Thread: Photography and Truth

Another example.

What the camera saw.
McClelland Gallery_0247.jpg

What I saw. This is a 7 shot HDR image heavily post processed in Photoshop.
Segragationist.jpg

Provided there's no claim to accuracy I have no problem with image manipulation.

Originally Posted by BobL

Provided there's no claim to accuracy I have no problem with image manipulation.

That may well be correct for general photography but it becomes a borderline deceptive practice when it comes to presenting items for sale, eg real estate.

Some of the photos on the real estate sites are so obviously photoshopped that one has to wonder what they are trying to hide. Add to this the use of very wide angle lenses that turns a standard small lounge room in a 30 or 40 year old 3 bedroom brick house in to a ballroom and it certainly no longer represents reality.

Having said all that I used to spend countless hours in the darkroom doing all sorts manipulation that one can do now in the blink of an eye in photoshop.

The ABC every night has a viewer submitted photo of which well in excess of 50% owe more to photoshop than the users' photographic skills.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

That may well be correct for general photography but it becomes a borderline deceptive practice when it comes to presenting items for sale, eg real estate.

Some of the photos on the real estate sites are so obviously photoshopped that one has to wonder what they are trying to hide. Add to this the use of very wide angle lenses that turns a standard small lounge room in a 30 or 40 year old 3 bedroom brick house in to a ballroom and it certainly no longer represents reality.

Having said all that I used to spend countless hours in the darkroom doing all sorts manipulation that one can do now in the blink of an eye in photoshop.

The ABC every night has a viewer submitted photo of which well in excess of 50% owe more to photoshop than the users' photographic skills.

Travel brochures are also guilty of gross misrepresentation. After our trip to to Mykonos and Santorini I was amazed at all the power lines that had been installed in the2 months between viewing the brochures and when we got there.

Those Greeks are fast workers I tell you.

Originally Posted by Grumpy John

I'll apologise up front for getting all "arty farty" here, but since I've been using photoshop over the last few years I've got to wondering about whether post processing amounts to lying.

I'd be interested in seeing others thoughts on the subject, and any examples you may have.

Apology declined GJ, and unrequired. So don't.

Caveat: I spent 15 years as a professional photographer from 85 to 00. Images should never be used to lie. If I take a picture of something to promote a location (such as your kiln GJ) then I believe the viewer has the right to reasonably expect to see what they are seeing in the picture, weather conditions considered. Even if I've lucked on some great, perhaps astonishing light, there is still a chance that the viewer could score those or similar conditions. In fact, as much as possible I sought out those conditions (often requiring repeat visits). This is not misrepresentation, is the point.If the veiwer had been there with me they would have seen the same.

The answer to your question is very variable, and depends entirely on the purpose.Maybe splitting it into what we've always been able to do, and what's new can give a clearer approach.

Things that have always been available:
Cropping - no problem with that, ever. Pretty much the same as using different format cameras.
Colour alteration via filters (either in-camera or in camera). Far more sophisticated these days.
Polarisation - mine's permanently welded to the lens . Only comes off when not required.
B&W or colour option. Sepia, blue tint etc. Just saves carrying around an extra camera body to achieve the same result.
Brightening/Lightening. No problem

New stuff:
Cloning - Honest, judicious use is ok with me. E.g. removing an old tyre from an otherwise excellent composition in a mangrove. However, this is frowned upon or not allowed for competition use etc. If a viewer went to my mangrove shot place, and saw the tyre, they'd probably assume it had been dumped since.
Getting rid of wires: only for an art shot et al. For tourism purposes they really should stay. I've done it, but it was only for my private purposes.
Smearing out backgrounds in wildlife shots is right out - that's what separates the wheat from the chaff in high level wildlife photography. Agencies will not accept manipulated work. Wildlife lenses are expensive for many reasons, and gorgeous background smear is one of them. Same for macro lenses.

Just recently (this week I think) a photographer had his entry into a major competition rejected because he had cloned away a small twig that was on the animal.

If it's a photo competition which is either all about art, or has an art section, then I think open slather is ok. After all, someone who could paint a super realistic scene could copy that manipulated image and call it a painting.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

If it's a photo competition which is either all about art, or has an art section, then I think open slather is ok. After all, someone who could paint a super realistic scene could copy that manipulated image and call it a painting

.

I reckon this is the nub of the whole issue but firstly, John, l love the sepia kiln and the punchier cobwebbed bust. I regard neither of those as deceitful because any image of the kiln at the time it was built would have looked like your image and, if you were lucky enough to be blessed with the right light, the bust image is a fair record as well!
I differentiate between RECORD and ART. Anything that someone else may rely on as being a fair representation, such as a travel brochure or real estate image, should be a RECORD. Everything else that someone will not rely on, OR is for personal enjoyment, can be ART.
l am the only artist whose photographic image has won the Winifred MacArthur-Onslow Memorial Prize for Art. It was a heavily manipulated black and white image of a stream and boat scene from when I lived in inland China 20 years ago. That stream, lake, monastery and town is now a Chinese 'Club Med' and, very interestingly they have now asked for my images because there are no images, either RECORD or ART, of their own history!
We are accepting of the difference between painting and photography and we will likewise become accepting of the difference between manipulated and not manipulated.
l chuckle when a photographer 'deletes' power lines but fabulous Australian paint artists such as Reg Mombasa and Doreen Shaw paint them in.
vive la difference!
fletty

Originally Posted by fletty

I differentiate between RECORD and ART

That's as succinct a way of putting as any.

