Is It Okay to Manipulate Your Photos?

[@KrunoslavStifter]

"The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer

[@dcallan812]

Ansel Adams elevated dodging and burning to an art form and wrote a book on producing prints called The Print (Adams 1995). If its art, do what you want if its a record of a scene dont change a thing.

[@justinrichardson3864]

Including burning out letters on the hill/mountain behind the horse in the photograph that Nick included in this video!

[@paullanoue5228]

Obviously he has never seen Ansel’s original test print of Moonrise Over Hernandez.

[@SkylaneGuy]

@@justinrichardson3864 - yep! Quite amusing that Nick used ‘Winter Sunrise’ because Adams painstakingly touched up the graffiti carved into the hillside every time he printed that image. Personally, it doesn’t bother me. But I guess Nick has no respect for him now?

[@dcallan812]

@@paullanoue5228 possibly, still a very interesting and thought provoking video.

[@justinrichardson3864]

@@SkylaneGuy I assumed that was what he was going to talk about, but then he talked about the horse, ha ha.

[@rockymountainmike3133]

Knowing you’re not a Peter Lik fan has made me a bigger Nick Carver fan.

[@neildewestelinck6639]

Who is this? and what is wron gwith him?

[@sethsez]

@@neildewestelinck6639 Peter Lik is Lisa Frank for adults with more money than taste.

[@joshmcdzz6925]

player haters....

[@Equilion]

Anything goes, as long as you're not pretending to do documentations. Period.

[@eoghanhennessy15]

I agree

[@HellaReckless]

Agreed

[@benjamin-stamp]

can’t argue with that at all

[@aroach337]

Agreed. I choose film, filters, cropping, aperture, shutter... everything to create a vision. If I knew you used a split ND, would I lose respect for you?

[@zayanything3124]

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams

[@paulscottfilms]

Agreed, absolutely, even if it's just moving around. Most of my photos are montages of five or six subjects, sometimes too obvious. Yes, total fake, I know, but if the girl doesn't look right, she gets dressed, or undressed again..

[@philmartin5689]

Yes but the making can be seamless and invisible, which is ideal or crude and blatant, like the two Lik moon shots are

[@zayanything3124]

@@philmartin5689 I agree with you on Lik. I feel like you should try and try and recreate what you saw and were feeling when you took the photos. I will never use a fake sky or moon in a photo, and even keep the saturation within the realms of reality. But some people just feel as though if you do any edits at all it’s no longer photography. That’s my point is all. You have to find a balance.

[@joshmcdzz6925]

That's exactly what Peter Lik's doing...and he's successful at it

[@RandyPollock]

Luminar headquarters - Scratch Nick Carver off our list of future ambassadors.

[@airdailyx]

HAHAAAAAA!!!

[@FelixCervantes]

Luminar is for wannabe photographers especially the ones that use the sky replacement.

[@thegrayyernaut]

@@FelixCervantes I cannot see the appeal in sky replacement. The fake sky just feels so generic.

[@nickcarverphoto]

IMPORTANT: I mistakenly credited the photo at 8:20 to Henri Cartier-Bresson. This beautiful photo was in fact taken by Rui Palha. Please visit his website at www.ruipalha.com and learn more about this apparently common misappropriation at instagram.com/ruipalha_vs_hcb/ - I feel terrible about this and I can assure you it was purely a result of sloppy research on my part. I will be more careful in the future.

[@RuiPalha1]

Thank you so much... your attitude is, indeed, appanage of a very well formed person. Thank you for that.

[@Hambone6]

You should pin this comment!

[@bobsykes]

This is fascinating and makes me think. Trying to unpack your reactions to all these examples, it seems to come down to if you first see a photo and your initial impression is that the photo captured an actual and exact scene just how the photographer came upon it, but then your subsaquently find out it was a designed scene, you are upset to have been deceived. Yet, when you first see a photo and decide that it must have been a designed scene, then the designing of the scene doesn't bother you at all. You really don't like getting deceived. It's great to see you post here again, and your videos are always excellent. Wishing you a great and healthy holiday season!

[@xxFusilado]

I was expecting someone to pass outside the window behind. And it happened.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Twice :-)

[@rusmiller816]

@@dimitristsagdis7340 That's what makes this video art 😂

[@erikvalkman9640]

@Ramo Yes you were, but only after it happened. 😄

[@BajaPescadorTackle]

What if he paid that person to pass behind the window outside?

[@heygem]

I think the issue with manipulation is if you think a photo belongs to a certain genre of non staged street or landscape photos, then you find out the guy staged it somehow, it changes what you expect. But if you knew from the start its a staged scene, you wouldn't feel it's bad and can still appreciate it.

[@MrDro1128]

Photography is like magic. You as the viewer, should relish in the moment created to bear witness to art, skill & vision. The viewers hold no obligation or entitlement to know how or why it was created... unless its political photo journalism.

[@han5k2]

Artists should be honest as to whether they are a "photographer or "illustrator/ graphic creator". I was frustrated by my slow photographic improvements until I realized how rampant radical digital manipulation is amongst the highly regarded...

[@NickPage]

Interesting take man.. and I 100% am with you on the peter lik images

[@leonelmateus]

..yeah that was just obscene, falls into the tacky category like fake palm trees.

[@v0ldy54]

I remember the moon shot... he claimed it wans't fake when the moon was IN FRONT OF THE FREAKING CLOUDS

[@willwillis5186]

If Peter Lik hadn't pretended the images were real, it wouldn't have been a problem for me. My objection is to his dishonesty.

[@NickPage]

@@willwillis5186 I totally agree. If your going to create stuff like that, own it. At least be transparent so people know what they are buying with their hundreds of thousands of dollars. Never been a fan of his photography, and even less of a fan of his ethics.

[@leonelmateus]

@@NickPage Exactly. Claim that you're an M.C. Escher fan and you were high as a kite and inspired at the time to copycat his trademark. But don't lie to people is the bottom line.

[@adaminsanoff]

I am not a photographer. But this guy inspires me like a kick in the ass.

