Image Manipulation

[Wildieswife]

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

Dusty

well , "you started out with nothing" and now your "trying to make some sense of it all"

"why did you come here tonight ?" you probably don't know


as for the thread, it's an irresistible force meeting an immovable object

Well I hope I'm the irresistible one! No flaming on my part - I'm an easy going but rational lady. I'm a mod on another forum so it's unlikely I'd be a trouble maker. The thread was mainly supposed to be an invite for others to put manipulated images on - if there are others who do it.

We all have our opinion but I don't like people being too intransigent or making contentious statements.

Now - that song is OK but I prefer more off the wall stuff.......... Hehehehe

A sense of humour is a necessity in life - like my leg pull about 'the other' bfitzgerald.

Pat

[Greg Beetham]

Hmm maybe we need another forum called ‘Photo art’ then anything that has been altered or manipulated into non reality can go there.
But that raises the question of how much manipulation is required to render a given image as ‘Photo art’ does normal PP qualify? should we only submit images as taken straight from the camera in ‘Give it your best shot’?
That requirement would affect me a tad because a lot of the time I just use the camera jpeg (too time consuming to mess with raw files), especially as I set all in camera embellishments to ‘off’ or ‘zero’ on all of my cameras, then I usually just use the auto enhance in Elements, which doesn’t appear to do a huge amount of PP-ing. (Sometimes I ‘revert’ the image if I’m not happy with auto and use the highlight and shadow controls and the contrast and sharpening manually)

I very rarely crop anything it’s mostly as taken.

What about Pano’s? I think the end result of doing a Pano can be regarded as a normal photo provided it’s not distorted too much beyond 1X perspective, i.e. (eye view) and the vanishing point is at the horizon or close to it, such as using a 50mm lens on FF or a 35mm lens on APS-C.
Using wide angle lenses for landscapes and panos brings the vanishing point much closer than the horizon thus making close things much larger than normal and more distant items much smaller than reality, which to my mind is a distortion of reality, pedantically such images belong in ‘Photo art.’

When I take a scene or pano with a zoom I nearly always use the 35mm zoom setting for APS-C so the viewer knows that what he/she is seeing is reasonably close to the actual scene perspective wise and contains very little perspective distortion.
There are exceptions I think, such as Pat’s photo of the church; that one looks like it did need a wider angle lens than normal perspective, the facing wall is curved, I could be wrong but I don’t think that wall is curved in reality.
Perhaps a wider lens would have reduced the number (and work) of frames needed and also the swivel point of the pan could more ideally have been under the objective and not under the camera, doing that reduces the sweep distortion effect. (unless it was and the situation is/was even worse than I think it was).

A possible alternative would be to use a smaller format camera that is capable of taking decent photos, from possibly an even closer (and lower) position to make the church block the view of those awful background buildings.
Architectural type photos are something that does often benefit from using a wider angle lens rather than a normal perspective lens, they allow one to get closer to the subject and produce a more dramatic perspective due to the much closer vanishing point, and that probably does not qualify as ‘Photo art’ in one sense and does in another if strict demarcation is applied. (divergence from normal eye view and perspective). Wide angle plus shift is something I have yet to dabble with but could be an even further alternative worth exploring.

The really useful application of wide angle lenses for me is in interior shots where they can make a space look more ‘spacious’ if you like and give an impression of depth that actually isn’t there in reality, great for commercial realty work I think, but not something I would use habitually elsewhere, unless there was no alternative.

So where does that leave us, back at a new Forum reserved for ‘Photo art’ and leave it up to people to decide whether a particular image diverges from reality enough that it should be placed there I guess, and reserve the ‘Give it Your Best Shot’ forum for images that depict nature more or less naturally OR more closely resembles what the eye could see at the time the shot was taken.
Greg

[Wildieswife]

Thankyou for your very thorough analysis, there, Greg. I agree with much that you say regarding the blurred edges of ‘purist’ photography. I hope you don’t mind if I break down what you say to reply thoroughly with my viewpoints?

