Image manipulation, ethics and all.

[bobatkins]

I don't think the music analogy holds up. There never was and never

can be any depiction of reality in music, whereas there is in

photography. I guess the closest analogy would be between two CDs,

one of bird songs recorded in the field, one of bird songs digitally

created in the audio lab. Which would you buy, and would you feel

cheated if the digitally created CD was sold with no label that it

was a "digital creation"?

[dan_smith]

Ours is a craft and art that has been the playground of the image thief since day 1. Digital makes it easier for those with limited vision to steal the creative ideas and works of others. Digital as a tool is just fine but I go with Bob on this, Label the darn things and do it in very big letters. As others have pointed out many are looking at excellent natural images and automatically classing them in the catagory of FAKES, thanks in no small part to National Geographic and their Great Pyramid fiasco and the OJ Simpson cover shot farce. Take this months RANGEFINDER cover as a good example-digital fakery.

For those who don't have the talent, work ethic or drive to get the images the computer will become an everyday tool. With a history of image theft already open many will use the computer scanner to take from others images and create their "own" photos. Theft is theft but this type of stealing will be thought of by many as harmless, just as the slimball artist Koons was defended by some major art magazines for stealing Art Rodgers "string of puppies" image and having it made into a woodcarving. Luckily many rallied behind Art Rodgers and Koons had to eat S*** in court and pay out for his dishonesty.

But, how dishonest is the "photographer" who steals from others images and manipulates them. From the smarmy jerks who out & out copy others styles to the photofreaks who walk the parks & monuments with books of real photographers in hand and, book in hand, try lenses on the camera to duplicate the views in print.

The computer is only one more tool in the hands of the creative and one more means of theft for those who won't develop their own creativity.

FoundView has a good idea whether we all agree with it or not. I don't know if the symbol will really mean anything or even catch on, but the idea is good. But either way, computer manipulation is here to stay and as we go on what is now thought dishonest will, in time, become accepted by a certain segment of our craft. But as always there will be those few who will still do it with style, grace and talent and pursue images honestly.

[steve_fletcher]

I didin't raise the music analogy as a complete analogy, only as an analogy for the way in which society will deal with digital photo manipulation. There are lots of ways to establish the credentials of a photographer and the integrity of a photograph. Does the pro in question travel to all the places they claim their work was taken? How long did it take them to produce the images (i.e. is there routinely lag time with certain shooters while they manipulate their work before turning it over to editors)? Sure, there'll be a few fakes get through, but eventually procedures will be put in place that control this just fine. You can't manipulate images with your mental thought power (thank goodness!), so it all comes down to good old fashioned work, and how someone hides the extra cheating work they are doing. Market forces will drive the trend. Witness how people are again paying high prices for vinyl music recordings because they are rare and now seen to have more "visceral resonance" than cheap digital crap, ah, I mean, CDs. Real photos will (perhaps already do, as some pointed out) have more value in the long run.

[harry_arnold]

In reading the mass of words generated by a question on ethics, it

seems obvious that the photographer must be honest about the origins

of a specific picture or group of pictures. This will allow the

purists to concentrate on "unaltered" images and the changelings to

seek out more "perfect" images. A famous nature photographer spends

years living among wild animals until they become tame around him/her.

A production company photographs wild animals almonst entirely in

simulated or replicated habitat studio settings. Someone else takes a

single image and makes 101 dogs out of it. Then there are the

electronically generated dinosaurs and giant apes that never existed

at all.

 

<p>

 

Artisticly, it doesn't matter how the image is created.

Sociologically, it matters whether we are able to know what is real

and what is imagined. Ethically, it matters if someone deliberately

tries to mislead or lies about the origins of a picture.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Harry, of course it matters. It always will. All of those folks who

say that authenticity does not matter need to take a good course in

marketing and ethics. How may of us (including the digital imaging

crowd) would be happy if we found out that we had just paid for a

natural pearl and recieved a cultured pearl in its place. Afterall

they are both pearls, right? Sure!!!!

[jana_mullerova1]

Hm, may be I am depressed but - got this creepy feeling that ethics is becoming a funny old thing, and will disappear adventurely (cca when today's kids have grown up)... And, as everything else, will be replaced by marketing values. Perhaps the genuinness of a picture will become recognized as a value by snobs, thus marketable and admirable. (Any analogy with mom's apple pie and junk food is purely incidental.)

