Deep thoughts for a Tuesday evening...

[John Allen]

Digital Post Processing - wonderful or the end of photography as we know it? At what point does a photograph stop being a photograph and become an illustration? Have all of these awesome photo editing tools turned photographers into illustrators or designers? Will photography, as Ansel Adams or W. Eugene Smith knew it cease to exist?

 

[Pete Askew]

I think there is a continuum when it comes to digital post-processing (PP) and in some ways there are analogies with the older analogue workflow. When you consider that there were always those artists / practitioners who wanted to print a whole frame with no or little dodging and burning and were almost religious in their need to keep all that the camera captured ,believing it unacceptable to not get the framing and exposure 'right' at the time of exposure. Others were happy to crop and dodge and burn the image during during print making to achieve the image they had either visualised or had discovered during the process (Bill Brandt etc). Maybe they even went on to tone, had colour, scratch etc the print. Others went further and created composites of image or even montages, maybe even combining the photograph with found objects to the extent that they came to appear more a sculpture than a simple, flat image.

The same I see for digital PP and one reads / hears the straight-out-of the camera mantra being extolled in this work-flow (although this becomes more and more meaningless as time goes by). Others use the digital tools in a similar way to they did (or would have done) with the various analogue methods (cross processing, bleach bypass, dodging, burning etc), but with maybe more precision and reproducibility (I probably fall into this camp). Others take it further, creating digital layers to improve either the dynamic range or depth of focus (we use the latter in our technical work even). Some photographers / artists either composite images or manipulate them to a lesser (simple correction of geometry as one might have done with an enlarger or correcting optical 'defects' and artefacts) or greater extent (distorting elements whether to change someones shape - even colour analogue prints used to get re-touched to stretch the legs of a model etc - or maybe do something more extreme - a comparison with analogue would be the Polaroid SX70 manipulations of artists like Ralph Steadman) or even using the photographic elements as the starting point for a final fantasy.

As with all these things, whether in the analogue or the digital domain, they can either be done well or not so well and when done well I often like (or at least appreciate) them all. And, of course, some are overdone or over used - look at the endless streams of images from cameras and phonesthat have been put through the same old filters to tedious repetition, or even the pages and pages of shots from a Holga (it is blurry and vignetted and so it must be art!). I think it is fine to explore these things but one hopes that something emerges that is genuinely new or interesting. These days it is so easy to publish ones work and there are so many images out there that it becomes hard to see the signal for the noise. But the signals are still there and some appreciate their fidelity!

Or something like that!

Paranoids Maggie Thatcher.jpg

 

[John Allen]

...Or something like that!

Paranoids Maggie Thatcher.jpg

To me, your sample photo is a clear indicator of something that started as photography, but is now no longer photography even though it is clearly art. It started out as a photograph and then it became more about the manipulation than the photo. This is a tricky subject. I don't consider samples of extreme hdr to be photography, although in some cases it can be considered art. However, while different in many ways, it is still only a matter of merging photos. Is that any less photographic than panoramic shots or focus-stacked images where multiple images are merged to create one photo? I think most people would emphatically state that a focused stacked macro is photography, even if it is 50 stacked images. The same goes for panoramas, no matter how stretched. HDR is a bit hard to accept, but I guess it's no less photography than IR photos. Take a photograph of a happy family, paste it in the background, cover it with text advertising the latest wonderful vacation spot and the resultant image is clearly an illustration. Take that same photo and put only a little text over it, without all of the other stuff and is it still photography or is it an illustration? Does it only cease being photography when you put something with it or does it cease being photography at some other point of manipulation, like the portrait of Thatcher?

 

[Pete Askew]

Yes, I see what you mean, Alan, where on that continuum does one thing become another. I guess I tend to think of the image as the the end point more than the way I got there but you are right, at some point one of the factors involved in the process becomes more dominant than another. I see a clear difference between the images I make professionally (these need to be forensically accurate) and those that a make personally (where I either create something that I find visually interesting or attractive or associated with a concept I have). Both are photographs but they are clearly at quite different points of that continuum even though the same equipment might have been used to start the process off. Interesting stuff.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Does it matter? Seriously, does it matter if a photo becomes an image for an illustration? Does it matter that some people hold manipulation of an image above the original image? There is an art to both, and as long as we are 'doing art', then we are doing something useful.

