Posted by Guy Manning on January 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Owens Valley. Chalk Bluff Road, 2nd parking area East of the campground at Pleasant Valley Res.
In this place in the landscape of the Owens Valley resides a large boulder. Its relationship to its surroundings didn't suit the composition. The increased size and mass of the stone, by about 40%, allows it to become more fully involved with the frame. The importance of the dawn lit peak in the background is accentuated by the arching character of the boulder introduced in post processing.
Does this not now become a photo-construction and less a landscape/nature photograph? How does this differ from multiple points of focus, layers, and multiple exposures techniques etc, when it comes to presenting work as landscape or nature photography?
Ultimately I am having a difficult time resolving these issues with myself. I was shooting landscapes with 4X5 as far back as 1977 and picked up most of the traditional attitudes of those days, but realize the tool set has changed and have accepted PS and LR in place of the Beseler and trays. My background includes 18 years in professional photo labs, much of it producing photo-composites. I was also indirectly involved with some of the first popularly disseminated usage of digital imaging when I worked for JPL, printing Voyager 1 and 2 photos for the press releases.
Part of the reason for this discussion was reading this:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0112/ab0112-1.html
I am interested in any discussion this may generate and what personal boundaries the majority put on themselves these days.
I moved this from the Landscape Gallery forum at the moderators request.
Edit on 1/14/12: The original discussion is ongoing in the Landscape Gallery. Apparently we couldn't get it moved successfully. There is further discussion there as well as a copy of the raw original.
Posted by Phil Pogledich on January 13, 2012 at 12:02 PM
So, you used the free transform suite of tools to alter the size and shape of the boulder? By about 40%? I'd say that's beyond the bounds of what I'd personally consider acceptable in nature photography. It's a very personal and subjective thing but, judging by your comments, it seems you're not comfortable with this degree of manipulation either.
I've used free transform, scaling, etc., very sparingly and, to date, I've never posted an image on NPN where I've used those tools at all. My personal approach is to apply the tools in the way I think is appropriate for a given image and then compare the end result to the original file. If I feel like I could show someone the original file and the "manipulated" image and reasonably expect them to agree that the edits were minor, then in my book I've used the tools acceptably for a landscape image. If not, then I have to consider whether I'm comfortable presenting the image as "photo art" ... which generally I'm not.
Finally, on the rare occasion where I've considered using free transform, I've always asked myself why I feel it is necessary. For example, is there something I could have done differently in the field to have created a more compelling composition, obviating the need to use free transform? Is my subject simply not that interesting in the first place, thus necessitating some digital "enhancement" in order to craft a decent image? And so on. In this way, I usually talk myself out of even messing around with free transform in the first place.
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Guy,
Thank you for starting the conversation here. Once comments are posted in an image/thread we can no longer delete a post. Technically we can, but we would go to Jim to delete. At this point I don't think we need to do that. I'm glad though that the conversation can continue here and I hope we get a good discussion. I'll post my thoughts here and I'll post them as a member, not as an NPN staff representative.
I understand and certainly support Alain's premise of "artistic license." I also believe in disclosure in those cases like here on NPN where the photographer is trying to represent a scene as they found it. The huge problem I see is where does one draw the line on what is manipulated or "constructed?" Who draws that line and who makes the rules? The answer is that you can't answer that question, no one can.
The other problem is the moment anyone of us uses an example (and I'm going to fall in to that trip in a moment,) then there will ALWAYS be a counter argument as to why or why not that example is considered manipulation, or in this case construction. For example adding a moon to a scene where the moon didn't originally exist is a classic example. Some see that as a clear example, while others are quick to say what is the difference between that and adding some "texture" to a waterfall where the detail has been blown out? Or painting in light where light was not?
