I’ve been thinking a lot about photography recently. People are often very complimentary about my photos, but the sad truth is that about 70% of the quality comes from our camera rather than me. I’m not being falsely modest here; I recognize that I have a fairly reasonable eye for a shot, and that I’ve become far more technically able in the last year or so (I now remember to take the lens cap off on six out of ten occasions for example). But I have a long way to go before I’d consider myself a proper photographer.
I’ve been watching Boston Pat’s project 365 where he takes a photo every single day with a mixture of admiration and jealousy. It strikes me as a wonderful way of both honing his skills and chronicling his day to day existence. Of course I could never do something so ambitious. It’s not that I’m too lazy; far from it. It’s just that Kerry won’t let me. Yeah, that’s it. She’s deliberately holding me back because if I become better than her at photography it will mean that she only holds superiority over me in intelligence, looks, common sense and general cleanliness.
But despite all this I have been making moves to improve my photos of late. I’ve bought another lens, I’ve borrowed a flash from Oli, and I’ve also been getting the occasional photography magazine.
The magazines have been raising a lot of questions for me. Questions such as “Who would pay £1166 for a camera tripod?”, “Why is every second photo in the magazine either of a hawk or a beach?”, and “I wonder how much those ‘models’ advertised in the back pages charge?”
But the question that’s posed me the greatest dilema is “How much photoshop is too much photoshop?”.
One of the magazines I bought had a tutorial in which you transform an image from this, into this:
I may have gone a little overboard on pepping up the colors, but there’s little doubt the second one looks better. But is it still a photo or is it now art? To some the distinction is meaningless, photo’s are art and that’s all that there is to it. I get that viewpoint, I sympathize with it, hell I even have that viewpoint. But I want my photos to be honest too.
I try to be truthful on the blog because I value it as a record as much as I value it as a creative expression. Sometimes I am tempted to bend the truth or to put words into people’s mouths just because it would be somehow more entertaining. But I’ve always resisted these urges. I only embellish the truth when my lies are so outlandish that people will instinctively know that I’m talking out of my arse. Similarly I’ve played with photoshop in the past, but never in an attempt to deceive.
Don’t get me wrong, I do doctor many of my photos. But only by tweaking the sharpness, or the contrast, or making them black and white. In the image above though I made both the zebra and the mountain in the background bigger, and then shifted them about so as to get a better composition. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that level of manipulation.
“So don’t do it then!” You say. And you’re right, the solution is that simple. But the whole thing has raised a question within me about documentary versus art, and it’s one that I’m finding stimulating to think about. And as you all know, there’s nothing in this world I enjoy more than stimulating myself.
Related posts:
Arjan (3)
Ian (3)
Idaho Dad (3)
Ed (2)
ImPerceptible (2)
john Gray (2)
Kevin Spencer (2)
Andy (1)
Avitable (1)
David Ingalls (1)
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I think that when it comes to editing colours, saturation and contrast of a photo, no one can really criticise you for it; as the camera simply can’t capture as many colours, or the same level of detail that our eyes perceive. While you may mock your own own skills, clumsiness and general lack of ability (all of which is for comic effect, and surely can’t be based too closely on reality), you’ll be pleased to know that you’re a much more complicated bit of kit than your snazzy camera (even with its new lens and overly complex flash).
So tweaking the colours here and there is quite forgiveable, and brings the finished photo closer to the image you saw when you made it.
As for editing the contents of the picture itself, I must confess I’ve done that from time to time. Airbrushing away the odd spot, removing a stray hair from someone’s face – hell, I’ve even been known to increase a woman’s bra size on occasion. But as much as I enjoy touching up young ladies, I also recognise that some photos will look better if certain elements are removed – they can often detract from the finished picture.
Moving elements around though – I think that’s a different story, and that’s where the question of documentary/art really comes into play.
Is it how it happened, or is it how you would have liked it to happen? Does it tell a story accurately, or does it make a better story?
Consider most ‘documentaries’ you’ll see on TV – these tend to have several set up situations (such as the camera crew already inside the house as the presenter rings the doorbell – cue “surprised expression” on the householder’s face), and the documentary will be filmed with a certain direction or opinion in mind. It will be edited to make it more interesting, so what you see isn’t necessarily a true representation of what actually happened, merely someone’s views and opinions of what they saw, and what they want to present.
Although the “camera never lies”, it can often record a different version of events – we’ve all seen photos of two people apparently kissing, when in reality they were unaware of each other; about to greet two completely different people and the sheer coincidence of their movements and the camera’s position has created a new, unrealistic scenario.
Maybe your zebra did actually move to the ‘after’ location, so your photo isn’t a complete fabrication – merely your interpretation of events.
