WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Technique > The Digital Darkroom


The Digital Darkroom The In-Computer editing forum.

A Distinction between Editing and Manipulation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 22-05-06, 18:33
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default A Distinction between Editing and Manipulation

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?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg K1000%20v2[1].jpg (148.6 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg Duncans%20K1000[1].jpg (148.2 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg newandoldworking[1].jpg (121.1 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22-05-06, 22:47
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

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.

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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22-05-06, 23:08
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

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.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated

Last edited by robski; 22-05-06 at 23:10.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22-05-06, 23:18
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robski
In my opinion manipulation is where it goes beyond simple corrections and intends to deceive the viewer or purely for some effect.
Rob,

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

Totally agree Rob.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24-05-06, 14:04
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24-05-06, 18:07
Snowyowl's Avatar
Snowyowl Snowyowl is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Prince Edward Island, Canada & Ocala National Forest, Florida, USA
Age: 84
Posts: 1,685
Default

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).
__________________
Dan
http://snowyowl.smugmug.com/Nature
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 24-05-06, 19:06
Canis Vulpes's Avatar
Canis Vulpes Canis Vulpes is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 4,398
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 24-05-06, 19:33
Imageinnovator's Avatar
Imageinnovator Imageinnovator is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wakefield
Posts: 391
Default

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.
__________________
Gerry

www.imageinnovator.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24-05-06, 20:01
prostie1200 prostie1200 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: hampshire uk
Age: 88
Posts: 1,325
Default

"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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24-05-06, 20:03
walwyn's Avatar
walwyn walwyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warwickshire
Age: 68
Posts: 1,066
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.