The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

[Ryan McGinnis]

A rather quick and somewhat provocative article -- and one that I fully agree with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth, it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.

http://www.bhinsights.com/content/myth-unmanipulated-image.html

I recently went to a talk put on by a Natty Geo photographer who went to great lengths to describe how he never digitally corrected any of his images (or cropped them), and how everything we saw on the screen was right out of the camera. His audience of mostly college students ate this crap up. As someone who used to work pre-press, it astounds me how uninformed some top-notch first-in-their-field photographers can be of how an image goes from their developed slide to a magazine spread or a digital projector screen or a digital image on their laptop screen. They get how a camera uses light to create an image on film or a sensor, but after that, they close their eyes and everything is Magic to them That Must Not Be Spoken About. Unless you are holding the undeveloped slide in your hand, the image has been processed. Scanning a slide or a neg requires further processing it by definition; how it is processed is up to the scanning technician and the scanning hardware/software. Getting images to look good even on good a Flexo press printing on heavy slick paper requires quite a bit of post processing -- it's just done by prepress folk, not photographers (who merrily go on their way thinking that their 'virgin' image remains unsullied).

 

[Wes Carter]

Agreed. I bookmarked that article because I've had that debate before.

The argument that the NatGeo photog should have been making is that he does LESS processing than many do. His assertion that there is none is rather disingenuous. And if he works for NatGeo, he definitely knows better.

 

[Dave Rennie]

Even in the film days, prints were enhanced by dodging, burning, etc. Print paper varied by texture, tone, etc. Film was push-processed or otherwise manipulated during the processing stage. Observers of these prints never complained about "manipulation." They simply appreciated a well executed image. The same should hold true today. Software has replaced darkroom technique, but the end result should be something pleasing to the eye.

As Don Peters (the author of the article) stated, manipulation to achieve a lie is a different matter, especially in the realm of photojournalism. Again, however, the purpose of the lie would be to deceive the viewer, not simply enhance the photo. I don't consider taking multiple pictures of a group of people, then manipulating the photo so that everyone has their eyes open or is looking at the camera as lying. I would, however, consider Photo Shopping a hefty tornado under a photo of a supercell to be lying.

 

[Jason Foster]

I hate to tell you, having been to many Nat Geo events here at their HQ. Not all of their photogs in the lecture circuit are super professionals. Some just have a decent collection of images. Most are damn good, but don't think ALL of ones featured are better than even some of the better photogs here on ST. There is a lot of money in the 'lecture circuit' and N.G. certainly uses it to their best advantage.

Bottomline for me is what do the peer review tone say. While every photog is free to do as he wishes regardless of what anyone else says, it is that of fellow professional peers, professionals and artisans alike that can bring an image to the forefront. Additionally the greater audience is also a big part. Whether an image is 'processed' or not is not so much the point as much as the honesty of saying to what lengths it was taken to get the final image. HONESTY is the point, no whether the image is 'actual conditions' or not, at least in my opinion.

 

[James Langford]

Excellent article Ryan, thanks for posting it. I agree with it, also.

Jason, I agree with your points, but have one comment. I think a distinction needs to be made between Fine Art/Stock work and Journalistic. Journalistic images, IMO, absolutely require integrity in processing. I believe a lot of news orgs (Routers, etc) have standards of what can and can't be done. Also, there have been some pretty big stories recently where photogs have gotten called out for crossing the line in editting.

For Fine Art, though, I just don't see why it matters. I personally always state with my images a rough idea of the steps I used for processing. But my personal feeling is that for Fine Art/Stock a photographer should be free to manipulate as they see fit. What's most important to me is the end result, and that the result matches what my eyes percieved (which of course, is going to be different than someone standing next to me). Some folks do a lot of heavy processing, and that's fine if it works for them.

 

[Jason Foster]

James...right on! It is different between the Fine Art and Journalistic side, and you certainly clarified the point.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

This thread reminds me of this:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

 

[Greg Campbell]

Even in the film days, prints were enhanced by dodging, burning, etc. Print paper varied by texture, tone, etc. Film was push-processed or otherwise manipulated during the processing stage. Observers of these prints never complained about "manipulation." They simply appreciated a well executed image. The same should hold true today. Software has replaced darkroom technique, but the end result should be something pleasing to the eye.

