Photoshopping Street Photos Yes/No?

[barnwulf]

Sparrow said:

Ah, yes but isn't that just distorting reality but by another method, in fact worse, you're discarding whole frames full of reality whereas in photoshop it may just be one small area that needs correcting

It can be what ever you want it to be, Stewart. I guess it's depends on your point of view. It's time to go out and shoot some photos. Jim

 

[taskoni]

I don't PS or LR my photos in general except cropping them sometimes. If I have a picture I really like but it's badly exposed etc. I try to tweak it to the point I like it and go and re-shoot if possible.
I scan with my crappy scanner only for preview and gallery here. If I am lucky and I have really good shot I go to friends and enlarge it.
Scanning and PS-ing doesn't make sense for me - why spend money on film to get digital result?
Regards,
b.

 

[tbarker13]

Dear Tim,

So... With street photography you're not trying to evoke a certain emotion?

All I'm saying is that street photography does not HAVE to be warts-and-all documentary, and that there is no longer even an implied promise that it is, unless the photographer says it is.

Cheers,

R.

If the photos evoke emotion, so be it. If they don't, then I need to work harder on the street. Not on my computer.
Obviously, every photographer is free to do whatever they want with their images.
Go to Paris and shoot street scenes. Put little green men in the background if you want. But just don't offer it up as an example of Paris street life in 2011.

I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread. But frankly, I'll argue that the ease with which we can alter images in Photoshop is one of the great evils facing documentary photography today. Moreso than ever before, we don't know if the images we see are real.

It just makes for lazy photographers who don't take the time to look for compelling images. And they don't put forth the effort to carefully compose the ones they do find. They just figure they'll "fix it later in photoshop."

 

[tbarker13]

.... and that there is no longer even an implied promise that it is, unless the photographer says it is.

Cheers,

R.

So we are to assume that a photo isn't real, unless the photographer says it is? That has to be one of the saddest things I've seen written in a photography forum.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If the photos evoke emotion, so be it. If they don't, then I need to work harder on the street. Not on my computer.
Obviously, every photographer is free to do whatever they want with their images.
Go to Paris and shoot street scenes. Put little green men in the background if you want. But just don't offer it up as an example of Paris street life in 2011.

I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread. But frankly, I'll argue that the ease with which we can alter images in Photoshop is one of the great evils facing documentary photography today. Moreso than ever before, we don't know if the images we see are real.

It just makes for lazy photographers who don't take the time to look for compelling images. And they don't put forth the effort to carefully compose the ones they do find. They just figure they'll "fix it later in photoshop."

Dear Tim,

Or for harder-working photographers, with more vision, who are prepared to work towards the image in their head instead of lazily snapping whatever is in front of therm.

Do I believe what I've just written? Of course not. But I believe it as much as I believe your post quoted above.

There is no One True Path. Absolutism may (or may not) be a commendable moral stance. But as soon as it loses sight of what is actually happening, it's worthless and meaningless. Do you really mean that there are no circumstances in which little green men could not be used to emphasize/explain/illuminate what is happening on Parisian streets?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So we are to assume that a photo isn't real, unless the photographer says it is? That has to be one of the saddest things I've seen written in a photography forum.

Dear Tim,

Why does it make you sad? What are you afraid of? That the rest of the world doesn't live up to your moral standards? And what do you mean by 'real'?

I've got news for you. Most things that are possible, will be done. The photographer's statement does not have to be explicit. It can be implicit in how he works. And here's something else that may be news: there is no such thing as objectivity. We all choose where to point the camera, what focal length to use, when we press the button. Life (not just photography) is about selectivity, and anyone who pretends that selectivity is possible without bias is being at least as dishonest as someone who puts little green men into Parisian street scenes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Snapper_uk]

is a writer allowed to edit his words?
or should it be perfect as first written?

same with composer?

etc?

