Authenticity and truth
Thoughts on both in landscape photography
Hello, I’m Gill and I write a photography blog inspired by the landscapes of Suffolk and beyond. Please subscribe to read more of my writing and visit my website to view my images.
A couple of weeks ago I was invited to take part in a photography project which was to showcase a small group of local artists through a series of personal portraits. The images were to provide an insight into each artist both personally and artistically.
Initially I jumped at the chance to be involved, it sounded like a fantastic opportunity to showcase who I was as a photographer. However as details for the shoot were discussed I began to feel uncomfortable with how the photographer wanted to portray me. It was suggested I should be photographed using a 5 x 4 field camera which would ‘give my work more gravitas’ and the location that was proposed was somewhere that was not at all consistent with my work or what was important to me. I began to feel that the portrait session was all about creating preconceived images rather than telling the story of who I am as a photographer.
These things may sound like small details but to me they make a big difference and by changing them I wasn’t sure if the resulting images would be true reflections of me as an artist.
This got me thinking about the wider aspect of truth and authenticity in landscape photography and whether this is important to consider when we are creating our work.
In documentary photography truth is paramount, but sometimes it can be hard to establish what this is. There is a school of thought that says as soon as we put a frame around part of a scene we are not representing the absolute truth. The whole truth about that place or event becomes just a part of the truth - the part which we have chosen to frame.
Take this image for example. It looks like a beautiful view of a wild and natural beach, and to some extent it is.
But look in the opposite direction, directly behind the image above, and this is what you will see.
Sizewell nuclear power station. Now perhaps, the wild beach doesn’t seem so wild? Both images tell a version of the truth, but each leaves the viewer with a very different impression of the beach. The ‘truth’ is whatever the photographer wants it to be.
Every time we take an image our idea of how we wish to portray a scene is our version of the truth. If we choose to omit a power station or any other ugly feature we are perfectly within our rights to do so - but our image will not be a complete truth.
Looking at the image at the top of this article, you might think it shows a dinghy in a quiet location on the edge of a river. In actual fact it is a dinghy sitting in the middle of the salt marsh, with a busy car park behind and a puddle in the foreground giving the reflections. I created the effect I was after by using a very low viewpoint, shooting across the puddle and hiding all the chaos behind the vegetation. The image is how I chose to depict the scene and it is a version of the truth, but maybe it gives the viewer a false sense of the location?
In this digital age it is not just how we choose to frame an image that can affect its authenticity. Images can lie by inclusion too. Using processing techniques we can take out flat lifeless skies and replace them with wonderful sunset colours, we can add northern lights or the milky way or we can combine images from a single shoot to make a more pleasing composition. Take these images from Cley in Norfolk.
I wanted to try some long exposure shots that emphasised the movement of the reeds in the wind. I took about 30 images over half an hour during which time the clouds scudded across the sky and the wind was temperamental and gusty resulting in periods of movement and moments of stillness.
Reviewing the images afterwards I didn’t feel that I had captured a single shot that conveyed what I was looking for. But by combining two shots - taking the sky from one and the reeds from another I felt I could create an image that was more consistent with the effect I was after.
This image didn’t actually exist, but is it a lie? Have I created an authentic representation of that place or by choosing to shoot a long exposure have I already bent the truth?
Personally I am happy with this level of manipulation. I haven’t really changed what was there I have just used two of my images from the shoot and combined them to create a third which is more artistic than representative. For me it creates the effect that I was after, but I didn’t achieve it in one shot.
How does this knowledge now make you feel as a viewer and do you think we should always detail how our shots were created?
Digital manipulation is a huge topic and there are some great writings on the subject. Personally I will never replace skies, or add in details that weren’t there at the time I visited. I am not saying there is anything wrong with doing this, it just isn’t for me. And I think that is what this blog post is all about - being true to ourselves.
Our images are our voice and they should reflect who we are as photographers. They should speak of our integrity, our beliefs and our behaviours and if a technique or composition sits uncomfortably with us we shouldn’t use it.
Going back to the photoshoot that started this thought process, I decided that being represented as someone I wasn’t was a step too far and I pulled out of the project. Being true to myself, as a person and a photographer, is my most important truth and no amount of publicity or kudos will make sacrificing that worthwhile.
If you would like to know more about truth in landscape photography I would suggest reading this article by Matt Payne.
What do you feel about digital manipulation and truth in photography? How far are you willing to change reality in your image making and does any of this matter? I would love to hear your thoughts so please leave a comment below.
Thank you very much for reading and until next week enjoy your photography.
Gill
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
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.