Do you remember a world where men distinguished themselves by aspiring to be gentle men, where one’s word was more potent than a contract, where a woman was a lady and had special privilege, well I almost do.
But, what I do most definitely remember is when a photograph was admissible as evidence in a courtroom as factual, where retouching mostly constituted a removal of a scratch or dust, or some slight modifications. I realize there has always been some desire to moderate the picture. As a painter adds and subtracts reality at his will, but that very quality of dealing with the real world and using film to its full advantage was one of the great thrills of being a photographer.
Recently I understand that there has been discussion as to if I retouch my photographs. There is a photograph that I shot in the Dominican Republic, with a woman standing on the edge of a Sea Plane wing. Let me assure anyone that doubts its validity, she was there standing on the very tip of that wing, and the very notion of adding her (posthumously) to the actual picture would be against “the lie agreed upon” which is a photograph.
You see photography as I know it is not illustration, painting, printing, compositing, collage, or anything else, although it has rapidly become this. Photography is a joyful affirmation of the world as it is given to us at the given moment.
I used to like the fact that Vanity Fair magazine would time and date the photograph, as if it was a specific moment never to be recaptured again. Now it feels like a sham. What part of the picture are they talking about? As the picture represents a composite of many moments and places.
I understand that I am a dying dinosaur and in my fashion I also understand that I have manipulated pictures from the first days of making them. I was always aware of the strengths and limitations of film and it’s response to light, and would use the characteristics of film to my own advantage, but also often to its disadvantage.
I knew because of reciprocity law failure that light when translated onto film would diminish far more quickly than your eyes perceived it. And using only porticoes (windows, doorways, etc.) as light sources, I realized I could make part of the image go black even though your eyes would see detail. For example, in the picture below, the doorway although appearing to be black, was full of detail. I knew I could remove the detail when I shot the picture because of the quality of the film.
But this was working within the confines of the film and knowing the medium I was working in. So I guess I have retouched as well, but here is the difference, I have always done it within the camera at the time the picture was made. I don’t think that this is a composite or a retouched picture. But, it definitely represents perceiving the world with a slightly different perspective. But to add to the confusion, in composing the picture I reject a great deal of reality. I change my orientation and I see things differently, but these things still all feel like the artistic endeavor to me, working with perception before the shutter is released. This is the world I operate in. I enjoy it. I realize everything has changed, but remember a change is not necessarily an improvement.
Unlike a world that is full of tattoos, vulgarity, confrontation, and mean spirit, the world I am leaving you is a world where there is a slight wink to other art forms but the medium remains unique. It is a world where certain men wear suits, not because it is the fashion, but because it represents graciousness, a kindness, and a forbearance, which is only proper if there is a lady in waiting. It is a make believe world I am trying very hard to make real once again.
So well said. Bravo! Thank you.
I too am among the dinosaur generation who was taught you are responsible for every millimeter of the frame — what goes in, or what is left out, is your responsibility at the time you release the shutter. To this day I follow that rule. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one left.
Comment by Terry Clark — January 9, 2012 @ 12:44 pm
I agree, very well said.
Comment by fred — January 9, 2012 @ 7:34 pm
Thank you for such wonderful words, especially for: “Photography is a joyful affirmation of the world as it is given to us at the given moment.” I strive for magic that meets the camera every time I shoot.
Comment by Sandra Dahdah — January 9, 2012 @ 11:16 pm
I agree with what you have written here about respect for the medium. But where do you draw the line of altering an image? When I scanned my negatives in I sort of felt like I was cheating if I altered the contrast saturation or sharpness until I realized that before the scanner was just doing it automatically. After that it sometimes became a slippery slope of image adjusting. A darker sky. More contrasted water. A mole taken out. I like the idea of enlarging exactly how the negative is, but even that is a form of manipulation. Sometimes I feel like the end result of capturing a slice of reality to show someone, should just be how you remember it… or maybe how you want to remember it.
Comment by nick — January 10, 2012 @ 2:24 am
If we as photographers do not respect the very spirit of reality, what hope is there for truth? Sure one can use lights to show a Death-Head of Krupp(Arnold Newman), an empty space and a cello for Pablo Casals(Elliot Erwitt) and many others.Using the tools of our trade/art/profession, the most important of “seeing”. Vision requires clarity, not smoking mirrors. Rodney mentioned some of his dislikes which too, are mine! I’ll ad to the tattoos: grungy fashion, unshaven male faces, sad depressing motifs,rap,very young girls in very compromising poses (American Apparel). I walked out on a fashion shoot, as the model had awful huge tattoos on her thigh, that showed through the dress. She was supposed to be a goddess,muse in a poem. I guess like film, we are all obsolete, at this time! Yet we see a re-resurgence in vinyl LP discs..Wait, we will still be here, many years hence.
Comment by jason gold — January 10, 2012 @ 4:09 pm
I am especially fond of the notion of the photograph as “the lie agreed upon”. Mary Ellen Mark once said that every time she raised her camera, she was altering reality by her presence. I guess the agreed upon lie between photographer and subject should be enough.
Comment by Tom Hogan — January 10, 2012 @ 4:28 pm
As a young gun, I suppose, I also completely agree with your sentiments. You and your images inspire me and the work I’m interested in creating more than anyone else, simply because I love the honesty and pristine nature you seek after. I’m certainly not against post production, new graphically designed or hyper-polished images; nor the constantly exaggerated sex appeal magazines and the general public beg for year after year; but there is an absolute honesty, and undefiled beauty about your work.
Continue to inspire.
Comment by Steve Stanton — January 11, 2012 @ 10:49 am
well said. btw, that is one of my all time fav photos of yours. awesome.
Comment by Daniel Stark Photography — January 11, 2012 @ 2:56 pm
It is that very make-believe world we’ve fallen in love with – the class, the sophistication, the charm and the focus in the pictures and in the world you portray.
Comment by Aneesh — January 12, 2012 @ 11:40 pm
Thank you! You are absolutely right.
Comment by Ruslan Lavrentyev — January 14, 2012 @ 2:11 am
[...] Smith writing about photography, truth and manipulation. – [via The End Starts Here] You see photography as I know it is not illustration, painting, printing, compositing, collage, or [...]
Pingback by The Digest – Sunday, January 15th, 2012 | LPV Magazine — January 15, 2012 @ 8:09 am
[...] that is fine with me. One photographer I tremendously admire is Rodney Smith and he said in a recent blog post that “…You see photography as I know it is not illustration, painting, printing, [...]
Pingback by “Finding Soul …Writing & Photography…” | christian harkness – photo blog — February 7, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
Thank you.
Comment by Dave Bagley — March 28, 2012 @ 9:33 pm