(photographers do)
Lotus flower, Cairns, North Queensland
A common claim by some photographers (not just limited to those who still use film) is that their photographs are exactly what the camera saw and aren ’t “altered” or “manipulated” in any way. I would like to point out the inaccuracy of this claim and to explain why in fact this would in most cases be a negative attribute for a photograph to have. So we have to understand what a photograph is and what it isn’t. When photography was first introduced it was asserted that “the camera doesn’t lie” - this has been proven many times to be untrue because everyone sees the world in a different way and so the camera only portrays the truth as the photographer sees it. The mere act of framing an image, selectively including and excluding certain elements has an enormous impact on how the final image is interpreted. Lens choice also determines how elements within the picture relate to each other and unless a focal length that equates to the “normal” for that format is used (approximately equal to the diagonal of the film/sensor size) the perspective will be different to human vision. This is actually one of the great strengths of photography but is accepted without thought by most viewers and wouldn’t normally be considered a form of manipulation.
Blue Grass, derelict vehicle, Chilagoe, North Queensland.
To start with, creative photography is about personal interpretation of a subject and even in a traditional chemical darkroom, many techniques have been utilized to modify the image (this is especially true of black and white which has usually been considered the “art” form of photography). Just the act of putting a different type of film into the camera (eg. Velvia vs Kodachrome or transparency vs negative) selectively changes the saturation in certain colours plus the grain structure and contrast varies greatly with different film types and has been utilized by photographers for the feel it can lend an image (think Tri-X). Digital sensors also don’t “see” light in the same way that the human eye does and the recording of the effects of light photons on the sensor has to be interpreted by the camera’s software “brain” in the same way that our brain interprets as “seeing” what the eye receives as light input. So the resulting image from any camera, even in raw format, is an approximation of the colours and tonal range, albeit a very good one, decided upon by the manufacturer and the algorithm they choose or develop. If images are recorded in jpeg format in the camera then another layer of interpretation is added, often not quite such a good one.
Sta Maria tower at sunrise, Cap Corse, Corsica.
When using raw files, which I recommend and always do myself, the interpretation is once again dependent upon the raw converter (or its designers) and there are obvious output differences between converters such as ACR/Lightroom, Nikon Capture, Bibble and PhaseOne. What these converters do allow though, is for the user to affect the end result in a similar way a darkroom has always been used to affect the resulting print (only much better!). The fact that digital photography is so much more flexible and powerful in this regard is probably why anyone of a more conservative nature is likely to be cautious of its usage. This brings us back to the common disparaging attitude towards “manipulated” photographs. Any photograph that is not adjusted by the photographer (“straight from the camera”) or conversely is over adjusted, is usually very obvious, whereas the images that go unnoticed in this regard are in fact probably very well modified to look more like the circumstances as the photographer saw them, or from a creative standpoint, to look as the photographer intended in their mind’s eye. Not to labour on the point too much but anyone who has read Ansel Adams’ books The Camera, The Negative and The Print and seen how he changed a photograph from a flat recording of a scene to a masterpiece, couldn’t deny the artistic merit of this so-called manipulation of an image. Not only is it aesthetically more pleasing however, it will also tend to render the image more accurately in terms of perception.
Night Lilies, Mareeba Wetlands, North Queensland
Film cannot compensate for colour temperature in the same way that the human eye can (your built in auto white balance), nor does an underexposed transparency represent the “exposure” the eye transmits to the brain in low light (when it is wide open photographically speaking), so the beautifully saturated reds and oranges of a sunset in an Ilfochrome print are quite likely a little richer and more saturated than as “seen” by the photographer at the time. If you “corrected” the white balance of a digital capture of that same sunset the resulting image would have little resemblance to the colours seen when you took the photo. This isn’t a critique of film, but simply a comment on the deceptive nature of the assertion to accurately portray what was seen when the photograph was taken whether with film or digitally. After all, a view of a flower using the ultraviolet spectrum is nothing like what we “see” but is probably more realistic from a bee’s or butterfly’s point of view. Perception is a slippery and subjective thing, and apart from the difference in colour perception amongst individuals (a large percentage of people are apparently colour blind to a greater or lesser degree), the experience at the shooting location is highly dependent upon the individual’s emotions and other senses that create their interpretation.
The papers traditionally used for printing from film also affected the image in different ways, whether fibre based matte, resin coated or high gloss Ilfochrome, warm tone or neutral. In fine art photography today, matte finish paper has been preferred for its look, feel and longevity but with the introduction of some excellent baryta semi-gloss papers with high D-max values, matte is no longer the only choice for art prints. With home-based digital printing there is now a plethora of choices to take advantage of and this finishing touch of paper choice can substantially change the viewer’s impression of the final print. Would the purists then argue that the utilization of this wide variety of papers is manipulation of the image?
House detail, Valparaiso, Chile.
The real manipulation of an image by removing or adding content, special effects filters and distortion is not being argued. Beyond the removal of dust spots and the like (“spotting” a print used to be rather laborious) and all the normal image adjustments that go into completing an image, this type of manipulation is just that, manipulation. I don’t disagree with the usage of such methods but it’s a totally different matter to claiming that nothing was done to the picture when this is nonsensical due to factors such as film choice (or digital camera settings such as white balance, ISO and colour space), exposure, development (whether in a darkroom or Lightroom), printing, paper choice and even the lighting it is displayed under! So what I am asking, is for the viewer of fine art photography not to take such claims seriously other than as an ill-informed marketing ploy, and to not prejudge an image if it is digitally enhanced (does that mean it has extra fingers or just better ones?) Look at it for what it is, the photographers capturing of a moment or expression of an idea. Then it is up to you to decide if you like it or not.
