Just for Fun No C&C will be given: So who gives you the right to call a "manipulated" digital picture a photograph!

So who gives you the right to call a "manipulated" digital picture a photograph!

Maris,

It might be educational, at least, for folk here to be educated on the possibility that we have departed a long way from the pioneers who made it possible to sensitize a prepared flat surface to allow light from an image focused by a tiny opening or lens to leave its mark as an image. Your recent post in photo.net is helpful in this respect.

Maris Rusis said:

It's manipulation all right but it isn't manipulation of the photographic process. Basically it is a cut 'n paste job that can be done with any photographs, drawings, paintings, whatever.

There is a difference between a person who makes a photograph, a photographer and a person who makes things out of photographs, a photographist . The famous American critic Arthur C. Danto has pointed out how often photographism is mistaken for photography .

The Wikipedia article about Roger Fenton moving cannon balls in Crimea is another example that shows how easily manipulation of subject matter can be confused with manipulation of photography .

In principle, photography does not lie, but liars may offer non-photographic lookalikes in order to deceive. An even stronger view suggests that photographs cannot, even in principle, be manipulated without ceasing to be photographs. A photograph occurs when a sample of subject matter penetrates a sensitive surface and occasions the picture forming marks in it. There is no room for a manipulators hand to get into this process. And if picture forming marks are fudged in by some external stratagem then the darn picture isn't a photograph anyway.

Click to expand...

Terms:

Manipulation: I hate the term, since it has negative connotations. I'd use processing, work, development, masking, contrast adjustment and other specific terms.

Photographist: An interesting and probably accurate term for those who use photographs or parts of them to make something else. However, it breaks down when we overlay or cut up negatives and put them in the enlarger together and expose a new sheet of paper!

Maris Rusis said:

And if picture forming marks are fudged in by some external stratagem then the darn picture isn't a photograph anyway.

Click to expand...

So if one uses a card to dodge or rub more fresh developer on the slowly appearing ghost of some object on the film, then what? I could call all this manipulation!

Modern Definition of Photography: Photography cannot be fairly defined as an end of the road creative process that was completed once silver could be precipitated on to the fibers of a sensitized photopaper in the early 20th Century. I propose the following working definition that respects where photography started and celebrates where it might go in the future:


It is not, in itself, "the truth" or some representation of the truth. That requires many controls, strict record taking, several cameras, witnesses, chemical and movement sensors perhaps and a whole lot more aids. Photography, outside of strict documentation, then, is just for spreading likeness of things, enjoying or musing about. It's not some religious doctrine. However, where I do concur with you is that it's somewhat dishonest to represent a digital photograph as being a silver gelatin photograph, even if it's printed chemically.

Even where I feel your words are extreme, your stance does serve the need to raise the flag of classical chemically-developed photography. That's the furnace where the standards of fine photography were formed and from which the concepts and quality, craft and expression were annealed with so much sacrifice. All of the pioneers shared imagination, devotion, insight, skill, craftsmanship and a stoic long term commitment. That's the simple way to making awesome pictures. Not to know about this foundation leaves us unprepared as we can go in our own journeys. It's the compass we need to guide our own explorations.

So Maris, keep on with your positions. I learn from your writing and find your photography, (as scant and tiny as I have seen), remarkable in quality and originality.

Asher

Once more unto the breach dear friend, once more


Whilst Maris is firmly committed to silver halide based recording, almost eveerything he says is aequallyapplicable to digital recording. I've been thinking about this a little and think the key is rooted in traditional silver photography and the lens (or pinhole or zoneplate) projected image and how it is recorded by the sensor (and the repeat process if scanned or optically enlarged). If you then take your digital file, or your sheet of film, and start moving object around or removing or replacing them, or adding new objects then you cease to have a photograph. So this allows local doge burn, colour adjustment, contrast adjustment - all globally based but maskable traditionally and now. Also, spotting dust is sensible.

You may have a fulfilling piece of art (which is fine as that's normally the intent), but this should probably be called something else - most artists would not object to this unlike many photographers.

This is said without value judgement, but does it matter? In my view it does matter if you value the uses of photography to report. Clearly, moving canonballs was designed to obtain an effect and not necessarily to convey the original scene before the camera - in this case we have a photograph that lies rather than photographic based art that lies (this is different from saying a photo tells the truth -the lie is active in intent), but in principle can be seen to dilute confidence in photo journalism to inform us about anything. This is now a significant problem in that field.

Further, even our sense of our own reality has become increasingly distorted with the desire for heavily retouched portraits and wedding shoots etc that, whilst they may be complemnetary, do not bear close comparison with original (sadly!). This was once the province of kings, but is now for everyman.

