Hornets Nest?
A few days ago, I was asked if I photoshop my images. It did stirr up some rather strong feelings I have on the matter about manipulation, but perhaps not in the way you may think I mean.
Before reading the rest of my post, I encourage you to watch this video first.
Ok, so you watched it? I’d love to know what your feelings are on the matter. But before you rush off to post an entry to me, I’ll tell you mine, straight to the point.
I really deplore people who use the word ‘photoshop’ to imply cheating, like photoshop is bad. It’s not. I also don’t agree with people who feel that photography should be truthful. In their minds, they have this concept that when the shutter is clicked, the unmanipulated image contains truth. That is incorrect from the start because if it were true, the image would be 3-D. It would also have the same dynamic range that our eyes are able to record, but the simple matter is that cameras, sensors and film do not see the way we see. And in order to convey what we saw, we have to use things like Neutral Density filters and dark room techniques like the ones you saw Ansel doing in the video.
I use photoshop techniques all the time. I’m a big fan of layers and masks. I like to add localised contrast to elements of the scene. I also like to ’suggest’ to the viewer aspects of the image by controlling brighness and darkness.
But there is skill in what I do out in the field too. I cannot turn any old image into a good one. I have to have good light, good subject matter and above all else, a sense of strong vision.
I feel I am very much in tune with how Ansel approached his images. He was a master printer. But he had a strong sense of vision and when he saw a scene, he knew how he wanted it to be realised.
It’s pretty disparaging when people say ‘oh, you photoshopped that’, as if to say ‘you cheated’. It demeans the value of the work.
Let’s put it another way. If it’s as simple as just getting a copy of photoshop and playing around with images, we’d all be making great images, but we’re not. The subject is a whole lot more complex than just assuming that if you have a really expensive camera or a copy of photoshop, you’re going to get great results.
Agree entirely, Bruce. I showed someone who argued that photographs should be ‘truthful’ some of Barbara Probst’s portraits online (having seen some of her large prints at Stills) – it was a revelation to them to think about the concept of ‘truth’ in images after that! Manipulation then began to seem quite normal for this person.
Comment by michael — 26 June, 2009 @ 12:27 am
I also completely agree with you. However, I would even go further and not take “the human eye” as the reference. Almost everything that you say about images also applies to our vision and how our brain processes (or “photoshops”?) it. We all see differently and the process of taking a picture is highly subjective. In my opinion, this is what makes photography fascinating, interesting and beautiful.
Comment by Florian — 26 June, 2009 @ 5:48 am
Yes, good point there. In order to make my little post a bit easier to digest, I used the human eye. I’d read about this a long while ago – the brain interprets the scene and basically takes exposure readings from highlights and shadows and merges the entire scene into one ‘meaningful’ image. But perhaps that is splitting hairs a little bit.
I guess I just feel a bit fed up with people thinking that if you use any techniques out in the field – that’s ok, but doing further enhancements after the pictures was taken is untruthful.
As Ruth Bernhard said ‘To stop at the negative is to not realise the full potential of the image’.
I don’t put things in my images that weren’t there. I record the scene on film so I’ve got all the density values there – no blocked shadows, no blown highlights. I subscribe very much to how Ansel approached his work with dark room techniques…. It’s not revolutionary or lying, it’s simply always been an integral part of photography, right from the very beginning.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 26 June, 2009 @ 7:21 am
Hi Bruce,
I notice you say you don’t add anything or remove anything. Why draw the line at this point? If the picture you have previsualised turns out to have a footprint in the middle of the sand that you hadn’t noticed when you took it, what would be wrong with removing it?
I was involved in a discussion recently with a few photographers where one of the group had taken a picture at Eigg where they were very happy with the composition but the sky had let them down. They had another picture from the same day very close to the location where the sky was more suitable and they had combined the results. Now quite a few of the people present thought of this as ‘unacceptable’ but I wonder why? It acheive her vision of what she wanted to portray. It was’nt a visual lie as the sky was like that above that patch of ground at one point, although the colour may have changed (but are colour changes OK in the photographic studio?)
We each define our own bounds of acceptability but I don’t think we apply much intellectual rigour to the reasons behind our decision.
The biggest complaints seem to come from other photographers anyway and I think there is not a small amount of jealousy involved.
My personal line says that I shouldn’t misrepresent a place, so showing the wrong weather systems would be bad. Altering a geological feature would be bad. Cloning out some grass or footsteps I didn’t like would be OK. Bascially, If the scene I capture/create ‘could’ have happened at some point then I’m OK with it.
Comment by timparkin — 26 June, 2009 @ 7:39 am
Hi Tim,
Great input there…. and my answer to your question is : I simply do not know why I draw the line at not cloning things. Perhaps it’s because I feel that if something is offending, I tend to move or reposition the camera. Perhaps it’s because if I clone a rock out, it’s to take slight against how nature made it. But then again, I’m happy about dodging and burning, and I feel that is because I’m not trying to obstruct, I’m trying to lead the viewer around the scene. Subtle, and I have to confess to making this up as I type. In short, I really don’t know the answer, but all I do know is I feel very uncomfortable with it. We all have our own interpretation of what photography is, what it means and how far or less you go with manipulation.
“We each define our own bounds of acceptability but I don’t think we apply much intellectual rigour to the reasons behind our decision.”
I’d agree with that.
“The biggest complaints seem to come from other photographers anyway and I think there is not a small amount of jealousy involved.”
Not so sure about that. There are laymen out there who as soon as look at an image that has great impact will say ‘have you altered this in any way?’. That’s because they think that all photographers just click a shutter at a magical moment in time, which is understandable because they don’t have much interest in the process of making images.
