You can learn so much about yourself and photography by briefly getting familiar with art history. But is photography art in the first place?
Since I became a landscape photographer, my enjoyment of visiting art museums has increased by a lot. Danish art history is rich and is reflected in the art history of the world and past trends. One of my favorite museums is the Skagen Museum, and you will find it in northern Denmark in the small town of Skagen. In Skagen, a group of painters formed a colony in the late 19th century. Their paintings are arguably the most famous in Danish art history and also some of my favorite paintings.
Do not worry, I will get to the photography part in a bit.
A three-exposure photo. Focus stacked and the birds are blended in from a third exposure at high ISO.
This colony of painters painted their families, the daily life in Skagen, the surrounding landscapes, and the fishermen who lived in the town. The painters were mainly inspired by impressionism, which is known for an emphasis on accurate depiction of light, ordinary subject matter, movement, and some different painting techniques. The main point was not to depict a subject matter as seen by the eyes, but as perceived by the painter; it was the impression of the painter, which is depicted.
In one of the most famous Danish paintings (see below), the painter PS. Krøyer painted a get-together of some of the painters from the colony. He was inspired by the real events captured in the photo, but the painting is not an exact depiction of what happened on that day. No, Krøyer was much more interested in giving an impression of the friendship and social bonds of the colony, which led to his painting “Hip, Hip, Hurra.”
Even though there are many photos from the late 19th century, we humans have a tendency to look to paintings to understand the past. However, paintings from the past — no matter how realistic they look — are still a product of the painters’ skills, impression, vision, and purpose.
Photography
This is the same for all the artistic fields, no matter if it is painting, sculpting, or modern arts like photography or even computer graphics. Photography does not have to be a single thing with a single purpose. Yes, it is fantastic for documenting events and even better if the photograph is accompanied by text. However, journalistic photography is not the only purpose of using a camera, just as a “truthful” depiction of an event in the 16th century was not the only purpose of painting (it very rarely was).
No humans experience water as long streaks. Some photographers may disapprove of the long exposure effect, but you cannot deny that it has certain aesthetic value to it. It is your artistic decision to use it or not.
Contemporary landscape photography is arguably much more about the impression of the individual photographer than depicting the landscape as realistic as possible. You may not like this. It is often important to remind my co-photographer that nobody in the entire universe has the authority to decide how an individual should use their camera. Not even National Geographic who is often celebrated as a kind of "standard of nature photography." National Geographic decides what they want to publish in their magazines based on their criteria, which you can choose to follow. National Geographic is known for more “realistic” depictions of places and events, but they are not to decide whether you want to or should photograph like that.
I will bet that in 80 years (or even earlier) some art historians can say a whole lot of things about the tendencies within landscape photography in the early 21st century. How people made fantasy-esque landscape photos because they are influenced from growing up with cartoons and fantasy movies, how many photos are taken during travels because people were not limited to their own backyard, how many photos look alike because social media helped push the most popular landscape photos and the internet made it easier than ever to learn the skills of the most popular landscape photographers? There are likely even more tendencies to point out. As I am writing this, the world moves on, as it always has, and in a few decades, we can look back and analyze why things were as they were and we can keep discussing what good photography is and what good art is, as we always should.
My photo from Eystrahorn in Iceland is made up of several exposures (a so-called time blend). I experienced all of it and put it all together in one image. The post-processing helps balance tones, colors, and light, and make it "pop."
There is a tendency to label this kind of impressionist landscape photography as “fake” because it reminds some people of fantasy that they cannot see it in reality. Here is a surprise for you: art requires imagination! Just because the photo depicts more (or less) than the eye can see does not make it fake. It is as narrow-minded as labels come. The point here is that there are several different approaches to photography, and they are all valid. Some are more artistic than others, and that is all fine. When impressionist paintings first started to hit the world stage, they were ridiculed and met with harsh opposition too from the conventional art community.
Be sure to check out the above video, where I discuss my approach to impressionist and contemporary landscape photography even more. Let me know down below what kind of photography you enjoy doing and why.
