A woman from Arizona has had her late fiance's images imposed into wedding photos. She is absolutely thrilled with the results but it opens a wider discussion in this age of digital photography: where is the line drawn when it comes to creative editing?
Tragically, Debbie Gerlach's fiance, Randy Zimmerman, was killed in a motorcycle accident 9 months ahead of their scheduled wedding. But thanks to photographer Kristie Fonseca, Gerlach could create some beautiful images of her and Zimmerman together on what would have been their wedding day. You can see the photos and read more about the story here. The article describes the photos as "touching" and "otherworldly". Gerlach loves the results and the shared photos have since gone viral, with incredibly positive feedback from almost everyone who's seen them.
To me, this is a perfect demonstration of the unique opportunities that digital photography affords us. Whether it's in-camera with creative uses of the aperture, shutter speed and filters, or in post-production with the myriad editing tools we have at our disposal, we can pretty much do whatever we want to get an image that we like.
However, many in the photographic community and beyond have wildly different views. My dear old mum, for example, scoffs at long exposure photos where the water is silky and milky. Yet she absolutely loves shots I take of my newborns in black and white with creamy, dreamy bokeh. I can't reason with her and explain that neither are what the "real scene" was like. To her, long exposures are fake while black and whites shot at f/1.4 are gorgeous.
Then we enter the world of composite photography, Photoshop, dropping skies in, adding vibrance, removing people, adding people — the list is endless. But what's acceptable and what's not? And how do you reach that conclusion of where you draw the line on "real" or "fake". Thanks to modern digital photography, Debbie Gerlach can savor photos with her late husband-to-be that would have been impossible as recently as 30 years ago. But some will look at these photos through traditionalist's eyes and frown.
What's your view on it all? How much editing is acceptable, and what criteria do you use?
Lead image by Kristie Fonseca and used with permission.
Unique, really? We did stuff like this in the darkroom all the time.
With all due respect, I didn’t say this, specifically, was unique. I said digital photography affords us unique opportunities in as much as we have so much more creative licence to do as we please in post-production
"But some will look at these photos through traditionalist's eyes and frown."
"Traditionalist's eyes?"
That exact kind of photography--a composite or montage of a dead relative against living survivors--was some of the very first photographic manipulation that was ever done. Photographers were doing that over 100 years ago. That very thing was the first big hit photographic specialty product. Composites were the next phase after they stopped propping the actual dead body in the picture (you can tell the dead one--that will be the sharpest one).
Photo manipulation is as old as the technical ability to do it. It was the first effort of photographers to distinguish photography as an art rather than a purely mechanical representation of reality.
Manipulating a photograph to the greatest extent current technology permits has always been "traditional."
Look at posts here on Fstoppers (or elsewhere) that talk about adding reflections, or playing with colours, or manufacturing silhouettes, or any type of compositing. There are always a number of people who comment with “fake” “not real” etcetc
She is the one who suffered the loss, It’s not our business to criticise her.
I came here to say the same thing. This lady should have the wedding photos that she wanted. We can't criticize. I am happy the photographer did this for her.
I’m not sure there’s any criticism going on anywhere in my post....? I’m more interested in the editing aspect and peoples’ views on how far we can push things
It's an odd request for sure. It's certainly her choice, although really she needs to let go and move on. This won't help.
Beyond ethics, there's the creepiness factor. Its clearly her choice, but it's creepy to me.
I agree.
I feel the same but it's her lose and what she wanted.
The more I look at the photo the sadder I get...
Regarding this story, I think if the client is happy and the photographer is happy to do it, then there nothing wrong with it. It’s like taxidermy, I think having your dead stuffed dog in your house is weird, but if it brings you comfort, it would be incredibly selfish and simple-minded to call it “wrong”.
In terms of “acceptable editing limits”, I don’t think there are any, generally speaking. If people want highly processed epic landscapes, that’s fine. If they want a black and white photo of a man on the street, that’s also fine. I enjoy a lot of different kinds of photography and I don’t care for others, so for me it’s the old “perfect pasta sauce” problem.
My only concern is that all of the exposure to highly processed images has altered the idea of what a “good” photo is, at least for some. Looking through the “popular” or “top rated” photo sections and you’ll be hard pressed to find a subtle intimate landscape or street photography. Looking through the “Editors’ picks” you’d be led to believe that highly processed portrait photos of good looking men and women and highly processed epic landscape photos are just about the only way to “stand out” around here, which is a little ironic. (with a few expeditions here and there.)
I think real photos look better, but fake looking also have their place. That’s just my opinion, and I can accept that. Whatever conveys the message the photographer is trying to tell, works. But again, “perfect pasta sauce”.
Define “real”.....I’m not being terse, coz that’s exactly what I’m questioning....”real” to you could be “fake” to the photographer next to you. How do we define and categorically determine “real”?
Well, it depends on the style of photography, and of course some of it is subjective. However I’m confident that if you compared the work of Thomas Heaton to Peter Lik, any photographer worth their weight could point out which one looks less processed.
As for “fake” I was mostly referring to shots that use a lot of photoshop. For example, that top rated photo of the birds flying around the astronaut. It’s fake looking and not my cup of tea, but it’s a great image and would make a wonderful movie poster or book cover, so it has its place and it is very well put together. I’m not trying to say one is better than the other, I’m just saying it would be nice to see a little more variety of photography styles on a photography site.
