Is It Okay to Manipulate Your Photos?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2024
- Your contributions make these videos happen! If you enjoyed this video, please consider making a contribution at www.nickcarverphoto.com/contr...
Buckle up, folks, because I'm about to settle this once and for all. It's a question for the ages: is it okay to manipulate your photos? I've been crunching the numbers, pouring liquids into beakers, vigorously scribbling on chalkboards, and I've finally burst from my basement photography lab shouting "Eureka!" I have the answer, people!
...Nah, I'm just a dumb guy who has thoughts to force down your throats.
Viewers often ask me about altering my images and influencing my subjects to better align with my previsualizations. Those questions got me thinking and reflecting on where do I exactly draw the line with it. Is it okay to influence my subject? My feeling is staunchly "no". But then again, I have no problem telling a semi-truck to hit the bricks if they pull in front of my scene and block the camera. That's influencing the scene. So, no surprise, I'm a hypocrite.
Once I realized that hypocrisy, I had to exam myself a little more deeply to suss out this whole not influencing my subject thing. And how about digital alterations? How about photoshopping? Where do we draw the line?
I don't have a clear cut answer for you (or me), but I think it's an interesting topic to explore. And so in this video I will go through some examples, some thought experiments, and some scenarios that might help us figure out where the line is and when we have crossed it.
Philosophical discussions about photography...they're not for everyone. But hopefully a few people will find this video helpful/enjoyable.
Thanks for watching!
And check out my online course all about light metering for film photography: www.nickcarverphoto.com/metering
Website: www.nickcarverphoto.com
Instagram: / nickcarver - Zábava
"The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer
Ansel Adams elevated dodging and burning to an art form and wrote a book on producing prints called The Print (Adams 1995). If its art, do what you want if its a record of a scene dont change a thing.
Including burning out letters on the hill/mountain behind the horse in the photograph that Nick included in this video!
Obviously he has never seen Ansel’s original test print of Moonrise Over Hernandez.
@@justinrichardson3864 - yep! Quite amusing that Nick used ‘Winter Sunrise’ because Adams painstakingly touched up the graffiti carved into the hillside every time he printed that image. Personally, it doesn’t bother me. But I guess Nick has no respect for him now?
@@paullanoue5228 possibly, still a very interesting and thought provoking video.
@@SkylaneGuy I assumed that was what he was going to talk about, but then he talked about the horse, ha ha.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams
Agreed, absolutely, even if it's just moving around. Most of my photos are montages of five or six subjects, sometimes too obvious. Yes, total fake, I know, but if the girl doesn't look right, she gets dressed, or undressed again..
Yes but the making can be seamless and invisible, which is ideal or crude and blatant, like the two Lik moon shots are
@@philmartin5689 I agree with you on Lik. I feel like you should try and try and recreate what you saw and were feeling when you took the photos.
I will never use a fake sky or moon in a photo, and even keep the saturation within the realms of reality.
But some people just feel as though if you do any edits at all it’s no longer photography. That’s my point is all. You have to find a balance.
That's exactly what Peter Lik's doing...and he's successful at it
IMPORTANT: I mistakenly credited the photo at 8:20 to Henri Cartier-Bresson. This beautiful photo was in fact taken by Rui Palha. Please visit his website at www.ruipalha.com and learn more about this apparently common misappropriation at instagram.com/ruipalha_vs_hcb/ - I feel terrible about this and I can assure you it was purely a result of sloppy research on my part. I will be more careful in the future.
Thank you so much... your attitude is, indeed, appanage
of a very well formed person. Thank you for that.
You should pin this comment!
Luminar headquarters - Scratch Nick Carver off our list of future ambassadors.
HAHAAAAAA!!!
Luminar is for wannabe photographers especially the ones that use the sky replacement.
@@FelixCervantes I cannot see the appeal in sky replacement. The fake sky just feels so generic.
Knowing you’re not a Peter Lik fan has made me a bigger Nick Carver fan.
Who is this? and what is wron gwith him?
@@neildewestelinck6639 Peter Lik is Lisa Frank for adults with more money than taste.
player haters....
