Standards for unmanipulated photo declaration

Let's ask the purists if they think the wire removers should be placed

with them or with the collages.

 

There are two groups that people wanted to be separated out from 'the

rest of us' - major manipulators, and set ups that are not obvious.

You've said you're doing it the other way for administrative reasons,

but it doesn't address what people have been asking for.

 

Yes, I've referred to 'foundview' and the 'falsification' article many

times, but always for the purpose of helping people to understand what

the issues have been, not to suggest that we adopt what is generally

regarded as a failed attempt to classify images.

 

Is there a reason that we can't have what we've been asking for - a

requirement that the technical details of images be disclosed? . .

Carl, I don't believe that it is being done this way for administrative reasons. I think it is being done this way to try to prove a point to us complainers; that we will continue to complain about the rules because in Brians opinion, they can never be agreed upon.

 

It was easy enough for Brian to set up the "unmanipulated" check box, it would have been just as easy to set up a the other check boxes that we were asking for. This is just trying to prove his point.

"Carl, I don't believe that it is being done this way for administrative reasons. I think it is being done this way to try to prove a point to us complainers; that we will continue to complain about the rules because in Brians opinion, they can never be agreed upon."

<p>

I disagree with you Scott, sorry. Could other rules be agreed upon ? In Brian's opinion, indeed, apparently no. And I agree with him on that. And all the previous attempts in these forums to "draw the line" have failed. Yet, "purists" have kept on asking for a separation. So if you were the editor of Photo.net, you'd be tired of all these discussions, and you would think of where is the most logical TO YOU to draw the line. You would get documentation - the Foundview thing, etc - and you would draw YOUR line where YOU think is right. Brian has the responsability of this site. We don't. Why would Brian take Scott Bulger's or Carl Root's opinion rather than his own...? It just so happens that the rules are proving "a point to us complainers", indeed. I am absolutely convinced that if Brian would not find this set of rules logical, he would not have made it THE RULE. You have to accept the simple reality of a fact, which is that we all disagree as for WHERE to draw the line. Personally, I don't care where it's drawn, and you may want to think for a moment that a lot of other purists, so far, have either show satisfaction to Brian new idea, either have at least not shown dis-satisfaction.

<p>

Besides that, I invite you to read the above again:

<p>

"If enough people mark their images as "unmanipulated", eventually we will have some kind of Top Unmanipulated Images page", said Brian.

<p>

Great, and at least now things are absolutely clear. The trouble you and Carl see here, is that some (of your) images called "manipulated" by Brian's set of rules are in your opinion not manipulated, and I do understand that you surely wouldn't want your pictures to be on the same page nor in the same category as wild photo-montages etc. Point taken. But Brian knows that, don't you think. So what's next step...? Well, next step is that we all take our responsabilities based on the rules we now have, and check our little boxes. As simple as that.

<p>

And then what...? Well, there may be a "Top Unmanipulated Images page"... But that's not done yet. At at that point, nothing would stop Brian to create different SUB-CATEGORIES in the "Manipulated Category". And that would eventually separate your pictures from my most awful montages...:-) Basically, one step at a time. Brian had to start somewhere and it had to start from some set of rules with which someone had to disagree. It happens to be you and Carl, but it could have been anyone else. Brian can never win 100%, as Bob Atkins noted above. So does it mean he should do nothing ? I doubt.

<p>

Besides that, if now nobody checks his checkboxes, it will mean that nobody cares, and that nothing else will be done. So, your call. Check your boxes and see where this goes... It is the Editor's responsability, and not ours, to draw the line. Give him a break, basically... Wait and see... Remember the ratings reform...? Brian was willing to change things, and in the right direction. At the end of the day, too many complains brought us back to square 1. And we all have seen the result... Keep that in mind, maybe. Cheers.