[@dlmp70]

Agree 100% with everything you said! It’s a frustration for me to see folks posting highly digitally manipulated photos as if it’s some sort of photographic achievement. IMO, it may be an artistic achievement, but NOT a photographic achievement. To me, there’s a subtle but significant difference between the two. I mostly shoot slide film precisely because I like to preserve as much of the genuineness as possible of the moment I choose to freeze in time. I truly appreciate the integrity and respect you bring to your craft. I just wish that more photographers would do the same.

[@SackPephirom]

For me photography is art and it's about getting the final photo that I want. The way I picture it in my head and that could include replacing the sky or removing eye sores in the photos like trash and objects that is distracting to the eye. I like to have fun with it and create the best looking image according to my taste.

[@FranzFridl]

But no clouds behind the Moon :P

[@SackPephirom]

@@FranzFridl helllllz no! 🤣

[@fakename287]

Why not just learn to draw?

[@SackPephirom]

@@fakename287 because photoshop is easier.

[@SackPephirom]

@@theincrediblepurp photography is a form of art, there are exceptions like photo journalists. And art can be expressed in any way shape or form. At the end of the day, a digital sensor captures light and translates that light into an image, what happens to that image afterwards is up to the person push the shutter button. Art will always be subjective. Some see a million dollars image while others see it as junk not worth the paper it's printed on.

[@tonyel99]

It depends! If your photograph is used in determining journalistic integrity then nothing should be altered. However, if your photograph is merely produced as an artistic expression then you shoot as your mind's eye sees it. Besides, what's the difference if you remove the trash can, for example, while you're shooting or in photoshop. If it bothered you in the composition of the image remove it!

[@freetibet1000]

It’s all about the initial intention, isn’t it? If he had spent 3 months painstakingly painting that scene (including the trash can) on a canvas would we view it the same way as we would knowing it to be a frozen moment in time captured by an art-form we know as photography? For me, intention in a given moment is correlated with the tools and technology we’re using for the purpose. And I suspect as an audience we tend to look at a piece of art with different eyes depending on the knowledge (or lack there of) we have of how the image was actually produced. Different people have different ideas about what a “true” photograph is. Some think that a photographers job is to capture “reality” as it is. No more, no less. Period!Some people even think that a camera can never capture “reality” in its full capacity since the process seems too “easy” and quick to encapsulate all the thought processes and emotions that other art-forms may bring into the process. Some people don’t even believe in an objective reality at all. When it comes to so called photo journalism it is reasonable to believe that most people would like to believe that such a photograph is as unbiased as it can possibly be, for the sake of telling a story as truthfully as possible. But even then the result is still dependent on a whole range of personal choices made by the photographer prior to the shot being taken. Not to mention how it later may be combined with headlines, captions and editorial choices that could dramatically alter the perceived meaning of an image. It is far from as straight forward as it may seem, unfortunately. My point is, -viewing an image is a very personal thing and each one of us bring a lot of personal ideas, experiences and preferences into the process each time we view an image. That’s what makes it so fascinating and also so frustrating at the same time. To some extent the advent of photography have brought a more apparent form of realism into the human realm but has it the capacity to tell a “truer” story than other forms of art? I’m not so sure...? Is it completely unreasonable to think that maybe Ansel Adams developed his advanced darkroom techniques just because he felt a need to tell a fuller and more thoughtful story than what the initial plates would be able to bring from the capture? Is it unreasonable to think that because of the extra work he put in to the post process of his photographs he was actually able to “bring out” more “truth” from the scene? If our emotions and experiences are not allowed to be incorporated in the images what truth do they hold to us then?

[@ignota-j1i]

I think I am OK with scene manipulation. As a photographer, if you have a certain shot in mind, and find the perfect scene but it needs a "chair" to complete your vision...I am ok with that. UNLESS we are talking about photojournalism, then any manipulation is wrong.

[@ArneuTube]

what you are talking about is probably the most important subject I learned when studying photography. in dutch its called ensceneren, i am not sure what the correct translation is but it is kind of like mise-en-scène in cinematography . it is a long debated subject amongst photographers. honestly i think this is one of your greatest videos yet. big fan of your work and could not agree with you more.

[@chuckhaaser884]

I agree.

[@andrepaxiuta4848]

Hey. Great job as usual. Just a note. Image shown on the 8:21 mark doesn’t belong to Bresson but rather to the Portuguese photographer Rui Palha. All the best!

[@SD_Alias]

@@RuiPalha1 Ok it is a mistake. But who of us is free of errors? Errare humanum est... I am sure he will correct it...

[@CristianGeelen]

I think it always happens because of the Pinterest pin that has a wrong name but you see at first when you google hcb. Nick is a good dude though so don’t be too hard on him. :)

[@RuiPalha1]

@@CristianGeelen Indeed Nick is a great guy and he solved his mistake in an excellent and elegant way

[@RuiPalha1]

@@SD_Alias He corrected yes,,,, he is a great guy and a very polite person, indeed

[@RuiPalha1]

@@CristianGeelen The Pinterest pin has the name www.pinterest.pt/ruipalha/henri-cartier-bresson-foundation-letter-and-some-m/ and it is correct And indeed Nick is a good guy

[@jimhendrie]

I always appreciate your videos! I think the scenario of a vehicle or something blocking your shot is no different than having the lens cover on; it’s completely separate from the scene. You need to remove it to take the shot. So I agree with you on that part. Beyond that, I see all of this as questions about how much scene manipulation, if any, is acceptable BEFORE the shot is taken, and how much is acceptable AFTER the shot is taken. The shot itself is a manipulation because of the selected exposure, depth of field, and focal length.

