Capturing reality was never photography's sole purpose—it always flirted with imagination. But in an age dominated by digital tools and AI, how far can we push photographic art before it stops being photography?
When I began my meander down the Photon trail many years ago, I faced certain limitations. Most of those limitations had to do with my lack of knowledge about the photographic process, both in film processing and in printing, but I soldiered on, knowing that my destiny in life, or at least a significant part of it, was tied up in the art of creating photographs. I consumed information at a prodigious rate—like a sponge soaking up water. If there was someone who was an “expert” in the field and available to talk to or listen to, I was there, absorbing everything they had to say. When the technical sales representatives for Kodak, Beseler, or Omega were in my local purveyor of photographic goods, I was there, picking their brains—those who had one—for as long as they would allow me. The reader must remember that these were ancient times, photographically. We had just gone through a paradigm shift from black and white only as a consumer product to “natural color” (color negatives), as it was called, becoming popular. We were moving from C-22 and E-3 processing to C-41 and E-4, and then E-6 processing for color films. Interestingly, black and white films were readily available and haven’t changed significantly from those years. With the notable exception of T-Grain technology, black and white films still work just like they did when Tri-X Ortho and then Tri-X Pan came on the scene. At that time, the canny photographers of the day processed their own black and white films, and some even processed color films and printed from them in small darkrooms. Having said that, our limitations in that time frame were far greater than they are now.

This photograph, Narrows of the Virgin River, is the first photograph I ever made where I thought I had begun to explore the creative possibilities available to me and was one of the first large format images I had ever made that I liked. Interestingly, I used a very antiquated Crown Graphic 4x5 camera with very limited movements and an old 135mm Nikkor lens. So the sophistication of the tools you use has much less to do with realizing your photographic vision than your determination to find your own voice in your photographs. By the way, in this image, the wall in the distance was darker in tonality than the canyon walls nearest to me, so I used the very elementary tools we had at the time to create something completely out of rhythm with how the scene actually presented itself.
At that time, our materials for wet darkroom processing were much more limited than today, and digital photography wasn’t even a smile on a photographer’s face yet. As I read books by the great American photographers—Ansel Adams, of course, but also Edward Weston, Morley Baer, Eliot Porter, Paul Strand, and many others—I became aware that I wasn’t getting anywhere near the creative potential from my images that was possible.
The big creative question at that time was, “How far should we take the creative process?” There were, and still are, many people who think we should only show actual images as they came out of the camera—no burning, no dodging, etc. Many felt the presented image had to be exactly as the photographed scene or subject appeared, not even allowing cropping of the image.
At that time, a few very creative people figured out how to combine multiple images from different negatives onto one piece of paper and make it so seamless that it seemed to be a real portrayal. The now-deceased photographer and darkroom genius Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind.

Uelsmann’s work was always controversial to some but embraced by others. Some said it wasn’t an accurate portrayal of reality—well, no, it wasn’t. But anyone looking at it would immediately recognize that. Others were more subtle in their renderings.
Here, for your consideration, is an image of mine from many years ago. In the original image, the sky was blank with an even overcast, so the light was diffuse. But it was boring—so very boring—and I wanted to “kick up” the visual interest of it. I rustled around my file of sky images until I found one that I thought would fit and figured out a way to print it in.

The question for us is, does it change the character of the original image? Yes, it does. Next, does it lie about the location of the image or present something that never could be? No, it doesn’t. The scene is real, and the possibility of this sky happening is very real and promising. If one were to camp out there long enough, there probably would be a time when something like this—or even more interesting—could happen. And other than being visited by the occasional bobcat or elk, it would be a solitary stay!
