Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Gosh what a lot of bile this forum is filled with and I have lost patience with responding to the same challenges. As far as camera's being around for centuries I count three; the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st. Yet again rather than posting a worthwhile response to my queries people instead enjoy dissecting every word i say and posting supposedly witty pithy retorts, well done everyone! you can be funny! hoorah for you! Maybe I should post about why there's not a comedy forum so you deadbeats can have a platform for your juvenile responses.

I do see there being a market and a huge amount of interest in photos that have not been proccessed with photoshop. You don't think so, fine, I can deal with that.

As for the outlandish comparisons between the art of sound recording and photography, get real I'm not even going to dignify such an unneccessry tangent with a response.

Peter I did find your division of photography technique to pre shutter release, and post to be interesting and yes you are coming close to the mark in understanding what I'm talking about. I am trying to learn pre shutter release techniques becacuse they are what interest me. I feel disinterested by post production techniques because I simply don't find them challenging or stimulating. It seems impossible to simply get a clearer definition of what post production technique photographers applied to their photos. What in the world is deemed so offensive about a simple query relating to how a photo was produced?

I feel appalled by the strange interpretations that people on this forum are attaching to a personal preference expressed by myself.

sarah_fox · February 7, 2009

Feargal, I read only a fraction of the lengthy posts, but I'll add my earnest perspective, if you want it. I'm one of those people who often edits photos. I do it unapologetically. Some of my photos simply get color/contrast sorts of manipulations (that I would call corrections). Some of my photos are very invasively manipulated. Then there are all gradations inbetween, such as editing out a dustbunny on my sensor (towards the milder end), cloning out an object that I don't think belongs in the photo (moderate), or substituting a sky (more involved). Where do I draw the line between unmanipulated and manipulated? How do I answer your yes/no question for a given image?

Then there's a matter of the style of a photo. I've taken some photos that are very much out-of-the camera that you might perceive as manipulated, usually owing to their lighting effects, and I've done some extroardinarily complicated editing on some shots that you would perceive as natural and "out of the camera." Is it the look of the photo or the truthfulness that concerns you? This question would make it all the more difficult for me to give you a yes/no.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

"If there were such a filter then it would removed all the images because all digital images are manipulated"

I find it incredible that people are simple enough to actually think that this is a worthwhile thing to say at this point in a thread. I assure you that I get the point that all photos can be interpreted as manipulated. Already there is an option which many people select that states that their image is unmanipulated according to their own thresholds of what counts as manipulating their image. I simply would like a filter that allows me to view only those images from photographers who selected no if i so wish. How far are peoples' heads up their own asses so that they can't simply address the posted query without losing themselves in pointless discussions of the semantics of that query.

Spearhead · February 7, 2009

I do see there being a market and a huge amount of interest in photos that have not been proccessed with photoshop.

</blockquote>

Where? I sell a lot of photos and nobody asks how it was made. They just want photos that communicate. Even for photos with "news value." So where is this market, how big is it, and who is part of it?

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

You can't have it both ways, Feargal. How can you think that mentioning CGI in film production is a helpful analogy in the context of this thread, but consider an analagous mentioning of another medium (which simply deals with different wavelengths) - to help illustrate whether and how technicalities and technique in art do or don't bear on the market they serve - to be below your dignity? Are your own comparisons between the art of cinematography and still photography inappropriate? Why not? That you can't sense your own tone-deafness in this conversation has a lot to do with how it's all playing out. You are mustering appalled outrage that people are having an opinion about your opinions, which you are wearing loudly on your sleeve. I'm not sure how the irony is escaping you, but it is. I do see there being a market and a huge amount of interest in photos that have not been proccessed with photoshop. How is that market defined? How can the buyer tell that an image isn't manipulated? How can I tell, looking at your own images right here on PN, that the chip-on-the-shoulder posture with which you started the thread isn't actually a bit of sublime humor... and that you routinely clone in people's missing teeth or have removed passing aircraft from your landscape shots? How will you present your art ... "Landscapes, By Feargal: No Aircraft Removed!" How is that "huge" market identified and addressed? Surely the market for such photography has a name, or can be described in terms that perhaps a simple Google search can readily find? There are markets for photographs of mice wearing clothes. That I can find. But I'm having trouble nailing down the market you're describing - where technique is what defines the market, rather than the results and the customer's interest in them. The exception, of course, being the markets for skills in forensics and the related scientific/legal disciplines. people instead enjoy dissecting every word i say It's because you won't acknowledge that things like film choice are every bit as manipulative as the saturation slider in a bitmap editing program. That choosing to use a tilt-shift lens is every bit as manipulative as using a keystoning tool in post production. You've drawn a silly, pedantic line in the sand, it's your words that you're using to do so. So, gosh what a surprise that your words are being discussed.

