| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 11:27:35 AM · #1 |
Greetings...
"Photographic Integrity" is certainly a can of worms... especially since it is part of the advanced editing rules here on DPChallenge. This concept is most often challenged in the world of photojournalism. I have encountered several news stories in recent history where a photographer has been reprimanded in various ways for 'distorting reality'. In photojournalism, the accuracy and 'integrity' of a photo that accompanies a story is important. If the photo has been manipulated to support the story, then the 'integrity' is lost.
Photographic integrity in the world of advertising goes both ways. Some of it is dead accurate and some is 'enhanced' to make you feel a certain way about something. The manipulation takes on different forms as well. The McDonald's Big Mac photo on the billboard doesn't look anything like the actual pile of mess that comes tucked slopily in the recycled cardboard box. I would never buy a Big Mac if the billboard photo looked like the real thing. It wouldn't be appealing to me to see it advertised that way. I believe that photographic integrity, in a most extreme case, is maintained by the furniture industry for their catalogs and product brochures. Since I live in a place where the furniture industry is large, I have experienced some of the manufacturer's requirements. They require EXACT color reproductions in the printed images.
Where is the line drawn between what does and doesn't have photographic 'integrity'?
My opinions on this issue vary from case to case. Since I participate in photography forums where 'photography' is the sustaining element, I tend to have a stricter attitude towards manipulations. When the fouding concepts of a group are to improve photographic skills, I believe that a lot of software manipulations are improper. Some of these manipulations push a photograph into the realm of 'digital art' because the resulting impact was created with software rather than with the camera. In a lot of these cases, the final result would be of mediocre intrest without the software enhancements.
Most great photographers do a lot of enhancement work in the dark room to 'improve' their finished images. This 'dark room' may be traditional or on the desktop. In my own preferences, here is a partial list of manipulations that I perform regularly without losing sleep over photographic integrity:
Minor level adjustments
Saturations adjustments
Contrast adjustments
Sharpness/Blur adjustments
Noise level adjustments (usually adding noise)
Cropping for print ratios
Cloning/Airbrushing to remove minor spots or debris
Dodging/Burning for selective exposure adjustments
I believe that all of these edits maintain integrity of an image. They don't change the subject or theme of the image. They, in themselves, do not create the primary impact of the image. The subject(s), the light, and the composition are still the primary points of impact in the photograph.
If an edit changes the subject, the light, or the composition of a photograph, I believe that integrity is lost. If the edit is required to create any impact in the photo, it could be considered a loss of integrity. If the photo is nothing without the edit, then it is almost certainly digital art.
Just some food for thought...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:53:05 AM · #2 |
in my mind its a matter of producing something interesting using a camera, and a dark room of any sort, and your creativity. if i have a vision of how i would like a 'piece' to look finished, i don't lose sleep over manipulating it on the computer, in any way shape or form...
for instance - overlaying negatives in the enlarger to produce a surreal double exposure, that you envisioned prior to taking the photos - doesn't in my mind cause the result to lack integrity.
for these challenges - i tend to mainly stick with the items mentioned in the initial post, but don't limit it to that... and give others the benefit of the doubt when i see something that might be considered pushing the limits of your definition of photographic integrity.
coming from an advertisers photographic needs, i can see where you are going. but this site,in my mind, and photography as a form of art, are not going to progress by following a stringent set of integrity rules.
for the media, and advertisers, yes. in general if you see what you want as or before you snap the shot, and can produce your vision on photo paper in a high quality form... its got integerity. whether the masses like it or not is another matter...
i dunno ;}
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:01:43 PM · #3 |
Have to say I agree with what you're saying.
Just wondering about one thing..
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When the fouding concepts of a group are to improve photographic skills, I believe that a lot of software manipulations are improper. |
Do you think DPC is (at the moment) primarily about improving photographic skills? If yes, do you think offering the ability to apply a lot of photographic manipulations (to use your words) discourages improving photographic skills? |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:10:18 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Do you think DPC is (at the moment) primarily about improving photographic skills? If yes, do you think offering the ability to apply a lot of photographic manipulations (to use your words) discourages improving photographic skills? |
First question... The answer to that depends on who you ask or what your own goals as a photographer are. I think there are a lot of people who do want to improve their photographic skills.
