A question of ethics?

[JohnMW]

Hello all.

I'm relatively new to photography, having only been seriously interested in it for about 6 months now. I've scoured various photography websites looking at other peoples photos trying to get a glimpse into what styles I like, how images were framed, etc.

Now, there have been times when a particular image really struck me, and I attempted to "recreate" the photo as best I could, trying different methods and techniques, until I was happy with the result. However, in a general sense, is this wrong? The original concept was not mine, but perhaps the execution was... or perhaps not. Is trying to "recreate" an image inherently a wrong thing to do? This is primarily my way of trying to teach myself different techniques and methods of obtaining good photos...

On the flip side, in regard to manipulating photos in Elements (or Photoshop, the expensive one ), is this generally frowned upon? I try to not make extensive modifications to my images other than cropping, sharpening, and some global color corrections. Does altering photos digitally sort of "lesson" ones ability since things could be done on the computer instead of in front of the lens? Are manipulations looked down on in general?

Please pardon these questions if they are not appropriate. The reason for the latter question is primarily due to the fact (or most probably my inexperience with photography) that some photos just couldn't have been done without manipulation to begin with.

Thank you for your time and input,
John.

[SoCal69]

My own personal opinions:

1) There is nothing wrong with attempting to recreate a photo or look, particularly if you are doing so to teach yourself various aspects of photography. Many people in various artistic pursuits are inspired by styles or techniques of those that came before them, and their work emulates the work of those who inspired them.

2) Again, there is nothing wrong with using digital post-processing to achieve the result you want. After all, it is your photo. Keep in mind that too much processing (such as extensive use of digital filters) may, in the minds of many people, result in your work being considered more art than photography. However, that is your choice. Also, keep in mind that before digital photography came along, there was still a lot of post processing going on in the physical darkroom rather than in a digital darkroom. It is rare that a photograph (film or digital) is perfect coming right out of the camera.

Ultimately, the decision on both these questions lie with you. If you feel comfortable with it, I say more power to you... we all learn by doing (usually repeatedly :))

[ryuwulf]

to answer your question about modifying in photoshop and ethics on recreating a scene.

There is not straight answer. What do you think a darkroom is for?

You can add filters to increase contrast in the darkroom, and burn/dodge areas of a pic.
we have a dodge tool in photoshop, and i can dodge light in the darkroom. Same example goes for burning.


Some pics are just so hard to get perfect, even when you do the right light metering and bracket a couple of stops.

You can add tracing paper over your light sensitive paper in the darkroom to add very diffefent soft look. you can even do a sabateur effect in photoshop a lot easier than the DR.

[John_T]

Pardon the sermon, but the way I see it, the main question is who are you doing it for?

If it for yourself and exploring your own creativity, you can do anything you like. It is not a moral or ethics question at all, rather your own quest.

In school you had teachers, but in life there are teachers everywhere, in many different forms. Let them teach. Take what fits with you and leave the rest.

Copying is something else. It'll never work. Forget it.

If you are doing it to please others, you never will, it will always be mediocre at best.

Photography is an art form. Even if it is straight documentary, it has to communicate.

What you photograph is for you. If it happens to also please others, wonderful. As long as you are pushing the button, your state of being will always be reflected in your pix.

Have fun and forget everything else.

[ryuwulf]

wow,

i guess i didnt understand the original question.

[jinzou]

Hey John,

Here's an interesting article I found at photo.net regarding somewhat some of the consequences of going too far with digital manipulation:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005kyb

[stopbath]

Learn from the masters!

Ansel Adams: Often thought of as the master, spent a lot of time in the dark room. He didn't do the 'print' in the camera, but made the negative. This negative, allowed him to create the wonderful prints. But if you look at a straight print off the negative, it's boring. His great skill was creating a negative that allowed him to create the perfect print.

So, yes, most emphetically yes, darkroom wizardry is a good thing. Don't refrain from dodging, burning, cropping, or otherwise modifiying your image. Experiment all you want, but don't throw caution to the wind and change the photo beyond recognition without good cause. When thowing caution to the wind, use a copy file! If you don't like the change after a few days, you can go back to the before change version.

As for recreating other works, go ahead and try to recreate a shot to learn from it, but it may not have much value other than a teaching aid.

[ryuwulf]

Dont forget he is the creator of the zone system.

:)


this is good reading

[JohnMW]

To all whom replied,

Thank you very, very much. I've not ever had any formal training in photography, and having not ever worked in a darkroom with actual film, the concept of altering an image beyond the basics seemed somewhat artificial to me. However, having now read the replies to my initial question, and the acceptable practice of modification, my idea of "artificial" is beginning to crumble. : )

To Jinzou,

That was an interesting article. I can understand how in the world of photojournalism, where reality really shouldn't be altered to such an extent, problems may arise. Although I can also understand how subtle changes can strengthen the emotional impact of certain images... which is to me, one of the most important aspects of this particular discipline - I s'pose it's a hard act to balance at times.

