Accepting other techniques...

[KirkDarling]

[ QUOTE ]
If it creates an emotion, it's good. If it's tranparently poorly done and fails to create that emotion, it's bad. Or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long, long time ago, 'way before the Internet, I had a discussion with a guy about "what is art?" My aim was to draw a meaningful distinction between "craftsmanship," "artisanship," and "art."

My primary distinttion was (and still is): Art communicates emotion, and a good artist does so deliberately.

This is not to say that only art can communicate emotion (perhaps an artist can design a toilet commode that communicates emotion, but if it doesn't flush effectively, it's also lousy craftsmanship as far as commodes go), but that if the object does not communicate emotion, it's not "art" as defined in a meaningful, distinctive way. Yes, we can say "everything is art," but then we may as well say "everything is air"--the definition has no meaning if it doesn't define anything. I would not pay a dime for art instruction from an art teacher who defined everything as art.

I do woodwork, and I truly admire a good example of wood craftsmanshp. But that in itself isn't art. Yet, I would say a good artist must also be a good craftsman, or he's just been lucky. I would opine that a good artist should be like Babe Ruth pointing the direction he will hit his next home run, or Muhammad Ali annoucing the round in which he'll knock out his opponent, or Minnesota Fats calling his shot--like Holst naming a movement "Jupiter, Bringer of Joviality" and then wrting a song that actually makes the listener chuckle. Does that mean a successful stand-up comic is an artist? Yes, it does.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that documentary or news photography may often be one thing, while portraiture and other forms of photography may live by another standard. But, on the other hand, take for example the type of photography I do...racing. Racing photography is, at least in one sense, documentary. I shoot for racing publications, which then use my and other photos to document the event. Among racing photographers it is quite common and acceptable to use slower shutter speeds and panning as an "in camera" technique to create motion blur to add the feeling of speed to the photos to make them more dynamic. This is generally considered to be acceptable but is not a reflection of reality. When you view the same race with your eyes, you do not see this effect any more than you could see the "tilted wheels" that the old-style shutters created.

[/ QUOTE ]

An ancient Roman once asked this question of an ancient Jew: "What is 'truth?' Is my truth the same as your truth?" The subject of epistomology was a hot topic in the ancient Graeco-Roman world--we haven't arrived at a real answer any more than they did. We just think we have.

When you create motion blur, how is that not "truth?" I don't know about you, but I see motion blur when I pan with my eyes or head to follow a swiftly moving object. There was a painter many years ago who painted a pale, blue horse in the shadow of a tree. His blue horse drew much criticism for many years until Kodachrome was invented and a photographer took a picture of a white horse in the shadow of a tree. It turned out the painter was merely more perceptive than most people.

[ QUOTE ]
When we do this in camera, pretty much everyone accepts it as normal and real, but when you step over the line to motion blurs that have essentially no crisp content (as is very common in Formula 1 photography today), zoom-blurs, or do the effects in Photoshop, the controversy about what is real and acceptable begins.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the useful line for reportage is between:

1. Using photographic techniques to put on an image what either actually happened in "reality" but was not commonly perceived (the blue horse) or didn't happen in "reality" but was commonly perceived by the viewer at the scene (motion blur). Either situation is describable as "truth," depending on the question. An easy sitution to show what I mean: I am a photographer on the witness stand in court. The issue under question is "Did the police officer have cause to shoot the suspect?" My photograph may show either "reality" or it may show what the police officer "perceived," and if it does either of those, it is useful reportage.

2. Using photographic techniques to put on an image what was neither "real" nor perceived as real by the common viewer of the scene. The recent "Newsweek" cover image of criminally convicted and recently released media personality Martha Stewart--the image of her head placed on the image of a much thinner woman's body. In that case, the image showed neither "reality" nor anyone's "perception"--nobody being able to testify to having seen anything like the cover image. It might have been "art" (it did create emotions--but was the artist good enough to reliably create the emotions he intended?) but it wasn't reportage.

The question is: "What is truth?" Or rather, "What is the truth I intend to convey?" It may have started with "What is the truth?" but a serious observer will realize rather quickly that seeing an objective truth is even harder than depicting it (even if he thinks he's avoided Heidegger's Principle). So he has to determine what his truth is, then conceive of a way to depict it.

So should the photojournalist manipulate the image in post processing to make either "reality" or "perception" more clear in the image? While at this point strict journalistic interpretation of their ethics says, "Absolutely never," I would hesitate to be so strict about that.

[Jay_J_Hector]

Eric, image-manipulation in-camera is photography, image-manipulation on the computer is not photography (frame-grabbing off the tube isn't photography but you have an image to manipulate). When one shot Kodachrome in the recent past you had to get it right in camera or you had nothing, as there was no post-processing like negative shooters could do. The editors of Best Sports Stories considered this manipulated shot Best Sports Stories 1983 to be photojournalism since it was in-camera (not much choice then unless you worked for Xerox PARC). Some winners of photojournalism contests and some news-shooters have found out recently IM on the computer (beyond the modern equivalent of darkroom work) is not considered photography by the judges nor their papers/wire-service, and rightfully so IMHO.