It's not a question that matters unless you are trying to increase the value of your work; however, have you noticed how the vast majority of landscape photography looks the same?
They’re all photographs of planet Earth, so it’s a bit difficult to change things *that* radically.
By extension, all classical Western music sounds the same because it’s all based on the same twelve notes.
Let me rephrase; Marc Adamus did it first, then everyone else did it. Style on social media is largely driven by a feedback loop betweeen artists and viewers.
I am inclined to suggest if you view a photograph as nothing more than a representation of the subject depicted then you are incabable of comprehending any question pertaining to photographic art.
Modern Landscape mostly looks like fake, Video Game type imagery. Disgusting. I will stick with the old masters where at least the photos look real, and not "fantasy art" of some kind.
Well I don't think the question is whether it's art or not.
It is art for sure, there is no technical rule defining art.
Photography on the other end has a definition, and when you're starting to blend together various time of days and adding other stuff like birds, lightnings, nonexisting lights etc you aren't taking a photograph anymore, you are composing an image which might look good, might be art, but it's not a photo, it's a work of graphic design.
Sadly landscape photography is more and more victim of editing abuse, it started with stuff that could be justified for the purpose of going beyond the camera limits (like HDR and bracketing) but it now "evolved" (or involved?) to time of day blending, focal lenght blending, shameles stretching of landscape features in Photoshop etc... and the worst thing is whan said manipulations are hidden from the viewer which thinks he's looking at a real landscape and then builds an unrealistic expectaion that makes hard to appreciate simpler real landscape photo that aren't made on a computer.
i COMPLETELY agree with you. The photograph above that the author posted in my opinion that does not mean anything, is ART. It is no longer a photograph. Nothing wrong with that though.
However, it is not new. Photographers throughout history have masked, cut, and combined negatives to achieve visual effects. Aubrey Bodine, the great pictorialist for the Baltimore Sun was noted for placing the sun and moon in positions that could not have been. This topic really is kind of tired. If you are a photojournalist or documentary photographer, it's conventional to create an "accurate" visual of a scene. If your work is creative, it is evaluated on another set of criteria. Painters are given wide latitude to express scenes based upon their mental and/or emotional visualization. Why shouldn't photographers have the same privilege. In the final analysis the viewer gets to decide; not a group of "expert" photographers.
Wonderful way of seeing things 😀
It’s fake most of the time on Instagram... I mean if the other alternative is art 😁
Always a pleasure reading your articles Mads! Quality stuff.
Inspiring, instructional and always quality articles. Well done Mads :)
Quality stuff Mads!
Great article. My own personal guideline is whether the subject or the technique (whether unusual optics or post-processing) is what stands out in the end... if the main thing one gets out of a photo was that it was shot on a fish-eye lens, it is less interesting than a subject that was enhanced by a fish-eye lens. I like a lot of the dreamlike landscapes done today, though I am bothered by more realistic landscape photography where dramatic skies are added later, that can feel a bit like a cheat to me if I find out that was done.
Like everyone, I have my own personal idea of a "photograph". It captures a moment in time. And it looks like something that an actual person might have seen, had he been there. It feels like reality - not a movie, a painting or a dream.
There's plenty of room in my concept. But replacing a sky, adding a bird? Sorry, that's fake. And usually looks like it.
Amen !
Well said. I just wish I have thought of it first.
I like this definition: "And it looks like something that an actual person might have seen,"
So much landscape and other photography we see today looks "fake" with exaggerated colour, strange contrast and such.
The pictures illustrating this article fall somewhat into this trap of not being credible to anybody who ever gets out into the countryside.
The silky waterfall or steamy looking sea, are other clichés that are becoming a bit tired.
I quess this "exaggerated" type of landscape photography is popular with those who never leave the city.
