Jump to content

Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?


Recommended Posts

<p>Hi, I am fairly new to this site so forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but why are the options about whether an image is digitally manipulated so unclear. why do people not have to say yes - an image is manipulated or no- it is not digitally manipulated. Why must it be no / unknown or yes. Doesn't this muddy the waters far more than is necessary.<br>

I personally don't care at all for digitally manipulated images above the most basic of tweaking to do a captured image justice. I love photography and hope to develop some skills in it because the truth of a photographic image is very important to my enjoyment of the medium. When I look around photo.net though I see a huge amount of digitally manipulated images in the photo critique forums and the editor's choices of pictures. I have no problem with this; each to his own ideas about photography. But I would expect that photographers should have to state what level of computer trickery their work has been subjected to or at a more basic level simply have to answer yes or no rather than the current options. <br>

I also think that I should be able to apply a filter to exclude digitally altered images from my view of the photo critique forum if that is my personal preference. Perhaps I am missing some obvious option because of a lack of familiarity with the site, if so my apologies, but could someone please point out how I may be able to spend my time on photo.net looking at photos that are free from digital manipulation. <br>

Regards,<br>

Feargal</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I know what you mean. Just other day I was trying to figure out how to avoid the endless stream of grotesquely desaturated images that completely rob the photographs of their original, true colors. It's like a plague, this whole "black and white" thing. I can't believe that people would manipulate the truth of the image like that when there's perfectly good color film available.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I have no problem with this; each to his own ideas about photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My ideas include whether or not the photograph affects me. I don't really care how it got there, that's up to the photographer, I only care about a connection to me, as a person, not as a tools evaluator. I am actually opposed to the idea that people should make their decisions about something based on how it got there, to me, that's the opponent of true creativity.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Along the same lines as Matt's comment, I would add that....<br>

The eye does not see things in focus except for a small area in the very center, so it is quite clear that in order to portray reality, we should defocus the lens to avoid over sharpness. (Of course, autofocus lenses can do this reasonably well on their own).<br>

In addition, photography can never be seriously considered to be an art, if it is the mere mechanical recording of the world. We should seek painterly effects where we can.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>mmmmm... thanks a lot for the totally unconstructive answers. I posted an innocent query related to a personal preference and this is the unrelated rubbish that you deem fit to reply with... well done. Thats me taught not to come to this forums looking for a reasonable response from its users.<br>

Congratulations for your opinons you're obviously ever so proud of them, of course i'm not entitled to my own.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I know what you mean. Just other day I was trying to figure out how to avoid the endless stream of grotesquely desaturated images that completely rob the photographs of their original, true colors. It's like a plague, this whole "black and white" thing. I can't believe that people would manipulate the truth of the image like that when there's perfectly good color film available."</p>

<p>Well done you've learned how to be sarcastic.. now what is it that people say about that relating to wit?<br>

Any photo.net users who see a query as something other than an opportunity to behave like an idiot please let me know if I'm missing something in relation to being able to filter out images that have been manipulated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 06, 2009; 08:06 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Maybe you should take a minute to think about why you got the answers you did get...</p>

<p>mmmm.. because people on these forums can't allow for someone to have an opinion about photography that differs from their own?<br>

I specifically said that I respect other people's wish to create and enjoy digitally manipulated images. <br>

I see them as works of art in their own right but personally i prefer images that have not been manipulated. Can you explain why that opinion is so hard for users here to accept..</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Come now, Feargal. Read your post. It wasn't a simple inquiry about whether or not there's a technical feature (gallery filtering) available on the site. Your question was also a vehicle for your assertion about the untruthfulness of images that have been worked on by the photographer. That opens up the the (well trodden) issue of whether any photograph is truthful, and invites discussion (for the thousandth time) about whether or not manipulation of color, contrast, etc is anything new (it's not!) just because it's done digitally.<br /><br />Words like "trickery" do <em>not</em> have neutral connotations. When you come out swinging, you sometimes get other people into a bit more defensive a posture, no?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Come now, Matt. Instead of replying to a query in a helpful fashion you couldn't resist a dig at a member for stating a preference. I think its extraordinarily petty and symptomatic of an overly sensitive disposition to see an adjective such as "trickery" as me coming out swinging. Read any photography book or magazine, do you find it extremely upsetting that they may have a digital tricks section?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Feargal-whether you know it or not, all photographs are 'manipulated' in one way or another (i.e. in camera)-the only exception that I can think of off-hand are images taken as RAW and then not post processed and I don't imagine there are a lot of those out there. Even if photo.net could have an 'unmanipulated' category, it probably would not be very meaningful as it would depend on the willingness/honesty of the posters to show that it was in any way manipulated. We are in a digital age but manipulation of photographs is not exactly new-I remember a friend denigrating the photoshopping of images and then praising Ansel Adams; he had no idea of the amount of time Mr. Adams spent in the darkroom. I hope that this didn't spoil his appreciation for his great photographs but I didn't ask him; they were still the same images he loved so much before. This probably doesn't help you but at least it's not sarcastic. I think the reasons behind the answers you have seen is that the digital manipulation issue has been raised many, many times and people are tired of it. cb</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?"<br>

