Hi everyone!
Do you think photographers should be obliged to disclose whether or not a shot is a composite?
(Question sparked by today's Photo of the Day comments).
Happy 2019!
Hi everyone!
Do you think photographers should be obliged to disclose whether or not a shot is a composite?
(Question sparked by today's Photo of the Day comments).
Happy 2019!
Why should they? It's a form of art, there are no boundaries. Where would you draw the line if there were? Post processing? In camera processing? Camera make? If photography on this board were for documentary purposes, then yes.
For some people landscape photography IS documentary work. So I think the question goes one level deeper then.
I don't think so.
If they consider their own work as documentary that's fine (= they are FREE to do so), but that doesn't mean everyone else has to take that into account for their own pictures, because that would take away from their own FREEDOM as they'd be OBLIGED to state whether or not their work is a composite.
To emphasize that point, there's also photographers who consider post processing to be cheating. So by that same argument should everyone else be obliged to state whether or not they used LR or PS? Where do you draw the line?
The freedom of an individual ends where it takes away from another individual's freedom.
my opinion is yes! It should be mandatory. One example: shot of Dubai together with a very intense Milky Way. If you don't mention that it is a composite many people will think that the milky way is visible in Dubai.
Ok, by that same argument it should then be mandatory to state whether or not you used processing software, because hey, how do I know the sky in Dubai actually is that deep blue hue your picture claims it to be.
So what if people think the Milky Way was visible in Dubai? Is there any harm done? I don't think so.
If you really need to know, you can ask the photographer and they will happily tell you whether or not it is a composite.
To make disclosing that information mandatory ahead of time on the other hand is preposterous and I for one would simply kiss that board goodbye, never to return.
Let them documentary photographers have it.
When I shoot the Milky Way and a lighted landscape foreground it will always be a composite. The stars are shot separately from the foreground 90% of the time. I don't shoot the landscape portion at a high ISO ever.
Now something like the Peter Lik image that was discussed is a whole other story. That was a composite.
They shouldn’t have to state it. Photography has liberties, just as every art form. However, they should not lie and say it’s real if it is a composite just to make it seem more amazing than it is . *cough* Peter Lik *cough*
Of course this depends on why it’s being created. If it’s to document then lying about anything is a big no no
I'm just gonna grab a popcorn for this one, ok? :D
If you post photos in a category like documentary I think Yes!
Otherwise I say No ... why?
Most photographers are artists and no documentary reporter.
If you really ask this question, you have also to ask wish software inside a camera was used to get results wich are normally not possible ;-)
Freedom for art, let the viewer decide
Since it was my comment Marcin is talking about I should answer that. I don't think it should be mandatory (we can't tell people what not to do), but it should be the ethical way to do it. However there is composite and composite. The shot I was commenting on was a composite of two pictures taken from the same point, one at the blue hour, the sky at night. So I guess it's ok.
But if you start swapping skies and other stuff, you should tell what you did, or at least you shouldn't lie about it. Even a white lie like saying a little story about how you wandered there after a long hike and slept under the stars or something, when it's a really popular spot near the road and the stars can't be found like that in that location... If you're secure about your work, there should be no problem about saying it's a composite.
One thing I find quite ridiculous is to add birds in a shot. I buy quite a lot of landscape photography books, so I see pros who do documentary, composites, crazy impressionism or minimalist stuff, and no one ever "added" something as ridiculous. It's like those portrait photographers who add floating rose petals...
So in most cases, composites we bitch about are photos that aren't that good in the first place. Like that crashed plane in Iceland with the crazy arching milky way that Mike and Elia gave a 2 star rating to...
Thanks for your input on this. I didn't mean to make you come to the blackboard. :)
But you more or less reflected my way of seeing it.
Mike actually gave it a one star because he's seen the location too many times and the photo didn't do anything "new". By that logic every photo Elia's ever taken in Japan is a 1 star image for me. Elia also gave the previous image a 1 star rating, despite it also capturing part of the milky way. I'm not saying the photos were amazing, but I'd take their ratings with the world's largest grain of salt since they don't even know how their own rating system works. Either that or I'm super excited for their "How to capture the milky way with your phone" tutorial that must be in production by now.
(I didn't actually give Elia's photos a one star rating, because despite the fact that I've seen those exact compositions from those exact locations tons of times, I'm able to judge each photo in a nuanced way. That photo of the crashed plane in their CTC was actually the first and only time I've ever seen that location. People forget, just because you've seen a location a million times, doesn't mean everyone else has. It's all relative to who you follow and where you live/photograph. It's OK to have an opinion based on your experiences, but that's not the same as a critique. If a theater critic's review of "Macbeth" read "it's Macbeth, I've seen it a million times, 1 star" they would lose all credibility. As I told them already, it's Critique the Community, not "Opinions with Two Dudes on a Casting Couch".
And this isn't me trying to attack them or say they are wrong about everything, but it's important to remember that being a professional photographer doesn't automatically make you a good critic for every kind of photo.)
I think the rating system here is next to worthless, Jordan. I'm OK entertaining the notion that my work is garbage, but I regularly see technically and compositionally excellent images, which are visually interesting, being rated as a 1 by a significant number of people.
Meh.
Yeah, I think any rating system on any site is going to produce different results based on the users. However, when the people involved in the site start ignoring their own parameters one could question why it’s even there.
Unless you're talking about journalistic photography, no.
