Thought provoking article about image manipulation

[Dave Blinder]

Stumbled across this recently, and I myself do sometimes wonder about blurring the lines between documentary photographs and digital art...

http://www.into-the-light.com/blog/did_you_mean_to_really

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Dave. Thanks for sharing this. This topic is an interest of mine so I enjoyed reading that photographer's perspective. I wrote an article recently on my blog (www.deepgreenphotography.com/blog) touching on the issue and got some interesting comments from readers as well.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Chris Ober]

Good article from what I read of it. I got distracted by all the good photos there and never finished it :)

[David Gancarz]

This is certainly a thought-provoking blog by David Ward, and one with considerable relevance to BPN. The 4th paragraph speaks of “...comments posted on my work have been outrageously flattering: Wow, Amazing, Lovely colors...” and on. He goes on that “... It seems that almost every image posted attracts similar comments ... comments quite depressingly banal.” But he goes on to surmise that “... it may simply be that people don’t know what to say ... it’s a question of not knowing how to analyse images beyond whether or not they comply with a range of templates.” I place myself into this group, finding myself being unsure of what to say and how it might be judged by our group.

I see many of Mr. Ward’s observations expressed often in BPN. Bird portraits and birds on a stick seem to be the favored template there. The frequent comment of “good environmental image” is, in my mind, something of a veiled pejorative. Hypothetically speaking, is a touched up, sharpened, possibly posed, perfected portrait of a bird against a nondescript background really intrinsically superior than an image of a falcon speeding through a tangle of distracting branches? I think the first might make the cover of Birding Magazine and the second, probably not. But should that be the standard?

He goes on to discuss the issue of photo-montage. That is, combining images or otherwise altering an image for artistic effect. I prefer to think of BPN photographers as being careful to maintain realism in images. We are naturalists at heart. Cloning a wing tip, removing a troublesome twig, touching up an interfering telephone pole - all those things seem perfectly reasonable to me. Combining two birds into a single image to make a statement, is not. I think this part of his discussion has more to do with artists such as Chip Simons (http://www.chipsimons.com/) than our group.

Finally, Mr. Ward speaks of a thing that we probably all feel: “Despite my frustrations I have to admit that there’s an addictive quality to the comment process. When I load a new image into my portfolio I find myself checking the site two or three times a day whether new comments have been posted. Sad or what? Maybe belonging to a community is the real point, feeling a member of the tribe of photographers. It’s very easy to be isolated as a landscape or wildlife photographer, especially as we tend to avoid other people when we’re making images!”

Well said, Mr. Ward!

[Desmond Chan]

Actually, it can be as simple as this: art or documentary?

Art seems to be about the expression of the artist. So, do whatever you want to your image to make it the way you want it.

Documentary is likely about a record of what you see, what is there when you take the picture. So, do the minimal so that the image reports what you see.

If you are to enter a competition, follow its rules.


So, what more do you need to think? If you still struggle with it, I guess you likely do not know what you want? :p

Peace? :)
<running away=""></running>

[Greg Basco]

I have to disagree with you here, Desmond. I think there is photographic art (captured in the field) and there is digital art (produced in post-processing). For the former, the artistic image produced is testament to the skill of the photographer while the latter will speak more to skill in the digital darkroom. I realize there are shades of gray and the old slippery slope with how much processing is too much, but I like to think that an artistic photograph is something quite different than an artistic digital darkroom creation.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Desmond Chan]

I have to disagree with you here, Desmond. I think there is photographic art (captured in the field) and there is digital art (produced in post-processing). For the former, the artistic image produced is testament to the skill of the photographer while the latter will speak more to skill in the digital darkroom. I realize there are shades of gray and the old slippery slope with how much processing is too much, but I like to think that an artistic photograph is something quite different than an artistic digital darkroom creation.

Perhaps that's why the article is thought provoking, i.e., it makes people think. And could be too much sometimes :D:D

Here's another one if you're interested:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/conservation-and-ethics/345-fine-art-photography-vs-documentary-photojournalism-


Then of course it is about fine art photography vs documentary photojournalism. A coincidence?

You can also read the book "Mastering Photographic Composition, Creativity, and Personal Style" by Alain Briot and see what he says about post-processing is not evil.

