How much post processing/digital manipulation do you think is acceptable and why?

[Ofer Levy]

Hi all,
I guess this is quite a problematic topic which can create some drama and conflict but I would really love to hear what you all think.
I have tried to participate in a few competitions lately and I must say I think their rules are a bit too strict.
Because of these strict rules at least 95% of my images can’t qualify.
I think that these rules were created by people who don’t do wildlife photography as every one of us knows that it is almost impossible to get a perfect wildlife image straight out of the camera.
It is especially true when it comes to action/behaviour shots.
I will not change the image in a way that it will tell a different story than what was really captured. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above.
Wonder what you all think?
Your input is greatly appreciated,
Cheers

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Ofer,
This one is definitely going to go to hot topic! My simple answer is whatever you are comfortable with as long as you disclose it or follow the rules!
I've always wondered about the judging in major competitions.....and I often judge here in the state on both local and national competitions. Often I get a set of rules or certain topic that I am judging....and I may DQ an image even though I like it.....as it doesn't fit the topic or follow the "rules". After 10 or so years of judging....I know everyone doesn't leave happy! You would thing that judging would give me an advantage.....and I too often scratch my head when I see the winners......get 10 judges.....and you may get 10 different results!
I too think that some of the rules are strict and really short sighted.......but in a nature competition......do you really want to allow manipulation?......where would you draw the line? When is a certain amount of manipulation too much? This can open a whole new can of worms.....so just follow and read the rules of each contest......no issues then!

[Dan Brown]

Create art!
Disclose all!
Follow the rules or don't enter!

Oh, did I mention, Disclose all! or get in trouble!

[Ofer Levy]

...do you really want to allow manipulation?......where would you draw the line? When is a certain amount of manipulation too much? This can open a whole new can of worms.....

Thanks for your input Roman!
I actually do want to allow manipulation and the line is drawn very simply: any manipulation is allowed as long as it doesn't look significantly differnt to what the RAW file looks like. I would of course ask to see the RAW file.
I think that by applying common sense - judges should be able to easily tell which image is too manipulated.

[Ofer Levy]

...Create art...

Thanks Dan!
This is a great topic for a whole new discussion. I don't create any art - I just capture the art created by nature.....

[Dan Brown]

Thanks Dan!
This is a great topic for a whole new discussion. I don't create any art - I just capture the art created by nature.....

Ofey, you create art if you post process as you describe!

[Roman Kurywczak]

I'm 99% sure the early rounds of judging don't judge the RAW file alongside the jpeg submitted.......they may never get through the process! Most competitions allow dodging and burning.....so you can tame things that way. My question has always been.....what is the difference between dodging and burning.....and either a selective levels layer or selective brightness contrast layer? Nothing IMO......so part of me agrees with you.....but removing.....I wouldn't go that far.

[Ofer Levy]

.....but removing.....I wouldn't go that far.

Why? why removing a distracting branch which has nothing to do with the action is considered going too far..?

[Ofer Levy]

Ofey, you create art if you post process as you describe!

I don't feel this way. I am not an artist. Applying some basic photoshop technique doesn't make me an artist...

[Roman Kurywczak]

Why? why removing a distracting branch which has nothing to do with the action is considered going too far..?

How big of a branch? Who decides? What about another bird that was in the BG? I think you open up too much to "interpretation" if you allow that. Besides.....that's what keeps me going as a photographer.....striving for that "perfect" one. While it may not actually exist.....keep looking and trying is what drives me as a nature photographer.
Philosophically I feel much the same way as you.....but I don't make the "rules". Get onto the board and change them.....or follow the rules. That simple.

[Jay Gould]

Hi, there was a major discussion on this topic in 2009; perhaps someone with more skills can find the thread.

The discussion raised this identical question, and as I recall the group divided between those that did not believe in digital manipulation and those that did with required disclosure.

For me, in a non-contest setting, i will not hesitate to remove anything that is either distracting, or even if not distracting, is not part of the story I am telling by my image.

Having moved my predominate interest from Avian to Landscape - of course I still love to shoot Wildlife and Avian - I will digitally manipulate and remove anything and everything. For example, I will remove just about all if not all Hand Of Man items from my landscapes. Fences, houses, people, telephone poles and wires in the distance are all removed unless I feel they are necessary for the story.

