Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

This forum is dedicated for discussions on making creative images of nature. Images can be attached too as part of the discussion thread.

Moderators: Prashanth Sampagar, Madhav Jois, Raviprakash S S, Vikas T R, Adithya Biloor, Nevil Zaveri, Aniket R Thopate, Adithya U N, Sarthak Agrawal








Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Roshan.Panjwani » Wed May 27, 2015 9:46 pm

Came across an interesting article (a bit too long) that touches upon various questions around the use and extent of post processing and the line between photography and digital art

https://iso.500px.com/the-very-old-debate-of-image-manipulation/

Thought this might be a good forum to spark a discussion on the same. I remember Ganesh mentioning in a comment on one of my images about the difference between a Photograph and Digital Art
Roshan.Panjwani
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:55 pm

Re: Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Ganesh H Shankar » Thu May 28, 2015 7:33 am

Any thread on digital ethics/manipulation of reality will not conclude :) Invariably it ends with "my ethics" vs. "your ethics" and not with "THE ethics" for a reason.

To start with we need to understand and agree upon an acceptable definition for reality in photography. Once we agree on what is real in photography then it is easier to debate on manipulation of reality or several similar phrases. It is also very important to talk about manipulation of all kinds of reality, be it digital or optical. In general optimal manipulation is taken for granted. It is not fair to say optical manipulation is fine but not digital - which is lame. During initial years of transition from film/slide to digital, digital and manipulation were synonyms. Over the years correction started happening and is still happening.

Let us start the discussion,

So, what is real in photography? What is not manipulated ?

An obvious answer could be what we humans see. If we go with this definition most of the images of nature that we see accept today will get manipulated tag for following reasons. Here we need to consider optical manipulation too.

1. B&W images - aren't those manipulations? Nature is not B&W.

2. Optical manipulations

- Use of different optical filters - color intensifiers, polarizers, graduated neutral density filters, sunset/sunrise filters/81A/81C and various other filters sold by Singh-Ray/Cokin/B+W.... don't they manipulate an image? The same/similar results often get branded as manipulations if we use digital filters.

- Human eye is a wide-normal angle lens. Those smooth blur perspectives out of 300-600 f4 lenses, tilt-shifts, macro lenses etc., are all have to be optical manipulations. For example human eyes can't see perspectives like this one and those beautiful birds on lone perches with totally out of focus smoothly blurred backgrounds? Why are those not manipulations of reality? Of course they are!

3. Most of post processing softwares like for example Nik's software emulate lots of dark room techniques used in the past. This includes -

- Burning and Dodging. Ansel Adams said

Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.

Does history recognize Ansel's creations as manipulations?

- People used various ISO speed films to get different contrast/grain characteristics for artistic reasons in the past. Those are supported in software today. Of course post processing softwares like Adobe PS provides features using which a tiger's head can be replaced with a lion's but we are not talking about those obvious clone related manipulations here.

Now, rewinding back, what is reality and what is manipulation? Should we accept whatever done using optics is fine and the same thing in software a strict no no?

If what we humans see is not the definition of what reality is what else can we accept as reality?

Unless we arrive at a general consensus on what reality is we can't decide what manipulation of reality is!

Your thoughts are welcome!
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,

Image
Fine Art Nature Photography
User avatar
Ganesh H Shankar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Bangalore, INDIA

Re: Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Rajkumar » Fri May 29, 2015 8:42 am

Some thoughts ....
Many a times it can be demonstrated that brain has its own Photoshop !!! and corrects images in line with past experience and current patterns. Many illusions can demonstrate these effects. So reality is what we believe is real !!!!
There is means and there is the end.
The final creative output is the end. It should have ones heart, originality, expression etc in full force. This expression is what the artist was seeing visually as well as emotionally. Expressive art I believe depends on the self - awareness of the artist and control over the medium to turn it into expression : The means.

