I see lots of topics here that are about this general topic and talk about photography as if it were just one thing. I would suggest that photography can be broadly divided into two general areas:

1. Conceptual Photography. This can be straight-out-of-the-camera or it can be heavily manipulated. Only the result matters.

2. Reality Photography. This is expected to portray what is and provide accurate information, so only a small amount of modification is acceptable.

 

An example of Conceptual Photography (photographers name removed PC Moderator) It is a beautiful photo and it conveys a very human concept. It doesn't matter if it was staged or constructed, only the beautiful final image is important.

 

An example of Reality Photography could be any good documentary or nature photograph, where we expect that what we see really was what was there. Remember the news guy who got into trouble for adding smoke to a battle scene in the Middle East? Maybe it was a windy day, but there was no smoke in the original photo. (Photographers name removed PC Moderator)

 

I think that !x is a Conceptual Photography site that drifts into some areas of Reality Photography. I think this is where some problems occur, as some of the reality photography is not quite real. That is a pity but quite understandable considering the general slant of the site. I lean to the side of Reality Photography, but I keep hanging around here as I really appreciate some of the Conceptual Photography that I see here. It is impossible to do everything, so I will continue down my path and watch in awe at some of the beautiful works done by others.

There is a lot of "manipulated" non-conceptual photography. And if we photograph a beautifully posed artistic nude is it always reality photography, providing accurate information? What about portraits? Do they become conceptual as soon as they are visibly processed? An elaborate still life: is it more reality or more author's artistic skills? It can be conceptual too. All in all, I would not call conceptual everything that does not depict reality as is.

 

Hi Steve,

Thanks for starting a discussion that may be of interest to your fellow members. I have had to delete the references made to one specific lx member. Naming other photographers and using their work as examples to start a discussion about a topic - even when it is positive is against lx policy.

 

We never know where these discussions will lead to or go. In this case someone might not have the same feelings you do and in the end the photographer's work is discussed without their involvement or permission. That is why this policy is in place. I hope you will understand.

 

Please feel free to use another example, perhaps you can use your own work?

 

Thanks, if you have any further questions about this please direct them to Robert, Head Moderator in an OE mail. Please do not post them here in this thread.

 

Enjoy the discussion.

I appreciate your cooperation.

Phyllis

Forum Moderator

My thinking is that trying to classify photography into “reality photography” and “conceptual photography” won’t work because there is no such thing as reality photography. Because photographic images often have many similarities to what we see with our eyes, we get tricked into thinking of documentary photographs as showing “reality.”

 

But even the most representational images exist as an abstraction from reality. First, and perhaps most obvious, the photographer chooses what to include and what to exclude from the frame. Reality extends far beyond the limits of image edges. It is possible to make photographs that are deliberately misleading about “reality” simply by excluding important things from the image. Then there is the issue of color. Many people accept black and white news images or landscape images as though they show reality. But the world comes in color. Conversion to black and white can be done many different ways and can show things very differently than our eyes see. The dynamic range out in the world usually exceeds the range that can be printed, so various abstractions are required to compress luminosity into something that can be shown. Then we have the matter of depth of field, often used to show part of the image sharply and part not sharp, while “reality” does not come blurred that way visually. Selective focus can be an artistic technique that directs our attention in a way that suggests how we might direct our attention in person, but it is not how reality looks in person. Of course, photographers also have to pay attention to perspective, overlap of objects, relative positions, and lens effects when making the abstraction from three dimensional reality to a two dimensional image. Well-selected shadows and highlights in our two dimensional images give a visual illusion that reminds us of three dimensional reality. Poorly selected positioning can make a tree appear to grow out of the bride’s head. Even extracting an image from the digital data generated by a camera sensor requires lots of translation (see different outcomes from different raw converters, including the default converter used if you don’t shoot “raw”), just as converting an undeveloped negative into a positive print or slide required many decisions that can change the output.

 

Many times, the concern lurking in these discussions boils down to varying degrees of comfort or discomfort with specific kinds of combining multiple different images and adding elements not in the original capture. Compositing, drawing, text, textures, and similar techniques evoke concern. Interestingly, combining images for panoramas usually escapes criticism.

