Ethics in Photography

I’m certain that this topic has been discussed to some length previously; however, a recent experience had some impact on my thoughts with regards to ethics in photography.

Just recently, I was doing some photography in a national park. In a nearby town, I stopped by a local photographer’s studio to check out their work and get some ideas for my own shooting. There was an very nice panorama that inspired me to photograph from that same spot the next morning. I had noted in the photograph that there was no presence of a road or parking lot. After some hiking around that general area, I was not able to find the general composition I was looking for without including the road and parking lot, so I just set up and photographed from a few locations. While I could use a bush to block out a road sign in a few photographs, all of them included portions of the road and parking lot. Perplexed, I returned to the studio that afternoon.

As it turns out, I was photographing from the exact location that this particular photographer had shot from. There are certain key features that are near the road and parking lot that can only be visible when you can also see the road and parking lot. At that moment, I realized that a program like Photoshop was used to remove any trace of the road and parking lot. Given the large format the photograph was taken with, it was some good work to erase the road and parking lot without any readily apparent digital artifacts. The photographer was not there, but I commented to the salesperson how good the ‘Photoshop’ work was. They then told me that the photographer had stated it was taken from a particular point that that did not include the road and that the photograph was not manipulated in any way digitally. I didn’t say anything at the time, but I was a bit dismayed. I returned to the site the next morning and scouted around. Sure enough, I now know definitively that that photograph can’t be taken without including the road and parking lot.

While I don’t think I would personally remove a road and parking lot from a photograph, I can appreciate the image so long as someone is honest about the work that was done to the photograph. Why can’t they say it was manipulated to remove traces of human development ? If they were honest about it and marketed the image ethically, I could still find some respect for them. For other photographs in their studio, I started looking at some of the over-saturated colors and started questioning everything. I know not every photograph was touched up digitally, but I’m certain a number of them were. There biggest point being, I began doubting some of their work because of the inauthentic representation I did discover in one of the photographs.

How do others feel about this? For my part, on this recent trip I was contemplating digitally removing people from areas there were heavily visited. I’ve never done this before, and as it turns out, I was able to get my photographs without having people in the frame. I’m now rethinking if I would ever do that. I had thought that temporary objects like cars or people could be ethically removed from photographs because they are not permanent and would almost certainly not be there if someone else visited that same location. My personal belief is that roads and permanent structures should not be removed, or at best, only if it was represented that way up to people front. I used to be very hard core and didn’t even make 1/3 stop exposure corrections on a computer. I now feel comfortable about making those minor corrections, but would the removal of movable objects like people or vehicles be unethical as well? After my recent experience, I’d rather stay on the conservative side. I appreciate peoples thoughts on this matter.

Also, please don’t ask me about the location or photographer in question. I will not divulge it under any circumstances. They have very nice work and my intent is not to sully anyone’s name or reputation. I just am concerned about the ethics as I perceived them. Thanks.

You left out another potential explanation: Time. What are the chances that photo was taken before the road and parking lot were built?

Visit lots of classic photo ikons and you'll encounter much the same, whether trees obscuring parts of AA's classic view of Yosemite Valley from the tunnel or urban views in DC.

Good question Hank. I know the road was there long before the photograph was taken. I belive there has been some form of road there since the 1940's. As such, time isn't the variable.

Hi Steve:

Looks like you had an interesting experience, and one that is helping you more closely parse your own ethics. Closely considering the way another photographer manipulates his/her images to reflect the world as they see it can shed a lot of light on your own work. In my opinion, that's why it's so good to look upon the art of others. Inspiring art, well, inspires. And your recent experience is serving as inspiration too, of another type.

I don't think there's really any advice I can give, or, rather, that I WOULD give. You've run into something that's causing you to re-evaluate the way your approach your work, which can happen pretty often in the life of a thoughtful artist. In a sense, this throws everything you've done to this point up in the air. When it all falls back to ground, the portions you pick up and use in your future work will be those you've decided are right for you, and my opinion shouldn't influence that.

Good luck, and stay true to whatever your believe is true.

I think too often we are judged by our medium rather than our art. A painter standing at the same spot could have produced a similar image with no road in it that no one would question. Does the fact that we choose a camera to express our vision also imply we are forced to accept some misplaced assumptions and limitations, even when we possess the skill to overcome them?

Personally I take no issue with the work done. The lie, on the other hand, is inexcusable.

Guy

I agree with Guy.

I love puzzles like this and spend a lot of time in the field playing with them. In that spirit, here's another possibility:

For some views if you lay down on the ground you can use plenty of DOF (or perspective controls in LF) to allow minor foreground features to obscure large problems in the mid-ground. Not saying that applies in your mystery location, but I've used this approach plenty on my own adventures. It's a dandy for busy parks!

Steve, I'm fully behind your sense of ethic on such issues. It's certainly a troubling cloud over the photography community these days. I just made a long post on these issues in this forum thread:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=15509&b=vf3&st=0&la=832&ph=1&sid=2256&u=2256

"...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."

...David

My thinking is similar to Guy's. It's MY photo; I'll do as I please. If I want a purple sky, purple it becomes. If I want a six legged deer, six legs it gets.


Kent in SD

Guy Tal wrote:

A painter standing at the same spot could have produced a similar image with no road in it that no one would question. Does the fact that we choose a camera to express our vision also imply we are forced to accept some misplaced assumptions and limitations, even when we possess the skill to overcome them?

Personally I take no issue with the work done. The lie, on the other hand, is inexcusable.

Why? Using this same argument then, are we to require the painter to disclose that his painting does not include a road that was there? Is the painter lying by not disclosing the missing road? Should we, then, think less of the painter?

