8 ms·

I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfi

I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that "photographer." Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment. Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming. You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo. Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I hate that too. A picture is not only for the looks but also to show what really happened. I am ok with HDR and focus stacking but replacing whole objects is just bad form in my view.
- igouy 9y ago
  > A picture is … So you assert, and so someone else refutes with -- No it isn't.
ballenf 9y ago
I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article. Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed. Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and in front of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me." To me part of why I admire a picture is the fact that someone did the work to get to the right place at the right time. So compositing something that could have happened but the photographer wasn't there when it happened is still disappointing.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Someone I know used to be a fairly serious amateur photographer back in the film days. Did a lot of bird photos among other nature-related things. He pretty much got out of the camera club and photo contest scene a number of years back because, once digital scanning and then digital cameras became a widespread thing, most of the winning photos were increasingly "faked" in various ways. This piece in Outside Magazine in 2009 describes the beginning of this sort of things. https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    Totally agree. I know a few professional photographers and some of their best shots were HARD to get. Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck. Learning that they had composited those shots would be really disappointing. Learning that some hack was "stealing" their income by compositing hard-to-achieve shots would be maddening.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      It's a also a big problem for aspiring photographers. You practice a lot to get as good as the pros only to find out that they are manipulating their images. It's like trying to get really good at a sport and later finding out that the top athletes are all on steroids. It makes you very cynical.
w0m 9y ago
There should be no issue with compositing - photography itself is Art, choosing a smaller or larger aperture or shutter speed changes the image just like Photoshop - no reason to draw arbitrary lines. Now, being clear about what* creative choices you made - that should be key and common sense as some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow (Re: No compositing of a war photo on the cover of Time as an example). Simply forcing photographers to provide their XMP sidecar (or equivalent) should be enough for validation IMO, I'm surprised such a standard for submission doesn't exist yet. I can't think of a workflow that wouldn't be possible in outside of crappy iphonography, and even there it should be eminently traceable.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow In general, news outlets have very strict policies about manipulation of editorial photos. Some limited adjustment of exposure and contrast is OK but the removal of even irrelevant background detail to make the photo look better is pretty much verboten.
- pmlnr 9y ago
  Photography is taking a picture of a real thing. Art is whatever you want it to be. There were magnificent photographers, playing with light, distance, distortion, creating images in the camera, an image that was, at that point, a reality. This is what photography should be. Compositing, image manipulation, retouching - sure, do it, no problem. Just don't call it photography, and definitely don't deny it.
  - rimliu 9y ago
    Why not call it photography if it is photography? Many paintings are also depictions of real things. Art is art, no matter the tools. Or are we not allowed to call black and white photograpy photography, because real things have colors? We all see the different reality anyway (think about color blind people, etc.). The aim of the photographer is not to show the world how it is (which is not really possible), but how they see it or want you to see it.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I honestly think if folks paid attention to that last bit you said - And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so - it wouldn't be an issue. I understand making composites since you can get some really neat-looking scenes from such things. But the issue here is really the same dishonesty that a long-exposure gives: Folks going anywhere expecting to see a somewhat similar image cannot do so.
pizza234 9y ago
I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1]. Although compositing is the extreme case, I think most of the published photography, landscape in particular, is equally fake, in a way. Professional phographers have a typical rationalization - it's art, not retouching. I'll believe those are not excuses the day when I'll see tags clarifying that the subjects are digitally manipulated. [1] I don't really know if 50 years ago photography was equally "photoshopped", in proportion, but I doubt that the tools were as powerful as they're today.
- igouy 9y ago
  Sounds like you used to assume that photographs were something they were not? "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22faking+it%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvqa-rY_ZAhUKsFQKHSpBBCMQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22faking%20it%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=fron...
  - pizza234 9y ago
    Oh well, I'm not assuming that they weren't (I wrote equally "photoshopped", in proportion); also, I think it's a bit more complicated than a spectrum not retouched at all/complete fake. Specifically, my suspect is that easy of retouching has a snowball effect in the culture. By lowering the barrier to retouch, there will be a competitive incentive to be more and more aggressive with the tools. However, interesting book. I'd be curious to read what it says about Ansel Adams.
    - igouy 9y ago
      "lowering the barrier" or building awareness among the audience that a photograph may not be what it seems at first glance.
igouy 9y ago
Folks, please: do composite natural-looking photos. And when you do, be 100% honest and say nothing about how the picture was made.
ksk 9y ago
I would agree but its really hard to come up with a standard like that. All photographs are processed. Whether its film or digital. No camera captures reality as it exists. (Without even going into how display's can't accurately display all the color/tone variations in reality either) Every photograph has a tone map applied to it. The chemicals you choose to process film with will cause them to look a certain way. Now you may limit it to whatever settings the camera chose automatically, but I'd say its a weak dividing line. Are composites allowed if I used an HDR picture mode on the camera that brackets the same scene with differing exposures? (all done automatically in camera ofcourse). What about automatic focus stacking? etc, etc. Technically all of those would be composites.
- eridius 9y ago
  Processing is different. The camera won't capture the same thing you see with your eye. A lot of processing is done to try and make the photograph feel the same as it did to actually view the scene with your own eye. And that's perfectly fine.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ksk 9y ago
    What if I used the HDR mode on my iphone? It is a composite image made up of multiple photos with multiple different exposures? My eyes can do auto HDR, so certainly I would be make the composite to try to make the photo closer to 'reality'. I would say the distinction between composite and simple processing to make things 'more natural' requires a more rigid framework of discussion. I get the gist of what you're trying to say too, so I'm not simply being thick headed here :)
    - eridius 9y ago
      I mean, technically it's a composite photo, but it's compositing 3 photos of the exact same thing (with different settings). That's not what we're talking about here when we talk about composite photos, especially because the whole point of HDR is to try and recreate what your eye is seeing.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I hate that too. A picture is not only for the looks but also to show what really happened. I am ok with HDR and focus stacking but replacing whole objects is just bad form in my view.

