Where does re-touching cross the line?
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#1. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
I think the line is misrepresentation. If you misrepresent the image then you've crossed the line. Other than that everything is fair game. Far more pictures than most realize are manipulated in some manner and have been from the airbrushed beauties of yesteryear ro the composited images of today.
After all, the original photograph doesn't represent reality, either. It's a combination of technical and artistic choices that altered reality to fit a vision. The computer merely extends that process.-
#2. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 1
drafinski Registered since 04th Jul 2009Thu 13-Aug-09 11:09 AMThat is an interesting view about representation. My background is in engineering so I've always considered myself on the technical side. I've been shooting for almost thirty years but only seriously and trying to learn as much as I can for a year and a half. In all that time I've never considered myself an artist. you are correct that when we push the shutter release we are trying to capture our vision of the reality.Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#3. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
I also don't hesitate to blur bg if it's a bit too defined and distracting. I don't see that as dishonest. I also will snip away interfering blades of grass etc. before the shot if I can't get a clear view of the subject.
Some nature purists insist on leaving everything as is both before the shot and in pp. I don't understand why that is better if it results in a picture that has elements that detract from your main subject.
John
#4. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#5. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 4
Covey22 Basic MemberThu 13-Aug-09 01:51 PMExactly. "The line" has become a sore point for news organizations ever since the industry cut over completely to digital, so unless you're in an occupation where the authenticity of the image as you have captured it is vital, then there should be no concern about how much you have manipulated it.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#6. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 4
ahhbeebee Registered since 01st Dec 2006Thu 13-Aug-09 02:19 PMI agree with Rick. The line only exists if there is an inherent expectation for accuracy in the depicted image.
I also come from a scientific background and most peer-reviewed journals have a VERY defined modifications which are allowable.
For everything else, I like to judge the beauty of the photographer's mind's eye. However they got to that point is their own secret. But then again I'm a big fan of impressionist art.--
Sampson
Visit my gallery. -
#7. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 4
drafinski Registered since 04th Jul 2009Thu 13-Aug-09 02:20 PMCertainly in my mind, darkroom photographers had their pp editing abilities, but when you listen to some folks, they think any cloning or alteration is a hack. This is the first time I've been able to toss this discussion out to other photographers as I'm a new member. Maybe I've been overly sensitive to the issue and should just be pleased if I can get an image to portray the feeling that I want it to. I only wish that I would have joined nikonians earlier as it would seem I'm missing out on good information from all the people.
By the way Rick, I love the podcasts. I just wish I had that job!Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
-
#9. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 8
On Deviant Art anything goes, but for Nikonian postings I draw the line at Free Transform. "Photo Manipulation" is what the kids now call it and I agree. Re-touching is an archaic term left over from film; when it was a lot more difficult to do. Now almost everybody re-touches to some degree.
The reason I police myself here is because Photoshopping is not what this site is about. It's easy to take a butterfly from one picture and put it in another, but that's not something I did with my Nikon.
Edit: Free Transform is used to adjust an image from one photo into another. You don't remove a branch with it...you add one. I also consider messing with Bokeh and posting it here as misrepresenting my skill with a Nikon.
Edit Edit: My avatar doesn't count!!! (It was made by frying pixels in curves then converting to B&W.)
-
#12. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 9
BTW, some big names here have posted composited shots before that were excellent. But each time they've identified it as composited. So I'm perfectly OK with those things here, too.
-
-
-
#10. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 4
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.
-
#11. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 10
Everyone's thinking about the front page of the newspaper, I'm thinking closer to home.....Nikonians.
I dodge/burn/remove branches. But if anything goes:
I could have shot a lady bug at f32 - nice an sharp. Shot a leaf at f4 and blown out the background. Cut/Paste/Free Transform. Then have entered that in last months Nikonians Macro Challenge instead of the shallow DOF. out of focus, Lady Bug I did enter.
If anything goes: Mark V can disappear and be replaced by a new guy, a far better photographer who doesn't need a camera ...because he has yours! Free stock!
I can't do this, and live with myself and I defer to a higher authority on the subject of ethics: "From an early age, children need to raise themselves and develop their own characters. .....A child no matter how young is a person with a conscience of his own. Getting a child to realize that his own conscience punishes him far more severely is a large part of child-rearing." - From the essay, "Why" by Anne Frank (not found in the Diary.)
I guess my parents did a good job. I won't be winning contests, and your photos are safe.-
#13. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 11
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Fri 14-Aug-09 01:07 PMI personally don't do composites or extensive cloning operations. It's not due to ethics, really, but just personal preference and what I enjoy and conversely, don't enjoy. If I did I heavily manipulated shot, especially one with lots of composites, I'd be reminded of that every time I looked at it. For whatever deep-seated psycholgical problem, it would take away part of the enjoyment from me. I'm trying to get a bit more creative lately using some of the Nik Color Efex filters for certain images, but to date, you won't find many of those on my website. The exception is a special page I created on wildflowers that we may use in an upcoming episode of the Image Doctors podcast. Having said all that, I recognize these as my personal boundaries and not others.
