Monday 14 May 2012

Is digital manipulation cheating?

























After a blinding weekend with friends, I'm now clocking back on.

So, it is following the creation of this image above, (the one mentioned in the previous post), that has led me to reflect a little on my 'default' approach to photography.

I created this, prompted by a call for entries via OCA here by The Higher Education Academy. The competition is entitled 'Is this as good as it gets' and the brief was 'what do you love about studying your subject? The Higher Education Academy is looking for a photograph/digital image which captures how it feels to study the Arts and Humanities when the Arts and Humanities is at its best'.

Anyway, this post isn't about the competition or my entry. But there are a number of issues this image has raised in my head. Without the constraints I impose on myself for assignments, which I'll come back to, a concept for this brief arrived like a gift from an angel. Most of my anguish over the past few months with image making is how to successfully execute pre-visualised ideas, which I have only achieved partially.  My attempts until now have been crude or clumsy versions of how they look in my head. For this image, I mocked up what I wanted and then worked on the individual elements, adopting a variety of digital techniques to execute it. And this is where I am questioning my approach. The purist in me would say it lacks authenticity as it is merely a digital composite although there are a good number of artists who have, such as Sam Taylor Wood, Kelli Connell. My question is can an image be devalued by the way in which it was put together? Is it 'cheating' to use digital manipulation...and should it matter? Is it more about the message than the route to achieve it? If I'd managed to install all these elements in-situ like Gregory Crewdson or indeed Roger Ballen do, would I use different criteria to judge it? I perhaps shouldn't be worrying about this. Nevertheless, I have until now, on my assignment work, purposefully avoided the digital composite or manipulation route because of this concern.  But on the other hand, by adopting the digital route, for the first time in a long time, the image I saw in my head is what you see here...and that has made me happy...simple things and all that...

The image above, is not a million miles off the aesthetic and intent I had for the 'Domestic Sublime' series. So I'm now thinking, could I achieve the Domestic Sublime concept more successfully by relaxing in to it a little and being less purist about it? I could still take the landscapes/backdrops with the large format camera to get the quality in the image and to continue practicing with it (although that would be back to colour film again). And then overlay it digitally with aspects of the concept I can't impose on the landscape any other way? Which approach speaks louder to the viewer? The most eloquent I would have thought.  I guess I need to try a few...I suppose I'm challenging my own views on the credibililty of this approach really and whether these self-imposed restraints are counter-productive...I'm beginning to think they might be.



























35 comments:

  1. I think you've answered your own question Penny. I don't think that choice of technique is unimportant, either in terms of quality of output or means of achieving it. But I do think that no properly considered technique should be ruled out. You change some of the performative aspects of putting the piece together if you do a composite, but if those are not a major part of your vision, then why not? There is a great sense of freedom in the image above and playfulness, I look forward to seeing where this takes you next!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Penny
    I'm largely with Eileen on this - I think that the vision and the message are the most important thing. Self-imposed restraint's are useful, I think, where they spur creativity, but if they are holding you back you are surely harming your development.

    Your image talks to me about the joys of reaching the top - not sure about the plughole :0) I have a two-hour car journey now and I suspect that's going to keep popping into my mind while I try to fit it in to my reading of the shot.

    Whatever - it's your vision - you should do exactly what you need to realise it - and probably no more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Penny

    Okay—had to read Nigel's post to work out that it was a plughole—maybe I would have seen that in a bigger image? But why a plughole?

    As for composites, I have no problem with them. This obsession with it being cheating is all wrong—unless you are doing documentary and put the image out as reality. I think even social commentary—to an extent—can be from composites—because you are commenting as opposed to documenting.