Here’s another where I added a sky to an otherwise blank sky. The conditions were very harsh. A 40–50 mph gale was coming in off the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and it was so strong that it literally blew my tripod over before I could attach the camera to it. A large format camera in those conditions is a lot like having a kite attached to the tripod! There was a very cool sky above the structure, but the wind was blowing so hard that the sky rendered as a light gray blur on the original negative because the actual exposure time ended up being 90 seconds—not uncommon when using these large and unwieldy cameras. The problem was solved in the darkroom by creating a series of masks using a specialized darkroom film that allowed me to print an interesting sky into the image without leaving a halo around the trees on the structure or burning down into the structure itself. The goal was to add a sky and make it believable. Again, does it change the character of the image? Yes, it does! Does it misrepresent the scene and portray something that could never be? No, the scene is very plausible as presented. (By the way, in the darkroom print, there are 28 brown pelicans clinging to the sea stack for shelter from the wind!)

The advent of digital cameras, Lightroom, Photoshop, and a dozen other photographic software programs has changed everything. And with the rise of AI, the question is all the more pressing. How much is too much? There is no truly objective standard, as we have been able to alter photographs to suit our artistic preferences since photography began. However, I do believe that to be a truly photographic image, light must travel through an optical lens to a medium that responds to it and forms an image. I suppose anything is okay—I only ask that AI-generated images be labeled as such. While AI is very alluring and easy, there must come a time when AI images are differentiated from actual photographs because they are digital creations. There needs to be a clear understanding that an image was created using AI.
It’s an interesting phenomenon and time we’re living through. I have had people say that an image I presented had to be done using AI. When I reply that no, it was done using film, that usually settles the discussion. I make no assertion that one medium is superior to the other. My only intent is to spark discussion, and I welcome a civil discussion on the issue. I think it is important for us as photographers to come to a clear understanding of “How Much Is Too Much.”
(Info on the lead photograph: I had an okay but boring image made in the badlands of Northern Arizona, with a featureless sky. Many years earlier, I had photographed an annular eclipse at a state park near my home, but the images were of the sky only—no land under it. The two images were combined using Photoshop only.)
I get all of my expendable supplies like film, paper, and chemicals from B&H Photo Video in New York—great suppliers of almost any photographic item you would ever need.
Uelsmann photograph used with permission of the Jerry Uelsmann estate, Maggie Taylor - Administrator.
To each his own. For artistic fantasy work I get it when you make crazy montages. But when it comes to travel it's funny that the dealing with (/ waiting/ coming back for) circumstances most of the times is not mentioned in these discussions. For me that puzzle or surprise is the essence and most rewarding thing in photography. Also valuing the unique moment makes your work authentic and guaranteed for the future despite all the crazy development. Oh and a lasting joy in contrast with all the comparing to others and trends (which is perfect recipe for depression). I sure do edit though! Taking away distractions, add contrast to skies or shadows when I need etc etc. The border is not a sharp line, but for me it has to be in line with what was (in mood etc) and for sure not a drastic change in circumstances.
These composite images never stop being a photograph. In fact, when you combine two captures, the result is actually two photographs, not just "a photograph".
But of course they are not JUST a photograph ..... the resultant images are a combination of photography and digital art, and should always - yes, always - be labeled as such, so that no viewer could ever be passively misled into thinking that the scene in the images was the result of a single capture.
Composite images are truly wonderful, but it is unethical to present a composite image without making it clear to anyone and everyone that it is a composite.
I don't know about that.. What is the difference between someone with a new camera A with a great dynamic range in raw and someone with an older camera B using 2 exposures?
Yes I know. Dynamic range and composite artwork are the extremes, but there's also a lot of grey in the middle. Personally I find it sometimes okay to use a part from the same series because someone ruined the background by entering it (example). The unethicacal argument is relevant in news and sports (editing a ball in the frame for instance) though.
Leo dj, your camera A and camera B scenario concerning dynamic range and using two images to improve from camera B, I presume camera B is the same image at different exposures, I look at this as photo stacking and technically yes whether stacking for exposure or focus optimizations of an image are composite images. This however is distinctly very much different than compositing an image from two or more different elements to make up a unique or fanciful image. Which can be beautiful works and are fine with full disclosure! Whether the image is made manually composting or with AI processing I think viewers deserve to know.
“Not everyone trusts paintings but people believe photographs” - Ansel Adams
Post-processing tools and photoshop are amazing but when asked, did you use "Photoshop" in the making an image representing "Straight Photography" and are criticized as less skilled a photographer and using unfair advantages of computerized wizardry. Too many the term "Photoshopped" is used as a malicious term.
