Photography:
Art or Evidence?
By Mike McBride
Recent statements made by other photographers have caused me to ponder the question: What is photography? Are we creating art or are we documenting fact? If asked to choose whether photography is art or documentation, and not given the opportunity to choose something in between, I would have to say that for me, photography is art. Frankly the act of documenting fact doesn’t sound that exciting for me and I would not have the passion for photography that I do if that’s all it was. This realization has caused my viewpoint to soften somewhat with respect to what is acceptable or ethical in photography.
While ethical issues in photography may include such things as copyright, trespassing, animal rights, human rights, environmental responsibility, etc., I’m going to ramble on only about the techniques and tools used to capture and process an image be it digital or film. Granted everything I say is just my opinion and I don’t think it’s black and white in my own mind so I’ll probably present more questions than answers. No doubt you will have a different opinion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if neither of us is right.
The reality of photography is that it’s probably something different for each of us. It’s our own creative expression. If we were to draw a continuum with documentation on one end and art on the other, most people would choose something in between and the exact point on the continuum might depend on the circumstances or use of the photo. If you believe strongly that photography is pure art, then anything goes. There should be no limitation. Artists are not limited to what medium or combination of mediums they use or what they create. It can be something that never existed and we’re all fine with that. In fact, we don’t even expect them to tell us whether it was a real scene or an imagined one. On the other hand if you believe strongly that photography is documentation then almost nothing goes. I say almost because photography is incapable of capturing the full dynamic range of the human eye and therefore it could easily be debated whether techniques should be employed to overcome this limitation even when the goal is to present absolute fact. Admittedly, even if you think of photography as art, there are situations where it must be documentation such as recording a crime scene.
As you read some of the questions posed for consideration, ask yourself why you’re okay with one situation but not another. It may cause the lines to blur a little, but I think you’ll find the exercise to be interesting.
I think part of the dilemma comes from the fact that the public at large considers photography to represent a real scene that was frozen in time and that’s why people take offense to a photo that turns out to be manipulated in some way. The viewer may feel betrayed. That said there have been enough high-profile “betrayals” that the public expectation is changing. So much so that real, un-manipulated photos of incredible moments are sometimes thought to be fabricated or staged. It’s becoming harder to impress. If the public expectation of photography continues to change, the conclusion you reach about what is right and wrong may change with time as well. I find it interesting that many artists were painting true-to-life scenes when photography first came into existence. The ability of the camera to capture the real world caused a stir in the artistic community and led to the advent of impressionism. It’s interesting that impressionism is now becoming a photographic style.
Let’s explore some techniques that have been around for decades. While photographers may be able to spot the use of these techniques, the general public may not be able to identify them and the use of these techniques has not generally been disclosed. I’m sure there will be many others that I haven’t thought of, but consider these.
Black & White – Humans don’t see the world in black and white. Even those of us who are color blind, except in extreme cases, can tell the difference between a color photo and a black & white photo. Is this not an alteration of reality?
Long Exposure – We see the world clearly, or at least we think we do. We see it in real time. The only photography that mirrors our visual interpretation of motion is motion picture or video. When motion is rendered in still photography it can create beautiful and dramatic photos. The silky water of a stream or waterfall, the foggy look created by ocean waves, the trails painted by stars as the earth rotates are all examples. Again, are these not altered realities?
Depth of Field – The use of lens aperture can increase or decrease the portion of the scene that appears in focus and this can differ from what we perceive with our eyes.
Infrared – Here we’re not even photographing visible light. Although we are photographing real objects they can appear quite different. If in color it is obviously an altered reality, but to the uninformed the black & white version may appear magical but assumed to be traditional black & white.
Multiple Exposure – Is it acceptable to make two exposures on the same piece of film and then display it as a single image? This can put two objects together in a scene and even change their relative size to each other. Sometimes this is obvious and sometimes only a trained and observant photographer would be able to tell.
Composition – Our camera by the nature of its design isolates a small rectangle of the environment in which we employ it. By our choice we can isolate a subject from its surroundings and present it out-of-context. What law says we should show it in context and where would that logic end?
Posing – Nobody ever questions the right of the photographer to pose a person for a portrait. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone complain about posing a person in a real-to-life setting except when the photographer specifically claimed the picture to be something that it wasn’t. We can even make a person’s nose look smaller by increasing our distance from the subject but whose complaining. People seem fine with an interesting picture of people in a situation that could have been.
Studios – There seems to be no issue with taking a human being or a pet out of their natural environment and photographing them in a controlled environment. We can even use photo backdrops to make it appear that a person is somewhere that they are not.
What we’ve discussed so far are basically in-camera, in-studio, in-darkroom techniques and are widely accepted. There seems to be greater acceptance for techniques that can be accomplished in the camera or darkroom than there is for those that cannot. Still there are some close parallels that meet with less acceptance and I wonder why they are viewed as so different than the in-camera, in-studio or in-darkroom equivalents.
