Is digital photography a lie?!

[mollyc]

I also think based on the video and the before/after of the Ansel Adams photo that the real question should be "is photography a lie" and leave the digital part out of the equation.

Honestly I think a lot of people who view digital photography as cheating just don't have the vision in their head of how to even begin to create something and it's a small (albeit very small) form of jealousy.

 

[anotherscotsman]

Every perception our brains get from the "outside" world could be constructed as a lie. (outside as out of the body).

The Matrix was one of my favourite movies from a conceptual perspective. Who knows, it might even be the truth....

 

[Clix Pix]

As was said early-on in the thread, a lot of people take photos -- snapshots -- while on vacation or at a party or other event, and that's it. No artistic or creative vision required. Many viewers, then, just look at a photograph and take it at face value and don't really LOOK at it, they develop an instant impression of it, and whether or not they like it, and they look at the subject matter primarily, so if Mom and Dad look happy and nice in the photo, the viewer is happy, too. The viewer doesn't even notice that whoever took the photo didn't pay attention to the composition and framing and that there is a tree branch sticking out of the top of Dad's head!

 

[deep diver]

As was said early-on in the thread, a lot of people take photos -- snapshots -- while on vacation or at a party or other event, and that's it. No artistic or creative vision required. Many viewers, then, just look at a photograph and take it at face value and don't really LOOK at it, they develop an instant impression of it, and whether or not they like it, and they look at the subject matter primarily, so if Mom and Dad look happy and nice in the photo, the viewer is happy, too. The viewer doesn't even notice that whoever took the photo didn't pay attention to the composition and framing and that there is a tree branch sticking out of the top of Dad's head!

Not all artforms resonate with everyone. I have no problems with people that are interested only in those snaps. My issue is when someone rejects art when it doesn't resonate. Neither classical ballet nor classical opera do it for me but I still recognize the artistry. As I read akasn.nu's post, the friends reject the artform.

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes, it is disconcerting when someone rejects someone else's artistic, creative efforts and simply on the basis of, "I don't like it!" rather than having at least minimal knowledge and understanding as to WHY he or she may not like it. And, yes, if nothing else, they should give credit to the artist for his or her creativity and unique contribution to the world.....

 

[bunnspecial]

On another forum a few weeks ago, I posted this comparison as a "why shoot RAW" response

That lead to someone disparaging editing saying I'd changed it from "obvious night time" to "twilight" by one particular person.

Fundamentally, though, our eyes are phenomenal instruments, but not necessarily "faithful". I should actually say that our imaging CPU(i.e. our brain) does a whole lot of processing itself. In some ways, what a camera captures is "honest" in that it shows true color casts, etc. At the end of the day, though, what our eyes see is what we think is correct.

At the same time, though, we have a lot of ways to alter what a camera captures before we even press the shutter button. We can use filters to cut reflections-something that our unaided eyes can't see. We can use fast shutter speeds to capture action our eyes can't discern, or alternatively use long ones to blur things we might see clearly. One of the big ones is a by-product of focal length selection. If we stand very close to a subject, we can use a wide-angle lens to see a wider field of view than our eyes can see at least with good definition, and give a very different perspective than we normally see. Conversely, we can stand far away, use a long lens to see with good definition and end up with a flatter perspective than is normal.

Even with film, we're not getting an "honest" look, and that's discounting darkroom manipulation. I don't know about you all, but I don't see in B&W. The spectral response of B&W film is all over the place, and some films(not modern B&Ws) cut off pretty much all of the red spectrum. Now, we buy pan film and then use filters to tailor its color response. I can use a red filter on Tri-X(or pick your other pan film) and end up with dark black skies with fluffy white clouds in them, while unfiltered the clouds aren't visible at all.

With color film, absent filtration to change it, the color balance is "baked in". If I use a daylight balanced film indoors, it will look very yellow or whatever other mix of lighting I have there. If I use a tungsten film(who remembers that?) outside, it's going to be really, really blue. I can pick film that's going to subdue colors, or I can pick a film that's going to accentuate certain colors or make them all super saturated.

Digital is no more or less honest than film, and to be honest no photography really is.

 

[MCAsan]

We lack the cameras and media to capture a scene at the same level of range and detail as a human eye and brain can. So If someone thinks a photo (analog film or digital sensor) is accurately capturing and documenting exactly the scene, that would not be correct. Some captures may be closer than others...but none are perfect. So even the belief that photos should be documentary or journalistic in style.....are building on a false assumption.

 

[gwerhart0800]

I am a casual photographer. I classify my photography into two categories:

Documentary: family/vacation shots meant primarily for remembering the event later.
Art: photography that is intended to be viewed as art. In most cases, that will involve making artistic decisions on rendering the image.

The second category is totally open to what ever processing produces the image that I want to see.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

We lack the cameras and media to capture a scene at the same level of range and detail as a human eye and brain can. So If someone thinks a photo (analog film or digital sensor) is accurately capturing and documenting exactly the scene, that would not be correct. Some captures may be closer than others...but none are perfect. So even the belief that photos should be documentary or journalistic in style.....are building on a false assumption.

