The morals/ehics of photoshop etc, and how can we all be saved from damnation?

[nei1]

I have always used film,I want to use digital but am concerned at the vast possibilities of changing that image in post processing.My b&w prints have,until very recently,always had a black border proving that Id printed the entire negative,like many others fileing out the neg carrier unless I had access to a focomat.I now realise that this stubborness came firstly from my own vanity and also from an over devotion to the Bresson style.I still only print the whole negative but dont feel the need to show the world that that is what Im doing:angel:.
However, things have moved on a lot since then,photographs can be cut,stitched,roasted,toasted,seasons changed,backgrounds added,warts and lines removed,colours enhanced,new light sources brought in etc,etc,etc.
All wonderful for the professionals(maybe)but not for me.I still want people to know that whatever skill that I have lies principally behind the camera and not in front of the computer. An answer would be for the viewer to have access to all thats been done in post processing;obviously rediculous.Another would be for the photographer to be able to choose from a list in a program what operations he permits himself to do to his or her images.This list could then be irrevocably linked to that image.
As people outside the photographic world learn more of the possibilities of this now perfect crime the value of the photograph and photographer will deminish,something done now in the style of what Ive suggested may well save the respect given to those that deserve it.
thanks for looking,Neil.
p.s.on rereading this it does come over as a bit abrupt and condeming to those who are experts in photoshop,thats not intended,Ive posted this only as what I hope will be an interesting discussion,the tone in my head was a lot lighter than that produced by my fingers.

 

[robsteve]

Neil:

A few years ago I watched a lecture on photo manipulation put on by a professor at a local art college. He showed samples of what we are doing today, but done a hundred years ago. It all could be done in the past, but just required more skill.

One example was a group portrait where each portrait was taken separately and assembled into a group portrait that looked like is was shot in one shot. He also showed examples where closed eyes in portraits were replaced with open eyes, warts removed and etc as you described above.


Robert

 

[cam]

i agree with Robert, Neil.

it's always been done... people viewing the image rarely care how a photographer got it there, only that they're drawn to the image... why would you want to take away from the strength of your work by saying what you have or have not done? let it stand on its own!

(all this is, of course, not applicable to the forum where we all try to find little tips and tricks that others can teach us still, a strong image is a strong image no matter what you do or not do to it!)

 

[nei1]

Robert I agree that a lot can be done using quite basic techniques,a lot of these invented by portrait photographers at the turn of the last century,spotting the large glass plates etc.These white lies do seem innocuous though in comparison to the transitions available to todays "photographers".regards,Neil.

 

[Bob]

+1 to Robert,
I used to spend a whole lot of time positioning reflectors pre-shot,
tweaking processing time or temperature post shop,
and masking, burning, dodging to make the dye transfer mats, not to mention sometime laying on just a little more yellow maybe just here or there for instance.
I also think that you exert some choices, even with your style, that might be viewed as manipulative such as, choice of film, developer, etc. high key, low key approach to the subject, selection of focal length (ok, what is normal after all..) and lens itself (sharpness, contrast, "drawing" to use my favorite lens tester, Sean Reid's word).
You still select aperture and dof, what is sharp, what in focus all these are your choices.
I am afraid that the medium has been in the state of "damnation" for a long time.
We are just getting a whole lot better at it, and like other visual media, we even find some sharp departures from reality to be pleasing to at least some audience.
But...
If you are one of those that only believes that contact prints taken with a lens of focal length equal to the diagonal of the film, you may please yourself and God bless, but I think that you are catering to a diminishing audience because more and more folks know that there are better techniques to fix an image than to just permit spotting and there are many good photographers out there who will use any tool at their disposal to get the desired result.
In the limit, those photographers are perhaps painters. Is that all bad? Literalism in painting was a fad that lasted not very long because the image buyers wanted some idealized, characterized, or distorted form rather than a blunt literal picture of reality.
Reality is free, fantasy must be created with more effort.

-bob

 

[nei1]

Bob,theres truth in what you say and I am one of,those,people but I would like to loosen up a little.However my audience is me,I dont photograph for other peoples likes.Im delighted if someone enjoys a photograph but their opinion of whether its good or bad is immaterial as that decision has already been made.Thanks,Neil.

 

[nei1]

Cam,sorry if this is in the wrong place ,maybe Guy could put it where it should be if needed:shocked:

 

[cam]

Cam,sorry if this is in the wrong place ,maybe Guy could put it where it should be if needed:shocked:

no no no! this is the perfect place, you misunderstood -- or, more likely, i didn't make myself clear my apoligies!

i'm saying that here we're always sharing tips and tricks and whatnot and want to know how people got a particular look. we're not you average punters

 

[TRSmith]

It sounds as if your own internal compass will serve you very well when you make the switch to digital. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you said, but it sounded as if you were worried that you might be tempted to stray into some "unethical" territory once you've bitten the forbidden fruit of the digital apple.

