Gill, for what it's worth, I think your decision to pull out of the project was right on the money. If you felt that it was not capturing who you really are and what you're about, then it was a wise choice. Love your photos!! XO
Thank you very much for your comments Danielle and for confirming my thinking. I definitely haven't had any regrets about pulling out and think it was the right decision. Glad you like the photos. 🙂
This is definitely food for thought. As far as artistic imagery goes, the photographer or artist chooses how they present their work visually and the audience receives it with their own subjectivity which makes the final output likely not to reflect the actuality of the lived situation (except for in documentary work, as you said, which strives for a sense of truth but still will be influenced by context, composition and photographer’s point of view and the viewer’s own subjectivity). This is all fine in my opinion. What I do not care for is when a photographer misrepresents their work in the words or description they give in how they underwent their process (someone putting out AI-generated images they pass off as otherwise would be a modern example of this). And I totally understand why you felt uncomfortable and unable to go along with someone else trying to portray you and your work untruthfully (you would become someone else’s “artistic presentation” if you had allowed it). I guess I like the creativity of an artist’s work but respect the truth of what goes into it.
Thank you so much for your comments. I agree with you about misrepresenting work. For me any photographer who try to pass off manipulated AI generated work as reality will loose my respect. I feel it is how we portray our work that is important.
I hope you’re well, I enjoy looking at your photos and reading your blogs.
I wouldn’t like to think you were adding components to your photos such as a sky! Ok, we may remove the odd twig in the wrong place, but all the main elements should be as they are.
I think thats how photographs should be and only goes to improve your photographic skills.
For instance it really annoys me when you see some photos on the “Countryfile” TV show in their calendar competition that have obviously been added to!
Jul 19·edited Jul 19Liked by Gill Moon Photography
I would say: do what you want, you only need to be honest with yourself. Because the long photography discussion on truth/non truth is annoying and makes no sense
I myself draw the line at misleading or not misleading. It is not misleading to exclude a nuclear power plant from a photo that is not about that subject. You alone get to decide what your subject is and is not. Eliminating unnecessary components of the world around us lies at the core of photography as a negative process, much like a sculptor carves a block to reveal the subject hidden beneath.
Combining two aspects of a single view is not misleading either, especially if you do not change your intention by doing so. Adding someone else's sky or even a dramatic sky from your own archives to enhance a less attractive view, I would consider untruthful. In such a case, there is an effort to mislead the viewer.
Posing a small format photographer behind a large format camera for dramatic effect however is misleading in the worst possible way. The word portrait no longer applies given such a heavy handed intervention on the part of the photographer. The resulting photo would no longer be about you, but rather their fabrication, which you are quite justified in backing away from.
So for me, truth is obliterated by the presence of deception. If a photographer plucks some grass in front of a flower to clear the view or allow light to strike the plant in a certain way, from a certain camera angle, I am sure some would think of that as manipulative and therefore untruthful, however it might be argued the photographer is not a passive observer but an active one, and if the photographer yanks out grass around the subject, they may be guilty of environmental insensitivity and perhaps even guilty of breaking with tradition or local ordinance, but I don't think they are being untruthful in their photography just because their presence is having that effect on the scene before them. Now if the photographer were to pluck the flower and place it where they wanted rather than where it lives, I believe that would be stepping over the line. Misleading, because the flower appears to be something that it is no longer. If they show it is a cut flower, that is the truth. If they misrepresent it as an uncut flower by not showing the cut stem, that is misleading.
Thank you so much for your comments John which I really enjoyed reading. I found them really interesting and insightful, particularly the flower example, and I completely agree.
An important topic, and a very pleasant piece to read (i love the motion in the reeds in your image). For my part, while i tend to stick to a documentary approach (not changing much of what was there, how it was), I believe that the key thing, in relation to how much an image reflects reality, is honesty and transparency on the creation process.
Interesting article Gill. If we generally place AI and composites to one side in the digital art category, where are we with image manipulation? General feeling from club members and photography friends is it’s ok if it’s your own images you’re blending but not photoshop library or manufactured ones. I have replaced a sky from Photoshop once or twice in images that would’ve been great if not for a totally bland white sky. I felt dirty and grubby doing it and tried to justify it by using a really subtle one that fitted in. I wouldn’t feel right entering it into a competition but it’s made the image ok to share and for folks to look at it. If it were my sky, it would feel different. Another look at your favourite Cley image made me wonder if you would’ve considered dialling down the brightness to make it blend a little more with the foreground?
Thank you very much for your comments Terry, it was interesting to read your thoughts. Personally I am comfortable blending an image like my Cley Mill shot because all the versions were taken during the same session within a short time frame. I would feel more uncomfortable using a sky from a different day even if I had taken it. There is nothing wrong with doing that, it just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Regarding the actual shot and the brightness of the sky - I was looking for an image where the reeds were in shadow and the brighter areas were in the distance. As I watched the light cross the land this was the combination that appealed to me at the time. So I am actually happy with the image as it is. I do have versions of sunlit reeds but I don't like them so much. 🙂
Very nicely articulated Gill. This is one of those issues everyone has a view on - although I feel it is important that there is an agreed understanding of what a photograph is. While there has always been editorial choices about where to put the frame, until recently the view through the frame has been an accurate reflection of what was there. This is the strength of photography over other visual arts and it is more important than ever not to undermine this strength.
Thank you very much for your comments James and I completely agree. It is a huge subject and one that everyone has a different opinion on. I feel it comes down to personal integrity and what we are comfortable with as artistic expression, but there needs to be a level of truth with this too.
Great article Gill that got me thinking that the more I photograph the more I find out about myself and what subject matter I find interesting, not just what's popular and trending on social media. With photo manipulation I'm the same as you, if I've taken it then I will combine and blend images but I wouldn't feel comfortable with using AI to enhance a photo
Thank you very much for your comments Alex, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I also feel that the more we photograph the more we understand ourselves and what we like.
It’s art just as much as a drawing except you use a camera lenses and digital enhancements or manipulation to realize the art. If you were doing photo documentation, then one could say, maybe don’t manipulate the image. Until then, when I see your photos, I love their romantic quality. How that is achieved is up to the artist.
An interesting article Gill as was Matt Payne's. I use ACR and photoshop to process images, mainly just doing basic edits plus a bit of dodging and burning, but as the AI in photoshop improves in leaps and bounds, it does beg the question how much to use to keep images truthful. For me I don't replace skies, but if I were to I'm of the school that would describe that as more of an artistic representation of a scene. I have worked with long exposures on one project but made it clear that LE was used to create a sense for the emotions I felt and wanted my images to express, rather than "this is really what the sea was like" etc. Honesty is the best policy and at the end of the day - I want to spend more time out in nature rather than spending hours trying to manipulate pictures into something that's not representative of a scene.
Thank you very much for your comments Lin, I am glad you enjoyed the article.
I agree, honesty is definitely the best policy. Post processing is a very personal thing and the amount of manipulation we are comfortable with will be different for everybody. I think that if we are happy to use AI generated processes we should also be happy to admit to their use.
Thought provoking, call me old fashioned but I am uncomfortable with adding or subtracting from a photograph, just because it is pretty easy to do in post production, but I guess it depends on what you are going to do with the final image. Not sure you were able to manipulate the image pre digital, but you must embrace technology. As I said am a bit of a Dinosaur.
Thank you very much for your comments Philip, its good to hear your thoughts. Post processing is a very personal thing and we will all be comfortable with different levels of manipulation. I don't think there is a right way, it comes down to personal choice. For me I am happy to change some things as I am looking to create a piece of art as opposed to a faithful representation, but I will never add something that wasn't there at the time I took the image.
If you're shooting something to document it, then there shouldn't be any major manipulation. If you shoot for artistic purposes, then there are no rules. To me, it's that simple.
I'm pretty much in full agreement with you regarding authenticity in landscape images; blending images taken on the same shoot to convey what the scene felt like to a viewer sits comfortably with me. Pretty much all images are tweaked to display our vision e.g. adjusting saturation or exposure in particular areas. Sky replacement is not something I would do but to me it's moving into the realm of digital art rather than photography. As long as it's not intended to deceive I leave it to the image maker to make that call.
