[Cailean]

I was doing some 'resource reading' and came across an article at DPReview about whether a manipulated photo is 'fake' or not. The article makes some very good points and concludes with this amusing paragraph:

When the paradigm shifts so must the rules. It is no longer fake to add a digital effect to a digital image that itself is already a digital effect. Anybody these days in favor of enforcing a law that says vehicle drivers will keep their hands on the reigns at all times?

[Toad]

Interesting point - but in my opinion - who cares if a photo is modifed or fake or whatever?? If it looks good and is a powerful image - isn't that the whole point?

The exception is a photo that is alledgedly true - i.e. photo journalism. That type of photography has moral and legal issues associated with it - but that restriction does not apply to images that are done purely for the sake of imagery. Where photography is done for purposes of art or graphics.

How is that sort of photography any different than painting or sculture?

In the old days, all photographers enhanced their images in the darkroom - and people called them "great" - not fakers. Because we do it with a PC now, it has somehow become immoral or criminally false.

I suspect the whole thing is a philosophical backlash against computers.

[StudioJ]

Well said Toad, even now when you read through the photographic magazines there those who discuss how they "made" their image in the processing stage in their darkrooms.

How many manipulate their images and don't say a word about it and hope to get away with it? I think that plays a part in peoples distrust as well.

Personally I think everyone is entitled to their own artistic vision be it how the scene was captured or what they envisioned. I think a lot of the so called "purists" are panicking because so many folks now with digital cameras can create something spectacular with post processing.

[Kombisaurus]

Toad hits the nail on the head. There is a massive difference between "photo journalism" which aims to communicate the truth, and any other type of photography which can portray anything the photographer damn well wants to! As long as he/she doesn't pretend it is something it isn't, I don't see a problem.

I like to draw a parallel between photography and Literature.

If you walk into a library, you'll notice two sections: fiction and non-fiction.

Is the fiction section full of fakes that aren't "real" works? Of course not. Many of the greatest works ever written are fiction, and nobody thinks twice about it. Nobody called Shakespeare a liar or a sham for making stuff up.
Yet if you look through the NON-fiction section and pick up a book that contains untrue "facts", you would rightly consider the book to be a load of rubbish.

Its exactly the same with photography (and many other forms of communication and/or expression) - it all depends on the context and intent of the work.
It used to be that all photography was treated by the general public as "truth", simply because manipulation was more difficult and less common I guess. But just because there was traditionally no "fiction" section in "the photography library" doesn't make "fictional photography" any less valid than fictional writing or fictional painting or fictional anything. The only difference now is its popularity because it is so accessible.
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

To take this further, just as newspapers can sometimes quote someone out of context to manipulate the projected meaning for their own ends, so too a photographer can take a "true" photo (ie not photochopped) that is unrepresentative of the scene, for the photographers own ends.
If you take a photo of someone and they blink, is it more honest to publish that photo and give the viewer the impression the subject was asleep, or is it more honest to photoshop in some open eyes from a different photo to give a more accurate impression of the scene? I believe that publishing the unedited photo in that case is exactly the same as a journalist quoting someone verbatim, but out of context, while editing the photo appropriately before publishing is exactly the same as a journalist appropriately paraphrasing a person.

I simply believe the *meaning* is more important than the words or the pixels, and if you are looking for truth in photography then it is exactly the same as looking for truth in literature - you can't implicitly trust the medium, you need to find a source you can trust.

Photoshop (or manipulation in general) really has nothing to do with it apart from being one tool in a photographers arsenal; a photographer who is trying to portray the truth in a photo should be encouraged to take all steps to make the final result as accurate as possible IMHO, and what comes out of the camera isn't the only part of that. Manipulation can *add* truth as well as take it away.

[guerito]

I agree with all of the above, and I might add that "true" pictures, as seen in advertisements for example, often are not even photos, but airbrush pictures. It doesn't matter because you won't notice any difference, except that the tomato or whatelse is the most beautiful and perfect tomato you've ever seen. There is no more thuth in photography than in painting, and sometimes the painting beats the photo.

[EnglishBob]

This debate has raged in the local camera club for a while... and one member who is strictly film based put it best.

"How's it matter how I remove the hotspots in my pictures, whether I manipulate the chemicals or use a mouse... both are changes to the image and neither is easily achieved by the ignorant and unskilled!"

The gentleman in question is in his late 80's and has been shooting pictures for over 60 years.

[shuttertalk]

I really agree with everyone regarding misrepresentation. Kombi hit the nail on the head with regards to the fiction/non-fiction analogy. As long as one does not misrepresent the work, then editing should be a non-issue.

That's from the photographer/artists's perspective. I think some viewers carry a bias with them as well. Some people just appreciate the final result as art, then it won't matter one bit how the artist arrived at the end result, as long as it is pleasing. However some viewers are more interested in technique and skill of the photographer - i.e. framing, composition, using the correct aperture and shutter speed, filters etc. to produce a natural image. Those people will tend to look down on "sloppy" photographers who shoot fully stopped down and blur the background in photoshop, or remove a tree here and there because they didn't frame properly.

Just like you can appreciate a master chef who sources the finest ingredients and uses perfect cooking techniques, or just close your eyes and appreciate the food cooked using the 2 minute instant sauce.