Or, you can talk to photographers such as:

http://versacephotography.com/gallery/index.html

And:

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/gallery/ready-to-ship/index.php


I wonder if there's anyone who would distinguish camera art versus darkroom art.

Why is it ok when it is done on the computer inside your camera but not when it is done on the computer sitting on your desk in your room?

Is an image from a digital camera an digital image? And if that image could be called art, would that not make that image a digital art?

Perhaps there really is a reason why photography books are separated from the art books in the bookstores and the libraries...at least those that I've been.

I don't think those who use Photoshop to create an image from the ground up call their images photographs.

Hmmm, keep thinking folks. :)


Oh, anyone seen those photographs from David Hockney?

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Desmond. I'm going to check out the links you posted as this is a topic that always interests me so thanks for sharing them.



I wonder if there's anyone who would distinguish camera art versus darkroom art.

Why is it ok when it is done on the computer inside your camera but not when it is done on the computer sitting on your desk in your room?

I would make this distinction, and my point of view is simply that when looking at a photograph, I'm more interested in the skill of the photographer using available tools in the field than I am in the skill of a photographer back at the computer. I'm not discrediting digital processing skills, and I realize that post-processing is an essential part of optimizing a digital image, but I'm most impressed by nature photographs that are essentially what the photographer captured in the field than those that deviate substantially (don't ask me to quantify that!;)) from the original capture. Not everyone, or perhaps not even very many, share this take, and that's OK but that's my two Costa Rican colones:).

Cheers,
Greg

[Jeff Parker]

I don't think those who use Photoshop to create an image from the ground up call their images photographs.

At what point does it cease to be a photograph? To me, if a wingtip is added from another image, sticks are cloned out and canvas added, it's no longer a photograph. In my opinion it's a digital creation.

[David Gancarz]

Call it a digital creation, then. I pose the following in the context of taking a macro photo of a Texas bluebonnet: If one uses clothespins to hold distracting leaves out of the way, uses reflectors or diffusers to balance light, deliberately selects f-stop to control depth of field, uses an artificial background, and maybe throws in a warming filter or polarizing filter for good measure, how are these techniques fundamentally different from doing the same in post-processing? I submit that the only distinction is that with PP, one can take things to an extreme not possible with strictly physical means. If the goal is an aesthetically pleasing image with a degree of fidelity to reality, I don't see any real difference.

Got to love this thread! Thanks Dave Blinder for starting it.

[Ed Erkes]

I have to disagree with you here, Desmond. I think there is photographic art (captured in the field) and there is digital art (produced in post-processing). For the former, the artistic image produced is testament to the skill of the photographer while the latter will speak more to skill in the digital darkroom. I realize there are shades of gray and the old slippery slope with how much processing is too much, but I like to think that an artistic photograph is something quite different than an artistic digital darkroom creation.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

I agree with Greg Basco 100%. Galen Rowell wrote many thoughtful discussions on the subject in Outdoor Photographer and in his books--he had strong opinions on the issue and would undoubtedly agree with Greg also.
The following is a quote by Edward Weston: "Only with difficulty can one persuade the camera to lie. Basically it is a truthful medium." Unfortunately this statement could not be more false today.

[Desmond Chan]

I agree with Greg Basco 100%. Galen Rowell wrote many thoughtful discussions on the subject in Outdoor Photographer and in his books--he had strong opinions on the issue and would undoubtedly agree with Greg also.


And then there're photographers who disagree with Galen Rowell. Does it mean anything?

IMO, the bottomline is this: What is a photograph?

I think one needs to answer that question first before one can determine what a photograph is not.

Even Ansel Adams post-processed :)

[Don Lacy]

The following is a quote by Edward Weston: "Only with difficulty can one persuade the camera to lie. Basically it is a truthful medium." Unfortunately this statement could not be more false today.
Actually it was false when it was made civil war photographers would rearrange bodies and parts of bodies on battlefields to create a more gruesome scene to photograph, Arthur Fellig staged one of his most famous photos http://www.amber-online.com/exhibitions/weegee-collection/exhibits/the-critic-1943 paying the homeless woman to stand by the entrance to the opera. You also had the Cottingley Fairy photos from the 1920s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies just to name a few of the instances were photographers lied with their cameras before the advent of Photo Shop. I would like someone to explain to me why I can take a picture of a flower were I place a print of out of focus grass to create a nice BG and that is considered a photograph but if I ad the OOF grass in PS it is now a digital creation the end result is the same image neither one an accurate representation of the scene as I found it.