Thank you all once again. This forum has been a goldmine of information and inspiration. I can only hope that perhaps one day I'll be able to offer something back. : )

Have a great one,
John.

[John_T]

Ok John, I'll back up on one thing. Alteration with intent to defraud for material gain may get you in trouble with the law. Cutting out your best friends wife and pasting her in somebody else's bed could get you in trouble too, but anything else for art and fun is on.

Van Gogh didn't ask anybody how a sunflower should look. He had his own vision.

[Longwatcher]

The key to whether or not you are undertaking an unethical activity with regards to a photograph has to do with "Are you changing the information content"

Normally brightness/contrast, sharpening, and color correction, when applied to the whole of the image is no problem (unless you are depicting the image as an original untouched image).

However, changing something in the image so that it no longer represents the same thing can be unethical if used to mis-lead someone as to the content. However if the change is obvious such as can be done with some of the artistic filters in photoshop again no problem as this will be obvious.

If not obvious and not labeled as a photo-manipulation (or a fake) then you may get into trouble.

In my work as an Imagery Analyst, I will frequently enhance the image so that the objects I am trying to point out to someone else can be seen more clearly to them, however, I am forbidden to change the representation/information content of what can be seen in the image. This is out of necessity as it is extrememly important that people be able to trust the pictures we present to them and know that what we are showing them is factual.

At home however, I can do anything I want with an image I have taken including changing the information content as long as I am not misrepresenting it as something other then art.

Just my professional experience

[JohnMW]

Hi, Long.

Thank you for your reply; it did indeed make a lot of sense, of which, it also helped to solidify the line between fact and, well, presenting something such that the intent is to mislead.

Once again, thank you all for your replies. It has helped quite a lot. : )

- John.

[RedShoesGirl]

jinzou wrote:
Hey John,

Here's an interesting article I found at photo.net regarding somewhat some of the consequences of going too far with digital manipulation:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005kyb



This was because it was journalism and it is unethical to radically alter an image in post unless one is intentionally creating an illustration and then it must be labled as such.

A good case in point is the recent firing of the LA Times shooter who put two images together to create a better image than what he had in just one. He was in Iraq.

As photojournalists we are committed to not altering a photo other than the normal dodging, burning and of course sharpening since the image out of the digital mix is not sharp.

BUT, for yourself, you can do anything you want as long as you are not calling it documentary. You can filter and combine and play with your images to your heart's content and be as creative as you can be.

Lara Hartley
Victorville Daily Press Staff Photographer

[Duchamp]

Hello!

Without reading the other answers, and as an part-time former freelance, i suggest:

We only learn with copying. All great master painters started as apprentices and had to imitate and copy, which learnt them the basic techniques.

On the other hand, trying to market a copy is frowned upon and generally immoral.

What a photographer has to sell is his style and attititude. Techniques and execution is only part of the package. So, if you execute perfect copies just for the heck and fun of it, that's good. And if that work makes you to create your own distinct style, even better.

About Photoshop artwork:

I am no purist. Unfortunately most photographers tend to be, and making a picture in Photoshop which imitates oil painting is mortal sin.

But i do such pixel squeezing, and happily imitate oil painting scetches or similar art styles with my photos.

I find that dismissing with some detail i see more in my own photos: composition and light emerges more clearly.

I recommend Photoshop-playing wholeheartedly. Newe directions in photography can only be found by mixing old techniques and styles.

And there are enough Ansel Adams jr:s in this world already.

[JoaoJ]

Just a few more thoughts about this (forgive me for being repetitive!).

Almost everything we do since we are born is ‘recreation’. We learn by imitation, first, and then by using our intelligence and knowledge to do something new with everything we have seen and learned.

(taking the mention of van Gogh)
If one take a vase with twelve sunflowers and make photo out of it, can’t surely be accused of impersonate van Gogh, but if you take a photo of the “Sunflowers” painting and try to sell it you may have a issue.

Another example - look at movies. How many remakes everyone enjoys, and some even remain better than the originals and are acclaimed for.

And illustrating the post by RedShoesGirl - http://www.misterpants.com/ucsd/articles/photomanipulation/

[cowman345]

My two cents:

I don't think you should "forget" about copying if you're just learning, or a seasoned pro looking to build skill. By emulating other photographers and other artists (not just photos), we can increase our skill and improve our seeing. It's also very important to do your own thing and think for yourself, but there's nothing wrong in experimenting with someone else's style.

-dave-

[HoldenMan]

Personally, I have no problem with copying or replicating photos if it's for your own development. Replicating photos is a good way for inexperienced photographers to learn, but if you pass it off as your own, or enter competitions, or sell it, then I think it's getting unethical. Even if you show it to your friends and accept praise and don't tell them it's a copy I think that's getting somewhat unethical.