I never said anything about "disclosure". I think it's a silly concept when it comes to art. Still, when someone asks you a straight question you either give a straight answer or refuse to comment. I don't see any redeeming value in lying about it.

Guy

I'm in 100% agreement with Guy on this one.

So lets ask the purists if we should put the zits back on their senior pictures.

Steve, for me it would depend on whether I was after documentary accuracy or not. I don't think that it's fair to always require that a photograph be a truthful representation just because it can or just because that's all the medium could do not so long ago.

Photography has outgrown the limitations imposed upon it by it's own limited definition. We are able to do so much more now than we could even a few years ago (and I'm not even meaning post processing like PS). I've noticed that when I tell people that I'm a photographer many will immediately, and even subconciously, impose upon me the rules and restrictions that is their understanding of "Photography". I know that they don't mean to be restrictive and wouldn't see it that way. They are only basing their expectations on their limited understanding of what can and should be done with a camera. I recently shot a series of a young guitar player in a local club using very slow shutter speeds, hand held with off camera flash sync'ed to 2nd curtain. The images are really unique with the beautiful colored tunsten ambient making up the main portion of the exposure and the flash freezing just enough detail to make them legable. They are full of motion and ghost images and color and the client loved them ( and paid big for them) but they caused quite a stir among some viewers. "Oh my, I didn't know you could do that in a camera!". It's the type of thing that will really separate the left brain people from the right brainers. The lefties want everything to be "correct" and follow the rules(?). The righties want to know what I did in the "60's

So Steve, I don't think there are any rules any more. You should decide if you want documentary accuracy or a right brain blowout and go for it

Bob

Can someone, please, define "documentary accuracy" for me? I know there's been a lot written about "objectivity" and "documentary accuracy" but, frankly, they don't exist and never did.

As long as you label your work as art, I`m with Guy, Kent etc. Just don`t try to pass manipulated images as scientific records...

For those who care - an interesting read about detecting falsified images:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/070219-2.html

Reply posted by Tom Webster on 02/20/07 at 12:40 am EST

Can someone, please, define "documentary accuracy" for me? I know there's been a lot written about "objectivity" and "documentary accuracy" but, frankly, they don't exist and never did.

You are right, Tom, even something as simple as using a polarizer changes the "truth" of our pictures but there seems to be a number of self appointed critics who demand that we render our subject matter exactly as it is. They are, in fact demanding documentary accuracy. I don't know any of these people personally. As soon as one of them reveals his or her true colors I don't want to know them but perhaps if you know one of them you might obtain a more comprehensive definition of "documentary accuracy" than I can provide.


Bob

I continue to believe photography is art, and one should have the option of manipulation unless he intends to document something exactly as it was. However, if a photo is manipulated, especially to the extent you describe, the photographer should say so. How hard is that? I don't understand why people would want to pass their work off as "unmanipulated". It's like they think that makes them a better photographer. I guess they're afraid people will think less of them and their work. As Guy said, the lie is inexcusable.

I have not read all postings, and I am not in the mood to file a long answer. But my personal ethic is not to remove some major elements that are present in the original scene. A house, a street, a tree, whatever. However, removing a car, a small branch sticking in from one side, is acceptable. Evenmore if such manipulation is stated somewhere.
But such a lame excuse: "...taken from a particular point that that did not include the road and that the photograph was not manipulated in any way digitally" if you were able to proof this as a blatant lie is just a big dissapointment. It's fooling the viewer. If such manipulation would be clearly explained, no offence is taken. But removing of subject matter and claiming it that no manipulation has been performed is not acceptable.
About accuracy of colours and contrast I as well have posted a rather long post in the thread that David mentioned.
In short, I think tweaking an image with respect to colour and contrast is ok, but I think some photographers seem to even hide or obscure this fact as well by stressing that everything seen in a photograph is a replication of "what they saw" , while they omit pointing out that they used velvia, filters, darkroom-processes to enhance "what they saw". Its debattable if they should state this next to each print in their gallery, but somewhat implying that absolutely no enhancements have been done is not quite right either...

While I basically agree with Guy that photographers should be free to use their medium of choice to create art the way they want, I think we shouldn't forget that the ability to really accurately render a scene (or at least render it more accurately than most painters), giving the illusion of seing the world in a very real way, is something that makes our medium attractive for some (me included).

Basil

Basil, the illusion is still there.

Guy

I don't think we should have to divulge any information on what we did to our photos, unless we are asked. If I had to contend with a major element such as a parking lot or road I would rather aim the camera in a different direction or at least rethink my composition. It would save me oodles of photoshop work and I don't have to harbour any "secrets". I don't understand why the photographer would lie about digitally manipulating his work. Removing unwanted elements in that way is no different than removing unwanted elements by hiding them behind bushes or tall grass. So what was he so ashamed of that he had to lie?

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

Tom Webster >>>"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!"

William Vrolyk >>>"... I don't understand why the photographer would lie about digitally manipulating his work. Removing unwanted elements in that way is no different than removing unwanted elements by hiding them behind bushes or tall grass. So what was he so ashamed of that he had to lie? "

William, this gets to the heart of the matter I and Dietrich posted on in the current Is 'Velvia Vision' cheating? thread. Of course the obvious reason photographers like the one Steve mentioned will lie about their images is the same reason others choose to take the less guilty path of not communicating what they are doing. The difference is when cornered some photographers are likely to ride that same attitude out into a lie whether considered carefully beforehand or not. I personally know some photographers on the art fair circuit that regularly lie to customers perusing their work because they have had unpleasant past experiences trying to explain what they do to potential customers especially when those asking the questions are technical novices. Some photographers simply do not have skill to adequately articulate a response while others lack anything more than a minimal technical understanding of photographic processes and materials. And you can really believe some absolute hate it when they are so confronted thus usually attempt to change such conversations away from the matter. Not surprising art fair purveyors of photography often have a rather negative opinion of the frequent fellow photographers that tend to be the ones to bring up such questions while visiting their booths. The unspoken undercurrent is...I caught you cheating....

