Guest Columnists-Samantha Chrysanthou and Darwin Wiggett
Photoshop and Nature Photography: How Far is Too Far?
by Samantha Chrysanthou and Darwin Wiggett
Samantha’s website | Samantha’s blog
Darwin’s Website | Darwin’s blog
© Samantha Chrysanthou
In the popular view, photography is more realistic than any other graphic art because the camera takes its images directly, optically from reality….However, all art is illusion…and a photograph as much as a painting is a two-dimensional exercise in triggering perceptual responses, not a two-dimensional version of the real world.
–Michael Freeman, The Photographer’s Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos
The nature photography world is locked in an unwinnable and pointless debate: how far should you process your nature images before you stray from photography into art? This debate can be seen as a continuum, with those photographers who inherently distrust digital photography altogether (preferring the ‘purity’ of film) occupying one end of the spectrum; let’s call them the Purists. These people shun altering the content or look of a photograph after depressing the shutter (although filters and reflectors may be used in the field) and believe that any processing that does occur is acceptable only so far as it helps to faithfully reproduce what the photographer actually saw in the field at time of capture.
On the other end of the spectrum are the digital manipulators. These types spend as much time (if not more) working an image at their computer as in the field taking pictures. These photographers employ cloning, processing affects, HDR, and the creation of composite images regularly to freely alter the content and look of their images. Let’s call them the Processors.
The Purists and the Processors have been engaged in a battle that has heated up to the temperature of molten metal since the advent of digital cameras. The Purists accuse the Processors of lying with their wacky creations, and the Processors accuse the Purists of hypocrisy. (A similar debate about how the camera should be used occurred when colour images became possible. Ho hum, plus ça change…) While most photographers would situate themselves somewhere more in the middle of the continuum, enough people exist at each pole to drive plenty of photo forum discussions and blog topics across the whole of cyberspace.
But this entire debate rests on a flawed assumption.
© Darwin Wiggett
What the Purists and the Processors are arguing about is how much a photograph is or is not reality. But as Michael Freeman points out, all graphic art is an illusion. Graphic art includes paintings, drawings, writing—and photography. No two-dimensional medium is capable of reproducing our three-dimensional world; all attempts are necessarily a representation or interpretation of what is real.
How did this debate even originate within nature photography? Part of the answer lies in the nature of the camera as an artistic tool itself. The camera is designed to record and present visual information derived “directly, optically” from reality. It works in real time, with real objects. Because of how well the camera records and reproduces visual information, it came to be associated over time with communication of visual information to large amounts of people. Thus, at some point, the camera became less associated with artistic expression and more with communication of information. Information (as opposed to opinion) is often seen as objective and neutral; the origin of the camera as a purveyor of fact (reality) is born.
This association clearly continues today. In the September 2009 issue of Photolife magazine, we read the words of renowned aerial photographer and filmmaker Yann Arthus-Bertrand on his work:
I am an extremely dedicated photographer: a beautiful photograph that means nothing is of no interest to me. For me, photography is not an end in itself but a means for transmitting a message, for bearing witness, and for moving things forward. I feel more like a journalist than an artist because I attempt to bring knowledge through my photographs.
The camera has become conflated with the communication of information rather than a platform for artistic expression for its own sake. But this association has not served the photo community well.
Let’s imagine two photographers standing side-by-side by a mountain lake. Both compose and snap a photograph of the scene before them. Will their images be the same portrayal of reality? Obviously not as even superficially they weren’t standing in the same exact spot. But beyond that give-away, their images are likely to be different in other respects too. One may choose to frame more of the lake and less of the mountain; the other may select a long lens and focus on the mountain’s peak; one may use a consumer camera while the other has a professional camera body. How each photographer makes the image is the first way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality. Not only does the equipment used have an impact on the final result recorded, but what each photographer chooses to include—and by extension, exclude— determines what image is rendered. The photographer uses a combination of sensory perception, emotion and conscious or unconscious thought to constrain the real scene in front of him into a two-dimensional illustration.
© Samantha Chrysanthou
The second way in which a photograph becomes an illusion of reality is when it comes time to turn the data captured by the camera (whether on film or sensor) into a mode capable of being viewed by people. This is where the Purists really get their knickers in a knot. Although many Purists are happy to step into a scene, pick up a stick and throw it away, they will frown on those lazy Processors who decide to just clone out the stick in post-processing. We agree that a good photographer tries to get the best data possible at the time of capture; the principle of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ definitely applies to photography! But does it really matter if you have to walk into a scene to physically remove a stick or whether you clone it out in post-processing?