If and when I create a website for my images with the ability to possibly sell my images, I would not describe every item I have removed; I will simply state: "This image has been digitally manipulated; and, I have removed from the original scene items that I did not consider necessary for the image I am presenting."

[Greg Basco]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year. Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!).

Cheers,
Greg

[Ofer Levy]

How big of a branch? Who decides? What about another bird that was in the BG? I think you open up too much to "interpretation" if you allow that. Besides.....that's what keeps me going as a photographer.....striving for that "perfect" one. While it may not actually exist.....keep looking and trying is what drives me as a nature photographer.
Philosophically I feel much the same way as you.....but I don't make the "rules". Get onto the board and change them.....or follow the rules. That simple.

Thanks Roman, I realise you are right and this discussion will actually leads nowhere.
Just a few more words:
What keeps me going as a photographer is to capture behaviour of wild animals in the most interesting and beautiful way I can.
Let's assume I got the most amazing image of a peregrine flying with prey - full frame, perfect techs, light etc. However, way behind the falcon a bloody crow decided to fly and it appears as a small but distracting out of focus dark area.
I will remove this totally irrelevant distraction without hesitation and I feel this kind of manipulation should be allowed in any competition....

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year. Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!).

Cheers,
Greg

Thanks for your input Greg and Jay!
I guess this can go on forever and there will never be a consensus which I guess is fine...

[arash_hazeghi]

Ofer, interesting question for sure, and I'm guessing that you'll get lots of different opinions in reply. I have a couple of points to make.

First, I don't think one needs to go into heavy post-processing to make things art. I appreciate artistic images created in-camera more than those that become artistic only in post.

Second, I totally agree with strict contest rules. Sure there will be fewer images eligible, but the contest winners will be a testament to those moments when the skill of the photographer combined with a perfect moment and a bit of luck to make for truly outstanding images. If we could all clone and add canvas and reconstruct wings for major contests, then there would be a glut of winning-calibre images out there. Those where everything came together in-camera would be lost in the shuffle, which would be a big shame IMO.

I wrote a blog article on this subject last year. Some people might be interested (and I'm sure many will disagree vehemently too!).

Cheers,
Greg

I agree with the first part, but I disagree with the 2nd part. Let me give you an example, you shoot an Avocet in flight, of course for handhold flight photography there is no such thing as composition. You just get unlucky and a small OOF duck appears somewhere in the background just when the wing position is best. It makes the image distracting and needs to be cloned out. This has nothing to do with photographer's skills it is just bad luck. If you had clipped the avocet's wings that was a different story. For people who shoot perched birds or setups this is a non-issue but for flight photographers the luck factor is a very big deal.

IMO digital manipulation has to be considered in the context of photo and there is no one answer.

[Greg Basco]

That's for sure, Ofer!

Cheers,
Greg

[Roman Kurywczak]

I need to get you in the judges chair Ofer!!! ......but given the size of some of these major competitions and the # of entries......you have multiple judges....and that is where not having strict rules can become a problem! Everyone has been in the scenearion that Arash describes and you do......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded? By allowing removal or addition of elements......we diminish those images where luck smiled on the prepared!
I don't care what kind of manipulation you do here or for personal use......but I want the major competitions to be a bit stricter. Consider the person who got the 1 in a million shot.......should someone who manipulated be rewarded equally?

[Ofer Levy]

I need to get you in the judges chair Ofer!!! ......but given the size of some of these major competitions and the # of entries......you have multiple judges....and that is where not having strict rules can become a problem! Everyone has been in the scenearion that Arash describes and you do......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded? By allowing removal or addition of elements......we diminish those images where luck smiled on the prepared!
I don't care what kind of manipulation you do here or for personal use......but I want the major competitions to be a bit stricter. Consider the person who got the 1 in a million shot.......should someone who manipulated be rewarded equally?

Thanks Roman, I am actually referring to THE 1 in a million shot! It is FAR BETTER than the one which won the competition only because the bloody out of focus crow was in the BG. (please refer to pan#13)
This simply doesn't make sense!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Like I said before.......if I ever figure out judges....I'll let you know!

