« Disillusion | Main | Followup About Faked Photography »

Wednesday, 18 September 2024

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

https://store.magnumphotos.com/products/darkroom-prints-muhammad-ali-chicago-1966

Picture worth a 1000 words.

Having worked as a graphic artist for large print houses and ad agencies in the late 70s and 80s, I can confidently say that all photography destined for commercial print—whether for books, newspapers, magazines, or other media—was retouched, manipulated, or recreated in some way. If the art department missed an issue, it was sent back because the 'instructions to the artist' were not followed correctly.

Before the work goes to print, it gets turned into camera-ready art in the art room by graphic artists and illustrators. Camera-ready art was essential for producing printing plates, and graphic artists worked closely with printers and art directors to ensure the highest quality product. Clients both expected and were charged 'art fees' for this process.

Every photography coffee-table type book has been manipulated. The best print houses charge a lot of money for their services because they are 'artists' or excellent art manipulators (using the term in this context only because of the post title, otherwise they are commercial artists doing their job).

Many photographers today appreciate the unique aesthetic that alternative processes offer, which is a form of manipulation. When I look at historical photos, I see plenty of manipulation—it has been part of photography’s tradition since its inception.

I believe that most, if not all, famous photographs have been manipulated in some way as they passed through various hands in the creative process. This relates directly to what Ansel Adams said:

"The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance."

Adams’ photographs were highly manipulated, and that manipulation was central to the creation of his iconic images which speaks directly to the artistry involved in photography.

Adams was able to bring out the full emotional and visual impact of his scenes through manipulation. His approach was not simply about documenting reality; it was about interpreting and shaping it to match his artistic vision. This manipulation allowed him to create images that were not only technically excellent but also emotionally powerful, contributing to his lasting legacy in the world of photography.

One of my favorite photographers from history who was an incredible artist (manipulator) with the tools of the day is, Leonard Misonne (1870-1943).

Without artistic vision, a camera is a copy machine. That is not why I became a photographer.

A favorite manipulated photo that I have a copy of:

Art has no interest in photocopying fact/data/truth per se.

Or else, stop considering Photography as an art medium.
A B/W photograph itself is a manipulation of a colour world.
Any image with border (applied by the light tight box and the lens is also a manipulation from the perspective of a person next to the camera.

Manipulation is not the problem or expectation, the intent of doing so and the impact on the pre-conceived perception of the viewer is the point of concern. We need to know the intention and check our perception, both to be considered together.

> "the manipulations are going to be built into the phones and applied automatically."

- then why do you buy an iPhone16 (Pro I guess?). I would have opted for a 14pro instead (the 15pro will also get what they like to call "Intelligence")...

Exactly so. This is like saying that, well, humans have been able to go to space for a very long time. And of course it is true: people did indeed go to space using giant rockets. People went even to The Moon this way, and robots went much further. These were heroically expensive, requiring the resources of a nation-state and, later, of the plutocrats. They often did not explode. But it was not until the discovery – by materials scientists, not rocket scientists – of materials suitable for the construction of space elevators that humans went to space: no ordinary family, in 2024, was booking an orbital vacation, but today, almost anyone can afford one.

I wonder what the percentage of manipulated images was then and now...if we're taking a trillion a year, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage was similar.
Of course, this all changes once phones start automatically manipulating without intervention.

Dorothy Wilding (Society Portraits exhibition at the NPG in London September 1991 with a book published by Schirmer-Mosel the same year) used to make very large prints, longest side four feet or so, retouched the large prints (page 39 of the book) and then photographed the retouched prints and used the new negatives for final prints.

Ten minutes walk from where I live, a local photographer used another method 25 years ago, well not he himself, he had a few girls retouch his Hasselblad negatives with very, very fine brushes. None of the girls stayed very long.

"No disrespect to anyone who did so, but...well...

Sigh.

It's true, strictly speaking (they're not wrong). But it's also deeply misleading."

Deep sigh...

I've been visiting this blog just about every day for years but in recent times it's been mostly out of habit and now, today, after reading this drivel I've had enough. It just doesn't seem to be a photography blog any more and when it is it often seems... well, lets just say not to my taste.

I've had enough. Over and out.