There will be an Unmanipulated view, and an All view. The All view will be the same as we have now. So your stitches and skews won't be "lumped with the composites"; they will be displayed the same as now with all other photos, including the unmanipulated ones. However, the unmanipulated ones will *also* be displayed separately in a view by themselves, and your stitches and skews won't be in this view. If you have decided that the "unmanipulated" view will be the honest and righteous view, and feel insulted that your stitches and skews won't be included in it, I am sorry about that.

 

As for the notion that I defined the standards so as to teach people a lesson. Believe me, my goal in doing this was to reduce clamour on the site by providing what people have been requesting for months.

 

It's a slippery slope, for goodness sake! Anywhere one might draw the line was going to result in a situation where there could be two photos with supposedly only a "small" difference, where one of them was on one side of the line, and the other not. If there is an unwanted tree right near the edge of the photo, I can crop it out and the photo is "unmanipulated", or I can clone it out, and the photo is "manipulated". You might have to look twice to see the difference between the two photos. Does that mean we should allow cloning? Or do we say, well, you can clone in the 10% of the photo near the edge? Then, what about cloning an object that is just inside the 10% line? Et cetera, ad nauseum.

 

I defined the standard to be the most logical and coherent that I could, taking heed of previous attempts to do the same thing, such as FoundView, and what I considered to be generally agreed ideas. For example, cropping, dodging and burning, are generally accepted as not being manipulations or undercutting the truthfulness of a photo. (Although I mentioned already then where I took photography courses, cropping was definitely forbidden.) Photojournalists (if they have time) are not enjoined from these.

 

I don't think there is the same agreement about perspective correction and stitches. Almost all discussions that I have seen regards a photo composed of more than one exposure to be manipulated. That rules out photo-composites but it also rules out stitches and blended exposures. If you compromise on this, then you open a pandora's box and must try to define what composites are allowed and what not. A composite of two photos side-by-side to make a panorama is an allowed "stitch", and not a manipulation. But a composite of the foreground of one image and the background of another is a "manipulation". The same type of argument could be made about skew.

 

Having said all that, it didn't escape me that this little exercise was going to teach some people a lesson. Cheers.

Brian - I think your standards are an excellent compromise. FoundView spent a LONG time coming up with their final set of standards. They were designed to be as clear as possible with as little left to "interpretation" as possible. They are on the "strict interpretation side" simply because of that. The more compronises you make, the more fertile the ground for sneaking in images that are questionable. No perspective corrections, no stitching, no multiple exposures may rule out a few "valid" images, but they rule out a lot more "digital graphic creations" and prevent arguments of what is and isn't allowed.

 

There are far more important things to be done on photo.net than to endlessly discuss the minutia of rules and ratings.

The lines could have been drawn in any number of places. It is

certainly true that other groups who have done this have found

that there have always been people who for some reason have

decided to skirt the rules if they thought they could get away with

it. There are also others, and I include myself, who find that the

kind of work they enjoy sometimes places them right on the line

and there will be times when the viewers and or the

photographers will have questions regarding which side the

image belongs. To some it won't matter, to some it certainly will.

 

I can live with these guidelines. Most of my images are on the

unmanipulated side, anyway, even by this strict definition. I may

go back and upload new 'cleaner' versions of a couple recent

popular ones, but it's not a high priority . . . . . . but neither is

going through all my uploads and trying to remember if I skewed

something slightly.

 

Part of my reason for debating this issue is because I have my

doubt about whether the default setting as 'manipulated' will

mean anything on most images. I think Bob thought that most

images on this site are manipulated. I doubt it . I think most

people will assume an upload is unmanipulated regardless of

what the box says and will still be upset in cases - like some of

the recent POWs where - makers of deceptive images were not

forthcoming.

 

It becomes a matter of priorities, as well as maximum benefit for

least amount of effort on Brian's part. Several of us spend

inordinant amounts of time trying to come up with constructive

ideas that can be implimented without zillions of hours of

program time. Requiring technical details would be a benefit,

and would address the manipulation issue beyond what we

have now. As I said before, defining manipulation as we now

have makes it clear once and for all that even the most elaborate

montages are welcome on this site and that's fine. But the basic

question - "what are we looking at" - could be addressed in a

better way that, unless I've missed something, would require

only a few minutes of program time. (explanation and debate

time not included :-)).