luca_stramare2 · February 7, 2009

I think National Geographics learnt the lesson the hard way. Back in 2007 they had a contest among the readers here in Italy. Since it was National Geoghrapics, the rules state that the photos had not to be "manipulated", and they were very clear in this. Since no picture can be take without "manipulation", apart for the obvious choice of exposure, filters, ... only cropping and minor changes were allowed. The judges were supposed to be expert. And the 1st place winner was... a picture that turned out to be a combination of elements taken from different pictures. Luclky the picture was published before and this gave the chance to exclude the winner and declare a new one. But this to me is a clear sign that with modern technology of supposedly experts is not able to identify a heavily manipulated picture, if the work is well done. The old days in which darkroom manipulations were easily identifiable like Superman flying attached to a cable in the old movie, are long gone.

peterblaise · February 7, 2009

.

"I feel disinterested by post production techniques because I simply don't find them challenging or stimulating." -- Henri Cartier Bresson, well .. he COULD have said it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson</a>

</blockquote>

I recall Joshua Taylor Jr <a href="http://www.archiphotoworkshops.com/">http://www.archiphotoworkshops.com/</a> , Washington DC Photographer / Smithsonian Associate Leader, saying how he was often impressed, when looking at a picture, by how hard that picture looked to make, by how much work the photographer had put in to capturing the image. In other words (argh -- I need a new phrase!), he felt aversion to what appeared to be simple and easy "snaps" (example: perhaps a lighthouse snapped from the edge of the visitor's parking lot mid day in fine weather), and afinity for shots that showed immense effort on the part of the photographer (perhaps the same lighthouse taken from the far water's edge in the early morning light with a stormy sky behind). I understood what he meant, though I'd only be interested in the background story if the picture itself was compelling in the first place. I can't imagine I'd care too ardently about the creation of an un-noteworthy presentation regardless of the "back story".

I recall Tony Sweey <a href="http://www.tonysweet.com/">http://www.tonysweet.com/</a> , former jazz musician / BetterPhoto.com Leader, respond to an audience hushed in awe at one of his lovely pictures, saying only, "I saw this off the side of the road on a trip, pulled off the highway for a moment, pulled out my camera, jumped out of the car, snapped the picutre, jumped back in the car, and was on my way in a moment." Again, his point was to be ready for anything, and not to discount "easy" captures.

I recall Rod Planck <a href="http://www.rodplanck.com/">http://www.rodplanck.com/</a> , nature photographer, complaining that a fantastic shot of a bear with a fish in it's mouth was "ruined" in the eyes of potential publishers because of the bird poop on a rock in the scene, which he refused to remove post processing.

My poiint in sharing these anecdotes is two fold. One, connect with someone (some "one") from whom you think you will learn something. Two, these people charge a pretty penny to connect with them, and their examples are not freely "given away", as are the wonderful energies of fellow photo.net members here.

Feargal, when I ask for examples of what caught your attention and tipped you over into this thread, I'm serious. This thread would have accellerated into much greater accuracy if we could see what you see, instead of trying to understand what you write.

"A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words" -- Fred R. Barnard

</blockquote>

“Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach” -- Albert Einstein

</blockquote>

.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

You want a huge market, ok what the hell is photojournalism? War Zone photography, you can't see the moral implications of manipulating images of bloodshed.. how sorry I feel for you.

If you can't see the closer correlation between cinematography and photography in terms of using digital effects and ummm.. sound recording and photography then you too are a lost cause.