Anything goes, as long as you're not pretending to do documentations. Period.
I agree
Agreed
can’t argue with that at all
Agreed. I choose film, filters, cropping, aperture, shutter... everything to create a vision.
If I knew you used a split ND, would I lose respect for you?
I was expecting someone to pass outside the window behind. And it happened.
Twice :-)
@@dimitristsagdis7340 That's what makes this video art 😂
@Ramo Yes you were, but only after it happened. 😄
What if he paid that person to pass behind the window outside?
I am not a photographer. But this guy inspires me like a kick in the ass.
This was highly enjoyable to watch. Definitely made me think of where my own line is at. Stay well man!!
Interesting take man.. and I 100% am with you on the peter lik images
..yeah that was just obscene, falls into the tacky category like fake palm trees.
I remember the moon shot... he claimed it wans't fake when the moon was IN FRONT OF THE FREAKING CLOUDS
If Peter Lik hadn't pretended the images were real, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. My objection is to his dishonesty.
@@willwillis5186 I totally agree. If your going to create stuff like that, own it. At least be transparent so people know what they are buying with their hundreds of thousands of dollars. Never been a fan of his photography, and even less of a fan of his ethics.
@@NickPage Exactly. Claim that you're an M.C. Escher fan and you were high as a kite and inspired at the time to copycat his trademark. But don't lie to people is the bottom line.
Artists should be honest as to whether they are a "photographer or "illustrator/ graphic creator". I was frustrated by my slow photographic improvements until I realized how rampant radical digital manipulation is amongst the highly regarded...
Photography is like magic. You as the viewer, should relish in the moment created to bear witness to art, skill & vision. The viewers hold no obligation or entitlement to know how or why it was created...
unless its political photo journalism.
You’re like a character from an old noir film. You’ve got your code, your snifter and your tobacco pipe and you don’t need nothing else.
Nick- greatly appreciate your work and approach to photography, but more importantly your honesty. You are an artist!!!
Nice conclusion on all this Nick. I appreciate the lines you draw in your head and feel I am right along those same lines. I've struggled with scenes in the past (cars entering or leaving a moment I want to capture). Nice to hear it pelled out like this.
what you are talking about is probably the most important subject I learned when studying photography. in dutch its called ensceneren, i am not sure what the correct translation is but it is kind of like mise-en-scène in cinematography . it is a long debated subject amongst photographers. honestly i think this is one of your greatest videos yet. big fan of your work and could not agree with you more.
I agree.
I think the issue with manipulation is if you think a photo belongs to a certain genre of non staged street or landscape photos, then you find out the guy staged it somehow, it changes what you expect. But if you knew from the start its a staged scene, you wouldn't feel it's bad and can still appreciate it.
Very well laid out discussion, Nick! I stuck around and watched the whole video even though I was planning on skimming this one.
This is fascinating and makes me think. Trying to unpack your reactions to all these examples, it seems to come down to if you first see a photo and your initial impression is that the photo captured an actual and exact scene just how the photographer came upon it, but then your subsaquently find out it was a designed scene, you are upset to have been deceived. Yet, when you first see a photo and decide that it must have been a designed scene, then the designing of the scene doesn't bother you at all. You really don't like getting deceived.
It's great to see you post here again, and your videos are always excellent. Wishing you a great and healthy holiday season!
Agree 100% with everything you said! It’s a frustration for me to see folks posting highly digitally manipulated photos as if it’s some sort of photographic achievement. IMO, it may be an artistic achievement, but NOT a photographic achievement. To me, there’s a subtle but significant difference between the two.
I mostly shoot slide film precisely because I like to preserve as much of the genuineness as possible of the moment I choose to freeze in time.
I truly appreciate the integrity and respect you bring to your craft. I just wish that more photographers would do the same.
For me photography is art and it's about getting the final photo that I want. The way I picture it in my head and that could include replacing the sky or removing eye sores in the photos like trash and objects that is distracting to the eye. I like to have fun with it and create the best looking image according to my taste.
But no clouds behind the Moon :P
@@FranzFridl helllllz no! 🤣
Why not just learn to draw?
@@fakename287 because photoshop is easier.
@@theincrediblepurp photography is a form of art, there are exceptions like photo journalists. And art can be expressed in any way shape or form. At the end of the day, a digital sensor captures light and translates that light into an image, what happens to that image afterwards is up to the person push the shutter button. Art will always be subjective. Some see a million dollars image while others see it as junk not worth the paper it's printed on.
A great discussion for an interesting topic! Very well done!
Mattia
Brilliant and thoughtful analysis with very powerful illustrating examples. Best disposition on the subject that I have certainly seen.
I always appreciate your videos! I think the scenario of a vehicle or something blocking your shot is no different than having the lens cover on; it’s completely separate from the scene. You need to remove it to take the shot. So I agree with you on that part. Beyond that, I see all of this as questions about how much scene manipulation, if any, is acceptable BEFORE the shot is taken, and how much is acceptable AFTER the shot is taken. The shot itself is a manipulation because of the selected exposure, depth of field, and focal length.
a good example of a changed perception about a photographer is the Steve McCurry saga
Very interesting and well done (as usual) with good examples. I'm with you all the way. Thanks Nick.
One of the best presentations on this topic I have seen. Much more nuanced an issue than I thought prior to this video. Very enlightening. Thanks Nick!
It depends! If your photograph is used in determining journalistic integrity then nothing should be altered. However, if your photograph is merely produced as an artistic expression then you shoot as your mind's eye sees it. Besides, what's the difference if you remove the trash can, for example, while you're shooting or in photoshop. If it bothered you in the composition of the image remove it!
It’s all about the initial intention, isn’t it? If he had spent 3 months painstakingly painting that scene (including the trash can) on a canvas would we view it the same way as we would knowing it to be a frozen moment in time captured by an art-form we know as photography? For me, intention in a given moment is correlated with the tools and technology we’re using for the purpose. And I suspect as an audience we tend to look at a piece of art with different eyes depending on the knowledge (or lack there of) we have of how the image was actually produced. Different people have different ideas about what a “true” photograph is. Some think that a photographers job is to capture “reality” as it is. No more, no less. Period!Some people even think that a camera can never capture “reality” in its full capacity since the process seems too “easy” and quick to encapsulate all the thought processes and emotions that other art-forms may bring into the process. Some people don’t even believe in an objective reality at all.
When it comes to so called photo journalism it is reasonable to believe that most people would like to believe that such a photograph is as unbiased as it can possibly be, for the sake of telling a story as truthfully as possible. But even then the result is still dependent on a whole range of personal choices made by the photographer prior to the shot being taken. Not to mention how it later may be combined with headlines, captions and editorial choices that could dramatically alter the perceived meaning of an image. It is far from as straight forward as it may seem, unfortunately.
My point is, -viewing an image is a very personal thing and each one of us bring a lot of personal ideas, experiences and preferences into the process each time we view an image. That’s what makes it so fascinating and also so frustrating at the same time. To some extent the advent of photography have brought a more apparent form of realism into the human realm but has it the capacity to tell a “truer” story than other forms of art? I’m not so sure...? Is it completely unreasonable to think that maybe Ansel Adams developed his advanced darkroom techniques just because he felt a need to tell a fuller and more thoughtful story than what the initial plates would be able to bring from the capture? Is it unreasonable to think that because of the extra work he put in to the post process of his photographs he was actually able to “bring out” more “truth” from the scene? If our emotions and experiences are not allowed to be incorporated in the images what truth do they hold to us then?
Extremely interesting, extremely well discussed. I completely agree in everything you said. THANKS NICK! As always man. You're the absolutely the best on CZcams.
You are great Nick!! Love all the reserch and information
Very interesting discussion indeed! Thanks, Nick!
Hey. Great job as usual. Just a note. Image shown on the 8:21 mark doesn’t belong to Bresson but rather to the Portuguese photographer Rui Palha. All the best!
@@RuiPalha1 Ok it is a mistake. But who of us is free of errors?
Errare humanum est...
I am sure he will correct it...
I think it always happens because of the Pinterest pin that has a wrong name but you see at first when you google hcb. Nick is a good dude though so don’t be too hard on him. :)
@@CristianGeelen Indeed Nick is a great guy and he solved his mistake in an excellent and elegant way
@@SD_Alias He corrected yes,,,, he is a great guy and a very polite person, indeed
@@CristianGeelen The Pinterest pin has the name www.pinterest.pt/ruipalha/henri-cartier-bresson-foundation-letter-and-some-m/ and it is correct
And indeed Nick is a good guy
Seems like the difference between ‘taking an image’ and ‘making an image’... though the old argument is that everything is a manipulation because the photographers chooses the components, composition, what’s in the scene abs what is conveniently left out, the choice of colour or B&W etc.... however, I think I’m pretty much in complete agreement in how you approach the subject...
I completely agree with you on this whole video. Thanks for going in depth on it. A lot of things I’ve thought about in parts but never all together in depth.
Super interesting video Nick
In these discussions I’m always reminded of a classic philosopher (not sure who) or line of thinking which says the mere act of observing something changes what is being observed. In recent times this is expressed as “we don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. In other words, our choices of which lenses to use, which perspective and point of view, shutter speed, etc are all choices we make in presenting a scene. So one could say that right out of the gate we are affecting the subject or scene. As you said, what we are comfortable with as the photographer, and what we expect as the viewer, are personal. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this super interesting and philosophical discussion!
I say, do whatever you have to do, to make the picture look the way you want it to. That is your artistic choice. But do not manipulate a journalistic image, that´s a no no.
But Ansel Adams said to the mountain, give me some more contrast ;-)
Nice, very nice! Well balanced and delivered with a smooth sense of humor! Also congrats with your SilverGrain Classics piece and a big, big thank you for Glenmorangie ... speaking of smooth and well balanced!
Didnt know about your channel up till this video. Loved it! i am having similar issues as well in regards to photo manipulation and you hit the nail on the coffin. Cheers man!
The unsaid answer is honesty isn’t it. Don’t pass something off as real if it wasn’t.
Yep, I 100% agree! If I take a picture and something is bothering me I remove it. I'm even fine if somebody swaps out the sky to get the look they are after. It's your artistic license.... as long as you don't try to pass it off for something else! And that is the problem with for example Peter Lik. He is claiming that his pictures are not manipulated yet they clearly are so what pisses you off is not that he (or his assistant) has altered the picture, it's that he is lying about it. People don't like to be lied to....
That covers it
Best coverage of this philosophical topic I have seen. Well done!
Agreed
This was so good! Nice video, mate!
Been waiting to view this one until now when i can sit down with a cup of coffee, love the insight!
Anyone can do whatever they like to create art. Subtlety and beleivability is an artform in itself.
Which is why Peter Lik is a fail.
These days we don't see many people covering such 'sensitive' topics, let alone giving examples of famous photographers. They are too scared of offending anyone and lose followers or make enemies. Your honesty and integrity are admirable sir
Thank you for your videos !! They all are very inspiring ! Thanks again
Man, I just received a letter with some really bad news that made me worry and got me really nervous for the last two hours. Just went on CZcams, hoping to find a new video in my subscriptions to calm me down. Thanks Nick Carver for delivering when I needed you!
I hope everything turns out well! ❤️❤️❤️
I think the line is whether the audience's intelligence is insulted or not. When you try to convey a message with your photography, people expect it to be an honest and genuine message.
If you view yourself as an Artist who manipulates photographs with a final result in mind, why is that not being "honest?" My #1 selling stock photograph is of Mt Rushmore where I edited exposure to bring out shades and tones in the rock monolith and added a sky to replace the cloudless sky. I am not insulting your intelligence, I am presenting my image as art.
Yes, that is fine and highly subjective, cause some people can argue that is digital art, not photography, and other argue it is a part of digital photography. I think when you are being presented a journalistic photo, for example, you might expect it be a true narrative of what happened at that moment at that place. Or when you look at a landscape photo with full moon, you expect there are no clouds BEHIND the moon.