Why don't photographers that embrace creative photographic manipulations simply become open to their peers about their choice and style? Obviously they must harbor some fears inside that others will not value what they have created if they know it does not represent a natural moment captured with fidelity in time by a camera. For years we've all seen a few photographers that will even continue to rant kicking and screaming that their Velvia sunset red and purple colors really really really occurred just like in the print instead of just calmly stating sure all we photographers today use saturated films that boosts saturation and contrast a bit. What's so bad about acknowledging a modest manipulation like that especially if most photographers are also doing so? Toss out that little dark wall of guilt and feel the honest freedom of artists in the light of the other side. Unfortunately even though some photographers may consider moving into the light, then the cruel economic reality of selling work or impressing peers or the public rears its dominating head just like those that shoot animals in farms or zoos they then portray such images as captured in wild natural conditions. ...David

Y'all keep saying the photographer lied, but the photographer was not the speaker. It was the salesperson who claimed the photographer said something.

David: I take offense to your constant mention that photographers who are not fully disclosing every aspect of the creative process are somehow guilty of misleading the public. I respect your approach to photography even though I don't plan to follow in those footsteps (and, that is not because I consider it to be any less; its just that my interest in image making happens to be different). I therefore cannot understand why you have to keep rubbing it in that those of us who choose to embrace manipulation in the post-processing stage are doing so for either economic gain or some other outlandish reasons.

I was invited to give a guest-lecture at the San Jose City College last Fall. When the topic of digital manipulation came up I informed the students that over 90% of the creative process in my photography is centered around PhotoShop. My reasons for doing so is because I don't know of any other other way to achieve the results I am after. I also declared that out of the two stages - capturing the image using a camera and working on the digital file later in PS, I enjoy the latter a lot more.

Perhaps I am not a photographer...perhaps I am not an ethical person. However, let me tell you this - I believe my photographs represent "reality" as I see it. This may differ from your reality (and that of others) but I refuse to worry about it. Who is to say that your reality is any more true than mine?

When the topic of digital manipulation came up I informed the students that over 90% of the creative process in my photography is centered around PhotoShop.

Anil: while you may enjoy manipulating your images in PS more than the actual making of the photograph itself, do you really think that 90% of the creative process behind your images is in manipulations and NOT itself in the photograph? I ask because your photographs don't strike me as photo-art or highly stylized interpretations of photographs. They appear to me to have been created by a creative individual completely exclusive of post-exposure processing. Just my observation.

Like Anil, I don't really see the logic in stating there's anything dishonest about not itemizing one's process upfront in detail. Is the chef keeping his recipes secret deceiving the public? What about political views? should we hand out a brochure listing everything we do and believe in to any stranger on the street?

If you want to know - ask. And just like the master chef some may refuse to tell you, and that's ok.

I think those who lie damage the reputation of the community and create false perceptions in the minds of consumers, but then so do those who insist their images are somehow an accurate representation of an experience or "reality" (as if there was a consensus on what that is).

I'm of the opinion that imposing arbitrary limitations on art does a disservice to all artists. Art implies artistic freedom.

"Without freedom, no art; art lives only on the restraints it imposes on itself, and dies of all others. " --Albert Camus

In other words - keep your laws off my art!

Guy

Michael: I'd say most of my "creative" work is done in PS. I realize that this doesn't really mean much, because the total creative work involved is so small. But that is a different discussion altogether, don't you think.

Here are two jpeg files of a photo that I made on the morning following Halloween Night.

Raw
Cooked

The second version, which I posted on NPN, won an ESS weekly pick. To me the raw version doesn't mean much. I saw the potential of the scene when making the capture and then relied on PS to bring out what I was really after.

I'd say 90% of the creative process is in my head and took the good part of the last 30 years to evolve. And yes, I do spend a lot more time in Photoshop than the 1/30th of a second (on average) it takes the camera to record a given image

Guy

First off, thanks very much for everyone’s input. I value each person’s perspective as I begin my own journey of photographic discovery.

To Hank, I did check the perspective and it does not change anything. While not yet developed, I know I have a photograph that is essentially identical in perspective. One good thing that came out of this is that I found a great location with some FG interest that does not have the road or parking lot.

Thanks David to responding to yet another manipulation question. With my extra dollar added, you should go out and purchase that Ansel print you always wanted.

John, you are quite correct, it was the salesperson who made the claim. The way it was stated made me to believe it was related from the photographer directly. It’s hard to describe unless you were there. The interesting point of fact is that I was attempting to give the photographer a compliment relayed through the salesperson. I’ve stitched a few photographs together and I could hazard a guess at the skills to eliminate manmade objects from a large panorama print without any discernible evidence. Obviously I liked the print enough before hand that I wanted to replicate the image for myself. For me, the misrepresentation was completely unnecessary, and that is what bothered me. In truth, I could care less that they chose to manipulate the photograph. Would I do it in the same way? Probably not, but I may change my perspective in the future on that point as well.

I don’t rely on photography sales for my income, so there is no real pressure for me from public opinion about manipulating images. I think a photographer should feel free to tell what they did, but I agree with David it can either simply be a hassle or can be an issue for selling to some lay people who really don’t understand what all is involved in photography and digital editing. So while I can take the high road by not worrying about photography income, I can be very forthright with anyone about anything I have done to an image. I just want to always be that honest about it.