[@casey-mac]

As someone who has been photographing and selling prints and licenses for 13 years, not one time has a customer refused my work after learning it may have been manipulated. Quite the opposite, actually - typically they wish to learn more about the process. However, over my time in the industry, I've seen photographer after photographer stand on a soap box to rant about this very subject. No offense intended, but my opinion is that it comes rooted in jealously. *They're* taking what I perceive as better photos than me, but their "standards" are different than mine, so I will complain as an excuse. Photography has changed infinitely since the invention of the camera and photographers are meant to use the tools at their disposal. We're meant to evolve and adapt. And should a photographer not wish to adapt, that's great! That is 100% their right. However, ranting about others that choose to work differently just comes across as extremely petty. Documentary and journalistic photography aside, the simple fact is this is art. And art has no rules. That's the whole point of art. It is a place to escape the realities of the real world. A place with no boundaries or barriers. Simply, create the art that YOU wish to make for yourself and if you discover an audience somewhere along the way then that's fantastic. If, on the off chance, someone has a problem with your work, then maybe it's not for them. Side note: flat out lying is never acceptable. We can both agree that what Peter Lik did is disgusting.

[@mistermadsen]

I say, do whatever you have to do, to make the picture look the way you want it to. That is your artistic choice. But do not manipulate a journalistic image, that´s a no no.

[@chasingmanhattan]

You’re like a character from an old noir film. You’ve got your code, your snifter and your tobacco pipe and you don’t need nothing else.

[@PMCN53]

An interesting subject Nick, one that has been debated for many years. Here in Australia there is a National photography comp that has some significant kudos and financial rewards attached. A regular and well know photographer who had won 1st prize for several years was severely dealt with for presenting a collage image that combined many other images supposedly her own work. It was discovered that many of the shots were in fact NOT her work at all, but she had used other photographers images to contribute to here presented image. Once discovered she was stripped of her titles, awards, financial prizes had to be returned, and most of all her reputation was destroyed & her business failed. A high price to pay indeed.

[@rsmalarz]

Oddly enough, the "Winter Sunrise" photo by Ansel Adams was retouched. The hillside on the left side of the photo had large letters LP placed there usine white painted rocks. AA touched them out, or reduced the brightness to mask them a bit.

[@RossJukesPhotography]

Seems like the difference between ‘taking an image’ and ‘making an image’... though the old argument is that everything is a manipulation because the photographers chooses the components, composition, what’s in the scene abs what is conveniently left out, the choice of colour or B&W etc.... however, I think I’m pretty much in complete agreement in how you approach the subject...

[@markmuller3086]

Super interesting video Nick In these discussions I’m always reminded of a classic philosopher (not sure who) or line of thinking which says the mere act of observing something changes what is being observed. In recent times this is expressed as “we don’t see the world as it is, but as we are”. In other words, our choices of which lenses to use, which perspective and point of view, shutter speed, etc are all choices we make in presenting a scene. So one could say that right out of the gate we are affecting the subject or scene. As you said, what we are comfortable with as the photographer, and what we expect as the viewer, are personal. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this super interesting and philosophical discussion!

[@Caracalaba]

These days we don't see many people covering such 'sensitive' topics, let alone giving examples of famous photographers. They are too scared of offending anyone and lose followers or make enemies. Your honesty and integrity are admirable sir

[@barnaclewatcher4060]

As a note, the iconic image of the raising of the flag was indeed posed because that was not the first American flag raised atop that battle scared mountaintop that day. In the morning a smaller flag was raised but he U.S. commander wanted both US Marines and the Japanese forces alike to see Old Glory atop Mt Suribachi. So a second raising was planned for later that same day, 23rd of February, 1945 with a much bigger flag. That raising was the iconic scene that was photographed by Joe Rosenthal. Great video Nick, as always.

[@thulcandran]

That doesn't mean it was posed, just that it was planned. There's a big difference between the two.

[@barnaclewatcher4060]

@@thulcandran Yea, you make a good point. Posed is probably not the right word in this instance. The flag raisers were not posing they were just re-raising the flag for the sake of planting a bigger flag and Rosenthal just happened to be at the right place and time to get the shot.

[@thebeard0]

To me, it depends on what you are using the medium for. Are you an artist where your goal is making a specific image or commentary? Are you a documentarian or journalist who is doing reportage on a specific moment, or event? Are you an illustrator with the goal of communicating an idea or commentary (this can get sticky with editorial )? Are you a commercial photographer who is helping sell an idea or ethos based around a product or service? It all comes down to ethics, and for me only applies to journalism, and even then I personally am ok with some manipulation to some extent. I hate this argument, I think it's dumb to hold people to some arbitrary personal standard. Make the images you want to make and to hell with the haters. There's a quote, I think it was Steve Harvey in Original Kings of Comedy, who said "If you don't like it, then damnit this ain't for you." *as I watched the video, you hit on the same points I was making.

[@BajaPescadorTackle]

At the end of the day it boils down to finding your own style and sticking to it. It takes some years to develop that but people need to find what makes their creative juices flow and just keep with it. For some it’s no manipulation at all and for others it’s manipulation in every possible aspect. Art is subjective and there’s nothing wrong with having your own personal style. Great points in the video. Love the use of examples by amazing photographers. Most of which I’ve studied in college.

[@HayesPeterson]

This was highly enjoyable to watch. Definitely made me think of where my own line is at. Stay well man!!

[@ipokefan4]

Photography is in a really interesting spot, conceptually. The medium is predicated on the fact that photographers aren't so much making a photo as they are interpreting one. It's an idea that goes back to Henri Cartier-Bresson with his conceptualization of the "Decisive Moment", the only job of a camera is to interpret the photo that the photographer sees in front of them. Photography is, in my opinion, a medium that relies on a perfunctory aspect; it's a performance art more than it is an artifact-making art, something like painting or sculpting. Because of that, I think that alteration of photography, whether in post-production or in-camera is core to the art of photography itself. Directing a stranger on the street to move some part of themselves or to look a certain direction doesn't take away from the idea that it is street photography. Adding a piece of furniture or rearranging it within an abandoned place doesn't take away from the interpretation that the photographer, the artist, saw in that scene. An artist who engages in photomontage is not a lesser photographer because they collage different photographs together. Painters exclude things in their paintings all the time: Don't like that trash can in the field you're painting? Change it, get rid of it. Don't like that specific shade of blue? Mix up a different color. You wouldn't get angry at a photographer for using one film stock over another because of improper color rendition or a lack of contrast/sharpness, right? You wouldn't be upset with a photographer for using one 50mm 1.8 over another brand of 50mm 1.8, even though they both render a scene differently.

