You're right, "how" the can is removed makes little difference in
the final print. I'm trying to make the point that there is more
to esthetics than the final image or print. There's a big
difference between leaving the can for the next person to find, and
packing it out. Maybe not in the final print, but certainly in
real life. I think that there should be a connection between the
two. This obviously goes above and beyond photography, but I don't
think it's crazy that nature photographers should also consider the
larger questions of nature in our modern world.
Final thought: nowhere have I said that all image manipulation is
bad. I know that photography is both different from being there in
real life, and an art that depends on personal vision. It's never
going to be 100% accurate to "real life." Just putting a 200mm
lens on creates a point of view that is different from what eyes
would see if a person stood there. But, in my mind at least, that
does NOT mean that it's all just a question of degree, and
producing a killer final print. A worthy end doesn't justify all
means. I still think there's a big difference between using a
polarizer to bring out a rainbow's colors, vs. pasting in a rainbow
from another image. There's a line somewhere between those two
techniques, and I think the second example is on the wrong side of
that line. When it becomes ok to paste in elements, or remove
unwanted ones, the value of a full-time photographer who goes the
extra mile to get the best image, will be drastically reduced. And
so will the value of nature photography in general. In fact I
think we've already started down that road.
I am aware of Ansel Adam's work with his prints. "Moonrise" is his
most famous, but I'm sure he worked all his prints to get the most
out of them. I think a more relevant Adams image, for this
discussion, is "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine." In
that image he purposefully over-burned a hillside to hide high
school graffitti. Was that ok? Part of me wants to excuse him
because, well, he's Ansel Adams. But part of me knows that I would
not condone it if it was anyone else. I think we would all feel a
bit differently about "Moonrise" if it became known that the moon
was actually super-imposed from another image.
Galen said in one of his articles:
"Yes, I’m still struggling. I don’t buy the idea many of you put
forward that digital alterations are no different than what
photographers such as Ansel Adams have been doing all along in the
darkroom. Until the public stops perceiving them as different, they
are an issue."
As always, no hard feelings. I think this issue is not discussed
enough.
Not to "burst any bubbles," but Galen's photos have also had a good
deal of photoshop help as have the vast majority of landscape
photos made today. In the American southwest it's a rare day when
there are no contrails, chemtrails and other "hand of man"
intrusions into the image which detract and spoil an otherwise near
perfect scene.
In the old days with the great photography of "artists" like Ansel
Adams, etc., there was "plenty" of manipulation of the negative and
print. Ansel was still manipulating what was likely his most famous
print "Moonrise - Hernandez, New Mexico, ten years after he snapped
the shutter.
Only in documentary photojournalism is it considered wrong to alter
an image to improve it.
On issues like removing a piece of trash (can, etc.) with PhotoShop
versus removing it physically before taking the shot, we must
realize that nothing is "static" but always in a state of flux. We
remove the can and take the shot and tomorrow someone throws
another. Whether that can was removed in the temporal world or in
the artistic world (photoshop) makes little difference in the
eventual print. We should concentrate on doing better work and not
overly analyze the process.
Best regards,
Lin