I know several film shooters who claim that their scanned images are 'realistic.' Forget subtle (and not-so-subtle) color and density shifts that occur even in a well calibrated scanner. Forget the slight color shift caused by the lens, old film, tired developer, etc. They choose to believe in the 'magic' mentioned above. "My images are real!" (Yet these same people go out of their way to shoot high contrast E6 film! Squeeze the ~13 stops the human eye can record in once scene into 5 stops and tell me it's 'real?' Yea... )

Without getting into a painful philosophic debate about what constitutes 'reality,' let me point out that film/digital and the human eye often render a given scene in entirely different ways, particularly when long exposures in dim light allow film to record color that we simply can't see. After unexpected color response, I'm most often surprised at the lightning detail film or digital captures - I see a bright flash that burns an afterimage of two or three branching bolts into my retina. The camera records a delicate spiderweb consisting of dozens, possibly hundreds, of faint bifurcating leaders. Which is 'real?'

As Don Peters (the author of the article) stated, manipulation to achieve a lie is a different matter, especially in the realm of photojournalism. Again, however, the purpose of the lie would be to deceive the viewer, not simply enhance the photo. I don't consider taking multiple pictures of a group of people, then manipulating the photo so that everyone has their eyes open or is looking at the camera as lying. I would, however, consider Photo Shopping a hefty tornado under a photo of a supercell to be lying.

IMO there is a point at which 'enhancement' becomes a lie. Radical tone mapping and local contrast enhancement, setting the saturation slider to '11,' etc. Obviously, everyone will have a different threshold at which a relatively accurate picture jumps the shark. I've sustained one or two 'hits' from purists and, in turn, the work of Langsford and Hollingshead is out of my comfort zone. (And I'm sure they don't give a fark about my opinion! At least they aren't yet adding dinosaurs and volcanoes to their pictures. )

With that in mind, may I suggest you folks read this fun, possibly thought provoking, article on the general topic. http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0410/ip0410-1.html

I like the essence of Ian's closing statement:"

...

But, as with many things in life, nothing exists in a vacuum. From these positive points, two counterpoints emerge, which I believe are worth considering.

One: We chose photography, not painting or sculpting or performance art—or for that matter, computer art. Maybe that should mean something.

Two: We chose nature photography, because we love nature. We love witnessing magical natural events, which reveal themselves only to the patient, dedicated, and observant. Are we doing those magical moments a disservice when we enhance or alter their reality on the computer?

So, the next time you pull up an image on your computer, think carefully before you begin editing. What kind of artist do you want to be? How much do you want the natural experience to shape your art? How much of your computer processing will you reveal to the public? Will you label “computer-enhancedâ€￾ creations as photographs, or as digital photo art? How forthcoming will you be?

...

 

[Wes Carter]

Excellent article Ryan, thanks for posting it. I agree with it, also.

Jason, I agree with your points, but have one comment. I think a distinction needs to be made between Fine Art/Stock work and Journalistic. Journalistic images, IMO, absolutely require integrity in processing. I believe a lot of news orgs (Routers, etc) have standards of what can and can't be done. Also, there have been some pretty big stories recently where photogs have gotten called out for crossing the line in editting.

I used to work for Reuters News Service as a stringer covering sports events back in the 1990's and early 2000's. When I worked for them we followed the NPPA (National Press Photographer's Association) code of ethics. Their stance on editing photographs used for news events was this: "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."


What this meant was that color balance, exposure, sharpening, and cropping could be done as long as it did not affect the story. You could not adjust the color balance of a photograph to add more red during the Florida wildfires in 1999 to make them more dramatic, but if you shot and indoor event you could adjust the white balance to make the photograph represent accurately what was seen. Photojournalism is not the place to express yourself artistically as James Langford pointed out. The lines are blurry at best and coupled with the highly competitive nature of the profession you get some people pushing the limits quite frequently.

 

[Darren Addy]

I liked that Ian Plant quote, Glen!

Those were both good articles. The B&H guy put the whole thing about as succinctly as I have ever seen.

 

[Todd Renshaw]

Just goin' really abstract here ... There was a time when cameras lagged behind what the human eye and brain could do with the same scene. Manipulation was the way to make up for the camera's shortcomings and bring the representation back closer to what reality was. Now, our technology has gone way beyond. Space telescopes can "see" in infrared and ultraviolet and beyond. Colors that we can't see without manipulation. (And how do we represent those alien colors in a way that isn't deceptive? Not sure it's possible. Maybe we'll be able to plug them directly into our brains someday?) And the consumer equipment is probably getting more skilled than our eyes too.

But back to the original Nat Geo photographer. Attempting to make your photographs as good as possible without resorting to post-processing is a noble goal, as long as that's all it is; a goal. I wouldn't gloat about it. (Whenever someone tries to convince you how much more integrity they have over everyone else, watch out.) Processing is a wonderful tool that can tease out important details. As with so many things, the correct amount is somewhere between too much and too little.