I don't want to give technical details on my images. If required to give them, I'd just make them up, or more likely not bother posting any more images.

Are you being provocative, perhaps? That kind of thinking runs

counter to the educational goals of this forum. If you make them

up, you'd better be real good at it because there are people who

can figure out things about an image that surprise me

sometimes. . . . but you know that, don't you?

I wouldn't want to make technical details mandatory either. What a pain in the rear! I'm already thinking of making Camera and Film optional instead of mandatory. If there is something unusual about what I did, as a photographer, that I think may be helpful for the viewer to know -- sure, I would probably mention it. Probably because I would be proud of having successfully used some unusual technique. But for 99% of photos -- no.

 

When I was doing film photography, I never kept notes about exposures etc. Is anyone actually compulsive enough to do that? I bet none of the photography writers who recommend that ever bother actually doing it themselves. I'm pretty sure that most of the exposure data that is printed with photos in photography magazines is made up.

 

Now I use a digital camera which records data like the lens, aperture, and shutter speed in the file. But Photoshop doesn't propagate this information to the version I've prepared for uploading, so I'd have to rummage around for the original to get those technical details.

 

Even if I made it mandatory, people would type in "..." like they do as a comment when giving a 7 rating.

 

Finally, how do those details help anyone? "Brian's sunset photo on photo.net used f/Xx at 1/yy sec. That was a great photo; so I think I'll just ignore my meter and use his settings." Sure.

I think telling wich camera and film were used in a particular case is a good way to allow people to learn from your experience. Also, I believe that any interesting techniques used to compose a photograph are worth reporting.

 

Making such info optional allows me to keep posting it AND prevents me from having to make things up. Like when I *forget* what film was there.

 

BTW, I think date of exposure field could be less restrictive. Honestly, my year info is accurate, month is likely to be and day is a complete lie :)

OK, let's refine it a bit. Require technical details only if you've

left the check box for unmanipulated empty. You're right, most

writers admit to making up aperture / shutter speed data, but if you

have not indicated to us that your image is unmanipulated, it stands

to reason that most of us would like to know what you did to it. That

should be much easier to recall. Mostly, it's a matter of which

process and technique, not a precise bit of data. You're saying

people will enter '... to explain their images are manipulated? . . .

and that viewers will not question what "...' means? From a

programming standpoint, how difficult is it to require a comment or

tech detail of a certain length . . . and don't you think that would

get the idea accross that we really, really do want some meaningful

content? . .

Carl, really, if people feel defensive about not checking the unmanipulated box and want to justify themselves in the Technical Details ("The only manipulation was to clone out a tree near the edge"), then they can do that. If they want to explain what manipulations they did: no problem there either.

 

But what purpose does it serve to compel people to document their manipulations when they don't check the box? ("Interrogator: Now, Mottershead, you already confessed that this photo is manipulated. You didn't think we were going to just leave it at that, did you? Tell us exactly what manipulations you did! And do you have an alibi for the night of March 10th? Suspect: It was only a very small manipulation. Really, very small. I won't do it again. Please, let me go.")

 

By leaving the unmanipulated box unchecked, they've said the photo is manipulated, or that they don't care enough about the issue to be bothered checking the box. They aren't making any claims for the photo being true, and viewers should assume either that the photo is manipulated, or that manipulation is not an issue for the photographer.

Thanks!. I'll take a couple of weeks in Hawaii. Just mail me the tickets...

 

Just like Brian, I have no idea what lens, what film, what camera, what shutter speed, what aperture, which filter or which tripod I used for 99% of my shots. Nor do I remember what I ate for breakfast on the day the shot was taken. I can make all of them up if you want me to, but what's the point. Currently that's what I do with the film and camera fields 90% of the time anyway.