igouy 9y ago
> A picture is … So you assert, and so someone else refutes with -- No it isn't.

ballenf 9y ago

I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article. Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed. Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and in front of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.

maxxxxx 9y ago
"Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me." To me part of why I admire a picture is the fact that someone did the work to get to the right place at the right time. So compositing something that could have happened but the photographer wasn't there when it happened is still disappointing.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Someone I know used to be a fairly serious amateur photographer back in the film days. Did a lot of bird photos among other nature-related things. He pretty much got out of the camera club and photo contest scene a number of years back because, once digital scanning and then digital cameras became a widespread thing, most of the winning photos were increasingly "faked" in various ways. This piece in Outside Magazine in 2009 describes the beginning of this sort of things. https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you https://www.outsideonline.com/1825491/photo-lying-you
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Totally agree. I know a few professional photographers and some of their best shots were HARD to get. Days of recon, precise timing, sometimes significant physical exertion, and a healthy dollop of luck. Learning that they had composited those shots would be really disappointing. Learning that some hack was "stealing" their income by compositing hard-to-achieve shots would be maddening.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    It's a also a big problem for aspiring photographers. You practice a lot to get as good as the pros only to find out that they are manipulating their images. It's like trying to get really good at a sport and later finding out that the top athletes are all on steroids. It makes you very cynical.

w0m 9y ago

There should be no issue with compositing - photography itself is Art, choosing a smaller or larger aperture or shutter speed changes the image just like Photoshop - no reason to draw arbitrary lines. Now, being clear about what* creative choices you made - that should be key and common sense as some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow (Re: No compositing of a war photo on the cover of Time as an example). Simply forcing photographers to provide their XMP sidecar (or equivalent) should be enough for validation IMO, I'm surprised such a standard for submission doesn't exist yet. I can't think of a workflow that wouldn't be possible in outside of crappy iphonography, and even there it should be eminently traceable.

