gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
chez wrote:
Why do people draw the line at compositing when so many images are blatenly manipulated in photoshop using merging, curves, saturation, HDR etc... Seems like just about every image is saturated much more than reality...yet this is somehow accepted, but compositing is not. Who makes these rules what is acceptable as art and what is not?
I still think you are perhaps missing the point. Speaking for myself, I don't mind if Lik or you or anyone else pastes giant front-lit moons in front of clouds backlit by the rising/setting sun. You can even add an eagle silhouette inside the moon, a howling coyote on the ridge top, and angels flying in the sky. Compositing is fine with me on an ethical basis, as in there are no rules against it. (The aesthetic question is a somewhat different one.)
(Photography history buffs will recall that pasting in skies was the norm early in the history of photography, when clouds-filled skies simply could not be photographed correctly. A friend of mine who frequently and very successfully photographs in Yosemite is fond of sharing a set of early photographs of the Valley made in the 1800s that all share the very same sky!)
The point, at least for most of us, is not about what technique was used. It is about honesty and integrity - and I think these things matter, especially when the photographer claims them for himself as part of his identity.
Let's imagine that real photographers who photograph natural scenes often go to great lengths to produce stunning or compelling photographs of things that are taken to be real because, well, that is what they do. And let's say that we all understand that essentially all landscape photographers adjust* "stuff" in film or digital post because, well, they do. (If you don't understand or believe this, you need to do a bit of study!) And, among the photographers who work within these somewhat loose but mostly common guidelines, there are some whose skill, vision, and understanding of their subjects allow them to reach a level at which their work becomes exceptionally powerful. Fill in the blank with the name of your favorite highly regarded photographer from the annals of landscape photography.
Now, imagine that another photographer comes along who claims to have two special qualities:
1. This person claims to spend days, weeks, months laboring alone in the field searching out extraordinarily special and unusual conditions of light and scenes that others cannot find because they are in such remote and difficult places and must be approached in difficult conditions. In other words, this person claims to be operating in ways that no other photographer operates, with the result that this person, and perhaps this person alone, can find subjects and conditions and then produce photographs of them that no other photographer can produce. This person tells these stories regularly and they become a big part of the "artist's" public identity.
2. This person further, in defining his/her public image, "reveals," suggests, or outright states that, unlike other photographers, this work represents a level of truth and honesty about the world that other photographers may not aspire to, or even that other photographers might resort to tricks or shortcuts in their photography. The claim is that while they (those other photographers) must resort to artificial means to make it appear that they saw the things in their photographs, our "intrepid photographer" is able to achieve even more stunning results without any sort of "manipulation," and that he/she does not use "artificial" processes, and that by combining this extraordinary level of commitment and honesty and personal sacrifice and through great effort and enduring terrible challenges an circumstances is able to produce brilliant and stunning work that far surpasses that of other photographers whose standards are far lower.
With this in mind we arrive at a point where said photographer's reputation is based largely on two things. First, photographing subjects and conditions that other less dedicated photographers fail to experience, perhaps because they are less dedicated to their art. Second, being able to find such extraordinary examples of "the real" - unexperienced by others with less dedication - that he/she does not and would not stoop to unnatural methods of "manipulation" used by lesser photographers. Thus, the work and the person are said and perceived to be characterized by uncommon vision, tremendous dedication and sacrifice, patience, and an unequalled level or honesty and integrity.
Let's stipulate that this photographer becomes very successful on the basis of the factors that contribute to this image.
Let's say that collectors and fans buy into this amazing story and, as a result, this photographer's stock rises. Who could resist work that seems so brilliant, that other photographers cannot equal except through dishonest means, and which comes only at such a cost in personal effort and stamina and deprivation?! The image of this "lone artist" struggling through wild nature, small and alone, for weeks or months on end, dedicated to the singular goal of finding and bringing back examples of incredibility rare beauty in the natural world, all the while maintaining the highest standards of honestly and authenticity - who can resist such a story?!
And then we see a backlit moon pasted in front of the light source of the sun, with clouds (in outer space?) somehow appearing behind the moon, apparently photographed with film or a sensor that can magically capture both pinpoints of starlight and a perfectly exposed moon and some color in the sky in a single exposure. And all of this accompanied by text reinforcing the belief in the process and ethics I described earlier. (Careful readers with a legalistic bent may want to careful parse out the words of the exciting and breathlessly narrated tale behind the photograph and note that nowhere do these words clearly rule out the possibility of a composite image. Ahem.)
Again, the issue is not what techniques were used. Uelsmann and others have created beautiful and honest landscape work of the greatest integrity using techniques that are functionally similar.
The issue is integrity and honesty.
Dan
* Before citing claims by various previous photographers - some of whom I respect enormously - regarding the "natural" quality of their work, read what they actually wrote very carefully. In a number of cases, a careless reader or one not knowledgable about photography might wrongly conclude that they are claiming that their photographs are unmodified from what they saw, but a careful reading virtually always reveals that this is not what they are really saying at all. Of course, others were completely open and honest about their methods and goals, and this didn't seem to hurt their success or reduce their integrity at all. Heck, Adams wrote whole books about this stuff!
Oh, and there is more than one "master photographer" out there using the approach under discussion in this thread. And, no, I'm not naming any names. ;-)
Edited on Jan 30, 2012 at 03:50 PM · View previous versions
|