[@rsimko]

a good example of a changed perception about a photographer is the Steve McCurry saga

[@MalcolmRendle]

I really hate those photographers who insist that their clearly manipulated picture is straight from the camera, even to the extent of posting an image suposedly of the camera screen showing a copy of the final image claiming it was contemporaneous with the moment the photograph was captured. I have given up calling these "photographers" out as, as you say there are vast groups of supporters of this practice and opens me up to all sorts of abuse online. Great video Nick

[@1972Russianwolf]

The Elephant photo bothers me only because of the chains.

[@sharonleibel]

Yep. different times. Let's try preventing it from now on.

[@nominoe7242]

I kinda liked the chains. Like the model was chained to her attire/profession etc. (I don’t like the chains on the elephants but I enjoyed that the photo included them)

[@davekorbiger]

When I read the title I thought about typing out this huge paragraph, then I watched the video and thought, nope, not necessary. You have laid it all out just as I would have said it. Almost all of it comes down to "Fingerspitzengefühl" (german; literal translation: feeling at the tips of your fingers) which means something like instinctive feeling. People have an instinctive feeling when it is ok to manipulate images. Really enjoy your videos :)

[@RS-Amsterdam]

But Ansel Adams said to the mountain, give me some more contrast ;-)

[@NJ1810]

Man, I just received a letter with some really bad news that made me worry and got me really nervous for the last two hours. Just went on KZbin, hoping to find a new video in my subscriptions to calm me down. Thanks Nick Carver for delivering when I needed you!

[@cf8979]

I hope everything turns out well! ❤️❤️❤️

[@HSPCornerGallery]

Nick the photograph in minute 8.20 that you gave the credit to Henri-Cartier Bresson. was made by Rui Palha and not by HCB. You can see all the information you need at @t All the best

[@ErinSotoPhotography]

Definitely food for thought- the ethics of digital manipulation and how manipulation may change your perceived value of an image. I enjoyed this video a lot.

[@summeronfilm]

Nick, I dig watching you work, but this video...idk where to even begin. Each person is of course allowed to have their point of view, and also I disagree with you so strongly. Why should someone lose respect for a photographer/artist that had the foresight to know what would make a perfect composition, then bringing it to life. It takes such an incredible level of skill to make something amazing out of something drab. You seem to be coming from a place of photography is truth in some way. No photograph is free from the influence of its photographer. When you decide to frame a scene, you are create your truth not an absolute truth. If you shoot it high, low, at eye level, high contrast, color, black and white, the editing choices you make, the time of day you wait for...all of those are creative choices that change a scene. The same way moving a cone, cropping in editing, adding a horse, etc, are creative choices that change a scene. Photography is not a pure truth.

[@kiliandahlem7044]

Those two comparisons (shooting high/low level versus changing the scene) are very different from each other. You cannot label them as "interpretation or creativity from the photographer". One is seeing a photo through the eye of the photographer, seeing a real moment through the eyes of the photographer. It actually happened that way excluding everything else happening around that scene. The other is like a drawn painting or a piece of art. Its fictional, its art, its composition, its beautiful etc. but its not the same as the other photo. Nick doesn't think a photo is "truth". But he wants that a photo at least be non fictional. Dotnt get me wrong. I think both kind of photos can be very beautiful and can be real photos and real art etc. but I feel the same as Nick.

[@garyrowe58]

It can be helpful to take things to their logical limit, and see what you end up with; would I be a photographer if I took a 'picture' with the lens cap on, and then used photoshop to create an image? I don't think so, but at what point do you draw the line?

[@afshinmaleki6527]

Nick- greatly appreciate your work and approach to photography, but more importantly your honesty. You are an artist!!!

[@jries77]

Nick I think I missed it. Did you say "there are clouds behind the moon?" 😏

[@paristo]

There is a moon?

[@gyrgrls]

@@paristo Relax... It's OK: the moon was probably drawn in Blender.

[@jries77]

@@paristo Wait what? A moon? What is this ridiculousness you talk about?

[@paristo]

@@jries77 I don't know, soon someone makes a claim that earth is not flat....

[@jries77]

@@paristo anybody that says the Earth is not flat needs to be hung by their nutsack.

[@BhaaskarDesai]

Possibly the only video in the last six months of KZbin, where I heard each and every word from start to finish. A very controversial subject explained very nicely. Its all about pleasing your core audience. Personally for me, it doesn't matter what one does, as far as the client or viewer is happy. There will always be people who will love your work or hate it equally. Cannot please everyone. Just keep doing what you do best. :)

[@CookedLight]

The unsaid answer is honesty isn’t it. Don’t pass something off as real if it wasn’t.

[@frankkoenig1411]

Yep, I 100% agree! If I take a picture and something is bothering me I remove it. I'm even fine if somebody swaps out the sky to get the look they are after. It's your artistic license.... as long as you don't try to pass it off for something else! And that is the problem with for example Peter Lik. He is claiming that his pictures are not manipulated yet they clearly are so what pisses you off is not that he (or his assistant) has altered the picture, it's that he is lying about it. People don't like to be lied to....

[@eoghanhennessy15]

That covers it

[@wilbertvandenberg3158]

Thumbs up Nick for this video. And there are a lot of valuable comments. The argument I'm missing is that nobody ever asks a painter, a sculptor, a writer, or a composer if he manipulates his subject or his creation. Art is a lie that tells the truth. Only in photography, the "truthfulness-question" emerges because photography gives the illusion that it captures reality. Of course, it never does. Point of view, framing, exposure, lens choice, etc., etc. all alter the impression of the subject. ALWAYS. Even in documentary photography or journalism. Even in your photos Nick. If I had been at that very spot with that very camera my photograph would probably have been different. IMHO, the arguments about honesty touch the core of the question. When you pretend/try to record reality, don't touch or retouch anything. When you create a work of art, everything is permitted. Just don't have your public think you are doing one thing when you are doing the other. In short : Don't lie to your public.