Off to shoot fireworks.....I'll check in tomorrow to see how they progress here.... as I am sure you will get a million different opinions.....very much like judging:eek:!

[arash_hazeghi]

......What about the person that got the same flight image w/o the duck or crow in the BG? Shouldn't he be rewarded?

For what Roman? For being lucky or for having better skills? I think you missed the point

[Roman Kurywczak]

For what Roman? For being lucky or for having better skills? I think you missed the point

Nope....didn't miss the point. I have judged many, many photo competitions. Have you? Once you do, you will see that people will disagree with your opinion. What makes my, your, Ofer's judgement the final word? News flash it isn't. Different contes may have differetn results. I firmly believe someone who doesn't have the crow or duck in the BG should be rewarded. People....myslef include.....who have that happen to them.....should just keep trying. I will reverse the question......how would you feel if you had the "perfect" image......and they allowed removal of items and you lost to that. Consider the wolf in the game farm from last years BBC as you contemplate the answer.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Always a hot topic for sure! I remove elements often enough in my images, I have no problem at all with image manipulation. For contests I can apprecite why the rules were out there...where do you draw the line? It has to be an all-or-nothing decision.

My favorite landscape image that I took has a branch that bugs the heck out of me on the original raw file (there was no way to physically remove it on the field). That branch is long gone from my personal files...but I entered an unmanipulated version in a major Canadian contest a few years ago with the branch intact...and low and behold the image won! You never know...just keep an "intact" version for contests. If the subject matter is strong enough some judges may dig it anyhow

[Dan Brown]

I don't feel this way. I am not an artist. Applying some basic photoshop technique doesn't make me an artist...

Ofer, I like this definition below (gleaned from wiki) for "Artist" and you definitely qualify. With the your attention to detail and high standards regarding image sharpness, comp, color, etc, I think you and many of the fine photographers here on BPN qualify. Now, the art that you and others produce is, of course "in the eye of the beholder" wink,wink!!

 A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice
 A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic
 One who makes their craft a fine art

Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art. An artist also may be defined unofficially as "a person who expresses him- or herself through a medium". The word is also used in a qualitative sense of, a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, an artistic practice.
Most often, the term describes those who create within a context of the fine arts or 'high culture', activities such as drawing, painting, sculpture, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking, photography, and music—people who use imagination, talent, or skill to create works that may be judged to have an aesthetic value. Art historians and critics define artists as those who produce art within a recognized or recognizable discipline. Contrasting terms for highly-skilled workers in media in the applied arts or decorative arts include artisan, craftsman, and specialized terms such as potter, goldsmith or glassblower.

[Greg Basco]

Arash, while I understand your point about the challenges of flight photography, I agree with Roman that if another photographer had been lucky and/or skilled enough to get the shot without the crow, that image would rate higher.

Cheers,
Greg

[arash_hazeghi]

Nope....didn't miss the point. I have judged many, many photo competitions. Have you? Once you do, you will see that people will disagree with your opinion. What makes my, your, Ofer's judgement the final word? News flash it isn't. Different contes may have differetn results. I firmly believe someone who doesn't have the crow or duck in the BG should be rewarded. People....myslef include.....who have that happen to them.....should just keep trying. I will reverse the question......how would you feel if you had the "perfect" image......and they allowed removal of items and you lost to that. Consider the wolf in the game farm from last years BBC as you contemplate the answer.

Hi Roman,
I have judged some low-key local contests, not anything big and nothing makes my judgement the final word in anything, however as a humble and modest photographer my opinion is formed based on logic and numbers given some years experience in flight photography.

I still think you are missing the point by comparing apples and oranges, the photo of the wolf was not about digital manipulation at all but was about false disclosure, the photographer claimed the wolf was wild but it was trained. In what logic this is comparable to removing an OOF duck in the BG of a dynamic flight shot and disclosing it? That case is more similar in nature to photographing a captive falcon in flight and then presenting it as a wild falcon. I am with you that such image is inferior to an image of a wild falcon because it takes A LOT more skills to track and capture a wild falcon in flight so it is a higher level of technical skill in this case.

We have to disagree but such is life. Thanks for your input, it's great to hear what other photographers think

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, while I understand your point about the challenges of flight photography, I agree with Roman that if another photographer had been lucky and/or skilled enough to get the shot without the crow, that image would rate higher.