[James Shadle]

Has anyone ever heard the phrase - Found View Compliant?
It meant any process that was out of the realm of chemical darkroom possibilities (and I'm not talking about noise reduction and cleaning specular highlights) was a modification.

From my experience, Art Directors or Advertising Editors rarely if ever care about what has been done to the image. They just want a visual they can sell.
On the other hand, most nature photography contests, environmental publications, naturalist publications etc almost never want any modifications.

I think disclosure is the important issue. Images I post on BPN are for the most part Found View Compliant with very little cropping. I think that is only fair to potential workshop clients that what they see is what they get with me.
Just this week I had an art dealer request 6 different images, 3 20x30 and 3 30x40. I was not able to locate one of the images. So I contacted the art dealer and told here the best I could do was a "digital creation"
The client was fine with a digital creation - but I told her up front it would be.

I added the bird and removed a couple of trees (I preferred a little different composition but this is what she wanted).

So while I much prefer images created using Found View Compliant methods, as a professional you need to keep your options open.

[peter delaney]

A very interesting discussion and very insightful... I think the most important point I will take from this thread, can be summed up in to one word "disclosure"

[Myer Bornstein]

When I was using B&W film, I spent many a night in the darkroom, cropping dodging, burning and adding and removing some objects to get the photograph I want. Now I sit at my computer in the light and do the same thing easier than I could with film, It is still a photograph taken with a camera

[Greg Basco]

I agree with James and Peter that disclosure is the key. There is a broad range of different tastes out there but at least if we know what has been done to a photo (in the field and in post), we, as viewers, can decide for our ourselves the merit of the image.

I think this kind of thread always get tied in to a reality criterion. I understand that linking of nature and documentary photography but to me, that is not the important issue. In fact, in my own photography I try to deviate from reality as much as possible by looking for clean backgrounds, creative exposure possibilities, flash, creative DOF, etc. So, my main criterion when judging an image is the skill of the photographer in the field to capture what was in his or her mind's eye. So, whether it reflects reality as the human eye would see it is not important to me for many images. What is important is how the photographer was able to capture what the camera, lenses, and other gear were able to see. This is pretty much the philosophy behind the major contests I suppose in judging an image.

Cheers,
Greg

[Ed Erkes]

Actually it was false when it was made civil war photographers would rearrange bodies and parts of bodies on battlefields to create a more gruesome scene to photograph, Arthur Fellig staged one of his most famous photos http://www.amber-online.com/exhibitions/weegee-collection/exhibits/the-critic-1943 paying the homeless woman to stand by the entrance to the opera. You also had the Cottingley Fairy photos from the 1920s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies just to name a few of the instances were photographers lied with their cameras before the advent of Photo Shop. I would like someone to explain to me why I can take a picture of a flower were I place a print of out of focus grass to create a nice BG and that is considered a photograph but if I ad the OOF grass in PS it is now a digital creation the end result is the same image neither one an accurate representation of the scene as I found it.

No I don't think it was a false statement. He didn't say that photograpy could not be falsified--just that it was not easy to do (a relative term subject ot interpretation, but certainly I don't think anyone would argue about the ease with which it can be done today). I also think he was referring to the medium itself, not necessarily the integrity of the photographer in setting up a scene. Anyway, those interested in the history of photographic deception and manipulation should get a copy of Photofakery by Dino Brugioni.
I also cannot understand the logic of comparing Ansel Adam's postprocessing of images to the extensive digital creations possible today. It is like comparing jaywalking to murder--they are both crimes.

[Roger Clark]

In fact, in my own photography I try to deviate from reality as much as possible by looking for clean backgrounds, creative exposure possibilities, flash, creative DOF, etc.

Greg,
????? How is finding a clean background in the real world not reality?