I'd like to introduce something that certainly can't be legislated or moderated. And that is intent. At least for me the only way I can distinguish between a straight landscape and something other like Photo Art, is by photographers intent. The problem there of course is that we often don't know what the photographer's intent was. This concept leads me to accept images such as focus stacking and multiple image HDR type landscapes (done well) For example, a multi focus stacked image by definition is of course a composite of multiple images, as is a stitched pano, etc. However, the "intent" is to render the scene with great depth of field, the photographer is not intending on adding or subtracting elements from the scene. Star trail photography another example. Can we see star trails with the naked eye? Of course not. Here's the key. The photographer is doing nothing more than opening a aperture to record light. The earth and heavens move and therefore there is no intent or action of the photographer to create the star trails. Nature did it. I know someone can offer a valid counter point to this next one, but IMHO, with camera motion blur, the photographer's intent is to alter the scene by an action of his/her part. To me that is best suited for Photo Art. On the other hand, if you leave the shutter open for an extended period of time and clouds blow by or grass blows in the wind that could remain as a regular landscape (although nothing saying it couldn't be photo art as well.)
The last point I would make I'll go back to your original image. If I could go to the spot that you captured the original scene and expect to find the same scene, then it's a straight landscape. If I got there and discovered the boulder was no where near what I was expecting and that information wasn't disclosed when I viewed the image, I would be none too happy. If an image is reasonably represented as a scene that is true to what exists then I'd say it would be represented as a landscape or nature image. Otherwise, in the spirit of intent and disclosure, should be labeled as a composite if that is indeed how the image was made.
In my own work, I have certainly "grown" and have become more liberal in some of these applications and techniques. I think I fit in right where Phil does when he wrote:
If I feel like I could show someone the original file and the "manipulated" image and reasonably expect them to agree that the edits were minor, then in my book I've used the tools acceptably for a landscape image.
I have certainly cloned things out (which by definition means you're cloning something else IN,) The intent is always to make the scene as close to what was found and/or to be representative of what someone else would expect to find if they were there with me.
Sorry for the long answer, but I hope it sparks more discussion. There is no wrong or right answer here.
Oh, I'll put my moderator hat back on for a second. In general, the only thing that explicitly disqualifies an image from the Landscape/ESS Gallery is the Hand of Man. Currently that's all that's spelled out in the posting guidelines. The only other guideline states that the member post their image in the "most appropriate" gallery. That's quite subjective and often explains why some images get moved and some don't. We can move an image to Photo Art because it's more "appropriate" but it's subjective and there are no set in stone criteria (actually photo composite is one.) In the end, no moderator wants to be a gallery cop so hopefully for the most part it all works out in the wash.
Thanks Guy, good topic.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 14, 2012 at 2:01 PM
My response won't be as elaborate as those of the previous commenters. In my opinion, there are post-processing actions that you could possibly achieve in a classical darkroom (dodge and burn), or during capture, for example by the use of filters (e.g. graduated ND instead of a two-exposure blend) or certain types of film (e.g. Velvia for highly saturated colors). My opinion is that digital manipulation along these lines preserves the essence of the scene captured - the elements stay where they were, and you would clearly be able to recognize the scene if you were there.
When it comes to adding or removing elements in the frame, things become a bit more murky. Removing some piece of trash that pollutes a scene, or dust spots from your sensor is clearly "o.k.", I'd say. However, adding elements to a photograph, or massively manipulating objects the way you did is different. I don't say it's not "wrong" in some way - it's your artistic freedom, and if you like the outcome, it's all fine. But it's not the same anymore, a line has been crossed. I do realize that taking any photograph constitutes a manipulation of reality - projecting 3D into 2D, with a perspective that may be vastly different from what human eyes can deliver, maybe black and white instead of color. However, I draw a line somewhere, and I guess that most people do, too. Where you draw it is probably up to individual taste. I've outlined above where I do so.
This kind of reminds me about some arguments in the philosophy of science, where in spite of considerable efforts, nobody has been able to define what science really is. There are no strict rules that always work to distinguish science from non-science or pseudo-science in all cases. Nevertheless, I guess that most people thinking about that subject matter can tell science from non-science in real life cases. Though this is a very different subject matter from what we are discussing here, what I want to say is: It's not uncommon that it's not possible to create a comprehensive and always-valid list of rules to tell one thing from another, but in reality, you know it when you see it...