CharlesBecker-Toronto · February 7, 2009

I went for a walk and was thinking about this post. It became clear to me that you are more interested in the process of pressing the shutter button than you are in the final image. Upon my return, I found that this had been brought up and that's good. It is also clear to me that as your post revolved around the use of specific words that your own words were vulnerable to criticism if not used properly and that has happened. I also see that your (lack of) age and experience is preventing you from dealing with all this without becoming insulting to those who disagree with you. I originally replied to you as I agreed with you that there was some sarcasm in some of the earlier replies and I wanted to try to balance that out a little and I hope you will agree that I have treated you fairly. However, your insults are unacceptable to me and I'm out of here. Sorry man but you have lost me and if that makes me a lost cause as well, then so be it. cb

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

So, a photojournalist in a war zone isn't manipulating his results by choosing which lens to use? By shooting a dead body, but deliberately altering the framing to leave out the people who are laughing about something ten feet away? By going half way around the block to get the smoke from a burning vehicle more back-lit, to add drama? By using a wide aperture to make sure that the empathy we feel for the weeping woman in the foreground isn't dilluted by having her less mournful looking relatives having coffee in the background too well in focus? Regardless, Feargal, you haven't even mentioned until just now (and it's like pulling teeth, isn't it?) that your interest in in news coverage. That might have been more evident - but none of what I see in your portfolio (which is handsome, and interesting, and I've looked at ALL of it) suggests that that's where your head actually is.

peterblaise · February 7, 2009

.

Feargal, Matt's points were an effort to help refine your personal criteria into findable computer-search criteria. He's trying to help.

I think the gerater challenge is to get any photographer to self-describe their presentation using your terms your way so that you can use a computer word search to find photos that match your terms used your way.

Such attempts to identify photos using words is all the rage, and all the less scientific and standardized for all everyone's efforts in these fields. See the endless debates at "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=tagging+versus+keywording">tagging versus keywording</a>", and "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=taxonomy+versus+folksonomy&btnG=Search">taxonomy versus folksonomy</a>".

Feargal, we've been acknowledging your desires, we really have. We get what you are after, we really do. In an effort to join you, we are trying to explore with you how inaccurate such a search would be in the real world considering that no one else self describes their offering using terms exactly as others use those exact same terms. We're discovering that your dream has no tether in the real world.

It's simple, after all. Yes, it would be nice if contributors could accurately pre-categorize their offering so it could be searched, sorted, and selected on demand by consistent and rigorous computer findable criteria. Yes, that would be nice.

I also see that your use of the word "century" refers to "a group pf 100 years all having the same first two digits", unaware that your audience was understanding the word "century" to more simply mean "100 years". <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=century&searchmode=none">http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=century&searchmode=none</a> You mean, "We're into the third century where photography is extant," and I thought you meant, "photography has been around for two hundred years or more". We're both right, in a pedantic way. The challenge is to have us both think the same thing, regardless of the ambiguity in the usage of the words themselves.

I believe this confusion between what you meant, and what your audience thinks you meant, is rampant in this thread. This happens all the time on the Internet -- heck, it happens in real life at the grocery store counter even! And "age" has little to do with it, hence the word "curmudgeon" -- see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vestal">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vestal</a> . ;-)

I see no way around it but through it.

It's been a heck of a provocative and productive thread nonetheless. Thank you for hanging in there, Feargal and all.

The only thing left for me would be to see examples of the "tipping point" pictures so we could engage the photographers and further pursue the unanswered exploration with them. May I suggest that criticizing other photographers for taking the easy way out, then turning around and loosing energy and interest in your own thread is a bigger challenge to your own veracity than any response from others here. My quote earlier from George Harrison is from his song, "The Answer's At The End". All it takes to get there is perseverance, the same perseverance you ask of others.