Portraits are an interesting area as to a degree they convey how others perceive us rather than how we see ourselves. The ultimate stripped back portrait is a passport photo but I doubt many of us would use that image other than for its intended purpose ! Again it comes back to is there any intended deception. Was it simply the photographer felt you had photographic gravitas and wished to convey that to the viewer or as you suspected a pre planned idea from them ? Only they will know. From meeting you my idea would have been to include you as part of a coastal landscape at dawn looking through the camera on a tripod - possibly in silhouette....but obviously I don't know what his brief was !
Thank you very much for your comments Andrew - it is really interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject and I agree with what you have said.
Regarding the portrait, I think it was all about preconceived ideas - trying to make his ideas fit me rather than trying to portray me for who I am. I feel I was right to pull out as I would have hated being represented as someone I am not.
As a former photojournalist, I think there’s a distinctive difference between truth and fact. Perhaps this is a more philosophical or ethical discussion but I think truth is subjective and fact is not.
But it all comes down to what you want to portray - that is, what is the story you want to tell?
Journalists - whether they be photo, written, or television - are notorious for bending a story to support their stance. News itself has become more of an op ed. I’m not sure how I feel about this in general (it honestly depends on the subject matter) - but I think artists do not quite have the same expectation of presenting truth as fact.
Thank you very much for your comments Anna and for sharing the post on Instagram - much appreciated.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts and agree that it all comes down to what you want to say with your images. At the end of the day photography is art and I am happy to create something that represents this even it is not 'fact'. I also think your distinction between truth and fact is spot on. 🙂
Gill, for what it's worth, I think your decision to pull out of the project was right on the money. If you felt that it was not capturing who you really are and what you're about, then it was a wise choice. Love your photos!! XO
Thank you very much for your comments Danielle and for confirming my thinking. I definitely haven't had any regrets about pulling out and think it was the right decision. Glad you like the photos. 🙂
This is definitely food for thought. As far as artistic imagery goes, the photographer or artist chooses how they present their work visually and the audience receives it with their own subjectivity which makes the final output likely not to reflect the actuality of the lived situation (except for in documentary work, as you said, which strives for a sense of truth but still will be influenced by context, composition and photographer’s point of view and the viewer’s own subjectivity). This is all fine in my opinion. What I do not care for is when a photographer misrepresents their work in the words or description they give in how they underwent their process (someone putting out AI-generated images they pass off as otherwise would be a modern example of this). And I totally understand why you felt uncomfortable and unable to go along with someone else trying to portray you and your work untruthfully (you would become someone else’s “artistic presentation” if you had allowed it). I guess I like the creativity of an artist’s work but respect the truth of what goes into it.
Thank you so much for your comments. I agree with you about misrepresenting work. For me any photographer who try to pass off manipulated AI generated work as reality will loose my respect. I feel it is how we portray our work that is important.
Hi Gill!
I hope you’re well, I enjoy looking at your photos and reading your blogs.
I wouldn’t like to think you were adding components to your photos such as a sky! Ok, we may remove the odd twig in the wrong place, but all the main elements should be as they are.
I think thats how photographs should be and only goes to improve your photographic skills.
For instance it really annoys me when you see some photos on the “Countryfile” TV show in their calendar competition that have obviously been added to!
Anyway, keep up the authentic photo work!
Cheers Alan.
Thank you so much for your comments Alan and I am glad you are enjoying the posts and the authentic images. 🙂
It was good to read your thoughts on this subject.
I would say: do what you want, you only need to be honest with yourself. Because the long photography discussion on truth/non truth is annoying and makes no sense
Thank you for your comments George and I agree, being true to yourself is the most important thing.
You’re welcome; photos aren’t true or opposite in my view. Just that: what the camera finds l in front of it 😉
I myself draw the line at misleading or not misleading. It is not misleading to exclude a nuclear power plant from a photo that is not about that subject. You alone get to decide what your subject is and is not. Eliminating unnecessary components of the world around us lies at the core of photography as a negative process, much like a sculptor carves a block to reveal the subject hidden beneath.
