We recently filmed a video on the validity of Peter Lik's newest "photograph" of the moon, and it got us thinking: how far is too far when it comes to Photoshop?
I'm not going to transcribe the entire video as it's a pretty long discussion, but we all agreed that different genres of photography call for different levels of reality. Landscape photography is one of those strange genres where opinions differ greatly. Some photographers believe that slight color, clarity, and dodging and burning are the only things that should be done, while others, like Elia Locardi, have no problem focus-stacking, blending time, and replacing skies.
Moving into other genres like sports or photojournalism, post-processing becomes far less lenient, and most publications may only allow basic global adjustments and simple dodging and burning.
Retouching in the beauty and fashion world has always been a hot topic. Some say that photographers have created a false sense of reality about what women actually look like, while at the same time, beauty products and plastic surgery are also pushing the boundaries of what is real and natural.
Watch our discussions above and then let us know what you think. Do different genres of photography call for different levels of post-processing? Should we believe anything that we see anymore? Should we even call ourselves photographers at this point or are we all digital artists?
NO amount of Photoshop is "too much", if you title it as digital art.
But if you click multiple photos, at different perspectives, focal lengths, times, or locations, ...STOP CALLING IT *A* PHOTOGRAPH.
It's not *a* photograph any more. It's a BUNCH of photographs that you collaged together. There's no grey area.
The problem is that some people cling desperately to the title of "photograph" when it is time to classify their artwork. Why? First, the title "photograph" currently bears a stronger allure than the title "digital art".
Second, however, is the fact that inherent in the title "photograph" is a belief system which inclines a viewer to just assume an image is a depiction of the actual scale, timing, and perspective etc. of a scene, a moment in time.
That's what makes it a LIE to to photoshop totally different images together, and hang it (them) in a gallery but not say anything. You're abusing that "I want to believe" human nature, in order to add allure to your image(s).
People often make the argument, "all photos are edited, RAW or JPG, so therefore all 'purists' are hypocrites."
What this argument fails to understand is the history of this "faith" that a viewer has in a photograph: everybody KNOWS photos are "developed". That's how negative film worked in decades when photography became available to the masses. (Kodak Brownie, etc.) So tonal manipulation during development & processing was assumed.
So indeed, all photos are edited. But that's not what the argument is about. It's about your choice of artistic medium.
Digital art can be very beautiful. It can also be cliche or just plain bad, like any photograph can be. but that's just the birth / growing pain of a new art form, and the bell curve of the different skill levels.
But I think it's time for "digital art" to stand on its own two feet as an artistic genre, to stop pretending to be something it isn't, and to earn its respect as an art form without the use of deception.
To be blunt, some artists do enjoy diving into Photoshop and letting their IMAGINATION take the wheel, creating whatever imagery they dream up. Bravo! I hope your artwork is displayed in many galleries and you receive the admiration and respect you deserve.
Some artists simply enjoy the challenge of capturing *a* photograph, with a single click, and this "constraint" is what fuels their creativity. (Kinda like how using a prime instead of a zoom can help you learn to frame your shots better.)
Unfortunately, there's a third category of artists, the ones doing damage to BOTH artistic mediums without even knowing it: these are the people who get frustrated when they don't get a photo that does justice to either their vision, or the scene itself before them. Or, they missed "the decisive moment", as Henri Cartier-Bresson called it. They either timed an action shot wrong, or they got totally skunked on a gorgeous sunset or night sky. THESE artists go into Photoshop and "fake" it, to produce the image they failed to capture in the field, ...and then they present it as *a* photograph, with no disclaimer, or sometimes even a lie about how the conditions DID align perfectly and they "got the shot"...
...You did NOT get *the* shot. ;-)
I really don't like a lot of photoshop stuff, but I am a sucker for a good photo montage, and seeing as its the 21st century I feel I need to accept sop=ething done digitally as well as with scissors.
There was an article here on FStoppers a year or two ago that showed how some digital artist created a gorgeous oriental river/lake village scene from scratch in Photoshop. The final result was breathtaking, and the skill of the artist was masterful.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it. Hopefully someone else here remembers it?