And for Bob, the BSS editor said (in their comment on the cover shot), "Although the human eye never sees motion as depicted in the photograph, the picture uses the camera's unique ability to distill onto film the essence of racing - speed." Maybe this ability isn't unique to the camera anymore, but I don't think that with PS you could make it look exactly the same as the imperfections can't be duplicated. I've had some conversations with Bob about this subject privately.

Dave, it's the imperfections again that prevent the PS zoom-effect from equaling the reality of an in-camera zoom Alan Jones Jochen Mass. I have never seen a PS zoom-effect attempt come anywhere near my in-camera quality because of the random nature of the effect when done in the camera. Maybe some wiz at Pixar on their mainframe could dupe a good zoom-effect, but not in PS. If you can do this I'll eat my Humble Pie LPs.

Jay

[DavidHarpe]

Jay,

You've touched on an interesting and highly debated point these days. When does manipulation "in the computer" cross the line from being "photography" to "illustration"?

So "in camera" is sacred. What, these days, is "in camera"? I can create stacked exposures completely in-camera with the latest Nikon digital camera body. I can sharpen, tone compensate, add tinting, and much more "in-camera". I can even send the image FROM the camera to the world without it ever touching a photo editing program by way of a wireless link. Does that mean these images are protected and without reproach?

From a photojournalism standpoint, doing a photoshop lens blur is over the top. The newspapers I shoot for draw the line at simple toning and color correction. Anything else and it's called an illustration.

But the vast majority of photography these days doesn't adhere to these rigid guidelines. Photo contests and juries may shun images that are obviously edited, but there is truly no definitive, quantitative, scientific way to examine a print and say, "Hey! This guy used photoshop!"

You state that in recent contests, manipulation "beyond the modern equivalent of darkroom work" was shunned by the judges. I've heard the "darkroom" standard applied elsewhere as an example. But don't forget that in the darkroom you can remove dust, stack negatives, burn and dodge, selectively manipulate focus (enlarger tricks), hand-tint negatives, etc. You can do a tremendous number of "misleading" effects using well-published and celebrated techniques...it just takes longer.

A contact print of an Ansel Adams negative will look vastly different than the final published print of his work. Earlier prints in a series will look different than later prints in a series. Does this mean the photo was "manipulated"? Does it make it any less spectacular? Does it make HIM any less of a "photographer"? By some definitions, the only "photography" he did was what happened out in the forest his camera. Everything else is "paltry parlour tricks" as someone earlier stated.

The biggest problem with making these line-in-the-sand statements is, at the end of the day, it's all subjective. I love Mark Tucker's work. Many of the images have a photoshop "feel" to them, a few in particular where the depth cues aren't correct. I have no clue as to what he did in photoshop or not, and for aesthetics it doesn't matter to me. I like the photos. Whatever maniuplation was done...whether it was with a tilt-shift lens or a photoshop technique, I don't care. I like his work. At the end of the day, any manipulations done with the equipment (computer or analog) came from his head and inspiration. That inspiration and the end product are what I respect. And in my book he's still a "photographer", no matter how he ended up with the imagery.

Can you get similar effects in photoshop? Sure you can, complete with "imperfections". It's just a different application of technique and vision. Can you pixel-for-pixel match the look you get from a 1950's blah blah blah that was purchased at an estate sale from the family of a retired former lens engineer for contax? No. That's not the point...unless you like looking at test charts all day. Can you make an astethically pleasing, appealing image using any number of techniques...lenses or otherwise? Of course you can. THAT's what is important. Take a browse through the Corbis catalog sometime. Some of the images are obviously photoshopped, some are done in camera, most are done with a combination of techniques. It doesn't matter to the image buyers - they buy the image because it looks good to them.

The times are changing. It's very difficult in the digital world to draw a line about what is truly the art of the artist, and what is "faked" using "digital". Head over to the music world and check out the debates going on there. Very similar threads.

[Jeremy_Jachym]

Aren't we comparing based on what's familiar? Many of you have been creating images for some time and have sought after a certain look within the analog vocabulary. I've heard people saying that digital files can be "too clean", lacking the familiar grain they're accustomed to. Let's just playfully ask "if we had been using digital & PS in place of film for the past 1-150 years ( I don't know my photography history) would we be displeased with the "newly discovered" in-camera effects?"
I don't know what PS is capable of doing. I don't know what digital photography is capale of. I do know that if you pull down the shades and lock yourself into your digital darkroom that you're bound to discover more than if you say "it's not possible". For me it's a question of how much energy are you willing to spend persuing the unknown.

