Image Manipulation

[bfitzgerald]

I disagree because simply put anyone can sit at a computer and create an image to please a crowd, I fail to see the satisfaction in that myself.
There is a point where photography becomes digital art, and I for one don't really like it that much.

I'd prefer to take a less beaten path myself, each person decides what they want to do.

[gio67]

I disagree because simply put anyone can sit at a computer and create an image to please a crowd, I fail to see the satisfaction in that myself.
There is a point where photography becomes digital art, and I for one don't really like it that much.

I'd prefer to take a less beaten path myself, each person decides what they want to do.

as can anyone with a camera and training create great photos.
we are all that anyone

[bfitzgerald]

You're missing the point. It's not about the ability to create great photos, but with extreme image manipulation IMO an image is no longer a photograph and into the realm of digital art.
Which is a unique form on it's own, but suffers from being mocked by "real paint and brush artists", and disowned by "some photographers"
I'm not a purist, but there is a point where you go too far and end up with something that has very little to do with photography.

Everyone has access to these tools, that's not the problem. There is nothing new in image manipulation but there are ethical issues too:
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/27/jul ... photoshop/

I personally forbid adding and removing elements from a photograph (my own choice) because it's deceptive, encourages poor technique/laziness, and an image can be superb even with minor flaws. I'm not against post processing at all, but the moment you start playing the anything goes game you will end up playing to the crowd pleaser brigade. Bit like Avatar made to make money, rather than made to make a great movie.

Nobody should feel bad for making their own choices, but clearly there are limits to this and we should accept that. (where those limits are might vary from person to person)

[gio67]

the example you gave is a poor one, this was in an ad being used to persuade people to part with their cash for a product,and the effects of that product are being misrepresented,they are not saying that the photoshopping was wrong or that the photo is no good, in fact, it is the exact opposite,they are saying it is too good.
If I were Julia Roberts I know which one I would be hanging on my wall, and it certainly would not be the one that the guy got right in the camera.

[bfitzgerald]

In relation to portrait photography it is relevant (advert or not skin smoothing is common practise for some portrait photographers) so I can't see it's a poor example. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
If you become a slave to photoshop you will end up reliant on it, used selectively as a tool it can serve you well. I've no problems taking a less is more approach to post processing I think that is quite sensible.

Many new photographers run to software first before learning about light and photography at the point of capture, that's not good practise IMO and leads to sloppy technique. Also, take their computer away and they're lost..in some cases completely stuffed.

[gio67]

In relation to portrait photography it is relevant (advert or not skin smoothing is common practise for some portrait photographers) so I can't see it's a poor example. We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
If you become a slave to photoshop you will end up reliant on it, used selectively as a tool it can serve you well. I've no problems taking a less is more approach to post processing I think that is quite sensible.

Many new photographers run to software first before learning about light and photography at the point of capture, that's not good practise IMO and leads to sloppy technique. Also, take their computer away and they're lost..in some cases completely stuffed.

I agree to disagree no problem,after all photography is all about compromises.

but take a photographers camera away and he is stuffed too.
I use very little pp, just a crop and maybe a bit of saturation,but I don't get my knickers in a twist because someone else is using it,

ha ha, you'll be telling us next it's digital photography doping, ( DPD ) the Lance Armstrongs of the photography world beware, Barry is after you.

[bfitzgerald]

It's all down to taste isn't it.
I thought "The Swimmer" was an amazing movie, but I know people who think it's terrible.
I think Damien Hirst is talentless, devoid of any artistic vision, and has damn poor taste (IMO his work is not art but shock tactics). Yet some say he's a living genius. He made the times rich list (worth over £200 million they say), clearly I did not

Taste is a personal thing I guess

[gio67]

Taste is a personal thing I guess

that we agree on 100%, so we end on a good note.

[Wildieswife]

Bfitzgerald – with reference to my last post and your reply - you very adroitly avoided the main thrust of my argument and chose, instead, to dissemble with references to adjusting parallels and the definition of ‘manipulation’ versus ‘corrective PPing’.

I said, in my hypothetical situation, that adjusting parallels when you used an UWA lens would be impossible on this subject. I know – I’ve tried it. It doesn't work.

I also asked how far your principals are set in stone and you didn’t reply.

The main point of my argument referred to your objection to adding elements that were not in the original image. You also reiterated this objection to someone else later on. I'll refer to that later.

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.

