February 22, 2010
Do You Manipulate Your Images?
When people learn that my images are created digitally they often ask “do you manipulate your images?” To which I enthusiastically answer “Yes!”
Everything I do starting with how I frame the image, expose and process it, is intended to manipulate that image into alignment with my vision. Rarely, if ever, do I try to recreate what I saw with my eyes. I believe that my vision is the difference between me being a photographer who documents and an artist who creates. When I set up my camera at a scene, I already know what I want that image to look like and rarely does it resemble reality.
Some have suggested that “manipulation” is a “photographic sin” and I’ve heard others say that you shouldn’t do anything in Photoshop that you couldn’t do in the darkroom. I find it odd that we should freeze our progress and limit ourselves to the technology of the 1990’s under some sense of arbitrary purity, why not freeze our techniques to that of the 1890’s? My feeling is that art should be about the art, and not the process.
Many worship Ansel Adams as the master of photographic purity, and one that faithfully reproduced the scene with minimal manipulation. Recently I saw a series of photographs that were taken from the very same spot where Ansel had taken his most famous Yosemite images, but with a point and shoot camera. The images were striking because they so clearly revealed, in that side-by-side comparison, how much Adams manipulated his images. In my opinion that’s why Ansel was an artist, because he didn’t simply document a scene but created images that matched his unique vision. He was a master of “manipulation” and his work certainly did not represent reality.
Should photographers have any limits? I don’t think so; does a painter have limits, or an actor or musician? How would an art advance or a person grow if there was a list of things they could and couldn’t do?
But individually, each one of us will set personal limits, I certainly do. There are things that I just don’t do, not because I consider them wrong but because they do not fit within the vision and style of my work. For example I choose not to “add” to an image such as adding a person or object, but there are others whose work is completely based on adding such as Dominic Rouse. I love what Dominic does with his images and respect his work.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong with art there shouldn’t be any do’s or don’ts. Ignore the world and it’s experts, find your own vision and go wherever that takes you.
Do I manipulate my images? You bet I do!
Cole
Another great article Cole. I’m sure there will be some talk about this in the days to come. Let me be the first to say that I worked hard in the darkroom in the early days and I work hard now, (although I don’t know near enough of PS to be called good at it). I guess it’s like an artist rethinking his next piece or painting, going for what looks good or how it affects him. That’s why I left another popular website that depended on critiques and judgements. For I strongly believe you can’t tell the artist what, how or why, while he is busy away at his craft. I’m not saying rules are bad, just saying its okay to follow your heart.
Nice post, sounds like your busy, until the next one take care and keep that inspiration coming.
Cheers all
I don’t believe that you should listen to others when it comes to your art. Your opinion is the only one that matters.
And may I suggest that the word “guidelines” is much better than “rules.” I’m obstinate, I don’t believe in rules.
Thanks Peter.
Cole
You are absolutely right – never listen to others when it comes to your art. Manipulated or not, I adore your photography, which in the end comes from your creative mind. You are a very interesting artist!
Great article Cole and I fully agree with you. I don’t believe in rules, I only believe in the result you want to achieve as an artist and in the creation and realization of the vision you have in mind. If that’s with minor or no editing, fine, if it’s manipulated heavily, also fine with me. And I edit a lot too!
Joel
Great post! While I first fell in love with photography using film I have embraced the digital medium. I can honestly say I spent more time and effort manipulating my art with traditional film techniques then I do with digital techniques. Regardless of the amount its this manipulation that makes your art unique and is the essence of its beauty. Thanks for sharing!
– Tim
Very interesting article Cole… I`m totally agree with you… You bet I also manipulate my work (like you) 🙂 and i`m totally proud of that…like you 🙂
Best regards!
I have often said that if Ansel Adams were alive today, he would love photoshop! Yes – I manipulate my images in and out of the computer for similar reasons that you do – to express my vision of whatever it is I am photographing and it is rarely what I am seeing when I click the shutter. Thanks for another great post!
Ansel manipulated not only his prints but also his negatives from early in the development process. He was a master at tweaking his negatives to get a print that he could tweak further to get the prints you see today. I agree that you shouldn’t listen to anyone else – what you see in your minds eye may be hard to communicate to someone if you don’t stay true to your vision. Great article Cole
Great article – I just hope enough people read it! Unfortunately, the photographers who need to read it, won’t! On the subject of Ansel and manipulation: “Moonrise Over Hernandez” is the best example of his manipulative genius. The original negative was to flat, so he set it aside. He later bleached and intensified that negative (PS: curves and/or levels) to obtain the famous print.
There was an AA exhibit that showed the Moonrise prints from over the years, and how they evolved. It was amazing!
