Recently I’ve been browsing through my favorites on Flickr and thinking about all of the various photographic styles my collection contains. I’ve found that most of them have been post processed like having their colors tweaked or altered and in some cases textures added (note the 3rd photo above). Some of these tweaks are minor and probably were done to clean up the photo and give it more “punch” (such as the 1st photo above) while some have completely altered the entire mood of the photo (note the 2nd photo above). With these different examples of post processing, I’ve been asking myself the following question:
“Where is the line between photography and graphic design in regards to post processing?”
Since launching out into photography I’ve spent countless hours viewing the work of other photographers. Not all of those photographers are professional photographers. Some are designers first with a love of photography as an extension of their creative outlets, which is where I would place myself. I’ve found that the majority of photos these designers produce are highly stylized and processed. To me it looks like they extend their skills as designers to their photographs, which I’ve found is a natural extension for myself as well.
I have also viewed numerous portfolios by professional photographers and I’ve often found the opposite to be true. While these photographers have visual styles that make them unique, their photos tend to have a more natural look.
What I’m starting to wonder is if I’m seeing the differences between the kinds of photographers there are. While these designers are not professional photographers, they are still artists and could possibly categorize themselves as art photographers. Since they don’t make their living as professional photographers, they have complete freedom to create what they like. In contrast most professional photographers obviously have to sell their work to live and so maybe that’s why their portfolios are more natural or truer to life, a reality I face myself with my client work.
I’m still curious as to the line between photograph and design, because obviously my natural tendency is to design something. I look at the 3rd photo above, which definitely is very stylized and I see how close it could be to crossing that line. At first glance it’s just a photo, one that looks like it could be quite old and possibly printed on paper that’s faded and changed color over the years. As I look closer I can tell that it’s been processed, that textures have been added, colors changed, and the contrast adjusted. So okay, that’s arguably “safely” within the lines of photography, but what would happen if I added a single line of text, a small illustration or slightly skewed the image? Have I not then stepped over the line into graphic design?
Maybe that’s where the answer lies. Adding elements to a photo, is that when a photo ceases to be just a photo? Are you safely on the side of photography if you’re only adjusting what’s already there in the image regardless of how far those adjustments go? If the first question proves true, then maybe the addition of texture to the 3rd image disqualifies it from still being a “photo”. I don’t know.
If you have any thoughts about this issue, I’d love to hear them. I’m still processing it all myself.
I am personally a big fan of a natural photo. I believe that it shows more of how things were meant to be looked upon.
There are professionals out there that have the top of the line equipment and wait all day for that “perfect” shot that needs no retouching, and I am amazed at their talent again and again. Then there are the semi-pro folks out there that take awesome shots and can brighten/pull out a few of the colors through a tool like photoshop and it still retains that “natural” beauty that I love.
In contrast, (i think I’m intending the pun) once you take a photo and begin to change the natural lighting and texture you have crossed the line from being photography to being more art. I know they go hand in hand but I think you get my meaning. Once a photo becomes art it takes on the styling of the artist. In any painting the artist has control of the mood of their art… and in this case they aren’t starting with a blank canvas but rather a real life scene that viewers can relate… it draws up in. A great example of what I mean is your #2 photo.
I suppose that one could argue that a natural photo could be taken by an artist that uses that as their style.
It appears to be a blurry line, but that is my opinion on it.
Good thoughts Phil. It seems to me that even the purest photographers are designers at heart. Here’s what I mean – before the days of PS and computer processing, there was still the darkroom. Photographers would alter their photographs to achieve a desired artistic result. Simply because things are far more advanced and computerized now does not change the basic premise. You could go one step further and say that a photographers camera setup is a form of design – predesign as opposed to postdesign perhaps.
For me, I value the purists out there who are constantly wrestling with this tension, because I believe their fight helps to retain one of many valuable segments in the photo community. Sort of like music purists who argue for a certain simplicity being the “right” way. It’s subjective in both cases, but the ongoing battle helps all the artists, I think.
The BIG issue is artist integrity in communicating what’s been done to the photo in order to not mislead others.
My photo editing ethics usually revolve around what I can and cannot do in the dark room. I am not a designer and I barely know what Photoshop can do. I use maybe 4 or 5 different elements when I’m editing, and that’s it. There are some photographers that I love who do a ton of post processing. But my favorite photographers, by far, try to capture the moments as authentically as possible.
Above all, I want to be a good storyteller with my images. Photojournalism has always drawn me in. I drool over National Geographic and Mary Ellen Mark. Sometimes I think I should step over into the design aspect of photography to meet more needs of what clients want, but it’s simply not my style. I’m waiting for the day when someone will hire me to do a project with only film. I’ll take film over digital every day of the week.
I think the question lies deeper than when and how you manipulate the photo. Whether you are changing camera settings, changing cameras, adding a prop to a set in a photo shoot or adding an element into the finished product in photoshop, we all alter images and capture a reflection of *our* reality, rather than actual reality.
Sometimes my family pictures are quick “snapshots” to capture the moment. The color comes out true to life. It is an accurate reflection of reality. But the house is a mess and you can see my desk in the background.
If my kids will hold still long enough, I try to sneak a shot with enough time to actual compose the frame. Same picture, but rather than destined for the scrapbook, this one gets matted and framed.
Of course cropping and some post-production could turn the first picture into the second (sorta, kinda, maybe), but I prefer to get as clean as possible originals.
I’ve always viewed art with a certain amount of required intentionality. In other words, its not really “art” if you just accidentally created something. Art is about telling a story and/or conveying emotion.
So you are probably right. There is a difference between a designer who is sort of a photographer and the other way around, but if the goal is beautiful art, then keep shooting, keep editing, and practice where you are weak to make yourself better.
[...] morning I read an article over on Phil Coffman’s blog asking about the difference between photography from a photographer’s perspective and a [...]