root Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Steve, unless you can show me some examples, I think the actual use of the current check box shows that virtually all those who check "unmanipulated" understand and use the PN definition. Since no one is proposing that this sort be used as the exclusive default TRP page, I don't see the problem. People miscategorize "street", "abstract", and many other category choices all the time and nobody complains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 7/7 for the Jumping Whale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 You're joking, right, Carl? You've been around here long enough to have seen plenty of discussions regarding claims that photos have been manipulated when they are not marked to indicate so. I'm not going to provide links to other members' photos to make my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Before photoshop, the heyday of photo manipulation was... 1860! Why did it fall from favour? Because as people learned to look at photographs, manipulations started to seem cheap and unpleasent. Photoshop is new enough that people have not yet adjusted their eye to it. In 20 years, the manipulations that people rave about here will seem just as cheap.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skoint Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I have found everybody's opinions interesting and the general consensus is that 'you do what you like' which is the pinnacle of what producing images is to me, being able to tell my story and using whatever method is necessary, be it cross processing or PS manipulation. My only gripe is that if it comes down to grading a photo I feel that the time, work and thought process should be taken into account, before I begin to sound like I'm contradicting myself I'll give you an example. I was reading a photo mag a year or two ago and noticed a stunning picture of an owl wings spread flying directly at camera with a huge full moon framing it, it really was a great looking shot, well when I read that the owl and the moon were made up of two separate images put together in Photoshop I couldn't help but feel that one of the other 'natural' shots were more the worthy winner simply for the time and effort involved in producing them. I am saying this as a big fan of Photoshop but I have a big respect for the hardcore Ansel Adams type photographers that WILL wait hours for a shot. I just think they deserve a little more credit than someone who spends an hour on PS to get a similar result (me included) Well thats my 2cents. Gavin Tomkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 This continues to be a fascinating discussion. One thing I did not see discussed here is double exposures. All of my SLR's in the last 40 years have had this ability. Is that not manipulation? It is the combination of two images in reality to get a single image which does not physically exist. Multiple exposures have always seemed to be acceptible, at least from my viewpoint and many great film photographers have used them. Is creating a multiple exposure in PS any different? I will also say I was initially a purist when it comes to nature photography but I was corrupted by PN. A little manipulation here; a little manipulation there. Who will know? All of the sudden, my ratings jumped. Now I sleep with my PS CD disk under my pillow.. Is there a 12 step program for manipulators? If you manipulate too much will your auto focus fail?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 LOL--great post, David! There are Soooo many classical photographic and darkroom techniques that could be mentioned in this thread on photographic manipulation. Some people just can't seem to accept the reality that manipulation was not invented with the introduction of Adobe PhotoShop more than a decade ago. Manipulation has ALWAYS been an integral aspect of the art of photography and ALWAYS will be. PhotoShop and related graphics programs have simply made manipulation easier and more accessible to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Can we archive this discussion before it dissapears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Surely this one will be preserved (archived) for future generations... My great grandchildren (maybe even my grandchildren) will probably have to do a Google search to learn what film was, let alone that it could be "manipulated". (-: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Why is it that these debates keep getting detoured into HOW rather than the much more important question WHY? Steve, the lying manipulaters on PN that come to mind are years old POWs, before the check box option was added. Can you find me one within the last two years that got enough visibility to warrant further discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manel_soria Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 1-Everybody knows the difference between a photo and a PS trick. The PN definition is OK. Both types of images can be interesting, but they must be displayed separately. Think for instance about tornado shooters. 2-If PS tricks are allowed to compete for visibility with true photos, photographers will leave PN (yesterday called photo-shop.net by one of the best in his cathegory, who already left). 3-I belive that many people think like me, but we don't like so much to argue and our arguments are less elegant, so I see a dark future for PN unless someone "up there" takes a decision. Best regards, if you want to contact me my information and links to some of my erased PHOTOS are in my page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Knock, knock, Carl,...I mentioned POW because those discussions have undoubtedly been the most visible. I have seen a substantial number of heated discussions on other gallery photos SINCE the "Manipulated?" check box was introduced. In fact, these discussions resulted because the box was checked "No". That said, I spend most of my time looking at Velvia-esque landscape shots, rather than abstracts. Perhaps manipulation is more common within the class of images I view most often, as opposed to those that you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I've said all that I care to say on this heated subject. The site maintainers have chosen not to chime in on this thread, which may or may not be insightful. (-: This thread really evolved into two related but separate topics. The idea to provide a filter for image manipulation would work in a utopian society, but that's not the society we live in. There would inevitably be individuals who would abuse this tag and