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


Get on1's Perfect Effects 9.5 for FREE! (£48 value)

Over Manipulation of Images?


25 Oct 2012 9:35AM
I have made similar comments regards over manipulation of images. In fact i am tired of seeing water that looks more like steam. I am even thinking of giving up on Raw files and just doing jpg but that is another story.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Nick_w 7 4.1k 99 England
25 Oct 2012 10:08AM

Quote:I have made similar comments regards over manipulation of images. In fact i am tired of seeing water that looks more like steam. I am even thinking of giving up on Raw files and just doing jpg but that is another story.


And how do you connect making water look like steam with digital manipulation?

It's achieved in camera, with the use of ND filters. Whether you like it or not that's another matter, and irrelevant, everyone has a right to like what images they want - if we all had the same tastes it would be a very boring world.
mattw 11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 10:17AM

Quote:It's achieved in camera, with the use of ND filters.

Often, you don't even need ND filters
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
25 Oct 2012 11:20AM

Quote:It's achieved in camera, with the use of ND filters.
Often, you don't even need ND filters



.......but, of course, it is still manipulation. In that case you are manipulating the shutter speed to give an "unreal" effect.

Which is why the term "manipulation" is not really very helpful in the context of this thread. We all manipulate our exposures by one means or another to produce the photograph we want.
lobsterboy Plus
11 14.4k 13 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 11:29AM

Quote:And how do you connect making water look like steam with digital manipulation?

I have done it before with motion blur - or you could just clone in a photo of some steam Smile

Still its easier to do it in camera.
Nick_w 7 4.1k 99 England
25 Oct 2012 11:35AM

Quote:It's achieved in camera, with the use of ND filters.
Often, you don't even need ND filters

.......but, of course, it is still manipulation. In that case you are manipulating the shutter speed to give an "unreal" effect.

Which is why the term "manipulation" is not really very helpful in the context of this thread. We all manipulate our exposures by one means or another to produce the photograph we want.



Come on, so you saying ND grads are manipulation now, why dont we all through away the cameras, and use a box with a pin hole in the front
mikehit Plus
5 7.5k 11 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 11:49AM

Quote:Come on, so you saying ND grads are manipulation now,

Strictly, yes.
After more than a century, photography still suffers from the impression that it should record the scene as we see it. Everything from the depth of field to length of exposure to post processing is manipulation: bokeh simply does not exist in healthy human vision, yet we view it an effective photogrpahic technique and you can do it in camera (aperture) or in post processing - if the latter is manipulation, why not the former? The question is how much manipulation you are happy with.
25 Oct 2012 12:56PM
Really though, who gets to dictate what constitutes and photography and what is 'cheating'?

Photography (including the technology, cameras, media and processing) has evolved drastically since its beginnings, even if not every 'photographer' has done so at the same pace
25 Oct 2012 1:12PM
Camera clubs are becoming photoshop clubs.
Nick_w 7 4.1k 99 England
25 Oct 2012 2:12PM

Quote:Camera clubs are becoming photoshop clubs.


So? as the saying goes if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I don't like it when others who dont have or want to gain skills criticise others that want to gain those skills. If you don't like how your club is going, rather than moan about it, why not set up one for those with a similar mindset to yourself?
arhb Plus
7 2.6k 68 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 2:34PM

Quote:Come on, so you saying ND grads are manipulation now,
Strictly, yes.
After more than a century, photography still suffers from the impression that it should record the scene as we see it. Everything from the depth of field to length of exposure to post processing is manipulation: bokeh simply does not exist in healthy human vision, yet we view it an effective photogrpahic technique and you can do it in camera (aperture) or in post processing - if the latter is manipulation, why not the former? The question is how much manipulation you are happy with.



Since when did the human eye ever see water movement captured at a fast shutter speed, whether it's a waterfall, a sea scape or a water droplet?
Motion pictures/video are closer to the way the human eye see most things.
Cameras capture a moment, so it is always going to be defined in some way by the individual photographer.

@LeftForum, it is the image sensor that is manipulated by the shutter speed adjustment, isn't it?
25 Oct 2012 2:50PM
Someone once said "A great photograph doesnt capture what we see, but what we want people to see" (or something like that)
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
25 Oct 2012 3:59PM

Quote:Come on, so you saying ND grads are manipulation now,
Strictly, yes.

@LeftForum, it is the image sensor that is manipulated by the shutter speed adjustment, isn't it?



Nothing "manipulates the sensor". Where did that idea come from?

Of course ND grads are a form of manipulation,

So is increasing the aperture to decrease the depth of field.

So is reducing the shutter speed to achieve a blurred background when panning an action shot.

There seems to be a weird attitude, observable in several of the contributions to this thread, that manipulation in photography is a BAD THING.

It is not.

It is a perfectly normal - indeed essential - way of obtaining the final photograph that you intend to achieve.

Going back to the genesis of this thread, competition organisers and magazine publishers are perfectly entitled to state how much - and what type of - manipulation they will accept. But that does not, in any way whatsoever, constrain what we, as amateur photographers, can legitimately do in the pursuit of our hobby.

There really are a few anti-manipulation bigots on this forum (and photography fora in general).
mattw 11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 4:07PM

Quote:.......but, of course, it is still manipulation. In that case you are manipulating the shutter speed to give an "unreal" effect.


So what shutter speed gives a "real" effect then?

Because I have never seen a 'freeze frame' waterfall..... In fact if you look at a waterfall closely, and don't move your eye, the water, does indeed look blurred.
mattw 11 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 4:10PM

Quote:
Nothing "manipulates the sensor". Where did that idea come from?

Of course ND grads are a form of manipulation,

So is increasing the aperture to decrease the depth of field.

So is reducing the shutter speed to achieve a blurred background when panning an action shot.



Agreed, the very act of framing and timing your shot is 'manipulating reality' to form your image. ALL photography is manipulation in one degree or another. Its just a question on how far you want to go.

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.