Posted by Tim Davies on February 18, 2007 at 6:29 AM
Hi,
When it comes to post capture adjustments I try my hardest to keep my image as honest as I can. Normally I will only adjust levels, contrast, saturation etc across the entire image, and only use the clone tool to remove dust.
But I love the look of Velvia film and FM's Velvia Vision does seem the best way to reproduce the boosted saturation and overall style.
But if I apply a filter like Velvia Vision would that be regarded as cheating, in respect to getting my desired results?
Opinions please
tkd
Posted by Wayne Nicholas on February 18, 2007 at 6:47 AM
In a word, no. It's really no different than using Fuji Velvia film over, say, Provia to get the color and contrast boost. Photographers have used different films for different looks for years. Adjusting a digital image, within reason, to accomplish the look Velvia would give is perfectly ethical IMHO. You shouldn't punish or limit yourself just because you have the advantage with digital to accomplish many different looks without ever changing a roll of film. Remember, keeping it realistic is the key.
It also depends on what you plan to do with the photos. If selling is your goal and the market wants Velvia, you're going to have a hard time selling Astia. Would you rather be pure and broke, or impure and successful?
In a word, yes. If you want the viewer to really know what your subject looks like, you will have to bring him/her along. They will have to wait quietly for light to look just so. They will have to come back next time, because the light never did look just so. They will have to peer through your viewfinder to see what you have chosen as the essence of the scene before them. To my mind, no photography is real. It is only a representation of reality crafted into something that someone who wasn't there can see. I think film is cheating too. Film is every bit as manipulated as a digital photograph - It just happens to have been manipulated by someone else. I won't accept that manipulation by the photographer is different than manipulation by a film manufacturer as far as being considered cheating.
Art is a personal matter, above all. If you are making prints for your own use or to give to friends and relatives, you are free to make any creative adjustments to achieve the look you want.
On the other hand, if you are after a market to sell your work, then Hank's comment suggests the direction you need to take.
-PB
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 18, 2007 at 1:11 PM
My thinking is similar to Peter Dore's. No such thing as "cheating" unless you intentionally misrepresent something.
How is digital application of a 'look' any different than selecting velvia film over ektachrome film to use in your film camera? If it's your own work/image, you can make it anyway you want to. In a word, no, I don't think you're 'cheating.'
Posted by Wayne Nicholas on February 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM
" Reply posted by Pete D on 02/18/07 at 12:52 pm EST
In a word, yes. If you want the viewer to really know what your subject looks like, you will have to bring him/her along. They will have to wait quietly for light to look just so. They will have to come back next time, because the light never did look just so. They will have to peer through your viewfinder to see what you have chosen as the essence of the scene before them. To my mind, no photography is real. It is only a representation of reality crafted into something that someone who wasn't there can see. I think film is cheating too. Film is every bit as manipulated as a digital photograph - It just happens to have been manipulated by someone else. I won't accept that manipulation by the photographer is different than manipulation by a film manufacturer as far as being considered cheating.
Pete D. cheatin' and lovin' it"
Could you restate this in plain english, please. No offense, but this sounds like a response from Bush's press team.
I dont think that this is cheating. If one consideres this as cheating, the whole genre "photography" is obsolete
Let me elaborate...
First of all since photography started using bw-film or even before using silverhalide-covered plates, a colourful "reality" was transformed into just two "colours" (white is not a colour) - black and white and transitions between those extremes. I consider this a MAJOR manipulation! There are purists that state that bw-photography is the ony "true" art - what a contradiction to beginn with.
-A tree-dimensional "reality" is altered and depicted as a two-dimensional display
-Smells and sounds are not conserved.
-Distortion of "reality" by means of different focal length
-Different angles, means of composition, leaving out unwanted distracting elements.
Since photography is all about manipulation and cheating, the usage of velvia-films or plug-ins is the least of manipulations given the above stated considerations.
A photograph - if successful - always cheats, tricks, manipulates the mind and perception of the viewer. You never know as a viewer, what was left right above or behind the frame. There might have been an ugly factory just right next to that aspen grove.