I think trying to debate what constitutes “real” would have us walking round in circles trying to find the corners.....
Indeed, truly photography is the professional wrestling of the art world, haha.
Editing will happen regardless of what people say or do. Nothing is real, everything is fake. Events are captured in the blink of the eye can be altered even without editing. It's all a matter of intent, where you put yourself, and what side of the fence you are on.
Remembrance photography is nothing new. Back in the older days of film and plates, people would pose and be with their deceased loved ones. It was not common to have a ton of photos of your family, so in situations like that it was all too common to do it just to have something to remember them.
I've sadly seen this sort of work far too often in the military community with service members who've fallen, and were later added to maternity/newborn work. With the digital age a lot of people all too often take photography for granted when it comes to family work, and having it be a permanent fixture in their home...and just something online.
I find it sweet, and memorable. She will never get to walk down the aisle to him and see his face light up when he sees her in the dress. So this is the next best thing ;/
Frankly, I find this post inappropriate. It's absolutely none of your, or our, business how this woman wants to grieve and remember her dead fiance. Maybe find something else to write about?
I was just thinking the same. I see no reason why this wouldn't be acceptable and the specific situation is not for any of us to judge.
Firstly, it was posted on Fox News before here. Secondly, the lady who had the photos taken posted them on Facebook, and her post went viral. So quite clearly, it’s well and truly out there in the public domain
His post used her situation as a test case but asked us to comment on editing, in general, and NOT relative to this example.
A lot of the problem with this post is the heading.
Good point. I didn't think of that.
That's fine. There should be no limits to what people do with processing, as long as it's not fraudulent.
Whatever
Whatever makes the bride happy. Why not? It's not fakery but a keepsake of their genuine love.
If it makes her happen then it's all good.
First of all.................it's none of our damn business on what she wanted..........................secondly, as long as it causes no harm to me or anyone else.................it's none of our damn business!
As I posted above, this was on Fox News and the lady in question posted on FB. So evidently, it’s out there in the public context to look at and comment on. Thirdly, the issue isn’t on “what she wanted”. My first couple lines say she was thrilled. My question, in the context of photography, relates to editing
Iain..........I understand and I understand that people love to comment on the choices of others.............please understand I have no complaint with your article just with judgemental responses.
To be honest Terry, I think many of those comments have come from people who’ve read the headline and perhaps the first 3 lines. I’m complimentary pretty much throughout but I am more curious about our editing parameters. If people didn’t read the article, they’d have completely missed that point.....
Iain.........as to how much post editing is too much?? I'll equate it to cooking a meal........."season to taste".
First of all........read the entire article. Secondly.......put more thought into your comments.
I did..............Secondly, I did
Well, in that case, Okay! :-)
I find this just ridiculous (my personal opinion)
But why not, if it makes her happier…
Another instance of when the opinion of anyone else but hers does not matter. I honestly don't know why this is a debatable topic here.
Very sorry for her and the families involved.
What I did was take a photo of my late father in law, edited it so he was by himself and put him in a frame. I add this image by placing it on the wall or the floor. If the recipient of the image is happy then it's not for anyone to pass judgement.
Not new since spirit photography has been a thing for ages, but still creepy...
The lines between photography and other forms of art blurred years ago. I find this ugly and creepy, but who cares if the client liked it. I do feel people should acknowledge when they have added anything extra to the image.
Looks like the legalism is creeping into creative arts. Go away you draconian witch hunters.
Great story, happy to see she found someone to help her with that. Now for the editing question which is the only thing going on with the story not sure why so many are missing the point. I feel real and fake comes down to the photographers opinion. Anyone with great photoshop skills could make an entire let’s say street photography photo from images found in a google search and never even touch a camera. But if they don’t say the made the photo that way would anyone be able to tell? Sure there is obvious faked photos like birds circling an Astronaut sitting on a rocket flying over a planet. So if you can’t tell what’s fake or real does it matter? I think the question is more how much post work was done. I think real or fake is irrelevant instead we need to be unique.
Where "the line"is will be as varied as the number of people alive. It's all subjective.
I think we could sit here and finish 14 bottles of whisky, 81 crates of beer, a vat of red wine and perhaps a block of mountainous cheese and we’d be nowhere nearer the start or the end of the debate
No issues with morhping the bodies of wmoen to sell lipstick but we draw the line at a bad phantom effect for a grieving widow...
Sure.
OK. I created a profile to chime in with this:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If she wants her dead fiancé photos hopped on Mount Rushmore, let her. It's not like she's pretending his ghost showed up to a photoshoot. There is literally nothing ethically ambiguous about this. She's grieving how she needs to and doesn't need your two cents about it.
You need to get a life!
Such is life after Forrest Gump. This is a question for modern psychiatry. We togs are not qualified enough. Despite this, I'd dare to say this woman most likely needs professional help. On second thought, she may be just fine.
Photography is an art form and it's totally subjective. To tell someone else they've gone to far is to tell a painter they've used too much paint. It's really no ones business to tell another they've "done it wrong". This real or fake discussion is pointless. If you want real, go there and look at it. A photograph will always have the photographers imprint on it whether that be subtle or extreme editing and it's not our place to decide what is acceptable or not.