It depends - photojournalism demands a capture of reality , but if you are trying to create art then the artistic license comes into play.
Spinning another angle, should a (landscape) artist HAVE to paint exactly what he sees, or leave out distracting elements?
In my mind the morality relies on what you are trying to achieve - a pure documentary should truthfully reflect the sight as witnessed, otherwise anything is fair game.
Very interesting discussion. I've always believed that photography is an art form and photographers should not need to disclose if it's a composite. However, I also feel that the general public has built this notion out of ignorance or half-knowledge that any additional compositing or creative editing to a photo is "photoshopping" and that, that's somehow cheating. I feel that our community should take a few more steps to educate people on this.
What should be mandatory I believe though, is to state, on photography websites like this one, if you actually did any photography. Many photos here are composites of stock pictures. Like that snail with a donut for a shell. No one is preventing you from doing that, but just admit that you never pressed the shutter and did all the work on the computer. If you feel shame admitting it, then don't post the picture in the first place, do your own photos. They're still fine editing work, they can be art, but on a photography website it's only fair to state what it is don't you think ?
This question is posed often and often repeats. It seems to emanate from those that are either scared of computers or ignorant of Photoshop (or both). Certainly composites pre-date digital photography by many years so why the fuss? However (in recent years) there has been a third strand where images that are composited are being put forward as Wildlife and this is more significant.
I agree with many others that composites are both a fact of life and since Photography is an art form totally 100% acceptable. Indeed some great composites form some of best images I have seen.
For those that labour under the miscomprehension that photography in some way represents a 'truth' I am afraid again this was dispelled many many years ago and again pre-digital.
Yes we can all achieve great world class images without compositing however by limiting ourselves we limit our artistic expression. Why would we do that?
If you are NOT creatively editing your images and/or prints then you might be accused of being a 'record' photographer. If so, I do not criticise you, do your photography as you wish but if you find you are vehemently against compositing then ask yourself why? You might find you are the one with a problem?
I'm not going to take this answer personally although it is a bit judgemental. I asked the question because I think asking right questions is the first step in a learning, developing and opinion forming process; as opposed to being sure of one's opinion as the only valid truth.
Nowhere did I proposed in my question I was opposed to composites.
Why limit our artistic expression? Because sometimes we feel comfortable and satisfied with results after trying one step further. If constant experimenting was the only way, we would all be shooting psychedelic videos. Why limit ourselves to still images if we can move them?
Landscape Photography is an art form, but one that is inherently imbued with a sense of authority and accuracy due to the medium itself, the capturing of images of our world. As photographers we understand that manipulation to some degree is part and parcel of this art, but the general perception of a photograph, like it or not, is one of recording, not making. This is very similar to my own field of Cartography where maps have an authority that often compels honesty and accuracy from its practitioners.
Should a photographer be compelled to disclose composite techniques? No, of course not, except when the context of the image implies that it is un manipulated. The problem is that the implication of “un manipulated” is there almost all the time by default. So any image that is manipulated seems dishonest when the manipulation is not disclosed right away. And I don’t blame folks for feeling that way, its natural. I think the onus is on photographers to do a better job of understanding how our images are perceived and the weight they carry.
Context too plays a tremendous role in how important disclosure is. But it’s a big fat grey subjective line at best between an image that is processed and honest and one that is “manipulated” and dishonest.
Best bet as a photographer is to always be aware of the status and weight our art form carries and do our best to be voluntarily transparent about what we are doing, especially if there is a good chance a casual observer will mistake our art works for something more documentary or journalistic.
Your selection of landscape photography as an art form is both interesting and undisputed, certainly not by me. I am assuming you chose landscape photography for a particular reason to perhaps set it aside from other forms of photography which perhaps you think is not an art form? I would certainly like to know if that is the case and what is an art form and what is not?
However if we consider an artist painting a landscape versus a photographer 'making' a landscape. We do not question the painter whether the image is manipulated or even real? Certainly if all painted landscapes were photo-realistic how boring life would be? When a landscape is painted the artist is not required to outside a building - their studio although some do. A photographer almost exclusively has to be in front of a real landscape in order to start 'making' their image. Like the painter they may finish the image in their studio.
Why would a photographer be subject to statements such as honesty/dishonesty when a painter is not? Mainly ignorance even Ansel Adams landscape prints are manipulated.
Debate with expressions such as honest/dishonest are both unhealthy and negative.
Photography is an ART and therefore there are no boundaries or constraints. No one has to like an image or consider it as art but it still is. Even scientific/record photography produces images that are manipulated by chemical or digital interpretation to produce a 2D (therefore additionally manipulated) representation of a 3D reality.
This topic seems to always cause issues when the group rules are not quite detailed enough in this area. Photography to me is expression or story telling. Most groups I've been in indicate somewhere in the rules what type of photographs are acceptable. Whether they have to be straight out of the camera with no post editing, no use of filters or presets, no merging of exposures, etc...For me if I have a photo I'm proud of I have no problem including information or answering questions in regards to how I arrived with my final edit. It's sort of asking do we want to post photos with only the post editing that is acceptable in most photography contest. Photographers are unique people and most I've met love to help others with all sort of editing techniques. I think it should be left up to the photographer to honor and truthfully follow any rules stated and if the photo is within those guidelines then it's acceptable. If it's not within the rules, most groups have an unspoken honor code ;)