However - one contraint: The final product should not look overdone. The viewer decides if it looks appealing or if he is put off by overly unrealistic colours that scream "kitsch"
And btw. what's "reality" anyway? Since a scene can look so different in varying lightning, displaying such a scene with saturated colours is just another version of the scene.
Regards Dietrich
Posted by David Senesac on February 19, 2007 at 8:55 PM
If I had a nickel for ever variation of the general question of this thread I've responded to on a forum the last decade, I could probably buy one of Ansel's prints. Tim the way you posed this question is similar to that of a great many people getting more seriously into photography.
Until the last decade or so most ordinary people associated photographs with reality. That reality was more about the basic graphic forms in photographs and not accurate color. Of course black and white photographs don't even have color information at all but rather shades of gray. But no doubt the "photograph represents some level of reality" mindset no doubt first occurred way back before color came on the scene. The nature of camera and films when used in more common ways, recording light on film is something that was not so easily manipulated thus had considerable respect as being a good representation of reality at least graphically. Of course serious photographers have always had tools to subvert reality whether during shooting or in the darkroom but those have always been fringe processes of the more skilled. And news photography many assoicate with the kraft has always been held to a high graphic ethic. With the advent of Adobe Photoshop by the mid 90s and digital cameras in this 21st Century, that all changed so just about every facet of a photograph can now be manipulated by most anyone and many photographers readily do so. Also in the early 90s when Velvia color slide film came on the scene, there was a shift away more accurate film like the Kodachromes serious photographers had tended to use to a whole slew of similar high saturation films. In fact they have dominated films used by landscape photographers for more than a decade now. And that is where your "cheating" term comes from because yes there was a time after Velvia came out that use of such films was sometimes discussed in the context of cheating versus more color accurate films.
Now in 2007 there are still a fair number of photographers that have a mindset of dividing photographers in the two camps of true imagers and non-true imagers (excuse me for lack of a better term at the moment) whenever these issues are discussed. The more extreme thinkers in these two camps want the other extreme to go away. The true imagers may be quick to condemn those that use saturated films, just about any manipulations, and sometimes even are quick to condemn digital cameras or anything digital while reveling in the traditional glories of a darkroom. Conversely there are those in the pure digital realm that are quick to try and toss out any level of realism in photographs as being ridiculous and use that to justify an anything goes ethic and style. As with most controversial subjects, reality and the way most people view the issue is somewhere in the middle. Some of us accept that photography today is simply much closer to an artform like painting thus each individual ought to be free to pursue their art in any capacity and way they desire.
Personally I choose to produce reasonably accurate images of the natural world. That's not about being right or better, wrong or cheating but simply a choice I've chosen for a style and how I'd like the public to view my work. But there is a problem with bringing all these styles of realism and manipulation together into what is photography today and that is that much of the public still tends to view photographs in the more traditional real sense. Many ordinary people do value an image that has at least accurate graphic content and even a fair percentage would probably value a color image that was color accurate versus those that are not. Of course there are also many other people that understand photographers have been using films like Velvia for many years now so are quite accepting of prints with amped up saturation and contrast if that makes them more striking when hanging in their home or office. So what I've been promoting is that photographers simply make some attempt to inform the public about the nature of what they are producing. Thus the photographer that uses a high saturation film may simply note on an image that it was imaged with Velvia film. Or the photographer that processes every image they take on the computer with the simple goal of making the most striking creative image irregardless to what they captured on film or in their RAW digital file, by stating that in some way to the public. Not necessarily every time they show an image but maybe simply in their bio or statement or whatever. Likewise the graphic arts pro with a high level of Photoshop skills that does all that and more by adding or subtracting elements in an image might state they regularly do so or maybe if such is only on a specific image, they might state they cloned out a person in the frame, added a deer into the meadow, or even replaced the whole sky.
If all of we photographers did this, the public would respect us all more and there would be less controversy within our own community. The prime reason Tim, is just for the same term you used in your post...cheating. Because there can sometimes be a sense of cheating when someone represents an image or print without a disclaimer regarding its truthfulness. There are of course some that manipulate in various degrees that realise the perception of worth with images is less if the audience knows such to not be so. Thus for some the reason for not stating so is simply economic while for others recognition of work with their peers and the public. For others they simply probably have a sense of guilt down in their subconscious.
