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?


Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Oct 2012 6:06PM

Quote:Someone once said "A great photograph doesnt capture what we see, but what we want people to see" (or something like that)


Guess it all depends on what type of photography your into Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

25 Oct 2012 6:17PM
lol yeah. I think the point they were trying to make is that the art isnt just recording whats in front of you, its capturing the emotions, atmosphere and 'moment', and quite often that is editing comes in to play. The artist/photographer can then convey how THEY saw it, and not just reproduce an image that is soul-less

Sounds good to me anyway Tongue
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Oct 2012 6:44PM
Not easy with wildlife though, its more about capturing and recording, there`s not as much scope as other genres for being creative.

This is my idea of wildlife photography, preferably washed down with a few beers Smile

4-lrg-599-1276287837.jpg

Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
25 Oct 2012 6:59PM

Quote:Not easy with wildlife though, its more about capturing and recording, there`s not as much scope as other genres for being creative.


I don't know; this didnt do too bad and I saw a talk by And Rouse where he used extreme wide angle lenses, as opposed to the telephotos (tho that too would be banned by NG)
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Oct 2012 7:06PM
Yeh birds in flight, creative panning techniques and shutters speeds are nice and cool, I meant less scope for manipulation.
Nick_w e2
7 3.9k 99 England
25 Oct 2012 7:25PM

Quote:Yeh birds in flight, creative panning techniques and shutters speeds are nice and cool, I meant less scope for manipulation.


What about this then Paul ? too bloody good, I'm jealous particularly as hes married to Orla Brady
Paul Morgan e2
13 15.7k 6 England
25 Oct 2012 7:37PM
Yes he`s exceptional Smile

But would he`s style be excepted by National Geographic for competitions, guess they may see it as over manipulation.
arhb e2
7 2.4k 68 United Kingdom
25 Oct 2012 8:34PM
I guess I was just lucky when I captured this Wink
Manipulate? Me?



tezquirk 3 27 United Kingdom
26 Oct 2012 9:25AM
Any image that has been edited on a computer is a manipulation ( not the original ) We all know that , But over manipulation , ie .. Images that have several photos welded together in one frame and look more like paintings , Should not be classed as photo's Tongue
26 Oct 2012 10:42AM
I do agree that composite images should not be part of the likes of wildlife photography competitions, mainly due to the fact that the judges (and viewers) would much rather see the creature in its natural habitat.

However, as has been said before, composite images and many of the digital editing we see today were common manipulation techniques used in darkroom printing and film processing. They are still photographs. Yes, there is a thin line between image manipulation and digital painting, but editing an image still keeps it within the realms of photography. I do a lot of composite work, and I wouldn't suggest these were photographs as the end product due to a lot of the images being digitally painted and created solely through graphics programmes.

That said though, it has to be remembered that manipulation of photographs is not a new practice and was there long before the likes of photoshop came along, so technically a lot of slide and film based images could be regarded as over manipulated too.
newfocus 8 644 2 United Kingdom
26 Oct 2012 10:42AM

Quote:Any image that has been edited on a computer is a manipulation ( not the original )

It depends if you count the choices the photographer makes during raw conversion and subsequent fine tuning, in which case it's only not the original in the same sense that any image printed from a negative is not the original.
tezquirk 3 27 United Kingdom
26 Oct 2012 11:13AM
I respect your opinion ( newfocus ) But i think any image that has been changed from what we see with our own eyes is a manipulation , But I'm not against slight manipulation , I just dont think over manipulation should be classed a photography , I think it should be classed as " Digital art "
arhb e2
7 2.4k 68 United Kingdom
26 Oct 2012 11:16AM
With reference to wildlife photography, most of the great shots of perched birds don't really show them in their natural habitat(hopping about in a tree interior, looking for bugs).
A twig is the only reference, on which the bird is perched, whilst the bg and surrounding habitat is very nicely blurred tones.

From personal experience, I created feed stations that enabled the above 'styled' shots to be captured -
sometimes using twigs with blossoms as the perch for the bird to land on, prior to jumping onto the feed perch.

This is seen as acceptable because it means that the best image captured should be ready for raw conversion, with a light tweak in levels/curves, and some sharpening after resize.

So, I see this as manipulation of an environment, to enable a supposedly natural wildlife capture,
in the same way that for example, a long exposure is used to create misty water, by manipulating the shutter speed Wink
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
26 Oct 2012 11:27AM
The Nick Brandt pictures come too close to the Boots green lady and crying boy paintings for my taste. Sentimental and bloodless, wildlife pictures for lovers of cuddly furry creatures , a townie's view of wildlife.

And anyone who describes their own work as 'fine art' has their head to far up their own.... in my opinion.

Isn't manipulation of pictures a matter of degree? As a trainee press photographer, after my first six months learning how to print, I was taught how to move the ball into a better position when you had a good picture but the ball was out of frame. That is one thing but moving it so as to show it going into the goal mouth would be another.

Maybe there is a need for 2 competitions - one for unmanipulated pictures, just cropping and dynamic range correction and another where you do whatever you wish. I've often thought that for sport too. Run two competitions, one clean, the other where you could take as much of whatever you wanted as you wished.
26 Oct 2012 12:13PM

Quote:I respect your opinion ( newfocus ) ...I'm not against slight manipulation , I just dont think over manipulation should be classed a photography , I think it should be classed as " Digital art "


Fair point, but what do you call an image that has been 'painted' solely using graphics software? That too is digital art. So in that view there is photography (images with little or no editing digitally or otherwise), digital art (painting, drawing or 3D rendering in digital form) and a very large and blurred mix in the middle. But then what of the images that are manipulated non-digitally? Where do they fit in?

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.