[@asgharinanlouasl2297]

I think the line is whether the audience's intelligence is insulted or not. When you try to convey a message with your photography, people expect it to be an honest and genuine message.

[@robertgrenader858]

If you view yourself as an Artist who manipulates photographs with a final result in mind, why is that not being "honest?" My #1 selling stock photograph is of Mt Rushmore where I edited exposure to bring out shades and tones in the rock monolith and added a sky to replace the cloudless sky. I am not insulting your intelligence, I am presenting my image as art.

[@asgharinanlouasl2297]

Yes, that is fine and highly subjective, cause some people can argue that is digital art, not photography, and other argue it is a part of digital photography. I think when you are being presented a journalistic photo, for example, you might expect it be a true narrative of what happened at that moment at that place. Or when you look at a landscape photo with full moon, you expect there are no clouds BEHIND the moon. It’s like manipulating a portrait the way you like it. Sure, it might look good, but it’s not who that person was. Having said all these, ultimately you are creating what you like so it’s up to the artist to decide if there is a line and where that line is.

[@CloneDaddy]

@@asgharinanlouasl2297 I think people are getting hung up on something for nothing. For example, *all* photography is photography. It's a hole in a box. What people are upset about, is that in this day and age, there's *another* medium, *other* than film. And *that* , somehow, is lesser, to them. And it seems to bother them. Like Ansell Adams wouldn't have given a limb for access to what Photoshop can do now. The majority of what PS *can* do now, are techniques people like him *pioneered* . The majority of these people bleating on about Photoshop being cheating, would be quite happy to do *exactly* the same things, but in the darkroom, instead. So, again. Medium. If you're happy taking cyanotype images on a pinhole camera, then good for you. Others are more than happy to take full advantage of new technologies. I for one, wouldn't be able to afford the hobby if i was using film. Or, indeed, even *new* equipment. And I think that *that* , right there, lies at the heart of a lot of the mouth noises to come out of photographic circles. *Pure snobbery* . Plain and simple. "You're not as good as me because of medium/cost of equipment/purity of concept etc. etc. etc". "My gear's better than yours". "I'm a purist, I do it all in camera". I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard that kind of crap pour out of somebodies mouth, and left me feeling: "Wow. This guy must be David Bailey or something". Only to cast my eyes over their "opus" to find some bland, lifeless desert, bereft of any kind of emotion or artistic ability. But, they were "not touched up" or "posed", or any of those other "bad" things, to be sure. They did, however, *desperately* need some of those things to elevate them above dross. I *would* agree with a few simple things, though: Honesty. I wouldn't claim something was something it wasn't (but that doesn't mean I would claim anything about it at all, either. eg: If a Death Star made it into a picture of your mum's house, because it amused me, I wouldn't claim it was real. I wouldn't say anything at all). Am I being dishonest? No. Never said a word. Honesty in photo reportage, for example, is paramount. But less so for Instagram. Personally, I would just like to see all photographers get along and support each other. But for some, that was *never* what it was about.

[@paulscottfilms]

yes, good assessment. Similar to Nick's saying, what does the viewer or client expect. The viewer wants authenticity and I think we can be damn sure he would get that from Mr Carver, even if the carpet is raked.

[@robertgrenader858]

@@paulscottfilms The viewer wants an appealing image. Authentic or not, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[@chosen_none]

I really want a video of Nick going off on things he doesn't like, not even photography related, anything really

[@johnleftwich650]

Fun discussion Nick. My question is, are the film cameras on the corner table posed? LOL, sorry, I have a sick sense of humor.

[@jasonnchinchen]

BOOM.

[@elizabethlee6077]

The difference is Peter lik would say he came across them in the wild but nick would say helllll yes

[@DonGiannatti]

Very well stated, and I have the same aesthetic. I don't care that other people do what they do, but I do what I do and that is non-manipulation, no sky replacement, no removing anything. For my art, that is. For commercial I will composite twenty images to make one... and that is what separates what I call a photograph from a commercial photograph. Working with people it is the same... I have no problem asking someone to move, but I wouldn't take out the sign behind them if I did.

[@artsyaidan]

To the point at 4:59, I might actually say I have more respect for the shot as that's a story way more effort into your creative vision than just showing up with a camera.

[@psychoticlime9940]

Came to the comment section to say this. It takes way more vision, effort and skill to bring a horse into the scene and place it at just the right spot than just happening to find a horse there. Luck should not be valued so highly when it comes to art

[@JulianIsAnthony]

@@psychoticlime9940 agreed. Having the vision to enhance the scene shouldn’t make you 180 on your opinion like that. It’s like a film. You can have an authentic and moving image/meaning without it being a documentary.

[@gregkiserphotography]

Thank you for putting this out there like this. It seems there are no more boundaries left that photographers aren't willing to cross. I run into it all the time with my decay photography. Folks ask if I opened the door and shot the interior. They want to know why I didn't move something. My response is always that I shoot it as I found it. If I even step into a scene I potentially disturb something. I've also found that once you consider manipulating one aspect, it will lead to another which then changes the scene that drew your eye to begin with. I personally love the challenge of creating an image that reflects what I saw. I applaud you for having that same dedication to your craft. Thank you!

[@averagejoe5103]

I guess I'll always be a hack, because of that time I moved the leaf off a mushroom, before I took the shot. There I admitted it, that feels better!

[@paulscottfilms]

No, he was concerned about the veracity and authenticity of the photo. Is the substance of the image true to itself.

[@jameshider1234]

What would I think of you if you had brought that green chair into the scene (14:20)? GENIUS. That is a brilliant shot - perhaps I see it as more fine art than landscape. Great video.

[@Cree]

One of the best discussions on photography and you said you didn't come to a conclusion but you did several times. Expectations and discipline define the "rules" (or tastes) pretty clearly. If photography is a sport then the discipline is the actual game that you play. Football has a ball. Baseball has a ball. You can't tackle in baseball and you can't have a bat in football. The rules simply change depending on the game that you're playing. You made it pretty clear. Super dope discussion bro.

[@ImWaVeCoop]

great thing about photography is that the photographer doesn't have to explain their shots!

