When is a Photograph not a Photograph?

Are you feeling better H?

As requested - quite rightly - by BigH47
This is transferred from "System Pics 2011"

It was suggested that .... "digital camera's allow any idiot to have skill with a camera, now there are loads of so called 'photographers' out there. At least film is honest....photoshop is cheating"

My response was ...........
This kind of thinking is the new instant pic worlds lack of understanding of the art of photography.
It is so easy to take a picture & see the result within a second, to download & keep them in an "album" but never to print them for others to see.
That is the new world of taking pictures - not photography.

Photography is about composition, perspective, framing, then understanding light, depth of field, atmosphere, after which we add the many technicalities of the image capturing process, ISO, TV, AV, RAW, White balance, lens selection and and and .....
Capturing the image with the awareness & understanding of all the above is stage one of the process; the next stage is to perfect the image, to try reproduce the picture you saw with your mind at the time of the capture, then maybe to enhance & give it the effect that makes the subject or the atmosphere stand out like you would like it to appear or imagine it be.

Just like an artist would sketch a subject & then take the small sketch to the studio to get it onto the huge canvass. Like a Constable, Turner or Gainsborough, bastions of the "British" art movements, did not paint to be accurate but to enhance the scene effect & to romanticise it. The modern artists with modern subjects, e.g. Gerald Coulson & his WWII aircraft whist visually accurate for the airheads are so romanticised in the background.

Photoshop & Elements et al is like giving a sketch artist oil paint.

To me its essentially the same process (but different workflow) with the two mediums but I much prefer how film looks which is why I still use it in preference to digital.

I suspect that most people who use digital cameras for snaps will no more manipulate images than those who did the same with colour film snaps.

Those who used to shoot in black and white, develop and print the results will use software of varying sophistication to achieve more simply what took some thought in exposure and time in a darkroom e.g. pushing or pulling film exposure and subsequent adjustment to developing; use of particular developer to achieve a desired effect, use of different contrast paper; dodging and shading etc.

A good film image is no better than a good digital image imo.

In response to Mike-Bs answer above initially was

Why not paint then?

Didn't photography come about to accurately capture a moment in time?

Fossicing about with that image means it ain't a photo anymore IMO. Although I'm not sure what it should be called.

I know that from day one images were "played" with, a subtle adjustment of contrast etc, is hardly the same a completely re-arranging and combining multiple images.
Now we have the same for "music" with pro tools.

"Just because one can doesn't mean that one should."

I enjoy taking pictures, although I don't think I'm particularly good at it. However I do have photoshop and Aperture, I very rarely use them to "modify" a photo. Instead I tend to use the camera in manual mode and experiment in the field. For me looking through the camera lens has allowed me to better appreciate my surroundings.

So to me all of my photo's are photo's and provide me with a wonderful memory of events and people.

Tim

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Hopefully some of the "off thread" posts from System Pics 2011 can be transferred to this thread?

I have asked for it to be so.

BigH, I can move replies across different threads within the same room, but not across rooms. Well, not easily... I'll see what I can do if I have a moment when I get home later on tonight.

Richard I think the gist of what was going in the other thread has emerged here, certainly enough if people want to take it on. Thanks any way.

Howard

It's hard to disagree with anything Derry has said in his post.

"When Is A Photograph Not A Photograph?"

In my humble opinion as a professional photographer who has made his only living, the last 25 years, by pressing a camera shutter release I would say a photograph is what is captured at the moment the camera goes "click". At that point the captured image is what the person decided was worth taking. For me, that is when the photograph is the photograph.... Which I admit is the opposite of what the OP asked, sorry....!

Whether a person used Kodak Ektachrome 64 and pushed it half a stop at the lab or processed a 17mb raw file from a Canon 1DS Mk2 using Adobe Camera Raw on a computer, these are merely effects or changes to the original image.

"Get it right in the camera" is what I was always taught and it hasn't done me much harm so far.

And I am no sentimental traditionalist - for instance, apart from a break to type this and have another glass of red, I am processing today's shoot (Canon 1DS Mk3) in Capture One V6.0, tweak them in PS CS5 and email small Jpegs to my client's Inbox for him to peruse when he arrives at his office in the morning.

So I suppose I am saying that a photograph is not a photograph when it has been manipulated way beyond what was the original photographer's intent at the time the camera clicked.

But what do I know?!

Ian

Well I definitely come from the digital side of the argument, having worked in digital imagery since the late 80's, mostly in moving image.