To me, the focus on availability of image manipulation misses the point. It’s like blaming the invention of the typewriter for the growth of propaganda since it made it easier to write false narratives. Instead, the focus should be on the trustworthiness of the source. It seems these days we have an epidemic of misinformation that people are too willing to believe. I don’t trust a photo or news report just because I see it, but I will feel more trust if it’s from a trusted source,

I have a photograph of my mother on the wall above my desk here. As best I can tell it is a colorized print and in the process of colorizing it the image was clearly enhanced, much like the Joan Crawford photo Mike featured. I love it. She looks beautiful and perfect, not unlike Joan. The photo is well posed and composed, the colors are muted and the print has a softness about it.

I wish I knew more about it, when, where and how it was made. Based on her appearance I suspect it was made during the war, in the early to mid-1940s, probably in San Diego where she had her own modest photography business at the time, while also working at Convair Aircraft. I suspect she had some connection with someone who could do this work. Far and away the best photograph I have of her.

"...Some sheet films were specifically made with a "retouching surface," meaning a matte surface with some "tooth" that was easier to draw on than a glossy surface...

Today, there's still one sheet film that includes the retouching surface: KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320. I doubt anyone still uses it for its intended purpose, but it's worth its weight in gold. The polyester base side of other sheet films causes troublesome Newton's rings when contact printing and/or enlarging, unless an anti-Newton glass is used to maintain pressure. Those rings are eliminated by the retouching coating's dull surface.

Even more useful, with films that have emulsion surfaces as shiny as those of uncoated polyester bases, e.g. TMAX 100, ACROS II and a number of color negative films, KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 sheets can be cleared by fixing and washing, then used as a spacer between those glossy-emulsion films and the lower plain glass in an enlarger. Voilà: no rings and none of the mess associated with powder sprays used for such suppression.

My mother and my aunt (her sister) were both skilled "touch-up artists," who worked for the same local photographer in the early 1980s.They would make their corrections on the colour print with hand-mixed colour matched paint. My mother was particularly good at it. It is ironic, because I inherited my colour-blindness from her.

Thank you for the very interesting article!

[Wait a sec--SHE wasn't colorblind, was she? I don't see how a colorblind person could be a color retoucher. --Mike]

Well, now I'm feeling quite confused and somewhat defensive. Are the "best" photographs only those that show things as they "really are?" Because I never personally lived in a world that consisted of the colors black, white and gray. For a lot of years that was the only way the world could be recorded by a camera device.
Was the development (!) of color photography spurred by the pure desire to finally be able to portray "reality?" At last photographers could get serious!
My point is that for me, capturing a scene or a character is just the beginning. The joy is creating something I want to look at over and over again. It's rarely "perfect" enough SOOC (in my own opinionated vision) and I enjoy immensely trying to make it into something that existed mostly in my head in the first place. I am aware that not everybody, or even a majority of people approach photography that way, and that's fine and dandy.
But I sort of feel like I'm doing it "wrong" from some people's point of view. And that is when the second-guessing raises its ugly head.
(by the way, I love doing monotone stuff, too.)

Stephanie

I am not to sure I agree with you on this.

What you re basically saying is that retouching and manipulating pictures was fine in the analogue era, because it was difficult and time consuming.

But on the other hand the democratisation of photographic retouching thanks to digital and photoshop is not OK, because it is cheap and easy.

It is interesting that several Natural history photography competition winners as well as an infamous gallery show by a famous travel photographer, have been outed as fakes by good eyes.


Personally I like Capture One, it mimics very closely the dodging and burning tools I used in the darkroom. Not much has changed for me during the transition from film to digital.

All photographs are manipulations of time, light, perspective, POV, tonality, hue, and cry...

Yes. Photographs have been manipulated in many ways since the very early days of the technology.

Yes again. Digital technology makes the manipulation of photographs quicker and easier. AI makes such manipulation even quicker and easier.

Manipulation is not the issue in my way of thinking. Rather it is the dishonesty of presenting (insisting that?) manipulated photographs somehow represent reality.

Replacing a bland sky with an interesting one in Photoshop and not disclosing this upfront is exactly the same ethically as air brushing out an out-of-favor Soviet politician in my book. There is an intent to deceive in both cases.

Furthermore, AI generated images cannot be photographs as photographs are made by photons impinging on a photo-sensitive surface. To call an AI generated image a photograph is fraud, pure and simple.

As to the issue of how much manipulation is 'allowed'. The answer is clearly 'it depends'. For photojournalism, 'zero' is the proper answer. For fine art, anything goes. Lots of gray area in between but the intent to deceive is the critical issue.

Well reasoned article Mike. I find it a bit ironic how much effort some put into making easy to manipulate digital photos look like it was shot on hard to manipulate film!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007