Oh and does digital change this or matter. Yes, in my view it does to the extent that it and its tools have made this far easier to achieve invisibly and far more commonplace. The amateur photo rags in the UK champion these approaches, but they seem like the quick fixes for those who do not have the patience to produce meaningful work within the boundaries or are not willing to simply say I am an artist who bases my work on photography, but this is not a photograph. (I admit I have the odd 'not a photograph')

Just a few thoughts to throw into the maelstrom.

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

Further, even our sense of our own reality has become increasingly distorted with the desire for heavily retouched portraits and wedding shoots etc that, whilst they may be complemnetary, do not bear close comparison with original (sadly!). This was once the province of kings, but is now for everyman.

Click to expand...

You hit on a major point. And it's sure, photographs do not represent reality, rather they are a way of talking in which one might raise ones voice, speak in whisper, with a sarcastic delivery, singing the words or stuttering. The photograph is not some part of a holy manuscript, rather its for amusing us, activating our senses like a call for help or a suggestion for romance. So it's unimportant whether or not one changes things, just that the delivery is agreeable and not a deception with malicious intent.

I have no issue with lessening the photo's sharp representation of anything unsavory, like hairs on a lip, lines on the neck or a mole on her cleavage. Why? We do not have the social permission to stare at these things anyway, so it's good manners to modulate the expression. We don't say, don't stare at the guys big ears, rather we take the picture such that it's not made over obvious. I clone parts of a dress to make the lady look less aggressive and cheap and that's appreciated. People don't have to be shown as they really were that night with their gut coming out of their pants! Photography is a very intrusive way of looking at folk and bypasses the social rules against staring. So a good photographer brings back the social norms and protects people's sense of themselves. If everything was shown accurately, event pictures would bring back the worst memories!

Like talk, we want photography to contain and allow entertainment, esthetic experience, joy and the like, but not deceit.

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

It is not, in itself, "the truth" or some representation of the truth.

Click to expand...

Indeed, only rarely is it possible to have "the truth". We cannot even "truthfully" express the length of a steel bar, or the current air temperature. Is it 76.0175392° F? We can unequivocally say no, it is not.

The only cases in which we can hope to have a truthful representation is where the actual real information is discrete. Does the earth's moon exist? Yes. That is very likely the truth.

No matter what strict controls we may impose on the recording of an image, and its subsequent handling, in a forensic or photogrammetric context, and no matter how we delimit what properties of the "object" we claim to be interested in representing, the representation will be imperfect.

Many representations are "close enough" for some understood purpose (including the outside air temperature, at a particular point in space, as reported by my little weather station to a precision of 0.1° F and an accuracy of perhaps ±0.3° F).

But let's not delude ourselves that what were are normally dealing with in photography (whatever that is) is, in any absolute sense, the "truth".

None of this is to minimize the important issues being discussed in this thread. But we must be cautious in the terms we adopt to describe various notions.

Best regards,

Doug

Having said all of the above, I do feel that Maris Rusis is right in staking the highest ground for film based photography. Such dedication and focus helps to maintain our photographic heritage. We need that capability: cyanotype, albumin, salt, silver halides platinum and gold to create images that will impress us. After all, these classical photographs have still no peers in their distinct character and quality.

Whenever someone buys film or the chemicals for such work, they help sustain a valuable capability. Thank goodness there are still those who appreciate such original quality.

Asher

.................

I didnt read the entire above comments as i will go back an do so when i have time...This is something i feel very strongly about...

A photographer takes a image of whats there, makes simple adjustments to light and contrast of the image....When you start adding things to a picture like you can add clouds or fog or what ever THATS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY....Thats digital art...Peroid....Like HDR images...Thats digital art and most of the time they look freakish and do not have the right tonal range.

The Pentax K20D has a HDR system built into it and does it all on board...I have never used it nor do i intend to but as cameras progress theres more and more on them thats NOT photography like the new Pentax that can also shoot video....Soon you will also be able to make calls with your camera and i can hear someone now, "could you hold on a minute my camera is ringing"..........

Soon you will be able to take a picture and right in the camera add fog or add a sunset and people will be saying hey look at the great picture i took....Photoshops become like steriods with photography...People are heavily photoshoping images and then saying noooo thats about how i shot it just like that....

Or is HDR considered manipulation???.....

Delusions about PHOTOGRAPHY

ErikJonas said:

A photographer takes a image of whats there, makes simple adjustments to light and contrast of the image....

Click to expand...

At that point, Erik, (and anyone who happens to think photography is some pure process handed down my some prophet), you have already removed your picture further from an aspect of the truth of what was imaged. There is no escaping that photography is mostly an entertainment and when used as education, art or commerce might stimulate the brain to explore new possibilities. There is no requirement for precision unless you start off with that need or want yourself.