It’s like manipulating a portrait the way you like it. Sure, it might look good, but it’s not who that person was. Having said all these, ultimately you are creating what you like so it’s up to the artist to decide if there is a line and where that line is.
@@asgharinanlouasl2297 I think people are getting hung up on something for nothing.
For example, *all* photography is photography. It's a hole in a box.
What people are upset about, is that in this day and age, there's *another* medium, *other* than film. And *that* , somehow, is lesser, to them.
And it seems to bother them.
Like Ansell Adams wouldn't have given a limb for access to what Photoshop can do now. The majority of what PS *can* do now, are techniques people like him *pioneered* .
The majority of these people bleating on about Photoshop being cheating, would be quite happy to do *exactly* the same things, but in the darkroom, instead. So, again. Medium.
If you're happy taking cyanotype images on a pinhole camera, then good for you. Others are more than happy to take full advantage of new technologies.
I for one, wouldn't be able to afford the hobby if i was using film. Or, indeed, even *new* equipment.
And I think that *that* , right there, lies at the heart of a lot of the mouth noises to come out of photographic circles.
*Pure snobbery* . Plain and simple.
"You're not as good as me because of medium/cost of equipment/purity of concept etc. etc. etc". "My gear's better than yours". "I'm a purist, I do it all in camera".
I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard that kind of crap pour out of somebodies mouth, and left me feeling: "Wow. This guy must be David Bailey or something". Only to cast my eyes over their "opus" to find some bland, lifeless desert, bereft of any kind of emotion or artistic ability.
But, they were "not touched up" or "posed", or any of those other "bad" things, to be sure. They did, however, *desperately* need some of those things to elevate them above dross.
I *would* agree with a few simple things, though:
Honesty. I wouldn't claim something was something it wasn't (but that doesn't mean I would claim anything about it at all, either. eg: If a Death Star made it into a picture of your mum's house, because it amused me, I wouldn't claim it was real. I wouldn't say anything at all). Am I being dishonest? No. Never said a word.
Honesty in photo reportage, for example, is paramount. But less so for Instagram.
Personally, I would just like to see all photographers get along and support each other. But for some, that was *never* what it was about.
yes, good assessment. Similar to Nick's saying, what does the viewer or client expect. The viewer wants authenticity and I think we can be damn sure he would get that from Mr Carver, even if the carpet is raked.
@@paulscottfilms The viewer wants an appealing image. Authentic or not, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
To me, it depends on what you are using the medium for. Are you an artist where your goal is making a specific image or commentary? Are you a documentarian or journalist who is doing reportage on a specific moment, or event? Are you an illustrator with the goal of communicating an idea or commentary (this can get sticky with editorial )? Are you a commercial photographer who is helping sell an idea or ethos based around a product or service? It all comes down to ethics, and for me only applies to journalism, and even then I personally am ok with some manipulation to some extent.
I hate this argument, I think it's dumb to hold people to some arbitrary personal standard. Make the images you want to make and to hell with the haters. There's a quote, I think it was Steve Harvey in Original Kings of Comedy, who said "If you don't like it, then damnit this ain't for you."
*as I watched the video, you hit on the same points I was making.
Really wholesome discussion and valid argument but man the humour was everything.🤣 Really informative and it's really got me thinking. Always top tier.👍🏾
The lines of expectation and conscience sometimes align. Sometimes they don't. Good video, Nick. Good topic.
The Elephant photo bothers me only because of the chains.
Yep. different times. Let's try preventing it from now on.
I kinda liked the chains. Like the model was chained to her attire/profession etc. (I don’t like the chains on the elephants but I enjoyed that the photo included them)
Nick I think I missed it. Did you say "there are clouds behind the moon?" 😏
There is a moon?
@@paristo Relax... It's OK: the moon was probably drawn in Blender.
@@paristo Wait what? A moon? What is this ridiculousness you talk about?
@@jries77 I don't know, soon someone makes a claim that earth is not flat....
@@paristo anybody that says the Earth is not flat needs to be hung by their nutsack.
Great topic and very agreedable considerations. Thanks!
Nick this was such a great video. Thank you.
Fun discussion Nick. My question is, are the film cameras on the corner table posed? LOL, sorry, I have a sick sense of humor.
BOOM.
The difference is Peter lik would say he came across them in the wild but nick would say helllll yes
Nick the photograph in minute 8.20 that you gave the credit to Henri-Cartier Bresson. was made by Rui Palha and not by HCB.
You can see all the information you need at @t
All the best
What a subject. You totally got a point on this, I really never thought about it the way you do in this video. I think my photography has changed from this moment on
Thank you for putting this out there like this. It seems there are no more boundaries left that photographers aren't willing to cross. I run into it all the time with my decay photography. Folks ask if I opened the door and shot the interior. They want to know why I didn't move something. My response is always that I shoot it as I found it. If I even step into a scene I potentially disturb something. I've also found that once you consider manipulating one aspect, it will lead to another which then changes the scene that drew your eye to begin with. I personally love the challenge of creating an image that reflects what I saw. I applaud you for having that same dedication to your craft. Thank you!
Nick, I dig watching you work, but this video...idk where to even begin. Each person is of course allowed to have their point of view, and also I disagree with you so strongly. Why should someone lose respect for a photographer/artist that had the foresight to know what would make a perfect composition, then bringing it to life. It takes such an incredible level of skill to make something amazing out of something drab.
You seem to be coming from a place of photography is truth in some way. No photograph is free from the influence of its photographer. When you decide to frame a scene, you are create your truth not an absolute truth. If you shoot it high, low, at eye level, high contrast, color, black and white, the editing choices you make, the time of day you wait for...all of those are creative choices that change a scene. The same way moving a cone, cropping in editing, adding a horse, etc, are creative choices that change a scene. Photography is not a pure truth.
Those two comparisons (shooting high/low level versus changing the scene) are very different from each other. You cannot label them as "interpretation or creativity from the photographer".
One is seeing a photo through the eye of the photographer, seeing a real moment through the eyes of the photographer. It actually happened that way excluding everything else happening around that scene.
The other is like a drawn painting or a piece of art. Its fictional, its art, its composition, its beautiful etc. but its not the same as the other photo.
Nick doesn't think a photo is "truth". But he wants that a photo at least be non fictional.
Dotnt get me wrong. I think both kind of photos can be very beautiful and can be real photos and real art etc. but I feel the same as Nick.
It can be helpful to take things to their logical limit, and see what you end up with; would I be a photographer if I took a 'picture' with the lens cap on, and then used photoshop to create an image? I don't think so, but at what point do you draw the line?
great thing about photography is that the photographer doesn't have to explain their shots!
Unless you’re a photo journalist
This was eye opening. I really liked and needed this video.
I enjoyed this video, Nick. Great discussion of this issue.
A like right from the start 👍
To the point at 4:59, I might actually say I have more respect for the shot as that's a story way more effort into your creative vision than just showing up with a camera.
Came to the comment section to say this. It takes way more vision, effort and skill to bring a horse into the scene and place it at just the right spot than just happening to find a horse there. Luck should not be valued so highly when it comes to art
@@psychoticlime9940 agreed. Having the vision to enhance the scene shouldn’t make you 180 on your opinion like that. It’s like a film. You can have an authentic and moving image/meaning without it being a documentary.
Your creativity does not stop with your photography Nick. Could not agree with you more.
Well, THAT was a very inspiring video! Awesome!
I m pleased to hear that we share the same photographic ethic!
what's the ethic? Who defined it?
Eisenstadt's famous sailor kissing nurse was a set up. It's still iconic though. Annie Leibowitz is the Queen of manipulation.
Proof V-J Day was staged? There's an entire back story on NY Post about it.
Yeah the V-J Day photo wasn't a set up. Your Annie Leibowitz comment is spot on though and everyone knows she manipulates her photos in every way. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square
Thanks for that. *Very* good to hear a pro exploring these issues.
Great discussion, Nick!
I guess I'll always be a hack, because of that time I moved the leaf off a mushroom, before I took the shot.
There I admitted it, that feels better!
No, he was concerned about the veracity and authenticity of the photo. Is the substance of the image true to itself.
What would I think of you if you had brought that green chair into the scene (14:20)? GENIUS. That is a brilliant shot - perhaps I see it as more fine art than landscape. Great video.
Ansel Adams placed that mountain in the background. He's a disgrace to photography.
🤣
And you're a disgrace to art.
When I read the title I thought about typing out this huge paragraph, then I watched the video and thought, nope, not necessary. You have laid it all out just as I would have said it. Almost all of it comes down to "Fingerspitzengefühl" (german; literal translation: feeling at the tips of your fingers) which means something like instinctive feeling. People have an instinctive feeling when it is ok to manipulate images. Really enjoy your videos :)
Nick nails it again and keeps it simple, thank you
21:10 If it's personal work, it has, and _should_ have your interference all over it. Otherwise, you're taking pictures that are no different than security camera footage. What that interference may be precisely (like the degrees of altering the scene physically or digitally) is another question and is entirely up to you as the creator and not up to the audience.
If it's personal work the degree of interference is your personal matter only.
Very interesting! Just one thing, the image at 8:20 is not from Henri Cartier Bresson it's from Rui Palha. See here: i.pinimg.com/originals/56/6f/28/566f28e7c3bccf58d4b1fca790ce571b.jpg there is a confusion on the internet about this image, because a company allegedly presented it as from HCB.
Sébastien, Rick had a noble attitude and corrected his error. Thank you for your help, too.
@@RuiPalha1 My pleasure Rui! I had no doubt Nick would do it!
Thank you for making this video. I have been conflicted on what makes a photo valid. You were able to describe multiple situations where staging and manipulation is expected and certain situations that alter our opinions when we know it is not 100% organic. Thanks for the lesson!
Possibly the only video in the last six months of CZcams, where I heard each and every word from start to finish. A very controversial subject explained very nicely. Its all about pleasing your core audience. Personally for me, it doesn't matter what one does, as far as the client or viewer is happy. There will always be people who will love your work or hate it equally. Cannot please everyone. Just keep doing what you do best. :)
“The negative is comparable to the composer’s score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.” - Ansel Adams
“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” - Ansel Adams
I personally don't like digital manipulation...I prefer to get my composition right in camera. You mileage may vary.
How is digital manipulation different than traditional film manipulation? It was always possible - to some degree - to "photoshop" things. Besides, digital for retouching usually don't include compositing, which is another art form all it's own.
But did you know that Ansel Adams burned out huge letters L P on the side of the hill in the foreground? These done in whitewash by kids from Lone Pine High School?
Yeah, when he brought up the image, I thought the 'burning' out of the LP was going to be the subject of discussion...or even, "Well, the placement of the horse wasn't staged, but he did..."
I think Nick really needs to address this. He used an example from the most famous landscape photographer of all time who clearly believed to opposite of what he (Nick) does.
Really interesting video that made me think about my photography !
Greetings from France !
As always, I enjoy seeing a new post from you Nick. And today's topic is one we see often. You mentioned one of my favorite architectural photographers, Julius Shulman. A major influence with my own work. With you as to Peter Lik.
So photoshopping in multiple images is not ok but double exposure is totally ok? Although both images are the same in the end.
Where did you draw this conclusion from the video?
Questionable by time.
HDR is about limitation in camera equipment as sensor/film compared to human eye.
Stitching panorama is as well limitation in camera lens field of view.
Focus stacking is limitation of gear too.
8x10" format f/64 is same as f/11 on 35 mm or f/5.6 on 4/3". (Or something like that).
Does one say it is fake if using f/22 on 4/3" as 8x10" can't with f/128 get to same? How about taking 4 frames in fastest possible series (like 60 FPS speed)?
But if one takes photo now, then 5 min later, next day and takes all in? Unreal if things change, but not if example in studio where lighting is constant and stuff stays still?
Even framing an image is manipulation. But for virtually everyone, that's accepted.