The shot I asked you about didn’t just have corrective post processing – I had added 75 other elements to the original image. This is major, major manipulation and yet the resulting image is true to the church and grounds in question. How would you have taken this shot without major manipulation?

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.

You cannot make a bad image good by PPing. I agree some people don’t fully understand how to use PP properly and the results are not good. You can, however, make a good image great with PPing. Most of the great images you see have been expertly processed. I see so many that have something lacking because the author doesn’t know how to make the best of an image.
I agree with some of what you say - people tend to copy the ‘latest craze’ or use to death the latest gimmicky free actionrather than try to become innovative in their own way.

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

I agree! I’ve been out all day again in the howling cold doing what I love best! Next month I’ll be getting paid for it again
I’ve been trying to find some of your images here, in order to have have a greater understanding of your aim with your photography but I can find very little. Have you a website or Flckr account I can look at? I love looking at other people’s images.


Back to my main point about my image stitching which you didn’t seem to take on board………

I personally forbid adding and removing elements from a photograph (my own choice) because it's deceptive, encourages poor technique/laziness, and an image can be superb even with minor flaws

As I said – I added 75 separate elements to the original image and did extreme post processing to combine them. Does this mean I have poor technique and am I lazy? Or is the resulting, fairly accurate image, acceptable because it looks like it was.
Am I a poor photographer who has to rely on a computer or am I a fairly good (and qualified) photographer who makes the most of the equipment she has to make a representation by the only means possible in a certain situation?

My main point here is that it is not always beneficial, nor educational to be inflexible as regards photography, You can learn so much from experimentation.


Now to bed, for me! Tomorrow is another day and another chance to discover new things. My next major project (when I have chance) will be to learn how to video and edit in imovie.


Pat

[bfitzgerald]

Every decision in photography involves making a "choice" and more often than not it's not only about "what is in a photo", but what you decide to exclude. Composition by it's very nature is selective and it has to be to work. So limiting choices can be a creative angle as well as a restrictive one. Same for picking a lens very much a choice and limits things too depending on the lens

I'm not making personal comments regarding yourself so don't take my "lazy/sloppy technique" comments to heart but they do apply to some people who tend to dismiss the importance of basic photo technique and are pandered to by many published magazines (one reason I gave up buying most photo magazines)

I am not familiar with the Church or it's location so I can't say what is a realistic option for that type of shot, I can't say I'd have the patience to take 76 shots with a 50mm lens to avoid distortion. You have alternatives which could be using a higher position thus avoiding the perspective issue (ie if you are higher up it's not a problem) that may or may not be possible. You could just "live with" the distortion as it is I've taken shots before and not attempted to correct it. You could use software to correct this issue (one of the better uses of software)

Down to you really you might call it major manipulation but is there anything in the shot that is not there in real life? That's my point. I could add a few diving birds to spice up a few landscape shots, some folks do. I saw a great series of shots in woods once, but the guy decided to add some snazzy light shafts with photoshop and it killed it entirely for me (done with skill but didn't look right)

For every great shot that is "expertly processed" there are as many that don't rely on extensive or heavy processing to get there to. Being well processed isn't necessarily about being processed a lot. We all experiment but you have to follow what you like. I know some good shooters who point blank just do not do/take photos in "black and white" tragic in my view they're missing out big time, but you can't push folks down a path if they don't want to take it.

I might limit myself in some ways, but in other ways it gives me a path to take. I do experiment as do others, you get a feel for what you like doing and what you don't. If we all did super PP and foggy water shots with strict rule of thirds rules you'd be bored senseless. I frequently ignore rules hand holding for landscapes, avoiding obvious compositions, sometimes it works other times not.

In this game being qualified doesn't really mean that much people make their own way here either self taught or through class. The fact you got here is what counts not how you did it. I know a guy with a masters degree who can't change a plug fuse. I'm looking at results and not bits of paper.

[Wildieswife]

Bfitzgerald – as it’s obvious your views are set in stone we’ll have to agree to disagree. Each to their own. Photography should be fun and we each do it in our own ways, which is as it should be in the world.

I am, however a little concerned that you don’t seem to give me any credit. Don’t worry – in a male dominated area it’s often the case! ☺

I am not familiar with the Church or it's location so I can't say what is a realistic option for that type of shot is. .

You could always take my word for it !! I made it quite clear. There weren’t any other alternatives.

