When you move things

[aaron2]

When is it consider unwelcome to arrange things that you are photographing? If you are a journalist photographer, it would probably be considered a sin to do so. If you are shooting documentary, would you move things? If it's art photogaphy, where's the line again. If you are shooting a landscape and some pesky branches blocks your camera, would you shift them aside or chop them off? Would you remove a cigerette butt from an otherwise perfect close-up of some fallen leaves on the ground? Ansel Adams, if I remember reading somewhere, touched up to remove a sign board in one of his landscape prints (correct me if I'm wrong). He was criticized. Eugene Smith altered his photographs in the darkroom. In this beautiful book, High Plains Farm, by Paula Chamlee, some of the interior shots, I believe, are arranged in small ways. This book really reminds me of the great Morris Wright, which I'm not sure if he arranged things. Walker Evans probably don't. I guess my question is is this an ethical, aesthetical or a philosophical issue. Does it change the way viewers look at your work?

[aaron2]

Does it change the way viewers look at your work?

 

<p>

 

Wrong. Should read: Does it change the way viewers perceive the

subject matters?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

[matt_oulman]

I am amazed that you even ask such a question. Unless, of course you

are joking (not out of the question, I suppose)<BR>

Unless you're a news photographer, why in the world would your choice

of subject arrangement even come into question? <BR>

We are talking about photography here, not "20 minutes", for cryin'

out loud!<BR>

There is no ethical mandate that what we shoot, must be exactly as we

found it without alteration! Do you use filters?<BR>

Considering some of the questions you have posted here, may I suggest

a short nap, and a "time-out".

[matt_oulman]

Geez... that sounded terrible!<BR>

What I meant to say, Aaron, is don't worry so much about the ethical,

phylisophical (sp) question! There really are not many.

[pascal_quint]

IMHO, photography can be aimed at two fairly different objectives :

visual testimony or creativity (or both together). If the objective

of the photography is the first ("I was there and my pic is here to

show what happened or how it looks" for informative purposes), I

would believe that moving things can be tantamount to

misrepresentation in extreme cases. Whether this is criticizable or

not depends on the real objective of the information one wants to

convey, and how much the viewer wants, needs or will rely on the

image for making up his mind. For example, if I shoot a nice hotel

within its landscape for a Tour Operator brochure, is it really

unethical and criticizable that I clean up the place and get rid of

cigarette butts in the foreground before ? But in the same example if

I get rid of an ugly building right behing the hotel in Photoshop,

then I guess I'm entering into the world of misrepresentation.

 

<p>

 

On the contrary, when the only purpose of my photography is

creativity, I don't see the reason why the limit of my arranging

things, whether in the field or with the computer, would not be my

imagination.

 

<p>

 

The only difficult issue seems to me where one combines creativity

and information. In such a case, one needs to be very careful in

altering the reality.

 

<p>

 

I don't understand why AA was criticized for removing a sign board in

a landscape. As far as I'm aware, Adams was never trying to "inform"

about the real world, his camera was never intended to be a "medical"

scanner. I think that his concept of previzualisation as such shows

that his approach was everything but informative.

[bill_jefferson1]

Aaron,

Don't move anything, In Vermont, If you cut a branch or tree, you

are liable for it, the home/land owner will seek damages, The

Railroad went after a photographer that cut down a tree on there

property.

[robert_a._zeichner1]

I often carry a spool of cord that I use to tie off branches that are

hanging in my field of view. This way, I don't destroy the landscape

I'm trying to photograph while at the same time making it possible to

get the view I desire. I've been known to "dust over" foot prints with

some fallen brush when these would be a distraction. It doesn't hurt

anything and it makes (in my mind) a better photograph.

[michael_a._smith1]

There is nothing wrong with moving anything if in your opinion it will

make the picture better. In 1967 I moved a couple of rocks in one

picture and in 1975 moved a tree branch. Since then, I haven't had to

do it, although I would if I needed to. For the photographs that Paula

made in High Plains Farm, she did not move anything, ever, except in

the one photograph of all the small photographs. There she took them

out of a drawer and basically threw them on a table. Ther would have

been nothing wrong with her moving anything, but she felt there was an

integrity to photographing everything exactly the way it was.

 

<p>

 

The few times I have tried to move something I've always messed it up.

Seems my creativity comes from a recognition of things, not an

arrangement of them. If I see something I want to photograph, I have

that reaction because I have seen it exactly the way it is. I suspect

it was the same for Paula and her work on High Plains Farm.