Using a lens with a different FOV to our eyes is also manipulation
@@eoghanhennessy15 Troll.
@@kevinkostolo6949 Piss off
great interesting discussion here...... thxs for making it
Excellent video, you’ve got a like and new follower. Thanks for such a great video about such a difficult subject to discuss.
Ansel Adams did actually manipulate one of his most famous images, moonrise hernandez. Extremely manipulated in the darkroom i believe to severely darken the skies and enhance the moons luminosity. Jamie Windsor also has a great video talking about this topic you’re touching on he does a great job with it as well. Something to check out for any other viewer reading this comment or even you Nick. You’re right, it is a good discussion to be had.
But everything in the scene was actually in the scene. He used to overdevelop parts of the negative to capture details that would have otherwise been lost with normal development.
adams reworked moonrise many times through the years... gradually get
ing darker clouds
I completely disagree, it’s about the end result and how it makes you feel, what does the picture make you feel and why is the question you should ask yourself. You’re thinking too much about the process, too technical, just look at the picture and see what it does for you, we dont wanna find out how its made.
Ask an owner of a persian carpet if the how to is important or not.
Thanks for your very detailed explanation, Nick. I agree completely with your assessment.
A thoughtful and frank presentation, thank you.
I'm surprised that you didn't bring up Steve McCurry...talk about controversial
To me there’s a difference but the moment photographers start swapping out backgrounds skies etc.
That’s not photography anymore.
I agree-- but consider this. You're taking wedding photos, for instance. For whatever reason, the sky is a bit of a problem. Do you produce a better photograph by substituting a "better" sky that you actually photographed at a different time? It's a very real question now, because Luminar in particular, has elevated the art of sky replacement to a science with click-to-choose and sliders for effect.
Personally, I consider a photograph to be "documentary" or "creative"-- landscape, street photography, photo-journalism-- those are all documentary. You should be the observer, not the participant. Fashion, architecture, advertising, fine art... they're all creative output, and interaction with the scene is to be expected. The ridiculously huge moon photos didn't bother me, because they're obviously the product of manipulated, combined, elements-- the fact that someone ever looked at them and thought "that's a natural scene!" makes my head hurt-- and makes me a bit sad for humanity. :)
@@johngelnaw1243 Replacing sky in a wedding portrait comes down to if the married couple wants a phantasy story or a document of that very special day as they could experience it themselves (if matching their experience is even possible). Of course there should be some interference and set up (lights!) for wedding photos, especially portraits, but if the final photos look very different to the event (different weather, different bride/groom ;-)) a lot of customers would not go along with that.
Not an easy topic to tackle. Thanks for the food for thought. Enjoyed it!
Excellent video, speaking from the heart!
This is not 'Nam. This is photography; there are rules.
You’re not a Candid/Documentary/Reportage photographer and you are already manipulating the image BY CHOOSING THE TIME OF DAY AT WHICH YOU MAKE THE PHOTOGRAPH. You didn’t randomly drive down the street, see the Donut Shop, hop out of your car and snap the frame. You are purposely setting up the image by choosing the time of day at which you make the image thus you are influencing the image we see in the video. Your conscious choices as to what time of day, what lens, what film etc etc etc ALL influence the image which makes you more of a Fine Art photographer. We, your audience, are viewing YOUR INTERPRETATION of the scene. We know you’re not a reportage photographer. We know you’re not a street photographer. If you HAD moved the trash can in front of the Donut shop none of us would say a word because we know the images you make aren’t in these other styles. Are you a Conceptual photographer dreaming up fantastical scenes that don’t exist to photograph like Tyler Shields? NO! But let’s not pretend that you aren’t manipulating the photographs that you capture.
Great to see some Vivian Maier examples in your video, can't believe she's been discovered only 15 years from now, this is so fresh and her work, knowing her life (as much as it is possible by reading a lot of things on her), is beautiful. Thanks a lot Nick for all your videos, they are always full of thoughts and make us think about what photography can be for each one of us. Great moments looking at your work!
I enjoy the discussion, thanks!