"Straight Photography" see Group 64 and of Friends of Photography for definitions.
Yes agreed, but like I said: there is a grey area where generate fill is (imho for my work) not that harmful when it comes to annoying details that were hard to avoid. Of course without changing the core of the photo. And with news and sports it's not done even.
Tom... as to whether AI or composited images should be labeled, I suppose it's a commendable idea, but probably hard to put into practice. I suspect we'll find out more as Facebook seems intent on labeling AI material... probably inspired by the backlash from AI generated political commentary, more so than composited landscape images. But what's real and what's fake is hard to define or draw boundaries. We live in an age of profound gullibility and naivety. 77 million people in the US voted for a pathological liar. Civility, honesty and integrity seem to have gone down the drain, no matter which side of the political spectrum. Unfortunately in today's world, most people (outside of other photographers) probably don't care whether your photograph is real or fake.
I hear you about the society trend.. USA mainly, but God knows what follows. Very concerning indeed. Sometimes I'm glad I don't have children really.
Ed Kunzelman wrote:
"77 million people in the US voted for a pathological liar."
Fortunately, Ed, 77.1 million people voted for the other guy, so our nation has been saved, at least for the next 4 years.
A blind photographer, that's odd..
Funny definition of being saved. He caused not only. mess in your country but in the whole world.
You obviously don't need to answer, Leo, but I'm really curious which country you live in? And how the United States is perceived from where you live? We here in the US tend generally to be isolationists, with little understanding of current events in other parts of the world. I am deeply concerned that the nationalist, anti-immigrant fears and hatred spawned by Trump have taken root throughout Europe. From what I can tell of elections in Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria, and Britain's leaving the EU, the far-right is gaining power and determined to divide the world into isolated tribes. So instead of peace and prosperity, we get anger and chaos.
Oh... so as to keep the conversation somewhat on track with photography, people see what they want to see in a photograph. No different than politics, you can label it however you wish, but everyone will make up their own mind as to whether it's real or fake. We have become a people so full of rigid opinions and bias, that the reality of facts is often neglected. I can't see how labeling a photo as AI-generated solves anything.
Hello Ed. Of course you are free to ask and I'm happy to answer. :) I live in The Netherlands and I can say that when I grew up in the 80s many people almost idolized everything coming from America (maybe partly my child perspective, but still I think that America had a good image). Don't underestimate the value of soft power (I think that's what it's called) of exporting popular culture.
These days are drastically (!) different. America is and probably always will stay a popular travel destination but I think it's very hard to find someone without a negative sentiment about the American society. If you'd ask some random person here chances are big they will sum up topics like: gun ownership, many unsafe parts, polarized politics (basically not functioning two party system because they don't want the other to have any succes, a divided country for the political preference), extreme medical costs, strange high amount of addiction to pain killers, we also don't understand why obesitas is such a problem there, very little vacation days, very conservative in our eyes and still racist under the surface, bad maintained roads at places, infra totally designed for cars only (hard to explain how different that is to dutch infra and pleasant city design), huge wealth inequality, not knowing any difference between slight left politics and socialism (or call it communism just that easy haha), very self centered and not very aware of the world around them etc. Personally I can agree to a certain extent with these images, but I know these are generalizations and America is a big place with many different places in it of course.
I think the thing we find strangest of all is to understand the moral of conservative Christian Americans (themes like looking after the poor, responsibility for the environment (stewardship is the Bible term I think?), caring about honesty, truth dignity etc. We just don't understand how people can vote for someone without any moral compass, lying all the time, not connecting but dividing, who has proven to be a danger for democracy. Anything the total opposite of someone to look up to or you want as an example for your children. It's surreal in our eyes!!
Yes, populist right wing parties are a big danger for Europe's unity. Vance was right about one thing in Munich; the danger for Europe is within. Ofc he ment it the different way ("woke" left) but yes, the danger does comes form inside namely the populist nationalist parties, sometimes even extreme right. That being said.... There are strong forces from outside trying to push people to that side with misinformation. Russian bots and even an American Vice president. He should have been kicked out immediately there. Excuse me..