I really admire the purity of film in both stills and moving image, and the skill of those who can work with it in its pure form. I worked with a fantastic director of photography (DOP) on a BBC production a few years ago shooting on super 8mm film, certainly one of the best looking projects I have worked on. Super 8 is a has some real challenges to work on digitally, it does not even hold in focus in the gate at times, and some frames are warped, but it looks lovely.

The digital world is something else that has different possibilities. I simply make images, using whatever method suits, the pair of images below is entirely derived from a scan of a dandelion head and then manipulated in Photoshop, done to play with digital possibilities, rather like a sketch. It is by no means an accurate portrayal of the beauty of a flower head, but to me is a pleasing image:


Is this argument any different to Bob Dylan or Miles Davis going electric, vinyl vs CD, whether using sequencers in music is a valid form of performance? They all open up new possibilities, and also lose some of the qualities of the original medium.

Some artist improve with the new medium, some are lost with it.

Good work BigH!

Don't get me wrong, I like digital, but the my interpretation of photography is that it should be honest and truthful...I find that the ability to doctor and edit a photograph following 'the moment' can sometimes remove the thought process behind the photo itself. You realise that 'ah it's ok I can always sort it out when i get home' and there's not the same level of care. I have also found that you take way more photo's and most of them aren't much good when you're armed with a digital camera of sorts. I have owned quite a few good digitals and while I acknowledge their merits, I find them a bore when compared to film cameras. They have almost killed my lust for the hobby!

In contrast, I had a Nikon FM3A back im my travelling days, and each photo I took was almost always carefully thought out and well composed. I like pretty much all of them! Don't get me wrong, digital is an interesting and exciting media form, but in my opinion it's layed paving for an influx of numptys who claim to be 'creative', and i also find it makes it easier for anyone to take a good photo. That's not to say many people aren't creative, but what i'm getting at is that it almost defies the artistic process, in that it removes the spontinaity and permenance from the photo itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Lewisimo:
but the my interpretation of photography is that it should be honest and truthful...

This is almost a philosophical issue. I would say that no photograph is honest and truthful - how can it be?

The classic is, of course, the black and white landscape photo. Bereft of colour it is neither honest or truthful.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:

quote:

Originally posted by Lewisimo:
but the my interpretation of photography is that it should be honest and truthful...

This is almost a philosophical issue. I would say that no photograph is honest and truthful - how can it be?

The classic is, of course, the black and white landscape photo. Bereft of colour it is neither honest or truthful.

What I mean is it's a ture capture of a scene at a certain time. Say you capture an amazing sunset, the colours and tones are 'there', whereas if you doctor it in photoshop and introduce elements of colour and tone that aren't 'true' then it becomes a false interpretation of the moment. That's what i'm getting at...

I totally disagree. Much as you can alter images digitally, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Most folk on first acquiring a digital camera think they can just take loads of snaps and by the law of averages there's going to be one or two that can be knocked into something reasonable.

In reality, this doesn't work. If your intention is to capture what you see, or an image which you wish to use as the basis for a creative photo, just as much time and thought needs to go into the initial photo as with film.

It's a mistake also to believe the traditional photos you see are a true, unaltered representation anyway. There was much touching up and chopping around; indeed, many of the terms used for altering photos in the darkroom are now used in the digital field, such as Burn (Darken) and Dodge (lighten) selected parts of the image.

Digital photography has made such adjustments far easier, as well as adding lots of other possibilities and has become hugely popular because of it.

RIGHT ON ianmacd

"Get it right in the camera"
... and that ALSO is what I was always taught and it too hasn't done me much harm also.
Start off with a bad photo & its always a pigs ear, over exposure will always be burnt out, out of focus cannot be corrected etc

But whilst not saying yr wrong - far from it - my world of photography goes a slightly different way, but its still photography & I believe with another skill set that gives me (at least) some extra fulfilment out of my hobby.

What the eye & brain can see is not always possible to capture on the camera. The brain is constantly assessing & adjusting on a scene; the detail in the bright sunlit clouds & at the same time the detail in the shadow. This is more or less impossible to capture as one scene on a single camera shot. The detail of the subject in the shadow with that sunlit thundercloud in the far sky is usually only possible with bracketing & RAW processing.
This frequently involves subtle colour, contrast & tint changes, this is not changing the photo, its just making as close to what was seen in the eye & brain at the time.
I sometimes remove some detail that detracts from the effects on landscape, the single man & his dog in the far ground on the beach, that bird that flew across the empty sky that you did not notice at the time.
Cutting & trimming is almost common place with wildlife & sport photography, framing a single F1 car to remove a part of another car from the original can make a photo worth framing.
I do a lot of wildlife subjects & all the above are a constant challenge. But here the golden rule is get the first frame captured & right first time, then if you have the time, go mess about.

