I have recently listened to one-too-many conversations about the manipulation of photographs and what people think is right and wrong. One person actually wanted to give a different name, or term to a manipulated photograph. I suspect, for the most part, the majority of people really don't care, or are not aware of stuff like this, and perhaps the conversations stem from a minority of persons who are... well, perhaps obsessed with it(?), and the fact that it just doesn't fit into their view of how the world should be. The "reality" of the moment, in their eyes, is destroyed by the manipulation. So if we back up to before there were photos, artists painted. They painted art - and many forms of art look nothing like what was supposed to be the original. Artists like Robert Bateman and Ken Danby (my favorites) had a knack for being able to make things look pretty realistic, but many others - not so much. Along came photographs, where you could capture - dare I say it... a decisive moment! But film was also used by "artists" to depict many things. People used film to "create" art, where art is their vision. To these so-called purists, this is apparently okay to do. To start with, transferring a scene that is three dimensional to a two-dimensional photograph is in its essence - modifying the original scene... Oh - but that doesn't count. And I guess, your positioning (low vantage point, high vantage point etc... shouldn't count either then. And of course, using a flash... well, that's perfectly "legal", since lightning happens all the time randomly - okay... we'll let that one go too. When you printed in the darkroom, there was always (well mostly always... well, I was certainly shown how to) burning, and dodging and cropping and exposure control, and this technically constitutes a modification from the originally shot photo. Is this manipulation? Ummm, well, maybe not. And programs like Photoshop have artistic filters that severely modify the shot - well, that's ok too - since now we're back into creating "art" for art's sake. So - that takes care of photos for art's sake, for now (I think). Next? Documentary photos, photojournalism! Here - there is probably a huge case for depicting reality as it is. Okay, except for supermarket tabloids ( if you haven't already, check out http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/52-worst-photoshop-mistakes-in-magazines/ for some really funny examples of poorly manipulated photos). In a documentary, or photojournalistic shot - the theory is that you are trying to tell a story with photographs. And therein lies the problem. Yes - what is shown in the photograph may be exactly what was seen then and there - but is it relevant to the story, or is the story correctly stated? In my photojournalism class, there was a photo shown to the class during the lesson on 'captioning'. The photo was of Queen Elizabeth on a train, with a little girl handing her flowers - a visit to Canada, clearly a young child handing her a bouquet.... one of my classmates tossed out a possible caption: "Old lady steals flowers from child". The point is, it's not just the photographs that need to tell the truth here. Ok, so we can manipulate if it's for art, but not if it's for documentary, or for journalism. Both are still considered photography. It is only the application of such photos which determine whether it's appropriate or not to manipulate. I will be honest - I manipulate photos all the time. When I do product shots - I can work with an incomplete product picture and use photoshop to make the photo - no... the PICTURE... look like what the final product will look like. This way, I can create the brochures in advance, so we can sell the product. I don't consider this to be "illegal". And once upon a time, I happened upon an owl in a tree. When I stopped and got the camera out - he was gone. I had a vision, however.... and, well, the photo I ended up with was of my vision. It didn't actually happen that way on that particular day. Thing is - it did happen. Is it wrong? If it is wrong - then Lets debate whether camera traps are really photography or not (another day). Back to creating pictures from photographs - manipulation. Is there such a thing as too much? Does it really matter? Seriously-HDR'd images don't particularly turn me on - in fact, when they win contests where I think they shouldn't, it upsets me, but I do have the option to not look at them (and have stopped entering those contests). If, as a purist, you disagree with manipulation when a photo is turned into an artistic picture - just look away. After all, you would turn the radio station if you didn't like the song, or change the channel if you didn't like the show. And for the rest of us - unless you SHOULD be telling the truth in your photos (like a journalist SHOULD) - then manipulate to your heart's content.
1 Comment
I came across a couple of sites with some cool instructional videos - and one in particular - B&H Video:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA2A7966A44E77011 Enjoy... I love to listen to podcasts about photography. There are so many different topics on the matter that there's always a different angle to be heard. It combines artistry with technical gadgets, it's got, it's got...well, you can't ask for anything better. That said, photography has more than its share of purists and orthodox strains and it can be fun to listen to all the viewpoints. However, there are some things that are said that are just... wrong. There are things that when stated in the context of a podcast (where two or more presumed 'experts' on the subject are expressing the state of the art, so-to-speak) that make these people sound silly. Here are a couple of things that just shouldn't be said: "The folks over at..." Hey, unless you actually know all the folks over at (Nikon, Canon etc..), then don't talk about them as if they are "Folk". And - if you know someone there, then mention them by name. This term is often used in the context of the design of a product not meeting a certain criteria and our so-called "folks" are not doing what we'd like them to do. I've worked on the deign side of products for many years, and trust me - we "folks" don't leave out features, or include features without a real plan behind it (at least - not normally). There's product obsolescence, marketing hierarchies, excess inventory, futher testing... all leading to the company making some semblance of profit. The design team, and the marketing team are not our "folks". They may indeed sympathize with us the consumer of their products, but they are under a directive. On the other hand - if you do personally know someone 'over at..', then bring him on the show and interview him. Introduce him or her to all of us, so that we can all consider them as 'folks'. "Film is making a comeback" Uhhh, NO it's not. Film is actually being forgotten. I firmly believe that students of photography should have film in their curriculum in order to learn the craft properly. They should learn it as part of the history of photography - not just the recent film technology, but all the way back to the beginnings of capturing light. That they might want to take what they learn and apply it to creating their vision is great. I'm certain that there are quite a few photographers who are still using, or are just starting to explore the use of film. But whoa guys... film ain't makin a comeback. Not even close. Digital cameras are everywhere. Sure - they are mostly use in the snapshot arena, but still - when it comes to producing something greater than a snapshot - digital took the lead a few years ago, and is gaining fast. There's way more research going on in digital imaging than in film (this is just an assumption - but I think it's a qualified one) for the purposes of photography. And don't get me wrong. Film is great. It should NOT be forgotten. Film is how I got hooked. Watching a print in a developing bath as the image appears is absolutely amazing. Every single time I developed a print, I was amazed. The techniques and the challenges are unique and the term "fix it in post" is a much more daunting proposition with a REAL darkroom. But, sorry - no comeback. Oh - and if anyone disagrees with me I do happen to have a sweet little Minolta X700 for sale. |
John T."Photographs capture my viewpoint - based on my place on this planet, where I've been and who I am. If you 'get it' then you've been there too, either in mind, body, heart or soul." Also see the "EauPositivePhotography" pages for other stuff
Archives
May 2024
Categories |