TIF, The Truth in Photography" movement, how far does it influence you?

Dierk,

A good illustration. Yes it is a conceit! Not in the derogatory sense of "conceited" or narcisisistic, rather it's a style or approach to a subject. Yes, inherent in the projected meaning of TIF is the value of "truth". This "Truth" is coherent I presume, with the "ideal" of "not lying" by manipulating" the photograph so it represents more of what an artist would do with a blank canvass than an "objective", "unbiased" observer simply releasing the shutter and exposing film/sensor.

Of course, all the fingerprints of each of the multitude of decisions the TIF photographer makes still apply. However, the sense of "virtue" or "truth" to the dogma of not treating a photograph to additions and removals of objects does apply in the arena of that style.

To me, at least, the look of TIF landscape pictures by Nick Rains seem pristine, "natural" and so beautiful. Of course he has selected from 10,000 possibilities. But that is the nature of artistic photography.

Asher

Just a short explanation for the example photos.

The original difference between the two Rhino photos was the zoom position. I also composited [as in: used other picture elements to clean] out the upper steel cable going over the rhino. The idea behind the first picture is 'Black Rhino', hence I took care of two birds, one of which can be clearly seen in the second shot, adding nothing to the subject but distracting largely.

The subject of the second rhino photo, which I did not change significantly, is 'Black Rhino in Captivity', hence the obstructing steel cable is an essential part of the message.

When I say I did not change this picture significantly, I expressly exclude Levels/Curves adjustments to overcome the technical limitations of the film used, the scanner used and the output devices we use, to get the images as close to the scene as I can get. From hints in the photos and objective knowledge gathered on many aspects I tried to leave out my personal remembrance. In technical terms: I corrected the colour balance and contrast.

The other two photos are also two shots, not one differently rendered, taken seconds apart. One's taken with natural light only, the other with a flash to give the whole thing a little zazz. Different light, different light colour, different image [one giving a warm, the other a cold feeling].

All of them are true, even though in the first rhino pic I did exactly wjat the TIF movement photographers condemn.

Truth in orthography

What I want to know is the origin of the abbreviation "TIF" in connection with the "truth in photography" movement.

Is this derived from some formalization of the name of the movement in a language other than English, or what?

Best regards,

Doug

'TIFF' as in file format? That would be Tagged Image File Format.

'TIF' as in this discussion is most likely derived from the standard spelling of the German 'Fotografie' [Greek 'ph' and German 'f' are the same sound, hence the standardisation]. If this derivation for the movement is true, it is most likely chosen for the abbreviation, since it looks nicer than TIPH, making it an acronym even.

A complete German translation would be 'Wahrhaftigkeit in der Fotografie', giving the abbrev WIF.

Since 'i' and 'o' are adjacent characters on standard keyboards, I venture Asher just ToFF'ed up.

Hi, Dierk,

Dierk Haasis said:

'TIFF' as in file format? That would be Tagged Image File Format.

'TIF' as in this discussion is most likely derived from the standard spelling of the German 'Fotografie' [Greek 'ph' and German 'f' are the same sound, hence the standardisation]. If this derivation for the movement is true, it is most likely chosen for the abbreviation, since it looks nicer than TIPH, making it an acronym even

Click to expand...

.

Of course: "Truth in Fotographie".

That's what I was afraid of.

I think "TIP" would have worked (we don't ordinarily feel the need to put two consonants in for the initial of a word), but I didn't get to "initial" it.

A complete German translation would be 'Wahrhaftigkeit in der Fotografie', giving the abbrev WIF.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Yes Dirk and Doug, it's TIF and I corrected the previous Toffe'd up TIFS!

I am now looking to see the origin of the attachment of virtue to this. We had a guy, with no background in film photography or darkroom work who despised PS "manipulation". He, of course, could not use PS much if at all! He insisted that PS was a slippery slop and making curves and other changes such as blurring backgrounds made the work not a photograph but a mere graphic product. Slopes go downwards to something lesser! I'm against the word "manipulation" too. Both are ngative!

People who spend time in a chemical darkroom know how each process alters appearance, impact and meaning.

I, myself hold the view that we are only sampling reality. It's for an end purpose or no real defined purpose beyond the immediate act! Always the image, thus obtained, has multiple fingerprints of the user and process. So to declare something "truthful" must be in reference to some particular set of parameters, uinque to each photographer and even for each instance of image making through to its delivery. See above (post #23).

Taking this further, to add merit and a social feeling of moral purpose and correctness in the whole chain of image making requires an extra jump in logic. However, the "Truth in Photrography" is an emotional calling derived from positive social values. It can be dismissed as narcissitic, but that is too simple because demanding a sense of truth to one's work has some value to us. There is also some worth in protecting more of natures "unspoiled beauty". Yes, this, is even wrapped in a sense of virttue that may seem to be unsupported.