That's not really a good analogy. A better one would be perhaps a journalist that chooses to omit a fact from a true story, on the basis that he didn't like that fact or it didn't fit the story he wanted to tell. At best, it would a be a distortion of the truth, at worst, lying.

Altering the content of a photograph? Same thing. Photography should be about truth.

 

[tbarker13]

There is no One True Path. Absolutism may (or may not) be a commendable moral stance. But as soon as it loses sight of what is actually happening, it's worthless and meaningless. Do you really mean that there are no circumstances in which little green men could not be used to emphasize/explain/illuminate what is happening on Parisian streets?

Cheers,

R.

No, I cannot think of a single circumstance where it's ok to import little green men into a documentary photo. Once you do that, it's no longer documentary.

And I hardly think it's losing sight of anything to suggest that documentary photos should be honest and real.
On the flip side, it's awfully easy and convenient to devise an argument for why it is OK (if not necessary) to use technology to alter reality for the benefit of a photo.

Too many times, we do things simply because we can - without any thought as to whether we should do those things.

 

[Sparrow]

... one should not let the truth spoil a good story ....

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's not really a good analogy. A better one would be perhaps a journalist that chooses to omit a fact from a true story, on the basis that he didn't like that fact or it didn't fit the story he wanted to tell. At best, it would a be a distortion of the truth, at worst, lying.

Altering the content of a photograph? Same thing. Photography should be about truth.

You can never get all the facts in. You can maintain a pretence of objectivity, but it can be very hard to say exactly why a particular fact was chosen or omitted.

Besides, facts (or alleged facts) are everywhere. The journalist's job is to help us to make sense of those facts.

I'm much rather read (or ignore) an openly biased piece than read some wishy-washy pseudo-objective piece where the journalist is too frightened to admit who he's working for, or what his own views are.

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

So we are to assume that a photo isn't real, unless the photographer says it is? That has to be one of the saddest things I've seen written in a photography forum.

Of course one can assume whatever one pleases, as long as one realises it's an assumption, not a promise. If the viewer thinks of it as a promise, they create a reality for themselves that may not be intended by the photographer.

When I fire the shutter at 1/250th, I create an image but also a reality that would not have registered with me or other viewers without that micro-slice of time anyway.

I'm pretty sure that any portrait photographer knows what I mean as well. It's the expression on a face that you would never have noticed if the camera had not frozen it in time. So, did it exist as an entity before the camera captured it, yes or no?

Are things you are not aware of, real to you? To me the answer here is 'no' and it means that the picture by its mere existence is creating a reality anyhow. Then why not perfect it if necessary?

This is a street picture from a reality that did not exist before I shot the picture:

The shutter isolated this guy's eye blinking. All his facial expressions, thoughness and attitude are gone in that split second that a blink takes.

That reality would not have existed (not even with himself!) had the shutter not isolated it.

 

[tbarker13]

is a writer allowed to edit his words?
or should it be perfect as first written?

same with composer?

etc?

But we've always known that writers, reporters, (I am one), composers, etc. are forced to do this. It's unavoidable when the observer must use a small number of words to describe/retell complex tales.
If you read a story about a city hall meeting, you don't want a verbatim transcript of every spoken word. Someone has to condense it into a manageable form. Maybe you won't agree with everything the reporter chooses to include in the story - but someone has to do it.

But with photos, we've always expected them to show us what it was like to be there - from that particular vantage point. They do what words cannot.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, I cannot think of a single circumstance where it's ok to import little green men into a documentary photo. Once you do that, it's no longer documentary.

And I hardly think it's losing sight of anything to suggest that documentary photos should be honest and real.
On the flip side, it's awfully easy and convenient to devise an argument for why it is OK (if not necessary) to use technology to alter reality for the benefit of a photo.

Too many times, we do things simply because we can - without any thought as to whether we should do those things.

You are now conflating street and documentary. Further, you are conflating documentary with (let us say) CCTV recording or Google Street View. By its very nature, documentary is selective.