.

cyr_smith · February 7, 2009

Feargal, I'm on your side. I want to see photos that are on the "Top Photos Gallery" shown side by side with the original photo taken straight out of the camera. (yes it will most likely be a raw file and then changed to 8bit but so what.) I think it would be great fun indeed-! It would be: "This is what I shot but, this is what I had in mind kind."

znabal · February 7, 2009

so I read the whole thread, every last post. (sad isn't it) (this part is true)

(this part is not) I am left with one question...Feargal's photos were shot with a Canon EOS 450D, yet are marked as "unmanipulated"...this particular camera (like all modern Canon DSLR's) automatically "manipulates" the photo through the on-board processor (a built-in Photoshop if you will). Can anyone (Feargal?) please tell me which Picture Style (Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful or some user defined) was used so I get a feel for the manipulation involved ?....I really want to filter out and avoid "Landscape"....I hear it accentuates the greens too much

-jeffl

ilkka_nissila · February 7, 2009

As you can see, the people running photo.net are overwhelmingly in favour of blurring any distinction between a photograph and digital art. What's most annoying is their arrogance and lack of consideration they have to people that disagree with them.

I am in favor of this filter. Just a little check box, thanks. Although I must say I have many years ago stopped looking through the galleries mostly because I don't like the overprocessed and artificial images that seem to be the majority.

One way to work through this omission in photo.net is simply look at photos by people whose work you find interesting. That's what I do.

kelly_flanigan1 · February 7, 2009

Its interesting to read so many posts from newcomers to photography.

Photos have been manipulated since the beginning of Photography; its really nothing new; its just new to the newcomer.

One could push or pull glass plates in development in the civil war era; to map a scene to the plate.

One could add lanterns; fire off flashpowder; add torches; add reflectors to add light.

One could wire up a brace to hold somebody head still for a portrait; dodge and burn on a contact print.

One can go back 100 years ago to a custom contact printer that has a slide draw mask where one adds a "programmer"; a shaded piece of Vellum to custom dodge parts of a 8x10 or 11x14" print.

The same 100 year old contact printer had a mess of dinky bulbs one can unscrew; to burn in more of an area; ie manipulation; ie what newcomers today think is so very new; but basically very old; ie ancient.

There was a time when enlarging was considered manipulation; it was not a contact print to a purist; plus dodging and burning was easier; then the Adams Retouching machine; then was Fuji Velveda; then Photostyler; then it was Photoshop; as newcomers arrive so many want to believe that when they got on the train the manipulation started.

As a girl out on a date; tell her that bathing; makeup; brushing ones teeth are manipulation; you want a natural girl who has not been altered or ruined.

Many digital cameras and digital printers too sharpen.

Manipulation is part of the craft of photography and cine/movie work too.

Folks adjust lighting.

Even the aspect of high dynamic range photos is nothing new; just a digital rehash from eons ago.

A 1930's Kodak Photobook shows using double and triple exposures to make a combo of a lighted building; a sunset; the building lights; three exposures one made for each item; teh combo has a higher range than a single exposure.

Since digital manipulation and not film manipulation is mentioned in the question; it appears one has already ok'ed Velveda; enlarging; burning; dodging; varying development; tilting of lenses; using flashes?

Why do newcomers thick photoshop is trickery; and a 1940's Adams retouching machine; or #50 Flashbulb; or a double exposure is not?

Is it that they are overused today; of folks are not familar with photographys 150 + years of manipulated images?

Young folks always what believe what they are doing is new; and not something commonplace 100+ years ago

One can take B&W images shot 100+ years ago and colorized and damn them as manipulated.

Saying all digital is manipulated is what many pure film folks preach too as standard dogma.

Then in printing one has the camps that say a glossy print is not really a photograph; and another camp says a matte finish is not really a photograph.

Spearhead · February 7, 2009

I want to see photos that are on the "Top Photos Gallery" shown side by side with the original photo taken straight out of the camera.

</blockquote>

Why stop with the gallery here? When someone has a show, they should be required to post the memory card with their print, or the strip of film. Forget about the photographer's vision, stop them half way through.

