Another thread on here questioned what technology had brought to bear on the world of photography. I was on DPR tonight and there was a post with a link to a person who obviously and very skillfully manipulated his photos with a program like Photoshop. The work was very good, clearly artistic in intent, and yet spawned much animosity among the different camps. I've been thinking a lot about this. This is what my final post was...just something that seems to be relevant to todays world....Wondering what others think?
-Documentary photography takes real skill and good equipment. Artistic photography takes real skill (different maybe) and maybe not such good equipment. One is a photograph of the real...the other shows us reality in a different sense. When the two get mixed up with each other is when it hurts photography. When somebody is trying to show the literal truth and puts someones head on someone else's body, or shows a news event that didn't really happen. I think that's why literature has been divided into two distinct areas. I also think that photographers must be held accountable who manipulate documentary (sports, news, action, science) just the same way as people who write about it. That way the animosity between the two forms of it will disappear. Since one shows the truth literally and the other if it's done well shows it subjectively. Photography as a whole will suffer until those divisions are made...and people say "hey you're fired for staging that, or manipulating that shot" Just because something can be done, maybe doesn't mean it should be...then some people won't feel threatened by artistic use of the medium...and I'm not putting anybody down who feels that way...there is good cause. No one...because of the lack of integrity of some...can tell what's real anymore. I've seen nature photographers add birds...etc. that's not integrity. Once I saw a photographer add a person of a different race to a pamphlet for a sports program (they at least got caught and fired probably because they did a bad job of it...and they did) There's got to be some kind of division soon...some kind of standard for people to be held accountable to...or it's going to hurt both the artistic side, and the documentary side of photography? No one will believe anything they see....
Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Just a thought
Artistic Questions
Just a thought
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 869
Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:50 am
You act like this is something new from the digital age. It's not..
Almost since the inception of film, people have been altering photos and presenting the fakes as real. In some cases they were doing it from a documentary point of view.
Some of the earliest were double exposures (oooh Ghosts).
One of the most famous is the Cottingley Fairies.
During the American Civil War it was not even considered bad form to pose pictures (moving bodies and equipment around) to put things in the proper light or to make a photographic point.
Later posing was considered bad form but staging was not.
One of the most famous pictures of all time is the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima, this was a staged picture. The original flag wasn't grand enough so they re staged it. MacArthur was jumping in and out of his landing craft to make his "I have returned" pictures in the Philippines.
Modern ethics don't allow for staging but some "acting" is still allowed. During the arrival in Somalia the Marines were shown attacking the beaches crawling in while reporters were standing around getting the photo op.
Modern techniques are more interesting but so is modern scrutiny. The reporters that have been caught recently were caught by the viewers. Lets face it it would not be hard to add a digital signature to the picture file as it was taken (the Nikon D200 has this feature). The good thing is that the photojournalist is not a very good hacker.
In the end we will need to trust and reward the integrity of the real reporters and totally blacklist the bad ones as has been done throughout history.
Lexar Locktite http://www.lexar.com/newsroom/press/press_09_20_05.html
Cottingley Faries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Early Fakes
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester ... aking.html
Almost since the inception of film, people have been altering photos and presenting the fakes as real. In some cases they were doing it from a documentary point of view.
Some of the earliest were double exposures (oooh Ghosts).
One of the most famous is the Cottingley Fairies.
During the American Civil War it was not even considered bad form to pose pictures (moving bodies and equipment around) to put things in the proper light or to make a photographic point.
Later posing was considered bad form but staging was not.
One of the most famous pictures of all time is the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima, this was a staged picture. The original flag wasn't grand enough so they re staged it. MacArthur was jumping in and out of his landing craft to make his "I have returned" pictures in the Philippines.
Modern ethics don't allow for staging but some "acting" is still allowed. During the arrival in Somalia the Marines were shown attacking the beaches crawling in while reporters were standing around getting the photo op.
Modern techniques are more interesting but so is modern scrutiny. The reporters that have been caught recently were caught by the viewers. Lets face it it would not be hard to add a digital signature to the picture file as it was taken (the Nikon D200 has this feature). The good thing is that the photojournalist is not a very good hacker.
In the end we will need to trust and reward the integrity of the real reporters and totally blacklist the bad ones as has been done throughout history.