For me if something is taken with a device/tool that society collectively and by majority would still define as a camera or photographic device that in itself makes it a 'photograph'. Just because you take that captured image and then change it digitally in computer software doesn't then suddenly make it NOT a photo, but it does makes it MORE than a photo (digital art, graphic design). The art side of it has no answer, there is no set definition on what makes something art or not art. Also, just because you use time blending, stacking, long exposure etc doesn't make any photograph suddenly more artistic, or less. It may do so however in the eye of a particular individual based on their personal feelings and aesthetic preferences. For me personally, when i first got into photography I was wowed by the looks of modern style landscapes with heavy post processing, and i tried to emulate it. As time as wore on, I have found myself drawn more to landscape images that can evoke a feeling or emotional response through simplicity. I prefer monochrome, I prefer minimal. That's just my person preferences. I think what might be more pertinent to your article is the question, what makes 'good' art, which is again subjective, but perhaps more relevant when considering the trends of modern landscape photography and the well known criticism around it.
Stop using click bait headings, or I will stop reading this website. In fact, I completely skipped this article and didnt read it because of this. If you think that treating people like imbeciles is the right thing to do the i will vote with my wallet and deprive this website from my clicks. Not to mention that i will never subscribe to the authors youtube channell. Way to lose prospective subscribers.
Bye, Felicia.
There is no good or bad art. There is just art. Some people have tried to separate into these categories and that was usually done by oppressors in dark parts of history.
But you can question if every intent leads to art. The mere fact of content creation in order to earn money or gain attention to pad ego (which applies to 95% of social media) doesn’t make it art, in my opinion.
I think saying it's "narrow minded" to label highly edited photos as fake is a bit unfair. I think most people who describe a highly edited image as fake are referring to the fact that the end result doesn't reflect what the scene actually looked like when captured - if the sky has been replaced, or colours heavily manipulated/changed, or mountains added etc then that scene has in fact been "faked". It doesn't mean the end result isn't a beautiful piece of art. Fake literally means "not genuine" - a heavily manipulated image as described is not genuine. I really like a lot of these "fake" images, but I would probably describe them more as pieces of art, rather than an individual photograph. Do I feel a little cheated in not knowing it's been manipulated? Not really, as it's often so easy to tell, and I look at it for what it is. I can appreciate both styles - photos that are true to how the scene actually appeared, as well as those that have been more "created" after work in editing.
Photographers hate to admit they are photographers
I think there's some truth in that. Today everyone and his dog is a "photographer" with a whole bunch of "creative filters" just one click away. How can I set myself apart?
Soon the most frequent question you'll face as a landscape photographer: is it real?
I catch myself thinking that while looking at landscape photos. Wondering if thy sky has been changed, parts added or removed, etc.
all art(work) is fake - the most art which pretends to be naturalistic :) even the famous romantic ladsvape paintinhs by d.a. friedrich were composed often from various landscape pieces - exacly for the better effect, let alone the mood/atmosphere added.
landscape photography (esp. at sites like fstoppers) are PURE FAKE - photoshop & co. abused to the exteme to produce kitschy sweet (or dramatic dark) landscape a la the last disneyworld -videogame :)
There are places on this Earth that require no special technique to showcase their beauty. I would argue we should take photographs as the human eye would see it - for instance the Antarctic. And rest of the places I am not sure. One has to take into account that human DOF is unmatched. So merging images is acceptable I guess to some extent. But long exposures are more art than real.
I'm a digital artist by profession. My job is to make things that don't exist in the real world look as if they were photographed. This is the basis for image reality, we mimic how light, texture, and form works in the real world. I could easily add 5 suns into a landscape to create something that is art, that is 100% fiction, but looks like a photograph. Can I call it a photo?
Of course this is extreme example, but my point is that photography inherently has an element of truth to it by definition. All other forms of art (traditional art at least) require the artist to be the medium through which the information is filtered. It's not really possible to 100% eliminate the artist from the art. Even realistic painters have to make judgements of how to depict light.
Technically though, the way most people view photography, it's simply pushing a button and the camera does the work. And by most people, I mean everyone who isn't a photographer. There is the belief that the camera records reality. The term "photographic evidence" comes to mind here, meaning it can't (or shouldn't) be challenged.
