Levels of Abstraction

Are Your Photographs "Real"?

For some reason there are photographers who believe that photographs and thereal world have more than a passing relationship to each other. When they seea photograph that has been in some visible way altered, modifiedor manipulated they cry "foul" — taking on themantle of protectors of the sanctity of the inviolate image.

Sorry folks, but there ain‘t no such thing as a "real" photograph.Every photographic image that you have ever seen is but a pale reflection ofreality, and a distorted one at that. Let‘s see what I mean by first lookingat the ways in which a simple and straightforward photograph is abstractedfrom reality.

Cloud Ridges, Death Valley National Park — May, 2003

Canon 1Ds with 24-70mm f/2.8L lens @ ISO 100

Down The Rabbit Hole

Reality: Without getting too philosophical about it, let‘sdefine this as our direct experience of the outside world. All five sensesare involved, not just our sense of sight. As well as seeing the sky wefeel the wind and smell the grass and hear the rustling of leaves. We‘rein reality, not simply observing it.

Direct vision: For example, watching the passing sceneoutside through a picture window. It is as visible as if we were in it,but input from senses other than that of sight is limited.

Motion picture / TV: This would appear to be similar toviewing a scene through a picture window but we have lost binocular threedimensional vision, and our other senses, other than hearing, are completelyabsent. Also, we are not seeing the actual subject but rather a two dimensionalmechanical reproduction.

A colour still photograph: Here the scene has been reducedto a frozen moment in time. Motion and continuity are lacking.

A Black & White photograph: Colour has been removedfrom the image, replaced by shades of gray.

I recall reading a book a number of years ago, written by an anthropologist,about how he had spent considerable time working with a very primitive tribesomewhere in the jungles of Borneo. These people had previously had almost zerocontact with the outside world. On one of his visits he brought along a movieprojector, screen and a small generator. He set this up one evening and showedthem a film that he‘d shot of them the previous year.

His observation of what happened was very revealing. Until what they were seeingwas explained to them none of these people understood what it was that was onthe screen. Apparently the ability to draw a connection between reality andthe movie — an abstraction of reality — was not automatic, but issomehow acculturated. A society with no mirrors, no drawings or paintings andcertainly no photographs, movies or TVs has to learn how to see twodimensional abstractions of reality — what we call a photographic image.

Dune Crest and Cloud, Death Valley National Park — May, 2003

Canon 1Ds with 70-200mm f/2.8L lens at ISO 200

The Camera Never Lies

Oh really? Let‘s think about the process of turning three dimensional realityinto a photograph, and the factors that go into determining how that image willappear. None of the items below is a manipulation, just the basic toolsof the technology that every photographer must manage to produce a photograph.Yet, each has a profound affect on how the image will appear.

First, there is the choice of lens. Depending on whetherits a wide angle or a telephoto, or anything in-between, the perspectivecreated by the choice of lens will have a dramatic affect on how the imageappears. The use of a telephoto will cause the primary subject and any backgroundobjects to appear very close together. The choice of a wide angle lens willcreate the impression of spaciousness or distance between objects at varyingdistances within the frame.

The position of the camera relative to the subject iscritical. The choice of camera position could mean that some parts of thepotential frame are deleted while others are accentuated. Remember, thepainter includes while the photographer excludes.

Shutter speed can mean a totally frozen moment in time,or a blur. Which is real? Which moment is chosen? Again, the photographerexercises considerable editorial discretion though the use of photography‘sbasic tools.

Aperture along with focal length determines depth of field.We are all used to this photographic conceit. Some items in the frame aresharp, others are out of focus. This seems quite natural to us because wehave learned that this is part of the photographic reproduction process.But the real world does not appear this way. Our eyes are constantly autofocusing,and we are usually completely unaware that when we are focused on somethingclose by distant objects will be out of focus, because the moment we lookat them they jump into focus. Not so in a photograph, which forces us tosee the world in a quite artificial manner with regard to focus. Yet, weaccept a portrait of a person with a blurred background as being quite natural.Seeing this way needs to be learned.