You can get a job as a police officer, or a journalist where digitally manipulated photos are a no-no ?</p>

<p>As hilarious as these responses are; how pathetically laughable it is how feathers are ruffled on this site by someone stating an opinion in amicable terms. I posted this thread to find out if there is an option I can deploy to filter out digitally manipulated images. If not could someone post a sensible response to why its not an option or why people can't say yes or no about whether their photos are altered?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Feargal, Unless you're able to see the image by holding a disk up to the light somehow I'm afraid anything you find over the Internet is going to be digitally manipulated. In it's native state, a digital photograph consists of 0010110101101010101011001's and nothing else. The interpretive software and hardware it takes to display it is all manipulative by it's very nature.<br>

The human eye is a marvelous thing, activated by a marvelous brain, to piece together the bits and pieces of reality we interpret. What we see is what we know. If we are confronted by something outside our reality, the brain fails to put the pieces together.<br>

So, why would you want to avoid "digitally manipulated images"? If an image has been treated in some post-processing way that enhances its visual content, but you cannot readily tell that anything was done to it, I call that "art" or "craft" or "skill". It's something that is all-too-often lacking these days. Just my 2 cents.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you Charlie I was beginning to give up on these forums. I do understand that all photos are the result of a proccess of manipulation be it in a dark room or on a computer program. I think that it is fairly easy to categorise images and the amount of digital manipulation they have been subjected to though. Well perhaps not easy but I think it's worthwhile for photographers to state whether they see their work as manipulated. I simply see is a puzzling that to a simple yes no question, there is a negative response but no positive. For people such as myself who only wish to see those images wherein the photographer has subjected his photos to none or the very minimal of manipulating, can't a simple filter be applied in the critique forum or perhaps a different section?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Feargal-I think that you may,at least in part, be answering your own question. You said that you would accept 'the very minimal of manipulating' but I think that could be very difficult to quantify. Having said that however, there is a definition on this site as just what is acceptable as to be considered unmanipulated. You can't avoid digitally manipulated images (I guess I don't have to tell you that!) but I think this site provides more info than you think. cb [that's Charles-not Charlie :-) ] P.S. don't give up on the forums-there are just some topics around here that get people's backs up a little or more than a little-like Canon vs Nikon, etc.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well it is encourging to see helpful feedback coming in at last. Regards to all who took their time to respond in a friendly or constructive way. <br>

" If not could someone post a sensible response to why its not an option or why people can't say yes or no about whether their photos are altered?" That option is already there. cb</p>

<p>But it's not is it? or am i losing it? it says no / or unknown or yes. That isn't a simple 50/50 answer to me it muddies the waters too much, doesn't anyone think it would be simpler just to say yes/no and maybe if you really insisted you could have have yes/no/unknown as options. Is that so disagreeable?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>.</p>

<p>Hi Feargal,</p>

<p>Eye of the beholder, pal. </p>

<p>Just being able to see an image on your computer screen means it's digitally manipulated in some way.</p>

<p>Do you want photographers to stipulate that they did not modify in any way the image as captured by the gear ... except aiming and timing and shutter speed and focal depth and cropping in-camera or after-capture and ... and ... and ... and essentially give up their legal right to copyright as creator of even the original latent image, abdicating the creative responsibility and credits for their own art and craft to the non-decisions of the gear, as if gear had it's own volition! Geesh!</p>

<p>Sorry to inform you first, but ALL images are manupulations -- that's the definition of you not being there originally. No way around it.</p>

<p>When you write: "... I personally don't care at all for digitally manipulated images above the most basic of tweaking to do a captured image justice ..."</p>

<p>... what I hear you saying is that you want the feeling of looking through an open window at the original scene, and that may take the MOST manipulation at every step of the photographer's journey from capture to presentation. But you know that, and you know how hard it can be -- I've seen your own wonderful images.</p>

<p>When you write: "... the truth of a photographic image is very important to my enjoyment of the medium ..."</p>

<p>... I hear you crying forever in anguish into a dark night. A photograph can only lie, otherwise it would not be a photograph, it would be reality.</p>