I have no problem with manipulating photos, but I think if the photographer (artist?) is adding things that were not there or removing things that were, this needs to be called out. Even if it is simply calling it digital art or a composite / creative edit. Some context needs to be given as to what we are looking at and more importantly, HOW to look at it. A swapped sky might make a compelling image, but it's only an exceptional image when compared with another photograph, if it was compared to another piece of digital art of the same landscape, then it will most likely be less compelling. Sports analogy - if you take a pro athlete and put him in a high school game, but don't tell anyone that he's a pro, they will be impressed. Once they find out he's a pro, they will no longer be impressed. Context matters, and photos are contextually thought of as reality.
We need to evolve the terminology. What we're talking about is some combination of photography and... what? "Digital art" already sounds a bit dated...
It's something based on a photograph, but containing additional elements.
Absolutely agree and not just composite images. In my world, "post production" means to alter the image significantly by adding elements and effects (think green screen), not just dodging and burning. Often I hear people refer to photo editing as post production and to me that right there is where the line is crossed from photo into digital art. If they are simply holding true to what you would do in a dark room then of course IMO that is still photography. But then as you pointed out, even comparing editing digital images to film images could be considered outdated.
In the art world for early-mid 1900s, photographers had fought a seat in the art world because photography wasnt considered art, then. Painters would discourage them that it is art because it was convenient to create an image. But photographers like W. Eugene Smith, Paul Stiglitz, Arnold Newman, Paul Strand, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams, and everyone who i think everyone in the photography world should recognize, have really paved way for us. They use dynamic symmetry, framing, and composites techniques that are found in paintings. Just like how we emmulate our digital photographs into film, today. But without them, photography would just be a photographs.
This is graphic art, which is fine. I believe there's a difference between graphic art and photography.
DEFINITIONS:
Visual art: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination
Photography: the art OR practice of taking and processing photographs.
(Note the “OR” ).
Visual Art, can run the gamut of a toddler;'s scribbling with crayons on a wall, to Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
As to Photography VS Art: if a photographer at a location accidentally hits the Shutter button resulting in an image of spectacular quality, exceeding those consciously executed; to a viewer the image may appear to be art, though it would not meet the criteria of art creation.
Staging a scene to photograph, and/or Manipulation in Post Processing comes closer to the definition of art then merely clicking a shutter button.
DEFINITIONS:
Visual art: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination
Photography: the art OR practice of taking and processing photographs.
(Note the “OR” ).
Visual Art, can run the gamut of a toddler;'s scribbling with crayons on a wall, to Michelangelo's painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
As to Photography VS Art: if a photographer at a location accidentally hits the Shutter button resulting in an image of spectacular quality, exceeding those consciously executed; to a viewer the image may appear to be art, though it would not meet the criteria of art creation.
Staging a scene to photograph, and/or Manipulation in Post Processing comes closer to the definition of art then merely clicking a shutter button.
Strange headline. Fake pictures are fake, it’s that simple. If you like that kind of art so bit it. An extraordinary photo that is real is a marvel. If you like fake things in life there are many choices.
First the title is misleading, yes! But good for conversation. For most rather actual or not it is about a sale, to most! Ever go into a store in a tourist area where paintings and other things are sold, I visit just to see what is selling! One store has a divided wall one side paintings the other photos, more paintings are sold. Today photography is in a digital world on the spider web whereas paintings are on walls somewhere. And photographers do not buy others photos just try and get the same capture! I show photos of the Milky Way and hear "WOW" but are in disbelief because they can not see it with their own eyes and have to tell only a camera can capture (see it). A digital camera has a computer inside changing analog light to a digital image and yes I can capture a Milky Way image with my film camera, that really can look better. And yes everyone says I photoshop but not just Lr or other digital programs.
But still a photo records time, yes time that has past and can not be reseen for you can not go back in time. For how do you know when you awake and look in a mirror and say who is that, how do you verify who your parents really are if not for a stack of photos of you growing. The little box that records time, enough said. The Dancing Trees, the tree to the left, I call the dancing lady, is no longer up and the image shows it once was and nature showed a colorful painting floating above even at sunrise - Believe or not all was!!