Views of selected landscapes that appear perfect give a unique pleasure. Paradoxically, including or tolerating "trash", since "it was there" or not deleting birds recorded in error and against one's intent, are both part of the same philosophy of "Show people The Truth" as any other person could have observed then and there. In all cases there is a restricted sense of truth, so in that limited context, this form of photography is self-consistent.

I accept "Truth in Photography" as an aproach of merit since the photographers who use this concept to inform their image deliver photographs that have given me pleasure. Moreover, I like the idea, however over-optimistic, that such work, attempting to show unaltered beauty or else refusing to delete the ugly elements, hold a lantern to us and our world. We might be led to think of what is valuable and what could, might and should be!

Asher

Since my name has cropped up in this thread I would like to propose a subtle modification to the TIF ethic.

This might be called HIP, Honesty in Photography.

I picked up the TIF theme from the late Galen Rowell who gave me permission to use the term on my website along with a quote from his book. However, on reflection, and since it is reasonably obvious that there can be no objective truth in photography, it sits better with me now to use the Honesty approach.

Quite simply it is a recognition that any image is only a selected part of any scene and that lenses, cropping, colour balance etc all subtly alter the viewers sense of the scene.

I prefer to be 'Honest' in that I am trying my best to share the scene as I experienced it, that all the elements in the scene existed in that particular relationship at the time of the shot and that no permanent elements have been removed (or added).

I pick up litter on my walks so I have no problem cloning out the proverbial coke can, but I do not remove trees, bulidings, powerlines, etc or birds in flight for that matter. I do not add clouds, trees, people, moons or anything at all.

Thus I am being Honest in trying to keep it real, whilst accepting that the Truth is an unattainable goal.

Hi, Nick,

Nick Rains said:

Since my name has cropped up in this thread I would like to propose a subtle modification to the TIF ethic.

This might be called HIP, Honesty in Photography.
. . .
Thus I am being Honest in trying to keep it real, whilst accepting that the Truth is an unattainable goal.

Click to expand...

Well said. And your acronym actually matches the name of your "premise".

Best regards,

Doug

Acronymy

Hi, Asher,

My favorite acronym is DAM, for Mothers Against Dyslexia.

Best regards,

Doug

Another outbreak of acronymphomania...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi, Nill,

Nill Toulme said:

Another outbreak of acronymphomania...

Click to expand...

I love it. Carla will too. (A while ago, she coined the term "poloniumania" for the concern over assassination using radioactive materials. But yours has a double whammy!)

Nill Toulme said:

Another outbreak of acronymphomania...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Doug_Kerr said:

Hi, Nill,
I love it. Carla will too. (A while ago, she coined the term "poloniumania" for the concern over assassination using radioactive materials. But yours has a double whammy!)

Click to expand...

So which acronym shall we use for this easily misspelled word (think about DAM)? APM? LOL

Cheers,

Ahem, APM wouldn't be an acronym, only an abbrev. For an abbreviation to be an acronym it has to be vocalised like a word. Examples are DAM, NATO, NAFTA.

Dierk Haasis said:

Ahem, APM wouldn't be an acronym, only an abbrev. For an abbreviation to be an acronym it has to be vocalised like a word. Examples are DAM, NATO, NAFTA.

Click to expand...

Hi Dierk,

Haven't I told you before that you are very good at stating the obvious ;-).
Now if all would be correct, there would be no joke (or the feeble attempt at making one), would there?

Cheers,

E DAM,

Knot moire definitions kneeded...

afaik

Abbreviation = shortened form of a word, or phrase
Acronym = a word, usu. pronounced as such, formed from the initial letters of other words

Source = Oxford English Dictionary

(note the abrv. in the ac. def.

and the obvious confusion caused by cross pollination of abbreviations such as TIF.

Sometimes, things get abbreviated further - so U.S.A. becomes USA and then just US. This leads to folk in the USA thinking that the whole world is just US. Then United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, becomes UK (leaving out NI) and so on. But it was 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', you see how wars start?

It is quite an inter sting area, sort of related to TIF, (sticking to the op's orig. defn.)

Assumptions have to be made, an understanding that there is an equivalent knowledge base for all participants.

Here is a simple one - a 'NATO HITCH' - not a mistake made by NATO, but a definition of a type of vehicle trailer tow hitch.

Then you have the common usage of the 'texting' - uh- sort of acronym, c u l8r, b4 t

At what level do we want to pick over the nits?

English is a wonderful language, it never ceases to amaze me. I have tremendous admiration for the folk in the USA who may eventually get the hang of it, and of course total respect for the rest of you for who/whom, it is not your birth language.