I also think Steve stated things pretty well at the very beginning. How much we all chose to manipulate images is to each persons individual tastes and goals. I decided to use the terms tastes and goals in lieu of ethics because I think that is a better term for photo manipulation. Personally, I think ‘ethics’ applies to how we represent our work, at least when asked directly about it. For me, I’ll decide the route I feel best about taking and manipulating photographs. Then, I’ll enjoy the perspectives other photographers take on the same/similar image. In the future, I’ll probably not ask if a photograph was altered. Not because it bothers me or than I’m trying to call someone out on the carpet, but to avoid putting them in the awkward position of giving an answer.

It is a different discussion, Anil - I just wanted to understand. Although I'd agree that color and contrast manipulations are a creative endeavor, I'd suggest that they're largely techniques used to optimize a raw image for print. In your example, the seasoned version indeed looks better than the raw, but they're fundamentally the same image.

Man, you need to get that magenta scanner cast under control! Epson, right?

Michael: I'll argue that the two images (raw and seasoned) are very different. The raw version is very close to what the scene actually looked like - it is basically what the Astia chrome recorded and in this case the drum-scan is very close too. Early morning light at the coast does strange things to both film and our eyes.

The point I am making is that in some of my photos I make a few minor corrections and voila - I have a print I am happy with. In others - like this one - I may not see the final image until I am fooling around with the scan on the computer. If it weren't for the computer, who knows I might have tossed the chrome away.

I am also sure that if someone like Tony, Guy or yourself were to play with the drum-scan a very different interpretation would emerge.

Anil Rao >>>"David: I take offense to your constant mention that photographers who are not fully disclosing every aspect of the creative process are somehow guilty of misleading the public."

Anil, by using the terms "not fully disclosing every aspect" you are considerably broadening of what I carefully write. On the contrary please go back and read what little I've suggested photographers might do to at least go beyond not saying anything at all. Be careful to note my use of relative adjectives in order to not make my statements absolutes. Just like in many debates on controversial subjects, sometimes a response is posed against the bulk of what a person has absorbed from many on the other side of a subject. In this case you can read what I briefly noted in the other current thread about those taking more extreme stances on these subjects.

Anil >>>"...I therefore cannot understand why you have to keep rubbing it in that those of us who choose to embrace manipulation in the post-processing stage are doing so for either economic gain or some other outlandish reasons."

Anil this is a old debate that I've participated in a long time. As long as photographers bring up these matters, those taking part in the dialogue ought to expect to hear points and opinions repeated. Just like yours. So you don't buy my point that economics has something to do with SOME photographer's choices? I recall you articulating your personal reasons rather well on this some months ago that for you personally that was not the case. Just as economics may not be for many others that manipulate too. But it is also true that there are SOME that will manipulate photographs for all those reasons I noted which I'm guessing you too would agree with. Certainly not all but for some definitely. Being a photographer of fine art prints is a highly competive art career to venture into. Many are the stories of the very talented that often were barely able to support themselves at times. So yes one can expect that economic reasons will be a factor for SOME photographers SOME of the time. Between economics and the praise by peers I would tend to believe for many the latter is more an issue.

Anil >>>"... I believe my photographs represent "reality" as I see it. This may differ from your reality (and that of others) but I refuse to worry about it. Who is to say that your reality is any more true than mine? "

Reality as we discussed mainly in the other cheating thread is not about each persons own mental viewpoints but rather what physically occurred through time. We humans have senses that transduce, process, and interpret the world for whatever that is. Though each of we humans varies to some minor extent on our senses, much remains a common experience. One can imagine much but such does not in any way affect visual reality. That's might be called imagination. The red stop sign during sunny daylight still generally has the same visual form and colors it does regardless of who looks at it. The color blind person might see something much more gray but that in no way changes its visual reality for the majority of we human's sensing such. ...David

David,.

I picked the following portion from your earlier post to this thread. See below:

Why don't photographers that embrace creative photographic manipulations simply become open to their peers about their choice and style? Obviously they must harbor some fears inside that others will not value what they have created if they know it does not represent a natural moment captured with fidelity in time by a camera.

Your statements seem to cover the entire class of photographers who have embraced creative photographic manipulations (or am I reading it wrong). That offends me.

Your example of the red stop sign is very simple - almost to the point of being uninteresting. Consider the example I presented above via the two jpeg files - raw and cooked. The raw version is pretty close to what I saw at the location (and is very close to what was recorded on the Astia chrome). So if you looked at the cooked version and went back to the scene you wouldn't see anything like that at all. I suppose I am an unethical person and a cheat because I didn't specify this when posting the cooked version on ESS. I guess I have some guilty feelings to harbor or the fear that my peers may not think much of what I managed to capture with my camera.

Anil your criticism of my statement as written is indeed correctly interpretted. My apollogies on taking you to task on reading what I write. I certainly make mistakes and typos at times or mean something though articulate such poorly. In this case I should have written SOME photographers as I also articulated other reasons in the other thread like peer and public recognition and praise. One can certainly include other reasons like a desire to create images of beauty that fit more into what you are relating. Thus some have a vision of making something aesthetic and beautiful which they work to create using Photoshop then enjoy sharing that with others.

Now if we move beyond that to the point a person is presenting that work more formally to the public, one might consider what ought be communicated to their audience. I wrote in the cheating thread.

"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."

I have a couple of things to add, but I may be joining too late.....anyway.

First, I agree with David that there is some absolute idea of reality - the stop sign image being, I think, a good example.

