I'm still curious if you consider Richard Avedon to be a photographer, based on your definition of actual event vs. manipulated. All his work was done in a darkroom, but would be criticized today as being (potentiall) overly photoshopped.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is digital photography a lie?!
- Thread starter akash.nu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I explained that it was a loose description that I used while writing here, to make following the argument easier and to make the distinction between photos that show actual things and images that start out as photos (or a blank canvas if it's a straight up composition).
And according to your own definition, we are on the same page? I don't think cameras can capture anything else than actual events?
And isn't that the whole discussion? The camera captures what happened. We call the result 'photos'. But then some will take that photo and say "well, that so-so. Let me revise that". And then they post an image that some people might mistake for a photo.
Many times the difference doesn't matter, but sometimes it will.
[again, the terms 'photo' and 'image' used subjectively for clarity]
And according to your own definition, we are on the same page? I don't think cameras can capture anything else than actual events?
And isn't that the whole discussion? The camera captures what happened. We call the result 'photos'. But then some will take that photo and say "well, that so-so. Let me revise that". And then they post an image that some people might mistake for a photo.
Many times the difference doesn't matter, but sometimes it will.
[again, the terms 'photo' and 'image' used subjectively for clarity]
I was hoping my definition would be easy to understand. By your description, it sounds I would categorise him as a photographer dealing mainly with images?
I don't find anything controversial about posed, lit portraiture with the following obligatory touch-up. But the images are being touched-up, right? It's not the actual photos we see?
I personally don't distinguish between a photo and an image. I use the terms interchangeably. Even a negative coming out of a film camera needs to be processed, which then from your definitions takes it from a photo to an image. I say they are all photos. Or all images. Whether digital or film.
Some quotes/notes from the article I linked about Avedon:
So again, is Avedon creating photos or images? His work was printed on photographic paper in true darkroom style. But they were heavily manipulated. So are his images a lie? Or it's okay?
I just honestly don't get the distinction between photographs and images. All photographs are manipulated to some extent, whether digital or analogue.
Some quotes/notes from the article I linked about Avedon:
So again, is Avedon creating photos or images? His work was printed on photographic paper in true darkroom style. But they were heavily manipulated. So are his images a lie? Or it's okay?
I just honestly don't get the distinction between photographs and images. All photographs are manipulated to some extent, whether digital or analogue.
You mental model of what I'm writing doesn't correspond to what I'm actually writing. I clearly stated that global adjustments to a raw image, that correspond to what a camera would do as 'in camera processing' doesn't disqualify a photo. I went on to give a few examples of what such adjustment could be (and others that wouldn't be OK).
I think this is the question just answered above? Additionally: manipulated images are OK, but I don't think you should describe or sell them as 'not manipulated'.
You take a photo of a kid on a lawn. PHOTO.
You make global adjustments to your raw file, such as contrast and saturation. Lift shadows globally. PHOTO.
You take the clone brush and make one clone of the kid to the left and one to the right. Now you've got three kids. IMAGE.
You post it to social media, telling the story of the woman with these "triplets". This is a LIE.
Well, to me it's super easy and clear. And to me there is a huge difference between actual captured photos and tweaked images. Maybe it gets confusing for someone who goes on a trip to NYC and makes a few great street style shots but decides to remove a few cigarette butts on the street. From my perspective they are no longer 'photos', but in this case the distinction has zero meaning.
But there are situations where there is meaning. You can produce an image at any time, at your leisure without leaving home. You've got your folders full of drop-in skies for your sky replacements and you've got your filter packs all setup.
Then there are those that spend weeks to find the right situation with the right subject in the right light. For the latter photographer I can imagine it's of little relevance what someone threw together in Photoshop. It doesn't mean the Photoshopped files are 'bad' or 'wrong'. It's just a different art form.
The term lying denotes some type of deception is taking place and unless it is a legal forensic photograph that the photographer swears is a true representation, every thing is some form of art.
I am fortunate to have an original Ansel Adams photograph, photographically printed by permission, by the Alan Ross at the University of New Mexico. He worked side by side as Ansel Adams assistant and is exactly printed the way Ansel Adams would have done it. So is it a lie that some else printed it? Still a print from the original negative. I bought it at the Gallery at Yosemite. We studied Ansel Adams technique in our photographic science course at Rochester Institute of Technology way back in late sixties. Primarily it was expose for the shadows (detail you wanted) and develop for the highlights, better known as the "Zone System" which only applies to black and white. I am sure the modern digital camera camera can come close to duplicating, even in color.