Second question... I think it can have a negative impact on increasing photographic skills, but, those who want to improve their photographic skills will do so. Others, who are good with software tools will advance their software tool skills.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:10:38 PM · #5 |
I agree with soup!
If I have a vision of something which can actually be photographed but I lack the studio equipment do make it, I will refer to software for help. For example to make something float in the air, you can attach it from the back by a stick to the bacground and align it with the camera. This would take up hours of your time of working with household stuff; intead, attach it by a thin string to the ceiling, then clone out the string. OR if you're working with just two strong lamps because you can't afford more, you might have to increase some contrast here an there to get the effect you would get in a professional studio.
The great thing about digital is that it makes the imagination in photography accessible to many more people; most of which aren't equipped with professional equipment and studios. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:20:46 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by soup:
... this site,in my mind, and photography as a form of art, are not going to progress by following a stringent set of integrity rules. |
Is the technological ability to do it "progress"?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:23:31 PM · #7 |
Well that's fine and true if you're shooting for a record keeping sake. But we are not doing that on DPC - just trying to create something nice to look at ;)
As mentioned on the above thread, and to echo the words below by labuda; my most 'manipulated' image was in the Macro III challenge.
Now I had great intentions when I saw this. The situation, the colours and the texture on this frog were great - lighting was pretty neat and his expression was perfect. So the 'photographer' in me decided it would be a nice shot. Fair enough.
Problems - it was through very thick glass, it was so hot that my lens was dripping wet and steaming up, the glass was reflecting everything back into camera and to top it off, hundreds of children also wanted to look at the frog and my tripod wouldn't stay still.
So is this digital art? I am the first to admit it's a bit heavy handed on the editing, but the edited shot looks way more like it did in 'real life' than the unedited version....
Edited:
Un-edited:
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 12:24:51.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:25:06 PM · #8 |
I completely agree with setz, however, it is important to know if the shot is manipulated or a straight shot before assuming it is manipulated. I currently have a shot in challenge doing poorly because it is suspected of being photoshopped and while I created it in a high tech way the shot itself is manipulated VERY slightly (biggest adjustmentment being b&w). I wish this shot was in basic editing because then would be requested for dq and seen to be straight shot vs. PSed extensively, in the meantime I will suffer worse score ever....for the wrong assumptions....
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 12:27:24. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:41:28 PM · #9 |
was the darkroom enlarger a technological advance? did it advance the photographic world?
the computer is the dark room equivalent, and i see nothing wrong, with both knowing how to use it, and knowing how to create with it.
of course you can take all the photographic qualities away with the computer, that isn't what i meant by pushing the limits. i am talking manipulating a photo, or photos, using all the tools available if desired, based on an idea in your head, not using the graphic pen filter in photoshop to make a photo look like a graphic piece of art...
Originally posted by KarenB:
Is the technological ability to do it "progress"? |
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:47:08 PM · #10 |
I understand where you are coming from.
I am not against the ability to edit or "progress"...
However, are there limits? Where are those limits?
When photographers cut up photographs, made collages and montages, blended in the edges and re-shot the whole as a new image, is that still photography? we can cut and paste in the digi-darkroom too.
Those artists were still classified as photographers. Is it because of the medium they used, or because it was a break through, and they were at a loss to label them any other way?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:53:06 PM · #11 |
The voters decide the limit. The limit is relative to who you're shooting for. Obviously, if I'm making a picture for myself only, then there are no limits. Here at DPC, the crowd has certain demands and expectations.
Obiously my "I am a Snake" photo was beyond the limit for many, which I didn't know about being new on the site. But my "James Bond's Assassination" seems to have been reasonably within the range; at least, during descriptionless anonymous voting.
 
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 12:53:15. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:01:28 PM · #12 |
This issue is not new, it just has new clothes. Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work.
Jerry Uelsmann
He started in the late 60's doing his work in the darkroom.
Read the interview where he discusses the reception his work first received from his peers( who were printmakers and painters) at the University of Florida and the reception it got from other photographers in NY.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:13:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
This issue is not new, it just has new clothes. Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work.
Jerry Uelsmann
He started in the late 60's doing his work in the darkroom.
