Image Manipulation

[Wildieswife]

Thought I’d start this as I was having a discussion with Mark, on the insect thread, about image manipulation.

I’m all for using it as long as it it’s made obvious that this is what you’ve done and there is a reason for it. If we have all this wonderful post processing at our fingertips why not take advantage?

Three examples.

This first was done as I wanted to combine different greenfinch poses in an amusing situation.





The next two are part of a series I did on my view of man’s relationship with Nature. I used colour selection to emphasise the point.

Here I took chrysali from a butterfly house and put them on a branch in front of a building in Liverpool.





This is a double layered cheat – the pheasant was a stack of 4 images I stitched together. I selected him and put him with an image of a fellow student on one of my C&G photographic courses. You get all ages on courses these days - I wasn't the oldest at late 50s !




All comments/ images welcome.


Pat

[mvanrheenen]

Well, it's a matter of what you think of image manipulation. I do the standard stuff like cropping etc. I never do the kind of manipulation you show here. It can look natural as you see in the first or not. If it looks artificial I don't care, because it's obvious. If it looks all natural I don't care as long as it is mentioned.

That being said, you have great manipulation skills Pat! Wonderful job on the first and third image. The second is a bit surreal, but that´s probably me

Mark

[Ken M]

Love the third.

[Greg Beetham]

I don’t mind fun images as long as they aren’t meant to deceive. The Finches are enjoyable and the chrysalises are sort of oddish but ok in an abstract kind of way and Pheasant one is great, but I would maybe worry a little about one that is 2/3rd the size of a Cassowary...that is some serious Pheasant.
Greg

[aster]

Hi Pat,

l enjoy photo manipulations. I think I've seen your first photo a while ago and I Iiked it. The second is more of an artistic approach and has a fine message. Like the other members, l like your subjects and your skill in the third one.

Thanks for sharing,

Yildiz

[Wildieswife]

Thanks all for the considered replies. Much appreciated. That pheasant was ENORMOUS, Greg (not really) ' Willing suspension of disbelief ' is required on all


Pat

[jbtaylor]

"I’m all for using it as long as it it’s made obvious that this is what you’ve done and there is a reason for it."

Why? I need no such justification to view and enjoy these fine images. Learning the back story and techniques used may increase my appreciation but it is not required.
Fine efforts, all.
One comment, the flash (or reflection) that I see in the chrysali takes the natural out of nature.

[Wildieswife]

"I’m all for using it as long as it it’s made obvious that this is what you’ve done and there is a reason for it."
One comment, the flash (or reflection) that I see in the chrysali takes the natural out of nature.

Well spotted and quite right, too I should have remedied this. It's not possible to use sophisticated lighting in a public butterfly house but that's no excuse for letting it pass when I'd spent so long processing other stuff!

Pat

[bfitzgerald]

I have quite strong views on this subject

Manipulation is down to taste as said if it's for fun and they are your images then it's up to you what you do to them.
I've no problems with that it's choice and we all have our own take.

As for "normal" post processing I've no problems with that either contrast, cropping, adjusting WB exposure etc all fair game. I don't call this manipulation though enhancement would be a better word.

Looking at my own work I point blank refuse to add/remove elements to a photo, be it a rock in a scenic shot or add another sky. I don't feel that this is in keeping with the spirit of the photo, which is not meant to be a 100% accurate photo of a scene (exposure and other factors can influence things greatly) but it is "keeping it real" and not deceptive in any way (ie I won't make an India summer shot out of a dull day shot!). It's all too easy to try to manufacture the "perfect photo" be it a person shot or a landscape one. I think it's a slippery slope and ultimately not satisfying for the photographer.

One of the problems I think with photography is overdoing things, be it a CPL always on the lens dialled up to max on every shot, to a wedding shoot with every frame showing very strong vignetting, or those selective colour shots that were so popular years ago. Too much and too often makes things a little boring and predictable. Be it over use of processing or filters or tiresomely following the same routine for every shot.

Just because we have a swiss army knife of tools, does not mean every one has to be used!

That's my take anyway. I'm sure not everyone will agree.

[gio67]

"I’m all for using it as long as it it’s made obvious that this is what you’ve done and there is a reason for it."

Why? I need no such justification to view and enjoy these fine images. Learning the back story and techniques used may increase my appreciation but it is not required.
Fine efforts, all.
One comment, the flash (or reflection) that I see in the chrysali takes the natural out of nature.

well if it's not obvious then you would never know.
manipulation for want of a better word (artistic approach is nearer the mark) is something people do to enhance their work, they are using this artistic approach to turn the photograph into something that never represented what they seen but how they would have liked it to be, some photographers like to try and represent what they see,others use their skills to enhance it,as far as I'm concerned there is no right or wrong here.It needs no reason or explanation,you either like it or you don't, but at least accept it as someones work without bitching and that they are primarily trying to please themselves and perhaps a few others will enjoy their work.
I personally do very little other than crop and maybe a bit of saturation,that's my choice, but I still enjoy all the other stuff without explanation. why the need for an explanation ?,the photograph is in front of you, interpret it yourself if it's so important to you,or just enjoy the moment.As for taking the natural out of nature,that is just plain finnicky, the fiinches do not look natural all together on the branch,but it's a great example of the species as are the chrysalis.

it,s all good work WW keep it coming

[Wildieswife]

As said - this is something I enjoy doing and I think there's as much skill involved in post processing as there is in camera work. What about lighting? Is that allowed or should we just rely on camera settings?