I like your ethic in trying not to misrepresent a place. I think that’s it in a nutshell for me. If the place is beautiful and I create a damning shot of the place, then that’s just not on. But I also think personal taste comes into it too. HDR for example is a technique which if used skilfully, It should be transparent, but at the moment, I just see a lot of very unconvincing, ugly pictures most of the time made by folk who don’t understand colour and when to draw the line.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 26 June, 2009 @ 7:51 am
it certainly did stirr up some feelings :)
I think if questions about ‘photoshopping’ come from people interested in photography it’s rather “how you do it” than “do you manipulate?!”
Comment by goosetea — 26 June, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
I think there is some weight to both sides of the argument. I think a lot of the time photographers are upset by people accusing them of photoshopping because they are at least in part using photoshop to correct problems that they may have gotten wrong at exposure. Perhaps it’s something more felt by amateur photographers, but I see it a lot. It’s a guilt/anger I feel when someone takes issue with photoshop on my photos, because mostly I use it to fix up the little bits I got wrong – slight over/under exposure, white balance, etc.
It can be hard to convince people that the camera sees in a different way than we do, and that photos usually need some processing to get them to appear to us as “natural”. When people get photos that don’t come out the way they hoped, it’s almost always because they don’t understand how the camera sees as opposed to our own eyes. Perhaps people’s distaste for photoshop comes from a feeling of getting mutton dressed as lamb – someone passing off a bad photo as a good one. Whereas using filters, etc, to modify the image at exposure is different because you are making the image better to start with.
I’m not a big fan of HDR – I feel it’s overdone in most cases. And I don’t really believe it is a technique that is a photographic skill, whereas I see dodging/burning in film or digital as different. I’m not saying that I don’t think HDR images have value, but they start to depart from what I call photography into digital art.
I went on some studio tours in Hollywood a while ago, which were a lot of fun. But also left me feeling kind of cheated. I went through a place that was supposed to be a jungle set – it was just a bunch of overgrown bushes and bamboo plants. They’d used it in completely different movies as a completely different place each time. Jurassic Park, Chuck the tv show, they’d even used the dirty pond in Jaws. The experience you get on a screen can be so rich and engrossing, and when you realise none of the emotion was really there at the time, it feels like you’re watching something that’s paper thin.
I guess perhaps it’s like what they say about relationships and defining cheating. If you’re doing something that you wouldn’t do if your partner could see it, then perhaps it’s cheating. Maybe the same with a photograph – if you’re doing something to it that you would be ashamed to admit to the viewer, maybe it’s cheating.
That’s my take.
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 26 June, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Wow, that was long. Sorry! I guess it gets my goat too ;)
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 26 June, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Hey Bruce,
I use Photoshop all the time. Although my style of photography is different in what I shoot, if you check out my photoblog you should be able to see where I used dodging and burning techniques, add contrast and a little sharpening as well. I see nothing wrong in doing so.
The reason I don’t feel it is wrong is that by manipulating my photo I’m creating an end result of what I envisioned in the first place; the reason for taking the photo.
Like you said, you have to start with a good subject, the right light and the correct exposure for the results you want to achieve. Like Andreas Feininger said, “If it ain’t there, just don’t do it, no matter how beautiful the subject is”.
It’s just that you are so darn good at what you do and it takes a lot of hard work to get to that level. And that’s what most of us aspire to do.
Keep up the great work that you do and let the naysayers wallow in their own self perfecton. Maybe they’ll catch on someday.
Glenn
Comment by gc — 26 June, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
I think it’s all a question of marketing terms and branding :). I really think is about the general awareness that people have when they hear the word “photoshop”. Since a lot of art work is being done with Photoshop (not related to photography), I think the term “photoshop it” gradually became similar to “create your own”.
I’m saying this because in the vast majority of times, these questions relate to digital photography. For some reason, the simple fact that photoshop uses the same darkroom techniques, only “digitised”, is not known. And so, film photography I think is a more “purist” brand than digital photography. I’ve never ever heard any god photographer blaming photoshop.
Still, in my opinion, there is one thing enhancing some aspects in the photo, and is something else entirely adding like a dramatic sunset that was never there in the first place, or trees or something like that. But I also believe that these “personal rules” only apply to some type of photography – especially landscape.
But photography is an art form, and esentially I don’t think there are any specific rules – it’s all about the message and impact.
Comment by Dumitru — 26 June, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Bruce – this is interesting and a debate I have quite often, more with myself than anyone else.
As you know I shoot only film now, 99% because I just like the ‘look’ of film (mainly monochrome but colour/slide also has a different look, to my eyes, than digital). The other 1% is that it appeals to the purist in me.
However, that said, I currently dont do wet print, I scan and apply ‘treatment’ in Lightroom and clean in Photoshop. This begs the question: the moment the neg has been scanned, it then becomes digital, so what’s the point? My view is that the original ‘look’ is still captured on film but easier to ‘manipulate’ digitally.
I agree with most of the comments above, particularly about remaining truthful to your own set of rules. I tend to only use techniques/treatment which ‘could’ be applied in a dark room such as dodging, burning, contrast, blurring, etc.
I also agree that post processing, and by that I also include developing film as well as applying treatment is a skill in its own and not something everyone can do, or at least not well or to my liking.
I also revisit negatives from time to time and adjust them according to my new vision/version of the original composition. The majority of my work doesnt look anything like what my eyes saw when clicking the shutter, but the treatment I apply is what my ‘minds eye’ saw or knew I could create when I clicked the shutter. It’s that part that excites me the most.
Photography IS subjective manipulation from the moment you choose which film/iso/shutter/stop/lens/filter etc to use, all of which creates a different vision/version of the original compostion, and I use the word ‘original’ quite wrongly.
That’s my $0.02
Comment by pcooklin — 27 June, 2009 @ 1:05 am