Having judged past Nikonians photo contests, I can tell you that heavily photoshopped images are no more likely to win contests than ones with light processing. Ditto with ones that use clever depth of field techniques due to blending of layers. The ones that win are the ones that had a creative idea to begin with and were well-executed. Photoshopping skills only rarely enter into that. Many of them are amazingly simple and could have been taken with the simplest of cameras and lenses and proabably had minimal to no post-processing. I wouldn't lose heart because of your out-of-focus lady bug.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
#20. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 13
drafinski Registered since 04th Jul 2009Sat 15-Aug-09 12:44 PMObviously I struck a nerve with this topic. My biggest concern, due to my level of photoshop skills, was more about color filters, control points, etc. If I were cloning it would be pretty obvious. I do try to remove that "branch" occasionally. From what I'm hearing, I shouldn't look at doing these things as a complete alteration of the image I shot. For me the line would seem to be where you are taking parts of a photo or photos and making an image that I would consider an ad type image and passing it off as a photo.Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#22. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 20
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Sat 15-Aug-09 08:24 PMMy earlier comment stated you have to look at photography as art not just capturing reality. In the very early days it was about capturing reality because it was such an unwieldy process with wet plates, etc. It may have helped push realistic painting to other forms like surrealism. My view is you are trying to make a statement and invoke a reaction. I have an image in my gallery that is called Psychedelic Farm. It is made up of the following:
An old B&W Negative of hay bales in a field and colorized yellow.
A modern Digital image of a nice sky
multiple images of public art from places like Florida, Vancouver, Amsterdam and Seattle that were painted animals.
These were all composited into the final image. Is it a Photo? Technically no, but it was made from bits and pieces of photos, and always gets a laugh. It is not what you will normally see on Nikonians.
I equate post processing skills to darkroom skills and in the days of film most books, including ones from Kodak, discussed how you could combine images in the darkroom or sandwich slides, perform solarization, etc. This was still considered photography, although highly skilled efforts.
I do agree with other comments here that to post such an image and not identify it as a composite or manipulated image would be morally wrong if you tried to pass it off as an in camera shot, but the process of producing it is still a photographic endeavour as far as I am concerned. So I think that whether you make adjustments in camera, like a very slow shutter speed to get that smooth water effect of a waterfall, or add a filter or blend channels, or remove an offending branch outside the camera it is still all part of the photographic process to make an image that is outstanding.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#23. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 22
One could take the purely mercenary point of view: what needs to be done with this photograph to make it sellable?
Cliff
Manchester, NH, USA
-
-
-
-
#14. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 11
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.
-
#15. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 14
I think we need to go back to the original post, where he asks where the line is.
I'm a manipulator. I manipulate to create what doesn't exist. If it does exist I can simply take a picture. There's a part of me that want's to be accepted by my photographic skills, not my Wacom Tablet.
To me stacking and merging shots for Panoramas, HDR, and Focus are in a different category then cut/paste/free transform. Taking a series of shots with the intention to merge them - that requires a photographic eye. We are working around the limitations of our equipment.
But adding today's bird to last years landscape, or making one butterfly out of two, that I respect too. But it's not respect as a photographer to look up and hope to become as good as....it's respect as a Photoshop artist. You lost all my respect as a photographer when you use the 3 key tools of manipulation: Cut/Paste/Transform. I no longer know where the Photographer ends and the tablet/mouse man begins.
Back to the original post: That's were I draw MY line.
PS: I AM proud of my Lady Bug, it was the best I could do as a Photographer. I NEVER expected it to even rate an honorable mention. It's not up to that standard. Mark the Manipulator? He doesn't use his real name and lives on a different website. They don't always get along. One's into dirt, water, birds and insects...the other has his head on another planet.
Edit: Using a camera to capture images for manipulation is a different game then whats considered a good photograph. Photographers want shadow, manipulators don't and prefer solid color backgrounds that don't bleed light onto the subject.-
#16. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 15
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Fri 14-Aug-09 05:49 PM | edited Fri 14-Aug-09 05:52 PM by robsbSo to be clear you draw the line on composites but accept any other post processing manipulation? I am a big fan of Dan Margulis and his techniques for color correction and photo enhancement to bring out the best the image allows. When I used Photoshop exclusively (now mostly NX2 with NIK filters) I often blended channels, used LAB space to enhance colors. etc. All of these things affect the image, and I think would be OK with you, but if I added in a different sky or added a bird or a bug or other item from a different image this would be a composite and therefore over your line? What if I had two shots with two of the same items but in each one the opposite item was in focus while the other was not. If I blended these photos into one, I beleive that is not much different than stacking or photomerge yet you might see it as a composite and therefore would not do it?Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#17. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 16
I notice you use the words "correction", "enhancement", "bring out the best"....that's making adjustments. I and all the manipulators I know don't call post processing manipulation.
