Designating photographic intent and content

[twmeyer]

When this conversation about "truth" in photography first happened on this

forum (now archived at <a href="http:/www.usefilm.com">UseFilm.com</a>) about 8

years ago, it was influenced by a now defunct website/group called <a

href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/">"FoundView"</a> whose banner has

been taken up by <a href="http://trustimage.org/"> Trust Image dot org</a>.<p>

Their one line philosophy stated "<i>The FoundView Checkmark guarantees that a

given photo depicts only the forms and shapes that were seen when the picture

was taken</i>".<p>Their Patron Saint is Francis Bacon and he was quoted on

their website "<i>The contemplation of things as they are, without error or

confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than

the whole harvest of invention</i>".<p>I like the sentiment, and find myself

more impressed with a photograph that finds it's magic in a moment of time.

However broad the moment may be, I still prefer it be contiguous. <p>Those

photo-constructs that include elements from several moments in time, I view as

almost a different artform, like poetry is from the novel. There are

similarities, and the potential for honesty and creative description in

both.<p> But you expect honesty from poetry, or at least elaborate self denial,

while a novel declares it's fictional mechanisms up front. <p>I don't see why

this sensibility isn't relative to photography, as well. Ultimately, it is

incumbent on the artist to either declare the intent/content ratio, or by

declining, invoke the caveat emptor... t

[frank uhlig]

Nicely said, tom.

 

You seem to favor what I might call "reality based photography" over what I may call "digital illustration".

 

That first one wins for me every time, too.

 

Remember when acrylic paints took over "painting" for their poppish colors? Oil painting is still alive and so is acrylic. We just have seen the birth of a new medium, that has a bit to do with photography, but will not, cannot replace it as you so clearly say and notice.

[root]

Part of the problem is that you've presented the two camps as if they were the only two options, using time as the variable. Another option would be to consider the difference between adding elements and deleting them. Then consider the size of the elements - zits vs mountains.

 

Perhaps the biggest problem is that guidelines like these don't give adequate consideration to the many genres that routinely use their own guidelines for what is accepted manipulation and what isn't. Add the various prejudices that viewers/jurors/buyers have with their inability to determine what changes have in fact been made, if any, and you have a huge issue that often becomes an unnecessary distraction. We're supposed to be looking at image content, after all. Too often, the "how" gets in the way.

[pico_digoliardi]

Thank you for the most cogent article, Tom.

 

I have profound respect for so-called straight photography because, in part, the elements that make it work for me are so very rare, difficult to come by. I also appreciate the rationalization of photography's fundamental phenonema - light in time.

 

Asking the photographer to declare his work is in one camp or the other is futile, however it does encourage us to consider third, forth, fifth... 'camps', realms, ideas.

 

Can we describe some alternate realms that are close to so-called straight photography but are just that tiny bit different from the light in time ideal?

[root]

By my reading of the foundview standards, this image qualifies:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/983375

[Spearhead]

I will start by saying I find Bacon's statement problematic.

<p>

First, there is the whole concept of "as they are." How are things? They aren't the same to everyone, the notion is completely flawed. Because we have brains that interpret, everything is different to every person.

<p>

Let me give a simple example. My neighbor has a Doberman. He sees his dog as a nice pet, a good friend. I see the dog as a vicious animal that, if he gets off his leash, will have no problem tearing me apart. If I saw a photo of the dog happily lapping up water from a bowl, I would say that is not how it is. If I photoshopped in a mangled body in place of the bowl, then I would find it shows reality.

<p>

Second, I don't agree with the general sentiment. This because very clear to me a few months ago. I'm interested in and quite enamored with Mexican culture. I have been a fan of Mexican photography for years, especially Bravo and the people he influenced, like Graciela Iturbide. I went to an art museum a few months ago, one in which I had seen a Bravo exhibit the prior year. There was an exhibition of modern Mexican art, mostly paintings and a few drawings. Almost all of it was interpretive. I was stunned as I was reminded how much more feeling can be put into a painting than into most photography, including Bravo's. It was a revelation, to say the least, and it reminded me of how I felt at the childhood home (now a museum) of Diego Rivera. There, I put my camera away and walked around in a daze of feelings.

<p>

Also, I agree with the point that Carl is trying to make. So-called "straight" photography can be no more "as it is" than an abstract painting. For example, <a href="http://www.spirer.com/colorport/pages/downhill.htm">this photo</a> meets the "Trust Image" creed, whereas <a href="http://www.spirer.com/images/friends.jpg">this one</a> doesn't. Yet most people would consider the second one to be more "as it is."

