This post is related to the previous post about altering images.

A few weeks ago I was at the Chrysler Museum of Art and bought the catalog for a 1994 exhibit called Pictorial Effect/Naturalistic Vision: The Photographs and Theories of Henry Peach Robinson and Peter Henry Emerson. It has some really interesting text about what Brooks Johnson refers to as “the contest between ‘straight’ or ‘manipulated’ photography.” Johnson, the Curator of Photography at the Chrysler, goes on to say, “…the debate today is not about why one is better than the other. Instead, it is a decision as to the approach chosen to best serve the needs of the artist.” I agree with him.

Manipulated photos are here to stay and might eventually be usurped by complex graphic animation. As an evolutionary process it’s really interesting to compare what H.P. Robinson was doing over 100 years ago in the dark room to what Erik Almas and many others do today in Photoshop. Below, you can read the two men describe the picture making process. The photos they describe are found at the end of this post.

H.P. Robinson quoted in Pictorial Effect describing his 1890 photo When The Day’s Work is Done:

The first negatives taken were the two of which the background is composed. The division runs down the centre, where the light is relieved by the dark beyond it. The two negatives were not printed separately…but were carefully cut down with a diamond and mounted on a piece of glass…making, in fact, one large negative of the interior of the cottage, into which it would be comparatively easy to put anything. The next negative was the old man. This included the table, chair, and matting on which his feet rest…The old lady was then photographed, and is simply joined round the edge; so also was the group in the corner, and the glimpse of the village seen through the window.

Excerpt from interview with Erik Almas in F STOP discussing a 2007 photo:

…there’s usually three elements to my images. But with the fisherman image, I used so many more [about 20]. It was three like little coves sitting next to each other. Like each one I wanted to shoot at. And then I thought, why don’t we put that arch into the other scene. So I decided I’d shoot in pieces. A wave like this would be perfect next to that, and this would be perfect next to that…you just see the picture in front of you, and you just start gathering pieces to recreate that. Then of course it didn’t look exactly like that because when you sit down with it on the computer, you have this framework and you start building the puzzle and putting the pieces in. It was a fun exercise… You really have to see the picture and photograph for that and then you put it together. I think I sat there for a day, I just put it together, you know. Then I probably spent another few days making it seamless.

Here is a link to an article by H.P. Robinson discussing his methods in the THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY. April 2, 1860.

Norm Shafer, who I know as a photographer at the Virginian-Pilot (an awesome photo paper where I have freelanced occasionally) recently raised questions about my use of both advertising and editorial content on the same blog. He had thoughts which I think other people share and which are worth discussing. His full comment is here. Basically, he thinks it is misleading and unethical to combine or “composite” photos. This got my mind working and rather than bury my response in the comments page, I chose to share it as it’s own post. Below, is what I wrote to Norm.

I only alter images for advertising work and anything I post on the blog has a note about the alteration. As I build more advertising work, I’ll eventually place it on my main website in it’s own advertising section, which is very separate from my journalism work. You said, “I feel that the viewers of these photos are led to believe that they are a truthfull representation of reality, and when they find out they’ve been fooled it puts into question the truthfullness of photography.” I think the truthfulness of photography has been in question since it’s invention. You should read this link about a composite from 1860 involving Lincoln. There are countless examples like this. In fact the Chrysler Museum currently exhibits an interesting series of pictures by Henry Peach Robinson who was famous for combining 4 or 5 negatives in the 19th century. For me advertising and fine art photography should be read like a fiction book. The events, characters and plot are invented, but if done well, the reader believes it. He might even find truth in it. Photojournalism is like a non-fiction book. It should be accurate but it is still subject to the bias of the writer. A lot of writers engage in both worlds and I think photographers should be able to as well, as long as they are honest about it.

This is an age-old discussion, but please leave your thoughts if you have any.

Originally taken on an editorial assignment about a high school band, this is now a composite of 2 images for use in self-promotions to art buyers.