Stitching, HDR and Focus Stacking, those are modern photographic techniques. It's 2009, not 1909. My only gripe with Focus Stacking is that I'm not very good at it.
Edit: Lets agree to disagree on the swapping sky's.
That's where I draw my line. It doesn't have to be yours, and by the looks of it anything DOES go here, I never would have guessed that Nikonians was more lenient then Deviant Art, where Manipulations and Photographs are two totally distinct categorizes.
-
#18. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 17
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Fri 14-Aug-09 11:54 PMMark I am very glad it is 2009 and not even 1969 when i still had a darkroom. I do not miss working with dangerous chemicals and the smells involved or the boredom of developing film in a can or the frustration of opening a tank after I had developed a reel and finding that I had goofed at winding it properly and ruined the roll. The hours spent in producing a print and then spotting it. My whole point was just what you said, these are modern tools that let us bring out the best in our images and even change the mood of the image dramatically. There is an example of that in my gallery; two images of the same scene one processed as an HDR and the other manipulated with NIK filters and NX2. No cut and paste or transforms. But neither is representative of the image I first captured. See AVOID Ver 1 and 2 in my gallery.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#19. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 18
I will check it out when I get my cable connection back. I'm stuck on dial-up with a lap top
These things have a way of waiting for the weekend to fail.
- Mark-
#21. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 19
Martin Turner Nikonian since 19th Jun 2006Sat 15-Aug-09 01:34 PM | edited Sat 15-Aug-09 01:36 PM by Martin TurnerComing late to this thread, it reminds me of my other creative digital pursuit: sound recording. Any recording you hear is a representation of reality rather than reality itself. I think this is easier to grasp with music, because we have a concept of performed music, and a concept of recorded music, whereas if we simply see something that looks nice, we don't equate that reality in quite the same way.
All recorded music is manipulated in some way — it's just that the sound recordist is a lot closer to the sound waves, and recognises that certain things have to be done as preparation, and certain thing have to be done, such as compression on vocals, to make a recording at all. But, aside from the more austere forms of classical music and documentary recording, everyone splices together different takes, and any pop or rock track will be sprayed with effects. The thing is, though, you can't turn a bad recording into a good one, although you can rescue a recording that has flaws, but is fundamentally sound.
With photography, when you choose a particular lens, you are making a choice on depth of field, likewise when you choose aperture, shutter speed, ISO. If you are working in the studio, you may have assembled the entire shot for the purposes of photographing. How is this different from moving the pixels around after the image has been taken?
We always talk about documentary photography and photojournalism, but, really, they are red herrings: in neither documentary nor photojournalism are you allowed to set up the shot and direct the models. If you are documenting scar tissue, you are not allowed to put make-up on it to make it more or less pronounced. If you are covering a protest, you are not allowed to pose a man dressed as a police-officer apparently hitting a bystander (or vice-versa). The same rules apply pre- and post- capture.
To me, making choices about the post-processing before you shoot the image is just as much a photographic skill as making choices about the lighting. In the old days, putting black and white or colour film in the camera was a pre-shooting choice that had a dramatic effect on the processed result.
Clearly, posting something manipulated along side the claim that it's straight out of the camera is dishonest, but so is posting something as "I happened to see this" when the shot was planned and set-up beforehand.M A R T I N • T U R N E R
http://art.martinturner.org.uk
http://www.martinturner.org.uk
Nikonians membership: my most important photographic investment, after the camera
My Nikonians blog, Learning from the Portrait Masters, https://blog.nikonians.org/martin_turner/
-
-
-
-
-
#24. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
Clearly if you're doing journalism, adding or deleting elements of the picture is problematic.
Equally, the fact that I chose to use a film simulation filter to get specific colors is merely a fact of digital processing, rather than shooting with film. After all, if I could have shot it with Provia 100F, why is it problematic that I shot it digitally and put the Provia 100F colors in? The result is artistically the same either way. It's highly unlikely that I'd be accused of "dishonest manipulation" for choice of film stock. Yet a successful B&W silver gelatin print is almost certainly the subject of extensive darkroom manipulation, and I'm not limiting my comments to the prints of Ansel Adams, either.
For that matter, some folks think that any processing is "manipulation" - so B&W is mostly out, and honestly I don't know how they make prints that are of any size or aspect ratio than that that comes out of the camera. Did they only do contact prints in the film era?
If "manipulation" is so evil, are manipulations such as flash unethical? How about shooting with four - a dozen - flashes? What about "gardening"? Meaning things like picking up dead leaves or moving twigs? If I shoot at f/2, and blur the entire background out, it's certainly not what I saw in the field. Is that manipulation? How about all those milky waterfalls? We never see them as presented.
I've been described as dishonest for processing a raw image twice, then combining them with layers and masks to reduce contrast in a landscape - and not disclosing this fact. (More precisely, I simply showed the image. I did NOT claim that it was done with out such techniques. Rather I made no comment.) If this is necessary, is it also required that I prominently post the fact that I used a 2-stop and 3-stop graduated neutral density filter to shoot an original?