Cole, a definitive article. I periodically have doubts about my images: are they photographs or something different?… at the end, I always arrive at the same conclusion you expose here: they came up from a real image, but they are no pretending to describe the reality but to evoke it through my personal vision. It is reassuring for me to see that our point of view are so coincident. Best regards.
x
Xavi, a discussion of where doubt comes from might make for an interesting blog article. Thanks.
A beautiful image along with a very compelling article. What a treat for all of us! Cole, I absolutely love your line: ” I believe that my vision is the difference between me being a photographer who documents and an artist who creates.” Very insightful and so very true. I myself tend to manipulate my images into creations that hadn’t occurred to me when I pressed the shutter button. I am fairly new at fine art photography, so I have a tough time with pre-visualization. Nevertheless, my work is good and appreciated by family, friends and even those who collect art.
Previsualuzation, another good topic to explore.
Thanks Gordon.
Hi Cole:
You are in my option 100% correct, in your statements about manipulating the image.
It is also my option that the creator is the only thing that matters, and older methods are guidelines and not rules. Tools like Photoshop are just extensions of the primary tool, which is the camera. Together they help us to develop what we saw when we took the shot.
Today, technology is changing all art forms. Technology is changing in the way the artist expression themselves.
Jeff
Why do photographers manipulate images? The answer is because we can. That is the expression of creativity. Father Adams manipulated all the time. Have you ever seen the starting point for “moonrise”? And the final print?
I find it funny when some people think using Photoshop is cheating, who is it that I’m cheating & what am I cheating you of?
“Who is it that I’m cheating and what am I cheating you of?”
Love it.
Cole
I agree with you Cole, Joel got it right!
Nice and a very true statement!
I have thought about this quite a bit and my thoughts are tending to think that the millions, maybe billions, of people who take photos with their point and shoots and even nicer, more expensive, cameras only have the experience of taking shots and only having minimal options for post processing. Through a combination of lack of knowledge about editing software and other techniques, most people see the camera has a recorder of fact, a history machine. I think we see the camera has the first step in the creation of a historical novel. The facts are mostly true, but the story may be created.
The camera never lies…but a photograph can.
American color films were based on color temperature, which varied throughout the day and season. So color correction filters were used to adjust the color. Many other filters were used, including polarizing, warming, UV haze, red or yellow to saturate the skies in black and white, and the list goes on and on. Then in the lab we controlled contrast, and/or development is particular areas. Color could be locally controlled with colored filters. Now with technology we can take it a step further, but we have always been making photographic art!
I love what I learned from you in Moab about dodging & burning…I have more fun with it as time goes on. I find myself editing each image with the vision of the mood I was in as I took it…joyful explosions of color with high saturation, soft misty desaturated images, b&w some days…I finally figured out that I’m just on a mission to capture moments of beauty or a mood, in the way that I experienced it. Simple, unending fun:)
thanks for talking about the taboo of manipulation! yes indeed, the point of view and the way you choose to process a picture is a mnaipulation and just like you I feel like saying: so what ???
Cole, are you telling me that the parts in the US where ansel did all his shooting do not look black and white? I have been saving all my pennies to visit these places in the hopes I could take photos like ansel right out to of the camera. Now youve gone an ruined it all what am I supposed to do? 😉
James, an excellent point that I completely missed! But yes, there is several spots in Yosemite Valley that are in black and white. When you photograph in color, it is in black and white!
Reality is for people who can’t handle good art.
Every photograph is a manipulation of sorts-it’s a 2D rendering of a 3D space and time in the world. We don’t see in 2D so each and every photographic ever taken has been “manipulated” in some way.
Besides, where would you draw the line? Isn’t getting good light a form of manipulation too? How about using models? Crewdson is out, for sure but, what about documentary photographers who travel and interview specific people? Aren’t they manipulating things too? If not visually, then to fit their own agenda? Isn’t that a form of manipulation also?
Everything is manipulated, the only difference is that we all do the manipulation in different ways. People who say we are “cheating” by doing this need to wake up and realize we do not live in a land where the world is flat.
Japanese say: “Art is the illusion of spontaneity”
very well said. i have read quite some stuff about the “evil manipulation”, but you have put it in words i haven’t heard before.
i find it interessting, that people often unaware of their vision feel something is totaly wrong. but actually its not the thing thats wrong – it just doesn’t fit their vision. realizing that an other vision would make that “wrong” a “rigth” creates so much tollerance and understanding for the “evil wrongdoers” 🙂
Torsten, an excellent point and one that I hadn’t contemplated before. Thanks for a new thought.
Cole
All wise words! Ansel describes his images as ‘departures from reality’ which I think sums up our aims perfectly.
Hello, I desire to subscribe for this weblog to
obtain most recent updates, therefore where can
i do it please assist.
What’s up, for all time i used to check webpage posts here in the early hours
in the dawn, as i enjoy to gain knowledge of more and more.
I got this web site from my friend who informed me
regarding this website and at the moment this time I
am browsing this website and reading very informative content here.