Uploaded shots and digital manipulation?

Lately the more that I view many of the pictures being upload to

photo.net the more I am seeing what I consider to be post

manipulation via digital techniques. Now I am not against using a

digital darkroom if that is what you like but I am finding it more

difficult to accept some of these photographs as photographer�s

skills rather than their computer skills. I do not wish to �paint

everybody with the same brush� who uploads photos, but it seems that

more of these uploads can be classified under �Super Velvia, Super

Saturation� and �Unsharp masking a way to salvage your shots�

categories.

 

Hopefully I have not offended anybody but only wonder if there are

others that are feeling the same way.

 

Regards,

And what do you think about digital cropping ?

I never did it, but tried it now sometimes lately - it worked well

Grey Wolf,

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/photo.htm

 

It is difficult to decide where to draw the line on manipulation. I've heard talk that the scanning process flattens and degrades an image so one must re-saturate and sharpen the file.

 

I've had a number of images published that did not truly represent the saturation of the original and it was frustrating. The newer techniques have overcome some of these problems but one new 2003 international travel catalogue seems to have gone way over the top. I can't remember the name but the cover is a photo of the Teardrop.

 

But for me, making a judgment on whether someone has over-enhanced an image is too controversial without seeing the original.

 

best regards

Is this some kind of problem here in the LF community?

I'm sorry Grey Wolf, but this one has been beat to death. It's almost like discussing politics or religion. Each side has very strong beliefs and they're both right, in some way.

 

Frankly I wish I could do some of the stuff good PS'ers can do, but in the darkroom. I can't, but the stuff I do produce in the darkroom pleases me and seems to fill a niche. PS'd images are just as valid and fill a different niche.

 

I understand your concern that some may try and make up for lousy camera and/or darkroom techniques thru the use of PS. In the end truely outstanding images will rise to the top and the rest will sink in to dark.

 

Just try and emotionally engage the image and appreciate it/or not on that basis. Don't get hung up on how they got there.

 

Eric

Grey Wolf,

 

I couldn't remember what steps I had taken before presenting the earlier image so I scanned it again for comparison. This second scan is 96 dpi, no saturation and no sharpening. The image is from a 4x5 sheet of Velvia.

 

I don't think there is much difference between the two but what struck me was actually standing in front of the teardrop and seeing the scene for real, and not in a book. That was pretty impressive to me. And, ultimately, this image is a true representation of that scene.<div></div>

On the one hand I agree with you.

 

On the other hand, though, I think that the digital arena is just another means

to a very similar end.

 

Even different films will record and represent the same scene differently.

Velvia, Provia, E100SW... which is more 'right'? Is dodging/burning in the

darkroom wrong?

 

Do I think it's ok to bump up the saturation, mask and adjust curves to better

present a scene as I remember it? Yes.

 

Do I think it's ok to clone out that garbage can or those powerlines because

they don't add to the beauty of a scene and aren't part of my 'memory' of it?

Well, I'm not so sure about that one (tho' I admit that I've done it before. I do,

however, footnote all of my images in which I have.)

 

How about this one: Using photoshop's perspective crop to fix converging

verticals in images when you couldn't use movements? I've done that with

medium format, 35mm and digital images and I've not felt in the least bit guilty.

;-)

 

Phil

In regards to Martin's question about digital cropping, I personally do not have a problem with it. That is as long as you are just sizing the area you like to present and not like Phil mentioned "taking out power lines" I believe that when you start that process it becomes hard to stop and then the original is lost.

 

Reading through this I need to apologize for missing this discussion on the first couple of "go arounds". Please take this question, as I intended, not as a complaint but more as to wondering who else felt this way or not. I do not consider myself a very good judge of photographic quality so if I'm noticing this then I thought surely others must have been seeing it.

 

Once again I support anybody who chooses to use the digital medium to express himself or herself, and have played with it a bit myself. I guess that over my morning coffee I was growing extremely tired of browsing the General Forum and noticing so much manipulation on the uploaded files.

 

On the other hand both images that Bill has displayed here are very well done and (in the first) the manipulation he claims goes unnoticed by my eyes. My impression is that of a very well focused shot with good care in exposure and composition.

 

Again Phil has pointed out that dodging & burning is manipulation and I do that all the time. So I guess my point is lost and I was just feeling like getting a bit off my chest.

 

Regards,

Again, this subject has been beaten to death with the general consensus being that you should judge the image for what it is, not how it's been created. I don't agree. <p>

This is a photography forum and as such it should address the creation of images with a camera, not a computer. Now, I know that digital manipulation can replace most of the things that can be done in the darkroom but I feel that if the manipulation goes much farther than that the skills of the photographer become less important than that of the "Photoshopper".<p>

In many of the images uploaded, the photograph (if there actually was a photograph to begin with) is so drowned out by digital imaging that the work can only be described as a graphic art image, NOT a photograph.<p>

My feeling is that if the original photograph cannot be discerned enough to be judged for it's composition and technical qualities the image doesn't belong in a photography forum.

In using several Fuji products when shooting artwork; I have had to DE-saturate the scanned negative/transparency; in order to get a "correct" print the matches the original. The customer many times wants the print to match the original; and not have pumped up Mardi Gras/late night disco hot colors. Many of the Fuji and Kodak products today yield hot saturation of colors; with a new coated lens and studio conditions; DE-saturation in Photoshop is the norm for me when doing copy work.

I just wanted to thank Bill for the link he provided. I had to wait until this evening when I found the quiet time in my home and now have read through the article. I found the information provided to be both enjoyable and have a strong ring of truth about it. I highly recommend that everybody takes a few moments and read the entire story. I received an education on how wide spread digital manipulation really has traveled. This article covers quite closely what I was feeling but unable to express in written form.

 

Thanks Bill!

All,

 

In the late 70's, while working my way through college, I did custom photo

processing at a commercial lab in Chicago. I did dye transfers, custom

internegs, copy work, c-prints, Cibas -both mural and easel-sized. I used

every trick I new to help a customer get what they wanted. Once I finished a

job, it often got sent to the retouching department for a whole series of

interesting steps.

 

The upshot is that artificial modification of a print is nothing new. What I

appreciated back then (and now) is when the photographer described the

medium and any notable circumstances or techniques when the photo was

being displayed. Often times, this information was displayed somewhere

near the photo on display or, on the printed gallery brochure. I think this is a

fair approach as it allows an observer to appreciate the photographer's work

at any level they so choose.

 

 

Regards

 

Ray C.

there are only good or bad images....

<center><p>

<img

src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/silverweed.jpg"

width=500 height=500 vspace=5 alt="Silverweed"></p>

<i>Silverweed. Achnahaird, June 2002</i></p>

</center>

 

<p>If there is a problem, it is that photographers lack

imagination. Most of the digital manipulation I see is done to

make photographs conform ever tighter to cliche. Especially in

nature photography there is too cozy a consensus about what

nature is and how we should view and approach it. One of the

delights of 'straight' photography is that it allows the world to

surprise us with its own ingenuity.</p>

 

<p>This is a manipulated image. Silverweed doesn't grow like

this in the 'wild', but it does when allowed to colonise agricultural

fields. It is part of a symbiotic landscape made by nature and

people acting together, often unconsciously. Like this, it is not a

'Nature' photograph, but it is unavoidably about nature. I like it,

NANPA wouldn't. As far as I am concerned, the fact that I took

this photo on colour negative film is completely, utterly

irrelevant.</p>

Sometimes it takes an awful lot of work and manipulation just to make the scan look like the original print. Trying to match up the contrast, dark areas, light areas, and color cast gives some of us the fits occasionally.