Second, I agree with Anil that the second, processed photo is wonderful, and, to me, a beautiful photo without any thought of it being ethically wrong.

I'm fairly new to photography, and don't have any photographer friends. I am very familiar with the non-photogs reactions to Photoshop and other software (and had some similar reactions when I first started looking at this site and others). At one point, when I explained how I was adjusting the color, my roommate asked if that meant that I wasn't getting a print of the "real" photo - as she would from Shutterfly, Snapfish, Wal-Mart, etc. out of here camera. I had to explain that the camera doesn't exactly record what you see. Also, (and this is the big point) any time photos are standard processed (drugstore, Wal-Mart, etc.) there is at least some curves and sharpening added. Most people don't realize that their photos are almost always manipulated. I had to show a comparison of a picture on my calibrated monitor to the actual print as proof.

I think because of these two things that non-photogs don't realize (cameras don't record what your eye sees, and shops almost always manipulate) most non-photogs think that any manipulation is not representative of the actual scene (and is therefore photo art, not a photograph).

I think most lay people expect a photograph to as closely represent what they would have actually scene as possible. Otherwise why not just create the whole thing in a computer from the ground up? (Yes, I've heard that comment.)

Obviously, what we have here then are two potential extremes - in one case, nothing is real and the whole scene is computer generated. At the other end, there is an approximation of exactly what your eyes would see if you were standing there. Everything else is just middle ground, and where you draw the line between a pure documentary photograph, and photo art would seem to be very subjective. Most non-photogs seem to draw it much closer to the purely documentary end than photographers do (probably has something to do with the whole "Is it art?" discussion as well).

I believe, however, that the laypersons (somewhat uninformed) attitude that a photograph should never be altered or else it's not "real", is what probably plays into why people are hesitant to disclose their processing methods. Say you have a photo that a lot of non-photographer people want to buy, but have questions about, I believe that :

1) None of them would care if you said it was developed purely by a generic lab, and would assume that it was a close a representation of what they would see as can be,
2) A lot of them would think less of the photo if they knew you used any Photoshop on it - and maybe wouldn't buy it.
3) Many many of them would not buy the photo if they knew you had cloned out something like a road and would consider it "fake".

I could be wrong, especially about what people are willing to buy, but this seems to be the case in terms of general attitude that I've observed. This would explain why someone would be so hesitant to tell you what was cloned. If they knew beforehand that you are very familiar with the whole process, maybe they wouldn't care. But the general attitude of the masses might be "It's nice, but it's a total fake."

I believe photography is art and to overly simplify things, any photograph that is taken with film/sensor that does not match the natural color; that is a different angle of view, both horizontal and vertical from the human eye; that does not have the dynamic range of the human eye; that doesn't have the DOF of the human eye; and that is shot with a shutterspeed that does not freeze action is not "reality" or a "documentary" photograph. By that criteria ALL photographs are manipulated - artistically, by choosing a viewpoint, DOF, angle of view, shutterspeed, etc. It's a matter of personal opinion, let your conscience be your guide.

My attitudes about manipulation in photography have really changed over the years. If someone looks at the work they're creating as art, and it's not being marketed in an editorial outlet, then I think the sky's the limit. Or better yet I think there really is no limit. How I create a print is not guded by my conscience at all, it is simply guided by what I like and what interests me or what mood I'm trying to convey.

For years when I scanned slides I stuck strictly to working on matching the slide. A big reason was that up until the last year or so in the majority of my sales the client asked for the slide so I felt it was important to match the slide. But even when scanning to make prints I was still sticking to the uncreative and really boring idea of matching the slide. A couple months ago I was doing an exhibit of my prints in Butte, Montana and met a fellow photographer, Lance Schelvan, who showed me a portfolio of his images. I was just blown away at the quality of his work. Most of his nature prints were obviously not how they the slide originally looked or how the image looked straight out of the digital camera. When I think of heavily manipulated images I often think of guady, gonzo colors. These images were not unrealistic as far as color but they had a certain texture and painterly effect that gave the images a nice subtle, surreal look. He explained to me briefly some of the filters he used in his work (I had never even tried working with filters in Photoshop). He is also a painter and has a degree in art, which you could see when viewing his prints. If you want to check out Lance's work he has a website at: www.naturalexcerpts.com

Since then I've totallly changed my workflow on the computer. I'm not into heavy manipulation, adding or subtracting major elements in a scene for example, but I no longer even think about how the slide looked or how the image looks out of the camera. With every image I make the decisions on color, hue, contrast, texture, etc., as I work, considering what I like personally first and also how I want the mood of the image to be conveyed. It has really freed me up as an artist--I'm enjoying the creative process in the computer, whereas before I looked at it as a chore to get through.

Anyway, my point is if you're creating images for art's sake, for your own personal enjoyment, etc., then don't spend any time worrying about any so-called ethics or whether an image is "true" "accurate" "faithful" etc., etc. (Of course, selling photos for editorial outlets is a totally different story). While I wouldn't personally be interested in deleting major elements in a scene like a road (though I never say never), I'm sure if the photographer mentioned in this thread did it he probably did so because he was trying to convey a certain mood in the image, just like we do with various lenses,filters,film,white balances,time of day or night, season, etc. It's all a personal decision and there is no one "reality." Expecting someone who is making prints to declare what they did in Photoshop is really silly if the purpose of the image is to create art. Of course, if someone asks I don't see any reason not to be up front about how an image was made either.

This is really a change of opinion for me but I came to it after spending a lot of time thinking about what my goals and expectations were in creating images and also considering that photography is an art form and not simply a documentary/journalistic medium.

Thanks, Randy

Ok, since this thread seems to be still alive, I add something to the experience of the thread starter....

