Image processing

 or

Creativity – Manipulation

I have been photographing for almost my entire adult life. On film for many, many years, of course. Having switched to digital, it’s therefore natural for me to capture “digital negatives” (RAW) and in turn develop these.

I have been exhibiting quite a number of times during the years. Funnily, after I became digital, I have frequently been accused for “manipulating” my images.

In my analogue days I made black and white prints myself. I developed the films myself by means of at least four different developing liquids. I used whichever my experience told me was best to obtain my desired effect. I also varied the developing time and how much and how long I stirred the spools of film.

After that, I made prints from the negatives. I had at least four or five different versions of the same paper, the difference being the contrast. The photo paper was exposed in the amount of time, which delivered my desired result. Many times light areas was exposed longer to avoid clipped highlights. I used any means, e.g. different screens to make special effects. I even exposed two different negatives on the same paper. I used at least three different print developers, each one with its special characteristics.

Then my images were spoken of as “original” and “creative”.

My digital captures are treated in exactly the same way. I capture a “digital negative”, i.e. a RAW-file, with my camera. This is developed in a RAW-converter, in which the setting of the camera at the time of capture may be adjusted, if necessary. This process may be compared to the analogue film developing. Sometimes the image is fine-tuned in an image-processing program. In rare cases I make two, or more, exposures from the same negative, and merge these to e.g. make a very light sky darker. Finally the images may be printed on original photo paper with long endurance. This process may be compared to the analogue printing process.

Now my images are spoken of as “manipulated”!

Funnily, a jpg-picture, where the processing has been uncritically handed over to the primitive processor of a digital camera with all settings on “auto”, apparently is considered to be an unmanipulated picture (!)

Nothing can be more wrong. All images captured with a camera will result in a manipulation of the reality. No camera can span as much aperture values as our human eyes can, or has the progressive sensibility (ISO) as our human eyes have. On a clear, sunny day our eyes can see both details in the deep shadows and in the brightest highlights. No camera can do that, not even the most expensive Nikon. As a photographer you have to choose, either details in the highlights and totally black shadows, or details in the shadows and totally, burnt-out highlights. You can even set your camera on “auto” and use an average light metering and have both. Both totally black shadows and burnt-out highlights, that is.

Which of these is “manipulation”?

Moreover, to people speaking about “manipulation”, a black and white image must be hopelessly manipulated?

Some photographers try to avoid such problems by working with HDR-photography (High Dynamic Range). Here you capture a number of images of the same subject with different settings, and then merge these using only areas which have been correctly exposed. In this way there will be details in both the deep shadows and in the bright highlights. The result will be something, which more closely will look like a scene seen with our eyes.

Is this “manipulation”?

Many photographers use filters in front of their lenses. Some filters remove reflexes, others make a blue sky a lot darker and so on. To a “Puritan”, this is naturally okay and not “manipulation”, if the photographer doesn’t use creative setting on the camera and uncritically uses the camera-generated jpg-file, that is!

I never use filters. Who is “manipulating”?

Finally, one should consider the fact, that our human eyes are merely tools to focus and to regulate the amount of light sent to the brain. The light and the shapes we see with our eyes are here interpreted into images. Thus images are something, which are developed in our brains and therefore not two persons “see” the same way. To compare, if you gave two photographers identical cameras, told them to stand at the same point and each take a shot of the same scene simultaneously, and go home to process and print it, the result would never be the same. Why? Because they would use different camera settings, they would interpret the scene differently, and they would process the image differently.

Who of the two would be “manipulating”?

For long, I was more or less consciously influenced by others’ meanings about this subject. I have as a result, not adjusted the light in my images too much, because I then thought I could convince people that my images were not “manipulated”. In other words, I have happily joined any discussion about this subject.

I have found this to be hopeless, and hence I don’t feel like that any more. If people in the future claim my images to be “manipulated”, I shall answer: “Yes! – and so what?”

Or tell them the story of the photographer (unfortunately I don’t remember who), who during one of his exhibitions was accused by a visitor of manipulating his images:

“So, you think my images are manipulated?” he asked the visitor.

“Yes, everyone can see that”, the visitor replied. “Nothing about your work looks natural.”

“Hmm, perhaps you can show me a photograph, which is not manipulated?” asked the photographer.

The visitor thought for a minute, then brightened up saying: “Yes I can”. He opened his wallet and handed the photographer a tiny picture of his wife. “This clearly shows my wife as she looks”, he said triumphantly.

“So you really believe that this picture shows your wife exactly as she looks?” the photographer asked.

“I sure do”, the visitor replied.

The photographer looked at the picture, turned it around and handed it back to the visitor saying: “Poor thing. So your wife is flat like a piece of paper, around 2 inches high and has no lower body!”  

I shall in the future make my images exactly the way I want them to be and according to what I see in the subject. Then people must make up to themselves whether they like them or not.

Please contact me for further information.

Comments on the pictures are most welcome.