Trying to interfere (destroy) European democracies like that! And then hearing that Americans found Zelensky being rude at his American visit. Again: hard to believe these things are really happening.
We all hope here the events of the last months will make Europe (or the free world with certain values with any country who wants to join) stronger and more united. I really think a lot of eyes have been opened and things won't be the same. It will result in new initiatives to be less dependent (safety, trade and tech, which will be challenging but things will definitely go in that direction even if things might change in 3 years an 10 months). Right now a lot of voters of those populist parties (nationalist indeed and also with a strange pro Putin or pro Trump sentiment) are really confused. A big radical party in my country doesn't know what to shout anymore because the sentiment has changed. People see we need Europe. Especially in a small country depending on international trade. Middle parties do well in times like this. I think this can turn out pretty well.
Trump uses 19th century power politics (I'm powerful and I take what you can get without caring for any moral value) but I really think this will cost America a lot in the future. Everything that has been built in 80 years (trade, allies with shared values, safety, human rights, aid) down the drain in a few months changes a lot. Other countries will reconsider their relationships. Will step in that space.
From my travels I met nice beautiful people everywhere including America! Please I hope not to insult people here. I only wanted to share honesty the sentiment I think most people over here have.
Forgive me my many typing errors and bad English. I don't know if such political talk is appreciated here. Personally I like to learn about people's perspectives.
I liked you philosophical ending where you made the bridge to Photography. :)
Thank you very much! I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write with so much thought and detail.
Those of us who support different policies than you are not blind, we just want different things. I do not want a United States that is equal partners with all the other countries in the world. I want to be a part of a United States that is superior to every other country in the world. More wealth and more power that any competing nation. I think that the current leadership shares that goal that many of our citizens have.
If we let a whole slew of people come live here, then that would result in some dilution of our wealth - we would have to split our resources up amongst more people, leaving each individual citizen a bit less than if we kept everything we have to ourselves. I am definitely not okay with that.
I do not think that the other side is comprised of idiots or of those who are blind. I think they just value different things than we value, and they want the world to be different than what we want the world to be like.
Superior and more powerful.. Wow, nice Tom. How do you want to do that alone? Why do you think something like international trade (and long trade relationships) even exist?? For the fun of it? No, it naturally developed that way because we all need it.
To be honest I don't know where to put America if I divide the world in wealthy and poorly developed. It's somewhere in between imo (with some extremely rich people). Compared to the Scandinavian countries American society is very poorly structured. Not only talking about money here.
We had a guy in Europe here a few generations ago who was crazy about the superiority idea.
MAGA... Don't you realize that the real great thing about America was the image to the outside world? There's not much left of it. And it's strange enough American people don't realize you are not alone in the world (and the economic value of Europe for instance), but the president...
Whole Asia now is shifting towards China and Europe gets more united. What exactly did Trump have in mind? Good luck with the inflation and more so with regaining the postion and status in the world.
Tom, you're describing a "zero-sum economy" where there can only be a gain for one person at the expense of someone else's loss. Bringing more people into the country doesn't dilute a fixed amount of wealth, otherwise we'd all be a lot poorer than we were a hundred years ago. More people raise the boat for everyone.
George W Bush (Republican) recognized that the logical way to increase the economy was through immigration. Immigrants will gravitate towards jobs where labor is tight. Think housing and construction where the shortage of homes keeps prices so high. I suspect nearly every construction related business will tell you that their biggest problem is finding workers. You can't lower inflation without increasing supply... and to increase supply typically requires more workers. Immigration has only become a political weapon since Trump, because Trump knows how to fuel a populist campaign, even when his logic is flawed.
With regard to your comment about "equal partners," I simply can't understand the argument that one country needs to establish superiority over any or all others. We are all humans. We live, we die, we all have the same need for food, clothing, shelter, health, love, respect, etc. Why I should want to feel superior (as a nation, or individually) over anyone else makes no sense to me. I would hope that the less advantaged of this country, and throughout the world, might attain more of all of those things... from which greater economic balance is achieved, and peace has a greater chance of happening. A desire for power inevitably leads to war.