 

<p>

 

I once heard of a photographer (don't remember who) who would find

small objects he wanted to photograph and would want to move them. He

found, however, that he could not place them in a way that pleased him

so he would pick up the objects, shut his eyes, spin around three times

and throw it. Then he would go look for it. He said they always landed

better than he could have placed them. (True story.)

 

<p>

 

(His name is Wright Morris, not Morris Wright.)

[ted_kaufman]

I speak from a commercial background where one is expected to provide

as perfect an image as possible. Therefore, I say, whatever you can

do to improve your image--do it! The end result is all that matters.

 

<p>

 

I'm not suggesting you destroy private property--don't chop down the

farmer's tree because it interfers with your landscape (unless you

*really* need to, in which case you convince him of your need and pay

him). But fixing things up--policing cigarette butts, paper scraps,

bottles, smoothing out footprints, removing--or adding--leaves, and

so on will only make your image better. That is your primary

responsibility to yourself. Never fall prey to the fools who claim

it isn't real because you improved the scene. In the end, all that

matters is the image on the wall. And for yourself, in a month or

year or ten, you won't have to look at the image and say, "I really

like this image ... I just wish I had removed that beer can."

[s.k. grimes inc]

I have heard that WeeGee the newspaper photographer who made front

page tabloid photos of dead gangsters on the sidewalk was always sure

to arrange the victims hat so that it appeared casually tossed off on

the sidewalk to edit/increase the shock value of the photo.

 

<p>

 

I have also known in my personal experience a journalist/tabloid

photographer who carried empty beer cans in his kit to place in car

wrecks to punch up the tragic impact of death scene photos just in

case there weren't any actual signs of inebriation at the scene.

 

<p>

 

And all that was way before PhotoShop. :-} SKG

[edsel_adams]

Id agree with the commercial shooter,move what you have to do,rake

the leaves etc.In this type of shooting,perfection is sought in each

detail.I certainly woudlnt shoot an outdoor portrait with garbage or

a cigarette butt in the scene.

[wilhelmn]

In the book, "A.A. at 100," the letters "LP" are clearly visible on

the print of Lone Pine with Horsey. All the prints I've seen in the

past had them retouched out.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>f you are a journalist photographer, it would probably be

considered a sin to do so.</I><P>Quite right. But you can always

crop or move or choose a different lens.<P><I>

If you are shooting documentary, would you move

things?</I><P>Maybe. But you can always crop or move or

choose a different lens.<P><I> If it's art photogaphy, where's the

line again. If you are shooting a landscape and some pesky

branches blocks your camera, would you shift them aside or

chop them off?<P>I might tie it a branch up or move something if

I cannot find a way to incorporate it into my vision out of the way

but I'd never ever lop off a branch Old timers like Adams or

Watkins might have done this in their day, but supposedly we are

intelligent animals who learn from our past collective mistakes

and are now more sophisticated in our understanding of the

effects of our actions on the environment and in not thinking we

are like gods. But you can almost always move your

camera,choose a different lens or of seeing, or crop afterwards

because no one should ever think the framing imposed by a film

format is sacrosanct.<P><I>Would you remove a cigerette butt

from an otherwise perfect close-up of some fallen leaves on the

ground?</I>Absolutely and I'd curse those who think the world is

their ashtray. I have no trouble with people who smoke, just with

those who impose the nastier parts of their habits on

me.<P>Walker Evans cropped like crazy. He was first and

foremost a graphic designer<P> It seems to me that you are

spending way too much energy trying to find excuses; you will

figure these things out as you actually do the work.

[doug_paramore]

I have seen the statement "photography is 90% moving furniture"

attributed to several of our better known photograpers. I certainly

don't have problems with moving a branch, a beer can or a cigarette

butt. At times, I wish I could use a chain saw. Beer cans, dead or

live branches, cigarette butts, etc. are not a permanent part of the

scene before you, and just represent the scene in transition. Leave

them in if you like ugly stuff.

[john_kasaian2]

Aaron, I got Steve Anchell's brochure for his 2002 Anchell

Photography Workshops in the mail. I opened it up and smack at the

very top was a picture of a stream coursing through a pristine forest

in glorious black and white. The lighting was exceptional and

rendered the forest scene with an almost painterly quality. Your

question got me thinking of that photograph because right in the

middle of it(the photo) is one of the most gorgeous women I've ever

seen wearing nothing but a ribbon of fabric which brings me back to

your question. If Mr. Anchell had asked this lass to move her

celestial being out of his shot so as not to interefere with the

intimate landscape, would this create an "issue" concerning the

honesty of the image? Good Luck!

[chad_jarvis1]

</i> Turning off italics.