Roger

[Greg Basco]

Roger, I'm referring to the magnification and compression with telephoto lenses versus the old adage of what our eyes would see using a 50 mm lens at f8. Perhaps I shouldn't have included that one on the list or should have explained better:)

Cheers,
Greg

[Don Lacy]

No I don't think it was a false statement. He didn't say that photograpy could not be falsified, and I also think he was referring to the medium itself, not necessarily the integrity of the photographer in setting up a scene. Anyway, those interested in the history of photographic deception and manipulation should get a copy of Photofakery by Dino Brugioni.
If the image is staged and presented as a truthful representation of an event it is a lie. If a modern war photographer cloned in body parts how is that different from what was done during the civil war both images are manipulated, one has an accurate negative of a manipulated battle field and the other has a manipulated file of an accurate battle field. I do not see how having an accurate negative of a manipulated scene is any less of a lie as manipulating a file. The camera lies it has always lied the only difference now is that the general public knows it.

[Ed Erkes]

The camera lies it has always lied the only difference now is that the general public knows it.
I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore.

[Roger Clark]

Roger, I'm referring to the magnification and compression with telephoto lenses versus the old adage of what our eyes would see using a 50 mm lens at f8. Perhaps I shouldn't have included that one on the list or should have explained better:)

Cheers,
Greg

But that is still reality. For example, one can see that same view with binoculars. Just like macro photography is magnification, or a time exposure records things too faint to see with the unaided eye, the things recorded are stiil real. Or to put it another way, just because we can't see it with the unaided eye doesn't make it not real.

Roger

[Greg Basco]

Fair enough, Roger. Good point.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Don Lacy]

I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore.
Well thats helpful to a discussion debate over I won:):cheers:

[Roger Clark]

The camera lies it has always lied the only difference now is that the general public knows it.

Don, While true, the bigger lie is the photographer who gives the idea the photo is real. And now with photoshop, the public seems to think any good photo must have been faked in photoshop.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

I participated in a similar discussion in another forum. In that exchange, some people expressed the view that anything that came out of the camera was real, and any post processing, including raw conversion, was manipulation. They did not understand that a digital camera does raw conversion and manipulation. Further, few seem to realize that the characteristic curve that is applied to digital camera images in the camera (all digital cameras in the jpeg output) is a variable gamma curve invented many decades ago to process analog images from vacuum tube television cameras. How is that for reality? And then let's talk film. How real is velvia? No film or digital camera image is reality--they are all a distorted view of reality. Perceptually, they can appear very good to us, and better with some post processing. But like any tool, post processing can be used to an extreme, moving an image further from reality.

Roger

[James Shadle]

If the image is staged and presented as a truthful representation of an event it is a lie. If a modern war photographer cloned in body parts how is that different from what was done during the civil war both images are manipulated, one has an accurate negative of a manipulated battle field and the other has a manipulated file of an accurate battle field. I do not see how having an accurate negative of a manipulated scene is any less of a lie as manipulating a file. The camera lies it has always lied the only difference now is that the general public knows it.

I don't think the camera lies. The photographer can.
An image is not what you see, but what you want seen.

[Don Lacy]

Don, While true, the bigger lie is the photographer who gives the idea the photo is real. And now with photoshop, the public seems to think any good photo must have been faked in photoshop.

Roger
Could not agree more with you Roger I still feel cheated that Capas death of a loyalist soldier was more then likely a staged scene but the belief that photography was this pure medium before PS is just wrong. There are still things you can not fake in PS and a great photograph is more then the sum of its technical parts it touches people on an emotional level it draws a reaction from them from wonder and joy to disbelieve or anger and it is the betrayal of that emotion that is the greater sin and you do not need PS to do that.

[Don Lacy]

I don't think the camera lies. The photographer can.
An image is not what you see, but what you want seen.

You are right James my statement should be photographers lie they have always lied and now the general public knows it.

[Roger Clark]

I don't think the camera lies.