I play acoustic guitar. I also play electric guitar, the signal of which is sometimes passed through filters which can change the original sound file beyond recognition. But hopefully I still use that sound in an artful/meaningful way. It's all music. Was Hendrix less of an artist than Segovia? I say no.

Do what you are moved to do - therein lies the authenticity.

 

[Pete Askew]

What a interesting thread this is proving to be. Thanks, John.

 

[Rense Haveman]

Taking this one to another level: the Wednesday....


Taking a photo as such is an abstraction of reality, and as a spectator you never know whether what is depicted is the truth or not. Or I think I should say: you know absolutely sure that what you see is only a part of reality. For a proper interpretation of a photo you have to know what is outside the frame really.

As an example: I've read several E-books these days (plenty of time) by Eric Kim, a young, famous (at social media) street photographer. He makes great photos, and what is even better, he's a trained photographer who publishes free e-books (http://erickimphotography.com/blog/books/). In one of his books (the contact sheet one, http://www.erickimphotography.com/Downloads/Books/Street Photography Contact Sheets/Street Photography Contact Sheets.pdf, example 24), he shows a picture of a lonely man in a train, staring out the window. It's a great photo, imo, it's full of loneliness, you wonder what he is thinking about, and where he is going on his one... It evokes a strong emotion! From the contact sheets it is clear though that he is travelling with his wife... The point Eric makes here is that it is important to leave things out the frame to let the photo tell a story.

My point here: it is unfair to narrow this discussion down to the PP, electronic or not. You should talk photography if you want to get an answer.... Photography itself is about making illustrations, and not necessarily of the truth...!

 

[Rense Haveman]

Or, in his book on street photography aphorisms: "Photography is about the way you look at things, not the way things look."

I tend to agree....

 

[Pete Askew]

Excellent points, Rense and I look forward to exploring those e-books. As most of you know, one of the things that fascinates me especially in a photograph is this sense of narrative and, in particular, the way you can exploit it to create, or leave open to supposition, such a narrative. One way is by choosing what is contained in the frame (as Mr Kim appears to have done). Another might be to process the image to shift emphasis or create a mood. You can also stage something that is open to interpretation - and it is this that I try to do at times.

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/the-keeper-of-secrets.11188/

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/night-in-venice.7621/

 

[John Allen]

Interesting thoughts, Rense. So let me ask you a question. Is the image on the right that had a filter applied to it in Photoshop still a photograph?

 

[Rense Haveman]

Yes. Definitely! I could make it even more ridiculous by burning or dodging to such an extent that the whole picture is only black or only white. I do not know why I should do it other then making my point, but allas! I think it is still a photo.

The whole discussion though reminds me of the species debate in biology. I happen to be biologist, and I wrote a paper on species concepts. I am limitless interested in this question what a species is. Let me tell you: it is much more complicated than the question about where a photo stops to be a photo. But I came to the conclusion species come in kinds.... And photos come in kinds alike. Just as some (cryptic) species are not readily recognised as (seperate, in this case) species, some photos are not easy to recognise as such. Still they are. Processed, mutilated perhaps, changed beyond recognition.... They're still photos, while made with the camera.

If I only would give the charming boy in your original would give a pair of glasses, or an earring, nobody would say it's not a photo. But you can't give an amount of change that is allowed. 50%? Then what's exactly the difference with 51%?

I think that you (we, mankind, whoever) should be honest about the photos we publish. Do they give a fair impression of reality, or are you tricked? Please tell whenever you pull my leg, and it is not a problem at all. It's like Robs guitars (I happen to play both acoustic as electric as well, though not half as skillful as Rob): the guitar sound may be altered to distortion, or even beyond recognition (it's quite easy to apply filters and make organ music with an electric guitar), but it is still guitar playing.