A variation of this cheating has long been a topic of those imaging animals for stock once photographers began going to game zoos and farms instead of capturing images of animals naturally in nature. In that case too, those doing the later condemned the former as cheaters and suggested they note such on those photos. Of course few of the latter did so merely for economic reasons since there is no way one can tell the difference. Likewise with images of landscapes there is often no way to tell the difference with the various forms of well orchestrated manipulation especially as viewed by the less nature familliar public. ...David
Posted by Tom Webster on February 20, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I've stated this simple concept before: It's your image; your creation. Do with it whatever you want to do and to #$@!!&% with everyone else!
Great post David, I do agree.
I like to add some considerations, inspired by your answer. I hope this is not too long...sorry
If one looks at the many portfolios of landscape photographers, the tendency to have high saturation&high contrast photography is obvious. There must be something in the human mind that perceives contrast&saturation as being better, easier to grasp, easier to appreciate, more valuable(?) etc.
Using Velvia seems to be a standard in landscape photography - so I tend to say that it is not necessary to state this additionally. But on the other hand, a few years back as I started looking at online-portfolios or galleries, I was always a bit "surprised" about how saturated the colours were.
After a while, I found out that most large-format photographers use Velvia and do some darkroom adjustments (digital or traditional). Maybe my surprise would have been explained earlier by an artist-statement explaining the effect of velvia and filters, so this might indeed be a good idea.
I think theres a good reason why many do not explicitly state the effect of certain films, filters, darkroom-work:
Photographers using analogous equipment sometimes claim to be more true, than the digital-shooters with the knowledge in mind that the public has the traditional perception that analog photography "cannot" be manipulated, or that this manipulation is just the normal, ordinary workflow - that it is inherent in the process and there's nothing the photographer can do about it.
Something one reads often as an artist-statement - "this is what I saw, as the shutter was pressed". Or "Only minor adjustments to achive the same visual experience I had as I was witnessing the scene" etc.
I mean, come on, after a 4 week trip, with some 100 to 500 captured images - does one really know how the scene actually looked like, when it comes to adjustments in the darkroom? I doubt it. Maybe thats just me, but when I come home from a shooting I cannot exactly remember the colours I saw just 2 hours before. So I find such statements a bit hypocritical, still it is hard to argue against it because we, as viewers, have not witnessed the scene.
I also find it hard to believe that one sells his prints for some 400 or more dollars without having spent some major time working on it.
I think this is just some kind of indirect confession that they all do some manipulations but they want people to believe that this is nothing out of the ordinary. They could also write next to every image:
"I used Velvia film here, this boosts saturation and colours above what can be found in nature. Additionally I employ some darkroom techniques to bring out certain areas more. etc"
I think this will not happen, as you said David, because of economic reasons. They would not be considered the artists with incedible see-ing and composition skills.
Writing and thinking about this as I write I am tempted to say that claiming to only apply "standard" darkroom techniques is more even more cheating than simply stating - "the saturation has been turned up a bit".
It leaves the viewer with the "wrong" impression that the scene actually exactly looked like this, but this is rarly the case. At least I know this from my own personal experience. I shoot digitally using raw. I always have to tune contrast and saturation, white-balance, colourbalance, dodging and burning. I do not think that I ever have an exact visual replica of the subject-matter. It always looks a bit different. And this is intentional.
With most bw-photography, no one expects an additional artist-statement to explain what dark-room techniques the photographer used to achieve the final high-contrast look. With bw, it is obvious that this is not "real", so the public accepts a lot more tweaking in the darkroom than with colour-photography.
I think about the use of Velvia in the same sense as I think about a high contrast bw-image. As we all know, Anselm Adams spend a lot of time creating his prints and the contrast is surely higher than what was present in the scene. Since bw holds no colour, no ones screams "unatural, overdone". We all see the range of tones, the deep blacks, and find it appealing.
I think few people will complain that a bw-image is too contrasty. Quite the contrary: people say that true bw-photography is only possible with film, digital simply has not enough contrast and range.
