Agreed Marc. For me the whole issue revolves around how the work is defined, or in which category it is placed. Personally I create art and for me art is about my vision of the subject, not about reproducing the subject as it looks like in reality. However, just to make sure that everyone gets that, I publish essays, books and eBooks that describe my approach to photography, I have a podcast where people can listen to me talk about my work, and I have a warranty that says if an image is not manipulated (i.e. it show things as they are in reality), customers can get their money back. In other words I want to make everyone aware of my approach. I consider this fundamental for ethical and artistic reasons. It fosters my artistic approach by making me more creative and it prevents confusion in the mind of viewers.
Yes, you should do an AMA here. I have your book and it’s very informative.
Thank you Richard. It’s actually going to happen. It will be in February 2020. Just watch out for an announcement.
A few thoughts …
This question predates all of us. The Pictorialism movement of the early 1900s ‘can be seen in every photographer who seeks to create scenes, not merely capture them.’
One of the movement’s members was Edward Steichen. His 1904 image, ‘Moonlight: The Pond.’ recently sold for $3 million dollars, and is considered by Time Books, as one of the Top 100 most influential images of all time. http://100photos.time.com/photos/edward-steichen-moonlight-pond
“In fact, every photograph is a fake from start to finish”
: 1904- Edward Steichen
A very interesting, influential, and inspirational quote. Every photograph is a fake, a lie, and images are an illusion.
As photographers, we manipulate our selves and our cameras to take photographs. The number one rule in photography is that there are no rules. Once a person can embrace that concept, they allow themselves to paint with pixels their artistic illusions.
Hey Ed,
That history about Edward Steichen & his “Moonlight: The Pond”
is fascinating! I love reading about where / how things / ideas originated from. So, thanks for sharing that!
To All: I wanted to restate the gist of my original post. It follows here:
My thought on it is that, I do not need to come right out and state that I’ve changed the sky from the original. However, if someone asked if the photo was manipulated in any way, I would simply be totally honest in telling the customer the photo was “manipulated” from the original, and in what way.
I understand that we make changes to images all the time when we develop them: a bluer sky, more overall saturation, sharpness, etc. However, it seems to me making a change such as inputting an entirely sky may be in different category than simply developing an image.
Reading some of the replies it seems some of you fine folks took me (of course, I’ve been known to misconstrue things a time or a million) to be questioning whether photos should ever be manipulated. So, just to set the record straight, for whatever that’s worth, that is not at all the point I was trying to convey. Of course photos are manipulated all the time, from ever-so-slight to dramatic changes.
This one sentence in my original post is the gist of my point: " However, it seems to me making a change such as inputting an entirely sky may be in different category than simply developing an image." So, I was trying to ask if a manipulation can be so huge (in this case an entire sky replacement), as compared to lightening exposure, bringing out the greens, that as the artist, when a customer is going to pay good money for it, I should say, “By the way, Mr/Ms Customer, I thought you’d want to know the original shot was a bland, totally blue sky. So, I used software to remove the original sky and added this new sky in this photo you are interested in buying from me.” OR Should I ONLY volunteer that info if a customer specifically asks how the photo he is holding in his hand differs from the original scene. Then I’d say, “Actually, I felt the sky was rather bland, so I changed the sky dramatically. I think it’s a much stronger image. Don’t you agree”?
So, again, I’m just putting this out there because I’m thinking either I did not communicate my original post well enough or some of you may have simply misunderstood my point.
In any case, I wish all of you and your families a Very Merry Christmas and a Very Happy Hanakkuh!!!
Tom this topic will be debated for many years to come. Here’s my 2 cents. If an image involves a composite which it sounds like yours does then it should be stated as such. But basic adjustments such as saturation, contrast, sharpening, spot removal or cloning well that’s just part of modern photography. As far as keeping it real ask yourself this, can photography be art? Few would answer no, so if photography can be art then what’s reality got to do with it? Some people will never accept change but notice they’re not driving a horse and buggy to work. The bottom line like in most things is “whatever lets you sleep at night”.