<p>

I would further add that "contemplating" is very different than "interpreting," which all painting certainly is. It's interesting that Picasso's work doesn't meet Bacon's statement if we assume that contemplating equals results, which I really doubt he meant, contradictory to the Trust Image usage.<p>

 

Frank Uhlig's comment is also problematic. I know quite a few painters and they all call themselves "painters." They don't call themselves "oil painters" or "acrylic painters." There is only a distinction in the materials they choose, not in how they view themselves. I would say this is the way it is in photography, where a photographer is a photographer, regardless of the choice of tools.<p>

 

Then there's always the issue raised about the use of darkroom montage/collage in the past. Nobody ever said Avedon's collage work wasn't "photography." There was no interest in investing huge amounts of time to define differences in approach. I suspect in five or ten years, this whole issue will be dead.

[beeman458]

"I don't see why this sensibility isn't relative to photography, as well."

 

Me thinks you're unintentionally trying to impose your will on all of photography and me thinks this need to impose one's will, needs to lighten up. :)

 

Photography, as an art medium is writing with light, there are no restrictions. There never has been and there never should be; categories yes, artistic restricitions no. These ideas of restrictions are recent ideas of the digital age because of the ease in which one can manipulate an image and the frustration people experience because of their need for truth (order) in imagery. Shall photography be straight forward as in f/64 or a collage like the Starn Brothers?

 

Who's to decide the what's what of photography's reality. Who's to decide this carving up of the photographic genre in which to suit this imposed dictatorial will and like Vladimir the Impaler or Maximilien Robespierre, who's to be the enforcer of their idea of how "they" think things should be?

 

This, in the least, is a draconian idea that stikes at the very heart of what is art. Ohhhhhh, the slippery slope of it all. :)

 

Oh wait, this has already been decided and done, by educators, curators and gallery owners. Too late. Art is and has been in the grips of the evil dollar since the beginning of photographic time. March to the tune of the piper or you won't get paid. Oh well. It was a nice thought while it lasted. :D

[beeman458]

Aaaaaah, yeah!, what Jeff said. :)

 

"It was a revelation, to say the least, and it reminded me of how I felt at the childhood home (now a museum) of Diego Rivera."

 

Diego Rivera's home.... Whoa!, cool! I'm envious. :)

[Spearhead]

http://www.guanajuatocapital.com/ingles/Tmusdiego.htm

[beeman458]

Wow! Thanks!

[pico_digoliardi]

Let's keep Bacon in context. Was he not refering to the value of observaing what exists in nature as opposed to frenetic, blind invention?

<p>

<i>Photography, as an art medium is writing with light, there are no restrictions.</i><p>

Of course, but there are realms within photography. The terrain of the field is diverse. It's as futile to blurt out a sweeping generalization as an answer as it is for one person to declare what photography is.

[beeman458]

"Of course, but there are realms within photography. The terrain of the field is diverse. It's as futile to blurt out a sweeping generalization as an answer as it is for one person to declare what photography is."

 

Agreed as I tried to address your point below by showing how wide ranging "art" photography is.

 

"Photography, as an art medium is writing with light, there are no restrictions."

 

"Shall photography be straight forward as in f/64 or a collage like the Starn Brothers?"

 

My comment was in regard to "art" as opposed to the professional aspects such as reportage, sports or event photography.

[david_senesac]

Tom, I generally concur with those sentiments. Issues I have concern with so regularly voice mainly in internet forums my perspectives. The current status quo of landscape and nature photographers overwhelmingly embraces the unnatural and manipulated anything goes. Not something that is inherently wrong or unethical as long as the photographer is honest about what they are doing with their public audience. In other words any pre or post creative image manipulations are fine as long as they are up front about what they are doing and so label their work. Not my personal style or preference in what I appreciate in others work but nonetheless still perfectly valid as creative art. And I think this is at the heart of much of the controversy and subsequent miscommunication that regularly surrounds discussions of the subject.

 

There are a few vocal photographers that argue against any pre or post image manipulation and condemn such even if the photographer is up front about what they are doing. Taking such a rigid, inconsiderate, selfish stance will only continue to aggravate and be immediately rejected by others. Conversely there are those that have embraced manipulations and interpret any attempts of some that prefer to capture natural images with accurate fidelity as ridiculous. They then rant away with the long history of photography starting with the black and white artists about how nothing they created was anything close to the natural experience or how such and such processes are unnatural in order to rationalize the anything goes ethic. In doing so they ignore the middle ground I personally tend to articulate. In fact the tone of statements by either of these two extremes is often hostile. There ought to be enough in this realm of art for all these styles. The key is for photographers to be honest and up front with their public audience. Unfortunately many of those manipulating their work don't want to explain anything to the public and instead be on the same level playing field with every other nature and landscape photographer. One will often see early and late light images shot with high saturation films or with digital with heavy handed used of contrast and saturation controls or hue shifts to pinks and purples. If questioned some become emphatic in expressing how the experience really was like that...in their minds eye. Instead of just saying, yes I use Velvia and adjust the contrast, saturation, and hue to create the most striking, spectacular image.