So I conclude that the human mind wants to see contrast and I think this applies for colour-photography as well - but it is harder to accept that some enhancement has to be done to achieve the high saturation and contrast. The term "cheating" will prevail
Dietrich
David, you nailed it, man. Dietrich, well thought out and intelligent response ... I like you
As for me, I'm the least of all you guys but I see that we are allowing the public perception, however misinformed that public may be, to influence our creativity. As David said:
But there is a problem with bringing all these styles of realism and manipulation together into what is photography today and that is that much of the public still tends to view photographs in the more traditional real sense.
Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm getting pretty bored with "straight" photography and I'm exploring all kinds of avenues to help me express what I "see" as opposed to what may actually be in front of my lens. The only problem with this is that the public perception of "Photography" may not be up to speed with the rest of us. Fortunately, for those of us who are not constrained by public preception, or are lucky enough to have cool clients it's not as large a problem. Perhaps we should cease to define ourselves as photographers. Perhaps we defy any definition.
Bob
Posted by Ian Cameron on February 28, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I think it's appalling. To change reality is sacrosanct. Now where's my roll of Velvia.
How does "cheating" have anything to do with photography? Seriously. Is photography a game? Not to me--it is a form of art. In my book the only cheating in photography is trying to pass of someone else's work as your own. If someone wants to spend 3 hours constructing an image in PS that another photographer got right the first time, more power to them! They deserve whatever they can earn for all the extra work!
All's fair in love and war...and photography...oh and tiddlywinks!
Discussion
16 repliesWhen it comes to post capture adjustments I try my hardest to keep my image as honest as I can. Normally I will only adjust levels, contrast, saturation etc across the entire image, and only use the clone tool to remove dust.
But I love the look of Velvia film and FM's Velvia Vision does seem the best way to reproduce the boosted saturation and overall style.
But if I apply a filter like Velvia Vision would that be regarded as cheating, in respect to getting my desired results?
Opinions please
tkd
Pete D. cheatin' and lovin' it
Art is a personal matter, above all. If you are making prints for your own use or to give to friends and relatives, you are free to make any creative adjustments to achieve the look you want.
On the other hand, if you are after a market to sell your work, then Hank's comment suggests the direction you need to take.
-PB
Kent in SD
In a word, yes. If you want the viewer to really know what your subject looks like, you will have to bring him/her along. They will have to wait quietly for light to look just so. They will have to come back next time, because the light never did look just so. They will have to peer through your viewfinder to see what you have chosen as the essence of the scene before them. To my mind, no photography is real. It is only a representation of reality crafted into something that someone who wasn't there can see. I think film is cheating too. Film is every bit as manipulated as a digital photograph - It just happens to have been manipulated by someone else. I won't accept that manipulation by the photographer is different than manipulation by a film manufacturer as far as being considered cheating.
Pete D. cheatin' and lovin' it"
Could you restate this in plain english, please. No offense, but this sounds like a response from Bush's press team.
No photography is real. If you want reality you have to be there.
Pete D. Bush's press team? Oh my!
Guy
Let me elaborate...
First of all since photography started using bw-film or even before using silverhalide-covered plates, a colourful "reality" was transformed into just two "colours" (white is not a colour) - black and white and transitions between those extremes. I consider this a MAJOR manipulation! There are purists that state that bw-photography is the ony "true" art - what a contradiction to beginn with.
-A tree-dimensional "reality" is altered and depicted as a two-dimensional display
-Smells and sounds are not conserved.
-Distortion of "reality" by means of different focal length
-Different angles, means of composition, leaving out unwanted distracting elements.
Since photography is all about manipulation and cheating, the usage of velvia-films or plug-ins is the least of manipulations given the above stated considerations.
A photograph - if successful - always cheats, tricks, manipulates the mind and perception of the viewer. You never know as a viewer, what was left right above or behind the frame. There might have been an ugly factory just right next to that aspen grove.
However - one contraint: The final product should not look overdone. The viewer decides if it looks appealing or if he is put off by overly unrealistic colours that scream "kitsch"
And btw. what's "reality" anyway? Since a scene can look so different in varying lightning, displaying such a scene with saturated colours is just another version of the scene.