Another thing to consider is that your original photo isn’t actually a true representation of what was in front of the camera. There will be a small amount of distortion from the lens; the camera’s sensors might not have captured every single detail (can you zoom right into the zebra’s nostril, for example?); the colours may have looked totally different, depending on your white balance settings.
With a film camera, you could change the appearance of colours, contrast etc by using different types of film, or processing the negatives and enlargements using different processes.
The type of lens used will stretch or compress the image, making objects appear further apart or closer to each other, and the focal plane can emphasise whichever part of the image you choose.
All these factors will affect the appearance of the finished photograph.
We very rarely see true representations in photographs, especially in magazines, as this video demonstrates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
So in the grand scheme of things, I wouldn’t worry that you’ve moved a zebra, and if you are going to launch yourself into the 365days photojournalism thing, I reckon you’ll soon get fed up of editing to any greater extent than pressing the “I’m feeling lucky” button in Picasa…
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The way I see it is that color “popping”, curve adjustment, contrast and brightness level manipulation, or cropping is not altering the image away from a photograph UNLESS the adjustments you make are unrealistic. In the photo above, you popped the colors and cropped the image… but you did not make the zebra pink and black striped or put it ontop of the mountain. The actual elements were not changed, nor was anything added that was not in the original picture. Therefore, to me it is still a photograph even with the post processing… which is something mostly ALL photographers are doing nowadays when they shoot in the RAW format as opposed to JPG.
Now had you made the zebra black and pink, moved it atop the mountain, added in lightning bolts, then in fact I would view it as art.
So feel free to do that one too… but just be sure to note that it is in fact art.
NYCWD’s last blog post..Excellent
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
And I believe a great photo IS art. Absolutely!
Leanne’s last blog post..A Bit of Profundity
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Whit’s last blog post..Alarm Clocks and Wedding Bells
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Jeff’s last blog post..Hybrid
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Holmes’s last blog post..Little shots of happy
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Miss Britt’s last blog post..Friday Fiction : The Driver (Part 4)
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I see a time where in all our photos, we’re all super-model beautiful too… and how long after that before they give us some way to alter the present / reality in exactly the same way? Ugliness or ordinariness may become a thing of the past… and that’d be sad, I think.
Sorry, went off one one a bit there. Time for my tablets…
Rol’s last blog post..BOGOF(F)
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Avitable’s last blog post..Don’t you hate?
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I agree with others — I think when it gets past being realistic, then it’s too far. I used to do portrait photography, and of course I got rid of blemishes and bruises, but I would never do what many other photographers I knew were doing — making people look drastically different than reality. I think it’s one thing to enhance, and a total other thing to totally change someone/something.
Angie @ Many Little Blessings’s last blog post..13 Games I have Managed to Play Obsessively (Thursday Thirteen #7)
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
for me bottom line is if you have to use the ‘Paste’ function, it ain’t no photograph.
cropping, zooming, even lighting at a stretch, but beyond that, it’s creating other art, not photography. In my bewildered opinion.
Xbox4NappyRash’s last blog post..Being a prick (part one)
Reply
on Mar 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I agree with much of what was said here. I didn’t even have photoshop until a few weeks ago, and now I am tempted to do more than I should with my photos.
My recent photo of a goldfinch at my backyard feeder was straightened (I had to hurry the picture as the little critters always fly away when I take the camera out!) and I had no issue with that. I have tweaked color and such a bit here and there otherwise but not much more. I did a couple selective color shots, but those are very obvious that they have been altered so it’s not like anyone is getting tricked.
All in all, unless you are specifically presenting something as an unaltered shot I say fair game, but there is definitely a line where something becomes more than a photo. Not that it’s a necessarily a bad thing.
PG’s last blog post..Project 365 // Day 55
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:50 am
You raise a very good question. I suppose it all depends on what context you’re presenting your photo/art. There is very little these days that is unedited, untouched, truly natural.
But self-stimulation, totally natural.
Karen MEG (Pomtini)’s last blog post..Fashion Friday – Haiku
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I absolutely love your photos, you take wonderful pictures. It’s something I always wish I could do better, but I suppose I’d have to buy a decent camera first ;)
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Maybe you don’t want to imagine that, sorry.
Above Average Joe’s last blog post..Kicking A Man While He’s Down
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Ed (zoesdad)’s last blog post..Alright, Already! I’ll Feed the Birds!!
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
i try to take Angie’s point to heart. if it could’ve easily been done prior to photoshop, cropping, dodge & burn, etc. it’s fair game. and you could’ve achieved that with the zebra shot without moving him. the composition may not have been as perfect as you wanted, but you would have a photo you took as opposed to generated.
that said, i’m never anything but original…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phantomkitty/316874957/in/set-72157594474439088/
bon bon’s last blog post..seriously?
Reply
on Mar 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Karl’s last blog post..Schwinging From the Chandaliers
Reply