Lexar Locktite http://www.lexar.com/newsroom/press/press_09_20_05.html
Cottingley Faries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Early Fakes
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester ... aking.html
- Posts: 914
Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:30 pm
No...I'm aware that it's always been done. The example of Iwo Jima you used is a good one...as are the others. I guess in the really early days people had to be "posed" since if they moved they'd blur the photo. It does 'seem' easier to change things to a degree now with photo editing software...what made me think about this was the antagonism about it I saw on DPR (The Canon xxD Forum...of course there's always a lot of antagonism on there... 
and how it was directed toward a photographer that used editing for clearly artistic ends.... but I do think technology has made this a bit easier...or at least given the perception that it is. I think even some film documentaries were faked also...the documentary of the attack at Pearl Harbor, that everyone has seen, has a lot of scenes that "weren't necessarily so". I've heard people say that it's harder to sell photos from digital cameras than from film because of the publics perception that digital can be manipulated or "faked" so easily. I don't know how widespread this perception is..but have heard it heard it...that it's harder to sell digital... And how incorrect an assumption if that idea is widespread...since most "film" photographers use digital processing somewhere along the line. Yeah I agree that in the end it's the honesty of the documentary photographer and their editor. I do think though that the publics perception of this all has changed more with technology...maybe like you say because more get caught changing things. Maybe some of the antagonism I've sensed in the public...is just mostly because a lot people just don't like change (new technologies) and are afraid of it...but it does seem that many people (non photographers) think somehow that digital somehow isn't as honest...that's mostly what I was trying to address. And why they would attack someone who was in a very obvious sense manipulating images for clearly artistic goals...of course like I said before on that forum they often attack people for any (or no) reason at all 
I have heard average people comment in regards to this...almost as if a digital photographer could make anything seem true on the computer (and would). I remember burning in or blocking out areas in printing film in the darkroom too...in other words manipulation. Just trying to get a grip on why I keep coming up on this incorrect public impression. It's not my impression at all...just one I've heard.
and how it was directed toward a photographer that used editing for clearly artistic ends.... but I do think technology has made this a bit easier...or at least given the perception that it is. I think even some film documentaries were faked also...the documentary of the attack at Pearl Harbor, that everyone has seen, has a lot of scenes that "weren't necessarily so". I've heard people say that it's harder to sell photos from digital cameras than from film because of the publics perception that digital can be manipulated or "faked" so easily. I don't know how widespread this perception is..but have heard it heard it...that it's harder to sell digital... And how incorrect an assumption if that idea is widespread...since most "film" photographers use digital processing somewhere along the line. Yeah I agree that in the end it's the honesty of the documentary photographer and their editor. I do think though that the publics perception of this all has changed more with technology...maybe like you say because more get caught changing things. Maybe some of the antagonism I've sensed in the public...is just mostly because a lot people just don't like change (new technologies) and are afraid of it...but it does seem that many people (non photographers) think somehow that digital somehow isn't as honest...that's mostly what I was trying to address. And why they would attack someone who was in a very obvious sense manipulating images for clearly artistic goals...of course like I said before on that forum they often attack people for any (or no) reason at all I have heard average people comment in regards to this...almost as if a digital photographer could make anything seem true on the computer (and would). I remember burning in or blocking out areas in printing film in the darkroom too...in other words manipulation. Just trying to get a grip on why I keep coming up on this incorrect public impression. It's not my impression at all...just one I've heard.- Posts: 493
Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:46 pm
I read the below article today, it's one i've read many times since it was first written. It's one i've always agreed with and have tried to stand by. Though i have slipped at times and im mindful of shots that i feel i have taken beyond what i saw ( i can see some right now).
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... y-04.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/colum ... y-04.shtml
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -
W. Eugene Smith
W. Eugene Smith
- Posts: 12
Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:00 am
Are you differentiating dishonesty from art? The two are not related.
- Posts: 914
Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:53 pm
To really confuse things: well in a way all art is a lie...since we aren't seeing anything except a representation of what we think we're seeing. All we're seeing is some pixels, or some ink, or some paint. In a certain sense there is no way to be totally honest...since anything the 'artist' does is a distortion of the event. If it's photography (even the best documentary photos), the timing, the exposure, all of it will alter the perception of the event. This has been said before...I remember reading it years back...but can't remember by who. So it is a strange assumption in a way that "art" can be honest...whether it's painting which is more or less known as a less literal representation of reality...or photography which is a somehow accepted as a more literal. I know this all sounds contradictory to what I first said...but it's the public's impression I was more or less speaking of...and my wording was really foggy (as it usually is I've heard people who will not buy digital photographs...as if things were never altered in the darkroom...I remember how we were taught how to burn things in or block out areas when making prints...there were a lot of tricks more advanced too..than that. So how has the some of the public gotten this impression? would have been a more appropriate question on my part..if indeed they have this impression...although I have heard it...and if it's 'intent' that has caused this perception...I don't understand how a digital photographer has any less of an honest intent...than a film photographer...? Just sorta put this out here to see what others think...not really taking a position on this...since I have no idea what it would be. My own personal feelings are that it is honest to make someone feel something true to what the artist intends to express...or true to the situation...they've seen...or I guess in some cases imagined. I'm really not for classification of types of art...but that's my personal feeling...although it has been done in literature...and there is still honesty and dishonestly present in both fiction and non-fiction regarding that.