Hmm maybe we need another forum called ‘Photo art’ then anything that has been altered or manipulated into non reality can go there.
But that raises the question of how much manipulation is required to render a given image as ‘Photo art’ does normal PP qualify? Should we only submit images as taken straight from the camera in ‘Give it your best shot’?
That requirement would affect me a tad because a lot of the time I just use the camera jpeg (too time consuming to mess with raw files), especially as I set all in camera embellishments to ‘off’ or ‘zero’ on all of my cameras, then I usually just use the auto enhance in Elements, which doesn’t appear to do a huge amount of PP-ing. (Sometimes I ‘revert’ the image if I’m not happy with auto and use the highlight and shadow controls and the contrast and sharpening manually)

Firstly – I don’t think a small friendly forum would a separate section for ‘Photo art’ and I’m not a fan of segregation, anyway and to me, unless the image taken is for purely scientific purposes, all photography should be aesthetic in that an attempt has been made to give a wow factor - from framing /use of light etc. right through to using an image to convey a conception by the ‘artist’ behind the camera lens.

Also I take on board your point about shooting jpg. From a purist’s point of view this could be construed as cheating – after all film cameras didn’t do the PPing in camera, did they? It was down to the togger/processor to do that in the darkroom. Shooting jpg is very handy for saving time – especially in the commercial area of photography and I wouldn’t condemn it. Personally I like more control over the PPing unless it’s for our dog portrait work where the company want jpg – for the same reasons of expedience. Also most competitions ask for RAW files if you’re lucky enough to get through the first stages. So…. Is shooting jpg a ‘cheat’ as the togger is not using his skills but relying on an automated function adding elements that wouldn’t be there in the original scene?

What about Pano’s? I think the end result of doing a Pano can be regarded as a normal photo provided it’s not distorted too much beyond 1X perspective, i.e. (eye view) and the vanishing point is at the horizon or close to it, such as using a 50mm lens on FF or a 35mm lens on APS-C.
Using wide angle lenses for landscapes and panos brings the vanishing point much closer than the horizon thus making close things much larger than normal and more distant items much smaller than reality, which to my mind is a distortion of reality, pedantically such images belong in ‘Photo art.’

I agree – using UWA lenses could be construed as ‘photo art’. Using an awful lot of lenses could be.

When I take a scene or pano with a zoom I nearly always use the 35mm zoom setting for APS-C so the viewer knows that what he/she is seeing is reasonably close to the actual scene perspective wise and contains very little perspective distortion.
There are exceptions I think, such as Pat’s photo of the church; that one looks like it did need a wider angle lens than normal perspective, the facing wall is curved, I could be wrong but I don’t think that wall is curved in reality.
Perhaps a wider lens would have reduced the number (and work) of frames needed and also the swivel point of the pan could more ideally have been under the objective and not under the camera, doing that reduces the sweep distortion effect. (unless it was and the situation is/was even worse than I think it was).

I’ll get back to the curved wall but I agree this isn’t a true reflection of the church.

A possible alternative would be to use a smaller format camera that is capable of taking decent photos, from possibly an even closer (and lower) position to make the church block the view of those awful background buildings.

Now we get to somewhere where need to explain myself. My main aim with this shot was to include the “awful background buildings”. I agree that they’re awful but I wanted the concept of old and new. The church, in parts, has stood there for over 800 years. Now it is, in it's tiny garden, a small island within a vast sea of hulking modernity that dwarfs what was once an imposing edifice. Even the famous ‘Liver Building’ was only built in the last century.

I wanted to use the incongruity of this situation to perhaps highlight the position of religion in our modern society. As I’m not religious in any way shape or form this is an external observation rather than one driven by involvement. I am, however pretty ‘spiritual’ and I try to bring this into my images. Many have been thought out as regards ‘meaning’. This is a result of my ‘arty farty’ upbringing and education and may not appeal to all but I can guarantee that the most moving of images have a message to get across - whether openly or subliminally. As regards the curved wall on my church I could have altered this but decided I would leave it still curving upwards, yet grounded and echoing the shapes of the modern mess behind.

Architectural type photos are something that does often benefit from using a wider angle lens rather than a normal perspective lens, they allow one to get closer to the subject and produce a more dramatic perspective due to the much closer vanishing point, and that probably does not qualify as ‘Photo art’ in one sense and does in another if strict demarcation is applied. (divergence from normal eye view and perspective). Wide angle plus shift is something I have yet to dabble with but could be an even further alternative worth exploring.

You could also use a plate camera – if you could afford one.