I went to a gallery in San Francisco some two years ago. This was the time I got really interested in "artistic" photography - landscape photography. San Fran. was the last stop of a three-week trip through some national parks.
So, in that gallery, next to some of the prints that had some obviously rich colours, there was a statement that the colours are real, "this is what I saw, no filters, no darkroom work etc".

I was stunned - wow what an artist

So, when I came home from that trip, finally back in good old Austria, i checked the website of said photographer. Somewhere on his site he explained his workflow:
Velvia(!!), scanning of the slide, adjustments in photoshop.(This is what a lot do as i found out)
So, in fact, the images on display are NOT exactly what he saw, but what he created by his workflow.
At least he was honest about that on his website, but in the gallery he chose to hide that fact.
Why? There can only be one reason - economic considerations as David put it

He would not write: Yes, I know, the colours and the contrast is a bit over the top. This is not what happened that moment I pressed the shutter. Instead I use a film that gives heavy saturation. I sometime underexpose to get even higher saturation. In addition to that I manipulate the scanned images on my PC.
Such statements would kill his sales, I am sure.

I don't want to imply he should do that. I would not do so either if I had a gallery. But I think pointing out that he does no manipulation is a lie. He should just omit these statements. Instead he should give away some of his workflow, if asked.(What he eventually will do. A friend of mine visited that gallery a year after - i recommended it to him What a coincidence - the photographer was there, they chatted a bit, he showed his equipment etc.)

I love his work, I hold him and his work in very high esteem. Knowing that he does some tweaking on his images does not degrade the value his images have for me. Not at all. He has some great composition skills, his use of light is excellent and his darkroom-skills (tradinional or digital) are great. All that makes him a great photographer.

Again - no one ever blamed Ansel Adams for his darkroom work. In fact, this is what makes Adams an outstanding artist and his prints some great piece of art.

However, when it comes to colour-photography, people do not accept the same processes.
That's why some artists choose to either not tell about their tricks, or to stress that they do not manipulate, while to some extent every photographer does manipulate...

The thing is, we all have have to lie from time to time. Hopefully seldom to our friends and partners,but in professional business life, a well placed lie, or lets say, the omission of facts keeps you successful. Everyone of us lies in a job-interview - or lets say tries to pretend how eager you are to start working in that company. You don't tell people that you dont like them if your salary depends on it. You don't point out some major drawbacks a product has if you want to increase the market-share of your company... etc..
A photographer that makes a living with his photography has to lie to keep making a living, and again the term cheating and "ethic" (or lack thereof) will pop up from time to time.

Dietrich

Dietrich - Perhaps I'm re-stating my point, but I wonder if one reason no one has ever blamed Ansel Adams for his darkroom work, is that many people think he just produced exactly what their eyes would see....

However, when it comes to colour-photography, people do not accept the same processes.

If that were true we would not be having this discussion. Obviously some people do and some don't.

Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and others (f/64 group etc.) worked very hard to get people to accept photography as a visual art. Knocking it back to the ages of being a mere documentary medium is a slap in the face to some of the greatest photographers in history.

If anything, I would argue that many people lack an understanding of photography as art and fall back to interpreting it based its limited documentary role. I consider it our duty to educate them and open their eyes.

"You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Guy

Randy,

It sounds like your history and current feelings about editing scanned photographs on a computer mirror mine. I used to match the slide precisely, even if there were some exposure corrections that needed to be made. Now, I don't have any problems working on some level of contract, saturation, burning and dodging adjustments. With some recent panos that I stitched together, I used photographs with a polarizer as a color and saturation reference while using unpolarized photographs to stitch the image together, which eliminates some of the severe dark blue banding within the sky. I then adjust the stitched photograph to incorporate some of the color and saturation that is in the polarized photographs. I also sometimes use different exposures to increase the exposure latitude in the final image.

Steve

I think a lot of good points have been brought out. A big question is if Photography is art or documentary. Whatever your answer will help to define what you do digitally. Like Steve, I have tried to bring the scanned images back to look like the slide. I am no longer of that thinking. Perhaps this was forced on me when I switched to digital and shoot RAW. How do I want the final picture to look? I can take a sunset and adjust it too look like I used Velvia or VS, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, or whatever. I can try to make it look like I remember it. I can try to make it look like I wanted it to look. What happens when I change the white balance from daylight to shadow or cloudy or choose some other color temperature? I can even make it look like it was taken at noon. I can adjust the film for white balance by using filters. So, what's the problem?

But this thread started with altering a photograph (adding and/or deleting components) and then claiming it as taken. I can seen removing Kleenex Flowers from the bushes. I can't see removing a road, parking lot, or cars without disclosure. There are too many people like Steve (and me) who will be trying to find that spot to get a similar picture, with their own slant, naturally. A picture posted in a gallery is a different matter. I can see not being able to find a place to put the full disclaimer, but do not claim that it is "unaltered" when it obviously has been altered.

Fred Stearns wrote:

I can seen removing Kleenex Flowers from the bushes. I can't see removing a road, parking lot, or cars without disclosure. There are too many people like Steve (and me) who will be trying to find that spot to get a similar picture, with their own slant, naturally. A picture posted in a gallery is a different matter. I can see not being able to find a place to put the full disclaimer, but do not claim that it is "unaltered" when it obviously has been altered.

Why? What does all this really matter? Frankly, there is no such thing as "documentary" or "objective" photography. Those concepts are fictitious the moment you pick up the camera and make an image. Period.

1) If you have ever tried to display your images at an art fair or a gallery you will most likely hear this question, "Did you manipulate the image?" over and over again, ad nauseum. If you respond, "Yes", that opens a whole can of worms. After a while you just flat get tired of reprating the same old points and arguments. Sometimes you just say, "No". What does it really matter in the whole scheme of things?