 

Some try to define limits, beyond which a photograph is no longer a photograph. I haven’t seen general agreement arising from that approach, and I’m not expecting such agreement to happen. Some try to categorize images by the photographer’s intent (document a place or event, evoke emotions, make us laugh, inform us, make us think, amaze us, trick us, just create something unique and/or beautiful, and others). But photographers may have multiple intents in making their images.

 

For me, the best resolution has been to enjoy the very wide range of images made with all sorts of techniques, pay little attention to images that don’t speak to me currently, appreciate the skills and expertise of others who may use techniques far beyond my skills, and be comfortable following my own path when I make my photographic images.

 

 

Hi Robert

 

Excellent in depth comments, thanks.

 

Particularly like the last paragraph, lots of wisdom, worth reading for all.

 

al

Good writeup Robert! THX

My apologies for not responding sooner. I did login to 1x, but there was no indication that anyone had replied so I moved on. It was only when I lloked at the thread that I realised that there had been responses.

 

My apologies again for greaking the rules. I was unaware of that one, Phyllis.

 

As for the discussion. I take the points about what a camera "sees", and that it isn't really "reality", but nor is what our eyes "see". My suggested division of photography is more based on intent than on technique.

 

Anna mentioned portraits, which are often at least partly conceptual, even though there may be no post processing manipulation. The intent of the photographer is to represent the person, but also to convey a mood or feeling that would not be present with a snapshot. This is done by changing the light, background, etc. So, there is in all photography, part real and part conceptual.

 

I think the divide comes with the photographer and which part he or she considers the most important for that photo. (Or, perhaps it is with the viewer, but that is another discussion). I know with my own photography, I will sometimes take a photo with a concept in mind, and that is the important aspect of the photo. I will always try for a photo that looks real, but the intent was a concept. At other times I will take a photo where I am trying to communicate what was. I will still try to get the best angle, light, etc, but the intent was to convey reality. For me there is a definite divide ..... well, usually anyway. Perhaps this is just me, but I see it in the photography of others too. I suspect some people really are sitting on this fence, but like all human definitions, there will always be shades of grey.

I’ve posted a photograph of mine to the group gallery as a specific example to continue the discussion. http://1x.com/photo/88957/group:15:all “Survival” was made out on the salt flats of Utah. That is a very eerie place, but beautiful in a unique way. The image involved setting up the model and props, but no compositing The colored shadows happened naturally without needing any post processing by me. So this is an image that shows the reality as I saw it, without much in the way of post processing manipulation. I do admit to rotating slightly to level the horizon and desaturating the red slightly in the model’s arms because that improvement actually made her look more realistic. The model’s sister considers this to be an excellent creative portrait that reflects how she looks. So on one level this might be “reality photography.”

 

On the other hand, I deliberately set out to make this image with the idea of creating a visual illustration having to do with the role of art in harsh/unusual/difficult life situations. So that is conceptual. See the image description for more of my intent. I also hoped to make a beautiful image aside from any thoughts provoked. Now pause and consider: this image about the concepts of human need to be nourished by art and to care for vulnerable things (and to be cared for ourselves) is about concepts, but these are also an incredibly important part of reality. So we are back to this being a bit of “reality photography” on a conceptual level. The proposed distinction “reality” and “conceptual” doesn’t seem to stand up to examination.

 

Frankly, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that love and beauty and longing and caring are not reality. We are creatures who require meaning and love in addition to our physical needs. Babies provided fluid and nutrition but deprived of affection can literally die. My conclusion is that concept and reality can’t be separated, and consequently photographs can’t be separated that way either.

 

Many of the most real and important things in our lives can’t be seen. But perhaps, when we are really doing well, such things can be part of our images.

 

Hi Robert,

I think your photo is a good example of a conceptual photograph. You set out with and idea that you wanted to represent and you constructed it. This wasn't done with photoshop, but with constructing the image to be taken. It works well, as do many conceptual photos. They are intensely human and represent human emotions like love, beauty, longing and caring. Reality photography could show none of that. For example here is one I took http://1x.com/photo/249278/all:user:269613

It is not constructed in any way. The only decisions I had was how close could I get without choking and then waiting for a moment when the gases were blown away sufficiently to get a clear shot. It is a photo that was designed to convey reality exactly as it was. There are other photos eg this one http://1x.com/photo/265736/all:user:269613

that do have some manipulation by the photographer (me), I have moved the piece of wood to a place that best highlights the fungi and other life on the log, but the intention is still to portray that life in the most accurate way possible. I also try to make it attractive to the viewer or nobody will look at it, which makes communication impossible.

I think there is a difference between your photo and the ones of mine that I have shown. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Just different.

Steve

Good to have more examples. But I’m not convinced they make your case. You intended to make a documentary image of fungi and other lifeforms on a log, uncontaminated by concepts. Happily you are able to take advantage of light and compositional skills to make a beautiful image.

 

But no matter how you think about your image, once it gets out in the world it is at the mercy of the other people who look at it. Someone who recently lost a loved one may be deeply moved by seeing such a good depiction of the concept of beauty in the midst of death and decay. Someone who enjoys appreciating elements of design may enjoy this example of the concept that gently repeating patterns can contribute to a calm feeling. Your “reality” image suddenly becomes “conceptual” in spite of your intent. Or more accurately, it is noticed to have both documentary and conceptual aspects simultaneously.

 

It seems natural that different people may think about the same image in different ways. Is it useful to attempt to define a difference between "conceptual" and "reality" if the categorization potentially changes with each subsequent observer?

Leonardo Da Vinci made detailed images of scientific subjects that were intended to represent reality. The fact that some now see them as (and buy them as) pure art doesn't alter the intent and the reality of those pictures. Picasso represented concepts, and reality was an afterthought. With your picture, reality is also an afterthought as we would never expect to see those components in that configuration without some designer. To an extent our reality does change as we learn more about things, but it would be a mistake to think that reality is created by us. Those who do think that, face a rude awakening at some point.

 

But again, I say. This is not a criticism of conceptual art. I admire it greatly and I think it helps us to understand our human place in this very inhuman world. I also think that reality is something to be wondered at. It is merely your viewpoint.

 

I think it is not useful to categorize Robert, we see things too different and would never agree I think about what is conceptual and what is not.

 

I post you my photo "light in your living eyes" as an another example which I think fits good as an examle in this discussion.

 

http://1x.com/photo/832924/all:user:239042

 

- this photo is not manipulated in any way - so maybe "reality photo" then ? Not for me it isn't because this image reminds me of a poem where eyes are described as windows, so this image is conceptual for me. I think maybe most other people would see it as reality photo - a house in the dark with light coming from the windows of the house. But for me it is conceptual. Who is to tell me that I am wrong ? It is my own photograph!! Shall someone else tell me how to see it ? You must understand Mette - that these are windows, not eyes !!! :-D

 

But anyway this involves difficult metaphysics philosophy we are discussing here.- ontological subjectivism vs ontological objectivism etc. Philosophers do not agree upon these questions, so no wonder if we cannot find a final answer...

 

Also I think many people tend to look upon reality with "scientific eyes" - being rational and logic in all circumstances.

 

Maybe it is better that art is a contrast to scientific thinking - we don't need all that logic all the time - do we ?

 

Reality is not the same for everyone and it changes all the time.

 

For instance, I am wearing contact lenses. I see very clear now, and it's real. But when I don't wear them I don't see clear at all. When I wake up in the morning my view is more like when you take a picture at f2.8 . But that's also real isn't it?

 

When you look with only your left eye, are the colors exactly the same as when you look with your right eye? Which one is reality? Do you think that the colors that you are seeing are the same as the colors I see?

 

My house has a white door, I know it is white. But when you look very good at it it's a different color every time, it depends on the light that reached my eyes. Right now the shadow parts are blue/purple. That's light that is reflecting. If there is no light at all you can't see the door. If it depends on the light that has reached my eyes, and it also depends on how my eyes are build, then what is reality?

 

So already before post processing, that reality isn't reality anymore. I can't check it again because the moment is gone. I have a memory in my head of what my eyes saw, most likely changed by my brains, and I've got a memory in my camera, both not showing reality and I'm going to combine those in post processing. I think it's impossible to capture reality this way.

 

Let's say I want to create an image that reflects a feeling or thought that I have. It's real, I can feel it, I know I think about it. It's a real thought. Now I need a concept to show this to others. If I create an image of something I didn't see with my eyes, does that mean that is isn't real for me? I saw it inside of me.

 

Hi Mette,

I have been enjoying reading this thread even though I have not participated. For the moment i wanted to say that I have always enjoyed your posts. They are so filled with wisdom and common sense and your write so beautifully. I always think this to myself and say..I must tell her..but then I forget of course..so now today here i am.

 

I said..this is the time. So yes. I like to read all the ideas and in particular I always enjoy yours....I guess we tend to gravitate toward different people and what you say resonates with me.

 

Of course all the opinions are well argued and I could agree with a little of everything written in this thread. So many interesting points of view...

 

I may have to take up Philosophy now. :)

 

My best,

Phyllis

 

Dear Phyllis,

 

I feel very honoured by your words.

 

Thank you so much!!

 

And how nice that we make interesting threads together and have good discussions !

 

Greetings from Mette

Again, an interesting and difficult topic. My two cents:

 

1. All the arguments above have their valid points. I enjoy reading them all.

 

2. In theory, the separation is possible and needed, and there are 0% and 100%. In practice, i.e., when judging specific pictures, everything is greater than 0% and smaller than 100%.

 

3. Everything is relative: "Abstract" is relative; "realistic" is relative, "documentary" is relative. But they do exist and they are reflected in our widely accepted categories; and they can facilitate our discussions and help us make choices in the fields and judgments in criticism.

 

4. In a way, everything is "reality", including our concepts (in that they exist and they can be the objects of our studies or presentations). On the other hand, everything that passes through human eyes, hands, and brains are not purely "reality" in that there are human interference (if we do not consider human interference as part of reality).

 

6. "Documentary" (i.e., trying to be objective as much as possible) may not always be more "realistic" than "creative" pictures, as combining typical elements from different sources may represent "reality" more convincingly, while capturing accidental scenes can distort reality. The key is a true understanding of reality (technical limits do not prevent us from being "realistic", i.e., trying to depict "reality", and some can do more successfully than others).

 

7. Although the author cannot control the reading of his images, there is an issue of orientations of the authors.

 

8. We do not expect to reach agreement (it is not the goal). But the discussions enrich our mind.

I was going to say that the two words form useful concepts for two ends of a very ambiguous spectrum, but once again, Zan has said it before I did.

 

The idea that everything is relative is a pretty standard post-modern concept, providing a starting point for countless doctoral dissertations. It is an important and useful insight, but if it were an absolute, then there would be no purpose for us even to be here sharing photos and attempting to discuss them.

 

In practical terms (meaning people who want to communicate and interact with other people), the domains of nature and journalism have settled on fairly consistent understandings of what is representational. In other domains, the freedom from expectations that good faith efforts will be made to accurately portray a found situation still leads to a lot of healthy discussion around artistic authenticity.

 

Ultimately, is this not another way of describing the continuing distinction and discussion over photos that are captured and photos that are made?

It's good that this has generated some discussion.

Before diving in I would like to say, again, that my definitions do not directly relate to photo manipulation or staging.

A reality photo can, in some instances, have manipulation. For example, Frank Hurley's photos in Antarctica, use combinations of photos to make a final print, but the intent is to convey the reality of the environment.

On the other hand, many conceptual photos have no manipulation at all. Unfortunately my first example broke the rules, so it is not there and I have no photographs that illustrate the idea quite so well, but This photo will have to do https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/diana-at-the-taj-mahal/ and I know, it does contain an element of staging.

While the Taj and Diana are represented in reality, the message is a very human one and presents a very human story that is one that most of us know very well.

Perhaps the definition could be - anthropomorphic and "non-human reality" instead of conceptual and reality.. As Zan said, it is a spectrum rather than a yes/no division. Even the most scientific image fails if it isn't attractive in a human way, and even the most conceptual image has to have some link with reality. That's why I say it is often the intent that is important.

 

It is perhaps an very human thing to try to categorise things in order to understand them.

To Jay. The idea of a captured or a made photo is also a good one, but a captured photo may be conceptual and a made photo may be reality. My photos of fungi are often made, but they are intended to show reality. For example this one http://1x.com/photo/238627/all:user:269613 Is real and it is intended to convey information, but it is also made in the sense that I select the lighting, angle, background etc. While it is reality, it is also intended to be beautiful.

As I tend not to take conceptual macros I cannot give an example of mine, but I have seen several that use a large aperture to show the concept of a spider (for example), rather than the detail of a specific spider.

I don't know if that explains the difference I see, but I think there is one.

 

The fungi shots seem to me to be portraits. When we take human, or even pet portraits, we treat that term as being representative of a genre. We are attempting to depict that person, or animal, and we are trying to show something of its nature. We might put makeup or special clothing or props on the subject, and we stage them and position them, light them, and process them, but in spite of all this 'manipulation', we still consider a portrait to represent the subject in some way.

 

I am increasingly using the term 'portrait' to refer to my approach to old and worn out things that I find in old factories and abandoned houses. I positioned this scale and arranged the lighting, so I consider it a portrait, but it is absolutely meant to be a representation of this found subject. http://1x.com/photo/801641

 

You didn't even move the fungi--you found them in situ. Yes, you manipulated light, and possibly trimmed the grass, but no nature competition would disqualify your images as showing the hand of man, or as having been clines or cropped. You didn't construct the subject, but you controlled some aspects of the scene. Anyone is welcome to use bait to attract an owl, hawk or eagle.

 

Ultimately, what deliberately taken photograph is not meant to be a 'concept' of something. People who consistently make compelling human portraits typically have some idea that they want to communicate about their subject.

 

I am very happy from this discussion. That said I am on the fly, so I have not time to study it profoundly, but as its inspiring, I will let go what otherwise would be lost.

1. We can not compare nowadays to old masters like da Vinci, objective of art and its translations changed profoundly.

2. For me there is big difference between conceptual and reality aka documentary photography. And technically they might be indeed extremely close. I think artist looks for manipulation of reality, for deeper, more profound, more varied interpretations of what we see and inner relations of subject matter, but "drama" so to speak is actually very much happening in the eyes - head - heart of spectator.

3. Reality aka documentary photography wants to communicate, but want to describe reality depicted- that would be a key words here.

4. It might be that by needs we might see conceptual photography using a lousy documentary style and wise versa.

5. I think what is important is that we need to look - for art we do not need narratives as such for over 100 years, that's due to art development and we can communicate. (Its extremely clear in performing arts as best example) However this communication is intellectually more difficult and recent trends are, that really non narrative art is pushed out on fringe more & more due to fact that less and less people can understand it. Somehow it's worse than 20 years ago. And might be, we want to pay attention to it as artists and educators.

 

I write this also for myself - I am pro artist, but do lot of documentary photographs due to fact that I don't have time, skills , studio and environment to go on further - so shame on me as well. But I think is important to see this relations.

 

Of course this is my opinion - my personal opinion, but its backed up by my practice. You can see my work here as example. www.tomasdanielis.com

 

Hi Tomas. It's good to get the view of someone involved in another artistic discipline. It occurred to me that I generally read non-fiction books. I like both, but my preference always goes to non-fiction.

Jay, I see your point about portraits. Some portraits are mainly conceptual, but most do have a large element of documentary to them. The photographer may select which aspects to emphasise, but they are still aspects of reality.

 

Hi Steve - well it's always a personal choice I guess. I mean non fiction is big group and somehow I don't think generalizing and putting together Rimbaud or Mallerme or Murakami together with Daniel Steel does any good.

 

I do not think nonfiction & fiction serve the same needs either.

 

Maybe it would be interesting if you can clarify your understanding of concept or conceptual photo. I can see on your late post, that maybe I understand it different ways.

 

Conceptual art, in general, is actually particular type of art (from dramatic through music to visual), with its own rules and connections to particular philosophers and sociopolitical movements. Slavoj Zizek, Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, anarchists, freedom - eco movements to name few.

In this terms, I am not really sure, that Robert's photo (which I like), you named as good example of conceptual is actually conceptual, because its figurative. It's an art photo though. I guess little deeper clarification on terms what you mean by conceptual would be useful, because I am not sure your message is clear.

Perhaps I am unfamiliar with some of the words used to describe art. I was trying to separate things (photography in this case, but it could be others) into two broad categories. The first labelled reality and the second labelled conceptual. With books this can be seen as non-fiction and fiction. With photography we have no clear terms, but there is still a division.

Since I am restricted in what I can use as an example with photography (even a reference to my own photo was deleted), I will use literature. I prefer non-fiction but I still prefer those books to be well written and to use good use of analogy and other stylistic mechanisms. I also like some good fiction particularly where there is good characterisation and I can learn something from the book.. I guess the key for me is the learning aspect.

I have found this discussion very useful as it has helped crystallise my ideas on what I meant. The defining words are not important in themselves. Just the ideas. Conceptual could be the wrong word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.

Hi I think its important to keep "proper"words. I mean there will be always fight what words mean and if they are necessary in art description or definition. In general it helps to have a reference where we are. I think about division of documentary and art (like) is problematic in every genre. And ironically its because of conceptual art, which uses pedestrian and documentary approaches in order to convey message while it refuses lot of principles based on techniques, imaginations and translation of any kind of narrative (so sometimes it looses borderline).

I found the idea for this discussion great, but maybe would be cool to broaden it up. I am not sure if there are here any philosophers or sociologist, but would be great if they would drop the line.

I don't mean anything bad - it just that from personal perspective is all ok and its difficult to reach out. Cheers.

 

Every discipline has its words with are quite arcane to the initiated, like me. I come from a scientific background and have not heard the term conceptual applied to art before. I have read quite a bit of philosophy, but probably not that which touches on the philosophy or art. I guess I am just trying to fit my own ideas into place. I am doing that. I produce simple art, but it has a large element of art. I see purely scientific photos (or fungi) and they are often very unappealing. I try to make mine both scientific and appealing (artistic), but there is always a large element of scientific accuracy.

If you want to broaden the discussion, feel free to do so, but perhaps another thread would be better as I probably cannot add too much and there is a lot for people to read here that may not be relevant.

I think Steve have had forgotten one thing, 3. Documentary Photography,

for instance, the -brave- Photographers all over the world into current war zones

and battlefields, i wouldn't want to do their job, risking my own life for a good (online-)news headliner picture....nowdays even this kind of photograph sometimes flow through photoshop...perhaps a bit.

 

Documentary photography is perhaps the purest form of reality photography, with strict rules against manipulation. I have the greatest respect for those photographers who put themselves in harms way to show us some of what really is. I wouldn't want to be a photographer in Syria or Libya just now.

In a small town near my home, the local newspaper uses several photographers on a regular basis. All of them do an adequate job of conveying facts about an event. But one of them consistently produces images at a higher level. His creations frame the subject with fewer background distractions, he takes advantage of existing light in beautiful ways, he makes compositions enhanced by selective inclusion of patterns, colors, leading lines, and natural framing. He often evokes the emotion of the situation in the timing of a fleeting gesture or expression. Sometimes he conveys a general concept (love, change of season, beauty, conflict, grief, pain, amazement, …) along with the basic facts. He dos this without manipulation during post processing. The result is that his photos often become works of art, and sometimes join the realm of conceptual art, while still existing as documentary photography at the same time.