So where does that leave us, back at a new Forum reserved for ‘Photo art’ and leave it up to people to decide whether a particular image diverges from reality enough that it should be placed there I guess, and reserve the ‘Give it Your Best Shot’ forum for images that depict nature more or less naturally OR more closely resembles what the eye could see at the time the shot was taken.
Greg

As said – separatism wouldn’t be practical so perhaps we should be a little more tolerant as to what we deem ‘acceptable’ in photography. If the vast majority of people don’t like manipulation then that thread will die a death anyway and if they don’t give a tinker’s cuss as long as the image is enjoyable then why not
Sometimes people who are photographic ‘purists’ are a little like those religious people who try to convert you all the time because they are so utterly convinced that theirs is the right path.
I can more or less always tell when an image has been faked, how it has been faked and as long as it hasn’t won awards and money by deception I really don’t care!

Personally – I just really enjoy taking images, making images and looking at other people’s images. Especially when they show artistry and skill, convey a sense of place or mood and especially when conceptualism is evident.

Pat

[Greg Beetham]

Yeah ok Pat I get your point about images being images first and foremost and it doesn’t matter if they depict reality or not you just look at the image and appreciate it for what it is and I guess that approach will suit most people but probably not all. I don’t get overly pedantic about image manipulation myself, I only use jpegs because it saves me time and I do actually use RAW’s sometimes as well.

I was taking both viewpoints on board when I wrote the previous post because I started to wonder if image art didn’t deserve its own forum so it can be viewed from that standpoint without any danger of misrepresentation.

Then there is the follow-on consideration too, how many images would continue to be posted in the ‘Give it Your Best Shot’ forum, or (most interestingly) how many would voluntarily get posted in ‘Photo Art’ or would that forum prove to be the most popular?
I suppose some images would be suspect too, just like how many drug cheats are there in a bike race? a couple, a few, or lots?

There is always the possibility that the ‘Photo Art’ forum would get few postings and people would just continue to use the ‘Give it Your Best Shot’ forum instead without bothering to evaluate whether an image belongs in one or the other.
So I think I’ll bow out of the discussion because there probably would be as many arguments pro and con as there are people in the entire forum, because in reality EVERY photo is art not just the ones with extra manipulation and/or at the extreme end of the scale complete fakes.

The difficult part is at what point does one decide (and who is going to do the deciding, the author, or a mod or what?) if a given image has crossed over a blurry line, pretty soon you would have to have a forum for every gradient of image, i.e. Real...fairly real...so so...slightly off...a bit further off...really far out, and so on.
Greg

Ps A thought; I guess camera manufacturers could introduce a ‘Locked mode’ where the camera does minimal auto enhancing to an image that is taken by a photographer in that mode and there is no PP possible afterwards because the image is ‘locked’ and that image is identifiable when viewed as being taken in ‘Locked mode’ either in the Exif or in the file name.

The problem with that is, how long would it be before some hack was produced to break into ‘Locked mode’ to do some little extra PP-ing and then re-lock it again...and not only that, different camera manufacturers would most likely try to outdo one another with their version of a slightly better looking ‘Locked mode’ and that would most likely lead to a complex system of controlling the definition and the creation of standards of exactly what constitutes a ‘Locked mode’ so that camera manufacturers, photographers and image consumers are all operating on a level playing field when it’s desirable that an image be as close to reality as possible. (which realistically isn’t possible anyway, so far, because there isn’t an image taking system that can re-produce the latitude that the human eye possesses).

I wonder how many people would use ‘Locked mode’. (Imagining for a moment it could be made to work and keep working) Barry would, and I probably would use it often so there is at least two out of how many photographers in the world?...come on camera manufacturers stop making frivolous stuff and give us two a real camera.

[dewarp]

A forum already exists for "Photo Art". It's entitled "Effects and Art Techniques". Not used much though!

regards - Peter

[Wildieswife]

Thanks again Greg - and again I agree pretty much with you. There should be a camera for people to keep it pure - the option to use it shouldn't be compulsory but it would provide another area for the purists to enjoy without feeling disgruntled about whether an image is 'real' or not because the data re this would be left intact on the image. Then you could have a whole new forum where you felt safe in the knowledge that no-one was breaking the rules or 'cheating'. I think it's a great idea! In the meantime you could use a pinhole camera - now that is purist and there are people that only shoot with these. Take the lens off your digis and drill a hole in your body cap or buy a pinhole kit. Or.... get a point and shoot with a fixed aperture of f10?

Unfortunately for some of you, people will always want to mess around with images - they always have and some great work has been done by some truly great masters of photography.

