steve263

I thought that I would ask the forum what in general they think of the massive amount of manipulation and alteration of digital photos that goes on today. What with Photoshop, and Adobe and of course the superb ViG package are we not in danger of changing the photos beyond the ones we took?

I do not alter my own a great deal except when I want to do something quite deliberate and make a 'new' photo. But some, or in fact most packages these days can change a photo out of all recognition, making faces 'perfect' when in fact few really are, and landscapes and sunsets can be changed from the reality to stuuning photos, that were never there in the first place.

For myself, I would rather see the photo that I took much as it came out, although like just about all I give it a quick 'fix' just to bring the best out.

Am I then the same as the ones that take hours to change a photo then put it in a competition. In reality they did not take that photo but maybe there should be a prize for the best digital fix and not for the best photo.

Well those are my thoughts. What do you think?

__________________
Life is a game, and in the end we all lose it. Just enjoy it while you are playing.

Dragonontheweb.com Check out the site, and let me know what you think.

British Comedians My other site, give it a look and let me know your thoughts

The Burns family web site. Burns and Mantle history

A site about nearly 40 years with the same company
Cardiff Bus

Paddy

Opening a huge can of worms here Steve but an interesting and much debated subject. As may be seen in other posts, I am a great advocate of image editing. It forms, possibly, the greater part of my photographic hobby but I think, before the debate rolls on again, a couple of things should be made clear.

There is a great misconception that photo editing is a cheat in that the modern photographer can shoot without thinking and make the picture perfect in Photoshop. This is simply not true and if you look back a few years, the same argument was used against 35mm cameras. I well remember reading an article in the photo press, written by a truly great photographer who used plate and medium format cameras (sadly I cannot remember who). He claimed that the likes of David Bailey shot off a thousand 35mm frames in the hope that a few would 'turn out ok'. This was as much nonsense then as it is now.

Yes, it is true that a digital photographer can make adjustments to the image to 'tighten it up'. Manipulation such as a contrast tweak, levels or saturation can improve a picture that had to be taken in flat lighting. The option of waiting untill the light is just perfect before taking the shot is a luxury that most, even professional photographers, do not have.

Improvements to an image like this is nothing that masters of darkroom printing didn't do in the days of paper and chemicals. My darkroom used to be stocked with various grades of printing paper, and even back then, they were at the contrasty rather than soft end of the range. On top of that I stocked various developers aimed at processing the silver, both on the film and paper, in the way I wanted it.

The biggest bugbare in those days was that whatever I did in the developing of the film affected the whole roll, not just the frames I new needed the chemical manipulation. Now in those dark and dangerous days, you never heard anyone say that only one film and developer combination should be used and only one grade of paper should be exposed and developed in only one developer. In fact, the exploitation of the ability to develop film and paper for 'effect' and the skills of dodging and burning were the meat of the photographers dinner and the ability to use the combinations and tools in the darkroom is what made the printers, craftsmen and women.

The idea of manipulating an image to improve portraits, for example, was what made a select few printers the cream of Hollywood for the portraits of the 'Stars' were heavily manipulated in the darkroom as well as airbrushed with inks to get the effect that was required. The people who could produce these classic prints were both paid and respected very highly indeed.

So, can I go out and shoot without thinking and get a good image in Photoshop? Well, if I was very lucky, then yes I could. But I would get an even better one if I considered what I wanted from the picture, focused and exposed it well and then used Photoshop to do exactly what I would have done in my old darkroom. I have no problem using contrast, colour and levels tweaks to get an image how I want it. Especially as I personally like contrasty, well saturated images and if I sharpen it, use a bit of dodge and burn to enhance it then I say why not?

The idea that a 'good digital photographer' can go out shoot the perfect image and present it without manipulation is, arguably, a false image anyway. If you have shot an image using RAW mode, the nearest to a digital negative, you will know that at first sight, the RAW image appears dull, soft and quite poor quality. But in reality, that is the best a digital image 'straight from the camera' can get. The wonderful glowing well saturated JPG image that you get from your card has been very heavily processed by the cameras on board computer.

When a user goes out to buy a new camera, they will often choose one over the other simply because they 'like the image it produces'. In other words, they are selecting one cameras ability to manipulate the image in the way they prefer. Take the Nikon, it tends to under process images leaving them the 'pale side of neutral' to me. If I know I will want to exploit colour I will set the mode to vivid so that the camera gives me the most saturation. This saves doing it later in Photoshop but it is still image manipulation however you look at it. The Portrait mode will soften the colours slightly and make the camera use a smaller depth of field. The later could be achieved better using manual mode but the softening of the colours and exploiting flesh tones is image manipulation however you look at it.