Now what is the 'truth' part of the question?

BWR

Unfortunately some people will just take it at face value, then spread the falsity. 'Acronym' is often wrongly used as a synonym for 'abbreviation'. Or think of the 'focal length for DX' urban myth, which has become a truism simply because so many people reiterated it. Even DPR's newly formed lens review department officially uses this in their spec tables.

Hi, Dierk,

Dierk Haasis said:

Unfortunately some people will just take it at face value, then spread the falsity. 'Acronym' is often wrongly used as a synonym for 'abbreviation'. Or think of the 'focal length for DX' urban myth, which has become a truism simply because so many people reiterated it. Even DPR's newly formed lens review department officially uses this in their spec tables.

Click to expand...

Then we have this wonderful situation. At one time, some nerd coined the abbreviation "TLA" for "three-letter algorithm" (really meaning "three-letter abbreviation). This was then used, for example, to compactly head a table column in which were stated the abbreviations for a series of things, all of them (in the case in which it was first used) having three letters.

But, through that, "TLA" came to be understood as a convenient shorthand for "abbreviation", as a result of which we could have a table of various government agencies with a column headed "TLA" in which we would find: FBI, CIA, FCC, DEA, EEOC, FSLB, and so forth.

Another similar misunderstanding is between contractions and abbreviations. A common situation is with regard to the term "reverend", used (always properly with "the") as an honorific prefix to the names of members of the clergy.

Two short forms are often used:

Rev.

Rev'd

Of course, the former is an abbreviation and the latter a contraction. However, we all-too-often see:

Rev'd.

the contraction having been given the period owed only to abbreviations.

Best regards,

Doug

I think, but have not verified, that an acronym is a 'subset' of an abbreviation, since an abbreviation can be a shortened form of a phrase (I can't think of an example of a phrase abbreviation that is not an acronym - ttfn suits both.

Still, i know what I mean

'Abbreviations are pronounced as [individual] letters. [...] Acronyms differ from abbreviations in that they are pronounced as oridnary words [...]'

From Rodney Huddleston/Geoffrey K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language[(i], CUP, 2002. pp. 1632/3 [chapter on 'Lexical word-formation' by Laurie Bauer and Rodney Huddleston].

These definitions are standard and can be found in any grammar and dictionary pertaining to the subject. It is not an English-only issue, as long as the concepts themselves are present in a language the definitions hold.

Nick Rains said:

Since my name has cropped up in this thread I would like to propose a subtle modification to the TIF ethic.

This might be called HIP, Honesty in Photography.

I picked up the TIF theme from the late Galen Rowell who gave me permission to use the term on my website along with a quote from his book. However, on reflection, and since it is reasonably obvious that there can be no objective truth in photography, it sits better with me now to use the Honesty approach.

Quite simply it is a recognition that any image is only a selected part of any scene and that lenses, cropping, colour balance etc all subtly alter the viewers sense of the scene.

I prefer to be 'Honest' in that I am trying my best to share the scene as I experienced it, that all the elements in the scene existed in that particular relationship at the time of the shot and that no permanent elements have been removed (or added).

I pick up litter on my walks so I have no problem cloning out the proverbial coke can, but I do not remove trees, bulidings, powerlines, etc or birds in flight for that matter. I do not add clouds, trees, people, moons or anything at all.

Thus I am being Honest in trying to keep it real, whilst accepting that the Truth is an unattainable goal.

Click to expand...

Thanks Nick for wading in. You explanation clarifies your approach. I like the idea of photography not being staged unless there is a reason. My art pictures are designed to express what's in my head and when I achieve what I want it's obvious that it was staged, although many of the steps would only be recognized by a photographer. That is also honest. I'm not tricking anyone. I'm not pretending to show what was there as I'm merely showing what is not there.

However, in News Photography it's sickening to find agencies like Reuters and the major news services routinely staging war pictures to maximize emotional content and sway opinion. To me this is one of the worst consequences of the meeting of Photoshop and advertising and the cheating that used to get one kicked out of college but now is tolerated.

So when I see that a photographer sets for him/herself stringent standards (of not changing substantial "facts" in Landscape photography where the only serious consequence would be personal riches for a small "sellout",) I'm impressed. News Reporters would do well to follow you around!

Kudos!

Asher

Why does there have to be a movement? Truth in photography is really complicated. I think a more useful discussion would be, what is Kitsch?

doug anderson said:

Why does there have to be a movement? Truth in photography is really complicated. I think a more useful discussion would be, what is Kitsch?

Click to expand...

Fair enough! You don't need to knock truth to discover Kitsch! Just start a new thread if you like!