I think that the "standards" are quite arbitrary, as well as uninformed.
_____
Brian...
-
#25. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 24
Brian,
sounds like a real headache. I think the best way around all this is to label your work as art (which it is) & all is permissible.
In any case, photography is an art form, so we are all artists of varying levels of creativity.
Ralph -
#26. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 24
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Tue 18-Aug-09 05:51 PMBrian "pure" photography is a myth. As you say use of filters, flash, aperture,etc is a form of manipulation. Photo journalists, crime scene investigators, and scientists have an obligation to present their images as shot, but even they may use flash, filters or aperture choices. That is why I said for purposes of this discussion, you need to call it art. Just because you process 2 RAW images and blend them in post is no different than using a graduated ND filter on camera. To say otherwise is nonsense. As I also said, I blended images in the darkroom in my film days following procedures that I found in photography books. Darkroom skills were valued essential tools in those days and nobody said they were somehow evil.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#27. "Terminology update" | In response to Reply # 26
I was half wrong:
While digital artists are calling it manipulation. Photographers in the fashion business are still using re-touching.
Here's a link from another Nikonian to a You Tube video made by DOVE soap that shows how it affects the general public. Watch the girl next door be turned into someone that doesn't exist. It's a hot topic and there's a backlash coming from the General Public.
https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=163&topic_id=24595&mesg_id=24595&page=
-
#28. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
Aside from that very clear distinction, I think that anything goes, *period.* There is nothing "sacred" about an image as-captured in the camera compared to what you do afterwards to get to the final presentation. It's *your* image and you should be free to create it in any way you see fit without someone complaining that some imaginary line has been crossed.
I'm also an engineer by profession, but photography is by its very nature art, not science; even though it uses technical processes. The very act of reducing a three-dimensional subject into a flat two-dimensional image with borders is in itself a distortion of reality. So why should those purists quibble about cloning out a distracting piece of background or adjusting some other aspect of an image?
-
#29. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 28
I think this issue boils down to defining two distinct forms of art; the expectation of photography as an art that has been established for over a hundred years and what I would call "Digital Art".
Digital Art is equally valid and perhaps even more creative than traditional photography. "Anything goes" approach is exciting, fun and deserves the respect of the art world. However, I will take exception to calling it Photography.
Ansel Adams created quite a controversy with a an image called "Winter Sunrise". His contemporaries criticized him for removing some type of hand painted sign on a rock painted by high school seniors.
AA defended his image and I mention this not to define what is acceptable and what is not but to highlight a point. We as the viewer have an expectation that what we are seeing really happened, was really there.
If an artists places a cloud where there was none, adds a butterfly or inserts a tree without making sure the viewer understands that the image is a figment of the artists imagination, then I personally consider the image a fraud and would be disappointed that the artist intentionally attempted to fool me by not making the distinction. I think the artist has an obligation to tell his/her viewer that the image is "Digital Art" and that the image is not real.
When I see an AA, Alfred Stieglitz, or a Paul Strand photograph, I know the contents of the image actually happened and that is very, very important. The contrast may have been slightly different and the sky burned to recreate the drama that the artist saw, but these are minor adjustments to an image that is basically intact and as a viewer I have that expectation.
In addition, I would also argue that these attempts to enhance the image is an attempt to print an image that more accurately reflects what the human eye saw despite the limitations of the camera versus creating an image that never existed.
We can not dismiss this tradition/expectation simply because a new technology gives us new creative opportunities. We can however, develop a new tradition and a new art form with unlimited potential and not shackle it with an old name and the expectations attached to that old traditional name.
No matter where you end up on this argument, it is an important debate that everyone needs to think about.-
#31. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 29
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Thu 20-Aug-09 07:06 PMI don't understand your comment about an artist adding a cloud or a butterfly being a fraud. By that standard any painting would be a fraud, because in a painting you are rarely trying to paint exact reality. Landscape artists paint scenes in which they add and subtract features from the scene in front of them, that is why it is called Art and photography is also art, so why are the rules any different? To answer Mark's latest message below, I really don't think that because you use Photoshop or any other post processing tool makes you cross the line from Photographer to Photoshop artist. Everything you do in Photoshop had a corollary one time in the darkroom, and as I said before darkroom techniques were considered standard photography skills in times past.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#32. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 31
Bob,
You misunderstand my comments. I never said that adding to the image was a fraud in of itself.
I did say specifically that if the artist "inserts a tree without making sure the viewer understands that the image is a figment of the artists imagination, then I personally consider the image a fraud" and I still stand by that opinion. If the viewer is duped into thinking that the elements within the image are real and in fact they are not, then it is fraudulent. Most of the time it is obvious that the image has been cut/pasted and otherwise manufactured to create a piece of art. In such cases this discussion is moot because you can't cross a line when the image so clearly leaves photography far behind and instead becomes something new and exciting.
Where crossing the line becomes relevant is where the image will be accepted as a photograph and not figment of the artists imagination.