Combining two aspects of a single view is not misleading either, especially if you do not change your intention by doing so. Adding someone else's sky or even a dramatic sky from your own archives to enhance a less attractive view, I would consider untruthful. In such a case, there is an effort to mislead the viewer.
Posing a small format photographer behind a large format camera for dramatic effect however is misleading in the worst possible way. The word portrait no longer applies given such a heavy handed intervention on the part of the photographer. The resulting photo would no longer be about you, but rather their fabrication, which you are quite justified in backing away from.
So for me, truth is obliterated by the presence of deception. If a photographer plucks some grass in front of a flower to clear the view or allow light to strike the plant in a certain way, from a certain camera angle, I am sure some would think of that as manipulative and therefore untruthful, however it might be argued the photographer is not a passive observer but an active one, and if the photographer yanks out grass around the subject, they may be guilty of environmental insensitivity and perhaps even guilty of breaking with tradition or local ordinance, but I don't think they are being untruthful in their photography just because their presence is having that effect on the scene before them. Now if the photographer were to pluck the flower and place it where they wanted rather than where it lives, I believe that would be stepping over the line. Misleading, because the flower appears to be something that it is no longer. If they show it is a cut flower, that is the truth. If they misrepresent it as an uncut flower by not showing the cut stem, that is misleading.
Thank you so much for your comments John which I really enjoyed reading. I found them really interesting and insightful, particularly the flower example, and I completely agree.
An important topic, and a very pleasant piece to read (i love the motion in the reeds in your image). For my part, while i tend to stick to a documentary approach (not changing much of what was there, how it was), I believe that the key thing, in relation to how much an image reflects reality, is honesty and transparency on the creation process.
Thank you very much for your comments Pierre and I absolutely agree.
Interesting article Gill. If we generally place AI and composites to one side in the digital art category, where are we with image manipulation? General feeling from club members and photography friends is it’s ok if it’s your own images you’re blending but not photoshop library or manufactured ones. I have replaced a sky from Photoshop once or twice in images that would’ve been great if not for a totally bland white sky. I felt dirty and grubby doing it and tried to justify it by using a really subtle one that fitted in. I wouldn’t feel right entering it into a competition but it’s made the image ok to share and for folks to look at it. If it were my sky, it would feel different. Another look at your favourite Cley image made me wonder if you would’ve considered dialling down the brightness to make it blend a little more with the foreground?
Thank you very much for your comments Terry, it was interesting to read your thoughts. Personally I am comfortable blending an image like my Cley Mill shot because all the versions were taken during the same session within a short time frame. I would feel more uncomfortable using a sky from a different day even if I had taken it. There is nothing wrong with doing that, it just doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Regarding the actual shot and the brightness of the sky - I was looking for an image where the reeds were in shadow and the brighter areas were in the distance. As I watched the light cross the land this was the combination that appealed to me at the time. So I am actually happy with the image as it is. I do have versions of sunlit reeds but I don't like them so much. 🙂
Very nicely articulated Gill. This is one of those issues everyone has a view on - although I feel it is important that there is an agreed understanding of what a photograph is. While there has always been editorial choices about where to put the frame, until recently the view through the frame has been an accurate reflection of what was there. This is the strength of photography over other visual arts and it is more important than ever not to undermine this strength.
Thank you very much for your comments James and I completely agree. It is a huge subject and one that everyone has a different opinion on. I feel it comes down to personal integrity and what we are comfortable with as artistic expression, but there needs to be a level of truth with this too.
Great article Gill that got me thinking that the more I photograph the more I find out about myself and what subject matter I find interesting, not just what's popular and trending on social media. With photo manipulation I'm the same as you, if I've taken it then I will combine and blend images but I wouldn't feel comfortable with using AI to enhance a photo
Thank you very much for your comments Alex, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I also feel that the more we photograph the more we understand ourselves and what we like.