We're all immigrants, and should have the inalienable human right to be free from the fear of war and oppression. That is the very foundation of America. The Statue of Liberty still stands in the New York harbor.... keep in mind what it stands for. Everybody, Tom, deserves the right to live without fear and this particular spot of dirt that I inhabit for my life is only mine for a brief moment. Any sense of superiority is surely an illusion.
As a 56 year old unskilled laborer, immigration is a direct threat to my livelihood. At least here in northcentral WA state it is. If we had more of a labor shortage, I would be able to find work more consistently, and at a higher rate of pay.
I went to the local orchards for a job, and was told that the Jamaicans and Mexicans can "pick circles around you". They wouldn't even give me an application to fill out. I go to a jobsite where ____ (a local building contractor) is building a house and am told that they have all the laborers they need ..... there are several Mexicans working there on the site. A guy in my church is a builder, but only pays minimum wage to laborers because he can find all the help he needs and doesn't need to pay more than the state minimum to get good help.
If you just want a simple job and not a big fancy career and college and all that, I do not see how a steady stream of immigrant workers makes one's life easier and more lucrative.
Thanks for your explanation Tom. I feel for your situation and wish you best.
I don't feel good discussing too much about Trump (who imo is a an unreliable talker, a populist and a boaster) and the effect of his plans for the normal man, but of course I just wish you and every other worker a good life!
I also wish America had a better social system like a safety net, affordable insurance, good secundary employment conditions (if you use that same term) including a reasonable number vacation days, etc. Which seems better in NW Europe and seriously is less damaging and less costly (!) for the whole society I've been told by economics. A four years longer life expectancy compared to the USA tells a lot.
I like things simple too; I have chosen this profession of photography surely not for the money.
Tom... I appreciate your point of view. We have family members in construction work where competition from immigrants impacts the cost of labor. On the other hand, it's cheap labor and cheap imports of goods from China which keep the price of retail goods affordable that you and I must buy, and fit within tight budgets. I have that problem too. So it's sort of a complicated problem. If you raise wages at McDonalds, you'll pay more for a burger... and nobody wants that either.
Government rules and regulations can get ridiculously complex, but the issue of human survival though is genuinely complex. It's not only the Mexicans who threaten your job. Technology threatens the livelihood of an entire class of unskilled labor, and not everyone is cut out to be a software engineer. Not everyone is capable of achieving a graduate level education. Meanwhile... home insurance companies are dropping entire states due to environmental risks. Health care in this country is virtually unaffordable. We're killing each other with gun violence. And the best Trump can do is blame everything on the immigrants, or unfair trade agreements. Sorry, but I think it goes deeper than that. Republicans are right... guns don't kill people, people with mental illness kill other people. But we don't do much to address that issue either. It's so much easier just to blame the immigrants. Somehow we have to figure all this out because the problems are only getting worse.
A question I have commonly gotten when my work is being displayed... "is that a real photograph"? I know what they meant, but sometimes someone who isn't articulate in the photographic arts innocently defines the whole issue.
The comments here are appreciated, and I do enjoy a good discussion. However, I perceive the discussion is moving towards political viewpoints, and for my part I would like to stay away from that on this page. On a political page, I would be glad to talk about it. My political, moral and religious beliefs are strong and certain. However, I think this may not be the proper forum for that. Thank you.
I understand and expected this reaction. Don't worry, I come here for photography discussion too. That being said.. I'm not a protest guy, but in a historic perspective some things are too important to ignore and be silent about. But I will leave it there.
I like talking about politics here, but I certainly don't expect you to join into that side conversation. Just happy to discuss that topic with Leo and Ed, and have no expectations of hopes of anyone else joining in.
“We’re all here to be silly and have fun, as long as we recognize the fact that our democracy is going up in flames and we’re being run by a bunch of really incompetent billionaires.” - Joan Baez
I have abandoned other photography forums because they are censored and the administration of those forums try to control what we can comment about and what we can't comment about. The only reason I am still so active on Fstoppers is because the comments are not censored, and we can write whatever we want.