If you choose to photograph a scene, as Alain Briot did, here, with a wide angle lens, and utterly distort the reality of the place to serve the purposes of "photasmic" experience, then go ahead and you will have a great photograph. No rules should be a barrier, except deception for some malicious or illegal purpose. It's delusional to place your use of a camera with select electronic controls as any less "manipulative", (a word I hate), than cutting up a picture, overlaying it with jam, sprinkling on it dead flies and photographing it again with a disposable pinhole camera! Thinking so limits where one can travel to as a creative person. moreover, it's likely delusional and, if you think about it, and still persist that way, even intellectually dishonest!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

than cutting up a picture, overlaying it with jam, sprinkling on it dead flies and photographing it again with a disposable pinhole camera.
Asher

Click to expand...

ummmmmm this is something you did isnt Asher????

What do we mean by photography here on OPF?

ErikJonas said:

When you start adding things to a picture like you can add clouds or fog or what ever THATS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY....Thats digital art...Peroid....Like HDR images...Thats digital art and most of the time they look freakish and do not have the right tonal range.

Click to expand...

Erik,

Photography is a process towards getting images, in whole and in part, generally from light off an object in front of an aperture, through a sequential series of processes. Each of these steps offer potential for creative input. In the end, this results in a derived picture, maybe with a recognition of that original subject, that can be shown to people. It has to be stable for some time long enough to be experienced. It should, (at least for our interest here) induce, (to some extent), emotive or other reactions.

We may find such a picture agreeable, offensive or informative, but none of these are required of a photograph. There may be just confrontation. The photograph could have educational or other impact. Outside of documentation, it's the photographs impact on human feelings, thought, ideas, intellect, culture, values, amusement or other such numerous possibilities that interest us here in OPF. That's the tour bus we are in! However, neither the stratagem used, the material exploited, nor the fidelity to some truth constitute a priori conditions for making such the variously produced images making it as "photographs" to be called as such or to be treasured and shared.

Still, each photograph, can at the designers wish, whim or needs, have self-imposed constraints. Those of scientific, news and documentary photography are self-evident. So, is the honesty required in describing the provenance of the artistic origins of a work claimed to be one's own, made of film or involving the age of models.

Make platinum prints, and all we expect is that. We have no need to know that you removed two leaves in the bottom left corner. And when, under the full power of the mid-day sun, grannie holds her HP Digicam, (with a Texas instrument's chip that tames the glare and builds up the poorly lit areas), and reveals the kittens' hiding in the shadows, that will still be a photograph. Indeed, it might be better than many posted on the web! After all, she has many more years of culture and insight to guide her choices of "from where" and "to what" to point her magic $100 camera.

If a machine adds a sunset sky, instead, then that's what it will be. The question really is not what it "is" but what it does to us or what significance we might find in or though it.

So define your own rules for you own work and go along that path. If we understand it, we can comment.

Asher

ErikJonas said:

A photographer takes a image of whats there, makes simple adjustments to light and contrast of the image....When you start adding things to a picture like you can add clouds or fog or what ever THATS NOT PHOTOGRAPHY....Thats digital art....PERIOD

Click to expand...

Hi Erik,

Things are not that black and white. The "manipulation" of the captured image begins before the light even hits the film or sensor, and continues well past that moment. The photographer can manipulate the resulting image in many ways well before he or she gets to the post-processing stage:

• Choice of lens (any other than a "normal" lens will appear different to our own perception)
• Choice of exposure (this can make a big difference to the final image)
• Depth of field (something we can't control using our eyes)

For the traditionalists, we then have:

• Choice of film (can dramatically change the look of the image)
• Choice of colour or black and white
• Development techniques applied to the film
• Creation of the print, dodging, burning, etc.

At this point a photographer may go further using digital methods. Digital post processing may be limited to simple manipulations or pushed to more complex tasks (object removal etc).

The point at which a photographer decides to go no further in terms of manipulation must be a personal one but in all cases there's a certain level of manipulation going on.

So my point is this: all photographs are the result of a decision making process that will alter the resulting image. I therefore do not concur at all with your statement suggesting that there is a distinct point at which a photograph becomes "digital" art; each photographer will have their own self-imposed limits, such is the freedom of the art. While I will agree that there are images which are no longer "true" photographs, the transition into this category is very blurred.

Tim

I shoot sheet film, and I shoot digital. I get tired of people saying that digital photographs are not "photographs". I think it's just old grumpy film guys not willing to accept a new medium of photography.

Manipulation has always been there in photography, Joseph Stalin and other political figures have had photographs painted to show what they wanted to show (or not show what they didn't want to show) back in "the film days", just as journalists today have painted/cloned digital photographs today in "the digital days". Just because it might be easier to do digitally, doesn't mean it's any less of a photograph. And some of the paint jobs I've seen in classic film photographs are quite alot better than some of the newer journalist's hack jobs with the clone brush, haha! They don't even take the time to do it good.

I don't shoot digital or film to please anyone but myself, but I do get tired of hearing people say that digital is not photography (and also folks that say film is dead)