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.
No it's not our place to decide, you're absolutely right about that. But the fact so many people have such varying opinions across the spectrum from "real" on one side to "fake" on the other side shows that many, if not most people have a definitive position. How they got to that position is worth exploring, in my opinion.
I have watched many oil canvas artists who paint what they see and then add in some item or change elements of the scenery they r painting, i dont see the difference between that and photoshop. Why manipulation is such a heated topic is beyond me - it is the final image that is the art.
If that want the clients want, what's the problem.
There are no rules !!
Whatever makes your client happy is acceptable.
I don’t think there is or should be eny limit to editing. Your only limit is technical requirement.
Let’s say if you work for National Geographic or other documentary project, then you surely will have limitations on what can be done to an image.
However, if you going after artistic image then go ahead and do whatever you want...
On the other hand, I think, photography, in its nature, is about camera skills, composition knowledge, etc. So I editing is a secondary part.
If you going after 90% combined images, then it’s a whole different field of expertise where people learn just editing and don’t even need photography skills. Some amazing things happening there but it’s not photography... more of a digital art.
Good point. I guess that's another new debate - where does photography end and digital art start?
William H. Mumler made a lucrative business of this in the early 1860s. He was ultimately the target of a sting operation in New York, was arrested, and went to trial. He was exonerated of any crime, but his business was greatly diminished after he returned to Boston, likely in shame. His most famous "spirit photograph" was made for Mary Todd Lincoln, and depicted her with the "spirit" of her late husband, President Abraham Lincoln.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/meet-mr-mumler-ma...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/a-brief-histor...
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/phot...’s-ghost
Times have certainly changed. Humans, not so much.
Fantastic info Howard, thanks for sharing. Interesting that Mumler seemed to be faking some of his photos, hence the sting. What it does show, however, is the value some people place in having photographs with deceased loved ones - something still continuing strongly today, as evidenced by this article.
You're welcome. I think there's a marketing and monetizing opportunity here for some intrepid entrepreneurial type: a bar and grill called Mumler's. It would be designed to look like a 19th-Century pub (mahogany, brass, red velvet draperies, etc.), serve dishes and grog that were popular in the 1860s, be decorated with prints of Mumler's spirit photographs, and feature a photo booth where customers could have their own spirit photos made.
It would likely be swamped every year on Halloween.