No camera produces a perfect representation of a real scene. Fro example, color perception by the human eye plus brain is very complex, non-linear, and depends on how large the color appears to us, what color are next to it, and the illumination level. For example, our spectral response to red is dependent on subtraction of some blue. Cameras don't respond negatively to light. Even with color managed workflow, the definition of those colors are one approximation based on one model from one study of eye spectral response. Other studies produce slightly different spectral response which would throw an existing color managed workflow off. Which one is correct? In one situation one may be, but in another situation, another might be better. So in this sense no image from any camera, digital, or film has perfectly accurate colors, so one can say at some level it is wrong and thus a lie. Then consider super saturated films, like velvia, which are far from reality, and thus a bigger lie. There are little "lies" and big "lies," and a continuum in between.

Roger

[DickLudwig]

This discussion reminds me of the old saw
"Figures don't lie . . . .
But lier's figure"
Photographs don't tell truth. Photos are a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional world. In getting the 3D image onto a 2D surface all sorts of changes occur in the camera optics alone. Choice of lens - wide, normal or telephoto has an enormous effect on how we perceive depth and relative size of objects in an photo. Camera position can play tricks -making you think something is on top of another object when it is in fact way behind it. We have all seen all kinds of photos that weren't manipulated in post processing but basically distorted the truth/reality. So starting from the proposition that "un-manipulated photographs are truthful" is a mistake.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Great thread and close to my heart as I am primarily a wildlife photographer not an artist.

At present I am doing a number of different photographic courses at Uni. one of them devoted to Photoshop. I discovered that many of the students in my course are not photographers at all but young Chinese students who make a fair bit of money doing photo manipulation for photographers for a fee and there has already been some photos submitted to competitions that were worked on by these folk (and they know their stuff) but some judges knew that the photographer did not have the knowledge or talent to enhance the photos to the level at which they were submitted.

When questioned they admitted that they used "contractors" to do the Photoshop work for them and were subsequently disqualified.

Now the competitions have ceased until this question can addressed and it is going to be a difficult one as you can imagine.

One last comment you may find interesting, I asked a student in my class if he would tutor me in private for a fee and was told NO WAY! as that would make them a less salable item and the Chinese students have agreed not to sell their experience to other students thus ensuring that they corner the market.

That these folk are bloody good in not in question but then they don't have to learn photography, buy and learn camera equipment and then go out in all weathers find and photograph the subjects giving them much more time to practice their trade.

This leaves me feeling very hollow inside about my chosen hobby.

If I suddenly start posting beautiful images on the Avian forum with clean backgrounds and stunning colors be suspicious, VERY suspicious. :)

[Roger Clark]

If I suddenly start posting beautiful images on the Avian forum with clean backgrounds and stunning colors be suspicious, VERY suspicious. :)

Chris,

Interesting. First I would say that many photographers had hired help to do darkroom work (post processing), so why should it matter if photographers hire help for photoshop post processing? After all, in film days, few photographers developed and printed their own film. I wish I could afford someone to process my images. I don't post as much as I would like to because I enjoy getting out and taking the pictures, but find little time to post process, so many (tens of thousands) are waiting for me when I retire. If I have spare time, I go out and take more photos:). (or be on BPN)

To you last point, one does not need photoshop to get good clean backgrounds and great colors. It is a matter of position and light.

Roger

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

To you last point, one does not need photoshop to get good clean backgrounds and great colors. It is a matter of position and light.

That was tongue in cheek for the benefit of the Master.

In film days I did all my darkroom work but then we were working with far fewer images as each shot cost us money but my greatest delight was working with Black and White or Sepia alongside my Grandfather who never took a color image in his life, he bequeathed me his first Rolleiflex and made me promise never to use color film in it, I never did.

The question remains as to how much of his/her image is the skill of the photographer or the skill of the retoucher and as previously stated when is an image a documentary work or a work of Art and can a person not behind the lens lay claim to a photograph in a competition and should that be required disclosure.

I get by far the most joy out of an image which requires the least PP and the greatest effort to take, however if I suggested that in my class I would be a dead man. :)

[Desmond Chan]

The question remains as to how much of his/her image is the skill of the photographer or the skill of the retoucher and as previously stated when is an image a documentary work or a work of Art ...

In one of the episodes of the BBC's documentary series "Genius of Photography", one of the photographers showcased shoots large scale staged photographs. In that episode, he was shown photographing a staged scene in the streets. If you just walked by you would think somebody was filming a movie there. Anyway, he shot with a field camera and he hired somebody to post-process the image, which included "turning on" some of the street lights and traffic lights. Yes, they were deliberately turned off when the photograph was shot but used Photoshop to turn them back on the way he wanted them. And he makes big money selling his photographs.

