POW discussion and manipulated or not

[jmontgomery]

In the present case, you check (or not) a box stating not manipulated, with

the assumption that if it is not checked that it is manipulated.<p>Perhaps

there should be two boxes for checking at submittal. One saying manipulated

and one saying not manipulated. Have the software require one to be actually

checked rather than making an assumption as the present case does ...

[bennyboy]

The problem is that one persons 'manipulated' is not anothers, where do we draw an objective line in this subjective minefield? And more importantly, just how does anyone think it can be enforced?

[jmontgomery]

Ben ... certainly one can talk about manipulated or not but my point is that the present question assumes that if you don't check the box that the assumed answer is that the submittal IS manipulated. Of course, most people (myself included) don't or have never checked the box even though we are submitting non-manipulated shots. In my time on PN, I have seen numerous discussions (even with POW shots) about this subject. A simple change could be abused but at least it would actually require a definitive statement by the photographer ... something we really don't have now. I'm still convinced a change on the submittal page would make a difference ... and be a lot better and clearer for all.

[namurray]

I agree that it would be helpful to have a yes or no answer to whether a photo has been manipulated. Photo.net has defined what they consider to be an unmanipulated image, so it is not entirely subjective. Whether a photo has been manipulated or not certainly makes a difference in the way I approach its critique and rating.

[john falkenstine]

Photo.net has written guidelines that define manipulated or not.

[jmontgomery]

I remain convinced that PN should require an explicit statement at submittal that a shot is either 1) manipulated or 2) not-manipulated ... and have the software recognize a non-ambiguous singular affirmation and require changes on ambiguous inputs before allowing the submittal to proceed. Seems that this would be a very good change. Of course, it would require some changes in our submittal habits (like mine for example!).

[joe baker pine bush ny]

i don,t understand the importance of the question. why would anyone care if it was manipulated or not,you eather like the photo or you don,t. that is for me i suppose. it seems trivial. i asume all photos on PN are manipulated in one way or another.

[jmontgomery]

Joe ... see the POW discussion that has been happening all of last week.

[daily_photograph]

YES - there exist some traffic lights "red light or off-state". But the "red or green light" ones are clearer!

[yann_r.]

I even add an orange traffic light between the green and the red.<p>

[ ] unedited (only resize for post)<br>

[ ] unmanipulated (as photo.net guideline defines it)<br>

[ ] manipulated<p align="justify">

Many of mine are marked as "unmanipulated" but many are worked on post prod (at least colour/contrast/levels adjustements - I'm right with photo.net guideline). I'd like to be fairer with photographers who make *all the work* before pushing on the shutter.</p>

[daily_photograph]

This is an extra theme, Yann, and a very attractive one. I would be very interested in a "no change at all" section (even no crop), a place to learn from the best ...

[root]

You're essentially asking for "unprocessed". It might be interesting as a group assignment where each member has access to the RAW file and gets a chance to finish the job according to his/her own preferences. Other than that, what's the point?

 

When we talk about getting it right in camera, it's about having all the "information" you need in the file to get the results you want. Pros shoot RAW, even with large jobs, then batch process.