|
A Distinction between Editing and Manipulation
3 Attachment(s)
Reading Don Hoey's comment concerning increasing exposure of Yelvertoft's Pentax camera still life shot within Photoshop (see below pic 1&2), I wonder if the practice of editing in this way is commonplace and where editing become manipulation. Changing exposure of any shot is acceptable if the shot cannot be repeated which covers 75% of all amateur photography however with still life the shot is repeatable and in my opinion exposure compensation should have been considered in the camera rather than the darkroom.
A second example is my Olympus compact pair still life shot (pic 3) where I am encouraged to remove white hot spots from lens and viewfinder, is this acceptable? Perhaps so but could removal of these artifacts be done by rotating the subject of moving the light source slightly? Removal of dust spots is acceptable and routine in digital photography, anyone notice the shot of the Olympus pair is different to the one posted in my gallery, the difference is on the XA, its cleaner (although no perfect!) and the white base was also cleaned so minimum dust removal was required on the final effort. So where is the distinction between acceptable editing and outright manipulation? |
An interesting question Stephen as even on this site I am not sure what qualifies as a straight image.
My personal opinion is that for years photoraphers have been spotting prints ( removing dust spots ). Some of those more profficient in the art were also able to remove minor blemmishes. So if it could be done in the traditional darkroom then I do not consider it to be cheating or wholescale digital manipulation. I posted my F3 shot in the digitally manipulated thread and yet in my darkroom days I have produced images using the same technique at the time of taking the photograph. Looking at your two Olympus pictures side by side Stephen, I think what you have done is within my bounds of acceptable. Nothing dramatic, ............................. he says just making sure you have not changed the name. :D When I did black and white printing I used to create a printing map. Dodge here, burn there. I have even added a sky. All before the age of digital and nobody ever knew I had done anything other than produce a straight print, and even when told it did not raise an eyebrow. I could not afford the paper costs now, as I may have used a dozen sheets of printing paper just to arrive at the result I envisaged when I took the shot in those days. It will certainly be interesting to know what other members think. At what point do we declare the image as digitally manipulated. Don |
I think in the strictest sense all images are manipulated with or without your knowledge. Like Don I used to have a darkroom and many of the tricks done in PS are based on darkroom technique. Even the choice of photo paper, matte or glossy changes the image contrast.
Sure if the image is exposed in the middle of the tonal curve and is free of dust etc it makes life easier to get a good print. No all subjects fit onto the photographic medium and needs a helping hand. In my opinion manipulation is where it goes beyond simple corrections and intends to deceive the viewer or purely for some effect. |
Quote:
So you said in a few words what I took loads to say and still did not quite make it. ;) ........ Maybe I should consider politics :D Totally agree Rob. Don |
Some painters say that all photographic medium is a copout. Purely the result of technology and chemistry, involving little or no skill or art. When you can stick 1GB memory card into a digital camera, take a 100 or more shots of a subject, bracket around the f-stops, push and pull the exposure, auto-focus, and auto-expose, and then select the best of the bunch. The result is a 'cheat' whether its been near photoshop or not.
OTOH - The act of taking a photo is just a method of obtaining the raw input to the production of an image. The image stands or falls on it merits and it matters not one jot what manipulation took place either inside or outside of the camera. |
I agree with Walwyn on this. The goal is to produce an image and digital images have allowed us to add another step to the process. Those of us who didn't have access to a dark room didn't have the option of dodge and burn while processing. Digital has given it, and more, to us. Most of us made an exposure, sent it off to a lab and hoped for the best. Now we are in control and I believe that manupulation in PS or similar programs has moved photography to a new, higher level for most of us.
How many pro photaghers sandwiched slides to introduce "fake" elements into pictures? Geese flying across the moon sort of thing. Most of those shots are compilations of two or more shots. Surely that was manipulation. also? I'm sure that we all still try to compose the picture, we consider DoF, try to focus sharpely, all of the traditional elements are still there but, to me we have moved way beyond that level and the post processing is just as important has capturing the original image. Viva PS! (Wish I was better at using it). |
Guys,
All very well but at what point does acceptable editing become manipulation? I prefer to edit an image adjusting exposure slightly, correcting colour balance and adding sharpness. If exposure needs adjusting beyond a certain point I redo a still life piece using different camera settings to obtain as good image out the camera as possible. Sharpening and dust removal are difficult to get from the camera and are deemed acceptable editing but.... does disguising poor camera technique in the darkroom count as editing or manipulation? If disguising poor technique is common place isn't it better improve technique? |
The end justifies the means; the production of a great image is, I think, what drives most of us. Whether we get there through skill in the "darkroom" or in the camera or a combination of the two in my opinion is irrelevant.
|
"The end justifies the means; the production of a great image is, I think, what drives most of us. Whether we get there through skill in the "darkroom" or in the camera or a combination of the two in my opinion is irrelevant."