    As a artist, you create whatever it is to get your message across—and if that means building composites—well, so be it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. And glad to read you had a blinding weekend!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did a series of articles—not dealing specifically with composites—but one thought lead to another:
    http://vickifoto.co.uk/2011/12/22/no-pixels-were-harmed/
    http://vickifoto.co.uk/2011/12/22/this-made-me-uncomfortable/
    http://vickifoto.co.uk/2011/12/22/is-staged-fake/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you for your comments. Eileen interested to know what you mean by the performative aspects, not quite sure what you mean. Nigel and Vicki with regards the plughole (Click on the image Vicki and it will enlarge on your screen), I never know how much to divulge with the rationale behind an image as it reduces it to its parts. But if it really isn't contributing anything then its inclusion has perhaps failed. I will share with you my thought process to rationalise its inclusion. Although I may sound like I've come off the rails...but you asked, so bear with me!!!

    So...without the plughole, the image would not work at all in my mind. Firstly, without the plug it would be a picture of two halves and nothing would link the two. As part of the feeling of spiritual growth, it is all relative to how grounded we are so there had to be some connector on which to link back the elevated girl and the earth. The plughole seemed a perfect mechanism because not only does it connect but it feeds underneath the surface which was a strong metaphor for me. Also the plug is gold in colour that for me suggests a richness and not necessarily monetary...it looks like a fallen halo. Also a plughole held some sort of irony being at the top of a hill. Another metaphor for me with the plug was what could have happened without the spiritual growth. I wanted the girl to look as if she'd risen out of the plughole...and without the satisfaction derived from extending oneself mentally, the hole indicates a drain on our growth, reflective of the daily chores of life....Ha. Too much information....they'll come to section me now because of you lot...ha, ha.

    That is why it is there, but the feedback is very useful as whilst it is crystal clear in my mind this is perhaps the only place where it is...lol!! Hey,ho, I enjoyed making it and thank you for taking an interest.

    Vicki, thank you for the links...I'll read them all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, that is interesting Penny. I, like the others have no issue with a constructed image - after all, all photography is fiction. I "saw" someone who had been released, someone who was starting to soar, in exultation, spiritually freeing themself from certain constraints. However the position of her head (and in particular her hair) - leading to the sink-hole (as opposed to a plug-hole) signifies the threat of failure, the link that holds her tethered and not quite in a position to fully let go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes I'd go with that too John...think that would certainly be relevant here. Plug-hole/sink hole the terminology could be interchanged I think. Just checked the definition of both...sinkhole: a cavity in to the ground, providing a route for surface water to disappear. Plughole suggests waste water. Either which way, it suggests a 'leakage' of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Penny, sorry I wasn't as clear as I might have been earlier. In truth I struggeld to say what I was thinking without using lots of words, which I was trying to avoid. What I meant in a nutshell is that the first pictures in this sereis involved you and a number of other peopel getting themselves and a number of props into a landscape and being organised into a composition, and then photographed. There is still some of that in teh picture above - in that you went into teh landscape, and then separately either worked with a model or bought a stock photo to get that part of the picture. But now the various steps are mostly taken by you alone and don't need all the other characters in the same place at the same time. You could take this further and buy stock pictures for all the elements.
    For some artists (Gillian Wearing for example) you have the feeling that generally the pictures and films she makes record the happening/confession/performance, and are primarily of interest as a recording medium. The performance or experience is the thing that really interests her.
    In your case I think the photographic process and end product is important to you beyond just as a way of recording an interesting thing you've done, ad posisbly also that the business of getting everyone together was a necessary evil in order to achieve the previsualised outcome rather than your core interest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Eileen, I understand what you're saying and also how Gillian Wearing chooses to work...she is almost engaging in social experiments in front of the camera and allowing the characters to play out and make the story...leaving much to the subjects (particularly in the signs series). So going on from this in the Domestic Sublime series it was to a certain extent, as you say, a setting up of a stage in the environment and allowing the various elements of the cast to play out and I then photograph it. The image above (of which none is stock) on the other hand is to a certain extent taking the 'performance' element out of the image or at least the interplay between the various elements of the stage and in someway increasing the control and reducing the opportunity for serendipity or chance. And does this somehow reduce its value...