Secondly, I would never confuse painting with photography. The only thing they have in common is that they are both visual arts. The standards that exist for each discipline are completely different.
Lastly, I would beg to differ with you if you would consider adding content in a traditional darkroom as "standard photography skills in times past". Although cutting negatives and pasting them to other negatives to create a completely new image certainly was possible and even done in some cases but it was not the "standard" and was acknowledged for what it was; something created.
The very essence of photography is to capture......a nude, landscape, wildlife, portrait, and therefore implies some level of accuracy.
When I look at images of Yosemite by Ansel Adams, or images of China by Fan Ho, or a forest by John Sexton I have to believe it's real. The images would have little or no value if the image was a fake.
We as viewers depend on this trust between the photographer and the viewer. It makes the image valuable to us beyond the artistic value alone.
Sorry if I have rambled on. Hopefully I have been able to articulate my point of view. And in the end, that's all it is, my subjective point of view..........Mark-
#33. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 32
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Fri 21-Aug-09 01:36 AMSo where would you place images by Mann Ray who invented solarization? How about all the photos by surrealists in the same period where eyes were shown in the middle of hands or foreheads?
I did not mean to imply that by "standard" that everyone used them all the time, but I had darkroom books that showed me how to blend images that did not involve cutting and pasting, but did involve a lot of dodging and burning of multiple images on a single sheet of photo paper. What about paper negatives That were then modified with pencils, or high contrast film that was sandwiched with color slide film? What about the use of acids to remove a black and white image from the paper and then using mordant dyes to paint the image back, as the dyes grab onto the etched silver halides still on the paper, but now adding color? Or what about the more traditional method where black and white images were hand colored either with pencils or paint? I used these examples because I did make images this way.
There is a Zebra image in my gallery which I originally made in the '60s using darkroom techniques. It started as a color slide, a high contrast copy was made using Kodak Professional sheet film in contact with the slide and then they were sandwiched and projected on a piece of photo paper. That image was developed and a paper negative was made from it and that was further adjusted with pencils on the back and a new image made from the result modified paper negative. It took me many hours and the result was an image that almost looked natural until you got close and noticed fine detail in some areas and no detail in others. Last year I scanned the final image and did further work on it in Photoshop to make it even better. So all told I had many hours if effort in it and I still consider it a photo, just highly manipulated.
All of this as you say is subjective. For me if you have the required skills to improve an image in a non standard way, I see no reason not to apply those skills to make your image like you envisioned it. Some will disagree and they will draw imaginary lines between photography and other visual arts. Yet we know that the advertising world modifies images, photographers who have studios, like Vincent Versace modify images, as do many others and none of them has any problem with it.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it. -
#36. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 32
>
>I did say specifically that if the artist "inserts a
>tree without making sure the viewer understands that the image
>is a figment of the artists imagination, then I personally
>consider the image a fraud" and I still stand by that
>opinion. If the viewer is duped into thinking that the
>elements within the image are real and in fact they are not,
>then it is fraudulent.
The point is that even the most "realistic looking" photograph is a fraud because the very nature of making a photograph involves a selective and manipulated representation of reality. Does anyone in their right mind believe that photographs like "Moonrise and Half Dome" actually represents the way the subject looks in real life?
>Most of the time it is obvious that
>the image has been cut/pasted and otherwise manufactured to
>create a piece of art. In such cases this discussion is moot
>because you can't cross a line when the image so clearly
>leaves photography far behind and instead becomes something
>new and exciting.
In the same way, "pure" photography is guilty of the same thing if we are judging the result against what was actually in front of the camera when the shutter was tripped. Each of these accepted "photographic" techniques exist for the purpose of modifying a straight view of reality to suit the photographer's interpretation:
-lens filters of any kind
-choice of focal length
-multiple exposures
-motion blur
-selective focus
-exposure compensation
-choice of film
-push/pull processing
-cropping
-tilting the easel in the darkroom for perspective control
-dodging and burning
-variable contrast papers
-sandwiching negatives
-etc, etc
>Secondly, I would never confuse painting with photography.
>The only thing they have in common is that they are both
>visual arts. The standards that exist for each discipline are
>completely different.
What standards are those, and where are they published?
>
>Lastly, I would beg to differ with you if you would consider
>adding content in a traditional darkroom as "standard
>photography skills in times past". Although cutting
>negatives and pasting them to other negatives to create a
>completely new image certainly was possible and even done in
>some cases but it was not the "standard" and was
>acknowledged for what it was; something created.
>
>The very essence of photography is to capture......a nude,
>landscape, wildlife, portrait, and therefore implies some
>level of accuracy.
I think this is where the difference of opinion comes from, if any: some believe photography exists to merely capture what is there, others believe it exists to create. The truth is that photography is a big enough tent to include both points of view.
>When I look at images of Yosemite by Ansel Adams, or images of
>China by Fan Ho, or a forest by John Sexton I have to believe
>it's real. The images would have little or no value if the
>image was a fake.