Cheers,
Greg

Greg this is where we differ, the OOF crow has nothing to do with photographer's skill it is just luck. Any ways, I feel like we all have different opinions and it's great to hear what other people think...

[Greg Basco]

Arash, yes, I understand your point, though it could be that one photographer timed it just a bit better but I'm getting a bit absurd now. I would still say that, all other things that are under the photographer's control (exposure, sharpness, etc.) being equal, the standout photo would be the one where skill combined with luck.

If we ever get invited to judge the BBC, we can hash it out in London

Cheers,
Greg

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, yes, I understand your point, though it could be that one photographer timed it just a bit better but I'm getting a bit absurd now. I would still say that, all other things that are under the photographer's control (exposure, sharpness, etc.) being equal, the standout photo would be the one where skill combined with luck.

If we ever get invited to judge the BBC, we can hash it out in London

Cheers,
Greg

Greg luck and skill is where we differ, like I said this might be hard for non-flight photographers to digest because they don't come across these circumstances often and I can understand why. I know that Doug Brown and Jim Neiger, both of whom I respect a lot also share a similar opinion. Doug captured an amazing image of a landing snail kite on our trip to Florida, 99.99% photographers do not have the skills to capture such an image from a boat hand-holding a 700mm rig in low light and get such a dramatic and sharp image, but there was a small weed or something he had to clone out. Now according to some rules that is manipulation and might disqualify the image to enter a contest IMHO that image deserves every award.

Hopefully I won't get invited because then I might get into a big fight with the non-flight photographers I also do photography for fun, it isn't my profession and I don't care that much about winning contests or judging them, I just love looking at great photographs


Thanks for your input, I always enjoy your work too, hopefully we will get to meet some day and I can learn about hummer multi-flash photography

Happy 4th of July, I am signing off for today. will check back to see what other ideas are out there...

[Charles Glatzer]

Ofer,

These contests you speak of are not about the perfect image, but rather the story within.

Chas

[Tom Graham]

What if I snap the shutter with my camera. BUT the RAW processing and cropping and -rule allowed changes/processing- are done by someone else? Is it still my image, and to enter in contests?
Tom

[Greg Basco]

Hi, Arash. Yes, I actually have discussed this very thing with Doug, and I definitely do understand the viewpoint.

Cheers,
Greg

[Desmond Chan]

I guess this is quite a problematic topic which can create some drama and conflict...

Not at all. In fact, this or similar topic has been discussed numerous time. If you scroll down the page, you will see this thread started on May 27, 2011 by George Wilson:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...al-Photography

I have tried to participate in a few competitions lately and I must say I think their rules are a bit too strict.

Because of these strict rules at least 95% of my images can’t qualify.

Different standards.

I think that these rules were created by people who don’t do wildlife photography as every one of us knows that it is almost impossible to get a perfect wildlife image straight out of the camera.

Perfect? Hmm...what is perfect?

Moose Peterson may disagree with you.

Here's another discussion on "manipulation" among two Photoshop guys and Moose Peterson:

http://kelbytv.com/thegrid/2011/05/0...id-episode-09/

Oh yeah, he would clone out stuff, too, when it comes to landscape and aviation photographs.

I will not change the image in a way that it will tell a different story than what was really captured. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.

Well, it's called "Ethics".

I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been

I think that's based on your opinion?

as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above.

If that is true, it seems to suggest that there has never been amazing photograph in the history of photography until digital manipulation came along. Could that be so?

Wonder what you all think?

Chas is right; you picked the wrong competitions. They are looking for something different than what you had in mind. Nothing's wrong with that. I don't see why you could then conclude that all those other photographs would be of lower standard than yours. It's like saying a pretty/fancy picture is of higher standard than a Pulitzer prize winning photograph, which, by the way, could be trashy in terms of technique according to Jay Maisel.

As for whether to "manipulate" or not, the answer to that question actually is very simple. You don't even need to disclose anything afterwards. As far as I know, Don McLean has never said what "American Pie" is all about.