ghaff 9y ago
>some publications/contests/etc have limits on what alterations they allow In general, news outlets have very strict policies about manipulation of editorial photos. Some limited adjustment of exposure and contrast is OK but the removal of even irrelevant background detail to make the photo look better is pretty much verboten.
pmlnr 9y ago
Photography is taking a picture of a real thing. Art is whatever you want it to be. There were magnificent photographers, playing with light, distance, distortion, creating images in the camera, an image that was, at that point, a reality. This is what photography should be. Compositing, image manipulation, retouching - sure, do it, no problem. Just don't call it photography, and definitely don't deny it.
- rimliu 9y ago
  Why not call it photography if it is photography? Many paintings are also depictions of real things. Art is art, no matter the tools. Or are we not allowed to call black and white photograpy photography, because real things have colors? We all see the different reality anyway (think about color blind people, etc.). The aim of the photographer is not to show the world how it is (which is not really possible), but how they see it or want you to see it.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

I honestly think if folks paid attention to that last bit you said - And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so - it wouldn't be an issue. I understand making composites since you can get some really neat-looking scenes from such things. But the issue here is really the same dishonesty that a long-exposure gives: Folks going anywhere expecting to see a somewhat similar image cannot do so.

pizza234 9y ago

I've stopped enjoying photography some time ago, due to the sudden realization of how photoshopped photography is nowadays [1]. Although compositing is the extreme case, I think most of the published photography, landscape in particular, is equally fake, in a way. Professional phographers have a typical rationalization - it's art, not retouching. I'll believe those are not excuses the day when I'll see tags clarifying that the subjects are digitally manipulated. [1] I don't really know if 50 years ago photography was equally "photoshopped", in proportion, but I doubt that the tools were as powerful as they're today.

igouy 9y ago
Sounds like you used to assume that photographs were something they were not? "Faking it: Manipulated Photography Before Photoshop" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22faking+it%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvqa-rY_ZAhUKsFQKHSpBBCMQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22faking%20it%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nGvTg_HC32YC&printsec=fron...
- pizza234 9y ago
  Oh well, I'm not assuming that they weren't (I wrote equally "photoshopped", in proportion); also, I think it's a bit more complicated than a spectrum not retouched at all/complete fake. Specifically, my suspect is that easy of retouching has a snowball effect in the culture. By lowering the barrier to retouch, there will be a competitive incentive to be more and more aggressive with the tools. However, interesting book. I'd be curious to read what it says about Ansel Adams.
  - igouy 9y ago
    "lowering the barrier" or building awareness among the audience that a photograph may not be what it seems at first glance.

igouy 9y ago

Folks, please: do composite natural-looking photos. And when you do, be 100% honest and say nothing about how the picture was made.

ksk 9y ago

I would agree but its really hard to come up with a standard like that. All photographs are processed. Whether its film or digital. No camera captures reality as it exists. (Without even going into how display's can't accurately display all the color/tone variations in reality either) Every photograph has a tone map applied to it. The chemicals you choose to process film with will cause them to look a certain way. Now you may limit it to whatever settings the camera chose automatically, but I'd say its a weak dividing line. Are composites allowed if I used an HDR picture mode on the camera that brackets the same scene with differing exposures? (all done automatically in camera ofcourse). What about automatic focus stacking? etc, etc. Technically all of those would be composites.

eridius 9y ago
Processing is different. The camera won't capture the same thing you see with your eye. A lot of processing is done to try and make the photograph feel the same as it did to actually view the scene with your own eye. And that's perfectly fine.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ksk 9y ago
  What if I used the HDR mode on my iphone? It is a composite image made up of multiple photos with multiple different exposures? My eyes can do auto HDR, so certainly I would be make the composite to try to make the photo closer to 'reality'. I would say the distinction between composite and simple processing to make things 'more natural' requires a more rigid framework of discussion. I get the gist of what you're trying to say too, so I'm not simply being thick headed here :)
  - eridius 9y ago
    I mean, technically it's a composite photo, but it's compositing 3 photos of the exact same thing (with different settings). That's not what we're talking about here when we talk about composite photos, especially because the whole point of HDR is to try and recreate what your eye is seeing.