If you can't think how importing little green men could comment on documentary, your definition of 'documentary' could be described as limited. Importing little green men, with the intent of irony for example, could be a very important part of a meaningful document.

Please understand: I also believe in the value of an unadulterated image. But I also believe that your view is unrealistically absolutist. In other words, no, I don't automatically assume that every picture I see is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, completely unretouched, and I think I'd be a fool if I did. But if the photographer, either explicitly or (through his body of work) implicitly says that it is, I'll probably believe him unless I have reason to suspect he's a liar.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course one can assume whatever one pleases, as long as one realises it's an assumption, not a promise. If the viewer thinks of it as a promise, they create a reality for themselves that may not be intended by the photographer.

Dear Johan,

YES! That's my argument.

How can someone else's assumptions be binding on what you, or I, or anyone else, chooses to photograph?

Cheers,

R.

 

[tbarker13]

This is a street picture from a reality that did not exist before I shot the picture:

The shutter isolated this guy's eye blinking. All his facial expressions, thoughness and attitude are gone in that split second that a blink takes.

That reality would not have existed (not even with himself!) had the shutter not isolated it.

Of course it is existed. The shutter doesn't create reality. It captures it.

But let's say that in the original photo, his t-shirt had a swastika. And that you didn't like the imagery. So you removed it. That would be creating a reality that never existed. It might make a better photo (in the minds of some). But it would be a lie.

If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that I have no issues with portrait photographers tinkering with images. (unless they are part of documentary series, that is.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

But we've always known that writers, reporters, (I am one), composers, etc. are forced to do this. It's unavoidable when the observer must use a small number of words to describe/retell complex tales.
If you read a story about a city hall meeting, you don't want a verbatim transcript of every spoken word. Someone has to condense it into a manageable form. Maybe you won't agree with everything the reporter chooses to include in the story - but someone has to do it.

But with photos, we've always expected them to show us what it was like to be there - from that particular vantage point. They do what words cannot.

Dear Tim,

And who selected the vantage point, and the moment to press the button?

The same sort of person who selects what words to put in, and which to leave out.

Cheers,

R.

 

[back alley]

If the photos evoke emotion, so be it. If they don't, then I need to work harder on the street. Not on my computer.
Obviously, every photographer is free to do whatever they want with their images.
Go to Paris and shoot street scenes. Put little green men in the background if you want. But just don't offer it up as an example of Paris street life in 2011.

I'm not directing this at anyone in this thread. But frankly, I'll argue that the ease with which we can alter images in Photoshop is one of the great evils facing documentary photography today. Moreso than ever before, we don't know if the images we see are real.

It just makes for lazy photographers who don't take the time to look for compelling images. And they don't put forth the effort to carefully compose the ones they do find. They just figure they'll "fix it later in photoshop."

but that has always been true and still is, in the darkroom as well.

 

[johannielscom]

Photos only in the best circumstances depict 'reality', even documentary ones.
Ever noticed how people start to behave differently when a camera is near?

The people revolting in Lybia are not shaking fists and shouting all day long. Without a doubt they are doing this when a camera is in sight and switched on, the footage shows it. And maybe on other occasions too, is the best we can say.

 

[tbarker13]

You are now conflating street and documentary. Further, you are conflating documentary with (let us say) CCTV recording or Google Street View. By its very nature, documentary is selective.

If you can't think how importing little green men could comment on documentary, your definition of 'documentary' could be described as limited. Importing little green men, with the intent of irony for example, could be a very important part of a meaningful document.

I do believe that street photography is a form of documentary photography. I don't think I'm alone in that belief.

And I'd argue that you are conflating "documentary" with "imaginary."
Obviously we disagree about 100 percent on this. For me, documentary means "it happened." Maybe that's simplistic. If it is, I'm comfortable with it.

 

[back alley]

Photography should be about truth...

then all black and white prints are a lie?
where did the colour go?
is that not leaving out something integral to the image?