What’s Real
On several occasions I stated that I take no issue with any method of creating images, so long as their purpose is fulfilled. Indeed, the only plausible case I can think of for “unmanipulated” (more accurately: minimally manipulated) imagery, other than personal taste, falls within the narrow scope of photographs meant for evidentiary purposes.
Some weeks ago, I posted an image to an online forum where a fellow photographer commented (and I’m paraphrasing from memory) that for all my discussion of manipulation, my images still appear natural. Why wouldn’t they? I thought; I meant for them to appear natural. I realized later that there was a greater issue at play, though. In this day, we have come to associate manipulation with obvious — often egregious — visual effects and gimmickry.
To me, an image should represent a state of mind and a deeper meaning than its literal elements, and I will use whatever tools at my disposal to convey the mood and “message” I’m after. In so many other cases, it seems, the goal is to simply command visual interest by surprising or jarring the viewer, with no ulterior intent or greater purpose.
It would be futile for me to challenge anyone’s personal taste, methods, or motivations, but I do see a distinct difference between images carefully crafted by an artist to convey their own feelings and inspiration, and those merely seeking to compete for eyeballs.
In my work, I wish to reflect something of the experience of creation, discovery, and romance that I felt myself at the time of making the image. It therefore seems obvious to me that they should look natural, as computerized effects are not there to inspire me at the scene (and rarely do at other times, either). I create images to satisfy my desire to experience and to share my experiences, not to compete for “wows” and “+1s”, or to secure the employment of software developers.
Methods and tools come in to help overcome limitations to the expressive powers of the camera, and arbitrary qualities of the subject and light that may be extraneous to my interpretation. I use processing tools to distill the essence of what I want the viewer to feel, just as my own brain does when I experience fascination, joy, peace, or any other emotion inspired by seeing something unique, whether literal or symbolic.
The source of my inspiration may be inherent and obvious or it may be implied; it may be something common to all people or unique to my way of thinking. In other words: it is rarely a simple objective representation of what’s in front of the lens. My goal as an artist is to focus my viewers’ attention on those visual elements that inspired me, and overlay them with my interpretation in the hope that the viewer may experience what I have. Some of it can be achieved through composition alone, but not all.
What’s real about an image is never its objectivity, but how it is subjectively interpreted.
Evening Dune
Category: Featured, Thoughts and Musings
>> What’s real about an image is never its objectivity, but how it is subjectively interpreted.
Amen!
Amen to you. It’s also my feeling that people view ones images as “manipulated” when they have had a run in Photoshop. But I must say I agree with you. The pictures are not meant for evidence in a policecase, but to show the romance of the scene before one self when one went click on the shutter.
Outstanding post, Guy
I have had this discussion many times with fellow photographers. Its seems my photojournalist friends are the ones that take the most issue with manipulation. With my own work, digital manipulation is an essential (if not obvious) part of creating the piece. But my purpose is not to document, but rather interpret.
I think you said it best in your post: “I take no issue with any method of creating images, so long as their purpose is fulfilled.” We would all be better photographers if we concentrated more on what we were communicating, rather than the tools we use to communicate with.
Well said Guy, as usual. We each have our own reality. Five people will interpret the same scene five different ways. How we chose to present that interpretation is up to each of us. For me, remaining true to my vision is of the utmost importance.
The idea that perception and interpretation is different for everyone is rooted deeply in our biology. As you know, the light of any given scene excites cells in our eyes, which send electrical signals to our brain, which are then used by millions–if not billions–of neurons to create an image. The basic principles of this process are identical in all humans, but to think that any two people would perceive a scene *exactly* the same way is a little presumptuous. The same goes for all of our senses.
I’ve always applauded you for being vocal about this subject, and I think that this is a well-written and timely post.
-Greg
I agree. I too prefer a natural looking photograph, but other want their images to look highly manipulated. To each their own. I see photographs created by some photographers that, to me, look terrible. But I also see artwork from painters, sculptors and pencil artists that I think look horrible. Different people want to express different things. If you like what you see, great. If you don’t like what you see, that’s great too. If nothing else, seeing something you don’t like takes you out of your comfort zone. It’s good to do this on a regular basis.
Have Fun,
Jeff
Another well express post, Guy. As I’ve total people who ask me, no image you see is reality. Every digital image is manipulated, either by the camera, by the photographer, or by both. I wrote about this myself on my blog (http://joebeckerphoto.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/what-is-reality-what-is-art/).
As photographers, as artists, we hopefully create the images as an expression of ourselves – our point of views, our emotions, etc. You clearly do so, and that is why our art is so pleasant to look at, at least for me.
Beautifully put!
That’s an often-asked question – is that how it looked? I’m amazed at how nitty-gritty some people want their answers – was x item, this color or did you change it? Perhaps the answer should be a simple ‘do you like it this way, I do.”
I’ve always been up front that I’m not a photo-journalist so I feel free to make the image as I want it. Your explanation verbalizes and resonates with my feeling on the matter.
Bravo for this post!!! I absolutely agree with everything you wrote!
Great sentiment Guy. Everyone seems to have their own definition of manipulation. I tend to become agitated when people ask if my images are “Photoshopped”, as if I’m adding a third eye or erasing things. I’ve never heard anyone complain or ask if a particular film image was “darkroomed”. Your article should be required reading before someone enters a gallery.
I enjoyed this post, Guy. It reminds me of the age old debate between artists, and now photographers: is art about pleasing the artist or the viewer? Throughout history there appears to be a consensus among great artists that the art which is most true to art is that which is meant to convey the feelings and inspiration of the artist, rather than that which is produced to sell the most or become the most popular. Art that seeks popularity, it could be said, is just commercialism in another guise.
Also, I particularly like what you said about your “manipulation” of images with the intent that they look natural. This is where the Group f64 members all came to agreement. Whether Ansel Adams “manipulated” “Moonrise, Hernandez” or not is irrelevant. He wrote that his intent was to convey his experience at the time. Thus he is in accord with Edward Weston who contact printed the majority of his photographs. Whichever way you do it, either through post-processing or through printing raw or nearly raw files, if the results look “natural” then you are practicing straight photography. Too many people whose images are obviously way over-processed and no longer look natural, use Ansel’s “Moonrise” as an excuse to overdo post-processing. On the other hand I know a very fine quality photographer, my father mentored, who spends 2-4 hours in Photoshop on each image he prints, yet his photographs look more “real” than most. The point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with Photoshop or post-processing. It is equivalent to the dodging and burning in the darkroom by the old masters. What some of the purists take issue with and backlash against is the overkill with intent to “wow” the audience. Such practices historical figures probably would not call art. On the other hand, those who eschew the term “art” as something that has lately become tainted because of post-processing and hold their noses in the air, saying they are photojournalists and more pure than the rest of us, are acting a bit silly and self-important in my opinion. There’s also nothing wrong with other forms of art and photography such as impressionism, collage, and other methods of altering or combining photographs in Photoshop, as long as they are not done with intent to deceive the viewer into believing they were “natural” or made one way when they were actually made another.