FWIW, I was required to learn darkroom skills before I could take out my camera. I manipulated everything, multiple negatives in the enlarger, scratching negatives, deliberate reticulation, I produced a lot of interesting stuff. That was well before digital was even a possibility, but some people don't realize that manipulation was always a part of photography. I recommend some reading on the history of photography.

sketch_tbhotmail.com · February 7, 2009

"You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time." -Abe Lincoln

Unfortunately it seems that you're getting the short end of the stick here my friend. While I am an advocater of digital processing I can understand your desire to see completely "unmanipulated" photos. Unfortunately, this site doesn't seem to have many that could be classified as anything other than snapshots. Thats not a blanket statement, I never said they all were snapshots (can't get flamed for that at least). It takes a great deal of skill to get a shot directly from the camera that isn't in need of a little post work. Not much can be done, and there isn't any truly helpful way for you to filter such a search anyway. I'd accept that and move on if I were you, there's no point in getting into a pissing contest online (unless you get off on insults and useless banter). I'd suggest Apug.org as well to avoid digital "trickery" (used in your sense of the word so therefore not demeaning), although they use darkroom "trickery" over there, so I doubt you'd be happy with that either.

I honestly hope you don't reply to this comment as it will be a sign that you have moved on. No point in whipping a dead horse, accept that you won't win this as there's no real winner here.

I would suggest you check out Daniel Bayer's work, its mostly shot with Kodachrome and is largely unmanipulated I'd guess. That may be a starting point for your search.

cyr_smith · February 7, 2009

Why stop with the gallery here? When someone has a show, they should be required to post the memory card with their print, or the strip of film. Forget about the photographer's vision, stop them half way through

</blockquote>

If you don't find it would be informative for those who would like to manipulate their photos fine. I personally would find it very informative, interesting and a window into the artist mind. Too many people here are taking this thread as criticism. I for one would simply like to see where the photo started and where it ended up. Get off your high horse.

DB_Gallery · February 7, 2009

Cyr, it is not a high horse they are on, it is the lack of something else that causes the constant use of this crutch.

DB_Gallery · February 7, 2009

Feargal,

Every image is manipulated, even the one you have not taken yet. For when you single out life and frame it, you have manipulated life into a personalized parable of your own expression. But....

I think I know where you are coming from so I will try to give my opinion and not get caught up in the swath that is so typical of these discussions.

If I see a brilliant image of lighting behind Kitt Peak observatory, I want to believe that all the lightning strikes are real, they happened and that they were not superimposed:

http://www.jeremygilby.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/KPNO.jpeg

This is an iconic image that is not only journalistic but artful, it is very famous, it is powerful, it is a real photograph. It was also very dangerous to make, I know, I have been in place like this.

So if you are like me, there is more to just totally discounting how an image was made and going with the flow, especially considering just how much fakery is out there now, especially on this site. There are a few people in this discussion that incessantly refer to journalism and the area where computer aided photo manipulation is taboo, and sometimes refer to it as boring. Well, maybe their particular attempts at it are boring, but not everyone's.

This is the approach I take in everything I shoot from advertising, fine art, stock and editorial work. I can frame an image with enough style that I like to challenge my self in what life gives me, not what fake Photoshop twist I can put on it. This approach is a style and yep, it is a respected niche as you put it: "I guess it does at least give me a niche in the market to fill."

Despite what one person told you, you are right, it is a niche, so just keep at it, be brilliant in the way you see life, not fake it on your computer.

But the bottom line is this. None of us on this site should have to wade through thousands of images of unknown origin if we don't want to, there really should be a better way to get to what we want to relate to in images. It's OK if one person does not care about the origin of an image, but that applies to them, not all of us, so to keep ramming down our throats at every chance they get is really a weak reply.

In another thread, Josh Root told me that they were looking to engage new search criteria such as tagging like on Flicker. That would make a BIG difference in how I can look for what I want to see. Flicker is absolutely outstanding in this manner, there are user groups who don't WANT to see all the computer generated fantasy stuff, I am one of them. I want to be able to have more control in how I spend my time when looking at images on this site. I feel that is not too much to ask considering how much non-photographic material is on here, and yes, I have every right to label it that if I choose. After all, I am a photographer, I also make a full time living off of my work and I know what people buy and what they are utterly sick of seeing.

So what you need to do Feargal is understand that there are lots of people like you.......to my surprise lots of young people who want to see actual photography, not photoshop drudgery. If you join a place like Flicker and start bookmarking your preferred criteria for looking at images, you will find it a vastly more enjoyable experience in looking at photographs. For until Photo.net can employ some sort of filter, it's credibility as a site worth its name sake is simply a fond but distant memory..