Photography is light and a camera is a tool. Post processing is also a tool. How the photographer uses those tools is entirely up to her in much the same way that an artist chooses which media, which brush and which painting technique she wants. As I said - great image making involves aesthetics as well as technical knowledge. What the photographer is thinking when she looks at the image can also be portrayed by use of symbolism, a certain glance that is expertly caught or the way the exposure and PPing is used. When we dodge and burn (on an image I think is worth it I do this in great detail) we can alter the whole feel of the image and bring out details that perhaps could never be seen any other way. If you are a good dodger and burner you can even sharpen/make contrast this way. Look at Ansel Adam's work - he most probably had someone else doing this in his lab. The results are fantastic.

A forum already exists for "Photo Art". It's entitled "Effects and Art Techniques". Not used much though!

regards - Peter

I didn't realise this! I'm pretty new to the forum and hadn't noticed this area.

Now I feel that I can't put my images on 'Give it your best shot' without feeling I am offending a section of the members who have probably been here much longer than me.

Most of my images are only PPed in the standard ways but will I now have to proclaim this every time I put an image on?
I'm in a real quandary now and it's not pleasant.

Pat

[bfitzgerald]

I don't think it's a case of "black and white" purist or PP guru. There is a fairly comfortable middle ground that many people occupy where post processing is just fine, but there is normal PP and all guns blazing mega PP.

The last type does not appeal. I read a blog once from a landscape shooter and he said you can't avoid processing whatever you do. To a point he's right, if I shoot jpeg the camera processes it (and I can influence that to a point), if I shoot film I either process it myself or get a lab to do it and you can change things with developers and various papers. On the other hand it doesn't mean I'm going to move that rock, or add another sky just to make the perfect shot either. They are quiet different.

Coloured ND grads never appealed much to me despite being very popular with some shooters. It's just a personal approach and choice we all to various degree make. I've a lot of respect for studio shooters, but I have no interest in a conveyor belt type of photography with a fixed lighting/backgrounds with interchangeable subjects. Again just a personal view. We each do what we like on this one.

I'm not out to convince anyone my thinking is the right way, it's nothing more than my own opinion.

On the back of cameracraft second issue is a great shot of Patrick Moore, liked the shot very much. But the photographer put a star sky background in there from another shot and that took some of the edge away for me. I describe myself as a "realist" photographer and that means not purist but "keeping it real" the decision to not add and remove parts of a shot is one I made some time ago and I feel it's working for me. What works for me might not work for you.

[jbtaylor]

"Now I feel that I can't put my images on 'Give it your best shot' without feeling I am offending a section of the members who have probably been here much longer than me."

If it is your best shot, then put it here. Any offense taken by other members is self inflicted.
Keep up the good work.

[Greg Beetham]

Pat you do your own thing, which actually is a pretty high class act, (I for one won’t be offended) I’ve been just mulling over the options, a bit of inane banter, kicking the can down the road, chewing the fat, the whole thing wasn’t in the capital offence category...from me at least, I probably should have made it more obvious.
My concern was there is an element of truth to be had in the loss of realism in photography generally in the digital age it’s much more widespread than in film days I think, mainly because it was much more difficult and required great skill to manipulate photos made with film, now just about anyone can do minor or major alterations if they wish.
What I was suggesting was just a mode maybe in the menus somewhere that anyone could select if they wanted to portray some subject as realistically as possible (with the limitations of today’s image capturing devices taken into account of course).
I mean there are a whole bunch of modes on the dial already that are there for specific types of capture so one more won’t matter, especially if it’s buried in the menus somewhere.
I got to thinking that maybe there is a place in this day and age to get back to realism in some small way, so maybe instead of a ‘Photo art’ forum we need a ‘boring as hell’ forum for some to play in occasionally.
Maybe DK could post a warning label header or footer that says ‘Beware all ye who enter here, contains photos that portray reality with very minimal PP, instant zeds.’
Greg
Ps its probably pointless doing it right now though because the camera mode along with verification doesn’t exist

[Wildieswife]

Thanks jbtaylor

I got to thinking that maybe there is a place in this day and age to get back to realism in some small way, so maybe instead of a ‘Photo art’ forum we need a ‘boring as hell’ forum for some to play in occasionally.
Maybe DK could post a warning label header or footer that says ‘Beware all ye who enter here, contains photos that portray reality with very minimal PP, instant zeds.’
Greg
Ps its probably pointless doing it right now though because the camera mode along with verification doesn’t exist

Now that's put a smile back on my face!