There is a time when an image that has been manipulated is wrong and, possibly illegal. This is when an image is altered to make it appear that an event took place that didn't in the hope of fooling people, ridiculing someone, providing an alibi for a criminal or defamation of character. This use of image editing is wrong no matter how you dress it up but it is not the sole realm of digital, this used to be done in the darkroom as well.

I may have said this before but many years ago I was approached in a camera shop by an Irish lady who thought I was staff (well I did almost live there). She wanted to know if it would be possible to put a picture of her brother onto her wedding picture. She explained that her brother had died the year before in Ireland and her family would have liked him to have been at the wedding. She showed me the two pictures and it was remarkable how the image of the brother was so well suited to fitting into the wedding picture and she had both negatives. Now, being a bit of a darkroom 'nerd' I said it was possible. She was most insistent that it looked 'real' and that no one looking at the picture would believe he had not attended the wedding. I was sure it could be done and I said I would do a couple of trials to show her what I could do before taking the job on. After a couple of days, there was an item on the news about IRA bombers being on the run in the UK and it got me wondering about how intense this woman had been about getting this image to look real. Now, I may have been completely wrong and oddly, I never saw the woman again, she never returned to the camera shop but it has made me wonder to this day if she was genuine or not.

There is also another side to image manipulation that I do have to say I am a great supporter of. Recently, on holiday, I was getting odd looks from my family as I shot loads of pictures of seagulls and loads of pictures of the Portland Bill lighthouse. What they didn't know but I hoped I would get is the following two images. Both utter fakes but how would I have got the images I saw in my head while eating Ice Cream that day? I know I could not have got them in one shot as the landscape and it's contents do not exist as you see them here.





Photography is an art form whatever the critics may say and, at the end of the day, it is the image that counts. My personal belief is that the image is paramount and until it is complete, the art of photography isn't finished. The camera is a tool to gather the light. Photoshop or a darkroom is where that light becomes a picture.

Err, I have rambled on a bit but you did ask

__________________

MyDigipics.co.uk

Julianne

I believe that photo manipulation is a necessary evil in many cases. Sometimes there are little "distractions" that simply should be removed in some way. Manipulating is just another word for editing I believe and editing a photo can make or break it in my opinion. Proper cropping, toying with the light, adding effects here and there can go a long way in getting your message across. But then again, perhaps I view photography as ART.

There are two types of photographers:
The technically consumed
The artists

I fall into the second category. I don't know much about the technical aspects of photography and while I strive to learn more about them, they do not mean more to me and never will than a photo with artistic integrity, a photo with emotion, a photo that tells a story or leads you to create your own story.

MorphuX

I agree that the only time photo manips are wrong, is when you are trying to pass off a changed image as an honest representation of fact, when in fact it is not what you are saying.

Other than that, photography is an artistic menu, with several sides to choose from, and a multitude of meals to select for software, plugins, styles of manipulation, coloring, contrast, etc. The list goes on and on.

That is why art is such a great medium. You can make anything you want, and it is art. As long as you make it, it is art. No one can tell you otherwise.

__________________


There are 10 types of people in the world today;
those that understand binary, and those that dont.

Oz Photography

I just love doing things like this ...

__________________
"Say it with a photo"

Julianne

I have the same fun pastime Oz.

I tend toward more subtle maybe. Taken outside in the driveway, but edited with Visualizer Photo FX.

Attached Images

A_Penny_For_Your_Thoughts.jpg (79.3 KB, 14 views)

Paddy

Love those posters Oz, you should post them in your Blog under Digital Art. I well remember that image Julianne from the heady days when PhotoFX came out. I really miss that great piece of software since getting my iMac

__________________

MyDigipics.co.uk

Julianne

Paddy, I am still doing everything I can to convince the powers that be that we NEED NEED NEED Photo FX to work on a Mac platform. As much as I like to give you a hard time about having an iMac, the truth is, more and more people are using that platform.

I'll try again. Maybe if I throw myself face down and kick my feet that will get me somewhere (or they'll just throw a bucket of water on me).

Paddy

Now that would make a great photo

__________________

MyDigipics.co.uk