| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2002 03:39:05 PM · #1 |
There are two particular photos in the recent issue of Popular Photography & Imaging that really bother me and I would like to see what you think. Many of you probably get this magazine and can check it out for yourself. I wasn't sure that it was proper to scan and show the photos here. Both of these images are in the 'Nature' category in the 'Best Photos of the Year' section. The first photo is actually on the cover of the magazine, as well, and shows two baby birds on a branch being attracted to a bug on a leaf. It sounds simple enough until you read the caption about how it was done. The photographer actually baited the birds by attaching the insect to the twig and holding it above their nest. This, in itself, is a pretty questionable practice, but what also bugged me was the fact that the artist took some fairly extreme artistic measures by blurring one of the birds wings for dramatic affect. I don't have a problem with this kind of manipulation but I have a problem with the photo being placed in the 'Nature' category instead of the 'Compuer Enhanced' category. The whole image was clearly manipulated and is very un-natural to me. It is the same issue for the second photo which shows a black & white of a beautiful grove of trees. When you read the caption you discover that the tree on the left was copied and pasted in the right side of the frame and then transformed to look different. The whole symmetrical impact of this phtoto is based on that manipulation and it just doesn't seem right that it is in the 'Nature' category instead of the 'Computer Enhancement' category.
I don't know, maybe I am making too much of this. It just seems to me that when a certain amount of manipulation is done to a photo especially when it is the primary focus in the photo that it should no longer be consider a simple improvement to a natural picture. What I found interesting is that right above the photo of the trees was an image of an old house and with lightening flashing around it in the 'Computer Enhanced' category. this is a composite of two photos and is appropriately categorized. Well, how is this so different from the photo of the trees?
Well, I feel a little better now. What do you think? Is any level of manipulation acceptable nowadays in nature photos or other types of photos, for that matter?
T
Message edited by author 2002-12-18 15:40:24.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 03:47:38 PM · #2 |
| I think i'd have to read the rules of the contest, and criteria for category selection before making a judgement. I am sure both photos fit into the correct category given the applied rules, don't ya think? To me it's more about "does this turn me on?". If a picture gives me the effect the artist intended, that person did a good job. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 03:52:46 PM · #3 |
Personally, I don't take offense at this at all. I especially don't mind when the photographer describes the manipulation that took place, and thus isn't trying to sell me a documentary record that isn't. Had the tree image, for example, appeared in a forestry magazine as a descriptive piece, then I would have a different opinion. But I think it was produced as a piece of art, not as a documentary artifact.
Photography is art, and all art is about the manipulation of the environment. Bring it all on and WOW me, that's what I say!
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 04:08:13 PM · #4 |
This issue has always bothered me, too. If you compare an image to, say, a 120-minute film, there are certain elements of photography which are subject to more stringent critique than films. The most obvious is representation. Non-fiction seems to be the only acceptable genre to many critics - people, for the most part, expect photographs to be journalistic rather than simply expressive. I think it stems from the immediacy of the art form. We expect a snapshot of time and take comfort in the beauty of the moment being accessible. With photo manipulation, which has been around far longer than computers, we are seeing a pure art and an interpretation of an idea. Perhaps it feels cheap because it's seen as cheating - where someone might have worked very hard for a single exposure, someone with good photoshop skills could produce something even more spectacular in much less time.
Personally, the verdict is still out. I like to know what I'm looking at, but at the same time if it's done well enough that nobody could tell, then you have to ask if the resulting image means anything to you as an image rather than the deconstructed parts of a whole. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 04:38:38 PM · #5 |
They don't meet the Nature category to ME, but I don't know how the rules were written -- your beef may be with the magazine, not the photographer's who presumably just made use of the full latitude of the rules.
I DO like that there was full-dislosure of the techniques used. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:09:54 PM · #6 |
I enjoy photographic manipulation to create new and creative images. My issue was with the categorization of those particular images. It is ultimately the fault of the magazine that makes the final decision but some fault also falls on the photographers' who probably submitted the images into those particular categories. I think Pop Photography should be able to put a photo from one category into the 'Computer Enhanced' category when a certain level of manipulation has been applied. Where that level is is very subject, to be sure, but I feel that when primary objects in a scene are removed, added, or significantly altered then that falls under the 'computer Enhanced' category and if images simply have some amount of dodging/burning, level adjustments, and color improvements applied to the original image than those photos can go into any other category.
I guess since Popular Photography added the '& imaging' to their title they now accept that any level of computer manipulation can be applied to a photo in any category and that there is no longer a separation between computer manipulated images and straight photography. If they are going to go that route then they should explain that up front and remove the 'Compuer Enhanced' category altogether.
T
Message edited by author 2002-12-18 17:10:42.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:12:41 PM · #7 |
Well, what's good enough for the National Geographic is good enough for
Pop Photo & Imaging I expect.
An amazing majority of 'wild animal' pictures are in captivity and not indicated.
The Nat Geo moved a pyramid to get better composition on a cover.
Personally I don't mind it as long as it is clearly disclosed. Certainly
the nature one you describe I would have no problem with. Lures are don't
stop it being natural, some blur etc doesn't really change things.