Photo is entitled "Jeffer Pine" 1940, Sentinel Dome.
shop.anseladams.com
I am fortunate to have an original Ansel Adams photograph, photographically printed by permission, by the Alan Ross at the University of New Mexico. He worked side by side as Ansel Adams assistant and is exactly printed the way Ansel Adams would have done it. So is it a lie that some else printed it? Still a print from the original negative. I bought it at the Gallery at Yosemite. We studied Ansel Adams technique in our photographic science course at Rochester Institute of Technology way back in late sixties. Primarily it was expose for the shadows (detail you wanted) and develop for the highlights, better known as the "Zone System" which only applies to black and white. I am sure the modern digital camera camera can come close to duplicating, even in color.
Photo is entitled "Jeffer Pine" 1940, Sentinel Dome.
Jeffrey Pine, Sentinel Dome
Overview Of all the American landscapes that Ansel Adams immortalized through his images, Yosemite was the most deeply personal. In Yosemite he discovered his spiritual home and built his family. He first visited the Park in 1916 and he returned every year thereafter, meeting his wife there and...
Last edited:
The act of composing a photo is an editorial choice in itself and every aspect of photography is artificial and arbitrary. No photograph exists which hasn't been manipulated in some way by its creator, whether it's through lens choice, exposure, film choices, printing, digital retouching or even in-camera processing. There is no distinction between an "image" and a "photo."
I think there is an issue of semantics here. Probably what the OP is referring to as "images" would be better known and called by the term "digital art." That's where people do get creative and do interesting things to their photo files in the editing process, often implementing filters to create or exaggerate special effects, or going full-tilt on color to the point that it veers on the point of garishness, AKA "HDR,"especially in the early days, or they're working with the subject in the original photograph, manipulating it to make it look like something quite different than it is in reality. Certainly someone replacing the original sky in a photograph with another one available from some editing program is no longer simply working on a photograph: he or she is pulling together some sort of digital art project.
That said, though, is simply spritzing a flower's petals with a glycerin/water mix prior to shooting the flower in order to take a shot which will show those petals with "water drops," or shooting a photo and then cloning-out an errant something-or other item which is undesired in the scene, still "photography" or is it creating a digital art image? I would consider both results to be photographs.
If someone sets up a scene and uses color gels or colored lights and such while shooting a tabletop/macro and then, once in the editing phase, decides to rotate the subject to create a stronger, more striking result, is that still "photography" or is it "digital art?" I would call that "digital art," because the original subject has been altered in significant ways in order to achieve the creative impact the photographer had in mind.
That said, though, is simply spritzing a flower's petals with a glycerin/water mix prior to shooting the flower in order to take a shot which will show those petals with "water drops," or shooting a photo and then cloning-out an errant something-or other item which is undesired in the scene, still "photography" or is it creating a digital art image? I would consider both results to be photographs.
If someone sets up a scene and uses color gels or colored lights and such while shooting a tabletop/macro and then, once in the editing phase, decides to rotate the subject to create a stronger, more striking result, is that still "photography" or is it "digital art?" I would call that "digital art," because the original subject has been altered in significant ways in order to achieve the creative impact the photographer had in mind.
Last edited:
If you agree to the arbitrary terms for the purpose of argument, the distinctions as I see them have been made very clear in the thread.
You make a long list of choices (lens choice, exposure, film choice, printing and in camera processing), neither of which change the elements contained in the framed photo, and more importantly all of which I've already said I consider normal parts making photos.
It will be impossible to discuss this meaningfully, if I need to repeat myself in ever post.
Again, at least to me, the answer is obvious: if you don't manipulate the photo outside of the basic global parameters (I won't repeat them again....)—then it's a photo.
You are free to pose people any way you like. You can dress them any way you like. You can light them any way you like. You can provoke them to get a response. You can tell a joke. It's all good.
But once you've pressed the shutter button, don't alter the elements in the frame—one of which is the light. Global adjustments are OK, because they are 'development', but local brushes, such as dodging and burning will alter the appearance of the captured light and aren't OK. Same with vignettes to direct attention and so on.
By your own definitions you are saying that the great photographers of the world, DARKROOM photographers are not making photographs. They are manipulating the image while developing it with local dodging and burning, manual gradients and feathering, and all sorts of developing techniques. Those aren't lies. It's part of the process.
I think I have to be done discussing this with you.
This whole conversation was whether or not digital photography is a lie. I maintain that digital photography is no more a lie than film photography.