Yet when I look at those magnificent images by Ansel Adams or John Sexton, I have no illusion that those things are "real." Real mountains and forests are quite colorful and look nothing like the way those two photographers portray them to be. Just look at the thousands of tourists who flock to those same places and come back with ho hum snapshots of those same subjects those guys used to create their masterpieces. In the same way, when I look at a magnificent Monet painting I realize that it isn't "real" even though he was standing in front of a real scene when he painted it.
>We as viewers depend on this trust between the photographer
>and the viewer. It makes the image valuable to us beyond the
>artistic value alone.
But that depends entirely on the purpose of the image. If it is intended to be a documentary for the purpose of recording something that actually happened, then I agree with you 100%. But if the purpose is art, then there simply are no rules.
-
-
-
#34. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 29
>When I see an AA, Alfred Stieglitz, or a Paul Strand
>photograph, I know the contents of the image actually happened
>and that is very, very important. The contrast may have been
>slightly different and the sky burned to recreate the drama
>that the artist saw, but these are minor adjustments to an
>image that is basically intact and as a viewer I have that
>expectation.
While I can certainly appreciate that point of view, I also think it is a rather arbitrary line to draw. After all, when we view a painting of some subject, whatever that may be, don't we also have a similar expectation that it "actually happened" in front of the artist? The only difference is in how the artist chooses to interpret what happened in front of him; which often is different from "reality."
>In addition, I would also argue that these attempts to enhance
>the image is an attempt to print an image that more accurately
>reflects what the human eye saw despite the limitations of the
>camera versus creating an image that never existed.
Photography is really no different from painting in this regard. The difference is that a photograph presents a greater illusion of reality, so on some level we expect it to be "real." But it truly is an illusion, as anyone who has tried to accurately capture a three dimensional subject in a two dimensional bounded frame can testify.
>
>We can not dismiss this tradition/expectation simply because a
>new technology gives us new creative opportunities. We can
>however, develop a new tradition and a new art form with
>unlimited potential and not shackle it with an old name and
>the expectations attached to that old traditional name.
It's interesting that at one time, color photography was considered to be the new technology, which promised to be more "real" than black & white. Now they both live happily side by side as equal photographic processes, and neither one truly reproduces reality as we see it. How can a monochrome photograph even pretend to be a realistic record of what is actually in front of the camera? It can't. Neither can color, although the colors give it a greater illusion of reality.
#30. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 28
We keep loosing the original question. This keeps turning into a "purity" discussion. None of us taking part in this discussion is a purist. (I'm as pure as week old New York City snow.)
WHEN DO WE STOP BEING PHOTOGRAPHERS AND BECOME PHOTOSHOP ARTISTS?
I have been trying to set a line based on photo shop tools, and consider these three tools the line. Any transform tool. Cutting and pasting.
Then there's the Nikonian question: We are not Flicker, not Deviant Art, and not the wall of a gallery. This is a sharing & teaching site. When someone asks to see pictures taken with a 50mm f1.4 and we post a stack in reply. Anything goes....doesn't seem right.
-
#35. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 30
>
>WHEN DO WE STOP BEING PHOTOGRAPHERS AND BECOME PHOTOSHOP
>ARTISTS?
>
An equally valid question from not too many years ago (and still valid for some) would be, "When do we stop becoming photgraphers and become darkroom wizards?"
>I have been trying to set a line based on photo shop tools,
>and consider these three tools the line. Any transform tool.
>Cutting and pasting.
I would move that line a bit by factoring in the starting point. Do you begin with your own photograph or do you begin with a clean page?
Why is cloning out a distracting leaf in a picture with Photoshop after the fact any different from physically clipping it off the plant before releasing the shutter?
Or, why would using the transform tool to change perspective be any different from selecting a different focal length or camera position before releasing the shutter? (Or using a tilt/shift lens?) However you do it, you're still seeking to modify the image from what the eye would "normally" see.
Or for that matter, even the use of wide angle or telephoto lenses should cross some arbitrary line of photographic honesty because both distort reality in a way that misrepresents what is actually in front of the camera.
#37. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 0
- Change is difficult for many people. For some, it's traumatic.
- The difficulty of change is often compounded by how a person perceives their skills surviving and being appreciated in the future. Many times, they see themselves as being replaced or marginalized, when in fact there are opportunities for those skills to be enhanced or have them complement other people's skills.
- Fighting change simply because you don't want to learn anything new is a poor excuse, at least in my opinion. I hope I never reach that point in life. Given that I've seen photographers in their eighties taking full advantage of new techniques, I see this as a psychological attribute rather than an age thing.
- Fighting change is like fighting a hurricane. You can try, but you're unlikely to be successful.
- Finally, no change in an art form that I can think of has ever been readily accepted. Beethoven was hammered by critics because of his use of dissonance (not everything sounded "pretty"), impressionists were ridiculed, and color photographers were told their art was of a lower caliber than those working in black and white.