Pat

[gio67]

"you can only be offended with your consent" , the offended bus comes along regularly and if it wasn't on photography run , it would be lollipop sticks, 7 legged spiders or folding macrame wrongly, the title says "give it your best shot", now if you feel that the best shot out of your camera needed some cosmetic work to improve it and you never did it ,then surely it would not be your best shot ,
the finished product no matter how it was achieved is the photograph, keep them coming, some people need to get a life and let others get on with theirs, and that goes all ways.
bfitz is as much entitled to his opinion as we are to ours, but sometimes it seems like arguing for the sake of it when it would be better left alone.

"don't sweat the small stuff "

[Greg Beetham]

It doesn’t hurt to explore a topic, kick it around, poke it with a stick and see what eventuates; I thought there might have been a few more kickers and pokers with an opinion or suggestions on such a topic.
There is another aspect to the ‘Boring as Hell’ forum concept, it could put a bit of extra challenge back into photography, instead of having the fallback option of PP you have to ‘run what you brung’ and that might add a bit of spice to ones photography. It’s not easy getting that exposure and composure along with the correct focus point and WB all accurately happening at the same instant especially if you sometimes use daylight flash fill.
It might seem that with today’s cameras it would be a case of ‘how could you miss?’ but I think there is still plenty of opportunity for getting something wrong especially if you need an exposure from here and a focus point from there, change the framing after that and the WB needs a tweak as well.
Who knows it might present a new ‘forward to the past’ challenge that actually could re-invigorate photographic endeavours and skill levels, or it could just be a complete dud instead, but I think it has the potential to be kind of exciting...maybe. (Bracketing could be something the gets used a tad more than never perhaps)
Greg

[sury]

My concern was there is an element of truth to be had in the loss of realism in photography generally in the digital age it’s much more widespread than in film days I think, mainly because it was much more difficult and required great skill to manipulate photos made with film, now just about anyone can do minor or major alterations if they wish.

Greg,
I am curious to know why you think why there is a loss of realism in photography because more people can do the manipulations. Wouldn't it be other way around? Since the skilled set is now larger, isn't there a greater opportunity for realism to be kept? If there are more literate, we may have a greater educated population. Otherwise, we are confined to the realism of the few who are literate.

As for the discussion, I think we may have few autonomous threads (not independent) in the discussion. There is a purist view (what you get is what you see), there is a deception (I changed but claim it to be unchanged), and then there is "enhancement" (a subjective attribute at the least).
The blind spot with a purist view is that the means (camera, film, lens, processing etc) itself is not purest.
The deception has again two sub texts (legal and ethical). It may be legal to present a modified image without stating, but is it ethical?
Then there is image manipulation ("enhancement"), which in itself a creative process, using innovative techniques. But the notion is so subjective,
hence the raison d'être for all the photography fora and the threads like these. May be we can explore these dimensions and few other that we come up with, during our discussion.

With best regards,
Sury

[bfitzgerald]

Everyone has access to these tools where as in film days many did not. I don't have a problem with that, neither do most. But for myself I think there is a point where you can overuse the tools on hand. I have always had a preference to "less is more" myself, I think a lot of people do overdo the PP side of things. Subjective and open to debate of course.

I mentioned moving objects around or using another sky in a photo you took. I think that is going too far myself and panders to the "trying to get the perfect image" thinking. That is PP taken too far for my own tastes and unnecessary PP too, there is usually another angle available, skies vary a lot and waiting for the right one is part of the challenge. Take away that element and I think half the fun is gone.

[sury]

Barry,
I couldn't agree more. Many get confused between "lots of a good thing" and "too much of a good thing". It was like that for me too in the very
early days of my foray into digital photography since other than taking travel photos I hardly ever engaged in photography as a hobby.
Over a period I learned to appreciate how some get it right (amount of PP, composition etc). It is a journey one has to take, I suppose.

If I may ask, what aspect of combining elements from different photos that you do not like? I curious to know if it is the very process of combining that you find distasteful (my words, not yours), or the fidelity or loss thereof, of the image that affects you negatively. I am trying to get an understanding of
underpinnings of various positions taken here on this discussion which in my opinion give us a context to see a position.


With best regards,
Sury