Original vs. Manipulated Images

While I am not that old it does seem like I am holding on to an

ideal that is no longer shared by many. I very rarely touch my

photos and almost never manipulate them. The most I would do is

change the color curve, and even that is rare for me. I have always

pursued the idea that a photograph should be as original as

possible. Once the shutter is released, the picture is done. But

after looking around at the highest rated "photos" on this site, it

seems like people value editted ones more these days. I saw these

two pictures:

1. Very plain shot of a single house community, nothing special

about it at all. But the person used the watermark filter in

photoshop on it;

2. Absolutely amazing shot of an 18th century bridge amist dense fog

in the middle of the winter. As far as I can see, it is authentic.

Another reason is because I know if a good enough photographer were

there, he or she can probably pull it off with some testing.

 

#2 could make it onto calendars, journals, magazines, books without

much trouble. #1 is just... well I wouldn't show it to people if it

were my picture.

 

Now to the result, #1 is a lot higher rated than #2. So what's the

deal here? I really don't get it. The way I see it, if a picture

looks good because of heavy editting, then the author is not a

photographer but more of a painter (only digital rather than the

traditional brush and paint). Am I too old fashioned?

let go aris.

I think you are jumping to a lot of conclusions for only being on PN for two days. You may want to explore some of the thousands of previous posts on this very subject that are in the archives.

Stop worrying about what photography is or should be. Just do it, and let people call it whatever they like.

Aris, from my calculations you have just broken the record for the most number of posts on PN for a two day period. Please slow down, you are making me dizzy.

I think I understand what you're saying, Aris, but isn't any picture the culmination of a continuum that begins with a concept and proceeds through visualization, taking the picture, processing and displaying it? To deny any of the links is, I feel, only placing unnecessary constraints on your artistic potential.

 

In a way, it would be like an artist restricting himself to just one brush: would his pictures be more highly regarded for the limitations he placed on himself?

 

I'm pretty old-fashioned, too, but appreciate what each step in the process can contribute to the whole. Maybe that comes from having spent so much time in a darkroom before discovering the joys of digitally printing my slides and negs.

Combination printing is what folks used 100 years ago ; where they combined several exposures from different negatives; on one print. This stems from 1855; with Berick and Annan of Glasgow. The process was patented in 1858. <BR><BR>Aris; where you born before this ? :)

<i>the shutter is released, the picture is done.</i>

<p><p>

UTTER NONSENSE... can you say "darkroom?" Whether Wet/traditional darkroom or digital darkroom, a significant part of photography happens in post-processing.

Well, it is true combined printing has been around forever. To be honest, I never considered those as photos because they did not capture what the photographer saw at that moment. I guess I have always been considering photographs as only capturing the moment. Don't get me wrong on editting, I am not against it and I know how to work photoshop pretty well. For some clients, I had to do quite a bit of editting. The reason why I asked this question is because I have observed that clearly manipulated photos are on average higher ranked than not noticably or not manipulated ones. It is true I have only joined 2 days ago, but I have been looking at the ratings and reading the forums for about a year now. Oh well, I'm just curious and not really planning on changing anyone's view or start a revolution or anything :)

Ok clarification: I don't mind color and contrast corrections. I'm talking more about adding things that weren't in the picture. For example, if the watermark filter is used, it is adding things that are not in the picture. Post processing for color is normal and allowed for before court and the rest isn't. This is what I have always being going by (I'm an attorney-to-be).

aris, you're not too old fashioned... i like raw output too, but printing is part of the

process and if you're not getting into it, you're not making the most of your work. and

aris, you do manipulate your images - that starts when you choose the type of film you're

going to use. lenses, lighting, angle, DOF.... everything...... it's all manipulation.

Steve, I think you are right. Take the pictures I have in my portfolio. They are not as good as they could be. While I can easily allow editting and take the picture at a setting that is more aimed for post processing, I wanted to stick to the setup-click-done court room guideline. It's true courts won't allow that, but then again we are not in court, are we? :)

 

What's the record for the most posts in two day period now? :)

aris, yeah you wanna try and seperate your attorney gig and your photography unless you

think it will benefit you in some way. at the moment it seems to be limiting you, or at

least your beliefs. draw your own lines and be true to yourself. with my personal snaps i

try and keep things to a minimum cos that works for me. in fashion + beauty i have to do

things like slim a girl down or change the shape of a face or feature... try telling fashion

editors about rules and honesty and you'll be shown the door. consider carefully what you

think photography is and set up parameters based on your own conclusions. lead, don't

follow.

" I have always pursued the idea that a photograph should be as original as possible. Once the shutter is released, the picture is done." So pursue away. You are a purist. That is OK. (They meet every Wednesday evening in the classroom at our Lutheran Church..)<p> There are strict constructionists on the bench too. Fortunately not too many.<p> I won't push the analogy too far,but I think it has some merit. Photography is a living and evolving art form and always has been open ended for most observers,since Daguerrotypes made the shot the end product.Even some of them may have been overpainted! And ratings are not going to hold up in your brief on this case...Be well,eat prunes daily.Gerry

You are making the record almost impossible to beat. Attourney to be explains it all. I rest my case!