Just my take - If you look upon photography as an Art form and you have the skill to compose, focus and capture all the elements and colors within that scene great. You have then filled your canvas with the essentials, how you use your digital tools to highlight, saturate, dodge, and burn or what ever; to obtain the image you have seen is to my mind completely acceptable. |
I don't see why you are trying to distinguish between "acceptable editing" and presumably "unacceptable manipulation".
The same objection may be made of a photograph of a zoo animal is being past off as 'in the wild' as to a montage of geese flying across the moon, even though in the former no manipulation has taken place. However, as images per se there is nothing unacceptable in either. If you take your still life example what fundamental difference is there in readjusting exposure, focusing, lighting, at the point of shutter release, and doing it in software outside of the physical camera? I contend that there is no such difference, particularly as in most cases the 'in camera' digital image is created by software anyway. Also why would it be more acceptable to use a wide-angle or telephoto lens to distort perspective than to do it in software? In both cases you have manipulated the natural image as seen through our eyes. In essence every digiscoped image of a bird is manipulated, that it happens to have been done so via expensive optics doesn't make it any less so. |
I'm not sure I understand the problem. Various people have produced an image in a studio. They first manipulated the subject by placing it in the required environment, adjusting the lighting and background to suit. They then took a photograph of the subject and to a lesser or greater degree manipulated it in Photoshop or an alternative image editing application.
Both stages are manipulation. Why is one any better or worse than the other? If it can be shown that a particular studio technique is better than a software technique, then fair enough. But not everyone can afford, or has space for, a large amount of studio gear. If the aim is to learn how to control the studio, then fair enough. After all it does make sense to learn how to use both the studio and the software. I do object to deception whereby the intent is to deceive the viewer. This can be by manipulation of the environment (a zoo shot presented as wild) or manipulation of the image in software (changing the background). Leif |
There is some merit in over exposing (without falling off the tone curve) in the camera and pulling back in PS to increase the signal to noise ratio.
Reshooting an under exposed shot to reduce the noise levels would make good sense. |
I'll try and answer the question
Stephen,
I think robski's comment of "intention to deceive" is as good a one-line summary as you can get. I found it difficult to add anything of value to this so didn't answer earlier. If the changes are simply things such as dust removal, tweaking the contrast a little, adjusting the brightness, correcting a colour cast or similar, then that is editing rather than manipulation. There are times when a picture opportunity cannot be recreated. For example, portraits, candids, snapshots taken at family events, these are once in a lifetime events usually. Under such circumstances, removing the image of leering, drunken great uncle Albert in the background that is otherwise spoiling a beautiful candid portrait of cousin Charlotte (names changed to protect the identity of the culprits) would, in my opinion, be acceptable manipulation. It is capturing the moment, even if the moment has undesirable elements. Adding or removing objects to create a false impression can be used to enhance the picture, dropping in a new sky to a landscape has been used as an example. I would most definitely classify this as manipulation rather than editing. Sometimes the scene you want just isn't there when viewed though the eyepiece, manipulation can make it happen. If the scene is there, but you can't be bothered to make it better before you press the button, and tweak it later then there is room for improvement on the part of the photographer. Don's tweaks to my K1000 are a prime example. I blame this on familiarity with the subject and a lack of objective thinking on my part. I saw what I wanted to see, not what was presented in the viewfinder. Under such circumstances, I'm glad that constructive critique has been given and editing applied to show how improvements can be made. This is showing that editing is a useful tool. I can now try again and hopefully get things closer to correct "in camera" first. I think it is important to get things as close as you can to the desired end result before the image is captured. There will be areas that need tweaking in post-processing afterwards but as long as you are using these tweaks to improve technique in the long run then I see no problem. Editing should not be used to cover up for poor technique, but we aren't all blessed with the eyes of a passive viewer. Duncan |
Quote:
http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/art/blood.html |
Quote:
|
I see we are getting into the degrees of deception.
On a simpler note - In a holiday brochure to make a place look more attactive than it really is or an airbrushed man or woman on the front cover of a magazine to sell more copies. ( Includes whitening teeth, cleaning up bloodshot eyes, removing zits, plus the odd hightlight sparkle) |
If the image of the female on the magazine cover hadn't been airbrushed would its use be acceptable. What if the picture is a family portrait and the family member doesn't want to be shown with that zit on their nose.