For some magazines it matters. Many editors will not accept nature images that have been ‘digitally manipulated’. Aside from the definition issues that arise with such a term, what does this mean? At the time of capture, a scene can be manipulated or altered from the eye-view of the photographer by the use of special filters, lens choice and ‘pruning’ but the same effect will not be accepted if done at home on the computer? The silliness of this position is revealed when we compare the reaction to traditional, black and white photography to digitally altered, colour images. There is a certain amount of gravitas associated with black and white imagery that is likely left over from the fact that photography was birthed in a world incapable of colour expression. Modern fine art photographers tap into the flexibility inherent in this tradition and present their work in black and white. And yet, if we were truly representing reality, wouldn’t all nature images submitted in black and white be rejected by Purists now that we can shoot in colour? The legitimacy attached to black and white expression survives because of its origins, not its accuracy in communicating reality. It is an allowed exception in the nature photography world to the demand for realism because it was the only way a photograph could be made in the beginnings of the craft.
Framing the debate as a question of ‘how far’ you can go with digital manipulation is a direct result of viewing the camera as a device to record reality rather than a tool for representation or expression of real things. We have become hung up on seeing the camera as a way of communicating information about our subjects and forget that we cannot replicate our three-dimensional world into two-dimensional ‘facts’.
This type of thinking has brought us to a zero-sum game. The Purists refuse to embrace new tools of expression (like digital technology) and are limited in their growth as artists and photographers. (At this point, a short clarification is in order: we do not think all those who shoot in film are Luddites. Medium choice is the artist’s prerogative. We happen to shoot both digital and film for various purposes of expression). The Processors straddle the grey-ish area between photographers and software artists. Neither side can understand the other and believes that their perspective is the morally correct one. Where do we go from here?
We have to re-frame the debate. If we can junk the distinction between communicating information and communicating artistic expression, then we can approach a photograph for what it is rather than what it should be. All graphic art should be judged on how well it expresses its subject matter, and nothing else. If the idea or story the artist meant to convey is successfully told, then the image succeeds. If not, well…time to practice some more.
This means that we all have to adjust to the idea that a photograph is an illusion, a representation, and not literal truth or reality. We as photographers need to do two things: educate the public by not pretending our photographs are ‘reality’ when they are not, and be permissive with each other to avoid that tendency of photographers to pretend they have only ‘manipulated’ their image to make it look ‘like what I saw’. Who cares? The viewer was not there with you when you snapped the shutter. She should be encouraged to engage with the image for its own sake rather than be called upon to compare your work with some objective realty. When we free up photography to be about expression, then this medium will really soar.
© Darwin Wiggett
No related posts.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 7th, 2009 at 8:57 pm. It is filed under articles, photo OPinion² and tagged with controversal, Darwin Wiggett, opinion, Photoshop, Samantha Chrysanthou, wisdom.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Jay is an internationally published and celebrated photographer and writer. His work focuses on architecture, nature, and adventure. His clients have included fortune five hundred companies, trade publications, national and international magazines and books, graphic designers, architects, builders, commercial printers, and many others.
[...] and disclosure in this blog post: Darwin and I have
already hashed out some thoughts on this over at Jay
Goodrich’s blog. (Also, see Greg Basco’s
thoughtful post on RAW Perfection over at Deep Green [...]
Thank you very much! We always appreciate feedback.
This is a great site and I’m happy to have found it. As a photographer, it’s always nice to see other people’s work and read about their tecnniques and such. Cheers!
Great article, it’s more about Freedom vs. Facism in my opinion. I do find the purist typically way more vocal and facist about thier opinions than the Processors.
I would include a third term, the “Producers” these are people that are as good (and much of the time better) than the finest “Purist”, they understand art, composition and in-camera techinicals, but are also willing to work or rework their images to achieve their visions and produce the best possible images.
Those are always the images that hold my attention and that keep “Producing” ever greater works.
Well before we call a truce as the authors suggest, maybe we should consider an argument for not too much license in our photographic processes. Particularly if the truce proposed may be viewed to tilt in one direction–expression over representation, feeling over seeing.
Rather than two photographers by that mountain lake, let’s imagine one photographer and one painter supremely skilled in a photorealistic style. And let’s say the photographer is Ansel Adams, just for fun. The results of their efforts will be used in public relations campaign to urge reforming the laws governing the national forest service to replace their current goal of management with protection. Will the painter have a chance of getting her images used by the ad agency. No matter how good she is, the public will perceive the photographic images to be a more realistic representation. It is a strength of photography that a sharp, well conceived and composed photograph will be perceived by the public as a more accurate representation of nature deserving of preservation. It is a strength of the medium, not a weakness.