I will respond, "Yes", but I will also tactfully explain that I will not enter into any ethics, objectivity, or technical discussions. I simply tell a client this is what I saw and felt at the time I made the image. Period. If somebody else says, "No", I can perfectly well understand why.

2) Why are you visiting the same site to get similar images "with [your] own slant, naturally". Where is the feeling of discovery and creativity in doing this? Once you've viewed the same scene after looking at the other photographer's image you will never be able to totally put "your own slant" on the image. You will always be influenced by the other photographer's image in the back of your mind and your subconscious.

3) Why not remove ugly elements from a scene? Good grief! I shot a panorama of the red rock formations at Sedona, Arizona, USA. I removed all roads, houses, even a church and everybody loved it. They didn't realize how beautiful that area was before all the development. Nobody...not one person...accused me of "cheating".

So the photographer lied. So what? Did the photographer who made all the photos on the wall at your favorite burger joint lie by making images of large patties between nice fluffy buns? Ever look at your order closely. How many times did you really get large patties and fluffy buns? To me, this whole discussion is over a just a bit of fluff.

Tom Webster >>>" Why? What does all this really matter? Frankly, there is no such thing as "documentary" or "objective" photography. Those concepts are fictitious the moment you pick up the camera and make an image. Period."

An excerpt of mine form the current "Is 'Velvia Vision' cheating?" thread.

"...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."

As an example of something easy to understand that shows how photographs can reasonably reflect human visual reality, an image of a nearby red stop sign up in the blue sky, can be imaged reasonably accurately, especially its graphic form from the position of the camera. And color films like Astia, Provia, and Ektachrome EPN100 are going to render the colors arguably close to the human experience if reasonably exposed. So this usual absolutest mindset of tossing the baby out with the bathwater because of some slight imperfections lacks some considerations of the broad nature of photography. ...David

David, I completely agree with this statement:

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.

But I also don't feel the stop sign example is a very good one. Granted when limited to primary colors, most "seeing" mechanisms have a very similar idea of what the color should look like in its pure form. This however doesn't hold much relevance in nature photography since by far most natural objects are not in such pure form of a primary color and will be perceived/recorded differently by different capture mediums. Things get even less certain when it comes to colors in the infrared/ultraviolet parts of the spectrum which are widely present in natural scenes but where different mediums have a great degree of variance in sensitivity.

Your example is sorta like saying everybody shares the same idea of what pure sugar taste like. This is a far cry from saying everyone shares the same idea of what constitutes tasty food.

Guy

What a lively discussion! I sure got Tom going, though that was not my intent. I will go back to Steve's original question. In essence, he asked if it was ethical to remove distracting elements from a photograph. Here is my definitive answer: It depends. If you are in a venue which requires that all photographs be unaltered in that cloning out certain objects is not allowed, then yes. If you displaying your pictures where there are no posted requirements, like on your web site as you make the rules there, anything goes. If you choose, you can disclose that certain items were cloned out, like that distracting contrail in the sky. If you have cloned out a parking lot and road sign, as in Steve's example, and you are directly asked, tell the truth. Otherwise you hurt your own credibility. If you volunteer the information, be truthful. In Steve's example, it wasn't the photographer but his/her clerk who has tarnished the reputation of the photographer.

Tom, if you want to run your photographs through Photoshop to the point where they hardly resemble the original scene, that is your privilege. You don't even have to disclose it unless you desire to.

As has been said many time in this thread, and many others as well, photography is an art form. I think that this is indeed true. In my opinion, that has been true since the early days when each shot took an intolerably long time. If you disagree, that is OK with me. There are many styles of photography, many I like, some leave me puzzled, some leave me cold, and some I dislike. Your list will be different than mine. We have different tastes. That is what makes life interesting.

Dietrich has stated things very well. Though I would hope that, as photographers, our lies are these of omission. The non-photographic public, such as snapshooters, does not need to know all the photographer's secrets. Any artist holds some secrets personal. Especially if it helps keep a roof over the head and food on the table.

Guy, my reason for the stop sign example is simply to deny that one can make a blanket black and white statement rejecting reaslism in photography. The degree of realism possible varies from very little to considerable with a spectrum of possibilities between the two. For instance it is rather difficult for any camera or film to capture our human visual experience in the dark of night. It was also very difficult to capture high contrast images so the luminance information is usable at the extremes although today with HDR and GND filters we are even gaining capabilities imaging that to some degree. On the other hand we could probably also give numerous examples of subjects that can be captured reasonably faithfully so that differences are slight as with my red stop sign example. And we could certainlyagree graphic content of form is something that is most frequently captured with fidelity even though color and luminance may not be. Now as you noted natural objects especially those in landscapes are more complicated. Beyond the issue of the red stop sign example is considerable possible discussion on what we can and cannot reasonably capture that is worth a thread on its own some time. ...David

Thanks for the thoughtful response, David!

And we could certainlyagree graphic content of form is something that is most frequently captured with fidelity even though color and luminance may not be.

Well, not quite. Gestalt theory has established through numerous mechanisms that content and form are inferred by the brain based on several factors (e.g. symmetry, closure, similarity, etc.) and that in many cases the human brain will make up detail to form an image even in the absence of actual visual information. This means that sometimes the camera can "see" things that a person at the scene would not have and vice versa. Which is more valid?

Guy

Tom Webster - "2) Why are you visiting the same site to get similar images "with [your] own slant, naturally". Where is the feeling of discovery and creativity in doing this? Once you've viewed the same scene after looking at the other photographer's image you will never be able to totally put "your own slant" on the image. You will always be influenced by the other photographer's image in the back of your mind and your subconscious."