Just because one person chooses a form of photography (and I'm using it in the broader, more modern sense) that results in more surrealistic images doesn't make them less valid from someone from more of a realist school. The converse is also true. It just makes them different. As a site, ignoring the trends in photography, would be like ignoring a hurricane, to use my prior analogy. That doesn't mean that traditional approaches aren't appreciated nor will it mean that those styles and looks will disappear in the future. How they're made will likely change (it always has), but they remain valid art forms.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#38. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 37
Rick,
I couldn't agree with you more.
I was at a website just yesterday where the artist shoots street scenes, digitally cuts the images into smaller pieces and creates collages from multiple images. It was brilliant! The creative opportunities are almost endless.
Steve and Bob,
When ManRay, Jerry Uelsmann or whoever creates their new and exciting images, it is art, it is valid and it is wonderful. They do not try to get the viewer to accept the image as reality in the same way Ed Weston would expect a viewer to accept his. I'm not sure why we are struggling with this concept.
My issue is with allowing the viewer to believe the image is real when it is not. Does that not resonate with anyone?
To say that all photography is not real because we change aperture, shutter speed, ISO, contrast etc., is an argument I have no interest in pursuing.
When you exhibit an image such as Aspens in the fall, and you present the image as a traditional landscape, and you add trees to the image through cut and paste or replication, and allow the viewer to accept the image as reality, then you have "crossed the line" and created a fraud. Does anyone disagree with this?
I have not seen Brian's images that he references in a previous post but adjusting tonality appears to be perfectly acceptable. He did not add a cowboy on horseback to the image! If he did, I personally would have a problem with the image unless it was obvious that the image has been manipulated.
On the issue of trust, Frank Capa's image of "Falling Soldier" reiterates the trust necessary between the viewer and the photographer. It does not matter what genre the image falls under, (ie: landscape, portrait, photo journalism, etc.). If the photographer allows the audience to accept the image as real and it is not, then the photographer has committed a fraud on the viewer.
I think I have been clear with my assessment of what is "crossing the line". If you disagree, that's OK. These are my personal and subjective points of view......Mark-
#39. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 38
mikeacollins Basic MemberFri 21-Aug-09 02:13 PM>
>
>When ManRay, Jerry Uelsmann or whoever creates their new and
>exciting images, it is art, it is valid and it is wonderful.
>They do not try to get the viewer to accept the image as
>reality in the same way Ed Weston would expect a viewer to
>accept his. I'm not sure why we are struggling with this
>concept.
Why are you assuming that Ed Weston was expecting his images be be accepted as reality? Because they are landscapes?
>
>My issue is with allowing the viewer to believe the image is
>real when it is not. Does that not resonate with anyone?
Again, what is reality? We have been touching up portrait photography for many many years. It is considered normal to remove facial blemishes but that involves using the "across the line" Photoshop tools. Are these pictures frauds?
>
>To say that all photography is not real because we change
>aperture, shutter speed, ISO, contrast etc., is an argument I
>have no interest in pursuing.
>
>When you exhibit an image such as Aspens in the fall, and you
>present the image as a traditional landscape, and you add
>trees to the image through cut and paste or replication, and
>allow the viewer to accept the image as reality, then you have
>"crossed the line" and created a fraud. Does anyone
>disagree with this?
Who has defined that the "traditional landscape" has to be reality. You have a clearly defined line. Light manipulation is fine but cloning is not. When I use Photoshop to change lighting, I do it to make a better photograph, not to make it match how it looked when I took the photo. Reality or fraud?
>
>I have not seen Brian's images that he references in a
>previous post but adjusting tonality appears to be perfectly
>acceptable. He did not add a cowboy on horseback to the
>image! If he did, I personally would have a problem with the
>image unless it was obvious that the image has been
>manipulated.
>
>On the issue of trust, Frank Capa's image of "Falling
>Soldier" reiterates the trust necessary between the
>viewer and the photographer. It does not matter what genre
>the image falls under, (ie: landscape, portrait, photo
>journalism, etc.). If the photographer allows the audience to
>accept the image as real and it is not, then the photographer
>has committed a fraud on the viewer.
I am not sure how you "allow the audience to accept the image as real" What defines this? Clearly photo journalism is real. Landscape? You define real as no cloning but what is that different than light manipulation in Photoshop or the darkroom? Portrait? If you are doing portrait photos as a business and you don't touch up the photos, I don't think you will be in business for very long.
>
>I think I have been clear with my assessment of what is
>"crossing the line". If you disagree, that's OK.
>These are my personal and subjective points of view......Mark
Yes these are all our personal views. This is one of those arguments that very few people minds will be changed and as photographers we all have an opinion and aren't afraid to share it.
Mike
------------------------------
Mysteries lie all around us, even in the most familiar things, waiting only to be perceived.
Wynn Bullock -
#40. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 38
>>They do not try to get the viewer to accept the image as
>reality in the same way Ed Weston would expect a viewer to
>accept his. I'm not sure why we are struggling with this
>concept.
