Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Over Manipulation of Images?


Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
23 Oct 2012 1:22PM

Quote: The others have have their place as some wonderful images can be created in the more complex programs.


Just to be clear, images are created in the mind, the program just facilitates the realisation. The same as it always did in the traditional darkroom.

For NG there is too many grey areas - in the case of the focus stack Keith, a view of one of the RAWs would probably have some believe that its only sharpening (I know & you know thats far from the case)

But why no stitched Pano's or hand blending? (their again would they know - send a version of the raw with 3 stop grad say and it would look like you had recovered the detail).

I guess in many ways they are looking to go back to a world where Velvia was the true representation of what the eye saw Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Pete e2
13 18.5k 96 England
23 Oct 2012 1:26PM

Quote:I guess in many ways they are looking to go back to a world where Velvia was the true representation of what the eye saw

Interesting ...Velvia actually enhanced what we saw...so in the old days we could produce a highly saturated colour range or use warm up filters or polarising filters that manipulate the image.

Perhaps the rule today would be - you must use Kodachrome 64 (Maybe 25 made the world too sharp!)
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
23 Oct 2012 1:29PM
That was my point Pete .. I was trying to make the rose tinted spectacles view.
spick 6 1 United Kingdom
24 Oct 2012 2:11PM
NG have made a legitimate point. They clearly seek to be truthful about the images they publish.

For those who put forward the argument that the present-day 'fancy-dress' approach to photographic competitions - use RAW and then post- production computer manipulation - is the same as the darkroom work of the past, that is nonsense.

I learnt my photography from my Dad. His darkroom 'manipulation' was confined to correcting light and composition - crop dodge and burn. His prints were labours of love devoted to getting as close as he could to what his eyes said he was seeing, however mundane or mere 'record' the subject might be.

By all means express your personality, etc, by adding computer generated effects post camera-click but, unless you wrote the computer program yourself, you will have added someone else's work to that created by you and your camera, just as much as if you had patched-in someone else's snap of a sea-eagle. My Dad would have thought it cheating to put such things into a competition as all his own work.

Sadly, the wonderous things a computer can do now make it necessary that all competition judges routinely check the ex-camera image of competition entries against the image entered for consideration.
lobsterboy e2
10 14.2k 13 United Kingdom
24 Oct 2012 3:05PM

Quote:By all means express your personality, etc, by adding computer generated effects post camera-click but, unless you wrote the computer program yourself, you will have added someone else's work to that created by you and your camera


The on-board algorithms of the camera are just as much computer programs and are happily manipulating the captured image for you. Even if you use film, unless you do the development yourself you are using someone elses work. Then when you scan it in to the PC to send it to them, and the jpeg group who created the compression algorithm, etc, etc.


Quote:their again would they know - send a version of the raw with 3 stop grad say and it would look like you had recovered the detai

I wonder if you could get away with doing something digitally, printing it, out then photographing the print Smile You would have an unmolested raw file after all...
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
24 Oct 2012 7:11PM

Quote:For those who put forward the argument that the present-day 'fancy-dress' approach to photographic competitions - use RAW and then post- production computer manipulation - is the same as the darkroom work of the past, that is nonsense.


I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense.

Unsharp mask, Gaussian blur, replacing skies, composites, solarisation, dodge and burn, we're all terms / practises "borrowed" from the real darkroom - just because you or your father never used them didn't mean they didn't happen. There are countless examples from bygone times which I could link to - but I will restrict it to one - man Ray all produced long before the advent of photoshop, are you telling me that there was no manipulation in those images?

I could just as easily point you to Robert Capa, Elsie Wright & Frances Griffiths, Frank Meadows Sutcliffe, or even more pertinent to National Geographic Ansel Adams, all used manipulation that was available to them.

(it does seem strange when such comments come from someone who has been a member for 4 years, hasn't any images in their portfolio, and this was ther first forum post, I hope it's stimulated you to become more active on this great site)
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
24 Oct 2012 8:09PM
What did you make of that pdf magazine Nick, lots and lots of manipulation including sections for wet plate and polaroid Smile
24 Oct 2012 8:23PM

Quote:For those who put forward the argument that the present-day 'fancy-dress' approach to photographic competitions - use RAW and then post- production computer manipulation - is the same as the darkroom work of the past, that is nonsense.

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense.




Totally agree with you there, Nick

I learned photography in the good old days of film and darkroom, and although some of my images were processed and printed 'as normal', i would also use various processing and printing techniques (cross processing, tinting, etc) where i felt it was needed. In the last 12 years of using Photoshop i have since developed (pardon the pun) a workflow and techniques that allow me to reproduce very similar effects to those i could achieve in the dark room.

As i said earlier in the thread, some images ARE over manipulated when they dont really need it, but 'fancy dress' is hardly a way to describe someone's expression in their art/photography. Whether you like photoshop or (obviously) not, photography, media and art would not be what they are today, and would certainly not have got as much interest as it has gained over the last 10 years without it
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
24 Oct 2012 8:25PM
It's great Paul, I will be working my way through them, good for inspiration.

Strange how the manipulation goes into two distinct camps, I honestly like both, I have some images I hardly touch, quick mono conversion and thats it, others I can spend hours on, I enjoy both.
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
24 Oct 2012 8:28PM

Quote:Strange how the manipulation goes into two distinct camps


Yes even with the wet plate process, one of the most difficult areas to work in, let alone manipulate Smile
24 Oct 2012 8:33PM

Quote:

By all means express your personality, etc, by adding computer generated effects post camera-click but, unless you wrote the computer program yourself, you will have added someone else's work to that created by you and your camera, just as much as if you had patched-in someone else's snap of a sea-eagle. My Dad would have thought it cheating to put such things into a competition as all his own work.

Sadly, the wonderous things a computer can do now make it necessary that all competition judges routinely check the ex-camera image of competition entries against the image entered for consideration.



Simply not true. Ok, so you can use preset actions to give effects to images, but there are many of us who tweak settings and develop styles (the same way as you might tweak an exposure or setting on camera). That is only a small part of the overall process that goes into manipulation though. Its the imagination, creativity, ability to enhance/create moods and atmospheres, etc that comes from the user and with a bit of skill and know-how, that user can create images that dont scream 'Photoshopped!!!' from the rooftops (in general cases).

Perhaps (in your view) there should be competitions for traditional film photographers, and separate ones for everyone else?
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
24 Oct 2012 8:52PM
An image isn't created in photoshop the camera or the enlarger, it's created in the mind, the others are just tools to bring that vision to life.
24 Oct 2012 8:59PM

Quote:An image isn't created in photoshop the camera or the enlarger, it's created in the mind, the others are just tools to bring that vision to life.


You calling us tools? Tongue
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
24 Oct 2012 9:02PM
LOL...

(I typed out a strap line, then deleted .... It would have caused me too much grief Tongue )
uggyy 9 2.1k 9 Scotland
25 Oct 2012 3:28AM
Hmmm I been away for so long and the old arguments still the best Smile

I love the NG but have seen them even publish some images that looked very iffy to me, also its ok to use certain film stocks that push the limits of color being anything near real but that wasn't a competition.

BUT I can see for certain competitions them wanting some balance. Where though do you draw the line...? Being no purist and someone who loves HDR I blur those lines a lot Smile For a competition with rules though, its follow them or risk being called a cheat and I've seen a few of them, even on some big comps...

BTW what would you do if you knew a competition winner was a cheat, would you say or raise it or just keep quiet and hope someone else pointed it out?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.