The ISO of the film used, or the sensor setting, can meanthe addition of grain or noise. Many fine images over the past century andhalf since the invention of photography have been grainy, sometimes foreffect and sometimes of necessity. But, grain doesn‘t exist in the realworld. It is a function of the technology.

In the end the image produced will likely be regarded as a straightphotograph. Unmanipulated, unaltered, undoctored and unmodified. Ya, right!

Sierra, Tree and Rock. Mt. Whitney — May, 2003

Canon 1Ds with 24-70mm f/2.8L @ ISO 200

Big Bad Digital

If I had a dollar for every time some dimwit makes the comment that digitalimaging technology is less "real" than traditional analog chemicalprocesses, I‘d be both a rich man, and also a very angry one. What are theythinking of? Do they imagine that there is some intrinsic purity to film? Filmhas grain, which if you will is itself a digital recording medium. A grain ofsilver on a piece of film is either exposed or it isn‘t. It‘s on or off; a 1or 0, just like the pixels on a digital image sensor. Except that the grainor dye clouds in film are bigger and clumpier than the pixels in a digital sensor.There‘s nothing sacred about film. Get over it!

I raise this because there is this impression among some analog die-hards thatdigital is less honest, less pure or somehow more susceptible to fakery or manipulationthat traditional analog media. Not so. Not more susceptible — just easierto work with.

The history of photography shows examples of fakery going back to the 1840‘sand 50‘s. In fact there was probably more of this type of thing, putting fairysin the garden, for example, than there is today with the odd tiger sitting onan ice flow. As I just wrote, digital just makes it a bit easier to create thesebits of silliness. The same human drives that we‘ve always had make it happenin the first place.

What‘s Allowed?

This then brings us to the question that is often asked —how much "manipulation" of an image is allowed? My answer always is— allowed by whom? By The Grand Inquisition of PhotographicJudges and Arbiters? I‘d pay no attention to them, and neithershould you — even if they existed. Which they don‘t. Though some peopleact as if they did.

Unless a photograph is produced as forensic evidence in a courtof law, or is a documentary image intended to provide as accurate a portrayalof a scene as possible (baring in mind the above inherent limitations ofall photography to mirror reality), it is in fact art,and art is determined solely by its creator — you. If you want an imageto appear a certain way then that‘s your prerogative as an artist.

Of course there are limitations dictated by generally agreed uponstandards as well as good taste and common sense. If I try and submit a photographto a bird magazine showing a red Blue Jay, or a purple Cardinal,it will be rejected. And rightly so. The viewer of such a publication expects,if not straight reportage, at least a reasonable accurate portrayal of whateach bird looks like, and he wants to see them in their natural habitat.

On the other hand, if I am taking a photograph of a sunset andwant to crank up the saturation a bit, who‘s to object? Do most folks objectto a photographer‘s use of Fuji Velvia film, with its saturatedcolours and garish greens? No. But using a supersaturated film like Velvia isas heinous a crime in the eyes of the Image Manipulation Police,or at least should be, I suppose.

Does my use of irony, which now appears to have crossed over the line intosarcasm, make the desired point? I hope so.

Art is as Art Does

Moose Crossing. Algonquine Park — June, 2003

Photographed with a Canon 1Ds and70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens @ 200mm. ISO 400
Image modified with Gaussian Blur Overlay technique

So where does this leave us? As photographers we each have to decide whereto draw the line. For me the line is at about the same place that it was duringthe 30 odd years that I worked with film and in the chemical darkroom. In thefield I use all of the shooting tools that are available, including filters,and on the computer I do all of the usual adjustments of brightness, contrast,colour balance and saturation that photographers have done for generations.I will occasionally remove something that intrudes, digitally, such as an errantbranch, or a littered coffee cup. These are things that I would physically removefrom the frame, if I could. I never add anything though. This is photography,not painting.

But, occasionally I‘ll play, and sometimes I‘ll use digital tools to compensatefor an otherwise technically flawed image, or, just for the hell of it. I‘mnot afraid of The Grand Inquisition of Photographic Judges and Arbiters.Let them do their damndest.