As an NPN landscape viewer, it seems to me that the images that usually get the most views and the most raves are images which have almost certainly had artistic license applied liberally. That's, of course, not always the case, and Sandy Richards' recent WP is an example where it's not the case at all. But it almost seems as if there are two completely different types of landscapes being posted here.
Maybe it's the Pinochio rankings in the current political pie fight, but all I ask for is honesty. If the photo has been "created" after the fact by yanks on the computer joystick, tell me. I fully appreciate the artistic results, but much like you appear to do, I draw a pretty clear distinction between "documenting" experiences and insights from the natural world and creations on the computer. Two different "art forms" in my eye.
Addressing your goals with this photo while not using the joystick and producing an ePhoto, would the setting allow you to shoot from lots further back using a long lens? Much of what you describe as your vision could have been accomplished that way unless the terrain prevented it.
Discussion
5 repliesIn this place in the landscape of the Owens Valley resides a large boulder. Its relationship to its surroundings didn't suit the composition. The increased size and mass of the stone, by about 40%, allows it to become more fully involved with the frame. The importance of the dawn lit peak in the background is accentuated by the arching character of the boulder introduced in post processing.
Does this not now become a photo-construction and less a landscape/nature photograph? How does this differ from multiple points of focus, layers, and multiple exposures techniques etc, when it comes to presenting work as landscape or nature photography?
Ultimately I am having a difficult time resolving these issues with myself. I was shooting landscapes with 4X5 as far back as 1977 and picked up most of the traditional attitudes of those days, but realize the tool set has changed and have accepted PS and LR in place of the Beseler and trays. My background includes 18 years in professional photo labs, much of it producing photo-composites. I was also indirectly involved with some of the first popularly disseminated usage of digital imaging when I worked for JPL, printing Voyager 1 and 2 photos for the press releases.
Part of the reason for this discussion was reading this:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0112/ab0112-1.html
I am interested in any discussion this may generate and what personal boundaries the majority put on themselves these days.
I moved this from the Landscape Gallery forum at the moderators request.
Edit on 1/14/12: The original discussion is ongoing in the Landscape Gallery. Apparently we couldn't get it moved successfully. There is further discussion there as well as a copy of the raw original.
I've used free transform, scaling, etc., very sparingly and, to date, I've never posted an image on NPN where I've used those tools at all. My personal approach is to apply the tools in the way I think is appropriate for a given image and then compare the end result to the original file. If I feel like I could show someone the original file and the "manipulated" image and reasonably expect them to agree that the edits were minor, then in my book I've used the tools acceptably for a landscape image. If not, then I have to consider whether I'm comfortable presenting the image as "photo art" ... which generally I'm not.
Finally, on the rare occasion where I've considered using free transform, I've always asked myself why I feel it is necessary. For example, is there something I could have done differently in the field to have created a more compelling composition, obviating the need to use free transform? Is my subject simply not that interesting in the first place, thus necessitating some digital "enhancement" in order to craft a decent image? And so on. In this way, I usually talk myself out of even messing around with free transform in the first place.
Thank you for starting the conversation here. Once comments are posted in an image/thread we can no longer delete a post. Technically we can, but we would go to Jim to delete. At this point I don't think we need to do that. I'm glad though that the conversation can continue here and I hope we get a good discussion. I'll post my thoughts here and I'll post them as a member, not as an NPN staff representative.
I understand and certainly support Alain's premise of "artistic license." I also believe in disclosure in those cases like here on NPN where the photographer is trying to represent a scene as they found it. The huge problem I see is where does one draw the line on what is manipulated or "constructed?" Who draws that line and who makes the rules? The answer is that you can't answer that question, no one can.
The other problem is the moment anyone of us uses an example (and I'm going to fall in to that trip in a moment,) then there will ALWAYS be a counter argument as to why or why not that example is considered manipulation, or in this case construction. For example adding a moon to a scene where the moon didn't originally exist is a classic example. Some see that as a clear example, while others are quick to say what is the difference between that and adding some "texture" to a waterfall where the detail has been blown out? Or painting in light where light was not?