It seems then that the problem is not the manipulation, but the way in which the resulting image is used. That it is the context in which the image is presented that is important not the fact that it has been manipulated. We see manipulated image everyday in advertising, on TV, and in films. Images of things and events that have no basis in real life and we are, by and large, unphased by them. |
Quote:
And for fun....I have just cut out my daughter in bridesmaid's rig from a ghastly background of rear-end of hotel and pasted it onto a gently blurred Hawthorn tree in full bloom and feel no guilt. I didn't need to touch the real subject. I suspect portrait painters have done this sort of thing from time immemorial. Holbein nearly got his head chopped off for 'improving' Anne of Cleeves as H VIII was not too keen when he saw the reality. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Could we get back on topic, I did not open this thread to discuss manipulation but to discuss a somewhat thin line between editing and manipulation. Walwyn's example of a model on a frontcover is an interesting of course this is acceptable, it has been performed for years. I would not do the same thing to a family portrait as it would be unrealistic. We do bath James before a photo shoot and change his clothing so I don't have any opportunity to do this kind of editing. "Manipulation is deception" - brilliant but when does deception occur? |
All photographs manipulate just by the framing, timing, lens chosen, angle shot etc, etc. Personally I don't do any manipulation beyond cropping, levels, saturation tweeks and such like simple stuff because by and large that is not the kind of photography that appeals to me. However that does not make such manipulation wrong or deceptive as such but only when the photographer tries to deliberately deceive people as in much advertising photos and magazine shots in which, say, models are made to look "perfect" to the detriment of the readers pockets and often their self image. Fraud in other words. Similarly if a wild life photographer tries to pass off a captive animal photo as shot in the wild its wrong. Fraud again. Manipulated but open about it, no problem even if I don't like it.
The other thing which is wrong is people who take bad shots and then try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. They only fool themselves and harm their own photographic development and perhaps some other people who are taken in by it and think if its "arty" it must per se be good. Gosh, such ramblings, but I hope it makes sense. |
Quote:
"This is the lion I took a photograph of on my holiday in Kenya." is deception if you photoshopped a zoo lion. "This is a photograph of British Soldiers abusing an Iraqi in the back of a truck." is deception if the photograph is stage managed. "This photograph of X aged 70 who has used our anti-wrinkle cream for 50 years." is deception if the photo of X has been airbrushed to remove the wrinkles. In none of the cases above is the image manipulation or stage management deception in itself. |
I think Rob and Duncan have summed it up quite nicely for me.
I think the differences may fall in the personal rather than competition use. Comercial work I think lives in its own world where anything goes. For competitions I would guess there has to be a level playing field between those using film processed through a lab like Colab, film home processors, digital novices and digital wizz kids. Not being a member of a Photograhic Club ( other than WPF :) ) I do not know if they set boundaries for competitions or not. As a regular viewer of BBC Countryfile the rule for digital entries follows. BBC Countryfile Photographic Competition 2006 – Rules Rule 4 : Images may be digitally enhanced to remove spots or scratches, but not manipulated. Entrants can enhance the picture to make it brighter, clearer etc, but not manipulate the content. BBC Countryfile and the judges reserve the right to exclude any image they believe may have been excessively treated so as to alter its authenticity. Don |
1 Attachment(s)
For me editing covers lightening, brightening, cropping and sharpening... basically tweeking what's there without any additions or removals.
Manipulating is when I start adding or removing sections to improve the shot. An example of mine is this shot of a robin, I took a few frames of the bird, but when I looked at them none were quite right. The best one was fine, apart from the fact that the bill was out of focus (motion blur), I took the bill from another shot and put it into this one. This is clearly manipulation, although there was no intent to decive, as I've been totally up front about what I've done, and look at it more as an exercise in photoshopping. |
Quote:
I support the proposition of a manipulated image is deception through the addition or subtraction of subjects or artifacts. |
Quote:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...500&ppuser=780 as building edges out of parallel with pic border in that case was ghastly |
Chris,
Correcting for coverging vertials I do not regard as manipulation that needs to be declared. If you had access to a camera with a rising front lens panel, swings and tilts, you could have eliminated the effect at the time of taking the pic. If in your link you had cloned out the car, road markings and parking sign then it would have in my opinion have reached the point of declaration that this had been done. Don |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Its a great picture taken in taxing conditions. You obviously took your time and considered the scene at the time and the compromise was the verticals. I see no problem, as we do not all have access to the specialist kit necessary to correct for this in camera. Don |
Quote:
The example given above about photos submited to the BBC country file, are submitted in accordance with rules as to what editing is and is not permissible, if you break those rules then you deceive. But there is nothing intrinsicaly wrong with having manipulated the image, the wrongness lies in the claim "This image has not been manipulated" when it is submitted to the BBC countryfile. In other contexts where such claims aren't being claimed then it makes no difference whether the image has been manipulated or not. I don't think there are any niceties here, there are no degrees or grey areas. If you present an image in a context where unmanipulated images are expected, that has in fact been manipulated it then that is deception. I've recently been looking at some of the landscape photographs by Ernst Haas and I can't tell whether the images were derived purely within the camera or whether there was a large amount of darkroom work involved. Personally I don't think it matters one iota. |
To put another spin on this thread - Are talking about the straight out of the camera elitist brigade ? They were mainly the group who used transparency film where getting the exposure correct was critical. They tended to snear at the darkroom hocus pocus. At least with neg film the lab had some latitude to make corrections for exposure and colour balance.