Your photo shows the art of photography. Only not only photography: there is some cheap trick going on. I could tell you from the beginning. But I think it is still a photo, although I don't think that is very important.

I mean: that it is a photo, not me thinking that. I think.

But who am I?

 

[Pete Askew]

It really is an interesting debate. I too am a biologist, a microbiologist in fact, and concept of species is a good analogy, especially when overlaid with transition, mutation, evolution etc. Many years ago we used to copy figures for reports and presentations using ortho lith films to give black and white line work with no shades of grey. Photographs of people etc made using this process are very interesting and can be very potent, producing graphic images not unlike the the transformation used above. With care, their photographic origin could be retained and maybe that is where this boundary starts to fracture; at what point can you no longer tell how the image was made - is it a drawing, or a transformed photograph. Of course from the image perspective it doesn't matter (unless maybe one was trying to deceive, and even then, does it matter?) but is an interesting question none-the-less.

 

[Rense Haveman]

Reading things back, I apologise for being somewhat strong in my argumentation: I don't have the purpose to hurt, overwhelm, or otherwise dominate people or the discussion. So please forgive whenever I made you feel bad.... And if it applies, tell me where things went wrong in the text, please.....

 

[John Allen]

Rense,

Not surprisingly, I don't agree that the result of altering the photo is still a photo. I like to draw and could take that photograph and a couple of colored pencils and make a drawing almost exactly like the second photo. Would my drawing be considered photography? And, if not, why should we consider the PS created one photography?

 

[Rense Haveman]

The one is made with a pencil, the other with a camera. Without a camera, the last would not have been. If you would have drawn it, it would be a drawing.

Think of it the other way around: there are several artists out there - somewhere - who make paintings or drawings which look like a photograph. See e.g. http://twistedsifter.com/2012/04/15-hyperrealistic-paintings-that-look-like-photos-campos/

Would you consider these paintings/drawings? Why then not the other way around?

 

[John Allen]

Reading things back, I apologise for being somewhat strong in my argumentation: I don't have the purpose to hurt, overwhelm, or otherwise dominate people or the discussion. So please forgive whenever I made you feel bad.... And if it applies, tell me where things went wrong in the text, please.....

No offense taken, whatsoever. The point of the discussion is to get other people's opinion, no matter how strongly held.

 

[Pete Askew]

I didn't tread this as being too strong, Rense. I thought they were interesting arguments and certainly made me think more about the whole subject. I guess that like a photograph, photographers are also part of a continuum from straight representation to something more conceptual. For work I am firmly at the representational end but for personal stuff I aspire towards the other end (and moving further that way every day - or maybe it's just my eyesight failing!).

In some aspects we are picking up themes that were explored here some time ago and which I find fascinating.

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/shadow-dance.1486/

See the comment from Darren and I think you can see what I mean about a continuum.

Thes rest referred to are here:

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/galleraki-nights.1489/

 

[Pete Askew]

Consider also the work of Gerhard Richter with his photorealism series and his blurred photorealism and the boundary becomes less and less clear.

 

[John Allen]

The one is made with a pencil, the other with a camera. Without a camera, the last would not have been. If you would have drawn it, it would be a drawing.

Think of it the other way around: there are several artists out there - somewhere - who make paintings or drawings which look like a photograph. See e.g. http://twistedsifter.com/2012/04/15-hyperrealistic-paintings-that-look-like-photos-campos/

Would you consider these paintings/drawings? Why then not the other way around?

What if the drawing is of a photograph? Why would it make a difference if one is done with a pencil and the other is done with Photoshop if both final images are identical? I'm not a biologist, but I'll play along. At what point in evolution does a species like a lungfish become an amphibian instead of being classified as a fish?

 

[Pete Askew]

Oh it's much more complex than that I'm afraid. If you think of strains or varieties, at what point do you stop lumping them together as a single species and start a new species. When you have animals that can either interbreed or not interbreed it can be quite easy to distinguish one from another (despite physical differences - Chihuahua vs Great Dane) but at a finer level and with plants and microorganisms it can be quite a tricky proposition. And even from one Order to another there can be issues.