When creating imagery of any night landscape, you are taking your camera and the other equipment you own and pushing them to their limits. With that in mind, should photographers be upset when their favorite imagery is put together in post?
What if elements from the image are not in the same scene at the same time, do we have an obligation to state this or should we let the image and it’s creator stand on their own merits?
If you’ve ever photographed any nightscape, the Milky Way, or astrophotography image, you’ve probably learned that there is only so much a single photograph can bestow on a final piece of art. As you venture down this road there will be a number of ways that your creative output will become better and be invigorated by the increases in your technical aptitude behind the camera and in post. These combined eventually allow us to start creating imagery that meets our artistic aspirations. What if your aspirations are not based on the scene that you have in front of you, and you want to go beyond the “reality” of the place?
Stars And Fire Over Yellowstone Lower Falls - A simple six image panoramic image taken within 3 minutes from beginning to end.
When shooting a landscape without the full effect of the sun, we see a vastly different space in non-light-polluted areas that has soft blue hour and golden hour light, directional lighting with filling ambient from the moon, hard light from a full moon, and lastly almost no light at all besides the star light itself. These different types of lighting shape the landscape in new ways and can allow us to create art our eyes have never really experienced before. The technical knowledge to take advantage of these different types of lighting allow photographers to create surreal scenes that emote a different level of engagement with our natural world and cities alike. The issue that people seem to have is that these images aren’t always able to be created with one single frame, but does that matter?
Photography is a scientific art that gets stretched more with each new tool that’s created. Today we are looking at better sensors with better dynamic range that are still simply tools integral to capturing our vision of a subject. Night time imagery is a combination of in-camera capture and then the corresponding post production to create engaging — as well as inspiring — imagery. These scenes are sometimes captured within minutes, hours, days, or even longer. They also don’t have to be created from the same scene if our compositing end goal is stretching the “reality” of the place. The crux of the matter is: if the image is completely believable, should a viewer be told that it was taken maybe years apart? Does it matter if it was hours apart, or in a different a different place if it serves the creator their vision.
Between Night And Day - An eighty six image panoramic composite capturing the sky 2 hours prior to the foreground and approximately 15 degree clockwise rotation from sky to foreground.
I believe that there is no obligation to explain the creation of an image if you are not teaching that knowledge. The viewer is not empowered by having the information to capture the image behind the art itself. The impact is many times lessened with the lack of wonder that’s been created and the value of the imagery is lowered. Does this mean that EXIF details and composition techniques should be moot behind imagery? That, I believe, is up to the photographer whether to decide to share or not. Part of creating is wonder and the impact of that wonder on others, and that for me is the most meaningful part of photography.
if it's fine art, that's ok, if not, i don't think that's good, it will make others misunderstand the real scene
Honestly, I don't create images for other people I do so because I like to create images. Medical photographers need to shoot what is there accurately (my main profession). Photojournalism should be held to a higher standard because violence is often the product of lies and rumors (photographed wars in the 80's). The the rest is fair.
Pictorialism rose from the earliest days of photography and never went away. It has resurged in different forms, particularly as new aspects of the craft were invented. People who don't understand that photography has since infancy included the creation of images rather than the recording of reality need to study the history of what they think they're doing.
this is absurd. Almost all photography contest including Sony awards, nat geo and many other contest ban all composites. Most altogether ban software like topaz all together. This is done by checking metadata and proves their is a prestige involved in being a real "photon grapher"
I agree with this for the most part. I think that the creation of art has no limits and no "rules." The "artist" should be able to do as they wish to reach their end vision and goal. That being said, I think the artist has an obligation to disclose the way the image was made if asked, or at least be truthful in his/her answer. I don't think it would be good taste for someone to lie about the creation of their work - composited or not. That, I think, is the line that should not be crossed.
No. The artist has no such "obligation to disclose" anything. What do you want? A "WARNING: This image may not represent reality" sticker on every picture? There is no moral obligation of any such upon artists, nor should anyone try to make one up. Ever, because that is what would be immoral. That's what the Communists of the USSR did.
this is absurd. Almost all photography contest including Sony awards, nat geo and many other contest ban all composites. Most altogether ban software like topaz all together. This is done by checking metadata and proves their is a prestige involved in being a real "photon grapher"
If a person enters a contest and those are the rules of the contest, then the entrant is obligated to conform to the rules.
That has nothing to do with an artist having a general "obligation to disclose" anything about his art.
There are doers and moaners, to a doer its creating to a moaner its probably outside there skill set so they moan and piss the doers off, or try to. stop caring if its a composite or not just enjoy the picture or walk away because its not going to stop
As long as you're upfront about it then I guess so.
Technique should not be the goal but capturing our vision using whichever tool we need to reach our purpose. I respect both the artist who has the ability to handle PS and imagine impossible scenes and the one who has the technical control to capture the scene in a single shot. However, I think that a composite image should be shared as such or at least the photographer should be honest if someone asks. Why would an artist hide his creative process? There are great artists who have built their career composing impossible scenes. Those who create composites should feel proud of their skills as well as those who make a single shot using the huge range of available tools and techniques. I teach photography so I imagine that my words are based on the open and sincere way in which I communicate with my students. I do not believe in hiding "technical secrets" or in top secret tools. I believe in visions. This is what at the end, can make us interesting and unique. Please excuse me if my English is not perfect. Not my native language :)
I don’t understand the defiinition of ‘cheating’ here. What is meant by cheating? It’s important to define wht it means and then how it applies to photogrpahy both in general and with regards to modern digital retouching. It’s kind of a meaningless question.
this is absurd. Almost all photography contest including Sony awards, nat geo and many other contest ban all composites. Most altogether ban software like topaz all together. This is done by checking metadata and proves their is a prestige involved in being a real "photon grapher"
If it is for landscape and creating a pretty picture then i think it is okay. But it is blasphemous in astrophotography. I cannot count how many nights i hear stories of tourists who come to see the space scapes that they saw on instagram feeds..and theh do not see it. Because it is not real. It makes astronomy knowledge difficult to convey, it adds to the compounding ammo that is used by the flat earthers and idiots who believe the moon landing was fake. You give them more ammo to throw at discrediting science.
Astrophotography as a genre is not one without editing but composite is not the same as stacking or noise removal, composites are fine to be called artful and beautiful landscapes but they are not astrophotography
It reminds me of the 2006 news story about the reuters photographer who was fired for their image about beirut. Rightfully so. The photo industry has struggled with that the same way news has struggled with fake news. This is Likely to be an unpopular opinion but those are my feelings on it. Call it a pretty art landscape picture but it is not astrophotography just the same way the beirut image was not appropriate to be in the news and called editorial
a little off topic, but as a composite photographer, who mostly does toy photography, I get a good amount of flak about compositing. Like people ask the good old question "is that photoshop?" and then dismiss it like it took absolutely no skill or ability to create an image. This kinda makes me sad.
Let's make this simple (and also for the tl;dr crowd)... If the elements were shot at the same location without moving the camera, then compositing it is still a photograph. IF the elements are from different locations and times, then it is PHOTO ART and should ethically be labeled as such. No matter how much creativity and composting skills you put into something, for it to be a photograph it should represent a specific moment and experience in time (that moment can be 1/8000 of a second or 10 minutes compressed into a still).
this is absurd. Almost all photography contest including Sony awards, nat geo and many other contest ban all composites. Most altogether ban software like topaz all together. This is done by checking metadata and proves their is a prestige involved in being a real "photon grapher"