The OP just seems to have popped up out of nowhere to jump into this thread.... Most of the participants in the thread have been sharing the products of our excursions with our cameras for some time now. It would be interesting to see something that the OP might be interested in sharing with us.....
No matter how you cut it, a photograph is a two dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object or space, so all is fair in love and war, it is up to the artist/photographer's choice.
We're not really getting anywhere. And I'm just talking about finding a baseline. I'm not interested in changing your opinion.
You seem to think I've made statements or insinuations about various other photographers merits. I have not. In my explanation of how photos relate to images, I make no distinction about one being better than the other. Only that they are different things.
I am also guessing that different subsets of photographers will find different methods worth pursuing.
One of my toughest photo jobs was of a life sized marble statue, absolutely no room to set-up good lighting. To get prints that the sculptor liked was a 17 step dodge and burn. This was not in the least misrepresenting the artwork. Simply correcting in the darkroom, the limitations caused by location.
I think this discussion has gotten stuck because of two things.
The first is semantics. The definitions of "photograph," "photo," "image," "shot," and "picture" are not so clear. They each mean something different to each of us. What one person calls an image is what someone else calls a photograph, even when they share the same understanding of what they are looking at. Even then, the definitions are often nuanced. Similarly, the works themselves might be nuanced and not fit neatly into one category or another. Some would say these words offer distinctions without differences. The fact that one person clearly lays out the way they are using the words does not mean that another person can look past their own way of understanding them. I see this discussion as having gotten bogged down because of the semantics rather than the ideas behind the words.
The second is that this discussion has gotten afield of the original post. There is nothing wrong with that but I think the initial question of whether photography is a lie has gotten lost in this particular exchange.
The first is semantics. The definitions of "photograph," "photo," "image," "shot," and "picture" are not so clear. They each mean something different to each of us. What one person calls an image is what someone else calls a photograph, even when they share the same understanding of what they are looking at. Even then, the definitions are often nuanced. Similarly, the works themselves might be nuanced and not fit neatly into one category or another. Some would say these words offer distinctions without differences. The fact that one person clearly lays out the way they are using the words does not mean that another person can look past their own way of understanding them. I see this discussion as having gotten bogged down because of the semantics rather than the ideas behind the words.
The second is that this discussion has gotten afield of the original post. There is nothing wrong with that but I think the initial question of whether photography is a lie has gotten lost in this particular exchange.
Last edited:
So, by the way you describe this, it seems like the location had some serious limitations—perhaps in lightning?
It also seems your photo accurately replicated this, but that the image you handed over to the client made them happy seeing how it reflected the true spirit of the artwork.
Lie is a strong word but certainly a photo cannot tell the whole truth. It shows a small angle of view during a (for the sake of argument) 1/200th of a second. It doesn't tell you what was happening outside the frame or if what is inside the frame was there doing what it is without influence of the photographer. If the subject of a portrait was miserable and was told to smile then I think you can say the photo is a lie.
Letting go of caring if what I am doing is correct in the purist sense, has been the best and most important part of my photographic career. It set me free to create, made me an artist rather than a photo-taker and turned a sideline into a career.
Letting go of caring if what I am doing is correct in the purist sense, has been the best and most important part of my photographic career. It set me free to create, made me an artist rather than a photo-taker and turned a sideline into a career.
Every one of those items, does, in fact affect the elements in the photo. Your criteria of what defines a photo is as arbitrary as anyone else's set of criteria.
Really, this whole discussion is as absurd as the nearly two centuries old "is photography art" debate. Photography has been used since its invention to illustrate both truth and lies.
Normally I'd agree: my opinion, if that is what we're talking about, isn't worth more than anyone else's.
But I am a bit surprised by the last round of discussion that I've been involved in. I had assumed that it would be easy to establish a small set of parameters that could be applied to one's thinking that in turn would make it easy to evaluate if a photo is indeed depicting some form of objective truth.
The example of the forensic photographer is a good one: he or she enters a small room with a dead body on a bed. There are red stains on the sheets, a few crumpled dollar bills and a bloody knife. Additionally, on a side table there is a small orange, translucent canister that is half full of pinkish pills.
This scene can be documented with a series of images using a 24mm lens. You could also use a 35mm or a 50mm. You can shoot digital or film. You can use ISO200, 400 or 800 film.
When the photographer develops the images they realise they are more detective than photographer, so they didn't use exposure compensation in the all white apartment and on the white sheets, so they came out a bit dark. In the development process he or she pushes the exposure a bit to make a brighter image. Alright. A valid photo of the scene.
