 |  |
 |
For the 2010 calendar year, I contributed several images to “The Great Northwest” calendar by Brown Trout Publishing including the cover shot. This calendar focuses on the Pacific Northwest region including Oregon and Washington. If you would like to preorder from Amazon, please check out the link below.
I recently stumbled upon a website whose sole purpose was to out the “untruths” of the claims by a landscape photographer. Basically, it went on to detail how the artist claimed to barely use photoshop, but the how results supposedly told a different story. While it was way over the top and ultimately defeated its own purpose with the veracity that the author went after the photographer, I was fascinated and appalled (at the intesity of the comments the website author made) all at the same time. It made me re-question the direction that digital nature photography is moving. Ever since digital photography and Photoshop have become accessible and mainstream, there has been this growing movement of artists to claim they are “pure” nature photographers. That means that when the click the shutter, anything that happens after that is just “simple adjustments” and not “photoshopped”. These photographers want everyone to know that it was their skill with photography and not Photoshop that created these artworks. They want to be known as the next Galen Rowell, Ansel Adams, or Art Wolfe – artists in the purist sense – no digital manipulation. The colors are “natural”, the scene is “natural”, the light is “natural”, everything that is in the scene was there originally and nothing was taken away.
“I only made minor adjustments, such as color and contrast.”
I find these claims fascinating in several different ways. First, many of these photographers claim they only use photoshop for “minor adjustments”. Ansel Adams utilized a darkroom – something that he mastered – the technology of his time. If one were to ask him to use a 1 hour batch service with only minor adjustments because only that would be “proper” would be ludicrous. He knew how to use the technology and he absolutely used it to the fullest extent. He dodged and burned and tweaked to get the best possible print he could at the time.
Artists for years have used whatever film technology was available at the time. Galen Rowell and Art Wolfe have both used various types of color film – including Fuji Velvia. As photographers who are familiar with slide film know Velvia is used to create lush greens and vibrant blues and colors. Has anyone used this film on people? I have, and it made their skin look purple. Not just mildly purple, I mean – purple! Are these colors “real”? How does that make them more “pure” than the person who creates a digital image and then cranks up the saturation or changes the intensity of greens on a field? By the way, a Nikon sensor “sees”- the world different from a Canon sensor, which is different from a Pentax sensor. Which one is the “right” way to see the world?
“I only used physical filters.”
Filters change the way the sensor picks up light. They can help with exposure issues, polarize the scene, or change the color of the scene. When someone uses a rose colored filter on a sunset – does that make it better than changing the tint in Photoshop? Is polarizing the scene really “natural”? Does having filters that help the exposure the “proper” way to do things? I ask these questions, but ultimately almost all photographers use physical filters, so is it a stretch to use Photoshop filters? They all change the way the image looks whether it is do pre-processing or post-processing. Ultimately, if they serve similar purposes why is one so “evil” over the other?
“Nothing was added or removed – except lens flares, dust spots, and minor imperfections.”
Ok, this is an interesting one and the one that causes the greatest issues in the nature photography world. Removing or adding objects using Photoshop. Should a polar bear be allowed to roam the beaches of Maui (yes – I watch LOST with my wife) or can the world have a double sunset ala Tatooine? That is of course the most extreme examples, but on a more minor note, what if a branch is encroaching on a composition or a leaf would look better on a different rock or the wing of bird was barely clipped off the frame? Some photographers would manually move or change these items physically – Ansel Adams purportedly did. Some would change their composition to keep them in the scene “naturally”, but in a more pleasing manner. Some would photoshop the issues out. In the case of the bird, some photographers “extend” their “canvas” to put some space around the bird. Unless one is among the artists that leave the scene as is – do the other changes make someone less of a pure nature photographer?
Ok, now that I am done defining three of the biggest heartburns to the ethics of nature photographers – where do I stand on the issues? Photoshop is a tool, just as is a darkroom, to create a finished artistic product. Photoshop has simply made it cheaper, easier, and faster for the masses to create images. While I use Photoshop to perfect my image, I have drawn the line at adding and removing objects and extreme effects (mainly slight blurs), unless that is what I was going for to further the image. In these cases I make it known that I made those changes – or they are obvious (as in the case of the blurring).
Know where you stand in the whole debate. Do you leave, move, or photoshop branches? Do you use masks to slightly change the hue of color? Do you use a minor blurring effect for dreamy scenes? If you must stand by your principles than I suggest that you do and be proud of it – don’t mislead. I think that is where the greatest danger lies – and the reason that the before mentioned website exists. There is the belief that the artist was not fully truthful in what he did to create the work. Did he or didn’t he? I don’t know, and while I should say I don’t care, I guess I do a little – which is the whole reason for this blog posting. I think that some Photoshop and image techniques should be the secrets of the artist – but I agree that saying that nothing was done is misleading and ultimately self-defeating. Be proud of the work and what it took to accomplish the piece, but be humbled by the fact that the real artist is Mother Nature.
By the way, for those that like to radically change objects and manipulate the environment in photoshop I would direct you to check out Jerry Uelsmann’s work. He was the master of creating compositions that warped reality – all without digital manipulation. What he created is unequivocally art.
I have recently moved my blog over to a new technology from Blogspot. While Blogspot has served me well for over a year, I felt that I wanted to get a little fancier with the designs and have a little more control over what I could do. This of course entails more work, but I hope that it will provide a better experience for those visiting my blog.