You have alternatives which could be using a higher position thus avoiding the perspective issue (ie if you are higher up it's not a problem) that may or may not be possible.

I am aware of perspectives in photography. I ruled it out in the original hypothesis, if you remember.

You could just "live with" the distortion as it is. I've taken shots before and not attempted to correct it.

Infamy infamy!!! Leaving in converging parallels for a commercial shot is tantamount to leaving dust bunnies there and pieces of fluff on a product shot!!!

You could use software to correct this issue (one of the better uses of software)

I said that wouldn’t work about 3 times.

In this game being qualified doesn't really mean that much people make their own way here either self taught or through class. The fact you got here is what counts not how you did it. I know a guy with a masters degree who can't change a plug fuse. I'm looking at results and not bits of paper.

Now this could be interpreted as pretty offensive. I'm hoping you probably didn't mean it as such?
There are plenty of good photographers out there that are self taught and as long as I can see they are self critical, have high standards, listen to criticism and their work is good I would never ever take that away from them or treat them any differently to someone who had a degree or other qualification... Respect for others is what it’s all about in life.
To say what you have here and insinuate a qualification is only a piece of paper is terrible! OH and I worked very hard for our qualifications and it cost money! It was worth it for us, we use the things we learnt and to say it's "a bit of paper" is disrespectful ! I know you probably didn’t mean it this way but it was a bit of a shock!

Now – less of this talking the talk – I’m off out to walk the walk and then look after my little grandson! ☺

Now……I still can’t find much of your work here. Your contributions seem to be mainly in what I would term (with respect) “gearhead” sections. Great sections as long as you use the information practically. I tend not to become embroiled in too much detailed technicality as I find it can stunt creativity.Many thanks to those technicians who design cameras/create software and study ways forward. I and others would be lost without you.

Bfitzgerald - We'll agree to disagree, eh

If anyone still wants to share their manipulated images here, feel free? I hope the anti manipulation views haven't put anyone off.

Pat

[bfitzgerald]

It is what it is just an opinion and nothing more. Obviously I'm not known for pulling my punches but my remarks should not be taken on a personal level. I have no problems with qualifications I did a few courses myself previously (but not in photography) IMO however yes ultimately they are bits of paper and acquired knowledge does not always translate to the practical side of things, for some it does others not so.

I'm easy to find very easy in fact google is your friend

[Wildieswife]

It is what it is just an opinion and nothing more. Obviously I'm not known for pulling my punches but my remarks should not be taken on a personal level. I have no problems with qualifications I did a few courses myself previously (but not in photography) IMO however yes ultimately they are bits of paper and acquired knowledge does not always translate to the practical side of things, for some it does others not so.

I'm easy to find very easy in fact google is your friend

Ahhhh..... you're an African American brickmaker who died in 1918. So this is why you haunt this forum.....

Pat

[Dusty]

Wow, go away for the weekend and get back to see a flame war erupting!

My humble opinion: For most photos, I prefer that the end result reflects what I saw (or think I saw) in the viewfinder. That means I have no problem with correcting verticals, cropping, stitching photos, or adjusting exposure or contrast. However, I want a record of what was or what happened.

Now, there are a few times when I've wanted to be artistic - swap colors, de or over saturate, or even, to have fun, add or subtract an element. Since I don't do Photoshop, I do very little of that. When I do happen to do such things, I don't present them as a photograph, but rather a manipulation of one.

But hey, is that really any different than doing miniatures with a macro lens to make them look like something they are not? That at least is proving my prowess with photography, the other with software. Coming from film background, I see a difference between the 2. Some, who started in digital, may not - it's all manipulating electrons for them.

I've often looked at great "photos" and said, "Wow! How'd they do that?", only to find out later that they "cheated". I don't mind as long as I know, but feel deceived when I don't.

I don't mind techniques such as focus stacking, as that's just making the photo present what the mind sees - (the human mind/eye combo is the most amazing camera ever!). I also have no problem presenting something a client wants - using something like Portrait Professional to make a girl more glamorous. However, I wouldn't present that as a true photo, any more than I believe that the airbrushed flawlessness of old Playboy centerfolds are reality. Both are just using a photo as the starting point to make a final image.

So, I want to be a photographer, and some want to be image makers, and the lines are not clear which is really which. Maybe that's why, as I write this, the old Steeler's Wheels song has popped into my head:

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

Dusty

[gio67]

"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