Surfing through various internet forums recently, I have noticed an argument that has resurfaced. This argument revolves around what people consider a manipulated image. We have all seen bad manipulations done for magazine covers, news articles, and even the odd internet article. Yet, this debate goes even further than simply removing a stray hair or masking out an unwanted building.
If we look at two of the extreme ends of this debate, there is the camp that wants photos right out of the camera with no post processing what so ever. The other end are those folks who don’t mind using tools like Photoshop, Nik Software, Photomatix, or even Picasa to modify their images in some form or another. Regardless where you fall in this spectrum, I would argue that we are all manipulating the image the moment we click the shutter button.
Why do I believe this? The simple fact is that no camera, no matter how technologically advanced, have the capabilities to capture what our eyes see and our minds interpret. We may try our hardest to reproduce what we are seeing with out eyes, but the fact is we are merely creating an interpretation. So where does the manipulation come in with the shutter click? It comes from the settings, extra lighting, and even filters we use to manipulate what the camera catches.
Here’s a simple example. You are shooting a beautiful tree at sunset. Your eyes are quickly adjusting between the lights and darks of the scene. You must carefully choose how you will expose this scene for your camera. So you dial in a specific shutter speed, aperture setting, and ISO level. You may add a graduated neutral density filter to help keep the sky in correct exposure with the ground. There might even be a polarizer filter added to help bring out more colors. All of these items may help you get the desired end result of a gorgeous image, but it is all stuff you are using to manipulate what appears on the memory card/film. Even specific films can be used to modify how a scene turns out.
A second example is shooting a moving body of water and using a slower shutter speed to make the water look smooth and silky. Sure this may enhance the scene and make it much more majestic, but you have manipulated the capture of time to enhance your end result.
So why is there such a huge debate if someone takes an image they worked hard at getting as close to perfect on their camera. Then they take that image, adjust some levels, add some contrast, and boost some color when they get to post processing. Do remember that post process manipulation has been happening for ages by some of the greatest photographers ever. The digital times just make it that much easier. If the end result is pleasing, why does it matter what tools were used in creating it?
This brings up the art debate that usually accompanies these types of discussions. Some people call it art when some manipulations takes place in post processing. Other folks call it photography so long as an image originates from a camera. Regardless of where one falls in this debate, the end result is an interpretation of the actual scene. A photo is a glimpse at a moment in time. It is a story. It is how we photographers tell our stories, our adventures, and our lives.
I believe Scott Fredrick said it best in his article about Photography without Labels. We need to stop bashing one another for how an image comes to be. The techniques and tools used are ultimately there for those that wish to use them. Nobody is saying you have to use this technique, process with this software, or even shoot on this brand of camera. What matters most is that the end result is pleasing to you and/or your clients. If you see something that intrigues you, then ask how the image was produced, and keep an open mind about it.
Ultimately, we are all fighting to tell our stories one photo at a time. Regardless if you do that with images right off the camera or you run them through various tools to produce your vision. The moment you click that shutter button, you have manipulated a moment in time to your unique take. Let’s focus on working together, sharing great photos, and producing great images for the world to enjoy. Bickering about the process just makes us look like kids fighting over the last cookie, and nobody wins that battle.
*The Current Photographer website contains links to our affiliate partners. Purchasing products and services through these links helps support our efforts to bring you the quality information you love and there’s no additional cost to you.
This is where you would expect me to tell you about my life, how awesome I am, or why I am so superior to other people in this line of business. I would enjoy telling you how I have wrestled grizzly bears 10 feet tall. Maybe you would like hearing how I have taken on Velociraptors in my days as a young man. Even better is the story how I have traveled to the furthest reaches of space to stop catastrophic alien invasions. The problem will be that you might not believe my awesome stories.
I will keep these awesome stories for the campfire though. I’m just a man, taking pictures, trying to make a living. I ditched my education in computers in favor of pursuing my passion for photography. I enjoy a good cold beer on a warm day. I have a fondness of the outdoors.. I have enjoyed years capturing life’s unscripted moments. Hopefully, I can enjoy many more years of slacking off without fear of those grizzlies taking me out before my time.
My Philosophy is to capture those non-scripted moments. To capture the little details that this world really has to offer. From weddings to insects, I enjoy capturing the life, the details, and the moments that come and go in a flash.
You’ve hit the nail on the head here Chris – I’ve read varying figures, but can’t a digital sensor record around 10-12 stops of light, and the human eye can detect 24+ stops of light? Also, the processing of the image will rely on human memory to recall the scene, which we all know isn’t entirely accurate…I’m always sceptical when people say that the shot is “straight out of the camera”, unless they shoot in .jpg, which means the camera is probably making a lot of processing decisions for them!
Interesting because I was JUST reading one of these debates on a forum I frequent. And I found myself saying “Who cares??!!” If you like the image, GREAT. If your client likes the image, even better! Everything is interpretation. Shooting in RAW is like giving yourself a canvas – it’s made to be tweaked to your vision. Shooting in jpg means giving processing control over to your camera.
It’s just like high end stereo equipment. Nothing translates the music ‘pure’. Each component adds its own sonic signature. You just have to decide if you like it or not and choose what appeals to you.
Just like photographs.
This post is absolutely fantastic. Most of what people are arguing about in terms of “purity” in imagery is moot by the clear examples that you give. Art is an interpretation. Art need not mirror reality, art is its own reality.
Thank you everyone for the support.
Completely agree with you. Choice of camera, lens aperture, ISO, etc all contribute to the final image. Digital darkroom is no different than the chemical darkroom except it doesn’t smell as bad. The only time this should be an issue is if the intent is to deceive.
Thank you Chris for this post. I have read entries on forums, and have read blogs that lambast other photographers/artists for using post-production software on their images. In my opinion, art is the vision of the artist, and whether they use photo manipulation or enhancing techniques, is their own business. I have seen stunning images straight out of the camera, as well as mind-blowing images that have been enhanced.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”