Image Manipulation

[Greg Beetham]

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.

I think or suspect strongly that there is a much greater chance for images to be altered after the camera record was established now whereas back in the film era there was much less. Like where is the equivalent to film now? The mobile phone maybe? But even there the thing has manufacturer presets that enhance and produce heavily saturated carny colours that people seem to like so even though an image might not get tampered with as often as those from a modern digital camera the original image from a phone is a questionable version of reality to begin with.
I think courts would be much less willing to accept a digital image as evidence than one made with film for example, video from a digicam or phone maybe more acceptable than digital still images from an SLR or P&S which is in itself a loss of credibility and probably another reason why photography is more frivolous now than before. Would anyone have taken hundreds and hundreds of shots in an average afternoon with film on the offchance that a few of them might be good? There would be very few who could afford to do that with film as often as people do with digital, so in my view digital imaging has not only lost credibility but cheapened photography in general too.

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.

I would have to say there are two avenues of thought here, is it ones intention to create a record as close as possible to what the eye can see taking the limitations of the recording media into account or is it ones intention to create pictorial art? And should there be some kind of choice available in the camera to establish that choice in the first place?
The first choice would most likely result in an increase in photographic skills and the second would most likely enhance ones PP abilities.
Also the first choice has the possibility (depending on how accessible it is to be modified after the fact) of being less deceptive.

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,

Deception is not a consideration if a particular image is intended to be pictorial art, then the image is self-explanatory and can be evaluated from that aspect, where digital photography suffers credibility loss is when pictorial art is passed off as a pictorial record.

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

Some good points there Sury, I’m only discussing the whole thing from an abstract point of view, I don’t really mind if everyone just does their own thing in reality, it has zero impact on me and my photography whatever people choose to do with their own.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

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

I've no problems with a photo stitch, but taking bits of another photo to "sex up" another one is not something I would ever do, I never remove or add elements to a picture because I think it is admitting you didn't do the job properly at the point of capture. And yes I think it's cheating

PP is down to taste I'm not against it as such just there are limits. As for killing fun, I quite liked formula 1 for a long time but lost interest rapidly with electronic driver aids at one point, were IMO taking things too far. Traction control, launch control stuff like that killed the sport IMO. I prefer my racing Ayrton Senna style, white knuckle and complete driver commitment. Pure racing

Photography is similar to me (sounds odd but bear with me) the point of capture is the most exciting moment, I've no desire to spoil that with playing to a crowd/audience. It makes life harder no questions, at one stage I completely banned myself from using any filters at all (probably going a bit too far there though I still refuse to use coloured ND grads) Reading the light just right, and making the choice to take the photo, you simply cannot compete with that feeling in my view.

It's a bit like mountain climbers who go up Everest some with Oxygen, some without. I guess the ones who go without are trying to push themselves harder and increase the challenge. I don't consider a tweak or normal image adjustments as a problem either fine tuning your photo is par for the course. Other areas like dodge and burn, I don't do that often myself it's a fair enough tweak...but again many people take things too far. A major d&b can look quite awful IMO

[Wildieswife]

This discussion is interesting. I always find it more interesting if there's some evidence that it is not just theory but has some basis in practicality. Not just 'armchair photography'.

Photography is similar to me (sounds odd but bear with me) the point of capture is the most exciting moment, I've no desire to spoil that with playing to a crowd/audience. It makes life harder no questions, at one stage I completely banned myself from using any filters at all (probably going a bit too far there though I still refuse to use coloured ND grads) Reading the light just right, and making the choice to take the photo, you simply cannot compete with that feeling in my view.

I still can't find much of your work? Perhaps my searching techniques aren't up to much and the googling of your name wasn't helpful Shame - I'd've liked to have seen how this purist stuff looks and how skilful the camera work is without PPing.

Other areas like dodge and burn, I don't do that often myself it's a fair enough tweak...but again many people take things too far. A major d&b can look quite awful IMO

So I take it you don't like Ansell Adams or W. Eugene Smith ? They D&Bed very extensively and the drama is evident. They did it well, though.(All provided it wasn't a dark room lackey that did it ) The operative word with all PPing is 'well'.

Again - as long as any major manipulation is owned up to I can't see the problem. I have a friend who does the most amazing digital 'art' images. Of course it's obvious they are 'cheats' so what's the problem? It takes a great deal of skill and knowledge of PS techniques as well as an ability to take the original images, although many backgrounds/textures are shared amongst the digi art people. I've had a play myself but I consider my examples aren't good enough for public display as yet

Pat

[bfitzgerald]

It's not about what other people do, but a personal choice. No I'm not overly fond of Ansel Adams I respect him and his own approach but if we all take the Ansel route then we're pretty much doomed to clone his work and not follow your own path.

You should feel entirely comfortable with the approach that YOU like, and not worry about what I think. My take is just my own personal path I decide to follow.

[gio67]

do not judge a fish by it's ability to climb trees

[johnstra]

I enjoyed all of these great pics. Image manipulation has been with photography from its very inception. Google Henry Peach Robinson, Oscar Reijlander or Bill Brandt. By the way even Bill Brandt's early documentary photography was not entirely straight. Did you know that the maid in his famous picture of a maid running the bath was actually his sister? There are many kinds of photography. If you alter a wildlife, documentary or record photograph then you are going to be in trouble but creative photography is a different matter altogether. In this case you don't generally want to show what something looked like, you want to show it as you saw it or see it, which is quite different.
As a matter of interest many amateur photographers are now entering 'wildlife' pictures into exhibitions that I know are taken in captive situations. That is dishonest in my opinion.

[Wildieswife]

I enjoyed all of these great pics. Image manipulation has been with photography from its very inception. Google Henry Peach Robinson, Oscar Reijlander or Bill Brandt. By the way even Bill Brandt's early documentary photography was not entirely straight. Did you know that the maid in his famous picture of a maid running the bath was actually his sister? There are many kinds of photography. If you alter a wildlife, documentary or record photograph then you are going to be in trouble but creative photography is a different matter altogether. In this case you don't generally want to show what something looked like, you want to show it as you saw it or see it, which is quite different.
As a matter of interest many amateur photographers are now entering 'wildlife' pictures into exhibitions that I know are taken in captive situations. That is dishonest in my opinion.

Good points. Great points. Image manipulation has been here since photography's inception and wildlife integrity should be maintained.

And the best of what you say -

"creative photography is a different matter altogether. In this case you don't generally want to show what something looked like, you want to show it as you saw it or see it, which is quite different."

This is the moot point. Interpretation is all.

A camera and post processing are tools to use to convey the way we, as individuals, see the world. When I was at art college my best friend was a girl who had an eye cataract. It was generally accepted that her individualistic interpretation of colours and perspective was accepted as valid. As cameras have different lenses so had she.
The truth is not just the way a camera/ a lens/ the light/ the opportunity/ PP skills / an individual sees the world - but the acceptance of all these things and the way we interpret them.


Pat

[bfitzgerald]

These are good reads

http://www.sevenbyfive.net/photos/the-t ... ur-images/

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/03/ ... photoshop/

This is where a lot of people fall down, they go all guns blazing and OTT for processing. Processing itself is not the problem, it's the cliché overuse of it, and lacking in skill and restraint. HDR is a classic example often done to extremes it can look quite awful, but done with care and not over processing it can be an effective way to increase DR.

And cliché kills creativity big time if you are taking foggy/misty water landscape shots (another over abused technique) all the time you're missing out on other shots. That's not limited to PP either that's an in camera technique which is very popular for scenic photographers, which is why I avoid it like the plague!