Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In this thread, here. Ray West suggested that an interfering horizontal line be removed from David Sommars' photograph of stairs in the shadows, Forgotten Stairs":
© David Sommars "Forgotten Stairs"
And in reply David wrote
This discussion brings to the fore the concept of Truth In Photography.
We have discussed previously dishonesty in photography by selectively choosing a frame to distort our perception of an event or person or else actually placing objects (dolls, mannequins "grieving" widows or "wounded" to make a news story more compelling. That is not what we will deal with here. Here, we want instead, to introduce to the uninitiated and then to explore the "Truth in Photography" philosophy.
Well it turns out that a number of folk are seriously committed to an approach, "TIF" or "Truth in Photography" to guide and inform and control their work. So David's unwillingness to remove one line that spoils the balance of the composition, speaks to this discipline. After all, what on earth could be so wrong in that? Don't we want the photograph to be more effective in enthralling the viewer?
However, David goes on to write:
David,
So you are willing to alter the colors and on occasion even remove an object to improve the photograph to present the photograph as you saw it in your "mind's eye".
So this made me think a little more of what I had recently corresponded with Nick Rains, the Australian fine art landscape photographer.
Let me go back a little. Last week I was exploring Nick Rains gallery of his visit to the USA earlier this year. The images are wonderful! I was enthralled and got lost in the scenes of the National Parks. Looking for more, I came across his writing about "TIF", his passion to show things as they really existed and not altered by cloning, hiding, changing colors and so forth.
Nick Rains' work embraces the 'Truth in Photography' or "TIF" philosophy that is beginning to emerge amongst a few serious fine art photographers around the world. "A print of an image is a representation of what the photographer actually saw - no more and no less. A print shows, as far as is technically possible, the scene as the photographer experienced it".
The idea is to look not at the picture but rather through the picture to the actual scene as observed by the photographer or could have been observed by any other person then.
I asked him about Bresson taking pictures faster than the eye could see, so how did this fit in with "TIF"? (That also applies to any high-speed photography). I gave other examples of my difficulty in grasping the TIF concept as one that should have overriding guiding value for photography.
Nick answers that TIF is an attempt at the truth.
So here we can see two forms of "Truth", the "Truth in Photography", as any other human would have observed then and there, as claimed by Nick Rains and others versus the more tempered and finessed honesty of David to the vision in his "minds eye"?
So how important is this in our photography and does it matter outside of The News, forensics, evidence, proof and science?
So what's "truth in your own photography.
Asher
© David Sommars "Forgotten Stairs"
And in reply David wrote
..........
A quick word about my shots..............:
I don’t setup my shots with lighting and or object placement. 95% of the time I don’t clone out things, If you want to shoot industrial art in the real world you have to live with the balance of having lines on buildings and cracks in windows, trash on the ground etc.... its either that, or don’t go out cause nothing will be good enough to shoot. I like to find ordinary things and make them speak.
I respect your opinion, just prefacing so when you see more shots you will know where I am coming from, I am not trying to hide those "defects" sometimes they make the whole shot for me...
This discussion brings to the fore the concept of Truth In Photography.
We have discussed previously dishonesty in photography by selectively choosing a frame to distort our perception of an event or person or else actually placing objects (dolls, mannequins "grieving" widows or "wounded" to make a news story more compelling. That is not what we will deal with here. Here, we want instead, to introduce to the uninitiated and then to explore the "Truth in Photography" philosophy.
Well it turns out that a number of folk are seriously committed to an approach, "TIF" or "Truth in Photography" to guide and inform and control their work. So David's unwillingness to remove one line that spoils the balance of the composition, speaks to this discipline. After all, what on earth could be so wrong in that? Don't we want the photograph to be more effective in enthralling the viewer?
However, David goes on to write:
Adjusting angle, color brightness is basically how you are recording the scene, you’re still not changing the scene as removing objects. I will on occasion remove small things if they mess up the shot. But as I said, many times I believe they MAKE the shot. (My bolding A.K.) so if you see it there, then it’s on purpose. !!!
Nothing anyone can say will change my mind, I'll make my art the way my minds eye sees it. (My bolding AK)
But, if you adjust colours, lighting, select the view to make it look nice, why not remove or add artifacts to make it 'look better'?
Because - "Better" is a relative term. I adjust as I see fit. Its more about finding something everyone can relate to, something that exists in reality, and not all of the pictures of far off places people will never visit in their lifetimes, that’s my art.
Why try to change me? You either appreciate it or you don’t.