While my personal goal for a landscape image is that you the viewer, if you had been standing next to me when I took the photo, would agree the image is a valid representation of what we both witnessed, I do edit, in order to get an image to "read" properly on paper or on a screen. I also make B&W images, which are completely non-realistic. And, flowing water is a challenge, because a still image always stops the flow and captures only a short segment. So I'm OK with other approaches that modify reality, though I feel they would benefit from a tag to say they are artistic impressions or fantasies.
SI C'EST BEAU, IL N'IMPORTE PAS " If it's beautiful, it doesn't matter."
Great article! I thinking the same.
You stop and take a photo of a quaint and charming church along side of the road, only to process the image and realize there is electric line crossing through your photograph. You didn't see the line or perhaps with your experience you noticed it while framing the shot and had to decide if the result with the line would capture what you experienced on the road. If you chose not photograph what your mind and eyes experienced because you believe that the electric line would not represent what you saw and felt - or you removed it in processing to convey what you saw, then what is fake?
If a photograph is for the purpose of Documentation it should be faithful to the subject without any manipulation that would change it's true appearance.
If a photograph is for the purpose of Decorative Art, a Photographer deserves the same creative, artistic license as a Painter, or any other Artist.
If a Landscape photographer and a Painter were "capturing" the same scene, and the Painter chose to omit a distracting Tree from his Painting it would't be considered a fake, nor should it be if the Photographer omitted it in post processing.
I look at images and choose to like or not like them, (internally, not in a social media thumbs up kind of way). I can care less what is on the image, how it was created, or if it was digitally manipulated. Be intrigued or not. Like, or like not. I don't agree with the argument that you should not mislead viewers because they may spend a lot of money going to a location expecting to see what they saw in the image. People don't go to far off locations spending thousands of dollars getting there because they saw one image and said, "wow, i have to go there", and follow through on that decision without any further research.
Gotta keep photojournalism real though.
For one the eye does see more than a sensor
"...There is a tendency to label this kind of impressionist landscape photography as “fake”..."
'Cause it is fake. Good looking fakes though, and in their own way I like them. Composites were done throughout the photography history, even at extremes sometimes, but we had not reached to a point like today where the images look so unrealistic. You are doing a kind of digital painting. It is not capturing the moment or showing the beauty of a place/a scenery and it does not have a purpose of documenting either, but the result is a very good looking digital art. That is ok with me. It is a different kind of art and I like it. But impressionist landscape and portrait photographers, adding and removing a lot of objects/subjects from the photo with impossible color grading or different time elements with heavy photoshop work should accept the fact that these are great digital artworks, but not photographs anymore. It does not make them less valuable, just makes them a different type of art. You should not be offended when someone says "this is not a photograph." In it's essence, it is not one anymore.
Who cares? As long as you don't as you don't promote yourself as Adams, Strand, or Weston for heavily manipulated work (let's not go to that tiresome old weather beaten cliche of "even Adams manipulated in the darkroom - these artists I mentioned enhanced what they captured, they use it as a starting point to create from and then say "This is what Hernandez, New Mexico looked like" and added a moon, sun washed crosses, clouds...
If you want to create from your original work then you're following another tradition, and photographers like William Mortensen (whom Ansel Adams despised and referred to as the antiChrist) and Jerry Uelsmann.
Just be honest about the image you're presenting. That's all we ask as photographers and viewers.
Modern Landscape mostly looks like fake, Video Game type imagery. It is epically boring. I will stick with the old masters, where at least the photos looked real, and not "fantasy art" of some kind.
I am more impressed by a classically captured photograph than the heavily edited composites I see these days. Focus stacking, and very basic color and exposure corrections are the most I will do to a landscape image.
I agree with others that sky replacements, adding in wildlife and combining images from different times of the day (or even from different days) is not really classical photography. It is digital art. Which is fine if that is your thing. It isn't mine though.