 

Just because I got a great shot with a 20mm lens or 600mm lens, or I used Velvia or 1/180s or an EOS Elan doesn't mean you will. I think technical details just perpetuate the myth that they are the all important aspects of photography.

 

Now if there were a requirement to say WHY you took the shot, maybe even HOW you took the shot instead of what equipment you used, that could actually be useful, but I don't think that would be a very popular change, nor do I think it would be a question amny people would give usueful answers to, so I don't propose we do it.

Bob, forget the shutter speed.

 

How and why are often of interest to the viewer. I consider 'how' to

be technical details, don't you? That includes set ups which

addresses the the same question as camera work or PS. One or more of

these issues come up all the time on most POWs and often dominate the

discussion.

 

"I don't quite understand what I'm looking at here. Help me out."

 

Sometimes photographers are forthcoming right away, sometimes not.

Sometimes there are helpful descriptions in the tech description or in

in the first couple comments by the maker. I'm suggesting that it

would be useful to encourage, if not require, background information

that they think may be useful to the viewer. There are people who

want to lie about this sort of thing, but I think they're a small

minority. Sometimes it happens when they feel they've been judged

before they had a chance to be forthcoming. Then they get defensive.

 

So get rid of the film and camera data. Rename the tech box since this

seems be associated with camera settings. Call it 'remarks',

'comments', 'how you did it' . . . whatever gets the idea across.

Then ask them nicely to please include useful information. Then you

won't have to enforce anything. . . .

Carl, your last sentence portraits a system that I'd really like to see, provided the equipment list still can be used so those who want to detail their gear can remain confortable.

If people want to add a comment on their own images, they can do it now. Most people don't comment and probably don't want to comment. Just a fact of life I'm afraid. Most people just want to throw in a picture and leave it at that. There's no reason and no benefit in trying to force them to do something they either can't or don't want to do.

 

It's a perfectly valid viewpoint that an image should be judged only on the visual presentation of the image, and that the artist's motives and techniques don't matter. Indeed some images may be intended to be interpreted by the viewer in many different ways.

 

Just like the "unmanipulated" check box, they can use the comment field it if they want to, or if they so chose they can ignore it.

There is no 'comments' field.

 

Maybe there should be . . . :-)

Well, there is a "technical details" field, which seems to me to be an entirely appropriate place to put information on how the image was made. People put copyright info and all sorts of things in that box.

 

Just change the name of the box from "technical details" to "comments" and you're done!

People can also add comments to their photo, as many as they want, either before or after other people comment. If there is one thing photo.net lets you do, it is comment.

True. Of course you can't insist that people actually read them

carefully.

 

. . . . . while we're on the subject of comments content. . . . .

 

Have you noticed that the vast majority of '....', 'wow, wow', and '!!!!'

comments come from ESOL folks. I'd rather see an erudite

comment in their native tongue . . . . let me figure it out.

For those of you looking for FoundView, I've set up an <a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/">archive copy of the FoundView site</a>. The original site and domain name are gone. Hopefully this is OK with the founders (the site is archived in the Internet Archive, anyway).

<p>

Yes, they considered post-exposure perspective correction to be a disqualifying factor for the FoundView mark (see Bob's citation above or question <nobr><a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/aboutfv/fvreal.html#f-3">F-3</a></nobr> on the site). I'm not happy with this and would rather see restrictions on allowed perspective correction in lieu of the blank ban. I think, the restrictions can be defined and would specify

<ol>

<li>keep the proportions of objects: you need to stretch the image by a certain amount in the other dimension, too, while applying perspective correction (calculate the amount and show a series of Photoshop's Transform Perspective trapecia that fit the rule);

<li>limit the direction and the amount of perspective correction: do not 'overshoot' the point when you've fully removed the converging perspective.

</ol>

But I digressed... I'm not debating the FoundView standard here, because it's not appropriate to touch the dead horse :) Let them be as they are histirically defined. If you don't like it, don't use the FoundView mark.