Hmmm. What about when we make a blue sky gray by using BW film? That's
drastically altering the image. And how about that green grass that
turns gray as well? Of course infra-red film is strictly out of the
question. It will rearrange all the values. Cross processing? Forget
about it. Polarizing filters? Pro-mist filters? They're all dishonest.
Scandalous. HAR! Such bullcocky.
On Jun 18, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This is what bothers me the most .... heavily altering an image. As
photographers I believe we should strive to make the best and most
compelling photograph that we can, and if there's fence in the scene,
then
we should try to use it as a compositional element, to stretch our
creativity and skill. Just erasing it from existence is an easy
solution
which is not, IMO, photography. It's Photoshop - and it ultimately
relieves the photographer of the "burden" of having to be creative
with a
difficult or troublesome element in a scene.
I think it was Bob Sullivan who mentioned that at GFM someone was
showing a
group how easy it was to add a nice blue sky to a scene that
"unfortunately" had a grey, overcast sky. Is that what nature
photography
has come to? Perhaps a better - certainly a more creative - approach
is to
use the sky as is as an element in the scene, and utilize one's skill
as a
"master manipulator of light" to make a strong photograph rather than
our
skills as pixel pushers to Photoshop an image.
At what point do we stop? At what point and with what type of photos
is
there too much manipulation, where the photograph becomes something
else.
What's the point of a photographer waiting for the right light when
s/he
can make the adjustments in Photoshop. Why should I go back several
times
to make a photo of a mural or a piece of art work when instead I can
just
clone out a pesky background, or erase a distracting element? What
happens
to one's skill and ability to see an good photograph if the image is
going
to manipulated to make it what the photographer wants it to be instead
of
working with what it is?
Use technology to make great photographs, don't abuse it in order to
create
images that only exist on a layer in Photoshop.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom Reese
Paul Stenquist replied to me as follows:
"Clone out the fence if it makes the photo better. Doesn't bother me
in
the least. The objective is to make as nice a picture as possible."
In my opinion, it's a doctored image and is no longer a photograph.
It's
a deception and a fake. I know it's done all the time but, again IMO,
it's not fair to deceive the viewer.
"Sometimes you can move the camera to get rid of the fence. Sometimes
you have to move the cursor. Doesn't matter. Why is the mere recording
of what happens to be in front of one sacred?"
It's sacred unless you're up front about what you did. Otherwise the
image is a fake and the person who is presenting it is a fraud.
"What should be sacred is keeping one's eye on the final objective: a
great photograph."
What should be sacred is truth. Show your doctored images by all means
but warn the viewer that they aren't real.
"From here on out Photography is going to involve a digital workflow
that will open the door to more creativity."
It opens the door to deceit unless the presenter is honest about what
he
did.
"The work is ultimately judged on the basis of where you end up, not
how
you got there. The image is the thing. The method is unimportant."
If you present the image as art then I agree with you. If you present
it
as reality then you are being dishonest.
Tom Reese