 

The current TrustImage guidelines are well detailed although interpretations will always be somewhat open to some debate with those that will push color enhancements as much as they can. Almost all images I market on my website would qualify for the TrustImage label although I haven't applied such at this point. Now in the 21st century we do have the materials, processes, and tools to reasonably reproduce with good color fildelilty on high quality archival print media, transparency film captured color subjects. And this is indeed a rather recent development available to average photography users for not much more than a decade. My whole body of work and style has been based on the notion that some in the public will inherently value photographs that reasonably represent a moment captured in time versus others that have been manipulated for whatever purposes. Thus an advantage I will actively market to differentiate my work from others. ...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

[beeman458]

"Not my personal style or preference in what I appreciate in others work but nonetheless still perfectly valid as creative art."

 

But where does it begin and end? F/64, is unnatural to the human eye as is Velvia; shall the viewer be notified of this unnatural to the unaided eye, manipulation. CirPl for the most part, enhance as well as deal with reflected/polarized light, shall the unwary be notified? The list of minor, unnatural manipulations are legion. In real terms, where does it begin and end?

 

Maybe a warning should come with "all" photographic images: "Warning, this image is a distortion of reality." :)

[daniel_smith6]

"Ultimately, it is incumbent on the artist to either declare the intent/content ratio, or by declining, invoke the caveat emptor... t"

 

You have it backwards. You need to declare when the photo is a lie. Truth is the assumption.

[d_gillespie]

I am an architect and amateur photographer. After spending almost two hours in an exhaustive, and rather brilliant I must say, explanation of the construction plans and design intent and how my team was able to create a lake house that was functional, charming, a romantic womb to hide from the world but in complete comfort and complete isolation. I was humbled when asked by the couple, "That's nice but is it bigger than the Robinson's?" I felt a bit like Frank L. Wright. They didn't deserve to live in this house if they didn't understand the transcendent beauty and truth it represented. Yeah right, I cashed their check by gosh!

[Spearhead]

<i>Conversely there are those that have embraced manipulations and interpret any attempts of some that prefer to capture natural images with accurate fidelity as ridiculous.</i><p>

 

Please give an example where someone's attempts have been labeled as ridiculous. Thanks in advance.

[ilkka_nissila]

I suppose reality is something that exists irrespective of subjective interpretation. It is something that can be measured and characterized objectively. Photography itself is a process in which light travels from a light source to a subject and is reflected through the lens to the film or digital sensor. If additional manipulations are carried out on the image then these operations are digital artwork or digital image processing or whatever. Not photography. The moment the light is converted into electrons in the CCD the photographic process ends. If the medium is a piece of film, then a second photographic step is applied to produce a print or scan it. Clearly the digital image processing steps in which parts of the image are modified according to artistic taste are not photography, since light is not used to draw - bits and the mouse are. So it's digital image editing, not photography.

 

I am much more impressed with images that have been captured using a true photographic process instead of being mocked about in Photoshop. There is the art of finding the right subject, capturing it in the right light with the right techniques to get a worthwhile image. To me this is the true art of photography.

 

If you want to create an artistic impression of something, do it by painting, or whatever drawing technique you like. If you want to do photography, do it by doing photography and not afterwards on a PC. Those who start with photographs and edit them in Photoshop by adding elements nonexistent in the original scene or removing objects from the photograph by faking a replacement background on it are probably just insecure about the quality of their photography, unable to carry it out to perfection, and on the other hand not skilled enough to create the image from scratch by painting. They utilize technology to create a false impression of reality, and distort it to create a lie.

[Spearhead]

<i>If you want to do photography, do it by doing photography and not afterwards on a PC. </i><p>

 

Who gave you the right to say this to anybody? Is this some sort of alternative reality?

[Spearhead]

<i>Those who start with photographs and edit them in Photoshop by adding elements nonexistent in the original scene or removing objects from the photograph by faking a replacement background on it are probably just insecure about the quality of their photography</I><p>

 

And...are you a psychiatrist? You seem to ascribe motives to a broad base of people you don't know. Really, this is the kind of rant that makes people say that they want to do more, not less, post-shooting manipulation. The arguments are so absurd that it may be satire that I have somehow missed.