    On a practical level, I found it quite a challenge setting the scene with people and objects...I feel it would need to be much more managed and organised to make it work as well as I would like if I continue to go down the 'performance' route. Also, when building a stage, it is far more than photographic skills that are required...I kept thinking I need a scaffolding platform, I need 30 children, I need 100 supermarket trolleys etc etc. Clearly I am not Rankin and then I pair the idea down to something manageable. The composite route I suppose feels like a short-cut because it is simpler photographing the elements separately and allows me to communicate more succinctly. But I do wonder, with regards your observation whether composites speak differently to the viewer and how important the performance element is. I'll think some more on this. Thank you for taking the time to clarify it Eileen, that's been very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interesting that you chose a plughole for connectivity. I'd probably have gone with a power socket - but that's just me and my technical background baggage.
    Thinking about the cheating thing again - just been reading some Hockney - his theories on the use of camera obscura/lenses in Renaissance painting. He doesn't regard that as cheating because the vision still has to come from the artist. That feels right to me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I read it as trying to resist being swept down the plug hole.

    I think both elements could do with a little optimising in the Levels to marry the two elements together.

    At the moment the explanation for the balance is a high top and back light that's controlling the exposure; it's not the sun because the landscape is under exposed compared to the top light on the figure. Then there's a splash of fill-in flash on the front.

    Fully tonally scaling the two elements marries them together more smoothly, making the main light source the more explicable, and more likely, sun, with a splash of on-camera fill-in flash.

    Making the whole scenario more convincingly magical; happening upon a floating figure as one walks the fells camera, with pop up flash, at the ready.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey Penny

    Some good thoughts from people here. Understand more why you chose the plughole—but I keep worrying about her 'going down the plughole'—in a negative way. Maybe I am interpreting it too literally?

    Looking at the image, I agree with what Clive has said about the lighting/toning.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well Vicki the fear is always there, she might go down the plughole...but you can't have exultation or spiritual growth without the threat of the relative opposite or as Clive says 'being swept down the plughole'. That is what makes us strive harder.

    The plug, in my mind, serves its purpose well. The toning, lighting and levels I agree with Clive's comments, they are slightly incongruous, but given the landscape was taken before I conceived this idea, they are as close as I could match without distorting the landscape. The two lighting conditions are very different and if I were to do this again I would make a landscape specifically for the job.

    Nigel, interesting what you say about the vision. I think going down the composite route there are other aspects that are brought in to play such as consistency, 'believability' and thereof the purpose of the image that changes the process and conclusion somewhat. I enjoy the process with creating composites but am still unsure about the end result, particularly within the landscape remit. Either which way it has been a useful discussion thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You can get a better match with what you've got. I wouldn't have suggested it without trying it first. ' }

    The landscape is tonally under scaled. If you convert it Lab mode there's nothing of significance above 216. That doesn't correspond to the tonal values of the original scene with the high wispy cloud and bright horizon line.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're right, again....how had I missed that...just altered the levels and attached to the bottom of the post. Any better? Is that what you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes that's it, better!

    I also increased the fill-in on the figure by using the shadows section of the Shadows/Highlights control to make the effect more obvious in order to more explain the hard shadow that the drape of the material makes.

    Then I duplicated the figure layer, adding a little rotational blur here and there to the copy below, indicating the plug hole induced swirl movement from the available light exposure and then a sharp image from the fill-in flash exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay, another play with a few tweaks you suggest at the bottom of the post...still undecided on the blur, whether its too dominant or 'cartoony' but then clearly its not 'real' so that probably doesn't matter. Overall, certainly improved, thanks Clive.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yes the blur needs a very light touch. I selected a part of the feet to blur slightly one way and then part of the head to blur slightly the other way so that there was just a hint of spin in the horizontal plane about her centre.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Replaced third image with more subtle movement...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Believability...another view on that is that believability only 'matters' because it's a photo. A painting of the same scene would not raise the same concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, now its got some of that unbearable lightness of being about it. ' }

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you all for your help on this...it really is appreciated. Nigel you raise a good point with regards believability in a photo and wonder whether the values associated with paintings could be transferred to photographs. I'd quite like to work on the idea of painterly images which have their own believability particularly later in the course or degree with regards folklore and fables of the Lake District which may not need the same realism. Also, as I am still undecided as to which route to take, I'm now going to rework one of the Domestic Sublime series with the use of composites to 'compare and contrast' to see which works best so I can decide how to continue the series.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So agree with Nigel's comment about believability in photos but not in paintings. It's all art, so we can do what we want—as long as we don't say it is the truth. Which in your image, you are not!