Read the interview where he discusses the reception his work first received from his peers( who were printmakers and painters) at the University of Florida and the reception it got from other photographers in NY. |
You can't take anything away from him on his art... but is this photography? I call it using photographs to achieve art. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:15:52 PM · #14 |
the tree/house photo is very famous, and was the photo i was thinking of when posting above... creative, and photographic, not mainstream, but has integrity, no doubt.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:17:16 PM · #15 |
its two photographs, melded with dodging and burning in the darkroom.
from what i know - its an artistic photograph...
Originally posted by KarenB:
You can't take anything away from him on his art... but is this photography? I call it using photographs to achieve art. |
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 13:18:01.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:22:17 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
This issue is not new, it just has new clothes. Take a look at Jerry Uelsmann's work.
Jerry Uelsmann
He started in the late 60's doing his work in the darkroom.
Read the interview where he discusses the reception his work first received from his peers( who were printmakers and painters) at the University of Florida and the reception it got from other photographers in NY. |
That's a really interesting interview, thanks for pointing it out. I wish I could find more to read about that side of the photographic arts and less about the technical issues of fstops and USMing in Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:27:31 PM · #17 |
how do you differentiate a portrait painter from an impressionistic one?
do they use paint? Y
do they use it in the same way? N
do both use the same tools? Maybe
do they use those tools the same way? N
do they both create paintings? Y
where is the line drawn there. those that like portraits might think the impressionist is wasting his time. others see what he was after.
yet they can be put side by side, and called paintings, even if one of them is on canvas, and the other on glass...
its a round and round debate, if everyone could just vote on what it is that is in front of them, whether they like it or not, and not worry so much about how the end result was acheived, i think everyone would be enlightened to some degree.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:28:23 PM · #18 |
| Something else to consider here with Jerry's work is it's originality, when someone is the 'first' to do something, they should get extra credit. Not that others can not try to learn from those original techniques, but the creator of them does have something the imatators do not-- creativity and originality. It is fresh and new. And in this case, exceptionally well done IMO. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:28:32 PM · #19 |
but they do, but they do. Well I do anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:30:01 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
You can't take anything away from him on his art... but is this photography? I call it using photographs to achieve art. |
Its like he said in the interview:
He only uses stuff bought at a camera store, he does everything in a darkroom, using chemicals, negatives and enlarger and photosensitive materials.
If that isn't photography, what more do you want it to be ?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:31:48 PM · #21 |
but that photo could not be entered here, no matter how artistic and well done it is...
so apparently it isnt a photo... there is more to the world of photography that meeting the DPC requirements.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:33:21 PM · #22 |
| Raise your hands if you come out of a movie sometimes and say to someone "did you see how fake the special effects were?" As human beings we like comparing things. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:34:25 PM · #23 |
Another great photography innovator was Man Ray, who acquired his first camera in 1915. He broke every rule in the known photography world and photography is richer for his transgressions. So, it's likely that this discussion has been going on for nearly 100 years. (Google has lots of information on him and some photos)
Text from The Encyclopedia of Photography (1986)
Ray, Man
American, 1890-1976
"A tireless experimenter with photographic techniques who participated in the Cubist, Dadaist, and Surrealist art movements, Man Ray created a new photographic art which emphasized chance effects and surprising juxtapositions. Unconcerned with "Craft," he employed solarization, grain enlargement, and cameraless prints (photograms) which he called "Rayographs" - made by placing objects directly on photographic paper and exposing them to the light..."
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:36:01 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Something else to consider here with Jerry's work is it's originality, when someone is the 'first' to do something, they should get extra credit. Not that others can not try to learn from those original techniques, but the creator of them does have something the imatators do not-- creativity and originality. It is fresh and new. And in this case, exceptionally well done IMO. |
In that regard he is almost completly derivative - he even mentioned that he started out by copying someone else and trying to do it better...
I don't honestly believe that being first matters a whole lot. Typically the great artistic -isms were all about a group of people building off each other's ideas, not one person going it alone - even though the popular view is that only one person is really remembered or stands out
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:36:44 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by soup:
but that photo could not be entered here, no matter how artistic and well done it is...
so apparently it isnt a photo... there is more to the world of photography that meeting the DPC requirements. |
Well - it isn't digital for start :)
|
|