Moving trees around is maybe worse but marginal - its not like they brought things in from other pictures and composited it.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:14:52 PM · #8 |
My observation wasn't so much the category as much as how many of the pictures had been digitally altered. I looked at the picture, and thought,"That is awesome" and then read the description and it was kind of a let down. I don't fault the photogs or the magazine, I was just perplexed because it seemed that almost all of the photos had been digitally altered, even though a lot were shot on film. I don't know. I guess the verdict is still out for me too. I can see both sides of the issue, and haven't quite made up my mind yet.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:17:15 PM · #9 |
i know a biologist who worked with a crew making an imax movie of the rainforest.
the imax camera weighs 300 lbs and it's motor drive is loud like a chainsaw.
they would fake a lot of scenes, for example they'd bring a lizard into a tent and put it on a branch over foil to make it seems like it was over water.
apparently this kind of thing is common practice ..
that said, tim, i can see where you're coming from. definitely changes what skills are important. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:25:19 PM · #10 |
I hate to constantly trot this one out, but image making is always about this. Ansel Adams was probably the king of the manipulated image, yet he always gets held up as the most 'ethical' or 'pure' photography.
The tools to do the manipulation may have changed somewhat, but arguing over where the line is is a fairly futile and pointless discussion.
The image is the important part, not the implementation really.
I do have a different view when it comes to photojournalism or things that claim to be real, but other than that, it is about making a compeling image.
Are filters unethical ? Are neutral grad filters unethical ?
Would walking out into the scene and moving the traffic cone out of the
way make it okay, but removing it in photoshop be not ?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:35:50 PM · #11 |
it's just weird, in a way, gordon...
someone might have been incredibly lucky and diligent in the past for example to find a perfectly symmetrical old tree ...
but now anyone can take any old tree and do a flip horizontal on it.
that kind of thing sort of cheapens the rarity that used to characterize certain kinds of imagery.
this is of course TOTALLY different from tonal adjustments :)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:38:52 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I hate to constantly trot this one out, but image making is always about this. Ansel Adams was probably the king of the manipulated image, yet he always gets held up as the most 'ethical' or 'pure' photography.
The tools to do the manipulation may have changed somewhat, but arguing over where the line is is a fairly futile and pointless discussion. |
Adams' manipulations were primarily limited to exposure control and lens-based distortions. I am aware of (and like) his belief that he was NOT trying to reproduce a scene as it "appears" but rather as he "sees it." I also have it (from someone who works/worked in his (Adams') darkroom) that Adams would be having a great old time with Photoshop...
But I don't think cloning-in images should be allowed in a category called "Nature" -- though I'd probably live with taking something OUT (wires, garbage, etc.).
Message edited by author 2002-12-18 17:41:05. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 05:48:33 PM · #13 |
and if we take this to the extreme, i dont know if you ever saw the movie 'Final Fantasy' but that movie contains some of the most photo-realistic human 3D modeling to date. in some of the stills, the characters in that film are completely indistinguishable from actual people.
if we can digitally create ANYTHING with that degree of fidelity, are we not rendering obsolete photographers, period? Let alone actors.
Is not part of the wonder of photography that it may have been a recording of a wondrous moment *that actually existed*?
Or are we firmly in what I like to call the "Pixar era" now? : )
Just some food for thought ..
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 06:28:22 PM · #14 |
Part of the wonder lies in the eye to capture an image.
Whether that eye is to see where a digital manipulation can occur to add to a photo or whether the eye is trained to see things in the naturally occuring world its all about the final image.
I often times think the wonder of each photo is a personal thing. A spectacular panoramic photo shot from the top of Mount Everest may mean more to those that understand the effort it took to get there while others just look at the pretty colors and say...Ho-Hum..another mountain photo :-D
Message edited by author 2002-12-18 18:29:56. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 06:54:05 PM · #15 |
I seemed to have missed the direction of this thread... I thought folks would be outraged that this jerk led 2 baby birds out of the safety of their nest and likely left them to die, just so he could get a pretty picture of them. I don't mind the manipulation he did on his/her computer... It's what he did at the tree that has me re-editing what I want to call him so the Moddies don't have to slap me down for obscenity in the forums...
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 07:31:06 PM · #16 |
I live in Germany so I don't know this magazine, but I guess the photos were put into the "Nature" category just because of their content. The "Computer Enhanced" category probably doesn't have animals & flowsers or maybe had even less strict rules about digital modifications.
I don't mind this categorisation and think that it's just an indication how photographers work these days. The technology evolved :-) You had the luck that they described how the photo was done. You won't get this information about most photos you see in magazines.
But I do see your point. I think photography art is not just the resulting image at the end but also how it was created. I also appreciate a photo more when a certain effect was done by camera control and not by applying a filter in an image editor. But that's only my personal taste and does not mean that creating the effect in the image editor is less artistic or "cheating" in any way. It's the artist who choses his/her tools. You can just view the result and like it or don't like it. ;-)
Personally I much more have a problem with (ab)using the insect and forcefully attaching it to the twig. I suspect it died for the photo. Now _this_ is unnatural!
