Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 1

Over Manipulation of Images?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
28 Oct 2012 - 8:04 PM

i will add my ten penneth, simply using a coloured filter, an nd filter, or a long exsposure, a wide angle lens, or any kind of lense could be interpreted as manipulation, adding a slight tone, or using a digital camera itself is a manipulation , i understand NG mags for wanting pure images, its their magazine and their competion, but please describe what is a pure image, its a contradiction in terms, pictures are itself an expression of what the camera sees from the point of view of the taker? its time stopped still for an instant, not real life in itself, an exspession of art through the eyes of the beholder, manipulated or not, no two people see the same image in exactly the same way thats biological fact, and we all choose what we like and dont like, there is no right or wrong , Smile think about it?

Last Modified By CDSINUK at 28 Oct 2012 - 8:04 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
28 Oct 2012 - 8:04 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

paulcookphotography

Was talking about this thread today with another photographer and he made a very interesting point...

"When you look at music, and take a guitarist (for example), we accept that what he makes (good or bad) is music. Now, perhaps that guitarist used an electric guitar and had it hooked up to various effects pedals to manipulate the sound. Would that still be music, or does it become something else? And then what happens when the guitarist and his band go into the studio to lay down the tracks for their new album? It gets mixed, the music is recorded in 'layers' and then combined for the finished product. We accept that as music, as much as we do with a live acoustic performance. Yet when it comes to photography everything has to be pigeon-holed and categorised and pulled apart again. Photography has to be one of the most rigid, stubborn and cliquey forms of art these days..."

CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
28 Oct 2012 - 8:20 PM

i must admit i think the world of photography would be a very bland place without some sort manipulation Smile another point editing and manipulation is infact a good way learn about how light colour works in nature, and a useful distraction when you are not out capturing images, a good image is a good image, i certainly dont care how you got it, if its pleasing , its pleasing Smile

Last Modified By CDSINUK at 28 Oct 2012 - 8:22 PM
mikehit
mikehit  56536 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
28 Oct 2012 - 9:50 PM


Quote: Was talking about this thread today with another photographer and he made a very interesting point...

"When you look at music, and take a guitarist (for example), we accept that what he makes (good or bad) is music. Now, perhaps that guitarist used an electric guitar and had it hooked up to various effects pedals to manipulate the sound. Would that still be music, or does it become something else? And then what happens when the guitarist and his band go into the studio to lay down the tracks for their new album? It gets mixed, the music is recorded in 'layers' and then combined for the finished product. We accept that as music, as much as we do with a live acoustic performance. Yet when it comes to photography everything has to be pigeon-holed and categorised and pulled apart again. Photography has to be one of the most rigid, stubborn and cliquey forms of art these days..."

Spot on...

arhb
arhb e2 Member 72305 forum postsarhb vcard United Kingdom68 Constructive Critique Points
28 Oct 2012 - 11:21 PM

The music analogy is excellent.

Pro tools music software is like photoshop really, as it can be used and overused also.

User_Removed
29 Oct 2012 - 9:35 AM

I think you have to split this topic up ....

1. Good effect applied with a too heavy hand thus spoiling the effect. ie over-sharpening, tweaking the contrast too much, increasing saturation too much and my personal bugbear overuse/too much of HDR.

2. Unaltered vs Altered image. Does the use of ye olde photoshoppe magic improve or detract from the image. I'm not talking about photos that have moved right across the spectrum into a fully manipulated digital art image, but a photo that has been converted to black and white, had a fancy effect applied that blurred the edges, darkened the edges, selective colouring etc etc.

3. Manipulation of the image with the deliberate intent to deceive ... and into this category I would include cloning out parts of the photo, using captive animals when its supposed to a wild life category, pretending a posed shot is natural etc.

Only then you discuss it properly because of all those things apply to the topic but can't be discussed under one blanket heading.

CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
29 Oct 2012 - 9:41 AM

i would have to disagree with your third comment bugs, its a bit pessimistic to state a deliberate attempt to decieve, i would say an attempt to create? its only deception if you state the image is " as shot" or no i didnt manipulate it etc etc, but i guess its in how you present it, i manipulate a lot of my images as i dont get out much but i certainly dont claim them to be anything they are not, i enjoy the work invloved and hope its pleasing to some, but know not always to others, but at no time do i ever say im going to decieve anybody, its a creation not a deception ? Smile but you have to admit the very moment you add or take anything from a photograph its manipulation, its like a theft, a little theft is just the same as a big theft, ? one is simply not any better than the other Smile

Last Modified By CDSINUK at 29 Oct 2012 - 9:49 AM
lemmy
lemmy  71896 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Oct 2012 - 10:55 AM


Quote: It gets mixed, the music is recorded in 'layers' and then combined for the finished product. We accept that as music, as much as we do with a live acoustic performance

You mix with diifferent musician to me then! The arguments over whether electric blues is really blues or should blues be as it originally was, acoustic. Classical music, huge debates about whether it should be played on contemporary instrnments, is it really music when you sample other's work and layer your own over it.....endless argument. Don't let them get started over the use of vocoders on X Factor either!

Fact is humans love to argue. Swift satirized it in Gulliver's Travels, the big endians and the little endians, rebellions over whether you cracked your eggs at the big end or the little end.

I love the way the French approach these things (philosophy is part of their national educational curriculum). Long earnest argument and debate, then a shrug of the shoulders and go and do exactly as you please anyway.

User_Removed
29 Oct 2012 - 11:10 AM


Quote: I would have to disagree with your third comment bugs, its a bit pessimistic to state a deliberate attempt to decieve, i would say an attempt to create? its only deception if you state the image is " as shot" or no i didnt manipulate it etc etc, but i guess its in how you present it, i manipulate a lot of my images as i dont get out much but i certainly dont claim them to be anything they are not, i enjoy the work invloved and hope its pleasing to some, but know not always to others, but at no time do i ever say im going to decieve anybody, its a creation not a deception ? Smile but you have to admit the very moment you add or take anything from a photograph its manipulation, its like a theft, a little theft is just the same as a big theft, ? one is simply not any better than the other Smile

but that is precisely what I meant. deliberately concealing what was done to the photo in order to make it seem something it's not. I suspect that the nat geo people were aiming at this category of manipulations with their restriction on manipulations.

CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
29 Oct 2012 - 11:51 AM

opppssss, oke doke, i read it more carefully, i understand what you meant now, Smile soz Smile

User_Removed
29 Oct 2012 - 11:56 AM


Quote: Opppssss, oke doke, i read it more carefully, i understand what you meant now, Smile soz Smile

LOL no worries.

BarbaraR
BarbaraR  8 England1 Constructive Critique Points
5 Nov 2012 - 8:08 AM

Disqualified

Thought this link might be of interest in this thread.

" David Byrne was disqualified from the Landscape Photographer of the Year award for employing excessive digital manipulation in his winning entry, a striking black-and-white image of beached wooden fishing boats with Lindisfarne Castle in the distance.

He has been removed of his title as overall winner of the competition, which comes with a £10,000 prize.

The contest’s organisers, Take A View, said Mr Byrne’s photograph was assessed in “good faith” and was the “clear favourite” of the judges. "

B.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73886 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
5 Nov 2012 - 8:27 AM

it's strange, I can understand them having limitations, but would some of the previous winners have passed such scrutiny?

(the image in question looked like a new sky, the lighting didn't match the shadows cast from the boat)

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.