Over the past year or so I’ve marveled at the rapid development of tools available to us in software. However you want to refer to it – “A.I.” is the current buzzword but it’s essentially magic – the masking and object removal tools are simply amazing.
The other day I was working on a photo from Dusseldorf, which had a couple of tree branches protruding into the frame. I saw them when I composed the shot, but made the shot anyway because that was the composition I wanted. In the “old days” I would have just recomposed and made the best shot I could get with the branches out of the way. But (a) I figured I could remove them later, and (b) knew that if I couldn’t remove them I could always either leave them in or crop the image to a less desirable framing.
So the question I found myself pondering was this: In an age where it is possible to create completely fabricated images and pass them off as “real,” is it so wrong to take an image that I actually took and make it what I imagined when I took it? And where is the line? Case in point are the images below:
When we visited the Alhambra last year the place was full of people. In the first image, I managed to luck out and only get one guy on the side of the frame. Easy to remove and no problem, right?
In the extreme example, I really liked the next scene, but there was a constant parade of people through it, so I was sure I would never be able to get a people-free shot. I made the best composition I could, figuring that even with the people it was a nice photograph. Then I played with it and managed to make all the people “go away.” The people-less image is admittedly a bit stale. And yes I could put a couple of people in period dress in the frame, but I didn’t.
Ultimately, I think all of these examples are legitimate. Not everyone will agree, but it makes for an interesting discussion.
Kenneth Bello
Editing a photo is at least as important as taking the photo. Unless the photo has been altered to try to deceive the viewer, editing can be used to enhance the photo and improve its visual impact as well as convey the photographer’s “vision”.
Tom Dills
I thing the way to see it is to think of the file as “raw material” that needs to be optimized, whether simply by basic processing or sometimes with a bit more. And ultimately the point is understanding and appreciating the power of the software tools available to us.
Howard Grill
I don’t think this is cheating personally. It’s not changing the image in a way that is false and I don’t think it’s the type of AI that people are concerned about. Put in those people in period dress that weren’t there and I think you’ve crossed a line. Of course that’s just my line.
Tom Dills
I agree, Howard. Whether it is taking images and converting them to abstracts as you do, or simply taking a scene and removing the distractions, it is a way of expressing our creativity and our vision.
Jeff Curto
Once upon a time, when Photoshop was in its infancy, I was asked to give a talk to a local camera club about how the coming revolution of the ability to change images was going to change photography. This was well before digital cameras became viable and the technology was being used via scanning of prints and/or negatives.
I think they thought I was going to position this new technology as blasphemy – The Devil’s Handiwork – and that we should rebel at all costs. Instead, I showed them that manipulation of images had begun almost from the very beginning of the medium. Drawing on negatives, taking a sky from one image and a landscape from another, “correcting” facial features, hand coloring with paint – all of this was being done by the middle of the 19th century.
They were aghast, of course… but I think that some of them were a little relieved to discover that changing what the world gave the lens wasn’t heresy after all, but a part of the impetus to suit the vision of the maker of the image.
I ended up basing one of my History of Photography class lectures on this idea. If you have some time, you may want to see it here: https://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/archives/1573
Tom Dills
Thanks, Jeff. I’m sure I listened to that podcast years ago, but it would be fun to revisit it in the current environment. 😉
Monte Stevens
I have removed branches and signs but I have not removed people, yet. Nor have I added people of dress, yet. I do everything I can to make it look as it is. I’ve seen photographers wade into a stream to remove a branch they did not like bing in the image. Some major manipulation there.
Tom Dills
I know a number of photographers who resort to (usually) non-destructive means to obtain a photograph. One guy I know carries a fishing rod that he could use to pull back a branch. I’ve heard of others resorting to a saw or other device but hope that was incorrect!
One of the most interesting stories was from an iconic place on the Blue Ridge Parkway. There was this beautiful photo of the Linn Cove Viaduct near Grandfather Mountain, framed by a lovely rhododendron. Turns out the photographer carried the rhododendron branches there, set them up to take the photograph then carried them away. Photographers tried to duplicate the photo but could never find the rhododendrons! 🙂