[@matthoffman6962]

Unless you’re a photo journalist

[@guillaumejousset9469]

Great to see some Vivian Maier examples in your video, can't believe she's been discovered only 15 years from now, this is so fresh and her work, knowing her life (as much as it is possible by reading a lot of things on her), is beautiful. Thanks a lot Nick for all your videos, they are always full of thoughts and make us think about what photography can be for each one of us. Great moments looking at your work!

[@canturgan]

Eisenstadt's famous sailor kissing nurse was a set up. It's still iconic though. Annie Leibowitz is the Queen of manipulation.

[@codyallen3729]

Proof V-J Day was staged? There's an entire back story on NY Post about it.

[@jsimes1]

Yeah the V-J Day photo wasn't a set up. Your Annie Leibowitz comment is spot on though and everyone knows she manipulates her photos in every way. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square

[@nickleach3570]

life isn't perfect, if the photo looks too perfect, you know it's been manipulated. If you love the sense you forgive the manipulation, if you don't you criticize. There is no right and wrong, love your videos

[@sebastiennunes5338]

Very interesting! Just one thing, the image at 8:20 is not from Henri Cartier Bresson it's from Rui Palha. See here: i.pinimg.com/originals/56/6f/28/566f28e7c3bccf58d4b1fca790ce571b.jpg there is a confusion on the internet about this image, because a company allegedly presented it as from HCB.

[@RuiPalha1]

Sébastien, Rick had a noble attitude and corrected his error. Thank you for your help, too.

[@sebastiennunes5338]

@@RuiPalha1 My pleasure Rui! I had no doubt Nick would do it!

[@mdhazeldine]

Excellent video and great discussion topic. 2 things come to my mind. Firstly, are we taking/capturing a photo or are we MAKING a photo? The answer will be different depending on what you're doing, but as you mentioned, if you're "capturing a moment in time" then I think the general expectation is that you won't have altered anything, but if you're intention was to "make" a photo, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. Secondly, I think it's also important what you as a photographer say about your work. If you tell people "i'm capturing a moment", then do so and don't manipulate it. If you tell people that you're creating a scene or "making" art or whatever, then you're good. But if you say you're capturing something and then manipulating it, then you're hoodwinking the viewer and misleading. And if you tell people you're making art or a commercial image and you don't manipulate it, then people could perceive it as laziness or a lack of skill that you haven't perfected it. So basically, it comes down to honesty about what you're doing. Just be straight with people. I think this is why people had a problem with Peter Lik and National Geographic. In both cases, the photographer/magazine told people that their photos were natural or not manipulated (well I think Nat Geo did, but perhaps they didn't use to?) and so people felt conned. The Gursky one is most interesting to me. Does he overtly say that he manipulates his work? I'm interested to find out more about him now.

[@RamaSivamani]

I don't know if Gursky overtly says it right off the bat but he has never denied it when asked so he doesn't try to pass it off. He probably looks at digital manipulation as a tool similar to painter's paintbrushes. If you talk to a painter about their artwork they are not going to start talking about which specific brushes and brush sizes they used as the first point of discussion but if you were to ask them they wouldn't have any qualms about telling you. Otherwise it's just a tool to make your art.

[@canturgan]

Ansel Adams placed that mountain in the background. He's a disgrace to photography.

[@melaninxhalide1165]

🤣

[@jas_bataille]

And you're a disgrace to art.

[@KylerSteele]

100% agree with this. Honestly think every photographer should watch this video because it’s worded so well

[@melaninxhalide1165]

You’re not a Candid/Documentary/Reportage photographer and you are already manipulating the image BY CHOOSING THE TIME OF DAY AT WHICH YOU MAKE THE PHOTOGRAPH. You didn’t randomly drive down the street, see the Donut Shop, hop out of your car and snap the frame. You are purposely setting up the image by choosing the time of day at which you make the image thus you are influencing the image we see in the video. Your conscious choices as to what time of day, what lens, what film etc etc etc ALL influence the image which makes you more of a Fine Art photographer. We, your audience, are viewing YOUR INTERPRETATION of the scene. We know you’re not a reportage photographer. We know you’re not a street photographer. If you HAD moved the trash can in front of the Donut shop none of us would say a word because we know the images you make aren’t in these other styles. Are you a Conceptual photographer dreaming up fantastical scenes that don’t exist to photograph like Tyler Shields? NO! But let’s not pretend that you aren’t manipulating the photographs that you capture.

[@James-hb6ee]

I am curious to know how the Nat Geo photo was "digitally" manipulated in 1982, when the magazine issue was released? :) On a 286 PC? Mac's weren't even available,, I don't think.

[@waltersobchak4252]

This is not 'Nam. This is photography; there are rules.

[@jeffkim6729]

One of the best presentations on this topic I have seen. Much more nuanced an issue than I thought prior to this video. Very enlightening. Thanks Nick!

[@christiaanvandijk3790]

I completely disagree, it’s about the end result and how it makes you feel, what does the picture make you feel and why is the question you should ask yourself. You’re thinking too much about the process, too technical, just look at the picture and see what it does for you, we dont wanna find out how its made.

[@LaViejaConsolada]

Ask an owner of a persian carpet if the how to is important or not.

[@chilecayenne]

Hi Nick!! Great to see you again, I hope all is well and you and family are all well! This is indeed an interesting topic. On photo journalism, hard news...absolutely, no manipulation. I can see some contrast, shadows/highlights to make the image easier to view, but outside of that the store and image content has to stay the same. But shy of that...well, I'm open to almost anything that makes the image better. I TRY my best to get everything right in camera. But I don't have a problem with moving a piece of trash or something simple that is a major distraction to an otherwise perfect composition...either physically there or digitally. I don't have a problem with removing power lines IF it is the one thing that is keeping the image from being great in my mind. I think of one of the greatest and most revered landscape artists, Ansel Adams. Go look up his famous image Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico. Take a look at the image straight from the negative, vs the finished image after he used pretty much EVERY darkroom trick in the book that was available to him at the time. The difference is almost breathtaking. He was using every trick in the book available to him at the time, and I'd dare say if he'd had digital cameras and photoshop, he's have use those too to some extent. So, interesting topic. I think the best thing to do it...respect what other photographers do with their art, and be comfortable with how you do your own....you do this for yourself first and if others appreciate it, well, that's just extra gravy on top. Stay safe and already can't wait till your next video!! CC

[@k_meowington]

A like right from the start 👍

[@victordesabata]

The photo journalist who got fired totally deserved it. For a news agency, the validity and truthfulness of the photos they use are invaluable.