|
as a reversal film shooter for many years, atually started processing my own in the Sixties. Not much choice those days, in fact I think the only available reversal film available at that time was Ferrania colour, followed shortly afterwards with Ectachrome.
As you say I/2 stop out and you where in trouble, but you could push and pull in the 1st development stage and also to a certain extent during the 2nd development, but obviously this affected the whole roll. With B&W and colour printing work it was the end result that mattered not how it was achieved. The question of how the final print was achieved was never questioned, but often admired, when it was carried out by the experts. Almost every photographic society had a least one or two of these masters and needless to say they always walked away with the various competitions. This leaves us with the problem of when does post proccessing/manipulation go to far. IMO this has already been answered in several of the previous posts. The intent to decieve Again in my opinion, with a liftime of photography behind me, I would say anything goes, with the above proviso. I have been a member of photo forums "digital" for over six years, but this talk of "getting it right in the camera" is relatively new, and I suspect that the majority of people saying this are relatively new to photography. I guess at this point I must mention at least one of my images in the gallery which is a composite. http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...php?photo=2295 This is a photo of a butterfly which was taken in north Yorkshire. I knew at the time that the photo would be rather poor due to the background. Approx 1 hour later I noticed some thistledown and thought this should make a nice backdrop, So I took a photo, then combined the two when I got home. The essential part of this image is the butterfly and in no way has this part been modified, and I'm more than happy with the result. maybe you will think differently :) Harry |
Harry
Should we start another thread called confession corner :rolleyes: |
Nothing to confess Rob, been doing this kind of thing for a little over 40 years. It's always been part & parcel of photography, ask Ansel.
Harry |
True
I don't know what all the fuss is about. But I do object to those who pretend it is a straight shot and what a fantastic person I am when the shot has been tweaked to hell. My experience is that you rarely get a perfect straight print and the other 99.999% need a helping hand of some sort. |
Rob, I think the big guns will be after us :)
|
Well it will give them something to talk about. I think I'd best hide for the weekend until the dust settles. :D
|
Harry,
As an ex wet darkroom buff I can really appreciate what you have done with your image. Core subject untouched but ...... superb digital darkroom work. Picking up on Robs post and ' confession corner ' a " Master Class Digital Darkroom " thread may be more in order. Before and after images should be posted, and as you have here the reasoning. Therefore it is seperated from Christines ' Image manipulation starter ' thread which as its title suggests is that. I am reminded of an image that Stephen posted in what turned into RAW/JPEG thread, where the subject had a very high dynamic range and he used RAW to create exposure latitude ( for me that said in old money, dodging, mulitgrade paper, masking, in fact classic wet darkroom techniques ). So not manipulated but very skillfully processed. Gidders Sunlight Acer is another cracking example. In other words, considered images created from the use of good photographic techniques rather than rescues of sloppilly taken pics. Perhaps Stephen is inferring this in his thread starter ..... Get as much right as possible at the time of taking through good technique and understanding of the medium. Don |
Quote:
Have been pondering sky corrections on multi-plane landscapes as it seems impossible to get an exposure that does everything in imperfect light. http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...1&d=1148723444 |
Quote:
This is the type of subject and question that a Master Class thread would be so useful for. My problem is I am still reading my CS manual and trying to understand how to do things, so not necessarily the best person to fire one off. Hopefully Harry, Stephen, Gidders or another wizard will take up the challenge. If there are no takers I will, but I will probably be flamed. :D I guess here we would need to recognise the limitations that some cameras impose on the photographer. eg: In camera processing, sophistication of control over exposure etc. Don |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.