Regards Dietrich
Until the last decade or so most ordinary people associated photographs with reality. That reality was more about the basic graphic forms in photographs and not accurate color. Of course black and white photographs don't even have color information at all but rather shades of gray. But no doubt the "photograph represents some level of reality" mindset no doubt first occurred way back before color came on the scene. The nature of camera and films when used in more common ways, recording light on film is something that was not so easily manipulated thus had considerable respect as being a good representation of reality at least graphically. Of course serious photographers have always had tools to subvert reality whether during shooting or in the darkroom but those have always been fringe processes of the more skilled. And news photography many assoicate with the kraft has always been held to a high graphic ethic. With the advent of Adobe Photoshop by the mid 90s and digital cameras in this 21st Century, that all changed so just about every facet of a photograph can now be manipulated by most anyone and many photographers readily do so. Also in the early 90s when Velvia color slide film came on the scene, there was a shift away more accurate film like the Kodachromes serious photographers had tended to use to a whole slew of similar high saturation films. In fact they have dominated films used by landscape photographers for more than a decade now. And that is where your "cheating" term comes from because yes there was a time after Velvia came out that use of such films was sometimes discussed in the context of cheating versus more color accurate films.
Now in 2007 there are still a fair number of photographers that have a mindset of dividing photographers in the two camps of true imagers and non-true imagers (excuse me for lack of a better term at the moment) whenever these issues are discussed. The more extreme thinkers in these two camps want the other extreme to go away. The true imagers may be quick to condemn those that use saturated films, just about any manipulations, and sometimes even are quick to condemn digital cameras or anything digital while reveling in the traditional glories of a darkroom. Conversely there are those in the pure digital realm that are quick to try and toss out any level of realism in photographs as being ridiculous and use that to justify an anything goes ethic and style. As with most controversial subjects, reality and the way most people view the issue is somewhere in the middle. Some of us accept that photography today is simply much closer to an artform like painting thus each individual ought to be free to pursue their art in any capacity and way they desire.
Personally I choose to produce reasonably accurate images of the natural world. That's not about being right or better, wrong or cheating but simply a choice I've chosen for a style and how I'd like the public to view my work. But there is a problem with bringing all these styles of realism and manipulation together into what is photography today and that is that much of the public still tends to view photographs in the more traditional real sense. Many ordinary people do value an image that has at least accurate graphic content and even a fair percentage would probably value a color image that was color accurate versus those that are not. Of course there are also many other people that understand photographers have been using films like Velvia for many years now so are quite accepting of prints with amped up saturation and contrast if that makes them more striking when hanging in their home or office. So what I've been promoting is that photographers simply make some attempt to inform the public about the nature of what they are producing. Thus the photographer that uses a high saturation film may simply note on an image that it was imaged with Velvia film. Or the photographer that processes every image they take on the computer with the simple goal of making the most striking creative image irregardless to what they captured on film or in their RAW digital file, by stating that in some way to the public. Not necessarily every time they show an image but maybe simply in their bio or statement or whatever. Likewise the graphic arts pro with a high level of Photoshop skills that does all that and more by adding or subtracting elements in an image might state they regularly do so or maybe if such is only on a specific image, they might state they cloned out a person in the frame, added a deer into the meadow, or even replaced the whole sky.
If all of we photographers did this, the public would respect us all more and there would be less controversy within our own community. The prime reason Tim, is just for the same term you used in your post...cheating. Because there can sometimes be a sense of cheating when someone represents an image or print without a disclaimer regarding its truthfulness. There are of course some that manipulate in various degrees that realise the perception of worth with images is less if the audience knows such to not be so. Thus for some the reason for not stating so is simply economic while for others recognition of work with their peers and the public. For others they simply probably have a sense of guilt down in their subconscious.
A variation of this cheating has long been a topic of those imaging animals for stock once photographers began going to game zoos and farms instead of capturing images of animals naturally in nature. In that case too, those doing the later condemned the former as cheaters and suggested they note such on those photos. Of course few of the latter did so merely for economic reasons since there is no way one can tell the difference. Likewise with images of landscapes there is often no way to tell the difference with the various forms of well orchestrated manipulation especially as viewed by the less nature familliar public. ...David
I like to add some considerations, inspired by your answer. I hope this is not too long...sorry
If one looks at the many portfolios of landscape photographers, the tendency to have high saturation&high contrast photography is obvious. There must be something in the human mind that perceives contrast&saturation as being better, easier to grasp, easier to appreciate, more valuable(?) etc.