[twmeyer]

I am pleased by two trends in your (sort of) considered responses. That so many find in my postulation a didactic of some sort, does not surprise me... I recognize the tendancy, and salute it with a heel click. hut!<p>I am also pleased that, having so recently visited the distant past and origins of this forum, I recognize some of my old friends from that "bar". Nice to hear from you and I hope this discussion is enjoyable for you. I salute you with a Guiness. Hale! <p>For the polarizers in the crowd, I don't see the need to force anyone to define their work... I find it insightful to consider images in this manner, but really make no valuation from that consideration, other than personal attraction. There's nothing wrong with blonde women; I am more attracted to auburn haired wormen. I have many friends who are blonde. I have had blonde girlfriends before, and my wife may someday dye her hair blonde (doubtful) and so I remain open. <p>As I said, there is potential for honesty and creativity in both (blondes and brunettes - composited and straight!). I see no need to set a hierarchy, nor insist for a declaration. I see an image differently, feel differently about it, and assimilate it's impact on me according to my perceptions of it's making. I like to know how things are done, it's how I learned the things I do. And so I look for clues, insight, learning. Once I have seen that a group of 6 people has not been photographed in one sitting, I will no longer look there for clues on how to light <i>my</i> next group portrait. When I read a new technique on how to knock out a finely detailed background, I will not look there for lighting design insights. When I look at a Pedro Meyer photograph, I think about my dreams, not about group lighting or Photoshop techniques.<p> I wonder what it is that makes some people look for arguments, and others for conversation... t <p>I thought this would end here, but then arose this: What <i>are</i> things like, Jeff? I got a good laugh from that... While I agree that "(things) <i>aren't the same to everyone</i>", I don't think the notion is <i>completely</i> flawed, or even largely flawed. In my most extreme cross cultural/disciplinary contacts, there are far greater realms of shared experience and perception than there are seriously different opinions about what the hell is going on... Now in a war zone I would count on this less, but in a discussion of art or in any interpretive situation, we can easily find similar signifiers even if they are not first tiered, and come to a expansion of perception and value, if not friendsip, insight and knowledge.<p> I am probably best leaving this, here... t<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<i> If I saw a photo of the dog happily lapping up water from a bowl, I would say that is not how it is. If I photoshopped in a mangled body in place of the bowl, then I would find it shows reality.

</i>

<p>

There <i>is</i> a difference between a person's imagination and reality. The difference is that reality can be observed and verified by several observers and instrumentation. Currently, medical imaging is not able to resolve what goes on in someone's imagination, such as that mutilated imaginary person. It might be real to you, in a way, but that is only a part of the reality of what is going on in your head, not the reality of what is happening with the dog, the man, and the bowl. Or are you suggesting the dog also saw the mangled man? How do you conclude that this is the case?

<p>

<i>Who gave you the right to say this to anybody?</i>

<p>

Jeff, I just said that to call something photography, it should be photography. I can't imagine why I should not be allowed to say that!

<p>

What bothers me in some people here is the thorough lack of understanding in what is known about the real, physical world. They think imaginary worlds are just the same as the real world. I hate to break it to you but science moved beyond that three hundred years ago, and common sense a lot earlier than that.

[ilkka_nissila]

Here's something to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

[david_senesac]

Jeff >>>"...Please give an example where someone's attempts have been labeled as ridiculous. Thanks in advance."

As someone posting on various photo forums many years I have regularly seen comments like the below. Some go into a lot more detail as to why of course which others ramble about further down the thread list. You are welcome to plumb the many Google hits on "digital versus film manipulation". Look at is the second post in yet another long loose thread on the subject:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15638&highlight=digital+film+manipulation

===============================================================

Paddy Quinn >>>"...all photogrpahs alter 'reality". Strand got rid of manhole covers that spoiled the composition and at times added other elements that improved it.

 

Big question is, so what? Unless you are documenting scientific work or crime scenes etc it really doesn't matter. The photographs you talk about are "art" in the broadest terms - how they were made is really of little issue.

 

"The camera never lies" has always been the biggest lie of all, from the very first days of the medium.

=================================================================

 

Here's a rather old 1998 photo.net thread that could have been written yesterday:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000Fac

 

A long classic here in photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Qxg

 

Here's a thread where I made a similar post a year ago here near the bottom of the list then the next person tried to make the ignorant statement that Velvia is really the most natural rendering color slide film. A denial attitude which I've seen in the past.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DwUr&tag=

[dickhilker]

Does it matter that photography is a subtractive process whereby we remove reality from the subject by transforming it to two dimensions, change or delete its colors and present it as a thin slice of its former self, whereas other art forms synthesize an image from raw materials and present it as the child of the artist's imagination? Because we use a camera to transform reality into a form of artistic expression, are we saddled with a greater responsibility for "truth" than any other artist who shares a vision with the tools of his medium?