I like the "wild west" environment here. Take that away, and I will leave Fstoppers just like I left those other forums.
Apparently someone you undoubtedly remember, Black Z Eddie, may have been booted off Fstoppers. So there may be limits to the Wild West that you think this place is.
Eddie never held back his strong opinions or his strong feelings of disdain for those who thought differently than he did, and I loved that he was able to express himself so forcefully here. It would really bother me if someone in charge here had a problem with him and tried to censor his speech.
The thing is people have almost no self control over what they say online. Doubt it, just look at Facebook, it's an argumentative cesspool, and in case you didn't notice, the total number of people whose thoughts have changed do to a post on the interweb is exactly zero. It's a pointless argument. All I ask is that the preferences of people be respected. I have very strong political, moral and spiritual beliefs and I will not compromise on them. However, I know from experience that once those are stated there will be dozens of people that disagree and will jump in, usually in the most hostile way. Suddenly we are no longer talking about the art of photography but about the current political mood - which changes by the day. My strong preference is that this space is for photographs, the photographic process and the creation of the art of photography. The rest is details.
BTW, I have never heard of Black Z Eddie
I don't see much difference in the way people talk about politics vs photography. It seems to be human nature that people like to talk mostly all about themselves.
My purpose here, as in any photographic column or publication, is to pass on the things I have learned, and most of the time they are facts based in the physics of photography, the chemistry of photography etc. I am not here to change anyone's mind - which is why political arguments anywhere are mostly fruitless and only gender strife and tribalism... which I detest. People state political opinion as political fact, and while the argument may be fallacious and not at all factual... when the actual facts are laid out, it makes no difference, and so this is not the place for that; IMHO. That is a reason, not the only reason, I am no longer on FaceBook and some others. I don't like the arguments, especially when the comments go radically off topic.
I will respectfully disagree with this... in my opinion, and only my opinion, when additional elements are added to a photograph it is no longer a photograph, it is a digital piece of art. To be fair, my background is photojournalism, so adding or removing elements is not something I am comfortable with. Even working with one photograph, a sky replacement or the additions of shadows, clouds, etc removes it from photo category. I chair the photo show for our local art league and we have a distinct category for composited images. Again, just my opinion but opinions are going to vary. Let's be honest, there are still people that don't think photography is an art form... so here we are.
Thanks for this article. I think my line in the sand is pretty much the same as yours. I generally don’t like sky replacements, but what you did was overcome physics to represent the scene. Yeah, sure, it’s a composite, but it was impossible to capture in one shot with the equipment available.
I’m in the same space on AI. Don’t try to tell people an AI image is a photo—omitting that fact is a lie, in my opinion. The same holds true for me with those people who claim the moon was aligned when the alignment was impossible or fail to disclose a composite that used a 600mm lens for the moon and a wide angle for the foreground. Be honest. If it’s a compelling image, people will still appreciate it with that disclosure.
I have no wish to be a documentary photographer, so I remove distractions. I could spend hours healing and cloning, but I don’t see using the AI healing tool as any different. I don’t try to hide the fact that I remove distractions. I "dodge," I "burn," I may shift colors, whatever. I’m trying to create a compelling image, not a photocopy. I’m not going to add cute animals, though ;-)
The bottom line for me is everybody gets to do their art their way. They have to find their own moral line on what they do and what they disclose.
Nathan, this is a fascinating discussion and one that’s becoming increasingly relevant as AI and digital tools evolve. Photography has always involved some level of interpretation. Adjusting contrast in the darkroom, dodging and burning, or tweaking colors in post. But there’s a line where a photograph stops being a photograph and becomes something else.
For me, that line is crossed when elements are added that weren’t originally captured by the camera. Enhancing an aesthetic is fine. Removing a small distraction is fine. But if an image contains elements that were never in the original frame, it’s no longer a photograph. It’s an image. The medium shifts from photography to digital art. AI-generated skies, composite landscapes, or subjects that didn’t exist within the original scene take the final work beyond photography.
As technology progresses, I think it’s important to keep this distinction clear. There’s nothing wrong with digital art. It’s a powerful and valid medium. But it shouldn’t be mistaken for photography.