Control over medium has become easy over time. That does not take away from the artists creation. But there may be a case for "Kitsch" because of ease in control over medium ( again the means) .
Example
B n W darkroom control is a involved process and could take may be 5-10 years to master. You can probably do a 60% as good job with a instagram filter today. But my point is that can be done with Zero self awareness.
I submit that those 5-10 years discipline of controlling the medium can contribute to creating that self awareness and making you think why you are doing what you are doing.
I agree that self awareness need not come from the medium it can come from meditation on the subject as well. So one may be a very expressive photographer because of meditation on the subject and then using the convenience of Instagram filters.
So it is the "end" which is important the "means" means nothing :)

open to further views
Art is about what is inside rather than what is outside
Rajkumar
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:17 am

Re: Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Roshan.Panjwani » Fri May 29, 2015 10:59 pm

@Ganesh - Very interesting perspective on the definition of reality itself being vague. When I began photography (and used to shoot JPEG), I started off with the opinion of doing minimal post processing - lack of understanding of both a) the limitations of what camera can capture and b) post processing techniques as also the purported "I don't process my pictures too much" which led to this. Over time, I have grown to see the creative possibilities that exist with post processing and have also learnt basic techniques. However, I still prefer to try and do certain things with the camera itself, like blurring backgrounds, focussing accurately (there is limited scope to correct this in post-processing anyways).

Coming back to the manipulation of reality, I feel there cannot be general rules that regulate the extent of post processing, purely because the degrees of freedom are quite large. However, I do not agree with alteration of the context in which an image is made - e.g. superimposing images taken at two different locations, or taken at very different times - for example this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11994078@N04/16137582801/ the constituent images can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11994078@N04/16137582801/#comment72157649641142250. The photographer was quite upfront about it being a composite and very willing to share the constituent images, which I think is great. However, I think this might be a case of manipulation of reality, since the context is altered. Would be interesting to know others' thoughts.

@Rajkumar
Great thought on digital post processing being a much easier (and less involved for many) process - thus leading to a limited extent of self awareness about what one is doing. Will try to consciously put thought behind why I am doing what I am doing, going forward.
Roshan.Panjwani
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:55 pm

Re: Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Ganesh H Shankar » Sat May 30, 2015 7:51 am

Raj, agree with you and thanks for teaching us the new word Kitsch!!

Roshan, adding to what Raj has said, I think, yes edits involving compositions of multiple images definitely needs a mention since our viewers have a tendency to believe that an image is a single exposure. An ethical photographer I think needs to share such information when the context of the image sharing is generic.

Further, along the lines of Raj's views, in a photography with larger/deeper purpose the message (of course truthful) is all that matters than the technicalities. For example, it does not make sense to talk about quality/post-processing aspect of Kevin Carter's vulture and a little kid image. It does not make sense to talk about technicalities like pixellation, contrast/brightness, resolution etc.. !!

I now remember writing this four years ago.
Hmm, another note which I wrote 8 years ago on the same topic of ethics of post processing is here. May be some of my thoughts have changed during last eight years.
Ganesh H. Shankar
Wishing you best light,

Image
Fine Art Nature Photography
User avatar
Ganesh H Shankar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Bangalore, INDIA

Re: Image Manipulation or Manipulation of Reality

Postby Rajkumar » Sat May 30, 2015 11:05 am

Just to add the world most expensive photograph ever sold was this

"
#1 Rhein II - Andreas Gursky (1999) $4.3 million
The most expensive photo ever sold is a grey river beneath an overcast sky, taken by Andreas Gursky (who has two on this list). It was shot in 1999 and sold in 2011. Interestingly, Gursky photoshopped a factory and some people walking dogs out of the image. I am scratching my head…
"
I am not saying this automatically validates everything but more as an example of what is acceptable as " artistic liberty" in the art world and still be called a "Photograph"
Art is about what is inside rather than what is outside
Rajkumar
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:17 am









Return to Discussions on Creative & Fine Art Nature Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests