How will we define a photograph?

We manipulated images in the past as well.

A church in Delhi. ©RajivChopra

I will not go into the definition of a photograph beyond the obvious: it is “drawing with light”.

We know this definition. Many of us know how photography developed over the last two centuries. Chemical techniques proliferated in the 19th century, giving rise to an amazing profusion of tints. Anyone who has studied the history of photography will attest to the truism that calotypes, daguerreotypes, tintypes, platinum prints, palladium prints, and wet collodion images differ from one another.

Once we moved from these techniques to film, every film manufacturer developed its own recipe. Kodak, Fujifilm, Agfa, and Ilford all developed iconic recipes, and we simulate many of them with digital tools like DXO Film Pack and Nik Silver Efex Pro.

Every film brand handles color differently, each producing a different-toned image. In the examples above, I assume you use the same camera-lens combination, place your camera on a tripod, and shoot the same scene at the same time. Of course, this is impossible, but it aims — I hope — to illustrate a point.

I also believe the ability to manipulate images has increased dramatically since Photoshop and AI entered our world.

I’d like you to focus on the first photograph at the top. The photo you see is the original photograph, an old Christian church in Shahjahanabad, Old Delhi, India.

If I were to send this ugly image to a travel agent, ask someone to post it on a travel website, or create travel articles, it may be advisable to post this image. Why? You don’t want to create a false story that will mislead potential customers.

The Truth About Removing Wires and Changing Skies in Photoshop

https://youtu.be/WRc8IhzqWYo

Removing the wires.

The church in Delhi, with wires removed. ©RajivChopra

But, as photographers, we like to create pristine images, images that do not have ugly wires or distractions or dead, flat skies or muted colors. Decades ago, we could not manipulate images the way we do now. I edited this image a few years back and got fed up after a few hours. The process of removing the wires, the electrical power pole, and reconstructing the lettering and fine structures became too tiring, and while I removed all distractions, I also ‘destroyed’ the church. Next, I changed the sky, but the church remained ruined.

I edited the image again last December and dragged myself through the process. Adobe improved the capabilities of its remove tool in January, and all I needed to do to remove the electrical pole was draw a circle around it, and Photoshop created a beautiful edit for me. The process took a few hours, as it did in the first edit. I was more successful this time. Years from now, I may only need to wave a magic wand!

I replaced the sky.

Wires removed and sky replaced. ©RajivChopra

Next, I changed the sky. Replacing the sky is a tedious process, but the actual sky replacement process is simple. You choose the sky, click the button, and clean up any gaps in the image. Choosing the proper sky is tedious, especially if you own a library containing hundreds or thousands of skies. The sky you choose must suit the image. If not, you will need to invest time in editing the sky so that the image looks unified across.

I added birds and a vulture

Wires removed. Sky replaced. Birds added. ©RajivChopra

Wires removed. Sky replaced. Birds and a vulture were added. ©RajivChopra

After changing the sky, I added birds, then, for the fun of it, a vulture.

The last image is very far from the original, and while the church looks the same, I have altered the context by removing distractions, replacing the sky, and adding birds.

Discussion. Part One

If I show only the last image to someone, they will probably compliment me, open their mouth in a ‘wow’ — I hope — and may wish to visit the church. They may even express shock and disbelief that you can have such pristine views in Delhi, especially in Old Delhi! Of course, if they then visit the area, they will probably turn to me and ask me where ‘the church of the image’ actually stands or express their disappointment at seeing the flat skies and the ugly wires crossing the church.

Discussion. Part Two. A Question.

My final image is a lie, but by all standard measures, it remains a photograph because the starting point is a photograph. Huh?

Is the last image a photograph, a piece of digital art, or a significantly enhanced image? By adding birds and replacing the sky, have I altered the definition of a photograph? I have, after all, used an AI tool to generate and place images of birds and a vulture into the image.

Removing the wires may only give me a significantly altered photograph.

Replacing the sky may only yield a significantly altered photograph if the sky I have selected from my library is a photograph of a sky. However, if I use an AI tool to create a sky, then does my image remain a photograph?

When I add the birds and the vulture, does my image remain a photograph?

How will we define a photograph in a few years?

The Truth About Removing Wires and Changing Skies in Photoshop

[embed]