So, just because an image is post-processed and may be a bit more than to the liking of some of you, it does not mean that camera/photography skills are not needed in making the base image.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Desmond I am aware that in the business of money no holds are bared and as long as the end product does the job, who cares who/how/where it is produced but is it going to be that our amateur hobby / pursuit will prostitute itself entirely on the altar of high finance or will we retain the amateur status that many of us prefer.

I played International Rugby Union in the days when it was a strictly amateur sport and it was played at the highest level by players who played for the love of the sport. Rugby Union went professional a few years ago and the urge to make money at all costs has turned a skillful sport into form of World Championship Wrestling but without thw great acting skills of the wrestlers.

Many years ago I was working with an American Public Prosecutor whose brother was the mayor of a large town in Momtana and he saw some slide photographs that I had taken in our Snowy Mountains of a winter scene among our wonderful snow gum trees. He sent a slide to his brother who phoned me asking to buy copies of all my snow scenes to use as advertising for his nearby ski resorts, I pointed out that Snow Gums are unique to Eastern Australia High Plains and Mountains and would not fit in with their native Winter vegetation at all, to this he burst into laughter and pointed out "This is advertizing buddy and thr truth don't enter into it"

I am proud to say that I threw my morality out the window and made several thousand dollars for selling the rights to 1400 slides, by the way those slides were professionally developed and truly represented my photographic ability.

So where do we go from here, two different standards, one where the photographer takes the image and does the PP and one where anything goes and who then can correctly access whether a poor image passed on to one of my fellow students ends up on the podium of the competition?

We could take this further by purchasing a Race Car emblazoning my name all over the side of the car and then thanks to the anonymity of the full face helmet putting Andretti in it and having him race as me. :)

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond I am aware that in the business of money no holds are bared and as long as the end product does the job, who cares who/how/where it is produced but ...

But, who is asking you to do what you don't want to to your photographs? If you want to stick to a no-post-processing policy, you're free to do it. Some photogs post-process their photographs more than the other do. So? Nobody says everybody has to be like that. So I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: "is it going to be that our amateur hobby / pursuit will prostitute itself entirely on the altar of high finance or will we retain the amateur status that many of us prefer."


So where do we go from here, two different standards one where the photographer takes the image and does the PP and one where anything goes and who then can correctly access whether a poor image passed on to one of my fellow students ends up on the podium of the competition?

So it is ok if the photographer does the post-processing himself/herself but not if the photographer does not know how to post-process and has to get somebody else to do it? I'm assuming there's no real manipulation there such as adding or removing things to the original image. As to who takes the credit, that's between the photographer and the Photoshop guy :) After all, a post-processed photographs still requires the photographer to use the skills available in the field in the first place.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

After all, a post-processed photographs still requires the photographer to use the skills available in the field in the first place.

I disagree Desmond, I have seen several images submitted even in our course photos comps, where the students are happy to show us a pathetic image poorly taken then bought to a mantlepiece display image by nothing more that highly manipulative PP, the original image was nothing short of pathetic.

[Bob Barnett]

Well, it really depends on the photographers goals. Many aspire to deliver the best technical photo possible. Some want the most visually pleasing photo which often incorporates photo editing. Lastly, some(I am in this category) aspire to capture a unique image in a species natural environment.

I don't condemn any methods used by any means. I simply prefer more natural photos with minimal editing...hopefully depicting a unique experience in nature.

BTW..There is a trend in family/kid portraits that drives me batty! They are editing these portraits like glamour shots with heavy skin smoothing and brightening the eyes to look like aliens. I don't know how this has become popular but it is my pet peeves.

Please forgive any errors.Sent from Iphone

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

BTW..There is a trend in family/kid portraits that drives me batty! They are editing these portraits like glamour shots with heavy skin smoothing and brightening the eyes to look like aliens. I don't know how this has become popular but it is my pet peeves.

Bob, I could not agree with you more. To insult your family by trying to create false images of them is in my opinion disgusting.