Now lets say the image will be used for decorative purposes and the client wants a depiction of nature that feels emotionally true, but is visually unique. Great license to deviate from reality is given. The painter is a neo-impressionist. Can any photographer compete without a major degree of digital manipulation? Isn’t there some point where most would agree that the manipulated image is no longer photography? If we are totally free to cross that line, don’t we endanger our advantage in the first scenario.
Human culture changes, perhaps evolves. Some folks adapt to change quicker than others. About a hundred years ago, Igor Stravinsky caused an uproar when his Rites of Spring was debuted. He broke the existing rules; the raw emotional power his music conveyed was too much for audiences to bear. Within a couple of decades, Walt Disney used some of Stravinsky’s music in the a sequence in Fantasia. Many other movie soundtracks have used similar harmonic license to create moods of great tension. What was once rule breaking is now accepted. But not for everyday use. Overuse would rob it of its power to move us.
Of course, no two dimensional representation can duplicate what we see in real time. But photography is perceived to come closer than painting. And has benefited from that perception. Up until photoshop, most of the limitations on recreating reality were technical ones. Photographers worked within these limitations and still produced works that were widely considered art. Photographers can surely choose to veer further from reality with photoshop but may find that fewer people will be willing to consider that art.
On his blog Darwin wrote about the two kinds of photographers that go out with him. One sees workshop as the opportunity to bag trophies and want to rush from one great location to another. The other wants to get out and have an experience in nature that they otherwise wouldn’t, learn something about photography, and come back with some nice images. I worry that too many modern folks have an impression of wilderness that is based on awe inspiring trophy photographs, and that over the years it has taken more saturation and now more dynamic range for photographs to have that awe factor. Like if all movie soundtracks used Stravinsky, his music would lose its power to portray tension. If people are fed a steady diet of past Velvia saturation and even well done HDR all the time, would they appreciate the subtle beauties of an ordinary day in the forest. Or would they need a trip to the Canadian Rockies to feel the trip was worth it?
One more voice of agreement and appreciation for this article and Jay’s before it. I would say I fall more toward the Processor end of this spectrum – generally speaking, my goal is to produce an image that looks not ‘like what I saw’, but rather ‘like what I felt’ when I took the photo. The viewer can’t smell the pines or feel the spray of the falls, so I try to create an image within the limitations of 2D visual representation that will nonetheless evoke in the viewer some analog of the feeling that I experienced as I tripped the shutter. The feelings cannot be the same, but I hope the viewer feels richer for having experienced the analog.
(Betraying my geek roots, I think of this as a “4-D+ to 2-D transform… :^D )
- Jack
[...] Goodrich guest blogged on Darwin Wiggett’s blog. In return, Darwin and Samantha Chrysanthou guest blogged for Jay, again on the acceptable uses of Photoshop in photography. A very thoughtful [...]
[...] Go here to read the rest: Photoshop and Nature Photography: How Far is Too Far? | jay … [...]
Boy, what a great article and topic. Lying somewhere in the middle myself it’s hard for me to understand why people are so quick to get hot about whether an image is “manipulated” or “pure”. What you say about black and white photography not showing reality is brilliant.
To me, the camera is a tool, and digital processing software is another tool. Tools to create beautiful art. In the end, it’s the final image that matters regardless of how you created it.
[...] This post was Twitted by akphotograph [...]
[...] Chrysanthou and Darwin Wiggett have written an excellent article for Jay Goodrich’s blog on Photoshop and Nature Photography. The article deals with the age old debate of purist photographers and the biases against any [...]
What an excellent well-written article on a hot subject. This debate over the essence of photography has been going on for well over a hundred years however. Reading up on the history of pictorialist photography and Group f64 you see these same debates being waged. I believe it was Group f64 that started the movement towards pure photography being that image the purists strive for today.
It’s doubtful that an acceptance or understanding of the other viewpoints will ever be achieved. The camera is a tool. The user an artist. While some painters paint in a realist style, so to do some photographers; while others paint with a more interpretive or impressionist viewpoint. There is an audience for each style, and the many others that fall somewhere along the road between the two. Let the image speak to you, not the technical details of how it was created.
An image is its own reality. Plain and simple.
Guy
[...] into art? This debate can be seen as a continuum, with those photographers who … More: Photoshop and Nature Photography: How Far is Too Far? | jay … This entry was written by , posted on August 8, 2009 at 3:57 am, filed under general and tagged [...]