Now, I am hoping it's clear to everyone that in terms of "evidence" it's not OK to clone out the looks-like-blood-stains on the sheets. You also can't remove the knife because it's disturbing, or the pills because you prefer the "cleaner lines" of the scene without them. You also shouldn't go in with a local brush targeting the orange canister or the pinkish pills and change the hues around or make just that small area more or less saturated.
It would be deeply worrying if at least this part isn't CLEAR to everyone. Did you remove the knife from the bed? Did you remove that strand of hair on the cheek? Did you remove the guy next to Hitler in this photo? Did you just add a lynx to your backyard early dawn garden shot?
In terms of local vs global adjustments: our eyes are very good at compensating, so if we look at an image that is very saturated, we can tune it down in our heads back to 'memory color' territory. Same with desaturated images. But if someone takes a photo of an impressive sky and then feel it would be even more impactful with more saturation and then make a local adjustment leaving a "normal" foreground and a "burning" sky, that actually tricks people. Because since the foreground element is normal, a conclusion can be drawn that the sky is real. "WOW, this was an AMAZING evening!! Great capture!!"
Anyway, from other discussions I've had on the topic, I know I'm not alone in thinking like this.
To tie all of this back to the title of the thread before exiting: a photo is objective, an image is subjective. Both are valid on their own terms. But taking something subjective and calling it objective is potentially a lie. Art is good and desirable, but you don't want to take fiction and sell it as truth.
The same challenge exists all over the place doesn’t it? History books for example, almost unanimously written from the victors perspective. Noble kings are seldom referred to as evil vindictive land grabbers for example. The victors are usually portrayed as the heroes.
I don’t think we need to worry too much in the case of a photograph, unless it is used for evidential purposes like from a speed camera, in which case it should be accurate. Out with these use cases, it is the image makers discretion as long as they do not claim it is not what it is I.e. claiming a single frame when it is a composite.
Hold on, a 24mm lens? And deceive everyone about the perspective and depth of the scene? Making it appear that the fatality couldn’t have reached the pills from their bed when in reality they were well within reach?? If you’re going this far in your deception why not just compress the scene with an 800mm lens and make the man across the street appear just outside the window? Time it right, when he’s looking in the right direction and half way through a sneeze and he’ll look like the devil incarnate!
I don't want to get too wrapped around the axle here but for me, a photograph is an image taken with a camera, plain and simple. They're the same thing. How a photographic image is used and the parameters that are applied are governed by context. Murder scenes are a different context than fashion or landscape, with different parameters that participants (for example, documentary photographers) agree to adhere to and apply. You have no or very limited leeway with murder scene photography and much broader leeway with fine art, fashion, etc. For me, it's not a terribly complex discussion
.
I am afraid you are missing the point. The reason for the separation of the two terms have been explained in at least two posts already.
I've tried to explain the difference between an out-of-the-camera photo, an OOTC photo with global adjustments and an OOTC photo with global adjustments + manipulations. This was meant to be the foundation for the discussion whether or not photography is a lie (which in turn is easy to answer).
But after a few unsuccessful attempts I gave up.
It becomes difficult when "cloning a third eye" in someone's forehead gets compared to focal length choices with the assumption that a wide angle lens or tele lens is "equally deceptive".
Maybe people were just joking around, but it didn't seem like it. The discussion wasn't worth pursuing.
The question was never if photography is a lie. The question is whether digital photography is a lie based on what can be done in Photoshop. But much of what can be done in PS can be done in a darkroom, albeit in a much more painstaking process. But composites, cloning, liquifying....all that can be done by a good printmaker while developing film.
The OPs friends questioned whether his photos were still photos. Well, yes, they are. Just because he knows how to edit doesn't negate the fact that they were taken on a camera. A camera is a box that collects light and through some magic that I don't understand get translated to a photo.
No one in this group is a forensic photographer (at least that I am aware of). Therefore we all take liberties with editing. Some of us are more photojournalistic and some are more artistic in the end result but none of us are lying with our photo anymore that someone who shoots only film.
The OPs friends questioned whether his photos were still photos. Well, yes, they are. Just because he knows how to edit doesn't negate the fact that they were taken on a camera. A camera is a box that collects light and through some magic that I don't understand get translated to a photo.
No one in this group is a forensic photographer (at least that I am aware of). Therefore we all take liberties with editing. Some of us are more photojournalistic and some are more artistic in the end result but none of us are lying with our photo anymore that someone who shoots only film.