      Delete
  24. That's an interesting take on the hills. I'm planning on Landscape 2 next, and live the opposite end of Cumbria to you (Aspatria), so have also been wondering how to make you of the obvious landscape without being obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'Spatri, not that far...I'm t'other side of Cockermouth.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Really?? I thought you were Ulverston way

    ReplyDelete
  27. Very interesting developments. I am not at all sure about the blur either Penny, but the other changes do unify the image. Am intrigued to see your revisiting of some of the earlier works. As for realism, in photographs or elsewhere, I think it matters if you want it to matter and not if you don't. A number of photographers currently make work that doesn't attempt to give an illusion of reality and it works well - it can make for very interesting and thought-provoking work. Questions about consistency and unity across the image are very familiar to fine artists, even if photo-realism isn't their thing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think you have to signal how much belief you want suspended in a photographic context so that you don't end up in a no man's land where the informed viewer isn't sure whether there is no attempt to combine the elements into the same space or there is but its been badly done.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If it's dark then it's not a nice place to "sink" to - so darker might be a stronger allusion. Like Eileen I think the blur is a bit dodgy. One other thing the border has been lightened as the image developed but that wouldn't happen I'm sure on a "real" image. So I think the original is the stronger on a single piece of work. Different eyes, different readings...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dark and under exposed are two different things, students often have trouble understanding that.

    As someone who assesses work the first version reads to me like an early experiment to see how the idea might work before time was spent further refining it towards a developed considered objective.

    That's how I would mark it; as an idea with potential that would form the basis for a good learning experience in how to composite elements to achieve an intended result.

    There are factors one needs to be made aware of to inform decision making, whether one intends to ultimately take them into account or not.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I should have been cleaning the toilets yesterday (and today actually), but instead have spent the day working on a 'rework' of one of the Domestic Sublime series and I'm still some way off finishing it. I have been staggered how many hours are needed to create the feeling of 'believability'...so when I say it's a 'cheats' option I am misleading you and me. In terms of man-hours it certainly isn't. But it does for some reason feel like a guilty pleasure. I have been thoroughly enjoying creating my own 'alter-reality' and time will tell how believable it will be. It is extremely difficult marrying up lighting, tones, depths and scale within the photo etc, probably issues painters deal with all the time. It does feel like I"m painting a photograph in some ways, inviting a whole host of other issues I haven't needed to consider in a 'performance' photograph.

    I guess my aim is not to recreate reality as what would be the point in that, but I would like to create a world that appears real and believable to the viewer albeit where different rules apply.

    I still don't know yet whether this approach will be successful but hopefully in the next couple of days I'll upload a rework of one of the Assignment One images and you can judge it for yourselves. It is very good fun. Many thanks again, Eileen, John and Clive, and others it has been a really useful exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Take a look at these series by my friend since college days, most of these are composites http://www.allangrainger.com/commissioned.html and these are all composites http://www.allangrainger.net/PAGES-JOY/JA1.htm.

    To achieve a level of believability the elements have to be matched for angle and quality of incident light, if not there needs to be an 'explanation' within photographic expectation as to why not, such as on camera flash for snap shots, and matched for resolution, colour balance, and occupy the appropriate section of the tonal range for the whole image.

    ReplyDelete
  33. They are so subtle...you would never know they were composites...I like them very much and the humour in them too. I love the flamingo and bear one. Well, I'm getting there now with this one...can't quite finish it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. He's got a library of characters he keeps adding to and looks for 'sets' to put them in to.

    At the moment he's doing some really big works using locations in Berlin as his backdrops.

    Yes I forgot to add, on top of everything else the masking has to be perfect of course and the perspectives marry. We've both been working with Photoshop since it became a viable tool for professional photographers when we had our studios in Clerkenwell.

    ReplyDelete