I am rather old school with regard to this as I learnt my photography in the days of film where your post processing was somewhat more limited.
I don't own a copy of Photoshop or Lightroom but just use the Canon digital professional which has all the adjustments I need.

I work almost exclusively in RAW format and tend to just tweak the highlight,shadow,saturation and contrast.
I have no issue with other peoples post processing as long a it is not taken too far,at which point it ceases in my mind to be photography and becomes digital trickery.

Isn't there a number of different schools with the photographic world from Art Photography to RAW Natural photos.....
As long as the people viewing the photos know or are informed which is which or what is what, IMHO it's okay, as I just like looking at the photos...
Apologies in advanced for a simple approach to a complicated and what can be a very expensive hobby and or profession....Cheers, crowie

I have been involved in photography since the late 1950s- professionally, as a teacher of digital photography and now mainly for my own enjoyment. I remember the days when airbrushing images (photographs) to remove blemishes was common place. I chuckle to myself when people talk of 'photoshopping' as some modern day marvel. There is not much that we do today with Photoshop that we didn't routinely do in the darkroom:
- Varying chemicals to alter contrast
- Dodging & Burning to bring out detail in highlights and shadows
- Tilting the enlarger base to correct perspective
- Cropping and airbrushing to remove distractions or to improve composition
- Using filters to correct colour balance or to emphasise colours in B & W

That was not considered "cheating" then, nor should it be today. I was influenced greatly by the work of Ansell Adams who maintained that you MAKE a photograph, you do not TAKE a photograph. I still follow that philosophy today.

I shoot my digital images exclusively in RAW format and allow no processing in the camera. All processing of the RAW image is done initially in Lightroom and then finished in Photoshop. My camera is a Nikon D800 with lenses from 20mm up to 400mm. I refer to my "photos" as digital images as I use photoshop to create the image that I had visualised, which is not necessarily an accurate record of the scene: that is the artform of photography which I enjoy.

Norfolk Robin.jpgOn the other hand, I taught bird photography for Bird Observation and Conservation Australia. There the objective is to produce a scientifically accurate image of the species; but that does not preclude the use of Photoshop. Infact I could argue that it demands it to ensure that colours are correct and not influenced by changing light conditions, for example.

This image of a Norfolk Robin was taken 2 weeks ago on Norfolk Island and has been cropped colour balanced and sharpened in Photoshop. It is a scientifically correct representation of the species.

Well that's my 2 pennith worth.

Bob

Originally Posted by Oldgreybeard

I have been involved in photography since the late 1950s- professionally, as a teacher of digital photography and now mainly for my own enjoyment. I remember the days when airbrushing images (photographs) to remove blemishes was common place. I chuckle to myself when people talk of 'photoshopping' as some modern day marvel. There is not much that we do today with Photoshop that we didn't routinely do in the darkroom:
- Varying chemicals to alter contrast
- Dodging & Burning to bring out detail in highlights and shadows
- Tilting the enlarger base to correct perspective
- Cropping and airbrushing to remove distractions or to improve composition
- Using filters to correct colour balance or to emphasise colours in B & W

Too true, Photoshop techniques are not new, but Photoshop and other post processing software has made altering images so much more accessible. The other thing about post processing digital images is there is no need to go blundering about in total darkness, as well as storing chemicals and other equipment.

That was not considered "cheating" then, nor should it be today. I was influenced greatly by the work of Ansell Adams who maintained that you MAKE a photograph, you do not TAKE a photograph. I still follow that philosophy today.

"Make a photograph", was a term used at a camera club I was a member of many years ago. This is what I endeavour to do with my images, I try to put what I was feeling at the time the photo was taken into the image. Not all the time, but if the location had a particular "feel" to it I try to convey that feeling in the image.

I shoot my digital images exclusively in RAW format and allow no processing in the camera. All processing of the RAW image is done initially in Lightroom and then finished in Photoshop. My camera is a Nikon D800 with lenses from 20mm up to 400mm. I refer to my "photos" as digital images as I use photoshop to create the image that I had visualised, which is not necessarily an accurate record of the scene: that is the artform of photography which I enjoy.

I also shoot in RAW, it gives you so much flexibility and control in post processing. I use Adobe Camera Raw for global refinements and PS6 for local refinements.

Norfolk Robin.jpgOn the other hand, I taught bird photography for Bird Observation and Conservation Australia. There the objective is to produce a scientifically accurate image of the species; but that does not preclude the use of Photoshop. Infact I could argue that it demands it to ensure that colours are correct and not influenced by changing light conditions, for example.

This image of a Norfolk Robin was taken 2 weeks ago on Norfolk Island and has been cropped colour balanced and sharpened in Photoshop. It is a scientifically correct representation of the species.

Well that's my 2 pennith worth.



When the camera club I was in had nature based competitions the rules were very strict regarding post processing. Cropping and MINOR colour corrections (white balance) were all that was allowed.

Bob

Cheers
GJ