If you are a photojournalist, you are concerned with conveying the message that what you photograph is a real event and happening in the moment. Adding crowds at a rally to make it seem more populist or changing the relative position of items in an image would be unacceptable, but minor color corrections would probably not be a problem (unless the color cast is an integral part of the scene). Wedding or product photographers, on the other hand, have a lot more freedom to move and edit items as necessary, as long as it supports their clients needs.
Things start getting a little trickier when photographing landscapes or working with street photography. It isn't photojournalism, per se, so would some editing be acceptable or is any editing too much editing? To answer this question, we need to think about how editing will affect the final presentation of the image. What exactly are we trying to communicate with our photograph? Are we there to accentuate the scene or record it faithfully? The colors of a sunset on a snowcapped mountainside may not need color enhancement as the whole point is to see the amazing view that the photographer recorded. But what if there was a heavy shadow with a cold blue color cast that detracted from the scene? If a viewer's eye keeps going to the shadow and not the mountain, should it be color corrected? What if a tree was distracting? If removing it completely would strengthen the composition, is that be acceptable? Although many may disagree, if I am at a location to communicate what I experienced, and that experience doesn't include a cold blue cast or a distracting tree, then I can guarantee I'll be busy color correcting and removing distractions from my images! I am there to experience, and I want the viewer to experience the same. My objective isn't faithfulness to reality, but faithfulness to the feelings and emotions I had when viewing the scene. In the end, a two-dimensional image is never real, even if you are a photojournalist. The very act of positioning your camera at a certain angle or at a specific place and time will change the meaning of the image, however unintentional. But it is understood that photojournalists are taking images of events that shape history, be they war or political rally, and by their very nature should be photographed as neutrally as possible on their part. A wedding, the landscape, a street view, however important, do not have that constraint. If editing is necessary to convey the experience, the image will be edited. How much editing is acceptable is really up to the photographer, since it is their image in the first place, and the viewer, because their opinion on the matter may decide if they find the image acceptable. I am not a photojournalist so I have no problems editing an image, as long as I am creating the qualities and emotions I'm trying to convey in that image. Painters add or subtract whatever they need, modify their color palette for effect or completely ignored reality in their attempts to imagine the abstract through their art. There is no reason to think photography can't do the same and it is high time photographers realize the freedom they have to do so. Even so, I do not heavily edit my images by adding a more interesting sky or shifting colors dramatically. It just isn't in me to do so. But that doesn't mean it isn't in you.
0 Comments
To edit or not to edit, that is the question. Well, maybe not the only question, but it is a fair question to ask.
Unlike most media, photography is perceived as being a record of reality, and as such, should not be messed with. Many photographers believe their images are untouchable and editing somehow removes the immediacy and reality of the image. And I get that. The reason I love photography is because I feel I'm somehow capturing reality on film... or on a digital media card, as the case may be! Traditionally, photography has been very different from the other arts. A painter, for instance, can decide to ignore an object if it doesn't fit the composition or the idea they are trying to convey. Sculptors create from a block of material, many times without anything to go by. Michelangelo is credited with saying: "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it." I wish I had great quotes like that! A photographer, at least from the days of film, was limited by what they saw and could capture on film. They had some options as to color bias or even removing color altogether by shooting in black and white, but the scene itself was what it was. Burning and dodging areas was acceptable since it was difficult to record the great contrast ranges of the natural environment, but it was a herculean task to remove a distracting branch or fill in a blank space in the sky with a cloud. When artists like Ansel Adams began created majestic views of the landscape, seemingly pristine and unspoiled, the idea of editing became more and more frowned upon. It just wasn't done. With the advent of digital imaging, it became possible to edit to an extraordinary degree. Movies became special effects wonders (sometimes to the detriment of the story line); photographs could be manipulated to show long dead celebrities in contemporary settings (sometimes to the detriment of history); objects were removed or replaced, lighting effects changed, colors manipulated to show sunsets where there had been none. In many ways, editing is seen as something done for drama but not for "real" images, as it makes them more and more disconnected from the reality associated with the taking of a photograph. So the question is one of degree -- It isn't if we should edit, but how much editing is acceptable. It boils down to understanding what are we doing when we edit an image. For various technical reasons, digital images need sharpening and color balancing. Most would accept this as needed editing since the technology requires it to faithfully record a scene. But what of specific types of photography? What editing is acceptable in these instances? In Part 2, I try to answer this question! I was browsing the Internet, as one seems to do when bored, and found a site for Michael Kenna. He is known for his very long photographic exposures when creating his amazing silver gelatin images — no digital for him! Visiting his site reminded me of a young man, just starting to explore photography, who took a leap of faith and enrolled in a workshop with both Michael Kenna and the much missed Ray McSavaney. Damn, that was a long time ago!
I looked at his work (like "Ten Balloons, Albuquerque, New Mexico"), which got me thinking of my old work, why I first fell in love with the photographic process and why I am still passionate about black and white photography in the era of digital imaging. The memories were so strong, I actually took the time to send an email to him, letting him know how much that workshop inspired me and helped make me the man I am today. And you know what? He responded! I was floored. He spoke of his love of photography and that he was at that moment on the top of a mountain in China waiting for the late afternoon light. Now that's impressive. It seems to me this is what photography is about... the passion of vision, the meaning behind the act. In my mind I see the play of light and shadow, white birch trees standing out from a darkened wood, the texture of a stone filled landscape, the diffused light streaming down the mountainside. And I sing. May the late afternoon light of China sing to you. |
fotostufphotographic illuminations Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|