Fakeography

[confucious]

First off, the OP started off with an assumption that the goal of all photographers is to represent life exactly as the eye sees it. This poses a couple of problems:

1. As another poster commented - the eye has a huge range that cannot be equaled by a sensor, so already a photographer is never really presenting an image true to what he/she sees as the sensor cannot match our eyes range of colour and light.
2. Secondly, if we adhered strictly to this concept of exact replication (disregarding the sensors inability to replicate the beautiful imagery our eyes create) we would all need to use 50mm. lenses. Eyes don't zoom, create fish-eye effects. Believe me, I just tried and it inly made my eyeballs ache. Even if we run up to the object in question, a form of manual zoom, we do not get the effect of a telephoto lens.

So - number one says we cannot possibly replicate what we see as the camera is never as good as our natural, nature-given, eyes. And number two says, iif we lived by this creed telephoto, macro, fish eye and any number of other gadgets would all be cheating - After all, the removal of an unwanted object by cropping is the same as the removal of an unwanted object by zooming with my 70-300mm. - niether represent what the eye really saw.

I shoot for pleasure and almost enjoy the post-processing MORE than the actual shooting. I find there is a large amount of skill and knowledge that goes into creating shots so that post-processing can create the desired effect of the photographer. The ability to judge what exposure time, depth of field, lens, and angle will create a specific image that can then be tweaked (i am talking basic contrast, white balance tools, perhpas cropping) to create a background that fades out, contains extraordinary colour, or emphasizes the foreground object, or any number of things, is a learned skill. I do not use post-processing to "save bad photos", about half my shots are taken with the post-processed (ie: tweaked) final image/result in mind - a two step approach to creating an image.

In the end, I create an image that generates a mood, inspires an emotion, or maybe just makes someone think "cool". That is enough for me.

In the end, though, to each their own.

PS - Having said all this, I shoot purely for me and purely for pleasure. Photo journalism would be a whole other argument.

 

[gmarquez]

This shocks me because the job of a photographer is to protray life the way they see it

Shouldn't you edit this to say "in my opinion, the job of a photographer is to protray life the way they see it"? Or is it an absolute truism that I haven't yet learned?

 

[skieur]

like that freelance journalist who dramatised the smoke and fire coming from burning buildings in Lebanon? Reuters refuses to take any of his images now after things came out.

It is very hard to draw a line...

Some photojournalists who are also newspaper editors don't really care about Reuters mistakes and by that I mean their "overkill" and reactionary response to a limited problem.

skieur

 

[Mike_E]

If you are employed as a photographer then the guidelines for image enhancement should be understood by both parties. Adherence to those policies is in most all cases a condition of employment- whatever those policies may be.

If someone (mufasa for instance) chooses to print images straight from the camera with no darkroom manipulations, this is perfectly acceptable and illuminates a bit of his character for the world to see.

One would hope that he realises that in camera sharpening and saturation is the same whether it's done by the camera or Photo Shop. (I also hope that he understands that upper end Digital cameras are designed to shoot soft so that post production can be better accomplished)

The choice of film is much the same. A fine grained film with strong mid-tones and highlights will convey a happier feeling in a photo than a grainy, dark film and thereby 'finesse' an image as much as general darkroom techniques. Manipulating exposures will accomplish the same.

Whatever you do will have your DNA all over it so don't worry about anyone else, make your mark by making your stand and let the world spin on.

mike

 

[|)\/8]

When does a photograph become digital art? Even before digital, photographs were spliced, overlaid, and manipulated a thousand different ways in darkrooms.

I guess you could argue that any photograph that receives post processing (probably 95% of the photos on these forums) has now become digital art. If you are using a digital camera, is every "photo" you take really digital art, and does it really matter? I don't have the answers, I am just glad I have the tools to develop what I see in my head.

 

[Alex_B]

Some photojournalists who are also newspaper editors don't really care about Reuters mistakes and by that I mean their "overkill" and reactionary response to a limited problem.

skieur

These images were pushing a certain agenda by the way they were manipulated (added smoke and added flares). They were taking side for one party in that war-like conflict. Even if it was "the right side" (which I doubt is that easy to judge though) the photographer wanted to support, the way he chose was certainly wrong and has nothing to do with serious photojournalism. If photography is used in this way to illustrate news, than it would be better if the news came without any images whatsoever. There are enough ways to manipulate the recipient of news by the wording which is chosen, we do not need even more manipulation by heavily modified images.

 

[Alex_B]

If you're an artist and selling your images as art... then they're art and not obligated to be truthful at all.

What's the point of art if you put these types of restrictions on it?

I am not talking of photography as art at all.

Why should I, as art has no restrictions aside from those the artist imposes on himself.

 

[Alex_B]

Eyes don't zoom, create fish-eye effects. Believe me, I just tried and it inly made my eyeballs ache. Even if we run up to the object in question, a form of manual zoom, we do not get the effect of a telephoto lens.So - number one says we cannot possibly replicate what we see as the camera is never as good as our natural, nature-given, eyes.

Well, our eyes and brain see highly selective and do not give an objective impression of reality. In that sense they "zoom in" even more than our telephoto lenses can since you only see what you concentrate on. What you actually see is a decision, and not imposed on you.

The eye is actually worse than what can be achieved by photography in terms of giving an image of reality, if wanted.