But based on what you've described as your philosophy to date, I wouldn't worry about it. You don't sound like someone who would suddenly start trying to deceive an audience, even an audience of one. You can still print right to the edges of the image. And if you insist on doing so, you can even mimic the limited contrast range of B&W photo paper for a truly authentic feel. I mention mimic because that's a part of it. It isn't the same as analog. For better or worse it's different.

I bet you'll really like it.

 

[bradhusick]

If what you show is supposed to be photojournalism, then there is no room for manipulation. If what you show is your art, then there should be no limits on what you do for your images (as long as they are YOUR images, not anyone else's.) Digital has nothing to do with it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Great subject . Let me stand on the podium and preach a little. I'm from the old school and I have done almost everything i could possible accomplish with everything in camera. I came from transparency film if it was not there after shooting than it is not going to get there after processing. Everything I did with lighting and manipulating a scene is done in camera. Now i still believe in this and this is where the rubber hits the road. Folks should still be doing this all the time in digital. Now i say this for a reason and a educator is what you can call me. i never want to teach someone sloppy practices and this is when the brain says before you shoot a image . oh hell i can fix that in PS. Here is my problem with this it leads exactly to being lazy and forgetting to think in the field and this is where young shooters go wrong and not trained properly. Not saying you can't do it in PS but you need to think about what you are doing and getting all the elements correct in your head. Example when i shoot I think what i need to do to a scene to make it work , be it lighting, composition, elements in the shot and various other things. I'm already working post production in the shot first, than the elements i can't do in a shot i already know what i need to do in PS. It's called visualizing your final result. I would rather see the work go in the camera and than squeeze every drop out of it in camera. Than when in PS you know what you want to do but can change your mind and find another angle. I like to call this garbage in garbage out. Sometimes you just can't invent something that was not there in the first place.

However having said all that and the preferred way i like to teach and work is getting it in camera first than take whatever needs to be done to enhance your vision than so be it. Now not saying you cant do it in post , no question most things you can what my concern and always will be is people learning to be sloppy and my other concern is new or younger folks that never learned film that this can lead in a very bad direction for them and thinking the world is on automatic. Bad learning habits will lead to garbage out just that simple. I know there maybe some that will flame me for this but PS is a tool to enhance your vision , not a tool to do the work. i hope that made sense.

Now I love PS but I also don't have the time to get that involved either. i still love the fact it is there when i pull up the image. Now something obviously cannot happen in camera like example someone floating on the water but the secret is shooting it so it works correctly when you do manipulate in PS to merge those two together. You have to previsualize what you want your final to be in your head than you take your tools and make it happen between camera and PS. That is the secret to great photography knowing what you are getting before ever pushing the button. okay off podium. Seriously as a instructor to others and as a shooter I can't press this point enough. The image is already in your head now go get it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

But as Brad mentioned doing this in journalism is forbidden and as it should be, you simple can't change a scene in journalism it is morally worng and not ethical. Your flat out cheating. And many have lost there newspaper gigs over it and they should. There is a fine line you have to watch and not cross with journalism.

 

[nei1]

Guy,unfortunatly not everyone is going to be taught by someone as responsible or knowledgable as you,many of the newer teachers will have little experience of film and as the years go by its influence could become less and less.Photoshop could efectively become the camera,the photo becoming the most minor part of the image,even the photoshop experts becoming redundent to the computers powers,a quick snapshot of the client turned into whatever age,condition,location they require at the touch of a button and perfectly executed.In relation to truth and honesty pandoras box is well and truely open and it wont and shouldnt be closed,but if people can be told in a simple direct way just how honest an image is by listing what is allowed to be done to this image by the photographer or others(a number,1 to 10 for example tattooed to the image that would indicate the program or restricted version of that program)that could inform the viewer just how real the image is.We already have gps systems to guarantee the photos location,what im suggesting is just an extension of that same knowledge base,a guarantee of truth.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

That is interesting i never thought of it that way as a rating like that . I guess in a way does it matter though. You know Art is Art they say. I guess the other part of that is how would you rate and would it be accurate. The other issue does a lower or higher rating make is more valuable in the galleries. This one is pretty deep if you get into it.

On your other point yes as time continues the the art of the old days will certainly diminish. It's sad if you think about it. I consider myself lucky to have lived through those times of the old ways as you say. Yes i feel the 21 year olds beating down my door everyday . But i refuse to roll over and play dead. ROTFLMAO

This old dog still needs to hunt.

 

[Terry]

I thoight there were already some safeguards built into the camera or some flag in the metadata that flags any changes to the files. I think of was part of the D300 manual I skipped.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It's funny but I know Canon for sure has this and maybe Nikon they do have a verification software so you can not change the file. They need these for the court system , so no manipulation can be done. Not sure of the whole process but i know it exists.

May even be hardware

 

[Bob]

Nikon has verification software too for digital images so at least the agency can prove it was unaltered at that point.
But going back to my fairly short journalistic experience with film, although at least with my shots that showed up in print, I never saw an image element added, but I did see burning, dodging, editorial cropping, and creative captions. I was required to submit original negatives and I had almost no control over what part of the frame got used.

