A colleague of mine and I have been discussing, to some extent, the ethics behind the art of photography. We’ve been looking at the very fuzzy line between photographic fact and fiction. At what point is the photographer applying so much post production that it creates a mood or feeling so far from the truth at the moment the image was made, that in essence it becomes a lie?
This is a question that can take many deep routes… too philosophical to explore on this blog, here, tonight. But I do understand that this question involves considering the photographer’s interpretation of what was happening at the time of capture, his/her background, view of the world, mood as the shutter was released, etc. There are books, articles and blogs dedicated to sorting out how much is too much in the ethics of photographic art. David duChemin is one such author and blogger with a solid voice for this type of thing and my current go-to for issues such as these.
It seems that in every other medium the artist has an enormous amount of latitude in how they represent their ideas. In the painting world there’s photorealism, impressionism, expressionism, realism, abstractionism and abstract. These prints range from something so closely resembling a real life creature to dots splattered across a canvass.
When discussing photography, however, you always start out with a real life scene captured on a camera’s sensor. From there, the artist takes into her hands digital tools that can enhance colors, remove colors, or alter an image entirely. The creative possibilities are virtually endless and yet the question exists: Is there a “too far”?
My short answer is: I think there’s a place for everything. This comes with a lot of musing that will remain unexplored for now (and maybe forever). Below, however, is one image that was at the heart of this debate between me and my friend.
What originally struck me about this scene, what motivated me to lift my camera to my eye in the first place, was the loneliness of the scene; the tree had no leaves and the bench had no visitors. The mood of these two key pieces was gloomy.
What didn’t fit the glum subjects, however, were the colors present in the sky and grass. In the original image, the grass was luscious and green from our recent winter rains and the sun was at an angle to my lens that made the sky an intense blue. When I looked at the image in Lightroom3, these bright colors completely clashed with what I originally saw.
So, instead of keeping and enhancing the vivid blues and greens, I chose to desaturate everything and create a cloudy, much more glum feel to the entire image, but completely opposite of what the day actually represented.
Is this right? Is this ethical in photography land? I think so because it’s what I saw in the first place. Right or wrong, it makes for good continued discussion about that fuzzy ethics line that plagues artists of all kinds.