Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

View Poll Results: Should photo manipulation be allowed in the forum?
1. Always 10 43.48%
2. Never 1 4.35%
3. Occasionally, on a challenge basis. 12 52.17%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 3, 2008, 3:51 AM   #21
Senior Member
bahadir's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263

In the first place I hope you don't minda humbleopinion from one who hasn't posted here for a long time for no other reason thanlaziness, though I often felt like it...

I am more inclined togive the responsibility tothe photographer toexpectwhat s/he's really wished me to see in the framein conveyingthe intended impression more efficiently in terms of composition. Why should I be willing tosee asilly figure stepping in or a postsign, a shortcoming of the equipment, etc.steal from his/her glory...After all there's alreadythe ultimate judge: human eyes backed by the frontal lobe!I can say by experience, even in painting if you add sth that should not be there, it can ruin everything!

As for voting,well...a fourth option 'limited manipulating' would be fine but the first option would do, expecting and relying on the artistic taste ofour dear mates whose works I would notapply theveryphotojournalistic standarts while observing!

bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2008, 10:10 AM   #22
Senior Member
carylwithay's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,801

Why can't we have both staight and manipulated. Just state the rules. Most of us manipulate somewhat unless our images are straight out of the camera.

I love to manipulate. I maniulated in the camera when I did film and in the darkroom when I used one. Even Ansel Adams manipulated. I know that for a fact since my husband knew him.

It comes down to are you making art or photography? I think photography should be art. It is being accepted as art by more and more museums and art magazines.

carylwithay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2008, 3:32 AM   #23
Senior Member
Ollie77's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358

This is an interesting subject/discussion that I was pointed towards by a fellow member.

The idea of photography being an subject with artistic merit is one that appeals to me and one that should appeal to most of you as well.

The camera can't see what we see. It can't interpret our emotions or state of mind and nor can it capture what isn't there in the first place, which is a picture that your mind makes from a particular scene. So manipulating to give life to what you envisage seems like a plausible solution to really showing the viewer your vision of the world.

So when it comes to colour and a scene where you know what you want and you can see it in your mind's eye, but your camera or your lens or your lack of filters or your lack of equipment and props in general severely reduce your ability to show your audience your vision of a particular scene/subject then manipulation should go so far as to be able to let you share that vision with your audience.
Sure sometimes collages and the like go too far and really just make a mess of a scene but at the same time if the photographer/artist has shown you his view of the world then he could be considered successful in his work. I will admit that some of the features within say CS2/3 are really not for photography however having said that some of them work well to show off or enhance a scene or subject matter. Just not all of them.

One area which really needs nothing more then slight manipulation is B&W photography, because I believe it is about form and function and shadow and shape not the perverion that coloured images can be. Sadly digital camera's don't always interpret tonal values in a scene as well as one would suspect they should. So either editing a B&W image or creating one from a colour image should be done with minimal changes. Contrast/brightness levels/curves. Even simplified filters that do the same thing as say a ND filter if you didn't have one when you were shooting.

And that is another point I would like to make. Filters in CS2/3 etc. They should be allowed. Why? Because you can get a heap of filters from your local photography shop and spend a wages worth on them or you can do it all on the pc for a fraction of the price.

As I have said it is about showing your audience what you want them to see, not what they would see if they had of looked at the same scene themselves and taken the shot. Because we all know that no matter how many of us lines up with identical gear and identical settings, none of use are going to capture the very same image. And this is what makes photography unique like most artistic endeavors. It is a subjective art form, and it is a purely selfish and egotistical artform.

I show you my world you show me yours and may the two never look the same!


PS: sorry to make that so long. But hopefully I have given some of you a different view on our much beloved past time.
Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2008, 5:02 AM   #24
Senior Member
musket's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,782

Although I don't participate in the biweekly challengesI do view

them from time to time andI don't think it helps to limit artistic

en-devours, even thoughI don't approve of an artistic temperament

which en-devours to portray negativity, and certainly don't approve

of any photographerswanting to cutoff their ears or seek sympathy

and attention becausetheir emotional state ormakeup, so portraying

it in their photo's ....So those Ijust ignore and take delight in viewing

the rest of the participants efforts, that goes for all forums not just

this one.........................musket

musket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2008, 6:25 AM   #25
Senior Member
Alan T's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980

I, also, agree with Trojansoc's comments, so my vote at the top was an abstention.

(Every poll should have an abstention button, meaning "none of these options suits me entirely". In several of our recent general elections over here I have spoiled my paper by writing "none of the above", as there hasn't been a candidate representing my views for approximately 15 years.)

I'm in favour of minor removal of offending objects from otherwise good images. The bit I'd add is that it should be declared. I have here and there elsewhere in Steve's Forums confessed to a bit of artistic cloning. If it were ever allowed here, I should also post a tiny image alongside the main one to illustrate what it looked like without cloning.

This is fairly important to me, as power and phone lines, with new ones sprouting now & again, spoil many of the lovely views I drink in every day from our windows at home. Many of you will have seen them now and again. I have separate carefully cloned versions of several images that I have posted, with the cables still intact, in this forum. Obviously the amended versions are what I show to other people, but not here. I attach herewith an example from a couple of weeks ago.
Attached Images
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 4:32 AM   #26
Senior Member
aladyforty's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964

I gave up on these sort ofthreads years ago because of the old fashioned Idea that to fully manipulate is wrong. This has happened in other photography sites. The funny thing is that in the competitions I could tell that many shots had been manipulated much more than the poster said. It all came down to honesty. I shoot RAW so Im going to have to manipulate to get an image. I see nothing wrong with using a skill that takes some time to learn. Some people don't want to be bothered learning advanced skills but why stifle those who do choose to learn?

I have seen many images pre digital that were heavily manipulated and the funny thing is these photographers never had to deal with criticism about it. Maybe a good task would be to show a before an after shot. That would be interesting

aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 7:43 AM   #27
Senior Member
carylwithay's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,801

I think showing a before and after is a fine idea and very instructive. Thanks for the suggestion.
carylwithay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 9:00 AM   #28
Senior Member
tjsnaps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652

About ten years ago I got a little fed up with the people who were constantly writing into Popular Photography complaining about computer manipulation of photos in their monthly contest and about the articles they wrote on digital imaging. Many of these people were convinced that once you scanned an image into a computer it was no longer photography and unworthy of the magazines attention. The magazine also had a section were it printed the magazines content from 25 and 50 year ago. This prompted me to write a letter to the editor. Here is a copy of this letter.

RE: Time Exposer (May 1998)
In the 25 years ago section you showed an image distorted with an anamorphic lens and a quadruple expose. In the 50 years ago section you showed an image distorted by bending the print paper in the darkroom and a dream photo made by sandwiching slides. This just go to show the photo-manipulation has been around a lot longer than computers. And those who complain about digitally enhanced photography simply don't understand that art is the process of creation in the mind. Not the mechanics by which it's achieved.
I live on a very tight budget. And have found my creativity stymied by the cost of film paper chemicals etc. But sense Iv manage to put together a 486 with an old hand held scanner. I've found I can experiment an create until my heart's content, all for a few pennies on the electric bill. I've even managed to take some old oopses and make them in to wows.
For my money I'd like to see even more articles on digital imaging.

They ended up printing this letter 3 times, that I know of, over the next couple of years, whenever they received a lot of complaints about digital images. The point I made is still a valid one. it's the final image that counts and nothing else.

tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 12:24 PM   #29
calr's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466

There have been many excellent comments made here. Thank you for participating in this discussion. The thread will remain open for a few more days if anyone else wants to comment.

I have had two phone calls from Bynx and we have had extensive discussions on the subject with many excellent points brought up.

Changes are coming that I think will be agreeable to most of the members. I have already sent PMs to Selvin and Vsch1 (Vanessa) and I am going to draft a new set of rules for their evaluation.

Stay tuned. I think there will be something for everyone including Bynx.


calr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 2:56 PM   #30
Junior Member
Lawquepicker's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6

I like the idea that a photographer can alter what he "gets" out of his camera to suit his own interpretation of what his own eyes saw.

I have shot too many shots where what I saw with my eye could not be recorded for one reason or another...with my equipment. IMO the human eye is still vastly superior to any camera.

Therefore, allowing a photographer to manipulate to be able to present a more accurate image is not by any stretch an infraction. Even removing artifacts which cannot be cropped out is ok imo.

But choice is the key here. If one doesn't want to alter? Just as good.

Lawquepicker is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:44 PM.