The whole concept of HDR seems to play off a quality our eyes do automatically--we just have the luxury of scanning the scene in our "live" view, and our eyes adjust rather quickly to those moments. A camera captures a moment in time, so you only get that one moment in time to capture all the detail and light that you can. It's our brain's expectation to be able to explore the scene in a photo like we could with our eyes in "real time." Even paintings of old take advantage of this--the bright parts of the painting might be the focus, but the dark parts are not devoid of detail. The artist knew what we expected to see in the shadows, and managed to illustrate that subtly. We can do the same in photography, and it's not disingenuous--it's working to meet the expectation of the viewer.

 

[deep diver]

This is a fascinating discussion. The more I'm taking in, the more I think that "lie", as implied by akash.nu's friend, and "art" are substantially (though not completely) incompatible ideas.

 

[someoldguy]

Of course it's a lie ... just check out this week's Weekly Contest!!!

 

[Clix Pix]

Oh, that reminds me....must submit one of my "untruthful" images to the weekly competition!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Terrific thread, and a wonderful topic.

Kudos, too, for the intelligent and thoughtful tone in which the discussion is carried out.

Anyway, I want to give it some thought before replying in greater detail.

 

[Laird Knox]

I have to finish reading the thread but here’s a fun one.



Most people would look at it and call Photoshop. This is actually eight exposures on film. Obviously not what the scene looked like in person but not due to any digital manipulation.

Or this was that was done totally in camera.



Definitely not the scene that was present when I setup the tripod. ?

Are they lies? ??‍♂️ They certainly weren’t created in post. I always try to do as much as I can in camera but I’m not always trying to capture what is in front of me faithfully.

 

[deep diver]

I have to finish reading the thread but here’s a fun one.

View attachment 1678819

Most people would look at it and call Photoshop. This is actually eight exposures on film. Obviously not what the scene looked like in person but not due to any digital manipulation.

Or this was that was done totally in camera.

View attachment 1678822

Definitely not the scene that was present when I setup the tripod. ?

Are they lies? ??‍♂️ They certainly weren’t created in post. I always try to do as much as I can in camera but I’m not always trying to capture what is in front of me faithfully.

The lie is not necessarily created in post. Without commenting on any particular image, the current weekly contest shows that the lie can be introduced at any/every step of the creative process.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I refuse to believe that there is a single photographer out there who doesn't understand, at least deep down when they are being honest with themselves, the HUGE difference between photos that were shot of actual things taking place and images that were finalised with the help of available tools, after the fact.

Everyone knows the difference between "this happened" and "this kind of happened". Cameras and photography—while mundane by today's standards—have the mind bending ability of freezing a single moment in a world of constant motion and keep it forever. I think that power should be respected.

But that says nothing about the validity of expressing oneself with digital tools and make compositions of images upon images with masks and effects. This is an art form in itself and it takes just as much skill to be good at.

But at no point should an image with cloned out distractions, straightened teeth, removed pickles etc be confused with photos that reflect an actual even 'as is'.

Since digital photos, just like analogue ones, need to be developed, there is a somewhat agreed upon set of adjustments that can be made and still qualify as a photo: global contrast, saturation, lens corrections, sharpening... things like that. But no cloning or retouching, no local brush adjustments or targeted color changes.. I think it's very intuitive, really.

The only thing that gets in the way is what people might "want". They have a great image with a composition they like (so they don't want to crop it further) but with a distracting telephone pole or part of a fence in one corner. They know they could paint it out and "it's not relevant to the image, so it shouldn't matter, right?"

One thing is a photo and the other someone's 'artistic vision'. It's super easy to understand.

In terms of what people should feel when they show their "optimised" photos to friends (with local color boost, gradients and healing brush all over the place) and the response is: "wow, that's beautiful", "what an amazing view" or "you're great at shooing people!" (hello Liquify, skin texture optimizer, teeth whitening tool)—that is for themselves to figure out.

 

[mollyc]

I refuse to believe that there is a single photographer out there who doesn't understand, at least deep down when they are being honest with themselves, the HUGE difference between photos that were shot of actual things taking place and images that were finalised with the help of available tools, after the fact.

Everyone knows the difference between "this happened" and "this kind of happened". Cameras and photography—while mundane by today's standards—have the mind bending ability of freezing a single moment in a world of constant motion and keep it forever. I think that power should be respected.

But that says nothing about the validity of expressing oneself with digital tools and make compositions of images upon images with masks and effects. This is an art form in itself and it takes just as much skill to be good at.

But at no point should an image with cloned out distractions, straightened teeth, removed pickles etc be confused with photos that reflect an actual even 'as is'.

Since digital photos, just like analogue ones, need to be developed, there is a somewhat agreed upon set of adjustments that can be made and still qualify as a photo: global contrast, saturation, lens corrections, sharpening... things like that. But no cloning or retouching, no local brush adjustments or targeted color changes.. I think it's very intuitive, really.

