Snow Day!
OK, I grew up in California, so I totally don’t get the whole "snow day" thing, but it always sounded so cool when I was a kid. But that’s not the snow day I’m talking about. Actually, it is, but in a different context.
I recently attended the PhotoVision Awards and Gala Dinner that serves as a key funderaiser for Photographic Center Northwest (PCNW). One of the most popular images in the auction was titled "Snow Day", by photographer Julie Blackmon. You can see this it, along with many other great images, in the Domestic Vacations gallery on her website.
A big part of the discussion among those spending time in front of this image in the PCNW Gallery involved speculation about whether it was a "straight" photograph, or if it was a composite of multiple images. What I found so cool about the photo is that it is completely possible that it could be a single image. There was nothing about it that couldn’t have really been as it appeared for a single instant. And yet I figured it had to be a composite. I actually felt guilty for making this assumption, so I was relieved when I contacted the photographer and confirmed it was indeed a composite.
I asked Julie about her perspective on creating such an image photographically, in the context of some people feeling that creating such a composite was "cheating" (a notion I don’t agree with, by the way). Here’s how Julie described her work:
"When I describe my work I sometimes talk about my husband who writes fiction, and how he works. He’s always borrowing from real life, and then changing certain details or the context of them for the sake of the story. But in a way, his work tells the truth about life in way that writing it exactly as it happened wouldn’t be able to. So, I guess that’s they way I’m trying to work visually."
I think this is such an apt description for her work and her approach to photography. I’d be the first to admit that there are situations (such as photojournalism) where creating an invented scene isn’t appropriate. But in most cases I really feel that photography is art, and thus deserves to have he same freedoms of creativity found in any other art form. In other words, creating such a composition is an incredible expression, and one that should be applauded.
Explore posts in the same categories: Creativity, Digital
December 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Tim,
I guess the “Question” is ‘When does an altered Image get to still be called real life?” If I shot an image of the wide open range, with no bison in it, then copied from another image bison into it, do I get to call it “Nature”? (Or real life?) It could have been. When does story telling cross the line from “reality” to “fiction”.
- Paul
December 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Tim,
I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to making a photograph, although I am firmly digital in how I shoot more than 99% of the time.
I believe in making the best photograph I can, and then optimizing it to make it (pardon the pun) all it can be. I don’t believe in presenting a composite image as a photograph, although I have no problem with an image identified as a composite. I use some of the digital equivalents of traditional darkroom techniques.
Essentially, when it comes to retouching nature/wildlife photographs, leave them (content-wise) alone. Portrait retouching is not included in this, as we all need a little help! All photography is an abstraction of reality, so within the confines of this discussion I believe a composite image is in the realm of digital art; it just happened to have its source material supplied by a camera.
Jay
December 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Paul
I think one has to understand the context of the image’s presentation. As Tim mentioned an alteration of the visual fact is a no-no in photojournalism. In my camera club and in the Photographic Society of American (PSA), your example of adding bison to an open range would not be allowed in an image submitted as a “Nature” image. However, if it were submitted as a “Creative” image, it would be legal (although not creative). Thus the subject image which was presented as a piece of art is legitimate. To answer your question, it crosses the line when it is understood by all concerned that the story is fiction, not reality.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Books are labeled as fiction or labeled as a novel, so there is no confusion with non-fiction. Sometimes, to emphasize the accuracy of the facts underlying the fictional story, the book is labeled as historical fiction. So, perhaps photographs ought to be labeled: if a composite, if animals are shot in a zoo, etc.
Gene
January 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Eugene,
Most people (probably everyone) would agree that a photograph shot in a zoo is not a nature photograph. But you seem to be suggesting that it is not a valid photograph and must be “labeled” as a zoo photograph. I strongly disagree. A fine art photograph that happens to be taken in a zoo is a photo. If I’m not claiming it’s a nature photograph taken on a safari, I’m not being dishonest. If I’m representing it as art, then I’m being perfectly honest in calling it “Gorilla” or whatever.
Art is not journalism, and shouldn’t be.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:49 am
This is an age old debate and always a healtly one. Photography has been manipulated since the begining starting with the Pictorialist who would smear vasoline on the lens to create a more painterly effect. Ansel Adams our great landscape photographer heavily manipulated images in the darkroom and would continue to evolve/change the image over time. Harry Callahan would do multiple exposeures in camera to create different effects. Photojournalist have also manipulated their images when they wanted to emphasize a point. It’s a little confusing to me when peole who view photography as an art form can have any resistance to people pushing the media. I would guess when abstract painting started there were people who thought this was not painting.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Real life is in a sense a “fiction” in that our consciousness do not all see the exact same image .”… situations (such as photojournalism) where creating an invented scene isn’t appropriate.” and PSA rules on “Nature” are limiting constructs that like the Sherman anti-trust Act stifle individual creativity.
Every exposure is an act of bias - the maker includes, excludes, manages the environment with filters etc. and so fictionalizes his reality. Why Not?
Art is in the eye of the beholder, unless it is defined by the elite in academia as Fine Art.