Integrity in photography is more complicated than one might expect.

Earlier in the week, there were a couple of Posts drawing attention to the outstanding quality and beauty of the land and seascapes from Patrick Smith Photography.  This time, the subject of this Post is about integrity in photography.

It was prompted by a comment in Patrick’s Blog:

Monday, June 15, 2009

Was that Photoshopped?

I’m a bit late on this subject, but I suppose that every serious photographer gets this question. And what can I say? Well..erm…. yes…uh..I mean no! I guess the answer depends on how you define digital alteration.

Every photo needs to have basic processing, but when I mention this, they say ‘Aha! So these are photoshopped!’

Then I have to explain that I view ‘Photoshopping’ as:

Hiding the fact that I:

1. Added a moon where there was not one before.

2. Cloned out significant objects because I was too lazy to be there when the object (like a car) was not there, or I was too lazy to compose it differently. For example, moving around to use a bush to hide a car.

3. Added a color that was not there. Or I cranked up the saturation to make people think I witnessed an awesome sunset when in fact I didn’t.

It comes down to honesty. Art is what you make it. If I tell people that I wanted to insert a giant full moon in the middle of the sky at sunset in a wide-angle shot, just to make a surreal scene, that is fine. But if I tell people that I saw that scene, I’d be lying and therefore ‘Photoshopping.’

Now, I make it a habit to carry around my camera with my most recent shots still in the camera. I show people the shots in the back so that they realize that what they see on my website and in a print is what I see in the back of the camera.

And after I take a shot, I look at the back and compare it to what I see with my eyes, so when I get back to the office, I can process it correctly. Of course, sometimes the back of the camera does not look the same, so I remember the differences.

What do you tell people when they ask: ‘Is this Photoshopped’

Here is a very thoughtful blog post (and some good replies) by Guy Tal on the subject.

Patrick

Patrick is correct, Guy Tal does underline some important points:

Let me [Guy] first disabuse you of the notion of “manipulation” – a term now so loaded with ignorant prejudice as to be useless for any meaningful discussion. To put it plainly – every photograph is manipulated to some extent.

Guy then heads straight to the core of the matter:

More troubling is the fact that in many misinformed (if sometimes well-meaning) minds, common image processing techniques are somehow linked to such lofty ideals as morality or honesty. Let me be very clear: the fact that any method of processing was employed is in itself completely meaningless. Honesty is not a quality of images but rather of people; and comes into play in how the work is presented. A dishonest artist is one who deliberately misrepresents their work. Presenting a heavily-modified image as a documentary one is dishonest. On the other hand, presenting any image as a work of creative interpretation implies (to borrow a term from Ansel Adams) some departure from reality. As responsible (honest!) photographers it is our role to educate our audience on the difference.

Guy makes a really core point that sums up just what honesty and integrity reduce to.

“Honesty is not a quality of images but rather of people”

Honesty is of people!

By Paul Handover

• Core thought
• Photography