Photo or Fauxto?
I recently returned from vacation -- with many photos -- and one that I am particularly proud of is Moon over Pilgrim Tower. But, of course, a viewer had to send me a critique of the image. "The scene is too dark," he said. He wanted to see it when the sky was a bit brighter, so that more of the landscape showed. I understood his point, but at the time of night he suggested, the moon wasn't anywhere in the frame. Surely these weren't conditions I could control, or could I?
I had the shot of the moon. So what was stopping me from taking the shot the next night during the "ideal lighting" conditions and then slapping in the moon with Photoshop?
I guess I have no problem with this, but understand something -- the image no longer is a photograph. And if I were to manipulate it, I would feel compelled to make that known.
What makes an image like this appealing is the rarity of its occurence. If a crescent moon sat as a fixed object over the tower every night, why would we need a photo of it? The real thing is right there. And we could visit it and view it from any angle at any time. There would be no value in a photo like this.
In effect, this is the danger of such photo manipulation. It can devalue photography by making anything possible all the time.
If you saw this image in someone's home or in a gallery (ok. Maybe not a gallery), would you immediately think it were doctored? Or more to the point, would the owner of the image want you to think it were doctored? Of course not, unless he’s using it as an example of his image editing skills, and would thus make that known.
We keep hearing about these blurred lines. When does a photograph cease being a photograph? Or what really is a photograph? But in cases like Moon over Pilgrim Tower, the lines are sharp and crisp.
Authenticity has to be just as important as aesthetics.
It's definitely an issue, perhaps a linguistic one, with the need for a new word that means "original, unretouched photo".