The thing is, that type of artist knows that what they're producing is not "a" photograph. So they don't try and pass it off as one. Or, if someone mistakes it for a photograph, they're PROUD to disclose that it's entirely a product of their own imagination and creative skill.
This is the polar opposite of the artist who shoots mostly "plain" photographs, and then slips in a few highly photoshopped ones here and there, but doesn't say anything, and when asked about it, gets either defensive or flat-out lies.
Respect for your art is out there, if you want it, no matter what your craft. But in this digital age, it's actually going to be harmful to your reputation if you don't own up to WHAT your preferred form of art actually is.
Regarding Ansel Adams:
He used "every trick in the book" when it came to tonal manipulation, however if you read his in-depth books about actual processing / developing and printing, he was AGAINST distortions or other wild edits that betray the original scene. Case in point: One of his most famous images, "Moonrise Hernandez", has a moon that is just a little white dot. He certainly had "every trick" that could have allowed him to re-photograph the moon with the longest lens possible, and then splice the negatives together so perfectly that nobody would have ever know.
Indeed, even Ansel drew the line somewhere, it seems.
I've just broken my own rule about photoshop (although in Lightroom)!
My daughter took a photo within a restaurant while on a photowalk in Amsterdam. My chance it really has the look of a dutch painting. So I have removed a person on the edge of the frame who distracts from the composition, and I used healing and adjustment brushes other than that it is just the usual exposure/clarity/highlights/shadow adjustments
But we now have 2 versions of the 'street version' with the person in frame and the 'art version'
Watching this video right now, it's a good debate.
There was a trend in the video about photoshopped vs staged images. They are both "fake", example Lebron James being cut out of an image and put way higher up dunking on 5 guys or him being suspended on ropes on set and raised up.
I think the debate is if artist do this and insinuate its real thats the problem, regardless of the genre.
I'm glad you guys touched on Nat Geo, I think you guys should do a video on Nat Geo or other companies that do contest. I've entered some Nat Geo ones and stuck to my inturprritaion of the rules, which was to barely anything done to the image, but if I compare what the camera got vs what I saw its two different things. Now their rules state not to do heavy handed work but how far is to far, there is never a before and after example.
Here is an example of what I submitted to Nat geo vs what I felt I saw/what I edit and sell my image like.
On the left is my Nat Geo submission, I avoided bumping the contrast, I avoided punching the colour vibrance, I did no clone stamping. I did dodge and burn areas of the image to get it away from being so flat, this is what helped with the colour saturation.
On the right is what I feel like I saw, it felt more vibrant, it felt sharper, it felt more contrasty, obviously in my non submitted one I retouched the ground and pumped up the beam. But my outlook is that I don't like man made stuff in photos, like footprints, or trash. The beam got stronger and weaker at different points so I thought why not boots it up.
Anyways beyond the change to the beam and the stamping I wonder if my image would be considered to be edited to much for Nat Geo.
Especially since Ive seen other submissions and even winners that look rich and vibrant more so than my own.
I am really glad you guys brought up action sports.
As someone who shoots a lot of freestyle mountain biking I also compete professionally myself and I would say there is not allowance for photoshop. Looking at those wake board photos instantly just makes me think "who cares" because it wasn't real.
In the action sports world there's a mutual understanding and respect that goes towards each of our photos. At the end of the day you can't fool any of us. The general public for sure. But the respect you would lose if you put a photo of yourself that wasn't real, they would call you out.
I do feel like in landscape photos you can enlarge the mountains, or the moon, to an extent. If you want to better represent what you saw and felt, that's great.
Unfortunately with action shots, you just can't fool the action sports community, especially when we athletes take a lot of pride in what we can do. We don't want to lie about it. There's just such an awesome feeling about having a real genuine photo of yourself to display on a wall. (This is me in the photo, photographer is unknown, from an event in mammoth California in 2014)
Once a photograph ceases to be a captured moment in time and becomes digital art work, it is too much for me. Most of the shots I see don't look like something anyone could observe naturally. Most of the models look like porcelain dolls. Too much, too boring.