[Ofer Levy]

Chas is right; you picked the wrong competitions. They are looking for something different than what you had in mind. Nothing's wrong with that. I don't see why you could then conclude that all those other photographs would be of lower standard than yours..

Dear Desmond, I have to admit your comments made me feel uncomfortable. How on earth you got this brilliant but completely wrong assumption?! Where have you seen me saying or implying that my standards are higher than others...:2
Cheers mate.

[Desmond Chan]

Dear Desmond, I have to admit your comments made me feel uncomfortable. How on earth you got this brilliant but completely wrong assumption?! Where have you seen me saying or implying that my standards are higher than others...:2
Cheers mate.

Here's what you wrote:

" However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above."

You believe all amazing images require digital manipulation. As a result, you conclude: " I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

Your images were "manipulated" (which is the reason they found your photographs not qualified); those photographs qualified for the competitions were not or at least much less "manipulated" than yours (that's why they were found qualified) and you concluded that their standard would be lower. Why? Because amazing images require manipulation, like yours. Meaning? Those other photographs could not be amazing. Yours can.

Again, you picked the wrong competitions. Just because they rejected your images does not qualify you to say:"I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

[Ofer Levy]

Here's what you wrote:

" However, I don’t understand what is wrong with removing distracting branches, slightly blurring the BG, adding a part of a wing that was clipped, removing distracting non-significant elements which are not part of the action/behaviour/story etc.
I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower than what it could have been as most of the really amazing images do require some kind of digital manipulation as described above."

You believe all amazing images require digital manipulation. As a result, you conclude: " I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

Your images were "manipulated" (which is the reason they found your photographs not qualified); those photographs qualified for the competitions were not or at least much less "manipulated" than yours (that's why they were found qualified) and you concluded that their standard would be lower. Why? Because amazing images require manipulation, like yours. Meaning? Those other photographs could not be amazing. Yours can.

Again, you picked the wrong competitions. Just because they rejected your images does not qualify you to say:"I am sure that because of those strict rules, the overall standard of the winning images is way lower."

Desmond, I think you should read the text a few more times as nowhere in it I mention myself or my standards of photography. Just a simple reading comprehension difficulty I guess…

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, I think you should read the text a few more times as nowhere in it I mention myself or my standards of photography. Just a simple reading comprehension difficulty I guess…

Haha...

Sour grapes, Ofer. That's what it is all along

[John Chardine]

We must keep the discussion civil guys and gals and we really need to keep snide comments to ourselves.

OK, a dynamic discussion that has gone off the rails a few times. Ofer's original post was essentially about contest rules in particular those that strictly limit the kinds and amount of post-processing that can be done. It might be worthwhile to consider an alternative (and IMO quite valid) contest which allowed almost any manipulation so long as it was disclosed, and required the RAW image to be submitted along with the final image. This would certainly open up the contest and put the onus on the judges to decide which images were manipulated too much. The problem is that contests like this would be literally flooded with images and the sheer number of entrants and the extra work the judges would have to do would make the task impossible. Thus, you can think of these rules not so much as a set of ethical commandments as ways and means to make the competitions and the judging logistically feasible.

A couple of other items above that caught my attention. It might be worthwhile to read-up on the old and extensively discussed topic of what is an art and what is a craft. I found this summary useful:

http://www.denisdutton.com/rnz_craft.htm

and has got me thinking about nature photography and how it fits along the arts and crafts continuum. Haven't figured it out. When Ofer says he doesn't feel like an artist, maybe he does feel like a craftsman?

On the topic of photo judging, I don't know why people are surprised or are lamenting that 10 judges would give 10 different answers. We are dealing with a totally subjective subject, not an exact science, and this is to be completely expected. I am a scientist and have taught at university on and off for the past 25 years. I have never understood how student evaluation in the arts can ever be really fair and unbiased because typically there is just one judge- your lecturer/professor. Ask 5 other professors for a mark on your arts essay or painting and you would likely get 4-5 very different marks. This is the playing field (photo judging) that we are in and we just have to accept it.

[Mike Tracy]

I seldom enter competitions any more but did quite well on the local, state and international level when I did. I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks for your input John and Mike.
John, althoguh not relevant to this thread - I feel much more comfortable with the term CRAFTSMAN when it comes to wildlife photography. (Digital Creation wildlife photography definitly deserves the term ART IMO.)
The terms - ART, ARTIST, CREATING AN IMAGE etc - don't belong to documentary wildlife photography IMO. We all capture, we don't create anything IMO.