<p>There are three kinds of photographs: lies, more lies, and damn lies.</p>

<p>I love Pablo Picasso's story of someone objecting to his "modern art" image of a woman (not a photo). "That's not what a woman looks like!" the onlooker protested. "Oh?" Picasso asked, "What does a woman look like?" Whereupon the onlooker pulled out his wallet, opened it, pulled out a picture of his wife, and handed it to Picasso. "Here. This is what a woman looks like." "Oh," Picasso said, "From now on, I'll paint women as small, rectangular, flat, and black and white." (PS - Love you, Matt!)</p>

<p>Ferargal, I fear that, all things accurately considered, you actually hate photography at the moment, real photography, and have absolutely no respect or joyous celebration for it's nature as an artifact, a creative act by real photographers such as yourself, requiring equal energies from inerested, appreciative viewers.</p>

<p>But, judging by your own photos:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4710707">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4710707</a><br>

... that's not true, it it? You LOVE the challenge of making something exist that never existed before -- a fully arthored photograph, a penultimage and magical manipulation of otherwise blank paper or screen. I find my experiences of your images stark, quiet, and compelling. The only exception to the "quiet" was this one, maybe:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8343014">http://www.photo.net/photo/8343014</a> <br>

December Swim by Feargul Norton<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8343014-sm.jpg" alt="" width="199" height="133" /><br>

... maybe. Maybe there was one sound: "Aaiiieeeee!" =8^o<br>

==========</p>

<p>Feargul,</p>

<p>May I suggest that you just scroll on when viewing other's images that do not engage you, images to which you do not respond today. Or maybe just stop looking at other people's pictures for a while. Or mayber just look really long and hard at one picture, and imagine what it would take for you as photographer to have created that picture. I have done that for many images, and I was surprised what I found inside myself. Even at Monet's Water Lilies I found I was jealous for his having such a studio that couldaccomodate painting something so large -- I was at least jealous of his studio! That might not have been the artist's intention in their viewer's reaction, but it worked for me.</p>

<p>Enjoy your photographic process, and keep sharing -- I enjoy looking over your shoulder and through your eye, even if I shrug off listening through your writing at the moment! ;-)</p>

<p>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>[[how pathetically laughable it is how feathers are ruffled on this site by someone stating an opinion in amicable terms]]</p>

<p>You have no idea what the word "amicable" means.</p>

<p>[[doesn't anyone think it would be simpler just to say yes/no]]</p>

<p>The default for uploading is unknown/yes. If you want to say no, you must choose no. By chosing no you affirm your image corresponds to what that choice entails. All others, those that choose to say yes AND those that choose to say nothing, don't have to worry.</p>

<p>There's no reason to have any more than the two choices that are already available.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well I guess so maybe, but for me I look at images; especially from photographers who I really enjoy, and feel surprised that their images are manipulated and I can't see it. I then wonder if perhaps maybe they simply missed ticking the box when submitting or didn't deem it important to do so. I don't think a clearer option when submitting photos would do any harm to anyone.<br>

And probably I am being petty in these views I hold, but I simply find it much more enchanting and impressive in most instances when a photographer captures a moment in time and processes it rather than artistically creates a beautiful image on a computer. I reiterate that I see these images as beautiful in their own right but for me some of the magic is gone. In the same way that I look at old movies using animatronics and live action and feel more bewitched than with CGI. <br>

One of my favourite photographers is Man Ray and none of the magic of his photos is lost by the fact they went through heavy post production, but I don't think that he would have shied away from stating how his images were produced. I don't see how people interpret these views as a call to arms. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are many, many ways a photograph can be manipulated. I agree that a yes or no seems to simple to be particularly useful. The problem is that your concept of unmanipulated or minimally manipulated doesn't necessarily match up with the next guy's. You can always ask specific questions of the photographer's methods. If your main concern is with digital manipulation then maybe you are looking for Apug.com?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There is no "filter" for this on photo.net and there probably won't ever be. Why? Because everyone's definition of "altered" is different and we're not going to get in the middle of fighting about something that can't be defined.</p>

<p>The current "this image is unmanipulated" system should probably be pulled out since nobody pays attention or uses it correctly anyway. It was created years ago when these conversations were in their infancy and most people still used film (though they obviously had to scan that film to get it on photo.net).</p>

<p>Aside from that, Feargal, you've really got to have a thicker skin if you you are going to be posting about controversial topics. Nobody was rude, nobody insulted you personally, nobody acted like an idiot. They just made their responses to you in creative ways that made their point. That's debate. If it bothers you that much, perhaps you should give up on internet forums. Because it's this way all over the internet. Some will agree with you, some won't and everyone will express their opinion on the subject at hand.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...