Why are 'traditional' photographers hung up about photo manipulation.?

Question

I've read some comments from traditional studio photographers that claim photoshop manipulation is a cop out or not photography because it is artificial or phony looking. But in reality, you could argue all photography is 'artificial' and 'phony.' A photograph of a person is not a person. It's a visual representation of a person made by the mechanical means of a machine and medium (film stock). Most photographers use or used enlargers. If that's not 'artificial' what is? Besides that, traditionally photographers have manipulated film photographs with dodging, burning, solarizing, etc. And they also have an argument about digital photo manipulation not 'looking real'. Do traditional photographs 'look real'? They are 2-dimensional and made of paper, and lots are b&w. Nothing 'real' about that either. Isn't it really because we have accepted film photography as a convention? convention.

Answer 1

I think there are two parts to the reaction against digital. One part is probably because there are so few examples of high quality digital images available to judge from. It's not that they aren't around, but what you see from the internet on your screen won't be it. Your browser, the conversion to JPEG for web display, whether you monitor is color calibrated, or if you are using an Apple or PC all make a negative difference.

I just got back from a panel discussion comprised of the following people:

Gina Werfel: Painter, Chair of Art and Art History Department, UC Davis

Peter Selz: Curator, Author and Professor Emeritus of the History of Art at UC Berkeley

Hearne Pardee: Painter, Art Critic and Professor of Art, UC Davis

Francis Mill: Director, Hackett Freedman Gallery

Laura Harden: Photographer, Director, San Francisco Studio School

It was a discussion of art, the values of art and whether turning art into a commodity in the modern world was reducing the amount of good stuff. Photography was solidly represented as a co-equal visual art with painting and that included digital photography.

Everyone there considered digital to be an exciting extension and enhancement to photography now, not some time in the future when it comes of age. Quality wasn't even a question, nor was the idea that film somehow brings some sort of ineffable quality that only film can achieve and for the true artist is the only 'real' photography. The idea wouldn't have made sense to anyone. Laura Harden, who shoots in film, certainly doesn't see it as film being superior. In fact, the concensus was that the current crop of photographers wasn't advancing the field of photography and the visual arts in spite of what digital offers.

Another part of this ridiculus arguement is probably because digtial really democratizes photography. This isn't new, when Dr. Land introduced the Polaroid camera, there where the same arguements and it was predicted that it was the end of photography. This democratization of photography upsets some people because I think they are insecure in their talent and imagination. The darkroom, with its arcane chemistry, obscure procedures, another exposure process to go through with all of the judgments to make, removed photography from the realm of all but the self-selected. This elevates the 'real' photographer from the commoner. For some, this would be a powerful shield against finding out they are artistically mediocre.

Another factor that never seems to be mentioned is that producing a quality digital photograph is as demanding, if not more demanding, than it is with film. The digital darkroom is new to photography and it has been presented to everyone (including photographers generally) as easy, click this, slide that control and there you go. It can take hours, or even days, to produce the highest quality print.

In fact, you have to know more than you do with film. B&W and white is easy with film, the characteristics of film are fixed. In digital, to get a good quality of B&W conversion you have to know how to adjust the various color components to simulate the spectrum response of film and if you want it to look like a certain film, you have to know specifically the spectrum response you need to reproduce. That's B&W, but it is the same with color. Like Velvia? If you know how to set the 8 color components that photoshop has, you'll get the look of Velvia. After all, what is Velvia? Why is it preferred by so many, if not because of a look?

This isn't a universal arguement between film shooters and digital shooters. Those of us who have solid backgrounds in both are rarely involved in the fray. We may work in one, the other, or both, but look down on neither. These types of discussions are like reading Sontag's writings on photography. Something every photographer should do once, but no one would make a habit of.

Vance

Edit: Amen on the visual illiteracy, Perki!

Answer 2

It takes a great deal of skill to produce a great print using traditional methods of film and a darkroom. By comparison a digital camera and computer. There is not a financial risk in experimenting in the digital darkroom (maybe a few pennies a year for the power) you're not paying for chemicals and film.
Results are almost instant with digital. All this allows much greater freedom to "try" and if you have and artful eye like lidybef the results can be quite creative. The boundaries can be pushed futher by more people.
Traditionalists will struggle at how much easier it is with digital, but there are some things that are simply more satisfying in the traditional methods and in addition to the skill it takes more discipline too and for super large or super detailed prints digital still isn't there.
I liken it to woodworking, you can rip a board in seconds with a power saw and it would take several minutes to make the same cut with a hand saw, but with the hand saw you get a much better feel for the hardness of the wood and the direction of the grain which in turn may affect how you plan to use that board, will it warp or twist? Just as being able to read wood as a carpenter, knowing and understanding the traditional methods of photography will make a person a better digital photographer.

Answer 3

Because anyone can get a computer program and manipulate photos. It takes a real artist and an artist eye to use a camera and a dark room. If i see two pieces, one thats a straight photo with amazing light and composition and the other that has used photo shop to manipulate the light and contrast etc.. Then i say the first one is the real achievement.

I use photoshop to manipulate photos all the time but i can't consider myself a serious photographer. Theres less soul and craftsmanship and skill involved in using a filter on photoshop than there is in learning how to use a piece of equipement that has history. Im a painter and i would hate it if people took photos put a 'painting filter' over it to make it look like a painting and then said im a great painter check this out. Thers no tactility no years of practice.
But im getting off track.
They should be well defined different artforms. Photography and computer manipulated images. The latter should no try and pass itself off as the former.

Answer 4

I agree with Dr Sam. Traditional photographers go on and on about using photoshop as a cheat but where do they turn when they need dust removed from their photographs? And how much time do they spend in the dark room 'getting it right?'

EDIT: how many times have I read of a photographer gloating about the 12 hours he spent in the dark room developing and redeveloping an image until he gets it the way he wants it. Need I say more?

Answer 5

Very simply put, we are seeing a plethora of poor images highly manipulated in Photoshop, then presented as good images by very inexperienced people. The photographer I trained under used to say, "People are visually illiterate." and I've come to understand what he meant. In the hands of a talented photographer,Photoshop manipulation is a wonderful extension to the art form.

Answer 6

Clearly you are correct. The entire history of photography has a parallel history of darkroom manipulation. Photoshop and it's kind are merely the digital equivalents of the same science used for art's sake.

Answer 7

y'know all of that may seem like a sort of cheating...but it really isn't, because even with the latest programs and honed skill with a computer, nobody is a magician, if i go out and shoot a bunch of lowzey frames, when i get in and down load and run it all through photoshop or whatever other program i choose, i will get lowzey pictures at the other end...these programs and before them all the darkroom tricks, are only as good as the photographer...clear as mud?

Answer 8

Many fail to see that photoshop is really the darkroom of the past. However, that said photoshop does not replace a properly taken image. You need to start out with a good photograph to enhance it in photoshop.

Answer 9

Used to be if you did not use Kodachrome slide film, you were considered ignorant of "true" photography".
Before that, color prints were frowned upon- "true photographic art had to be on black and white prints.
Etc. etc.
It's another phase- somewhere out in front of us is a photographic revolution that will probably rock our digital world.
I wonder what it'll be?

Answer 10

nothing wrong with a little levels, curves, sharpening, contrast, dodging and burning on the pc.
i think these photographers would be more so against totally manipulating a photo to the extent that it is nothing like the original.