mary Doo]

Brian, if your emphasis is on documentation where beauty and composition considerations are secondary, then the landscape image should stay the way it is. However, if the emphasis is on "how can I make this photograph look better...etc.", then if flipping does it, so be it. Since you asked this photographer for critique, I believe he assumed your priority was on the latter.

 

Mary

[peter_nelson1]

<I>One of the things that I find irritating about PSd landscapes is that the light and shadow are correctly rendered in the photograph part but incorrectly around the area which was tampered with.</I><P>

 

But that has nothing to do with Photoshop. Photoshop is just a tool - you can use it well or poorly. Skilled PS'ers know that you have to match the lighting angle, bokeh, grain structure, contrast, etc, etc. You only KNOW about the PS'ed landscapes that got those things wrong, but the PS'ed landscapes that <B>DON'T</B> screw up those elements are all around us but you are unaware of them because they were so well done.

[root]

Sounds good in practice, but I don't know of any landscape photographers who think like that. Just the opposite, in fact. Maybe a few who don't mind removing a branch here and there, but if they're going to add things and match the light, shadows, etc., don't you think they'd be more likely to create something that looks a bit outrageous and get the credit for it?

[ilkka_nissila]

Peter, yes, I'm aware that it's possible to use PS to add objects with such skill that it's difficult or impossible to tell. That's why the photographer should disclose the method which was used to make the image.

[charles_stobbs3]

All good reasons to not look at anyone else's pictures. Study your own and improve your technique to satisfy yourself.

[sprouty]

No artist exists in a vacuum.

[Spearhead]

True, but many artists vacuum their existence.

[edgreene]

I worked for 37 years as a Photographer-PJ-film editor-Publisher. <p>Besides journalistic ethics, I cleaved to the '<i>Foundview</i>', a now defunct-pseudo-journalistic ethic that simply states that things in an image should be'<i>seen at the scene</i>'. Even those who swore they were Foundview adherents sooner or later fell for the '<I>photographer as artist</I>' ethos, chiseling away at the purity of the original Foundview philosophy.<p>Those who review my journalistic/Foundview based portfolio have been harsh. But mine was complied, not for artistry, or superlative images, but for what I saw at the scene, journalistic shots from my career, shots that with a proper caption told a story. <p>There has been a lot of ersatz philosophy spouted here.<p> ﾑ<I>The parsing of minutiae</I>ﾒ fills too many forums with self-aggrandizing words lauding oneself. <p>Today, without a discipline, or philosophy, everyone takes off on their own: which is as many think it should be in the anarchy of todayﾒs ﾑ<I>photography</I>ﾒ, an anarchy which sees more and more people, with fewer and fewer photographic skills, saying things which have no real meaning vis-à-vis Photography-the craft.

[Spearhead]

If cleaving to a philosophy gave you results that you seem to acknowledge as uninteresting and/or inartistic (it's not clear what "harsh" implies, but you accept it), what is the value of the philosophy in terms of producing interesting and artistic photos? A philosophy that produced great photos would be far more interesting to a photographer, yours seems to be strictly of value to researchers.

[sprouty]

<I>"Today, without a discipline, or philosophy, everyone takes off on their own: which is as many think it should be in the anarchy of today?s ?photography?, an anarchy which sees more and more people, with fewer and fewer photographic skills, saying things which have no real meaning vis-à-vis Photography-the craft."</I>

<P>

Ed, I applaud your Foundview ethics, which, from what I've read, is a point of view that I might even be comfortable imposing on myself.

<P>

But I feel the need to ask once again - how does the fact that someone else who eschews this philosophy have any effect on you? If no one in the world adhered to your ethics and it truly was a path to deeper, more meaningful expression, then to not adopt your view would be at their expense, not yours.

[edgreene]

Jeff:<br><i>If cleaving to a philosophy gave you results that you seem to acknowledge as uninteresting and/or inartistic (it's not clear what "harsh" implies, but you accept it), what is the value of the philosophy in terms of producing interesting and artistic photos?</i><p>I was a journalist working under journalistic ethics. Foundview was more lenient, but both colored my work: '<i>get the shot</i>'.<br>Neither discipline (<I>if not ﾑphilosophyﾒ</I>) left much if any wiggle room for ﾑ<I>creativity</I>ﾒ or ﾑ<I>artistic expression</I>ﾒ. I worked under the implied doctrine of ﾑ<I>truth in imaging</I>ﾒ. What I saw, I was duty bound to record what I had seen and what I saw, not what I wanted to see or record. An image which, in the ﾑ<I>artistic</I>ﾒ scheme of things, would otherwise be bland, uninteresting (<I>without a caption</I>). But told with captions, the image can reveal much: I draw your attention to the Pulitzer Prize winning shot of the dead baby being carried away from the scene in OKC. <p>The Oklahoma City bombing was the story backdrop, the apparently injured child being carried the interest.<p>Not one living PJ didnﾒt commiserate with that child and not one living PJ wasnﾒt jealous as hell they didnﾒt make that shot. <p>ﾒ<I>Journalistic ethicsﾒ</I> may ring hollow to some, but to those of us tasked to get the shots (<I>that tell the story</I>) no matter what, the ﾑvalueﾒ then, as you wondered why I or anyone would do that job, is in a job well done; like a fireman, walking away from a quenched fire, or me, unloading my weapon after a battle. <p>I saw and shot Presidents and beggars: I made the shots, unloaded my cameras and walked away, shot in pocket-job well done.<br>Besides, the ﾑrewardﾒ for that came when someone paid me; handsomely.<br>*See: Foundview.<p><I> A philosophy that produced great photos would be far more interesting to a photographer, yours seems to be strictly of value to researchers.</I><p>My work was of interest to those who read daily papers, to those who subscribe to magazines and to the few hundred or so subjects who sat for me in portrait sessions.<br>I won a few awards for journalistic excellence, two for ﾑartistic meritﾒ and so, I understand much of what others say about the craft.<br>The truth is, too many people treat photography as an ﾑ<I>Art</I>ﾒ(<I>thus pretentiously fancy themselves as artists</I>) when photography is in fact a craft-pure and simple.<p>The greatest photograph/photographer is like the greatest baseball player, or greatest ever ballet dancer: nothing they do is lasting or of any importance in the larger scheme of things.<div></div>

[root]

Ed, I was with you until I saw your upload. Sorry, but I'm trying to imagine who would give it an award and in comparision to what kind of other photographs? What attributes does this photograph have that you think warrants high praise?

 

(I really want to know who bought it, in what format, for how much, and for what purpose.)

[root]

. . . and I disagree about baseball players and ballet dancers.

 

They inspire us, like all people who are REALLY good at what they do.