[@davidferrer678]

To me there’s a difference but the moment photographers start swapping out backgrounds skies etc. That’s not photography anymore.

[@johngelnaw1243]

I agree-- but consider this. You're taking wedding photos, for instance. For whatever reason, the sky is a bit of a problem. Do you produce a better photograph by substituting a "better" sky that you actually photographed at a different time? It's a very real question now, because Luminar in particular, has elevated the art of sky replacement to a science with click-to-choose and sliders for effect. Personally, I consider a photograph to be "documentary" or "creative"-- landscape, street photography, photo-journalism-- those are all documentary. You should be the observer, not the participant. Fashion, architecture, advertising, fine art... they're all creative output, and interaction with the scene is to be expected. The ridiculously huge moon photos didn't bother me, because they're obviously the product of manipulated, combined, elements-- the fact that someone ever looked at them and thought "that's a natural scene!" makes my head hurt-- and makes me a bit sad for humanity. :)

[@MockUPie]

@@johngelnaw1243 Replacing sky in a wedding portrait comes down to if the married couple wants a phantasy story or a document of that very special day as they could experience it themselves (if matching their experience is even possible). Of course there should be some interference and set up (lights!) for wedding photos, especially portraits, but if the final photos look very different to the event (different weather, different bride/groom ;-)) a lot of customers would not go along with that.

[@CarlosMartinezxFulLxArsenaLx]

I'm all for manipulation as long as the artist doesn't try and pass off an obvious manipulation as not being there. What I think of Ansel Adams and his picture for instance hasn't change, and in fact I actually appreciate the extra effort he put it to get the shot he wanted. And as for the last point about what you're presenting to you're audience, even though I post my stuff for the public to see at the end of the day every photo I take is for me and as long as I like it it's all that matters. But two each their own... Interesting points though and great video as always

[@robertstonephoto]

But did you know that Ansel Adams burned out huge letters L P on the side of the hill in the foreground? These done in whitewash by kids from Lone Pine High School?

[@sjones1017]

Yeah, when he brought up the image, I thought the 'burning' out of the LP was going to be the subject of discussion...or even, "Well, the placement of the horse wasn't staged, but he did..."

[@SkylaneGuy]

I think Nick really needs to address this. He used an example from the most famous landscape photographer of all time who clearly believed to opposite of what he (Nick) does.

[@jeffkim6729]

During film days, apart from general contrast adjustment and "dodging and burning" for black and white that was it. For color film, the choice of color film stock, that was generally the limiting factor. Today I can digitally pump up the color saturation way beyond what was possible with color film stock (e.g. Velvia). Would you say that is crossing a line?

[@Rocking_J_Studio]

“The negative is comparable to the composer’s score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.” - Ansel Adams “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” - Ansel Adams I personally don't like digital manipulation...I prefer to get my composition right in camera. You mileage may vary.

[@jas_bataille]

How is digital manipulation different than traditional film manipulation? It was always possible - to some degree - to "photoshop" things. Besides, digital for retouching usually don't include compositing, which is another art form all it's own.

[@AkibaAvenue]

I really believe that the line is between commercial and Freezing a unique time. Unique time is when you as a photographer accept this present moment instant and take it the way it come the right time without interfering the scene. If you get it the right time is when the magic work. Never put yourself in is the way to shot and let it be. Amazing video anyway that i highly approve. Thanks Nick.

[@bthemedia]

Best coverage of this philosophical topic I have seen. Well done!

[@jiggyb21]

Agreed

[@tonytfuntek3262]

You made some really great points. I believe it's also how it make the viewer feel when they look at it. I have taken a handful of landscape photos that I converted to B&W because it told a better story....Is that manipulation ? What are the viewers expectations ? The moon shot you displayed is great if this photo was shown as a surreal display. I'm sure artist paintings back hundred's of year ago added and subtracted. Vermeer took a lot of heat with his painting technique as well. Bottom line.... Beauty is in the eye of beholder.

[@kimjohnsen113]

Extremely interesting, extremely well discussed. I completely agree in everything you said. THANKS NICK! As always man. You're the absolutely the best on KZbin.

[@WaaaghPaint]

Nice conclusion on all this Nick. I appreciate the lines you draw in your head and feel I am right along those same lines. I've struggled with scenes in the past (cars entering or leaving a moment I want to capture). Nice to hear it pelled out like this.

[@dct124]

So photoshopping in multiple images is not ok but double exposure is totally ok? Although both images are the same in the end.

[@MockUPie]

Where did you draw this conclusion from the video?

[@paristo]

Questionable by time. HDR is about limitation in camera equipment as sensor/film compared to human eye. Stitching panorama is as well limitation in camera lens field of view. Focus stacking is limitation of gear too. 8x10" format f/64 is same as f/11 on 35 mm or f/5.6 on 4/3". (Or something like that). Does one say it is fake if using f/22 on 4/3" as 8x10" can't with f/128 get to same? How about taking 4 frames in fastest possible series (like 60 FPS speed)? But if one takes photo now, then 5 min later, next day and takes all in? Unreal if things change, but not if example in studio where lighting is constant and stuff stays still?

[@keithratcliffe5576]

I think that your final comments about it being your personal choice are the most important but with a caveat about being honest and declaring your methods. I take mainly scenic/landscape pictures and my own view is that I never add an element to a scene but I will remove distracting items. To qualify this, in the field, I only remove loose distractions, by which I mean leaves, broken twigs, grass stalks that have fallen on a subject and partly obscure it and I do note that fact. In terms of digital manipulation I like the guideline that the UK vlogger James Popsys used which was that if it altered the story that the picture told we shouldn't do it. I really enjoyed this thought-provoking video which I found via the UK Pubcast channel - thanks.