wreak havoc for the site maintainers. It just won't work (IMHO). Enjoyed the discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 "on this site, something that doesn't look like what most people normally see through the viewfinder is assumed to be altered in some way. It's a shame on a learning site because they're less likely to look for new ways of seeing things if they don't believe they actually exist." - Carl Root. Another important point indeed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Check this out ! A PSed wale ! :-))) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 On-camera double exposures are, as far as I know, also considered manipulations by Photo.net's manipulation chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I'vealready replied to your question - although indirectly. I don't think you can predict a lot of complains ahead. You will see. If some people complain abouta manipulated picture declaredasunmanipulated anyway, no big deal: the photographer would just be told to upload it to the other section. As an example, I didonce see a manipulated picturethat the autor declaredas unmanipulated. Did I write to abuse ? No ! Who cares !? As long as the majority of members play by the rules, nobody dies if there's a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphanius Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I agree mostly with Steve. The following image could be a perfect target for anti-PS viewers, probably thinking "a fly with such colours doesn't exist.. booooo.. what a cheap trick colouring the eyes.. and a blue BG... boooo... unnatural... ". <br><br>However, other viewers would think "a fruit fly from Tephritidae family on putrid grapes, nice and interesting". So..... who does really know when a shot has been manipulated? Are everybody expert in all types of photographic categories and subjects? I've seen how "nature photography experts" can't distinguish among a wild or a garden plant, so what's the point?<br><br>Easy tricks? For a good photographer all tricks are easy. Some weeks ago I realized that checking the "manipulated box" doesn't help me and doesn't help viewers, so my default option is always <b>manipulated<b> ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coho Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 As a graduation gift from college in 1971, my parents gave me the Time-Life photography series; about 16 books each on a different aspect of photography. In the book entitled "The Art of Photography", there are two chapters devoted to image manipulation. The book was published in 1971 when MS-DOS was just a twinkle in Bill Gates eyes. (Now that would be a good manipulated image!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphanius Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I'm sorry. I left bold type opened. Just closing it </b> right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphanius Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Trying again... if bold type keeps on after this message, please some moderator edit my mistake. Thanks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 <p><b>Let's see if this closes the bold...</b></p> <p>Did it work?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 </B> As to the question of what the response of the users would be to having the opportunity to search for photos based on the flag, I think many would be delighted. And the site would be far more useful. As Marc said, the truthfulness of people in declaring how they did an image is always a matter of debate. I don't see any reason why someone would want their image to be viewed in the wrong queue. If they didn't manipulate their image, they want it to show with other photographs, if their image is a PS composition, why would they want to risk the disgust of the purist photographers - can you imagine what kind of a wave of 1/1s a clearly photoshopped image would get in the unmanipulated gallery? I'm quite sure that it would be in the interest of the posters to put their images in the correct category. And if they don't want to say which it is, they can get their attention with the manipulated images or mixed view, whichever the user chooses.<p>It is difficult to predict future but counting on people to be dishonest is not really a constructive approach. People should be given their chance and for the functionality of the site, some individual images in the wrong category would make no difference. If there is a heated debate on an individual wrongly classified image, the administration can simply change the flag to manipulated or unknown. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anndra Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I'm relatively new here, but I have to confess that I'm dumbstruck by the idea that any photographer would dismiss or attack the work of another because of varying degrees of manipulation. Someone above even mentioned 'true photos' - presumably intended to distinguish between ps manipulation or not - and I couldn't help but wonder if they would include a photo that was created with the aid of a shift & tilt lens - indeed, any lens - a warm up filter, a motor drive, a light meter, a nuetral grad etc. All of which are grand manipulations in themselves before you get anywhere near your choice of recording media, manipulative chemicals (or not) and choice of paper or other publishing media. And some people leave photo.net over this issue? Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how they don't manipulate light to create a photograph in the first instance. I would no more give up CD's and return to cassette than I would give up photoshop for, well, any current alternative. Ultimately, I wouldn't even dream of 'fighting' with another photographer over their choices. The final image - the result of their creativity - will always be of more interest to me than how they arrived at it. Even though I am deeply interested in both. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosquandt Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Hello, please first of all excuse my very bad english. Why do you think this is question with a black or white answer? These all we like, are just visual products manufactured with different invents (photograph camera, paints, engravings, etc). The thing is the autor must always explain what the viewers are watching. Why to resume all the subject of this discussion in manipulated or not? There is noy light at the end of this way... It is not necesary to defend a criteria.. It is necesary to be honest Regards, Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now