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

When is manipulation deception?

http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/art/blood.html

Pasting an image of a lion in a zoo into another image of a savannah. Editing out a person froma photo c.f. the Stalinist era when out of favour people where air-brushed out of history. And so on.

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.

An excellent summary.

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.

No , don't consider politics! :eek: THATS when everything becomes unacceptable manipulation !

LoL, very good.

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?