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
Paul Tocatlian, I agree with most if not all you say here with one exception. “… it’s no longer a photograph. It’s an image.” Too me a photograph is a print straight out of the camera be it analog or digital. An image is a photographer’s rendition of said photograph as they so desire. This is a very wide scope and includes everything from straight photography (analog/digital) to even digital art. And I agree that extensive use a AI or image manipulation and additions need to be disclosed.
I hope you don’t mind I an earlier comment I made a reference to “Straight Photography” here’s some more info an link for those who might be interested :
Group f/64 displayed the following manifesto at their 1932 exhibit:
The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.
The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.
Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire spectrum of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.
Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.
The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.
https://www.theartstory.org/movement/group-f64/
Interesting that you bring up Group 64. There was at least one "photographer" of that era that Adams detested because, in his opinion, the things he presented we the antithesis of the Group F-64 ideals. William Mortenson was detested by Adams. Beaumont Newhall described his work as “perverse”; Willard Van Dyke, a founder of Group f/64, said “his work was disgusting”; and Adams summed him up with the words, “For us, he was the antichrist.” Paul Strand, no fan of Adams, said that the addition of other media to a photograph resulted only in "dead things"; his words not mine. Another example of a more contemporary photographer would be Joel Peter Witkin; though Witkins work was all done in camera and as a complete image, so maybe he doesn't fit the mold. BTW, I think this is an important discussion to have. To my way of think an image that is made solely in a computer falls into a completely different category. The good news for me regarding AI is that perhaps because I do work in film and do hand printing the perceived value of a darkroom print will increase. BTW, adding elements to a photograph can change the interpretation of an image, and still be a photographic work. I am only question words I have seen that didn't have a basis in the photographic process. Adding a sky to an image, for instance, doesn't make it something other than a photograph. But I am seeing images that we derived only in a computer where no light actually did pass through a lens. Often I can look and tell if the process was photographic but AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated and I think we need to define and declare when the work product we produce is done using AI.
Nathan, As to Ansel Adams critics, just proves “haters” are nothing new to social media. They’ve been around probably even before Cain & Able.
“I think we need to define and declare when the work product we produce is done using AI.” Yes, I agree. The simplest is the work that is made totally in a computer “where no light actually did pass through a lens”, yes this is and should be designated as “digital art”, the tuff questions are the defining lines distinguishing the two! As to sky replacement (I have yet to do one) I have a mentor who taught if the sky doesn’t add to a composition exclude it from your compositions. Personally I feel a couple of digital tools, dehaze and sky replacement are rooted in environmental atmospheric that have a detrimental effect on landscape photography. A few years before “dehaze filter/tool” was introduce when I’d complain to a photographic buddy about the haze, they casually replied “I’ll just fix it with with contrast/brightness in photoshop”.
Just a couple of days ago I saw someones image here on Fstoppers where the sky was 80-90% contrails. I have exposed a frame or two with a persistent contrail in the frame thinking I’ll just clone it out. Or used filters with B&W film to change contrast in an image. When Ansel Adams first used a red filled in the making of “Monolith, The Face of Half Dome” wasn’t this a sky replacement technique?
Parting thought :
Let’s do away with “DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME”
Thanks for the conversation. My line is when an image is created that could not be. In my judgement adding a sky that makes the image more interesting is completely within bounds. Adding things in that could never be needs to be noted as a composite... I think. For me though the line stops where light doesn't pass through an optical system. I could be completely misunderstanding AI, but from what I am given to understand an image created using AI could very easily be be completed with no optical system whatsoever. I do know that in cinematography backgrounds, and even primary elements can be completely out of someones imagination. Just as a painter fabricates a painting based on imagination only; so with AI. I don't think AI invalidates the work as an artistic creation, it just needs to be labeled as such. Right now I can pretty much pick an AI image out without being told. However, it's just a matter of time until it will be indistinguishable from an actual lens based image.
Black and white photography is very much an interpretive art form. After all, we see in color so the simple act of shooting or converting to black and white is not real.
