In the past couple of months I have been considering many aspects of photography. One of the topics I have been wrestling with myself is how much an image should be altered from its original state. Simply stated, is there a line that I cross if I digitally manipulate an image. After a bit of consideration I have decided there is no line to begin with. Now I know for some traditional photographers this is a definite miscalculation. However, consider the argument that every image is altered from the original scene.
To further this argument, let’s consider we are outside looking at a wonderful landscape. (I don’t want to consider studio because the entire scene is contrived from props and artificial lighting). This is where the staunchest, traditional photographer may consider manipulation a sacrilege. But, as we visualize the image we want to produce, we consider how best to portray what we see. First, let’s consider the films we use. The traditional black and white films are altering what we would naturally see because the majority of us have the ability to see color. For those of us familiar with the dark room, we know perfectly well the amount of alterations we make as we crop, dodge and burn, add or subtract contrast, and the other various techniques involved in producing a quality print. However, color films also alter the natural scene as well. Many landscape photographers today use a saturated color film called Velvia. This slide film is extremely color saturated so it enhances and at times distorts the actual scene. Even a portrait in this wonderful landscape would call for a special film to even the tones of the subjects. So, before we are able to photograph a scene, we make a decision that will in some way alter it from reality.
Our film is chosen, so the next question is what part (or element) of the entire scene we will photograph. This is the second option that automatically alters what people would see if they were in our shoes. After we select our scene we either move to line up the composition, change lenses to frame the subject, or both. The lens selection alters the natural scene. Wide-angle lenses are often used in landscape photography and no human eye can see in the way the lens translates the image on film. Telephoto lenses act as if we are wearing binoculars, once again an altering effect. So the only “natural lens” would be equivalent to the human eye. However, the 50mm lens (for 35mm cameras) still doesn’t account for an unaltered image.
There are also other various ways that we alter and manipulate scenes without ever converting an image to a digital file. Take for example the filters used in several types of photography that help create the finished image. There are the traditional filters for black and white photography, such as the red filter #25, used to darken the sky and increase contrast. Or the polarizing filter for color photography, used to increase contrast in the sky or reduce light so that water can appear blurred and milky. So we must acknowledge that there are ways we automatically manipulate images before the digital process.
That is why I don’t understand the thought that photographers can “cross a line” when manipulating images digitally. It is all in an effort to portray a feeling or communicate a thought through an image. But, for arguments sake, let’s go through some of the ways that an image can be altered digitally. I think that you will see even though done on a computer, the decisions are similar to those made on site or in a darkroom.
To manipulate an image on the computer it must first be changed to a digital file. If it wasn’t shot digitally to begin with you must scan the film or print. When I have scanned an image, I found that the result did not match the slide I was working from. So besides the general corrections made to return the image to its original form, let’s look at the other options. Increasing the color saturation is often a first step. But, this can be done traditionally with a film choice. Increase the contrast of a flat negative? We do it everyday in the dark room with various filters and papers. I think you can see where I’m going with this argument. There can’t be anything wrong with enhancements done digitally if you could have done them with a slightly different choice in “traditional photography.”
So what about the other ways an image can be manipulated? Let’s look at an example from my own work. The photograph was taken at sunset in British Columbia. The shot was from a boat on my way from Victoria to Vancouver. I enjoy the original image. In the process of taking the image, I used a wide-angle lens and shot it on a color saturated film, Velvia. When I manipulated the image digitally, I added a lighting effect and sun-beams to enhance the image a bit more. This is a manipulation that could not be done in camera. I used software that works as a plug-in filter through Photoshop. Guess what? I like this image too. I don’t feel as though I have crossed any sort of “line” in photography. I altered what you would have seen in several different ways, both traditionally and digitally. The process took longer and involved a different set of skills but the intention was still the same. To produce an image that you enjoy, evoke a mood or emotion, or simply to create a scene that makes people look more closely. However, until this process is more accepted and appreciated, I will continue to openly admit to viewers when I have “manipulated” an image digitally. Even if I think it is part of the same process.
Once again, if you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Jonathan Jackson