I’ve entered ten photo contests over the past year from the local to the international level and, with the exception of the local contest, I see a common thread in the rules of most of these contests. Some of these contests have a category for manipulated images and some do not. In general, unless a photo is being entered in a specific category for manipulated images, permitted adjustments are limited to techniques done in-camera and any technique that can be done in a traditional darkroom whether done in a darkroom or on the computer. Darkroom adjustments and techniques that are normally permitted include brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, cropping, burning and dodging. Some contests allow composite panoramics in any category and some require them to be entered in the manipulated image category. Most contests will only allow adding, deleting, replicating or manufacturing elements of the photo in the manipulated image category.
So let’s consider techniques done out-of-camera, out-of-studio or out-of-darkroom. Remember the earlier question of art vs. documentation as you consider these.
Captive Animals – The original comment that started all of this thinking on my part related to the use of a grizzly bear from a game farm in creating a photo. The photographer who took the photo in question has photographed wild grizzlies on hundreds of occasions and is a very skilled wildlife photographer and everyone should be considerably impressed by his wild shots of a variety of animals. But some people took exception with this image. The photo was taken in an area where grizzlies no longer roam, but once did. The bear was standing on his hind legs and roaring aggressively. Now you could never photograph a wild bear in that location but doing so is faithful to its native range. And if I should ever happen to photograph a wild bear displaying that behavior it may be the last picture I ever take. So is it wrong to pose a bear for a photograph? We have no problem with posing pets and people.
I found it interesting that the same people who took exception with the use of a game farm animal as opposed to taking what nature gave the photographer were impressed beyond measure by another photographer who used dogs to tree mountain lions which he photographed. I admit there is a difference, but I’m not sure it’s a big difference, at least not in my mind. What about the use of bait to attract a desired animal to photograph? Is that acceptable? What about photographing animals in a zoo? What about photographing animals in a studio?
Nature’s Studio – In the studio most people would accept any arrangement of props and subjects that the photographer desired. Does the same thing hold true in the great outdoors? My first inclination that this was possible occurred many years ago in Virginia as I watched a photographer who carried a sack full of maple leaves around with him and arranged them on rocks in the stream before taking his picture.
Removing Distractions – A little less sinister perhaps than planting elements within a scene, but similar is the removal of distracting objects. On a recent trip to Yellowstone I discovered a spot where the ground was covered with pinecones of various colors depending on how old they were and it made an interesting pattern shot. There were a few sticks in the scene that worked with the composition but there were a few twigs and pieces of grass that just distracted. They weren’t distracting to my initial discovery, but I knew they would be in a photo so I removed them. Was this acceptable? What about pulling a branch of a tree or a blade of grass back so that it doesn’t show up in the corner of your picture?
Let’s move on to the digital darkroom, a.k.a. the computer. This is where it starts to get hazy for many people, but not all. Some people have no problem with unlimited creative license in the computer, but consider some of the earlier issues to be unacceptable.
Digital Darkroom Adjustments – Even though the computer may be more efficient and provide more precise control over the application of a darkroom technique, I personally think that anything that can be done in a darkroom is fair game on a computer. This includes brightness, contrast, hue and saturation adjustments. It also includes burning, which refers to darkening a select area of the photo, and dodging, which refers to brightening a select area. There may be some out there who would argue that the actual darkroom process with the challenges thereof and the skill required are part of the creative process of photography and shouldn’t be circumvented.
Digital Filters – I personally prefer to use glass filters in the field, but I guess I don’t really take exception to the use of filters applied through software in the computer.
Digital Dynamic Range – Often when photographing a landscape the sky is much lighter than the other elements in the scene and more dynamic range than the camera can capture. A split neutral density filter could be used to balance out the brightness of the scene. Alternatively the camera can be placed on a tripod with two exposures made – one for the sky and one for the rest of the scene. These can then be combined in the computer. Is this acceptable?
Digital Removal – Is it acceptable to digitally remove a tree branch intruding in the corner of your image? Is it any less acceptable than pulling it out of the way while in the field? I personally use this very sparingly and generally only to remove a manmade object that is rather insignificant. I guess my thinking is that the natural scene would not have a power line running across the meadow. Still, I do this rarely as I feel that I’m pushing the envelope here. What do you think? By the way, I have no problem cloning out dust spots that appear in the image because they have gotten on the digital sensor.
Digital Fabrication – This is where I start to get heartburn, but again, if you feel that photography is art, then this is all acceptable, too. I remember a photograph taken and sold as a print by a professional photographer that showed a herd of wildebeest running in a dust cloud. Apparently a couple of the wildebeest had been cloned to make a better composition. When discovered, the photographer stated that he was creating art. Is this acceptable? What about taking a sky from one photo and inserting it into another photo with a less exciting sky? Or what about taking an animal from a boring environment in one photo and inserting it into a more dramatic environment?
Well, there you have it. As promised I offered few answers, but maybe this has caused you to think a little. If you’re like me, the lines between right and wrong are a little fuzzy right now. The one thing I’ll never do, though, is use any of these techniques in direct opposition to an express requirement of a client or the rules of a contest.