Even your choice of B&W film, back in the day, imparted a certain interpretation of color. I did a B&W Photo of the Day project for 1,000 days, mostly shooting color digital and editing to B&W, both to re-learn the applications filtering as well as contrast, etc. that I hadn't really touched so deeply since my teen years in our home darkroom.
My point is that while a photograph is NEVER an exact and true representation of the actual moment and place, it should be at least something that could happen - or be labeled as being fictional in some way. I have used techniques I developed (no pun intended) for many years in my analog darkroom to put a more interesting sky in an image that had a blank sky. Where the line is drawn for me is at completely fabricated images being generated in AI. Most of the time it is pretty obvious for many of us that have been making images for awhile. However, I can see a time coming very quickly, and it may be here now, when one can generate (I did not say create, since computer software does that) an image using AI that is 100% non distinguishable from a photograph created by someone on the spot and in the field. That bothers me.
I would only be bothered by AI generated images if my job as a photographer were being replaced, and I had to learn a totally new skill. Even that might not be so bothersome if I were much younger. Young people for the most part seem to embrace change. I did when I was in my 20s and 30s. The new Apple Mac page layout software and Photoshop were so exciting, and I lived for the next new product or update. Not so much any more. However, AI is just another form of making visual images, or putting words together. And forms are continuously evolving. For better or worse, that's life if we live long enough. I don't see much value in slapping a label on every image, or we'd end up with a hundred different labels.
If the government gets in the middle of trying to regulate AI content, any laws written into the books will most likely be vague and ridiculously complex. As I was saying to Tom, the problem lies in the details of creating an efficient system of labeling. Do we really want to be subjected to 50 pages of guidelines before posting a photo to social media?
I'll start by saying thank you Nathan for your series. Always looking forward to the next.
From another perspective I worked my career in the film industry as a cinematographer. It was my job not to show the world as it was (besides documentary) but rather to enhance the images both in camera and in post to service the story. No one in the cinematography world really discusses purism like still photography. Working with colorist in Davinci and digital artist to remove, add, alter, green screen was a normal every day thing. Yet no one discusses the manipulation and Cinematographers get accolades every day for their work.
Considering my past I feel no such restrictions in my still work. I don't use AI at all however. I make an exception there because now your getting into graphic art. As stated by Ed K. Ansel Adams who somehow became the god of what to and what not to do, used a red filter. So I use one in post.
It's really up to the viewer to be the judge. Is it over manipulated or tacky? Does it still look like a cool photograph that tells a story or is it just a jumble of post tricks to try and make something out of nothing.
I can tell you that for me, if an image is not working then no post work is going to save it. You may get mediocre but if it's not there in camera with vision to start with it's not happening. Using some post to bring it to life for print or viewing has been part of the process since the beginning.
The moment composition occurs by addition in the edit
You found new batteries for your keyboard?
Nathan, love your “Narrows of the Virgin River”, why haven’t I seen it anywhere else, or have it just missed it.
In your list of film processes you forgot K-14, K-12, and it’s forebears, but those were before our time.
“When the shutter clicks, anything else that can be done afterwards is not worth considering” - Edward Steichen
Narrows is a commonly photographed subject. I did this before it became like the subway in New York though. I was in there a full day and remember seeing only one other person. Interestingly, Eastman Kodak used this image for their counter displays when they rolled out their superb black and white printing paper, Polymax - may its memory rest in peace. It was, IMHO, the finest black and white multicontrast paper ever made. One product I wish they would re-introduce. The other excellent paper they made was Kodak Elite, which was a contrast graded paper.
I know what you mean I think my first trip up the Virgin River was fall of '86 or '87 ... brrr! I no longer or rarely head north of the Temple of Sinawava parking area last time during shuttle season the area was more like an urban park ... or Yosemite Valley at peak visitation! Both places in my humble opinion have gotten to popular for their own good. :(
Amen to that. I love Zion Canyon, but will likely not go back since most of Las Vegas and half of LA are there at any given time.
And a good part of Las Vegas populous are former Californians during the Vegas growth explosion of the mid to late 1990's. But Zion's visitation is global.