I recently wrote a post entitled "Trusting Photographs" , in which I mentioned a two part post called "Photography And Truth". In these blog installments, I wrote that I was surprised that there was an expectation on the part of many, if not most, viewers that fine art photography should depict ‘the truth’. In reality, there are decisions made by the photographer including focal length, in camera cropping, and shooting in RAW format (to name a few) that explain why most photographs are ‘untruthful’ to at least some degree.
I was recently looking at a highly regarded photography magazine when I read something that I found to be totally absurd and which reflects back on this whole issue of 'truth' in photography. I won't mention the magazine or the particular photographer, but suffice it to say that the photographer had his superb fine art portfolio published and, in an the accompanying article, says " I very seldom change the actual situation, I just make it more dramatic. I use Photoshop, I never use any plug-in to make the photos more dramatic."
I find this a self-contradictory absurdity on multiple levels. The situation isn't changed...just the degree of drama?? It's OK to use Photoshop, but not a Photoshop plug-in (which itself just uses adjustments available in Photoshop)???? Methinks you protest too much.
Can't we just agree that there is no crime in using Photoshop or Lightroom to make adjustments to fine art photographs in order to express our artistic vision? Can't we just disclose to the public that with todays RAW format adjustments have to be made to the out of camera image in order to restore it to what the scene looked like, and that any such restoration is significantly related to our memory and experience of the location? Photoshop and Lightroom (or similar image editing software) is simply an integral part of photography in the digital age. In my opinion, using them does not somehow denegrate a photograph. And, yes, I also think it is OK to use plug-ins!
Nov 1, 2009
Absurd
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi my name is Rick Camper and I post process my images. Yes I use Lightroom and Photoshop (with Plug-ins). But wait a minute, this is no different than when I shot film. The final print was never straight from the negative. A lot of decisions were made before/after pressing the shutter and the print. The digital darkroom just makes the process less of an effort.
In contrast, my name is Steve Roberts, and I don't post-process any of my images. It's nothing personal against post-processing - I would just prefer to hone my skill as a photographer rather than a digital artist.
I love the quote from the photographer in the original quote - it really is a confused statement!
Steve...I totally understand where you are coming from and what you mean.....but, if you are photographing digitally and shooting RAW you are post-processing...you must post-process. You may be deciding to render the scene in post-processing exactly as you remember it, but that is a choice that a photographer and 'digital artist' makes.
I think it is up to each individual to decide where to draw the line on image manipulation. It's not an easy boundary to set.
Photojournalists cannot ethically alter their images beyond traditional darkroom aesthetics - witness the Adnan Hajj photographs scandal that Reuters had to deal with.
On the other hand editorial photographs are often altered and in advertising anything goes.
Bottom line. Everyone sets their own standards and boundaries according to their tastes and the set of industry parameters for their work.
Photography and Photoshop are there to be enjoyed as vehicles of personal expression and communication.
Personally, photographs of plastic faced models, with impossibly small pelvis' don't appeal but a portrait showing laughter lines with a bit of extra saturation and sharpening discreetly applied does.
All the best,
Paul
Post a Comment