[@HFIHYHAGD]

Ansel Adams did actually manipulate one of his most famous images, moonrise hernandez. Extremely manipulated in the darkroom i believe to severely darken the skies and enhance the moons luminosity. Jamie Windsor also has a great video talking about this topic you’re touching on he does a great job with it as well. Something to check out for any other viewer reading this comment or even you Nick. You’re right, it is a good discussion to be had.

[@canturgan]

But everything in the scene was actually in the scene. He used to overdevelop parts of the negative to capture details that would have otherwise been lost with normal development.

[@timlachina2541]

adams reworked moonrise many times through the years... gradually get ing darker clouds

[@QUEzMaDDz]

A great discussion for an interesting topic! Very well done! Mattia

[@kevinkostolo6949]

Even framing an image is manipulation. But for virtually everyone, that's accepted.

[@eoghanhennessy15]

Using a lens with a different FOV to our eyes is also manipulation

[@kevinkostolo6949]

@@eoghanhennessy15 Troll.

[@eoghanhennessy15]

@@kevinkostolo6949 Piss off

[@stevek8829]

The final image is the "art." I respect Adams even more for his ability to pre-visualize his image. He has an 8x10, not a Brownie. We can't expect him to drive around taking snap shots. Even Lik is creating a final image, and all is fair. All commercial sellers resort to over size prints for greater impact. But, is it better art? What is art?

[@Johnkostercreative]

I'm surprised that you didn't bring up Steve McCurry...talk about controversial

[@matthewramsey2037]

Enjoyed the discussion. I think if Ansel Adams had intended for a horse to be there and hadn't brought a horse, that would have been a significant failure; and when we say that something "bothers us", we should remember that that is also an important function of art. I'm glad this consideration is part of your process, thanks for sharing.

[@StormPetrelNZ]

I m pleased to hear that we share the same photographic ethic!

[@joshmcdzz6925]

what's the ethic? Who defined it?

[@Yeticomoelvaso]

And I agree completely with you. If theres an obstacle blocking your scene (like the truck parking on your shot) it is okay to move them because they are not part of your scene.

[@paulvanobberghen]

You don’t try to lecture us, but a lecture it is indeed, and it should be part of every master in photographic art if that ever exists. I went to photo school »le 75 » here in Brussels Belgium in the early 80’s and that lecture would have been part of what I would have been expected to receive then. And I did. Of course, no digital manipulation at that time, but I had a student job at a professional studio then, where they had personnel whose only full time job was delicately correcting pictures with paint brushes. I so much appreciate that you’re sticking to the golden rules of the art. My teacher then was Yves Auquier and my God did I love this man, all in humility, and he’s still alive! Google him.

[@ZAPATAPHOTO]

Interesting topic here that I've always been fascinated with. I had an instructor of mine break it down pretty simply for me, "Are your intentions to make a photograph, or take a photograph?" Changed the way I approached different subjects, scenes, etc. I'm interested to know your thoughts on using filters (physical lens filters, not preset filters). Where does that fall in the manipulation conversation?

[@farouk6564]

Your creativity does not stop with your photography Nick. Could not agree with you more.

[@freetibet1000]

Thank you Nick for a very insightful video. Personally, I don’t know how many times people have asked me if my landscape pictures have gone through a “computer treatment” before publication. My answer each time is; -“yes, since I haven’t figured out how to develop my digital files any other way yet”. The slightly depressing thing is that most people (of that kind, -and they are many!) react as if I have let them down and cheated them of a fine moment, as a result. Although I know that the picture is a truthful representation of that moment in time it was captured, for them, the magical moment have passed and no amount of deeper analysis or explanations on my part will bring them back to believe in the image again. For them computer means cheating, period! Then we have a different crowd that have all kinds of opinions on how my landscapes can be improved upon with some amazing photoshop trickeries that they have seen on instagram or youtube. Their appetite for maximum impact seems insatiable. My guess is these people wouldn’t have any problem at all with some nice looking clouds hanging behind Peter Liks freakin’ moon either! At the end of the day, it all boils down to our own intentions and integrity if we are not going to lose both our self-respect and joy for our craft, isn’t it? Personally, I completely embrace your approach in my own craft. But at the same time I know that this is just my own approach and that other people prefer to work differently. My intention is always to try to please myself only while working with my images and NEVER have an audience in mind for the finished image. Thanks again Nick for a very sincere and personal account of your own insights into these matters. My guess is that these are very real and important questions for many photographers out there today. My way of dealing with it is to always bring my mind back to the baseline of what it was that captured my interest for photography 35 years ago each time I pick up the camera and wander into the landscape again. In away, I try to approach the world like I never had held a camera in my hand before. Each moment is a new and fresh moment.

[@MichaelBeckmuenchen]

I posted your video in some fb groups with the title "Do you manipulate photos?" I should not have done it.

[@filmpjesman1]

Lot of the comments here talk about journalistic photography needing to be unaltered, but I wonder what can be said when we take cropping into consideration. Either for sake of size in a newspaper but also for the sake of taking a part of the story out to emphasize another part (e.g. girl running away from a napalm strike). The Magnum contact print book is another great inside into this topic, since it shows that street photography/journalistic photography isn't always a happy accident or a decisive moment, which begs the question whether the shape of an image should ways be as close to the full size of the sensor or film

[@mattl347]

The lines of expectation and conscience sometimes align. Sometimes they don't. Good video, Nick. Good topic.

[@HotShotSteveAZ]

I can't remember the last time I commented on a posting, so my thanks to Nick for making me articulate why I take photos. I'm a serious amateur going back to the darkroom days. I do a lot of international travel with many new visual experiences. For me, photography is a way of sharing these encounters. The thing is that when our eyes see new things, our brains are already editing the scenes. Removing the trash cans if you will. This is harder when they are permantly in a photo. So, removing or changing these distractions is acceptable to me in order to get viewers closer to what I was experiencing at the time I was taking the photos. Just another take on the subject.