The area that I got most pressured into "manipulation" was ad work.
That was shortly before I gave photography up as a vocation and turned it into an avocation.
I took up art as a hobby, watercolor painting actually, and my image goals were not reportage, they were emotional.

So I maintain that art can be made with photographic tools and that alone should not diminish it.
But you are really correct on one point, is that one must be absolutely clear of which is intended to be art and which is intended to be reportage.
-bob

p.s.
Did Any Warhol take those Marilyn shots or did he turn shots obtained elsewhere into art?
No, he used publicity shots for the film Niagara but the resulting false color prints were so clearly altered there was no question about them not being reportage. Now were they art?
Don't get me started...

 

[LJL]

Most of this seems pretty straight forward to me. If it is reportage or for forensic/scientific purpose, no manipulation. However, limited adjustments are permitted with respect to color balance, contrast and sharpening, and cropping, but that is about it. (Spotting is even frowned upon here, and any cloning is definitely not game.) The next step is actually coming into use as "photo interpretation" or "photo representation", where additional work has been done to include things like body shaping and other renderings commonly seen in the ad biz. This is no longer "reportage", but sometimes some folks try to pass it off as such, and this is where a label needs to be added. Everything else falls into a creative art category, and anything goes.

The greatest problems generally come in how the imagery is used, and sometimes, that gets beyond the control of the photographers intention, but if you are just doing things for yourself, no boundaries in my book. All of the excessive manipulation has been around from the very beginning, so digital has inherited that part, but admittedly, it is much slicker and easier today than in the past. If one's "style" is to be completely true to the original capture, meaning little or no adjustment, then one needs to do all he work before the shutter is pressed. In my book, that is still the best way. However, there sometimes are shots of things that just never seem to work until you do something very drastic and take them into the more artsy world. To me, that is almost a second gift for the artist....being able to transform something they shot into some new interpretation that conveys new meaning, even if fantasy.

Most of us "know" what we shot, and have some idea of how we intend to use the image, so I really do not see it as an issue, unless one is intentionally trying to deceive people, like the recent shots of over-billowing smoke from a raid, or caribou looking to be at peace with a train in remote reaches of China/Mongolia. Those representations had agendas behind them, and were passed off wrongly as "reportage". Trust me....those guys knew exactly what they were doing, and it was deception.

I really do not see it as an issue unless/until picking up a camera comes with an automatic ethical bypass of some sort. Go shoot and present your work for what it is and how you intend it to be presented. If is meant as art, say so. If it meant as reportage, be true to those requirements. If it is ad work, most folks already know about airbrushing and stuff from long, long ago, so most do not expect ads to be "real". The entire setting is staged, so why bother with boundaries around showing an image to its best.

The goal should be to get the best capture one can in camera, but one should not let that crush creativity and artistic rendering once back at the computer "darkroom". Just know the purpose and be true to that representation.

LJ

 

[nei1]

It could be argued that the only art possible from photography is from its ability to record reality.That is what photography can do,nothing else.Whatever is put in front of the camera,be it a war,a demonstration or a beautiful girl sipping a coca-cola in a studio with wind and smoke machines that is what comes out on the film or sensor.What happens next is the problem,what is done to the image after its been taken directly affects how that image is interpreted,for better or worse by everyone who sees it.
All Im saying is that as these processes get more and more sophisticated and less and less in the control of even the photoshoppers,that for us to have a firm hold on what reality is in the future we might just need to inform our selves whether what we are looking at is reality or fantasy,these are already becoming blurred,it just might be an idea to start thinking now about how to inform people of what they are looking at so that no control is ever necessary.
Im not sugesting any kind of censorship,the moretools the better,the more for us to play with,my concern is for the viewer in the near future where it will be impossible to tell the difference between whats real and whats not.:talk028:
This scale of reality fixed indelibly to the published print could help keep our feet on the ground.

 

[Lisa]

At the risk of reiterating what some have said above, there was never a time when photography *strictly* record Reality with a capital R. Even the simple act of cropping with the viewfinder can seriously change the meaning of an image, omitting pieces of the reality that you want to omit (and ethical photojournalists should avoid doing so if they can help it). Not to mention choice of film; does anyone actually believe Velvia colors?

I have a copy of an old B&W photo of San Francisco's Cliff House from about the 1890's that appears to show it lit up at night with the moon peering through dramatic clouds in a thunderstorm (there might have even been lightning, I don't recall); however, after reading about the history of the image, it turns out that it was a multiple exposure, taking bits and pieces from different films and combining them. Sure, it takes less training and experience to do it well with Photoshop, but film photographers have been doing the same thing for more than a century. The product wasn't purely "real" then and it isn't purely "real" now.

I believe your quest for "ensuring reality" in photography is a quixotic one.

Lisa