Well my thoughts have a background. My grandparents own(ed) a small newspaper out west from 1948 until the last of the pair died a few months ago. So I spent many summers there as a kid, helping out, working the linotype, and getting steeped in old fashioned newspaper ethics from two members of the "greatest generation." Part of his story is that grandpa was one of a team of three that started the Pacific Theatre edition of the Stars and Stripes during WWII, which they patterned after the European Theatre version. Came back to work for the Kansas City Star, got sick of it, and bought a little independent newspaper in southwestern Kansas in 1948. He worked that, with his wife, until 2008. Being a small independent, they did everything themselves including photography, with a grand staff of six.

His feeling is the foundation of my thinking. Which is basically that for editorial work, you may alter the following: crop, exposure in terms of processing, and that is it. Today, many newspapers also add to that little list, selective dodging and burning and saturation--as long as these do not alter colors or important tones from one to another, and that is about it.

The underlying themes are: Accuracy, Fairness, Credibility, and Sound Judgment (image must present a realistic rendering of the scene reflecting the first three).

Beyond editorial work, IMO, anything goes as long as it is represented as being interpretive and not an attempt to represent the truth or a complete representation of the subject.

Frankly, one can manipulate images to present entirely inaccurate rendering of a story just with framing alone. A savvy photographer knows how to work his subject to get a certain view or give a certain one-sided impression. Watch your local news for example. Let’s say the news organization is sympatric to a certain cause…and they usually are…and they want to portray a subject in a certain light. Say a demonstration. 10 people show up. Not very impressive. But, if you bring the camera down to just above waist height, use a wide angle lens, get into the group of 10 people, and wait until all of them are close together as they march, and then take a photo…the viewer gets the impression of a huge crowd. Is that true, no, it violates the Accuracy rule. And not a single digital manipulation was done.

So truth in photography has different standards depending on the goal of the shoot and its use.

Look at different kinds of photography. PJ truth is discussed above. Sports, don’t clone in a ball…usually. Angles are fine…get low to the ground give a much more powerful impression (think of the impression the elevated judge on his “throne” in a courtroom). What about a poster for a kids room? Clone in a ball…I would not but it does not bother me that some do. People, you discussed the difference between photographic manipulation and manipulation of the subject (e.g., makeup). I’m all for make-up.  Street work, the essence is to capture ironic or iconic images that are none-the-less, un-posed. Do some street photogs manipulate, you bet. Nature, Landscape, Events…well, take your pick according to some. No right answer to that.

How about this one…HDR…does this represent “truth?” I can tell you on another forum, some loved it and the some considered it sacrilege. In the end, for anything other than editorial, I think people can manipulate if they like, but represent it as manipulate…not as “truth.”



How about this one...shot with a wide angle lens. Yes this silo is huge, but how much larger does it appear with the selection of WA...this is the same technique used by builders for hundreds of years to create the impression of a larger building than it is in reality...Disneyland's castle in Florida for example.



Are these truth...maybe, yes and no.

Shane Canfield said:

Well my thoughts have a background. My grandparents own(ed) a small newspaper out west from 1948 until the last of the pair died a few months ago. So I spent many summers there as a kid, helping out, working the linotype, and getting steeped in old fashioned newspaper ethics from two members of the "greatest generation." Part of his story is that grandpa was one of a team of three that started the Pacific Theatre edition of the Stars and Stripes during WWII, which they patterned after the European Theatre version. Came back to work for the Kansas City Star, got sick of it, and bought a little independent newspaper in southwestern Kansas in 1948. He worked that, with his wife, until 2008. Being a small independent, they did everything themselves including photography, with a grand staff of six.

His feeling is the foundation of my thinking. Which is basically that for editorial work, you may alter the following: crop, exposure in terms of processing, and that is it. Today, many newspapers also add to that little list, selective dodging and burning and saturation--as long as these do not alter colors or important tones from one to another, and that is about it.

The underlying themes are: Accuracy, Fairness, Credibility, and Sound Judgment (image must present a realistic rendering of the scene reflecting the first three).

Click to expand...

This small section you have written, Shane should be a required reading for all photojournalists. In fact there should part of an oath taken each year to get licensed as a PJ!

Beyond PJ, forensic, scientific and evidentiary photography, altering the picture is fine as long as it is not presented as being "the truth" to back up some transaction.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

This small section you have written, Shane should be a required reading for all photojournalists. In fact there should part of an oath taken each year to get licensed as a PJ!

Beyond PJ, forensic, scientific and evidentiary photography, altering the picture is fine as long as it is not presented as being "the truth" to back up some transaction.

Asher

Click to expand...

Just read this and Shane's post in full - I couldn't agree more.

Mike