It’s art just as much as a drawing except you use a camera lenses and digital enhancements or manipulation to realize the art. If you were doing photo documentation, then one could say, maybe don’t manipulate the image. Until then, when I see your photos, I love their romantic quality. How that is achieved is up to the artist.
Thank you very much for your comments and I am glad you enjoyed the images.
Gill fair comment and a great response thankyou.
An interesting article Gill as was Matt Payne's. I use ACR and photoshop to process images, mainly just doing basic edits plus a bit of dodging and burning, but as the AI in photoshop improves in leaps and bounds, it does beg the question how much to use to keep images truthful. For me I don't replace skies, but if I were to I'm of the school that would describe that as more of an artistic representation of a scene. I have worked with long exposures on one project but made it clear that LE was used to create a sense for the emotions I felt and wanted my images to express, rather than "this is really what the sea was like" etc. Honesty is the best policy and at the end of the day - I want to spend more time out in nature rather than spending hours trying to manipulate pictures into something that's not representative of a scene.
Thank you very much for your comments Lin, I am glad you enjoyed the article.
I agree, honesty is definitely the best policy. Post processing is a very personal thing and the amount of manipulation we are comfortable with will be different for everybody. I think that if we are happy to use AI generated processes we should also be happy to admit to their use.
Thought provoking, call me old fashioned but I am uncomfortable with adding or subtracting from a photograph, just because it is pretty easy to do in post production, but I guess it depends on what you are going to do with the final image. Not sure you were able to manipulate the image pre digital, but you must embrace technology. As I said am a bit of a Dinosaur.
Thank you very much for your comments Philip, its good to hear your thoughts. Post processing is a very personal thing and we will all be comfortable with different levels of manipulation. I don't think there is a right way, it comes down to personal choice. For me I am happy to change some things as I am looking to create a piece of art as opposed to a faithful representation, but I will never add something that wasn't there at the time I took the image.
If you're shooting something to document it, then there shouldn't be any major manipulation. If you shoot for artistic purposes, then there are no rules. To me, it's that simple.
Thank you very much for your comments Simon and I think that is a great way of looking at it 🙂
I'm pretty much in full agreement with you regarding authenticity in landscape images; blending images taken on the same shoot to convey what the scene felt like to a viewer sits comfortably with me. Pretty much all images are tweaked to display our vision e.g. adjusting saturation or exposure in particular areas. Sky replacement is not something I would do but to me it's moving into the realm of digital art rather than photography. As long as it's not intended to deceive I leave it to the image maker to make that call.
Portraits are an interesting area as to a degree they convey how others perceive us rather than how we see ourselves. The ultimate stripped back portrait is a passport photo but I doubt many of us would use that image other than for its intended purpose ! Again it comes back to is there any intended deception. Was it simply the photographer felt you had photographic gravitas and wished to convey that to the viewer or as you suspected a pre planned idea from them ? Only they will know. From meeting you my idea would have been to include you as part of a coastal landscape at dawn looking through the camera on a tripod - possibly in silhouette....but obviously I don't know what his brief was !
Thank you very much for your comments Andrew - it is really interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject and I agree with what you have said.
Regarding the portrait, I think it was all about preconceived ideas - trying to make his ideas fit me rather than trying to portray me for who I am. I feel I was right to pull out as I would have hated being represented as someone I am not.
Loved this, Gill!
(Shared over on IG)
As others have noted, very thought provoking…
As a former photojournalist, I think there’s a distinctive difference between truth and fact. Perhaps this is a more philosophical or ethical discussion but I think truth is subjective and fact is not.
But it all comes down to what you want to portray - that is, what is the story you want to tell?
Journalists - whether they be photo, written, or television - are notorious for bending a story to support their stance. News itself has become more of an op ed. I’m not sure how I feel about this in general (it honestly depends on the subject matter) - but I think artists do not quite have the same expectation of presenting truth as fact.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 🙏
Thank you very much for your comments Anna and for sharing the post on Instagram - much appreciated.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts and agree that it all comes down to what you want to say with your images. At the end of the day photography is art and I am happy to create something that represents this even it is not 'fact'. I also think your distinction between truth and fact is spot on. 🙂