[john_kasaian2]

Aaron, mea culpa! A lame attempt at humor! (I'll probably figure out

how to get the itallics to go away about the same time I can figure

out how to indent for new paragraphs, please bear with me here) Your

question about moving things around has had me thinking all morning.

Some kinds of photography are inherently more contrived(In my

opinion) Illustrations of products---more noodles than usual in the

soup--cars that are swoopy-ier than in real life--a model's legs that

go from here to there and back again(can't get Anchell's brochure off

my mind, either)--that sort of stuff. The capabilities of the view

camera to distort or alter perspective is a valuable tool(an antique

version of photoshop?) and there is probably not much difference

between the optical "dressing" of a scene and "dressing" a scene by

physically setting up what you're shooting. But I agree there is

something very disturbing about monkeying around with what the

photographer is trying to represent as being true. I know that

taking a three dimensional landscape and putting it on a flat piece

of paper in colors that are pretty close to how you remember them or

how whoever is doing the printing thinks they should be,or B&W, is

not realistic, yet some photography, I feel, has an obligation to be

true to what is "real." The problem may be that the person viewing

the photo really dosen't know what to accept as true. If it weren't

for the long history of "trick" photography one would expect this to

be the spawn of the "digital devil" but it has been with us through

pretty much the entire history of photography. One the other hand, I

don't see things geting any better.I doubt if anyone wants an x-ray

of a tumor, though it is at best an image of a tumor, seen as being

a Tech's "artistic vision" of a tumor. Nor is the finish line photo

of a horse race an 'artistic" creation of the track photographer. Is

a landscape that is photographed with the intent of providing the

truest vision of the photographer all that much different? While

each is subject to a variety of different stimuli and prejudice when

deciding what and how to shoot "Moonrise in a clearing storm over Mt.

Bullwinkle" The viewer more often than not has a childlike trust

that THIS is what it looked like, and it IS glorious and beautiful

and spiritual. I think this is why Chris Burkett goes out of his way

to make it known that his cibachromes are not digitalized. This does

give a detective with photoshop way too much ammunition when he(or

she) says "...I've got pictures to proove it" In a recent book on

fake photography by a former CIA bigwig, I forget the title and

author, he commented that NASA has long held the leading technology

available for photo manipulation for the simple reason that it was

required to illustrate difficult concepts to inform a wide variety of

people of different educations and backgrounds. Illustrations which

couldn't be photographed because the concept would either have taken

place in the future, would have been impossible to photograph because

of enviornmental conditions, or would have entailed the destruction

of a one of a kind piece of equiptment(certainly not a qoute,as I'm

working from memory here, but you get the idea)The result of all this

is that NASA can get a wide crossection of the population to

understand a concept they're trying to sell congress. The downside is

that when somewbody yells "Hey, those lunar landing photos are

fakes!" People take notice(fear not,I'm not going down that trail

here!) Whether looking at photos with a suspiscious eye is a good

thing(or not) is certainly up for arguement, but I feel it takes away

from what I personally am trying to accomplish with landscapes.

Would I pick up someone else's trash? Of course(and I hope not just

because its mucking up my shot) But if I were illustrating an article

on how some hikers are slobs, I'd take the shot first. If I were

illustrating the same article but there was no trash in my neck of

the woods, would I stage it? No! I'd hunt around for a "true"

cigarette butt/coke can/twinkie wrapper etc...If I came across a

forest nyph sunning herself in the middle of my masterpiece "Moonrise

in a clearing storm over Mt. Bullwinkle" would I tell her to get out

of the way? Well, I...uh...uh...geez!

[chris_jordan3]

"The true object of art is not truth, but persuasion."

 

<p>

 

--chinese fortune cookie after lunch last week

[michael_a._smith1]

I never thought of moving things like cigarette butts and beer cans as

really moving anything. Of course, I have done that kind of thing as

needed--also probably moved a twig or two when I needed to. What I took

Aaron's question to mean was moving things so as to more seriously

change what was in front of you.

[aaron2]

Thanks for all your response. Pascal, your reply helped me confirm

which side of the fence I'm on. It clears things up a lot better and

paths a new direction for my next photograph. I learn again. Thanks.

 

<p>

 

Aaron

[aaron2]

In this beautiful book, High Plains Farm, by Paula Chamlee, some of

the interior shots, I believe, are arranged in small ways.

 

<p>

 

Michael, Yes, I actually meant arrangement in small ways like tidying

up thing a little here and there. Not shifting furnitures, etc..

Appreciate the response anyway.

 

<p>

 

Aaron