I think that's an unusual question. I see many full time professional photographers taking photographs that have been done to death - Maroon Bells, Mesa Arch, Delicate Arch, Yosemite Valley, etc. There's probably not many original photographs to be had of famous places in the national parks. Per your apparent perspective, photographs of these places shouldn't be taken any more.

For myself, I recently took a photograph of Delicate Arch. There were 50 people taking photographs of the arch when I went. The big reason I took it is because I have a good camera and can take a properly composed and exposed photograph of it for myself. Why do I need to buy someone else's photograph of it? My own photograph of it gives me a much stronger connection with the subject. An truth be told, I'm sure it will be one of the photographs that I sell from that trip. There are reasons people photograph the some of these places over and over. They are gorgeous locales and they are easy to sell.

Besides, we've all seen other peoples photographs. If you are like me, you've had photographic idols when you were first starting that have influenced your own work. David Muench is one of mine, and there are aspects of his style that still creep into mine. I would be proud if someone likened my work to his, but I also do photographs that are my own that are very different from his style. Those influences are constantly in our subconscious, even if they were taken from totally different locations and times. As such, our photographic ‘integrity and ingenuity’ are almost always compromised.

Now I did go out hiking off trail for quite a ways in Arches and probably got a unique photograph. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was hiking on soils that are reported to take a couple of hundred years to recover from being tread upon, which I read about the next day. Maybe the National Park System is overstating the ecological impact of my off trail hiking, but after that, I limited my off trail hiking to those areas that were slick rock and drainages. So in the efforts to get an original photograph, I may have damaged the local ecology. Was that original photograph worth it? I don’t know, but it wasn’t the best photograph from the trip.

Steve Bunn,

I am not questioning why you shot an "icon" everyone else has photographed. I am asking why you went to the same site seeking a similar view with "your own personal slant". Could you have not gone to the same site seeking your own view and only your own view?

Of course I've had my heroes and I have photographed several icons, myself, but I've never gone out with the other photographer's images in my mind. I've never gone out to photograph a similar scene and "put my own slant on it." I always go out to create my own images for which I can claim complete creative ownership. I really don't spend a lot of time looking at other photographer's images. I don't buy books, calendars, and (God forbid) consumer magazines. I rarely go to photo shows and photo galleries any more. In fact, the most I look at images are here, and a couple of other nature photo web sites, where I post critiques before posting my own images.

David Senesac,

Your stop sign example would be a good example to illustrate how I view "objective reality", ie. there is none. We each "color" our images with what we consider to be our objective reality. You may photograph the stop sign face on and to you it becomes a stop sign. What if I were to take your camera and photograph the stop sign from the side? Same sign but a wholly different "reality". Now what has the sign become but just a thin vertical line in a photograph? Where is the message or the meaning?

Hi Tom,

In actuality, it was Fred Stearns' quote about "putting my own slant on it," however, I was the one who responded to your comments as the struck a bit of a chord. In this particular case as noted when I started this thread, I did photograph from a location because I was inspired by the photograph. If possible, I try and get a more unique perspective, but that is not possible for some locales without having compositions that simply just don't work aesthetically.

I've never taken a photography class myself, but I have purchased books of some limited photographers that I really respect. I still like seeing some other people's galleries. I collect glass art and paintings, so much of that is driven just by a general appreciation for art (I would include photography in that grouping) rather than having it be a learning experience anymore. In this particular case, I wanted to both enjoy another photographer's work as well as get some ideas for shooting locales as I was visiting from out of town and I didn't have all the time in the world to explore things on my own. There is also probably a difference of perspective on this from landscape photography versus wildlife photography.

Steve, I don't think you need to justify yourself. We all do what we do for a variety of reasons, whether love or money or both, whether a creative urge, a desire to try and experience something for ourselves (whether it was done before or not) etc. Ultimately you should be true to yourself and do the things that make you happy.

I can't speak for Tom but I think his question was really aimed at pointing out a logical contradiction in someone's argument rather than question anyone's motives or inspiration.

Just my 2c,
Guy

Tom Webster >>>"Your stop sign example would be a good example to illustrate how I view "objective reality", ie. there is none. We each "color" our images with what we consider to be our objective reality. You may photograph the stop sign face on and to you it becomes a stop sign. What if I were to take your camera and photograph the stop sign from the side? Same sign but a wholly different "reality". Now what has the sign become but just a thin vertical line in a photograph? Where is the message or the meaning? ."

Tom, I'm guessing you have been trying to relate something reasonable all along, however I'm having a problem with the terminology in your short posts. Certainly some of these things are difficult for any of us to articulate and I am not always successful either. That is further muddied by the fact that on threads on this subject there are often several different conversations going on at the same time with some not addressing the original thread at all while others are moving off on tangents. And though we might be capable of doing such at times, we neither have time nor reason to post well thought out essays. From this last statement I'm guessing you are actually relating something about the way each of us uniquely view our photographic subjects. In other words more subjectively about vision, style, mental perspective etc. On the other hand my responses as relating to your threads are simply about the physical nature of cameras, photographic film, and materials we use that might be objectively quantified with scientific discipline. ...David

Oops, sorry Steve. So many replies in here I forgot "who was who".

No worries Tom. This is my first posting of this kind, but I know these threads kind of have a life of their own. I'm glad that this has been quite the forum on a few topics.

Roger
I would love to be only paying $4/gallon. Petrol (gas) in UK is over £1/litre which if my math is right is approaching $9/gallon. Deisel (derv?) is even more expensive.