Using Velvia seems to be a standard in landscape photography - so I tend to say that it is not necessary to state this additionally. But on the other hand, a few years back as I started looking at online-portfolios or galleries, I was always a bit "surprised" about how saturated the colours were.
After a while, I found out that most large-format photographers use Velvia and do some darkroom adjustments (digital or traditional). Maybe my surprise would have been explained earlier by an artist-statement explaining the effect of velvia and filters, so this might indeed be a good idea.
I think theres a good reason why many do not explicitly state the effect of certain films, filters, darkroom-work:
Photographers using analogous equipment sometimes claim to be more true, than the digital-shooters with the knowledge in mind that the public has the traditional perception that analog photography "cannot" be manipulated, or that this manipulation is just the normal, ordinary workflow - that it is inherent in the process and there's nothing the photographer can do about it.
Something one reads often as an artist-statement - "this is what I saw, as the shutter was pressed". Or "Only minor adjustments to achive the same visual experience I had as I was witnessing the scene" etc.
I mean, come on, after a 4 week trip, with some 100 to 500 captured images - does one really know how the scene actually looked like, when it comes to adjustments in the darkroom? I doubt it. Maybe thats just me, but when I come home from a shooting I cannot exactly remember the colours I saw just 2 hours before. So I find such statements a bit hypocritical, still it is hard to argue against it because we, as viewers, have not witnessed the scene.
I also find it hard to believe that one sells his prints for some 400 or more dollars without having spent some major time working on it.
I think this is just some kind of indirect confession that they all do some manipulations but they want people to believe that this is nothing out of the ordinary. They could also write next to every image:
"I used Velvia film here, this boosts saturation and colours above what can be found in nature. Additionally I employ some darkroom techniques to bring out certain areas more. etc"
I think this will not happen, as you said David, because of economic reasons. They would not be considered the artists with incedible see-ing and composition skills.
Writing and thinking about this as I write I am tempted to say that claiming to only apply "standard" darkroom techniques is more even more cheating than simply stating - "the saturation has been turned up a bit".
It leaves the viewer with the "wrong" impression that the scene actually exactly looked like this, but this is rarly the case. At least I know this from my own personal experience. I shoot digitally using raw. I always have to tune contrast and saturation, white-balance, colourbalance, dodging and burning. I do not think that I ever have an exact visual replica of the subject-matter. It always looks a bit different. And this is intentional.
With most bw-photography, no one expects an additional artist-statement to explain what dark-room techniques the photographer used to achieve the final high-contrast look. With bw, it is obvious that this is not "real", so the public accepts a lot more tweaking in the darkroom than with colour-photography.
I think about the use of Velvia in the same sense as I think about a high contrast bw-image. As we all know, Anselm Adams spend a lot of time creating his prints and the contrast is surely higher than what was present in the scene. Since bw holds no colour, no ones screams "unatural, overdone". We all see the range of tones, the deep blacks, and find it appealing.
I think few people will complain that a bw-image is too contrasty. Quite the contrary: people say that true bw-photography is only possible with film, digital simply has not enough contrast and range.
So I conclude that the human mind wants to see contrast and I think this applies for colour-photography as well - but it is harder to accept that some enhancement has to be done to achieve the high saturation and contrast. The term "cheating" will prevail
Dietrich
As for me, I'm the least of all you guys but I see that we are allowing the public perception, however misinformed that public may be, to influence our creativity. As David said:
Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm getting pretty bored with "straight" photography and I'm exploring all kinds of avenues to help me express what I "see" as opposed to what may actually be in front of my lens. The only problem with this is that the public perception of "Photography" may not be up to speed with the rest of us. Fortunately, for those of us who are not constrained by public preception, or are lucky enough to have cool clients it's not as large a problem. Perhaps we should cease to define ourselves as photographers. Perhaps we defy any definition.
Bob
Yours angrily Mr Hypocrisy
All's fair in love and war...and photography...oh and tiddlywinks!