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Jesus what a load of condescending arrogant drop kicks frequent this forum apart from the odd glimmers of hope. It's very sad that the same things must be repeated and the same denigrating stance must be assumed by those of differing viewpoints than me. How many times must it be repeated that I have no problem with digital manipulation, how often must some towering narcissistic idiot gloat over his views and his understanding of the history of photography. Jeeese do you guys like the sound of your own voice.

I will once again return to my original question of

1. why can't a simple checkbox can't be added as a filter in the critique forum to find results that are to my personal tastes i.e photographs submitted wherein the submitter has chosen to state that he believes his images are unmanipulated according to the standards set out by photo.net here they are so we can avoid the same tired discussion about what constitutes a manipulated image:

Your photos in our database here at photo.net are intended to help other readers learn how to become better photographers. It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated"). In other words, to produce a image like yours, do they need to work on their camera technique or their Photoshop technique?

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

<h2>Unmanipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>a single uninterrupted exposure </li>

<li>cropping to taste </li>

<li>common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white </li>

<li>dust spots on sensor cloned out </li>

</ul>

</td>

<td>

<h2>Manipulated</h2>

<ul>

<li>double-exposure or fragments from several exposures </li>

<li>geometric distortion, e.g., to correct perspective </li>

<li>adjustments to just a part of the image, e.g., dodging and burning </li>

</ul>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

For those readers old enough to remember film, "unmanipulated" is a slide processed through standard chemistry; "manipulated" would be a black and white print that had been heavily dodged and burned.

Here are the standards set out by this site, why in the world do we have to keep talking about what constitutes a manipulated image.

Question no. 2 why can't the options be clearer when submitting a photo i.e a simple yes the image is manipulated or no it is not. This is opposed to the current situation wherein the options are no and unknown or yes.

Please don't post more irrelevant snidey comments and stick to the original thread cause this is really getting ridiculous.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Daniel thank you so much for a brilliantly informative, balanced and relevant post. You and the others who have posted helpful material and insights have restored some of my faith in this site. Kind Regards.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Cyrr and Ilkka also thanks for offering viewpoints that are a beacon of light to photographers such as myself amidst all the angry irrelevant diatribes expressed here. Peter also your views though contrasting to mine are interesting and informative and I will try to post something more relevant to your questions when I have the energy after replying to all the haters that have come to this thread.

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

until Photo.net can employ some sort of filter, it's credibility as a site worth its name sake is simply a fond but distant memory Oh for cryin' out loud. Flickr tends to be a gigantic, self-selecting mutual admiration society. Which is fine, provided you understand how its ecosystem works. If your world is limited to tag correlations, then you're going to see what you've asked to see... and miss what you sometimes ought to see. That's one of the great pleasures and true virtues of the critique forum here. You can hit the "skip" button or just scroll on down to the next thumbnail.... but you might actually be challenged along the way as you mentally throw out the junk food and keep the vegetables. If it's a nice vegetable, let it catch your eye. Worry later if that vegetable was grown in 100% green, non-lazy, organic manure... or just plain old, regular, get-the-work-done manure. to my surprise lots of young people who want to see actual photography, not photoshop drudgery It's this often-repeated false dichotomy that creates most of the friction in these discussions. Why dwell on photoshop drudgery when you could just as easily talk about darkroom drudgery, or graduated-filter-on-the-lens in-the-field drudgery? Or... not dwell on it at all.

DB_Gallery · February 7, 2009

Matt,

I run a full time freelance and stock business and direct a 200+ photographer global tribute to Kodachrome, I don't have to time to wade, I just don't. So how it breaks down is this:

Photo.net = Photo related discussions, it is excellent for that. Not so good for looking at photographs and having a say in what criteria in which to look for them with.

Flicker = Comprehensive viewing of photography in using many factors of both search and filter criteria. Not set up as well for discussions.

Feargal wants a filter, I want a filter. This is 2009, it is time for it.

Sign In

Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in