Image manipulation, ethics and all.

[c.taylor]

These comments are facinating to me - i'm grateful for forums such as this, but I disagree

with many of you. SO many of you use negative terminology when describing photo

compositing, photo manipulation, and photo montage. Why such fear of this developing

form of imagery? It is no less valuable, nor less intriguing than a so called documentary

image or so called photojournalism. I have a great many years experience in both "pure"

photography and photo manipulation and I have to say it is MUCH harder for me to do

photo manipulation well than to do documentary photography well. Photo documentation

is based in timing, connections with the place and subject matter, as well as simply having

the balls to put ones self into situations - one is expected to record what is there. Photo

manipulation also can involve all of those things, and some. Photojournalim is about

sparking emotion in a viewer that is matched up narratively with text. Documentary is

about showing a story in order so that people can read a conclusion from it. Photo

manipulation is about visualizing an idea - a concept. That idea can then be matched with

text or stand on its own. Coming up with that concept from scratch is a HUGE challenge

and that is why i grew into that form as my personal favorite to use photography for. My

subject is not given to me, i must make it. In my work I on photo compositing and what

some may call manipulations. I still work in editorial and some documentary on occasion,

but I prefer conceptual. I love all the forms of photography and respect each equally and

dont ALWAYS manipulate an image, but i have such a respect for the transition and growth

in imagery today that i cannot say a photo compositor is "less than". Whether we like it or

not, the audience has changed. Photojournalism and documentary were never as "real" as

people try to preach. Black and white? Hello! How REAL is that? Dodging, burning, grain,

darkroom compositing, multiple exposures - the list goes on. If you were ever proficient

in the darkroom then you know everything you do in Photoshop you can do in a

"traditional" darkroom. Photoshop is based on a tradition darkroom and simply faster -

but the techinques are not easy. Even a hack can print a B&W image, as even a hack can

use a filter in Photoshop. There is ALOT more to creating images than knowing the basics.

You know when 35mm hit the market, photojournalists and documentary photogs were

using 4x5's and they were posing everything to some degree.... Whats that all about? In

the beginning of 35mm they freaked out - HATED it - said is was less real, less technical,

- "LESS THAN". As a community we must embrace and see that digital is the future and

the present... analog is novelty. Analog is an artistic choice, just as is color. I still love it,

still shoot it at times, still respect it - but I'm telling you not an established newspaper in

the world is using it, nor are most contemporary photogs, the best art schools, nor the

most creative magazines, and the commercial home user wont be for much longer either.

So we may as well appreciate hard work where its placed and stop clinging to the past

definitions of what is real. What is real? Is an idea not real? An idea is equal to a moment

in time. Yes - they are two differenet things. Two different things that deserve support.

[j_robinson2]

"Why such fear of this developing form of imagery?"

 

There is no fear of a developing form of imagery. There is a real disgust at those who manipulate by changing what is there, not the normal burning/dodging/exposure/lens selection... and then passing it off as what really happened.

 

It is dishonest. National Geo moving a pyramid. News photogs putting two images together to make a more powerful image. Making photos you WISH you had taken rather than what you DID take and failing to label them as such is the lie.

Same as passing off zoo & game farm photos as being in the wild. Lying is what it is and it just ain't Kosher.