But indeed Ed Weston did a lot of photography that was not "real" from a conventional point of view. His series of abstract pepper photos are a good example.
>
>My issue is with allowing the viewer to believe the image is
>real when it is not. Does that not resonate with anyone?
>
>To say that all photography is not real because we change
>aperture, shutter speed, ISO, contrast etc., is an argument I
>have no interest in pursuing.
The point isn't that camera controls make the image "unreal." It is the inarguable fact that a photograph by its very nature is an abstract representation of reality, no matter how you set your camera to get the picture. All photographs are very selective and manipulated snippets of space and time condensed to a two dimensional surface. If it looks "real" to us, that is just an illusion.
>When you exhibit an image such as Aspens in the fall, and you
>present the image as a traditional landscape, and you add
>trees to the image through cut and paste or replication, and
>allow the viewer to accept the image as reality, then you have
>"crossed the line" and created a fraud. Does anyone
>disagree with this?
I respectfully disagree, because in a traditional landscape there is no contract between the photographer and viewer that the image is "real;" any more than a painting of the same scene would be. Art is not reality, it never has been. Art is all about interpretation of reality.
However, if you were presenting a documentary or a news photograph that was trying to show what was actually there and you "faked it," then that would be fraud.
>
>On the issue of trust, Frank Capa's image of "Falling
>Soldier" reiterates the trust necessary between the
>viewer and the photographer. It does not matter what genre
>the image falls under, (ie: landscape, portrait, photo
>journalism, etc.). If the photographer allows the audience to
>accept the image as real and it is not, then the photographer
>has committed a fraud on the viewer.
Actually, the genre does matter. If the image is intended as art, then it is what it is, regardless of what the original subject may have looked like.
-
#41. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 40
Mike and Steve,
Out of courtesy to you I wanted to let you know I did read your replies, I disagree with your comments, I have nothing new to add so I wish you luck in your photographic endeavors and thank you for the lively debate........Mark-
#42. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 41
I was just about to quote from the Diamond Sutra on the nature of reality......so, I think I'll put this one to rest too.
- Mark V
-
#43. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 41
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Sat 22-Aug-09 02:43 AMMark and Mrk, it was fun. I am glad that Mike and steve at least share my views. It was like a debate, except no one really won as no opinions were changed.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#44. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 43
I don't think anybody's opinion on any subject is likely to change based on a few forum posts, but the important thing is that everyone fully understands each other's point of view, right? In this case, hopefully everyone sees that photography has valid elements of both viewpoints, whether it be "honest" documentary type images or "anything goes" expressions of art.
If you use a camera to capture an image as the first link in your process chain, then it is a photograph. Some feel that anything other than the original uncropped, uncorrected image straight out of the camera is a dishonest photograph; others feel that the photographer has complete freedom to alter his image to suit his view of the subject, using whatever processes are available. Fortunately, there is a lot of ground in between both extremes.
-
#45. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 44
As a non-pro, I enjoy the 'effects' of using different papers and different software to produce in my minds eye an 'enjoyable' image of what I think I saw when I took the photograph.
So for the fun of it I looked up Wikipedia's definition of photography:
"Regardless of material, some process must be employed to render the latent image captured by the camera into the final photographic work. This process consists of two steps, development and printing.
During the printing process, modifications can be made to the print by several controls. Many of these controls are similar to controls during image capture, while some are exclusive to the printing process. Most controls have equivalent digital concepts, but some create different effects. For example, dodging and burning controls are different between digital and film processes. Other printing modifications include:
* Chemicals and process used during film development
* Duration of exposure – equivalent to shutter speed
* Printing aperture – equivalent to aperture, but has no effect on depth of field
* Contrast - changing the visual properties of objects in an image to make them distinguishable from other objects and the background
* Dodging – reduces exposure of certain print areas, resulting in lighter areas
* Burning in – increases exposure of certain areas, resulting in darker areas
* Paper texture – glossy, matte, etc
* Paper type – resin-coated (RC) or fiber-based (FB)
* Paper size
* Toners – used to add warm or cold tones to black and white prints"
Tom
-
-
-
#46. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 43
Bob,
Speaking only for myself, I consider this discussion a win/win. I rarely will completely give up a position within a short, compressed amount of time. But I will often take pieces of the discussion that make sense to me and allow them to shape my positions in the future as they evolve. A static point of view that refuses to evolve is something I want to avoid at all costs.
Anytime someone latches on to my brain and tries to stretch it I am better for it. So thank you for your point of view and for sharing it with everyone.....Mark-
#47. "RE: Where does re-touching cross the line?" | In response to Reply # 46
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Sun 23-Aug-09 03:13 AMThanks Mark I agree that debates with open minds are useful especially if you try to understand the other persons views. i was trying to do that and that is why I kept coming up with examples to see where your real lines were. In all we all do win when we keep ourselves open to alternate views even if we disagree. I do agree for example that to purposly misrepresent an image would be wrong, although as you now know I pretty much think anything goes.Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.
-
-
-
-
G
Thanks in advance,
Dave