David,
So you are willing to alter the colors and on occasion even remove an object to improve the photograph to present the photograph as you saw it in your "mind's eye".
So this made me think a little more of what I had recently corresponded with Nick Rains, the Australian fine art landscape photographer.
Let me go back a little. Last week I was exploring Nick Rains gallery of his visit to the USA earlier this year. The images are wonderful! I was enthralled and got lost in the scenes of the National Parks. Looking for more, I came across his writing about "TIF", his passion to show things as they really existed and not altered by cloning, hiding, changing colors and so forth.
Nick Rains' work embraces the 'Truth in Photography' or "TIF" philosophy that is beginning to emerge amongst a few serious fine art photographers around the world. "A print of an image is a representation of what the photographer actually saw - no more and no less. A print shows, as far as is technically possible, the scene as the photographer experienced it".
"Truth in Photography' means that the viewer is not being misled by composites or montages, by visual trickery or any other illusions. What you see in a print was completely real, and a human being actually experienced it first hand. You, as the viewer of a print, are experiencing the same sights through the medium of the photographic print.
Belief in the integrity of the photography is of paramount importance to you, the viewer's, appreciation of the image:
"The power of a nature photograph is irrevocably linked to our belief system rather than rooted in the image itself. It truthfully represents a 'real' event that was witnessed by another human being".
Galen Rowell 'The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography' 2001.
Another perspective on the issue of reality in photography can be found here. Michael Gordon in the US considers this question at length in an article on Nature Photographers Online Magazine.
Michael succinctly puts his case that all images need to be 'optimised' for the printing process and whilst some die hards see this as ''manipulation', it is incorrect to view film as the actual final product.
Ansel Adams is quoted as saying "“the negative is comparable to the composer’s score and the print to its performance“.
The confusion lies in the perceived 'motive' for so called 'manipulation', in Michael's case, as in my own, the motive is to overcome the very limited way a film can record a scene. The aim is to show the viewer what the photographer experienced in its entirety, to break out of the boundaries of film and take photography to its fullest potential.
Only the photographer can say if his or her print comes close to sharing the essence of the scene at the time of the capture. The viewer must take this on trust and simply marvel at the glory of nature.
Personally I would like my viewers to look through the print rather than at it, I want my technique to be invisible and for the essence of the scene to shine through making technical questions quite irrelevant.
After all, who cares what type of brush Rembrandt used.
Nick Rains 2006"Source .
Belief in the integrity of the photography is of paramount importance to you, the viewer's, appreciation of the image:
"The power of a nature photograph is irrevocably linked to our belief system rather than rooted in the image itself. It truthfully represents a 'real' event that was witnessed by another human being".
Galen Rowell 'The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography' 2001.
Another perspective on the issue of reality in photography can be found here. Michael Gordon in the US considers this question at length in an article on Nature Photographers Online Magazine.
Michael succinctly puts his case that all images need to be 'optimised' for the printing process and whilst some die hards see this as ''manipulation', it is incorrect to view film as the actual final product.
Ansel Adams is quoted as saying "“the negative is comparable to the composer’s score and the print to its performance“.
The confusion lies in the perceived 'motive' for so called 'manipulation', in Michael's case, as in my own, the motive is to overcome the very limited way a film can record a scene. The aim is to show the viewer what the photographer experienced in its entirety, to break out of the boundaries of film and take photography to its fullest potential.
Only the photographer can say if his or her print comes close to sharing the essence of the scene at the time of the capture. The viewer must take this on trust and simply marvel at the glory of nature.
Personally I would like my viewers to look through the print rather than at it, I want my technique to be invisible and for the essence of the scene to shine through making technical questions quite irrelevant.
After all, who cares what type of brush Rembrandt used.
Nick Rains 2006"Source .
The idea is to look not at the picture but rather through the picture to the actual scene as observed by the photographer or could have been observed by any other person then.
I asked him about Bresson taking pictures faster than the eye could see, so how did this fit in with "TIF"? (That also applies to any high-speed photography). I gave other examples of my difficulty in grasping the TIF concept as one that should have overriding guiding value for photography.
Nick answers that TIF is an attempt at the truth.
So here we can see two forms of "Truth", the "Truth in Photography", as any other human would have observed then and there, as claimed by Nick Rains and others versus the more tempered and finessed honesty of David to the vision in his "minds eye"?
So how important is this in our photography and does it matter outside of The News, forensics, evidence, proof and science?
So what's "truth in your own photography.
Asher
Last edited: