Digital Enhancement or Digital Manipulation

isn't there a fine line?

Yes, there's a fine line and it's getting stretched to the point of not being very original any

more, the question on wich the fine line is based that is.Also, might as well have said :

Enhancement or Manipulation.

Ansel Adams: Film enhancement or film manipulation?

Looking at your posting history, it seems that you are late to the party. Search the archives and you will find reams of information. Have fun!

Isn't there a fine line?

 

You generally know when you or someone else has crossed it.

Accessibility and popularity aside, is there any other reason to qualify the question with the word "digital?" It's easier now, so we see more work that raises the question, but I don't see why the question itself has changed.

who cares...

Seems film printing variables aren't too different than digital photoshopping.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Stephen I am new to phtography annd have'nt had the pleasure of printing my own photographs in a darkroom. Of course I am aware that there is a certain amout of enhancement that is done in a dark room, but lately I have got the feeling that any Tom Dick and Harry can take a picture, photoshop it, and voila! you have a technically perfect picture.

 

I've heard that some photographs are created completely digitally;just by cutting and pasting.

 

Has this become an art that is now judged by who can better use photoshop?

<i>but lately I have got the feeling that any Tom Dick and Harry can take a picture, photoshop it, and voila! you have a technically perfect picture.</i>

<p>

So do it and post the results. Put up or shut up.

Mark thank you for contributing to the conversation.

My intention was not to insult Tom, Dick and Harry or to challenge anyone...and maybe I could have done without that sentence...

 

My question is this:'Has this become an art that is now judged by who can better use photoshop?'

If You must believe in something, it can as well be the purity of photography. Interestingly, I never heard such discussions about the art that's been drawn or painted by hand. Once the photorealistic painting was popular, but it never made modernist classics any less classic.

 

I'm just making, not taking, pictures.

A master, regardless of the medium, will always be a master; everyone else is just a player. IMHO it's an art just as airbrushed nudes in the 1950s were....there were masters of the trade and then everybody else.

Emre: Yes I am new to photo.net. How does one search the archives?

Whats your opinion? Enhancement or manipulation?

Stephen: I like your point. A master is a master, regardless of the medium.

What would you consider as manipulation?

There isn't a fine line, there's a definite and defined line.

Enhancement implies that the image quality, clarity or degree of detail is improved.

Manipulation implies control or influence in an ingenious or devious manner.

 

Example : lightening, brightening and sharpening are enhancements

morphing, twisting, adding bits that weren't there are manipulation

 

Ehancements become manipulations when they no longer enhance but change the original

character and mood of the image.

Not a very good definition.

 

Even the most subtle adjustments affect "character and mood". It's more about changing image content by adding or removing recognizable elements.

Once "enlarging" was considered being not pure; a "real" photographe was made from a contract print. Even in the contact print days labs had custom contact printers where one could burn or block parts of the print. A shaded piece of vellum was the blocker; a "program" that was inserted in a tray in the contact printer. The light source was a matrix of small bulbs that could be unscrewed; so one could add more exposure to one area of the contact print. Thus even these folks who did these ancient manipulations are damned forever.:) Maybe folks should ban bathing; brushing teeth; since these are modifications too. Digital just brings in a new group of folks; tools are easier; one sees more mods.

There is a whine about manipulation of photos. There is a whine about some photos being porn. Where is the whine where some folks bodies are modified in the porn; thus two whines at once? :)

This is, of course, a serious point. There are loads of unmanipulated images of subjects that have been set up or modified in order to deceive the viewer, deception being the primary concern in this discussion, followed closely by the admittedly more subjective issue of poor taste.

Carl, do you find deception in photography undesireable, if yes, why do you feel like this. If

no, then why did you pack it in the same "bag" as "subjective issue of poor taste." I am just

interested not trying to start up an argument.

If the photographer has in any way interacted with the subject for the purposes of producing an image, then that image could be considered to have been manipulated. Such an interaction could be nothing more than asking the subject's permission to photograph them. The subject is now behaving differently and the image is not as it would have been has the subject remained unaware.

 

If the photographer has used flash to get rid of shadows and reduce wrinkles on a subject's face then this is also manipulation of the image. Or if a subject has been "made over" to make them look more attractive then the image has been manipulated.

 

If the photographer has post-processed an image to remove distracting shadows or objects or skin blemishes or whatever then it has been manipulated.

 

Manipulations like these deceive the viewer as the image is not a true representation of the subject matter.

 

HOWEVER, a camera (film or digital) is dumb and brainless. It can't accurately reproduce what the human eye sees - for example:

- the human brain will compensate for change in light temperature and will still see colours properly even when lit differently photographer sees

- the human eye and brain can capture images in far finer detail then a camera CCD or CMOS sensor or piece of film (it has ~120 million rods to detect shape and form and light intensity, and ~7 million cones to detect colour) - the eye can better detect edges as the brain knows what it's looking at. The camera merely records the light falling onto the sensor or film. It can't interpret what it records.

As such, images can be captured by the camera that are not a true representation of what the photographer sees. Perhaps edges aren't sharp, perhaps white balance is off, perhaps the aspect ratio of the captured image doesn't match what the photographer wants to capture, perhaps the film or sensor has dust on it. If the photographer is then correcting white balance so the image matches what his or her brain saw, sharpening the image because he or she didn't see soft edges on that hard brick building, cropping the image so it shows what the photographer wanted to capture, removing dust/scratches as these are not part of the scene - then these are all enhancements to produce an image that is representative of what the photographer saw. Perhaps they could be better described as corrections.

 

That's my thoughts anyway for what they're worth!

Hey ..a new guy here ( Me ) I'm a graphic designer and as such, I make a living handling literally thousands of photos submitted by thousands of photographers. I'll offer my take on the difference between photo enhancement and photo manipulation. Say I'm doing a brochure and I'm supplied photos from the client, to be mixed with new images from a photoshoot. The supplied photos come from 3 different sources ( photographers, stock photos etc. ) Some are a little too red, some too blue. Some, over saturated, some, under. What I do to these to bring them all into the same range ( as best I can ) I bill as photo enhancement. If I take a part of one photo and do extractions or masking to place into another photo or background; or if I create depth of field, or desaturate a portion of a photo for a 'special effect',or I need to change the color of a car or house or whatever. I bill this as photo manipulation. As to the proposition of taking parts of various photos and creating an entirely new and different image, as good and undetectable as the originals. Of course it can be done and is done regularly. As to Mark Ci's comment "put up or shut up" Gimme a break buddy, we live in a photoshop world...

<i>As to Mark Ci's comment "put up or shut up" Gimme a break buddy, we live in a photoshop world...</i>

<p>

I stand corrected. Apparently what you do for a living involves no skill, as it could be done by any Tom, Dick or Harry, as the guy posted. Sucks to be you.