Anyhow enough, I do it my way & it nothing to do with anyone except myself
But I strongly disagree with those who believe digital is for idiots. It has made available - to anyone who wants it - a whole new level of skills & artistic expression to the world of hobby photography.

Regardless of truth - most of the pictures in the System Pics threads could do with a visit to Photoshop or some other image editing software to be tarted up to resolve tonal range issues plus a bit of shadow highlight correction.

quote:

Originally posted by ianmacd:
"When Is A Photograph Not A Photograph?"

In my humble opinion as a professional photographer who has made his only living, the last 25 years, by pressing a camera shutter release I would say a photograph is what is captured at the moment the camera goes "click". At that point the captured image is what the person decided was worth taking. For me, that is when the photograph is the photograph....
-----------------
As a professional photographer myself for as many years I would beg to differ. To me my photograph is only ready to be passed to the client when it has been worked on or whatever by myself. I often take a shot knowing that the best was to get the end result that I'm looking for will need some Photoshop work. So in my book the photograph is only ready for the outside world when I'm done with it. I guess it's a bit like a band in a studio. I don't think that many bands would say that the performance was ready till the post production had been sorted out, just IMHO.

------------------------------------------
"Get it right in the camera" is what I was always taught and it hasn't done me much harm so far.

-------------------------------------------
Totally agree. Do as much as one can in camera. I'm now 54 years old and about 10 yeras ago there was a new breed of art director who would say things like " oh don't worry about the lighting, we can sort that in Photoshop" I learnt my craft through doing everything in camera and when air brushing was a bloke with an air brush. Even with all the clever gizmos available there is no substitute for good composition, lighting and exposure. These are the building blocks to a good photograph IMHO.

-----------------------------------------
But what do I know?!
--------------------------------
You know a damn site more than photographic degree students are taught today. I know, I work with them from time to time.

Ian

All the best and keep the faith, Bob

So what are these people with their digital cameras doing? Are they photographers or are they just using a still video camera to record their "adventures"?

If we go down this line then maybe the question should be when is a photograph a snap?

Derek, a bit superior that, who are you to decide if a picture needs playing with?

Really comes down to the original question is the picture what you took or what you think you should have taken?

Of course if you are a pro and the customer demands such things then I guess you have to go along. If any member (heaven forbid) of my family has a skin blemish, should I photoshop it out?
Some one then meets said member and then thinks they added a blemish ?

Is it truth or is it art?

As I said Pro Tools for pictures, fart in a microphone press a few buttons and presto a symphony.

When I shot black and white, did my own developing and printing, there was not one negative that did not require some manipulation in printing to recreate what I saw in the viewfinder.

A simple reason - film cannot of itself render everything the eye sees or thinks it sees.

Same is true of digital.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike-B:

What the eye & brain can see is not always possible to capture on the camera. The brain is constantly assessing & adjusting on a scene; the detail in the bright sunlit clouds & at the same time the detail in the shadow. This is more or less impossible to capture as one scene on a single camera shot.

To Both Mike-B & Derry

You both make excellent counter points to my post. It is often almost impossible to capture in one frame the tonal range and contrast that is seen in the real life scene being photographed and so several exposures, blended later is the only way to get close to the original scene.

Regards, Ian

Not superior - just observing that a lot of images of black boxes have lost the detail in the black surface, that they have a lot of shadow area with lost detail and often the colour balance is off. No different from commenting that a car engine is running out of tune. Or a Fraim is loose or cables are touching when they should not etc etc.

Can I just clarify something?

A photographer using film historically takes a roll and defines the "moment" as being the one photo that has the most impact for themselves and/or their client. The fact there may have been 30 or more "moments" discarded is conveniently ignored. You can get everything "right in the camera" and capture nothing of any significance whatsoever.

The distinction between this and modern, digital manipulation is what exactly? For both the end result is a consequence of overt manipulation. Digital advocates can't help but talk about it. The rest tend toward denial.

Same with Pro Tools. It adds some levels of manipulation but this was different to tape splicing, compression, EQ, mike placement etc. how?

The means is of inteest to a limited audience. The end us IMO all that matters.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Not superior - just observing that a lot of images of black boxes have lost the detail in the black surface, that they have a lot of shadow area with lost detail and often the colour balance is off.

A good example of where digital post-processing will make the image more true to what the eye saw.

The eye sees the detail, the camera captures much of it, but it requires digital enhancement to reveal what was there in the shot all along.