The only thing that gets in the way is what people might "want". They have a great image with a composition they like (so they don't want to crop it further) but with a distracting telephone pole or part of a fence in one corner. They know they could paint it out and "it's not relevant to the image, so it shouldn't matter, right?"

One thing is a photo and the other someone's 'artistic vision'. It's super easy to understand.

In terms of what people should feel when they show their "optimised" photos to friends (with local color boost, gradients and healing brush all over the place) and the response is: "wow, that's beautiful", "what an amazing view" or "you're great at shooing people!" (hello Liquify, skin texture optimizer, teeth whitening tool)—that is for themselves to figure out.

Would you consider Richard Avedon to *not* be a photographer? Or his photos to be fake? Lots of retouching and even "liquifying" his subjects in the darkroom.

Richard Avedon: 9 Lessons From a Master Portrait Photographer - On Portraits

One of the best ways to learn portrait photography is to study the greats. Richard Avedon is the best portrait photographer of all time, and he can teach us a lot about communicating with portrait subjects, lighting, technique, self-awareness, and even cameras and lenses. So I recommend you...

www.onportraits.com

I would argue that all photography is a lie, unless you are talking about a true, unedited jpeg image. And even a jpeg is processed in camera by an algorithm. Perhaps a film point and shoot is the only real photograph?

 

[AndreeOnline]

I don't think it's a difficult or complex question to be honest. That was what I was trying to say.

TL,DR: Any local manipulation—and obviously cloning things in/out—disqualifies the image from reflecting a true event.

Any development that takes the place of 'in camera processing' is OK; global adjustments as I mentioned above can be done to a raw image on the computer and still qualify.

I'm loosely using the term 'photo' to be an actual event and the term 'image' to be everything else. If you're using a camera to create photos or images, I think you're a photographer.

I don't know. To me it's a very clear and easy to see line.

 

[Clix Pix]

In photojournalism and documentary photography, as well as forensic photography, yes, it is extremely important to photograph the scene "as is," with absolutely no alterations of it. However, if someone is taking a family portrait of Mom, Dad and the kids in an outdoor setting and for some reason doesn't notice until later, during the editing process, that there is a stray bit of paper on the ground in the one shot where everyone is smiling, gazing at the camera and their eyes are open, the one shot that would be best to present to them -- well, of course the photographer, with a quick click of the clone or erase tool is going to remove the offending bit of paper. That's common sense, isn't it?

As far as a family portrait session being a "true event," well....it is and it isn't. By its very nature, it is uncommon, not an everyday event, doesn't reflect the family's everyday interactions and activities. It is posed, with everyone dressed up. Wouldn't a more accurate representation, a genuine family portrait instead be a candid, unposed shot showing the family doing something together that they do regularly in the setting in which they do it? Since the posed family portrait isn't reality in the first place, why not make the image look as good as possible? Removing the stray bit of paper is all that is required....

 

[MCAsan]

Perhaps a film point and shoot is the only real photograph?

Nope, because of all the possibilities of darkroom processing. How many types did Ansel Adams make new print versions from the same negatives because what he was learning about using different chemicals, lighting, and papers all in the darkroom. How many times have we told the Kodak or Fuji guys to "push" the processing our film negatives?

 

[mtbdudex]

I enjoy "lying" with my images, the more I do the higher my "like" count on the various social media platforms.
After all, were all vain right, us photographers?

 

[AndreeOnline]

So about this "lying" thing...

I take it you are editing photos and post them as unedited, then?

Otherwise it isn't "lying".. it's just edited images? Or are you posting images that you know are heavily edited, and then you just don't say anything and let viewers decide for themselves what's real or not—while hoping that most of them don't realise the images are edited, leading them to believe you captered something more spectacular than you actually did?

It goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with editing images. But I find they are a dime a dozen and tend to devaluate other images that might stand strong with little manipulation.
I get that depending on what market someone is trying to get into, it might be important to follow trends and deliver 'technique' images: step 1: do this, step 2: do this, step 3: do this..... and so on. But I wonder how satisfying that can be?

 

[mollyc]

Nope, because of all the possibilities of darkroom processing. How many types did Ansel Adams make new print versions from the same negatives because what he was learning about using different chemicals, lighting, and papers all in the darkroom. How many times have we told the Kodak or Fuji guys to "push" the processing our film negatives?

well yes, of course, but I was really thinking back to when I was a teen and I'd buy a roll of film at the drugstore, shoot my photos, and return it to the drugstore for developing. There was nothing artistic happening at any stage of the process.

TL,DR: Any local manipulation—and obviously cloning things in/out—disqualifies the image from reflecting a true event.

Who says all/most photographers are trying to capture a true event?

 

[AndreeOnline]

Who says all/most photographers are trying to capture a true event?

No one?

 

[mollyc]

No one?

well you were defining "photo" vs "image." And by your definition, only a "photo" captures an actual event.

I think a photograph is anything that comes out of a camera.