[david_w._griffin]

Unless you are trying to persuade or document, I don't see

that "authenticity" if it exists has any value at all. After

all, art is art, whether you use paint, sculpture, photography,

or some combination. We all use the medium to distort reality

to match an artistic vision. What difference does it make how

it is achieved?

 

Ok, if you're taking pictures for the Audubon society as part

of an effort to determine if the Siberian tiger is endangered,

then authenticity is important and there should be rules about

what is ok. If you're taking pictures as evidence of a crime

in a court proceeding, ditto. But unless you have a good reason

for needing authenticity, why worry about it. It seems to be

mostly an illusion anyway given the subtle ways photographers

influence their creations.

 

Indeed, rather than demanding labels on photographs when they

are "manipulated" whatever that means, why not ask for them

on photographs which proport to document reality -- why not

ask those photographers for their rules? Why not assume that

a photograph you're looking at is art unless you see some

caption indicating otherwise. At that point, whether you believe

the caption would depend on what you know about the person

who took the picture and/or wrote the caption. Isn't that as

it should be?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Lets look at a real world example: Art Wolfe is currently a spokesman for Canon. he is shilling the accuracy of the smart metering system of the EOS-3 in double page ads in photo magazines everywhere.</P>

Art Wolfe is already well known for his willingness to doctor his wildlife photos.</P>

The dd shows a very red faced Japanese Snow Monkey bathing in a hot spring. I have never seen a live snow money but I have seen plenty of photos of them over the years, and I have never, ever seen one with a bright scarlet face.</P>

So this begs the question: Is this photo a fake? If he did retouch (or alter) thephoto in Photoshop or some such program, what else was altered?</P>

Maybe the contrast curves or the density of other parts of the image so that the image reproduced appears to have been better exposed than the original actually was?</P>

Doesn't this mean that we can't trust Canon to be telling the truth?</P>

I am hardly a purist, I love the ability Photoshop gives me to improve photos, but I really think there is such a thing as false advertising and that it is damaging. On basic human levels I believe that knowing the "truth will set you free." And I hate to see the skein of lies get further cast over the way we perceive the state of the natural world.</P> From my brief experiences with Canon EOS equipment I think it is fantastic stuff, so this is certainly not a Canon vs. Nikon flame, and I am not in the least concerned with Mr. Wolfe's success, so you can count jealousy out as a motive for my writing.</P> But I think Canon can find a better spokesperson than Art Wolfe.</P> End of rant.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Sorry Pete but I needed to correct myself: the following sentence,</P> "Doesn't this mean that we can't trust Canon to be telling the truth?"</P>should have read:</P>"<I>Does</I> this mean that we can't trust Canon to be telling the truth?"</P>

Sorry for the confusion.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Wait a minute Ellis! In the Canon ad AW clearly states that he is now getting shots he could not get before he switched gear. Obvously, that proves that it is the camera that takes the picture, not the photographer.

[jeff_loffert]

The answer to this whole debate is quite simple(to me!). If you are ashamed to state what you have done, i.e. digitally manipulated an original,used captives, etc.. then what you have done is wrong! It seems that all the excuses are being made by those who alter without being forthright about it. Nuff said.

[nsphotography]

Can I begin by saying although I did not manage to read through all of the responses, I read enough to decide to add my two sense for what is worth.

A lot has been stated about that which is "real" verses that which is

"un-real". I would like to question then the use of Fuji Velvia. Maybe I am diffrent from most but I am almost sure that my pictures come back with a deeper blue sky then I remember seing...not to mention all of the other colors more vibrant then I have aver seen anywhere.

I have no answers and probably more questions but in our quest for purity in our work lets not loose the fact that a photographer is a artist and the final print or slide his art.

[mark_lagrange]

Hey gang . . . first timer. If the site is good enough for Morris and Graf, I must be in the right place.

 

Ahhhh, the the computer manipulation debate. This one will be with us for a while. While holding my nose I start to participate in the digital world of photography. ... and I mean holding it tight! I suspect we nature photographers have such a hard time with this because our own personal history and heritage of nature photographers gone by. Ingrained in us is the respectful observance and sharing of what God has created naturally. This is quite different from our cousins of the portrait world who have now graduated to the studio groomed world of "Glamour Shots". Surely those Sports Illustrated bikini touting models pout that lip an stare in your eyes...in the natural "real" world. The point is nature photographers are a breed that has a deep appreciation for that which exists in the nature/natural state. I expect that we will continue to have progressively more problems with this slippery slope area of digital manipulation. By definition of the word NATUR-AL, we SHOULD have a problem. If our goal is commercial, we will have to bend to compete. But to the non-commercial purist who I believe there are many, you don't have to bend. Take heart and be proud of the moment you captured....no matter the imperfection. Indeed, God did not create us perfect. At least not me ... in case you were wondering.