If people don't want to do manipulation that's fine by me but, being from an artistic background (as is OH,) I find it quite natural to want to improve an image however I want to. It's all part of the art of photography and has always been so - if you look at photography as an art form.

Photography isn't just about setting the camera and it never has been.

I note with amusement that no one had a pop at David Kilpatrick HERE when he used quite extensive Post Processing skills to enhance this very effective image, did they?

Pat

[MickH]

As said - this is something I enjoy doing and I think there's as much skill involved in post processing as there is in camera work. What about lighting? Is that allowed or should we just rely on camera settings?

If people don't want to do manipulation that's fine by me but, being from an artistic background (as is OH,) I find it quite natural to want to improve an image however I want to. It's all part of the art of photography and has always been so - if you look at photography as an art form.

Photography isn't just about setting the camera and it never has been.

I note with amusement that no one had a pop at David Kilpatrick HERE when he used quite extensive Post Processing skills to enhance this very effective image, did they?

Pat

Just to get my two pennyworth into the right thread really. IMHO it's quite simple.

If your picture purports to show the scientific truth (as is expected in most Natural History photography) then manipulation should not occur. By manipulation I mean adding/subtracting/changing things. I don't mean contrast control/spotting etc.

If the image is not intended as a scientific record then anything goes provided that the manipulated image isn't passed off as a scientific record.

Whether you do it or don't is personal choice.

MickH

[Wildieswife]

Just to get my two pennyworth into the right thread really. IMHO it's quite simple.

If your picture purports to show the scientific truth (as is expected in most Natural History photography) then manipulation should not occur. By manipulation I mean adding/subtracting/changing things. I don't mean contrast control/spotting etc.

If the image is not intended as a scientific record then anything goes provided that the manipulated image isn't passed off as a scientific record.

Whether you do it or don't is personal choice.

MickH

Cheers, Mick

Now here's a good one ..............

I have quite strong views on this subject
Looking at my own work I point blank refuse to add/remove elements to a photo, be it a rock in a scenic shot or add another sky. I don't feel that this is in keeping with the spirit of the photo, which is not meant to be a 100% accurate photo of a scene (exposure and other factors can influence things greatly) but it is "keeping it real" and not deceptive in any way (ie I won't make an India summer shot out of a dull day shot!). It's all too easy to try to manufacture the "perfect photo" be it a person shot or a landscape one. I think it's a slippery slope and ultimately not satisfying for the photographer.

bfitzgerald - Hypothethetically, you are offered a fee 0f £5,000 (yeah, I know in yer dreams) to photograph a complete image of Our Lady and St Nicholas's Parish Church in Liverpool, showing the surrounding environment.

The church grounds are very confined and try as you might you can't get far enough away with your 17-50mm to even fit it all the church. You can't afford to hire a helicopter, either.

You could use an ultra wide lens but, as this has to be a fairly accurate architectural shot the resulting converging parallels will be horrendous. Do you use Post Processing skills to try to correct these by Edit>transform etc or refused to alter you resulting image or is this a step too far against your principals of over manipulation? I doubt you could fix the necessary distortion of the short FL and besides.............
this option isn't available as you haven't got an ultra wide angle lens, anyway.

Possible solution - take a 76 image layered vertical and horizontal stitch with the lens at 50mm to reduce the distortion as much as possible. When the images are combined in PS ( a very lengthy process), you have to use Photoshop again to correct, as much as possible, the resulting distortions.

Do you do this or do you refuse the personal satisfaction of problem solving and turn down the £5,000 because it compromises you principals??

Here's my 'cheat' that has got the church in, the contrasting modern buildings and a little of the surroundings, too. Pity I didn't get £5,000 for it. Or even £100....



With all good fun poking and the best of intentions

Pat

[bfitzgerald]

I do have an UWA but only for 35mm at the moment
I never said I had a problem with corrective post processing and I don't have issues with distortion/perspective correction either.

Your idea of manipulation is not the same as mine. Corrective post processing is entirely different to making up a picture or adding/removing elements. I gave an example as a rendered sky or a sky from another image (entirely pointless IMO) or taking/adding things to a shot to try to manufacture the perfect picture.

This can cause problems for others too:
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/02/lan ... h-shoppin/

Everyone has their own take on this, but I do think post processing has become a crutch for some photographers and they are too dependent on it. Beyond that Landscape photography (being specific) has become quite tiresome with purple ND grads and misty/foggy water shots being the norm (nothing wrong with that but boring after a while). I get less keepers than others because I take the time to get the light right, but I get a LOT more satisfaction knowing that it's "real" and not made up on my computer. I'm not against processing, but many are suckers for over processing to "sex things up". If I limit things I do that because it pushes me in a direction that I like, it makes me work harder.

Being out shooting is a hell of a lot more fun than sitting in front of a pc

[gio67]

Everyone has their own take on this, but I do think post processing has become a crutch for some photographers and they are too dependent on it.

then you should lump in, in camera meters,autofocus,digital photography,flash and so on and so on, where do you stop ?,where it suits you!
photography is all geared to the the finished product, nobody wants to see your camera or tripod,or you messing around trying to get a good vantage point,nor do they want to see you at a computer, it's the end product that interests everybody and that end product is the photograph.,no matter how much artistic licence was used (or how little as the case may be ) it's that final photo that you are judged upon and your work stands or fails by that.