I've heard people who will not buy digital photographs...as if things were never altered in the darkroom...I remember how we were taught how to burn things in or block out areas when making prints...there were a lot of tricks more advanced too..than that. So how has the some of the public gotten this impression? would have been a more appropriate question on my part..if indeed they have this impression...although I have heard it...and if it's 'intent' that has caused this perception...I don't understand how a digital photographer has any less of an honest intent...than a film photographer...? Just sorta put this out here to see what others think...not really taking a position on this...since I have no idea what it would be. My own personal feelings are that it is honest to make someone feel something true to what the artist intends to express...or true to the situation...they've seen...or I guess in some cases imagined. I'm really not for classification of types of art...but that's my personal feeling...although it has been done in literature...and there is still honesty and dishonestly present in both fiction and non-fiction regarding that.- Posts: 493
Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:31 pm
"Those who believe that photographic reportage is "selective and objective, but cannot interpret the photographed subject matter," show a complete lack of understanding of the problems and the proper workings of this profession. The journalistic photographer can have no other than a personal approach; and it is impossible for him to be completely objective. Honest—yes. Objective—no."
W. Eugene Smith
Everybody that knows of Robert Doisneu will know 'Le Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville' aka The Kiss. Shot in Paris in 1950 it's one of photography's most known and most loved photograph's. A fleeting glimps of love on the street in the most romantic city in the world...
It's Staged;
The only reason that came to be was when Doisenue was sued by Francoise Bornet ( the girl in the photo) for a cut of the sales. She lost her claim but it forced Doisneu to admit that the shot was staged.
But it's still a photograph and it's a beautiful one at that. Taken with great skill and great heart. Doisenue loved his subjects and it always showed, nobody shot Paris like he did. That shy man really did master street photography and deserves his place in photography's rich history
Though Françoise Bornet lost in court, she later sold her photograph of The Kiss which was signed by Doisenue for Two Hundred and two thousand dollars (US). Not a bad days work
I think as a medium photography should be honest. A photograph is not a painting and no amount of photoshop will change that and why anybody would want to make it appear so is beyond me. But then when photography began to have a negative impact on painters commissions for portraits in the Nineteenth century, some began to try to make their portraits look photographic. So it's not exactly new, it's just that the tables have turned. But i feel photoshopers are as mistaken as painters were, they don't end up being photographs or paintings.
It's an old story and it will run and run
W. Eugene Smith
Everybody that knows of Robert Doisneu will know 'Le Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville' aka The Kiss. Shot in Paris in 1950 it's one of photography's most known and most loved photograph's. A fleeting glimps of love on the street in the most romantic city in the world...
It's Staged;
The only reason that came to be was when Doisenue was sued by Francoise Bornet ( the girl in the photo) for a cut of the sales. She lost her claim but it forced Doisneu to admit that the shot was staged.
But it's still a photograph and it's a beautiful one at that. Taken with great skill and great heart. Doisenue loved his subjects and it always showed, nobody shot Paris like he did. That shy man really did master street photography and deserves his place in photography's rich history
Though Françoise Bornet lost in court, she later sold her photograph of The Kiss which was signed by Doisenue for Two Hundred and two thousand dollars (US). Not a bad days work
I think as a medium photography should be honest. A photograph is not a painting and no amount of photoshop will change that and why anybody would want to make it appear so is beyond me. But then when photography began to have a negative impact on painters commissions for portraits in the Nineteenth century, some began to try to make their portraits look photographic. So it's not exactly new, it's just that the tables have turned. But i feel photoshopers are as mistaken as painters were, they don't end up being photographs or paintings.
It's an old story and it will run and run
Last edited by sean_mcr on Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -
W. Eugene Smith
W. Eugene Smith
- Posts: 914
Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:33 pm
And to confuse the issue even more...painters were using cameras (sort of) before photographers were. I believe Vermeer and some others may have been using a 'Camera Obscura' which was invented by a scientist born in Iraq...whose name escapes me at present (but should be easy to google) invented somewhere around 1000 AD.
I believe Vermeer and some others may have been using a 'Camera Obscura' which was invented by a scientist born in Iraq...whose name escapes me at present (but should be easy to google) invented somewhere around 1000 AD.- Posts: 493
Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:41 am
I saw a BBC documentary where David Hokney (an artist that's never been a fan of photography though he's used it) showed how you could Paint using a projected image and that most of the great painters painted that way.
But many doubt that they did
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004 ... yoder1.asp
But many doubt that they did
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004 ... yoder1.asp
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -
W. Eugene Smith
W. Eugene Smith
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Board index ‹ Photography ‹ Artistic Questions ‹ Just a thought
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 1 guest