I'd like to introduce something that certainly can't be legislated or moderated. And that is intent. At least for me the only way I can distinguish between a straight landscape and something other like Photo Art, is by photographers intent. The problem there of course is that we often don't know what the photographer's intent was. This concept leads me to accept images such as focus stacking and multiple image HDR type landscapes (done well) For example, a multi focus stacked image by definition is of course a composite of multiple images, as is a stitched pano, etc. However, the "intent" is to render the scene with great depth of field, the photographer is not intending on adding or subtracting elements from the scene. Star trail photography another example. Can we see star trails with the naked eye? Of course not. Here's the key. The photographer is doing nothing more than opening a aperture to record light. The earth and heavens move and therefore there is no intent or action of the photographer to create the star trails. Nature did it. I know someone can offer a valid counter point to this next one, but IMHO, with camera motion blur, the photographer's intent is to alter the scene by an action of his/her part. To me that is best suited for Photo Art. On the other hand, if you leave the shutter open for an extended period of time and clouds blow by or grass blows in the wind that could remain as a regular landscape (although nothing saying it couldn't be photo art as well.)
The last point I would make I'll go back to your original image. If I could go to the spot that you captured the original scene and expect to find the same scene, then it's a straight landscape. If I got there and discovered the boulder was no where near what I was expecting and that information wasn't disclosed when I viewed the image, I would be none too happy. If an image is reasonably represented as a scene that is true to what exists then I'd say it would be represented as a landscape or nature image. Otherwise, in the spirit of intent and disclosure, should be labeled as a composite if that is indeed how the image was made.
In my own work, I have certainly "grown" and have become more liberal in some of these applications and techniques. I think I fit in right where Phil does when he wrote: I have certainly cloned things out (which by definition means you're cloning something else IN,) The intent is always to make the scene as close to what was found and/or to be representative of what someone else would expect to find if they were there with me.
Sorry for the long answer, but I hope it sparks more discussion. There is no wrong or right answer here.
Oh, I'll put my moderator hat back on for a second. In general, the only thing that explicitly disqualifies an image from the Landscape/ESS Gallery is the Hand of Man. Currently that's all that's spelled out in the posting guidelines. The only other guideline states that the member post their image in the "most appropriate" gallery. That's quite subjective and often explains why some images get moved and some don't. We can move an image to Photo Art because it's more "appropriate" but it's subjective and there are no set in stone criteria (actually photo composite is one.) In the end, no moderator wants to be a gallery cop so hopefully for the most part it all works out in the wash.
Thanks Guy, good topic.
When it comes to adding or removing elements in the frame, things become a bit more murky. Removing some piece of trash that pollutes a scene, or dust spots from your sensor is clearly "o.k.", I'd say. However, adding elements to a photograph, or massively manipulating objects the way you did is different. I don't say it's not "wrong" in some way - it's your artistic freedom, and if you like the outcome, it's all fine. But it's not the same anymore, a line has been crossed. I do realize that taking any photograph constitutes a manipulation of reality - projecting 3D into 2D, with a perspective that may be vastly different from what human eyes can deliver, maybe black and white instead of color. However, I draw a line somewhere, and I guess that most people do, too. Where you draw it is probably up to individual taste. I've outlined above where I do so.
This kind of reminds me about some arguments in the philosophy of science, where in spite of considerable efforts, nobody has been able to define what science really is. There are no strict rules that always work to distinguish science from non-science or pseudo-science in all cases. Nevertheless, I guess that most people thinking about that subject matter can tell science from non-science in real life cases. Though this is a very different subject matter from what we are discussing here, what I want to say is: It's not uncommon that it's not possible to create a comprehensive and always-valid list of rules to tell one thing from another, but in reality, you know it when you see it...
Addressing your goals with this photo while not using the joystick and producing an ePhoto, would the setting allow you to shoot from lots further back using a long lens? Much of what you describe as your vision could have been accomplished that way unless the terrain prevented it.