 

So to the point...my opinion...digital manipulation is here to stay. Holding my nose I will explore it. But my answer to the debate is in agreement with JEFF LOFFERT, NOVEMBER 14, 1999. If you manipulate, just say so. Tell your audience what you have done. Jeff is right: If you are ashamed to state what you have done, then what you have done is wrong. Yes it does seem that the excuses and compromises are being made by those who alter without being forthright about it. If your manipulation is art, stand up and sign your masterpiece.

 

Whew!!!! Mark LaGrange, March 20, 2000

[lightandglass]

With photography we limit what gets seen by introducing borders to what lays before our eyes. This very act is, in itself, manipulation. Never mind how filters, computers, film, etc. render the view before your eyes and whether that should be 'labled' or 'signed'. Who considers what might lay beyond the borders of an image? Painting? Not giving consideration for what lays beyond those introduced borders can create misconceptions about the very thing inside the borders. Context. Accept the fact that what you are viewing is not 'truth' and everything will be fine. Take the images as you would any other rendering and don't worry too much about how 'REAL' it is.

[mark_lagrange]

Geez Alan! It is exactly the fact that what nature photography records has its basis in reality of the natural world that attracts me to it. To accept unreality, as you suggest, would be depressing. I refuse!

[shy_sua]

So...everyone has obviously pointed out things that don't apply to the question...

missing the point people

:)

[birds so fine]

I am an artist with photography as my medium. I believe I have all the artistic rights, short of fraud, due any artist; the Bill of Rights ensures me of my right to freedom of expression and use of my full knowledge, skills, and tools without having to defensively write disclaimers concerning my authenticity.<div></div>

[will_woodard2]

In one of my previous lives I worked on high-end stereo speaker systems. The goal was to reproduce the actual sound that was initially recorded in your own living room. For various reasons, this is technically impossible. So we had to make a series of trade-offs to present a convincing illusion of reality.

 

I think there is a strong correlation to photography. The instant you trip the shutter, you have manipulated reality - you have squished a 3-D scene onto a 2-D page. Losing an entire dimension I think would count as image manipulation!

 

The question is then, how far down this road do you feel you can go. It's a moral issue really - are you telling the truth, or are you fibbing?

 

No one would begruge you the 3-D to 2-D manipulation - its implicit in the medium and is clear to all concerned. But if, as in the famous National Geographic cover, you move the pyramids closer together to better fit into the size of the cover, then you are mis-representing reality, I think. (www.willwoodard.com)

[steve_hovland]

I think that the energy of a manipulated image is different, and so the effect of the picture will be different.

 

I think that a lot of the power of still photography comes from its ability to record "reality."

 

That power can become diluted when you manipulate an image too much.

 

And I think the power of an image is affected more by what goes on before you trip the shutter than by what happens after.

[tom_morris1]

Okay - do you use a darkroom? That's manipulation.

Digital manipulation (through programs like Adobe Photoshop and Corel Photo-Paint) are manipulation too.

 

What's the problem?

[pete_su]

Hey look, 5 years after the fact, the technique has been automatted

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/DRI/index.html

[mark_clifton_griffin]

I like this technique. I don't have the automated software referenced above though. I really think that the only tricky thing is aligning the two images using two layers in photoshop. I don't know enough about the automated software to know if it automates that part of the process. Having the computer do the alignemt would seem to require a little AI. I did this by eye in photoshop 6.0 and as an example I can offer http://www.photo.net/photo/885434

[jonathan_bundick]

(1) One would have to read their comments on the subject.

 

(2) Yes.

 

(3) Yes.

 

Digital manipulation may be art, but it is not photography. Show your skill and attempt to put as close to the final print on film at the time of exposure.

[kahonease]

The newbie smells dogma; and not thinking from head, rather - The Knights Who Go: knee.

 

Respectfully -Newbie Kahonease

[jim_g.1]

If an image is altered at all then it has been manipulated. The only difference in digital and film is the amount of chemicals used. PhotoShop, Corel, and all the rest are nothing more than a digital darkroom. The question of ethics only comes up if the photographer represents the work as "untouched". If any of us could manage to capture the perfect photograph every time then we would all be running around with instamatics. I for one am thankful for the "digital darkroom" and will continue using it in virtually every shot I plan on showing.