Re: [APML]: Computer processing

[Robin Casady <rcasady@scruznet.com>]

Ian Turner wrote:

>Jerry has made some interesting statements
>
>I wish to ask everyone if it is possible we have went to far with image
>alterations using computers?
>
>I recently purchased Photoshop 4.0 and I'm in awe what it can do. But I am
>starting to feel like it's all Lies.
>
>I can get detail out of Photos that I can hardly see. Have I/we crossed the
>boundry into the world of artistry.
>I have always felt photography was an artform that could show something
>frozen in time or simple beauty of a subject.
>
>With these new programs we are far beyond this state. I wonder if Ansel
>Adams would have used these techniques?
>
>Personally using filters to seperate bandwith is one thing using the image
>processing of these programs is another.

There is no ultimate line defining what is permissible and what is not 
permissible in the manipulation of a photographic image. It depends on 
the photographer's intent--what he/she wants to communicate to the 
viewer. Photographs can provide information, and they can express 
feelings. 

My sense of our culture's attitude towards photography is that it 
parallels language. If your purpose is to provide information, then you 
are obligated not to falsify the information. If you are recoding an 
image of the Moon's surface for study, you are obligated not to use 
Photoshop to move craters for a better composition. However, if it is 
clear that the image is not meant to be a realistic representation of the 
lunar surface, you can bloody well do what you like. The "truthfulness" 
of a photograph is determined more in the presentation than in the 
creation. If you put President Clinton's head on someone else's body to 
make a humorous or satirical statement, fine. If you do it to try to 
prove that he did something he didn't, you have lied. How much you should 
be able to manipulate the image of a nebula depends on how you intend to 
present it. 

The idea is to not deceive the viewer. However, this is sometimes 
difficult because people tend to believe photographs equal reality. This 
is especially true with astrophotos. Astronomers usually know enough to 
see an astrophoto for what it is, but the general public tends to think, 
"astronomy = science, must be true to life." The fact that astronomers 
frequently use false color images doesn't seem to help. 

Information can be interpreted from photographs, but a photograph is only 
an approximation of an object or scene. A color photo does not show you 
the actual colors that were present. An unmanipulated color photo of a 
nebula is not an accurate representation of the nebula. Some information 
can be derived from the photo, if the characteristics of the filters are 
known. By filters I mean the atmosphere, telescope, film, and viewing 
system.

Ansel Adams' main purpose with photography was expression. He was not out 
to record nature. He was out to say something about it. I don't know what 
his exact limits were for what he considered legitimate manipulation in 
his own work. The f/64 group that he was involved with did have some very 
strict rules about what they thought was right for photography. On the 
other hand, Man Ray had little use for their concerns. He demanded more 
freedom in his expression. Ansel was comfortable with different rules. 
Each photographer must make up his/her own mind about intentions and 
limits.



Robin Casady
http://www.scruz.net/~rcasady/

Macintosh software for:
Managing URL Bookmarks
LX200 telescope control