Is It or Isn't It? - That Old Chestnut

[CBImages]

Earlier this year I saw the DPI showing of the acceptances for the 2013 Bristol Salon and noted that many of the images shown didn't appear to bare any comparison with anything I could take with my camera.
Then there was the RPS International Salon where around 2/3's of the acceptances again bore no relation to anything any photographer could capture no matter how skillful they were or how much equipment they used. This got me thinking about - is there a time when a photograph ceases to be a photograph and transcends into another sphere of art?

I was wondering what people's thoughts are on 'digitally' created images - are they photographs or not?

It certainly takes a great amount of skill to create these digital masterpieces and they are most certainly 'art' but are they photographic art or do they deserve their own category?

Can a 'photograph' be manipulated too much, to the stage where it ceases to be a photograph any longer and if so what constitutes too much manipulation?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[revi]

This sounds a lot like "How much post-processing can be allowed?".
That and similar questions have been discussed here before and those discussions tend to get "rather heated".

Good luck with this round.

[Andrew76]

I spoke with a local professional photographer about 2 weeks ago. He actually gets quite a bit of work locally, and throughout Canada, so I'm not in a position to question his reputation... Short story long, when grilling him about some studio lighting for hair shots, he said "not to get too caught up in all that - 90 percent of what I do is in the computer".

I have to say, I was a little discouraged after that. Especially because I respect quite a bit of his work.

All that being said, I don't think it's wrong to manipulate photos, and I hope this thread doesn't turn into that argument, but I just wish I could get some of my shots to look like his, without sitting in front of a computer for 6 hours. Or, making composites.

[nimitzbenedicto]

I spoke with a local professional photographer about 2 weeks ago. He actually gets quite a bit of work locally, and throughout Canada, so I'm not in a position to question his reputation... Short story long, when grilling him about some studio lighting for hair shots, he said "not to get too caught up in all that - 90 percent of what I do is in the computer".

I have to say, I was a little discouraged after that. Especially because I respect quite a bit of his work.

All that being said, I don't think it's wrong to manipulate photos, and I hope this thread doesn't turn into that argument, but I just wish I could get some of my shots to look like his, without sitting in front of a computer for 6 hours. Or, making composites.

Hi Andrew,

Have you seen those "before & after" photos?

Well, spoke to some old-timers and they told me their "secret".

The after is the person's real face/body.

The before is not. They just use photoshop to add wrinkles/fat/scars/spots/etc.

So , if someone challenges them that their product doesn't really remove wrinkles, Presto! - they can show the person , who really doesn't have wrinkles.

[Andrew76]

Ha! I never thought of that angle. That's funny! And manipulative....

[jcuknz]

After the last show I saw from the UK I wouldn't stir out of my armchair .... as for the one before the presentation was so bad .....

[CBImages]

I spoke with a local professional photographer about 2 weeks ago. He actually gets quite a bit of work locally, and throughout Canada, so I'm not in a position to question his reputation... Short story long, when grilling him about some studio lighting for hair shots, he said "not to get too caught up in all that - 90 percent of what I do is in the computer".

I have to say, I was a little discouraged after that. Especially because I respect quite a bit of his work.

All that being said, I don't think it's wrong to manipulate photos, and I hope this thread doesn't turn into that argument, but I just wish I could get some of my shots to look like his, without sitting in front of a computer for 6 hours. Or, making composites.

I think your local professional is just fulfilling clients expectations by producing 'images' that clients want to buy, this is the route to a successful business and all credit to him. I doubt his clients are too concerned whether it's a straight photograph or a digitally created one - if they like the image they buy it, if they don't like it then they don't.

I am reliably informed that many of the early photographers used to use a basic form of layering and masking in the darkroom to blend skies from one exposure onto foregrounds/portraits from another. So image manipulation has been around since the early days, in some cases it is used to overcome technical deficiencies in photographic technique either through lack of skill or lack of equipment - in others, to explore the boundaries of what is technically possible.

I have no issue with people/photographers making and selling images, after all it's about making a living rather than purity of art - be it photographic art or digital art.

[CBImages]

After the last show I saw from the UK I wouldn't stir out of my armchair .... as for the one before the presentation was so bad .....

As a matter of interest what show was this?

[royphot]

I am reliably informed that many of the early photographers used to use a basic form of layering and masking in the darkroom to blend skies from one exposure onto foregrounds/portraits from another. So image manipulation has been around since the early days, in some cases it is used to overcome technical deficiencies in photographic technique either through lack of skill or lack of equipment - in others, to explore the boundaries of what is technically possible.

.

The Scottish Photographic Circle have a collection which includes some very old prints - circa 1900. A number of them show identical skies. The plates they were using were so slow, and exposures so long that any cloud details did not register. The photographers could make another, shorter, exposure to record the cloud, and use this to fill in the white space above their main subjects. Plates were expensive so the one plate was often used and re-used. It is possible they were lent or hired out to other photographers. There is also some "drawing" visible on a number of the prints.

[jcuknz]

As a matter of interest what show was this?

Something from the English source [ RPS perhaps] and comprised great shots but each was on for such a short time one could not appreciate them .... I simply closed my eyes several times in protest... after all it was not a Television news programme ... quite pathetic presentation ... reminded me of one film I edited way back ... Grand National ... fifteen one second shots for the voice over and then the race as supplied by BCINA ... having got it out of my system I never repeated the exercise
.... the second show was full of fuzzy wuzzies ... the latest 'thing' in photography from UK photo circles.

My aim in editing, to get back onto the thread subject, is to make it look as if it is a straight photo ... as if everything had been as I wanted .... that is not to say I do not admire and enjoy images demonstrating the imagination of the photographer presenting an idea but when I try I quickly realise it is not for me or in me. I think it is a shame there was such a hullaballoo about manipulation and it put people off editing and realising how camera and editor are companion tools without needing to create artistic weirdies.
One of my rare landscapes "What will Dawn Bring?" which now resides on the back of a toilet door for the owner to contemplate her NZ visit. [If tinypix is fixed ]
It is GREAT!

[jcuknz]

On the subject of Manipulation George Chance gave a talk around the time of the hullaballoo and showed some of his father's photographs where GC Senior had used some of his 'stock shot' skies to improve his photographs. The point being if the sky is blown in B&W negatives you have a black mask for a double exposure ... never got to that stage myself so not sure how one stopped the sky affecting the subjects ... perhaps careful and skilled dodging.

[bambleweeney]

I borrowed a book from a neighbour not too long ago of photos taken from the late 1890s of peasant life in France. There was one shot depicting a photographic gem of a 'peasant', old, bearded, wrinkly and wonderfully dressed in a collection of shabby.
Four pages later, different scene, different village, same peasant. Same pose, same everything except he was facing in a different direction. Sure enough this guy cropped up about half a dozen times in the book, again, same pose, same everything. I certainly wouldn't say that those images with the duped peasant weren't photographs and it raises the point that manipulation has been going on for some time. (there are some famous manipulations dating from the 50s (the 1850s !!) which are now in photographic museums). Somehow for some people (and I'm talking in generalities here) if you put the word 'digital' into the mix it suddenly becomes a dubious art whereas before it was perfectly acceptable.
Depends on your definition of photograph and how or if it should differ from the word image or artwork. Me, I'll manipulate to get what I want and on the occasions that I sell a print and the client says 'Wow, how long did it take you to do that' I find that a reply of 1/500th of a second is usually a good door opener for price negotiation

[rpcrowe]

As a quick answer... I suppose that if you viewed an Ansel Adam's image straight out of the camera without the darkroom manipulation he applied to his images, you might say, "Ho, hum; pretty nice capture!"

[ajohnw]

As a quick answer... I suppose that if you viewed an Ansel Adam's image straight out of the camera without the darkroom manipulation he applied to his images, you might say, "Ho, hum; pretty nice capture!"

I don't think much could be done as formats got smaller. Dodging and burning etc plus airbrushing especially on published images of glamorous people but maybe make up took care of that. Film, paper and developing gave gave some degree of tone control and the most proficient could probably do a good deal with that. I do know for a fact that most much less famous photographers usually took no notice of what was stated on a packet of film or what the manufacturers said about processing it. Often following what was done on earlier versions of what ever they used and taking no notice of higher iso ratings. Some just wouldn't comment on what they did.

Cecil Beaton is another Adams type. Famed for clicking the shutter at the right time but have to wonder about that aspect at times. Probably he arranged people etc but was very proficient with his camera and lighting. Also a heavy artistic bent given all of the ways he earned a living. There is some of his work here - note one shot with the blown out window highlights but only just. Most of us would throw that out but he didn't need to.

http://fashionsmostwanted.blogspot.c...-pictures.html

John
-

[John 2]

..............I am reliably informed that many of the early photographers used to use a basic form of layering and masking in the darkroom to blend skies from one exposure onto foregrounds/portraits from another. So image manipulation has been around since the early days, in some cases it is used to overcome technical deficiencies in photographic technique either through lack of skill or lack of equipment - in others, to explore the boundaries of what is technically possible.........

Just catching up on this thread.

The above is my understanding as well and I have always persuaded myself that all the computer has done is to make the processes involved a good deal easier. It is apparently also the case that many old time photographers did not print their own prints. Print making was a recognised skill in its own right and many photographers employed a specialist in their darkroom. There would be no point to this unless the printer could add something albeit to order.

I enter a lot of comps both in the UK and internationally. It is a fact that there is a perception that UK comps/judges have started to favour heavily manipulated images. The arguments flow backwards and forwards but discontent seems to be in the air. The same is less true internationally. By heavily manipulated, I don't mean post processing the image that comes out of the camera but images that have been assemble and merged on the computer from several exposures. The end result is not anything recognisable in real life but a figment of the author's imagination. Some of these are just excellent and are being justified on the basis of their being made up of photographic images wholly taken by the author. None the less questions are being asked about whether these are more akin to graphic art than pure photography. So much so that some comps are beginning to confine them to so called "Creative" sections and including specific sections confined to say "Travel" or say "Landscape" for which only basic manipulation is allowed. The PSA (Photographic Soc. of America) have lived by these sorts of rules for some time and we are slowly heading in the same direction (I hope).

[CBImages]

Something from the English source [ RPS perhaps] and comprised great shots but each was on for such a short time one could not appreciate them .... I simply closed my eyes several times in protest... after all it was not a Television news programme ... quite pathetic presentation ... reminded me of one film I edited way back ... Grand National ... fifteen one second shots for the voice over and then the race as supplied by BCINA ... having got it out of my system I never repeated the exercise
.... the second show was full of fuzzy wuzzies ... the latest 'thing' in photography from UK photo circles.

Sorry for the delayed reply but I have just moved house and been rather busy!

I wonder if the short period of time given to showing Salon images is money related.
The more images shown = a greater number of happy photographers! happy that their images have been shown.
The happier the photographers = the more likely they are to enter the following year.
The more photographers enter a Salon = the more money the organisers make.

Boy I am getting cynical in my old age! ;-)

Seriously though it must be a fine balance for the organisers deciding how many images to show and just how long to display each image for. No matter what they decide they won't please everyone all the time.

I enter a number of photographic salons each year, not many maybe 4 or 5 in various countries but I won't enter the RPS International even though it's supposed to be our overseeing organisation. My reason is that many of the images they accept are heavily Photoshopped and in my opinion are very much 'Digital Art' and not photographs in the true sense of the word. I like to see myself as a photographer and yes my images have undergone a certain amount of manipulation but I hope they still look like images that anyone who was with me at the time would instantly recognise as being a fairly accurate representation.
So if I am paying money to enter a salon I would like to feel that the organisers hold the same values as I do.