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 08:07:44 PM · #17 |
The ONLY thing that matters to me is the end result. I couldn't care less (from a visual or receiving POV) how the work was created.
If Leonardo had drawn the Mona Lisa on an Etch-A-Sketch would that have made it less a work of art than the oil painting? I don't think so. If Picasso had completed his line drawings on a DigiPad would that have made them less worthy? Of course not. If Thomas Hardy takes one thousand closely packed words to describe a field of wheat, is that better or worse than the Japanese haiku artist who paints the same scene in fourteen syallables? Neither. Styles changes and are different, one artist to the next, one age to the next, one region to another. Technology changes.
Art, however, is still art. And art, when it comes down to it, is the finished product, that which is received by the viewer/listener/reader etc. If the finished product is art, then so is the process that created it.
Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 08:55:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
I seemed to have missed the direction of this thread... I thought folks would be outraged that this jerk led 2 baby birds out of the safety of their nest and likely left them to die, just so he could get a pretty picture of them. I don't mind the manipulation he did on his/her computer... It's what he did at the tree that has me re-editing what I want to call him so the Moddies don't have to slap me down for obscenity in the forums... |
It would help here to see the photo and know whether the chicks survived...killing your models is not a good habit to develop.
I wouldn't mind a picture of a captive (zoo) animal made to appear "in the wild" -- it would at least mean that animal has a somewhat naturalized habitat. If you must "pose" your subject, you should go to a museum and borrow a previously-mounted specimen. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 09:48:59 PM · #19 |
I'm sure the chicks were not harmed in any way from the photo shoot but I know that sometimes a mother bird will abandon their young if they smell humans on them. Since they were on a branch and the photographer was allowed to get that close to them I am assumming that they are captive or in an environment where they are used to humans. But I don't know.
I don't think it is an equal comparison to compare photography to fine art like painting or drawing. Fine art does not need to originate from reality. It can but it can also stem straight from the artist's imagination. Photography originates from reality and either remains basically unaltered or is turned into something very creative through darkroom processes or computer techniques. Yes, photography can be a form of art but the fact that it is derived from reality is an important distinction. I believe there should still be room for straight photography because that still is important to a lot of people.
T
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 11:06:18 PM · #20 |
Most novels are derived from reality. Most movies are derived from reality. Most plays are derived from reality.
Does this mean they should be treated the same as photography? Or, perhaps, photography should treated just like them.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2002 11:47:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Most novels are derived from reality. Most movies are derived from reality. Most plays are derived from reality.
Does this mean they should be treated the same as photography? Or, perhaps, photography should treated just like them. |
Novels and (screen)plays are "derived from reality" in the same sense as a painting or sculpture -- an original creation derived from the artist's interpretation of the sum of their experiences.
A newspaper report or magazine article, maybe a textbook, a documentary film, are not just derived from but strive to accurately represent "reality" as experienced at the time, and could be fairly compared to photography. |
|
|
|
12/18/2002 11:50:22 PM · #22 |
| In literature we have distinctions between fact and fiction. Perhaps these two photographic cases under discussion are examples of the miasma that is faction ? |
|
|
|
12/19/2002 12:12:43 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
In literature we have distinctions between fact and fiction. Perhaps these two photographic cases under discussion are examples of the miasma that is faction ? |
Or its moving equivalent, the "docu-drama" |
|
|
|
12/19/2002 12:26:59 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
and if we take this to the extreme, i dont know if you ever saw the movie 'Final Fantasy' but that movie contains some of the most photo-realistic human 3D modeling to date. in some of the stills, the characters in that film are completely indistinguishable from actual people.
if we can digitally create ANYTHING with that degree of fidelity, are we not rendering obsolete photographers, period? Let alone actors.
Is not part of the wonder of photography that it may have been a recording of a wondrous moment *that actually existed*?
Or are we firmly in what I like to call the "Pixar era" now? : )
Just some food for thought .. |
Heh... as someone who works with 3d modeling/rendering/animation every day, I think there is a bit of overlap between photography and photoreal 3d rendering, but there are always going to be things you CAN'T do with a computer. Photography will be able to pick out the life, chaos and humanity in a real scene that you just can't fake with 3d. Photoreal 3d will only compete with the kind of photography that strives for a kind of less-than-real perfection, strives for order, removes life and emotion from people, etc. There are photos that do really well here sometimes that I think I could have rendered in 3d without losing anything.
I'm kind of happy about this :). After all, life is for the living. I know it's just my personal taste, but why not go out and take photos of the real, dirty, chaotic, human world and leave perfection for computers?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2002 07:17:12 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by lisae:
...... I know it's just my personal taste, but why not go out and take photos of the real, dirty, chaotic, human world and leave perfection for computers? |
I believe all things are part of the life experience.
Won't it be weird if one day that we find that life is sorta like a sophisticated computer generated reality...atomic structure is just the pixels and "randomness" was built into the the essence of that structure?.....:-)
If that is true..then manipulation of of the digital images is just an extension of the real ...being all connected and such...
Of course I could be reading too much Science Fiction lately :-D |
|