[Greg Basco]

I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

Well said, Mike!

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[John Chardine]

I seldom enter competitions any more but did quite well on the local, state and international level when I did. I tend to gravitate to those contests whose restrictions are rigid. I dont mind losing to and applaud those whose submitted images are stronger then mine. What I dont want is to compete against those whose manipulative skills are keener then mine but photography skills are weaker.

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them. Both then and now, the complete photographer can both make the image and process it with finesse and aplomb, and I think this should be rewarded over being good at one or the other.

[Desmond Chan]

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them.

Still, as pointed out in the Grid episode linked above, although most "photographs" we see today are Photoshop'ed, many, like those used by magazines for example, call them "illustrations" instead of a photographs. Also, many "digital art/images" out there also started with a photograph or are based on it though they may look totally different from what you would have imagined a photograph looks like.

Perhaps it's back to the same old question: "what is a photograph?"

Or, does it matter what it is called?

[Valerio Tarone]

Ofer I've the same problem: I agree with you: i use only minimal saturation, hue, tunes,ecc. ..but our goal is to increase the beaty of nature, so eliminate a distracting branch could be , IMHO, tolerable.
Probably Roman not perfectly agrrees..

[Ofer Levy]

But Mike, this seems to draw an artificial line between photography and "manipulation"/post processing, where none exists. Processing is a continuum of the photographic process now, and in the days when dark rooms were dominent, and it makes little sense IMO to separate them. Both then and now, the complete photographer can both make the image and process it with finesse and aplomb, and I think this should be rewarded over being good at one or the other.

Very well said John!!
I am certain that quite a few photographers who claim they don't process their images and brag about it simply don't have the skills required and can't be bothered to master this essential part of digital photography.

[Danny J Brown]

Very well said John!!
I am certain that quite a few photographers who claim they don't process their images and brag about it simply don't have the skills required and can't be bothered to master this essential part of digital photography.

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown

[Desmond Chan]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?"

Because amazing pictures require manipulation. No?

Whatever.

[Mike Fuhr]

This is a very intriguing topic for me, and one I have discussed with friends many times. For me, what we are doing as wildlife photographers is CAPTURING a moment in time in nature. One that we want to share with others to tell a story. We are not CREATING a moment in time. That is the essential difference. When we take a great photo, it is because of a combination of preparation and luck, like it or not. A photo with a bird or insect that is "imperfect" tells a story. That is why I take nature photos - to tell a story that will inspire people and garner their interest in nature. When we make a significant change (add feathers, repair a wing, clean a beak), we are altering the story to tell one which we wish we captured. That is not what a photo contest is about. Where do we draw the line?

I agree with Danny in that there is way too much interest in sterilizing nature. What's wrong with some dirt on a beak, or a missing feather??? That is nature. That is the story. There are many things that are perfect in nature, like the ability of the bumblebee to fly and the cryptic coloration of so many animals, but don't assume that our perception of perfect is actually that.

[Danny J Brown]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown

Ofer, you started this post so you are most responsible for keeping it civil, in my opinion. Using hot button words like "claim" and "brag" are not conducive to an intelligent debate.

DB

[Desmond Chan]

What if I snap the shutter with my camera. BUT the RAW processing and cropping and -rule allowed changes/processing- are done by someone else? Is it still my image, and to enter in contests?
Tom

Firstly, there are actually photographers who let other to post-process their images. Could be because they're busy with other aspects of their photography business or they just knew other could post-process better than they do more effectively and efficiently. In cases like that, the photographer hires some Photoshop professional to processes the images according to the photographer's instructions to get the results the photographer wants. It's still the photographer's image.

Secondly, take a look at this recent case:
http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

Andy Baio processed and used Jay Maisel's photo without consulting Jay. Jay sued Andy and won.

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer, you started this post so you are most responsible for keeping it civil, in my opinion. Using hot button words like "claim" and "brag" are not conducive to an intelligent debate.

DB

Danny, have I missed the news that you were nominated as a moderator lately...?