 

[ksmattfish]

... the job of a photographer is to portray life the way they see it...

I'm a professional photographer, and that's not part of my job description. In fact I'd say it's my job to make things look better than in real life. You are possibly confusing "photographer" with "photojournalist".

Before digital and Photoshop the masses often thought photography equaled reality, but that's never been true...

Said by Edward Steichen 80 or 100 years ago:

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability."

 

[JIP]

You know I had a book I was going to scan a page to post it here and I kept forgetting to do it but the basic gist of it was this. It had an image from Ansel Adams and showed a beautiful desert scene and the sky was breathtaking. Well on the caption of this image it read that the image was a coposite the scene was from one neg and the clouds were from another. I think photographs are a form of art and as such will be manipulated to present the image of the artist. So no matter how "pure you might think an image is, before I saw this I would have thought of Adams' images as "pure" there will always be some, a little or alot, manipulation. To me the only photographers whos images need to be pure are photournalists and I would be surprised if even 50% of them are. Lets face it in the age of photoshop and even before reality is in the eye of the observer.

 

[crotograph]

Post processing is always done, as has been mentioned before. I think what you are driving at is the "look" that can be sold as professional versus the software that can mimic, with tons of bytes, what a pro can get out of the camera.

It is an irony that so much of what has been learned through trial and error a by journeyman photographers can now be had with the computer in camera or the software for post processing. However you want to think of it, this is where digital is leading us. I am not for it but then I have been shooting professionally for 30 years and arguing this moot point for 7 years.

It is what it is. The good news is that film is far from dead. Actually, it is enjoying a limited resurgence from digital users who actually want to make a photograhp by themselves, as a thinking individual. Remember, there are the lazy and the ones who seek the proper methods of shooting and learning the nuance of the craft.
The loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on forums.

That said, there is an amazing amount of info on the internet about photography. Just like stealing money one can spend a few months learning photographic nuance and espouse knowledge never learned. It's really easy. Until they are forced to use a film camera, with no computer.

OK, I have left myself open to detractors who want to start the digital/film argument. Sorry, it isn't here. A digital camera in the hands of one who knows photography can work wonders. The discussion, to be PC, is whether you can exist in the real world as a photographer eating heels of bread, or, rather on the net, claiming what ever you want to claim and arguing and offending others you don't know nor care about. Claiming a knowledge garnered that reflects your interest in photography but allows you to fail as to photographic millimeters is BS.

The good news is that the net offers great lessons for free from photographers. The bad news is that ignorant folks use this and then argue their knowledge.

 

[rickpricemba]

I don't see any examples of fakeography.

Rick

 

[rmh159]

Remember, there are the lazy and the ones who seek the proper methods of shooting and learning the nuance of the craft.
The loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on forums.

Man that was a tough read but since I fought my way through it I feel I've earned the right to respond.

While I respectfully think that entire post is crap... I'd like to pick out the quoted phrase above. You're saying that "the loudest and most argumentative are the lazy on the forums"... haha umm... wasn't your post being argumentative? And by saying people on forums are lazy... aren't you saying you're lazy?

So after reading your post I'm left with two opinions. You're either arrogant to come on here and state your opinions and then point out that those that don't agree are lazy or you have no idea what you're talking about and you're not as smart as you'd like us to believe.

 

[crotograph]

Your sig says it all. Lazy is defined as purposefully not doing enough to support ones needs. If your needs include photography you have to strive after it in every aspect of photography. You must be proficient in all methodology of photography, or, be on the path to learn it.

Typical forum response, but, thanks. I really appreciate your demonstrating your understanding of the intent of the written word.:hail:

Oh Yes, one other thing, I am NOT speaking of beginners or part time photographers who do this as a hobby and are where they want to be. I am speaking of those who use the internet, not the intense practice of every aspect of the craft, not just digital, to garner enough knowledge to reply on a lot of forums. If this is not you then you shouldn't have taken this personally.

Arrogance. A misused term. Arrogance means the thought process of personal perfection that subjugates others under yourself in thought, nowadays, or level of royalty, in the earlier years of royalty, think Henry the 8th.

In this case I posted a thought that I was willing to defend. No one but yourself paid attention. Forums are like this. You get a lot of people asking for help and more than one bursting a bubble against one misunderstood post by one defensive individual. Perhaps you should stop posting and start listening. I came on here to sound out this body of members. Until you, I thought this a interesting group.

I am semi-retired. 59. How old are you? Doesn't matter. 47 years dealing with chemicals, people and stuff and junk.

Just really starting on the internet and digital. I think the moderators should take better care of their responsibilities.

 

[RacePhoto]

Arthur Stieglitz published an art periodical known as Camera Work. He announced that every published image would be a picture, not a photograph.

Do you honestly believe that Ansel Adams or Stieglitz or any any other great creative photographer, never dodged, burned, did composites or altered anything out of their camera?

Do you think that any art work or in this case, photograph should be "as is", out of camera, and not modified or edited to make it better?

I can understand the desire to make better photographs to start with and do less manipulation. That takes more effort and skill. But to say, that there's something wrong with editing, is kind of arbitrary.

On the other hand, if that's your choice, that's fine with me. I just can't buy the idea as something based on valid principles, or that should be claimed as being more pure than editing.