<i> I guess I have always been considering photographs as only capturing the moment. </i><p>

 

The history of photography consists mostly of people whose work didn't stop there, fortunately. It would be pretty boring if everyone whose finely honed darkroom skills created some amazing prints had never had the ability to do it.<p>

 

Learn about photography. Get some books on the history of photography, go to the museum and look at some prints, pick up some monographs. Your viewpoint has little to do with what you will see. Photography has always been about using what is in front of the camera to create something that speaks to other people, not about any strict set of rules.

<i>Photography has always been about using what is in front of the camera to create something that speaks to other people, not about any strict set of rules</i>

<p> absolutely true <i><b>but</b></i> i would advise against getting sucked into the history of photography riff and trying to create a little niche for yourself within it. i see a lot of that going on with people and it is a trap. the history of anything in the future is highly questionable since the dominant culture is in a post/anti historical mode. you will not be the next HCB or whoever, so just be yourself.

Claudia, the point is that where we are today is the result of where we have been, and we are here because of all that manipulation. To arbitrarily choose this time as a stopping point in what has always been a part of photography makes no sense.

 

I'm not sure where you got that stuff about "creating a niche for myself." I didn't say anything about that.

jeff, it you think i was referring to you that is your problem. why don't we just let my statement stand as it was made and people can think about it on their own. my advice is...forget the history of photography, forget art history...these are modern creation myths. do your own thing, informing yourself, but not being a slave to a theory of linear progression. express yourself. history and where you fit in, if at all, is irrelevant.

I think the relevance of photographic history relates to the final sentences of the original post:<P>

<i>The way I see it, if a picture looks good because of heavy editting, then the author is not a photographer but more of a painter (only digital rather than the traditional brush and paint). Am I too old fashioned?</i><P>

You're certainly free to choose your own methodology, but it's a mistake to define your view of what photography is or isn't as "old fashioned" when your view is far more limited than what has traditionally been accepted. It's the difference between avoiding post-exposure manipulation because that's how you prefer to work and avoiding it because of an erroneous view that using post-exposure photography isn't a part of "real" photography.

man that's a LOT of responses!

 

First things first: I am NOT against manipulation and I have done some pretty drastic alterations at clients' requests.

 

My original question was based on my observation that the ratings on this site, at least for the past week or two during which I have paid closer attention, seems to be, in the minimal sense, in favor of editting overall.

 

I do not think editting is wrong or "untrue." When I look at an image, I judge by its quality and representational value. Even if a photo is heavily editted, I would still think highly of it if it is good. What got me wondering is how a plain photo with a standard filter from photoshop got a better ranking than a very well taken picture.

 

That aside, I think maybe I should explain why I came off as a purist. When I first went full-time with photography, I did very heavy editting. In fact, I got my first job because of a portfolio of post-processed photos. I did feel like I have cheated, but I also enjoyed being able to paint my photos and the feeling of freedom in terms of expressing my feelings and visions. But as more work started to pour in, I realized that my deadlines were too close for me to edit my works beyond simple color corrections. When I can no longer produce images at the same quality level, I felt even worse about all the editting I have done before which my clients have come to expect. Eventually I stopped enjoy taking photos full-time and that explains why I am now doing my law degree. Do none of you full-timers feel rather disappointed with your results when you know what the pictures could be if you had more time to edit them? I don't like the gap in qualities, so that explains why I no longer seriously edit my photos. I guess a part of it is because I wanted to not think about what could be the result.

 

So I'm sorry if I came down too strong. I was just curious about one pair of pictures, and never intended to offend others who edit their photos. I did the same and probably will do it again eventually. But for now, all the pictures in my portfolio are straight out of the camera... and yes I am fully aware that all of them could be better :) Hey maybe I'll do a photo next week without all these limitations and get back into the swing of things :)

 

Time to sleep now, all the beer from tonight is catching up to me!

I do mostly straight photography, but almost always do some tweaking in Photoshop- mostly levels and sometimes a mid-tone curve.

 

In straight photography, I think you should try to get 99% of the final image in the capture. Commercial photographers who use slide film get pretty good at this.

 

On the other hand, sometimes manipulation is appropriate, for example:

<I>"...forget the history of photography, forget art history...these are modern creation myths."</I>

<P>

I dont understand this. What came before has value, knowing about it is important. If you reject the "History" you reject the medium.

<P>

Or maybe I don't understand your thoughts?

SP I think what she's trying to say is to not be restricted and let the artistic imaginations flow free. Just a guess.

Aris, when you say that you just want to present the image that was captured when you tripped the shutter (loosely paraphrasing), you still have to take into account the work done by a lab in printing. That's fairly extensive in many cases. There's a whole process behind a <b>finished</b> image, be it traditional darkroom printing or PS adjustments and an inkjet printer. Even darkroom printed images that aren't composites involve contrast selection, and often masking, dodging and burning. PS colour correction, levels, and unsharp masking is pretty much essential for a polished print. And while I agree that cheap effect filters are just that - cheap - I think you have to rethink your conception about what constitutes a finished photo. After all, our aim here is to produce striking images (the best generalization I could come up with), wheras your courtroom photos are expected to be strictly documentary, often at the expense of aesthetics.<br>

Not to mention PN ratings are pretty much incomprehensible anyway.<p>

Cheers,<br>Josh