A Commentary on Photo Legitimacy

Hi there,

I'm writing an article on photo legitimacy from a post processing angle and I'm looking for some input, my question is how far is too far in regards to photo manipulation?

I have posed this question to the "retouching" forum as well however as a m4/3 shooter, I am also interested in your opinions, not to mention that this forum is considerably more active than that forum so I'm looking for a well rounded response.

Please feel free to post a response here or private message me, I will give proper recognition to the poster unless you'd prefer to remain anonymous.

Thanks for your help,

Mitch

Interesting question.  Ansel Adams and his contemporaries manipulated their pictures a lot.  Dodging, burning, etc.  I think it's all fine, but you should always start with the best possible image you can capture.  PP can't cure bad composition, lousy focus, or really blown highlights and shadows.

My opinion is that I don't care how much post processing someone does so long as they disclose it to the viewer.  Doing a lot of PP and then pretending you didn't is shady.

That's interesting that you bring up Ansel Adams, the master of the darkroom. I did some google digging and found that his "Cascade, Yosemite" ca. 1968 image is said to have taken advantage of a little negative flipping in order to get the effect he desired. Expanding on this technique in Photoshop today how do we feel about multiple exposures and layering?

Hi,

Isn't that a question about what the context is?

Jonas

We have had multiple discussion threads on this, quite a while back, on another photo forum I belong to. Thinking that my conclusion was more toward the idea that it depended on intent and final usage...so in a way every instance and every photo would have to be judged accordingly. I mean Reuters wouldn't accept something that 1x.com would..to simplify. yet both are valid.

--
My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

All photographs are manipulated regardless of whether they are digital or analog. The manipulation may be part of the development process or it may be software adjustments made by the photographer or the camera firmware. Unless you are a photojournalist the interpretation of a photograph is and should be up to the photographer.

For an extreme viewpoint on this subject you should read some of the articles by John Paul Caponigro. His TED video is also quite interesting.

--
kw
http://www.thealamoproject.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kwhite

I didn't want to limit responses with context. I wanted the responses to define context in that poster's opinion.

Excellent input Kgwhite,

I will definitely explore John Paul Caponigro's blog and watch the TED talk you refer to.

-Mitch

Hi Lights,

Thanks for your input, I'd really appreciate it if you could link to that other forum (or private message me a link) to expand my research base.

-Mitch

I think that legitimacy can only be defined by the intended purpose of the photograph.

Ok for the sake of a devil's advocate, how about the photo is being submitted for photographic evidence.

I think you need to define "legitimacy" first. Do you mean that the photo should be admissible in the court of law? Or used for journalistic or polemic purposes? Or simply qualify as "street photography?"

Vlad

To butt in... my personal view is if it's evidence then the obvious thing is to produce the original untouched image then also a possibly brightness/contrast/gamma /sharpening  enhanced image alongside it if it is needed to show desired detail.

But proving that the original is totally untouched is the problem.

Evidence/news/documentary is such as above, untampered with as to detail - but for personal use, artistic use or advertising, then anything goes, and the honest person (rare it seems) should declare what has been tampered with.

Regards..... Guy

Your definition of legitimacy is the response I'm looking for, do you see legitimacy defined as a purely unedited photo, just as the camera produced it, or is the content of the photo the most important element and removing parts of it (tree branches, wrinkles in skin, etc...) that puts legitimacy in question?

Then we need to define manipulation first. Some posters have mentioned processing as a sort of manipulation but I don't think that is what you are thinking about. Manipulation would rather be doing something to an image making it show the world differently than it really was when the images was taken, no?

If so:

Pure documentary stuff, which I used to do a lot of earlier, is example of images that shouldn't be manipulated at all. Documenting something should be depicting something the way it really is (was) and save that for the world. Moving a chair standing in the way, or removing some litter on the sidewalk or similar, just do it. It could after all have been done before you arrived, no?

Forensics can't be manipulated.

Images for the news can't be manipulated.

Portraits of your girlfriend can surely be manipulated. If it make most people happy to have less pronounced wrinkles or something I find some blurring or cloning to be at place.

Nature and wild animals. I know birds in flight sometimes are arranged, I know some photographers sometimes paste an animal into an image. I sure hope that doesn't happen often.

Artsy stuff. Do whatever it takes. When shooting an image (a meta image) of the setup - leave everything as it is.

Family albums. Do whatever needed but when altering something it may be a good idea making a note about it.

Streets. I feel better when not manipulating anything. I liked to show what I saw. Other may alter things and if not obvious I think little damage is done. That's me, I don't think street shooting is evidence or documentation that way. We have all seen wonderful street images which have been arranged without knowing it. There is no clear straight line between street and art.

Photo challenges. Stick to the rules. What fun is it otherwise?

OK, there you have me. I like to think most people share these opinions. I don't know if that is correct. Today I learned it is OK to call somebody "equivalence nazi" in this forum and I wouldn't have guessed that...

Good luck with your article,

Jonas

That has been the answer to your question since the paintings on the Lascaux cave walls were done 17,000 years ago. Artists in all media go to great lengths and apply skills and techniques in order to create a result that appears completely natural to the observer. The appearance of lack of artifice is the measure of artistic skill.

-- Chris

Exactly! Fantastic response Jonas, that's what I was looking for!

I think that the answer is easy it being implemented in serious contests: minimal intervention.

It was also HCB's belief and of many others - one must convey human emotion not artifices.

OTH those were introduced from the start, in daguerrotypes that were arranged as composites, because the lens could not cover the whole FOV.

So IMHO, for scientific purposes one might use time lapse and other techniques that show the underlying reality.

But basically photography is related to the act of seeing, which predates the picture.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

While I do take your point, I want to make sure that there is a CLEAR line between paintings and photographs in my article, yes I will include sections on "digital art" but I also want to clearly define the difference.

I agree that photography is the art of seeing, but capturing it in a picture goes hand in hand with that "seeing."

What I mean by this is that you see a Lynx at the zoo and you see a beautiful snowscape, you did not "see" these two elements at the same time, so why does a photo claim to show these two elements at the same time. This is not "legitimate."