[Franka_T_Lieu]

Well FOA, I do agree that certain effect and image quality cannot always be achived by Photoshop, but then likewise, certain other effect and image quality ( and the ocntrol it endowed upon the photographer ) are just likely not achivable via traditional means.


I do not see a reason not to use any one of them or even combined. Most of my paid work is in Color , or pure B&W ( film , the customers love them ) but for my own personal work, I have been working on a portfolio of images I do using almost all kind of technique both traditional and digital combined. I see no reason to bash or to praise certain one over the others. They are just a collection of tools that I can employ to fulfill my technical need. I use to work as an engineer, and engineer know enough not to argue about such stuff. When the job call for a certain tool, you don't use something else, PERIOD !!


For the matter, I do find both the Film/traditional wet darkrrom zealot & the Photoshop / digital fanatics equally repugnant.

[JohnCamp]

There are several different things being discussed here. They *are* different.

1. Photojournalism. As a practical matter, most intelligent people understand that a camera can be used to do certain manipulations of reality -- tilt and shift, under- and over-exposure, selective focus, lighting, posing, etc., but when all is said and done, *something like what you see in the photograph has an objective reality, and that reality is in some way guaranteed by the machine.* If you took a picture of a mountain, you could manipulate, but the mountain was there. If you took a picture of a woman, you could manipulate, but the woman looked something like the photo, or the photo was so manipulated that it was apparent. In other words, manipulation to the level needed to really fool people was extremely difficult -- so difficult that it was rare, especially since the penalty, if you were caught, was usually the loss of your job. That combination of technical and social circumstances made journalistic photos more or less trustworthy. Something vey like what happened in the photo actually happened.

2. "Objective" art, of the kind that Ansel Adams was famous for. In Moonrise, the moon rose, and the town was there and so was the graveyard, but the neg was heavily manipulated and Adams didn't try to hide it. There was no reason for him to hide it: he wasn't taking a picture of a machine reality, he was making an image of his own personal vision of a moment outside a small town in New Mexico; and that vision, over the years, changed slightly, and he didn't apologise for that, either. His vision had changed. This kind of "reality", that of personal vision, is common with most fine art photographers.

3. "Non-objective art" where elements of photos are taken apart and recombined. What you see is essentially completely the creation of the photographer; there may be a recognizable mountain in one of these works, but that's really no more important than the fact that there are recognizable news clippings in some of Picasso's cubist collages.

In my opinion, none of these are right and wrong. The last group is usually the least interesting because it takes a genius to do this kind of creation, and, frankly, geniuses are a little thin on the ground. You might expect one or two in a generation...

But the real probem arises when people use photography to lie -- to claim that photos that might be okay in group 2, are really from group 1. Or that photos from group 3 are really in group 2. While that was very hard to do with wet photography, it has become quiet possible with Photoshop, to do it at a level, and with a speed, that makes it possible to successfully fake photojournalism. To give 100 percent reality to events that didn't occur. The Los Angeles Times (?) photographer who got fired for faking the photo in Iraq actually created a very different feeling with the manipulated photo than existed in either of the non-manipulated versions that he used to create it. My feeling was that the manipulated photo gave a threatening vibration, a soldier with an M16 actually threatening a small, crying child; nothing like that was actually happening. If he hadn't screwed it up in kind of a stupid way, nobody would ever have known.

So the problem with Photoshop, in my opinion, is not any of the manipulations, pe se, but simply that it makes it possible to lie efficiently and seamlessly in a way that can have very real effects in the way events are perceived. Unmanipulated photography (the naked girl runnning fron napalm, the Viet Cong being executed) went a long way toward disenchanting the American public with the war in Vietnam; manipulated photos have the potential of falsely portraying events in a way that plays to particular political views in extremely important matters; and if found out, could undermine photography's power to represent reality. Would we necessarily believe the Viet Cong execution any more, especially if it was officially denied and the photo was made by a photographer who known to be personally anti-war?

As for the smaller question of whether you can do everything in Photoshop that you can do in a camera, I don't see how you would be able to take a photo with shallow depth-of-field and give it deep depth of field, as you can with tilt-and-shift, without simply making up data. But other than a couple of small exceptions like that, I think powerful imaging programs will eventually be able to replicate anything done in camera or in a wet darkroom.

JC

[Franka_T_Lieu]

John, I think you hit it fair and square. And come to think of it, the problem run deeper than that. Not just Photoshop open an easier and faster path to forgery and fake; but the fact that a new crop of photographer / artist seemingly think of such activity of deliberate faking as being an OK affiar. The argument of artisitc freedom is hardly convincing to me. None of these are actully a problem of Adobe or Photoshop. Its ultimately a social issue within the photographic society.