[Desmond Chan]

I disagree Desmond, I have seen several images submitted even in our course photos comps, where the students are happy to show us a pathetic image poorly taken then bought to a mantlepiece display image by nothing more that highly manipulative PP, the original image was nothing short of pathetic.

Ok, poor skills they have then :):p

Hey, not all who use cameras are able to produce magnificent photos.

Oh, compact digital point-and-shoot. Not a whole lot of skills needed. I mean, that's what they're made for, right? Would its photograph less of a photograph?

[Desmond Chan]

Bob, I could not agree with you more. To insult your family by trying to create false images of them is in my opinion disgusting.

But, who is to judge if that family is insulted, you or that family?

[Don Lacy]

I disagree Desmond, I have seen several images submitted even in our course photos comps, where the students are happy to show us a pathetic image poorly taken then bought to a mantlepiece display image by nothing more that highly manipulative PP, the original image was nothing short of pathetic.
Chris, What kind of manipulations were done in PS was the composition changed or elements added or cloned out. A digital file that was exposed to the right of the histogram often looks washed out and lacks contrast its only after you convert the raw file and balance out the tones in PS that you start to see the true potential of an image

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Chris, What kind of manipulations were done in PS was the composition changed or elements added or cloned out. A digital file that was exposed to the right of the histogram often looks washed out and lacks contrast its only after you convert the raw file and balance out the tones in PS that you start to see the true potential of an image

Sorry Don, I think I missed this post.

On the images we regularly deal with (that our tutors deal with) have additional birds added, foliage added or removed, even feet changed and colored, beaks reshaped, eyes replaced Et Al.

I have had on occasion had to bring in my original Gould Prints which are my retirement fund, to help identify the bird.

http://www.antiqueprintroom.com/catalogue/view-catalogue?id=c655e1f700bdc7e8f9f74b2bb6189c59&sessid=c0e7b01b1d4c998ef9fa23bd0bdc50b9

My personal opinion is that has gone so far that it is beyond reversal and once again the lure of the mighty dollar or yuan has trumped us, many may disagree with me but I see this as a bastardization of a craft (possibly by the inception of another) I suspect that many may well call this "progress"

[Don Lacy]

No problem Chris, Yeah that goes beyond enhancement and is now manipulation which is fine with me as long as it is disclosed and is not unfairly judged against other images that follow the rules.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

No problem Chris, Yeah that goes beyond enhancement and is now manipulation which is fine with me as long as it is disclosed and is not unfairly judged against other images that follow the rules.

Thanks Don I agree entirely, I am disgusted in the lazy adoption of the talents of others without any disclosure, I am also disgusted by the coercive methods used by our PP entrepreneurs who go to great lengths to sell their skills whilst persuading the photographer to hide the truth, both for gain, one monetary the other scholastic. :)

[Bill Jobes]

What happens from the click of the shutter to the final image is all part of a unified process.
To me, one isn't necessarily more important than the other. One doesn't by default have more value than the other.
And really, it all starts in the photographer's mind. When the human eye sees something, the brain decides to preserve the image, and the technology is engaged to accomplish that.
The Integrity of that process, and the image itself, is preserved and validated by full, honest disclosure of the process.
Photo purists rail against 'processing,' and digital artists may sneer right back, but both steps are legit and essential.
Each image is a discreet statement. Send four news photographers to cover a fire, and each will return with dozens of images, not one of which will be a carbon copy of the other. (For you younger folks: we used to put thin sheets of carbon 'film' in between paper sheets in a typewriter to make instant duplicates of the original. :D)
As digital imaging evolves over time, the inclination to disparage 'manipulation' with suspicion should abate.
After all, it's integral to the process.
Get the picture ? ;)

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Get the picture ?

Most definitely not.

We once again need to separate Photography as an use of a camera to capture an image in the best usage of the Camera and the ability of the photographer to embellish, within controlled parameters, the image taken.

For a photographer to be solely judged on the image he/she should have fulfilled "all" the roles involved in the production of the image.

I firmly believe that in the judgment in competition that no part of the production of the end product can be allowed to be hidden from those who will decide the level of competence applied by the person who submits the work and he/she alone should receive the accolades or brickbats provided that it is indeed their work and their work alone.

This will not please many.