Tired of the arguments and complaints about manipulation, not to mention the abuse...

[ilkka_nissila]

It's quite obvious that online display (especially doubly compressed <100K images) makes many images lose a lot of their quality ... this site is about images which are effective with just a few pixels. Also, it is a lot easier to manipulate an image to look good (and not obvious) in a small image on the computer than a make a big print.

[ilkka_nissila]

I didn't mean that it is easy to make an image look good in a small size ... I find that quite difficult at times. But the manipulation is easier to hide or make less obvious in a small image.

[neild]

I'm in agreement with Donald Grindstaff when he said (above), <i>"I have no problem with manipulation digital or wet. I just want to know if it </i>(ie. manipulation)<i> took place..."</i> Manipulation is more than fine, but let's just realise what went into the image we are viewing: was it a straight photo, a double-exposure, dodged or burned in the darkroom (or on PS), or made up from more than one photograph. All of these techniques (and more) are quite fine, but when the result is portrayed as a single photograph, it is deceptive (unless it <i>was</i> a single photograph).

<p>

There's no doubt that PS skills are skills worthy of praise when done well, but I want to know exactly what skills I am to praise, and consider it deceptive when someone uses one skill to give an impression of another which they may not even possess.

[mattvardy]

Here's an example for everyone to consider. Just a few hours ago there was a beautiful sunset right out my front door... so I went down the lake and decided to take some shots of splashes - by throwing large stones and freezing the action as best I can. Got back inside and worked with the shots a little... really liked the originals but thought to myself MAN wouldn't it be neat if there was a fish jumping inside the splash.

 

Take a look at the attachment. Which do you prefer? Personally I can't decide which is why I haven't uploaded the shot tonight...

 

This touches on the issue some of you have mentioned, where a photograph becomes artistic fantasy/too "drawing-like". If I were to upload the fish version (which by the way was cut from a poor shot of mine of a fish jumping up a small waterall) would it be more "ethical" to make it clear that the fish was inserted? Would you then promise not to get mad at me? ;-P

 

(I have a feeling I will be uploading the original...)

 

Thanks all for making this a good discussion.<div></div>

[neild]

I like the fish version! This is perhaps a borderline case: even though it was manipulated, it is not 'impossible' and so maybe it's OK to just upload it and be done with it - still, I personally would lean towards making <i>some</i> kind of comment about the fact that some PS was used (above & beyond mere sharpening).

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, if you figure out how to take a real photo with the fish jumping out of the water, I would rate it highly. However, now that I've promised it publicly it will probably be considered a mate-rate and your real image, if you succeed to make one, would never make it to the TRP pages, while the one you posted with the fish might. :-)

 

I suspect the splashes should extend above the fish if you want to make it look realistic. One of the things that puts me off in manipulated images is that the physics are often surrealistic. However, I would greatly enjoy debating how to photograph a fish jumping out of the water. This is what I would consider a good experimental challenge. :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

I guess I'm too much of a physicist in that when I see something photograph-like I start to feel uneasy if it doesn't look possible to me that the scene existed for a moment in real life. I get a sense of dizziness.

[jhenry]

Matt, instead of throwing stones, next time, try to throw a big fish, then nobody will complain about the manipulation! <br>:o))<p> Joke apart, I am in sympathy with both the title&intro of your thread. Too many energy is wasted in backward, too long and too vain discussions in those forums(I saw funny thread in Street forum too, this week Jochen's POW discussion is also a good example); I would humbly advise some to spend more time in taking more pictures, going out, traveling ... or simply get a life!... <p>Although it is sometime quite fun to read !<p>:^))

[jhenry]

Santiago Arraga summarized very well the point in another thread, and I don't see anything further reason to continue beating that mammoth skeleton<p><i>"If you think it's unmanipulated, check the box. We're not kids that need external prodding/rules/enforcers to do what's right." </i>

[ilkka_nissila]

Jacques, what does taking pictures (I shot 5 rolls today and 1 GB of digital stuff yesterday) or having a life have to do with making photo.net a more interesting place for different people? Or is it that no one should ever try to change anything because nothing can ever change? There are lots of things in society that need changing, that's what's called politics. Seems there are a lot of people who are interested in how things are managed and some even make a profession out of it. Do you think that these people should also go get a life instead of trying to change society?

 

Photo.net is a little society of its own. And there's plenty of politics involved in there.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jacques, we already have one quote of that comment in this thread. If you are not interested in the discussion, why then do you participate in it? If you want to kill the thread, you know what subject to bring up to signify that the discussion has reached its end.

[jhenry]

Ilkka,<p> If it is 'politics' (a big word by the way for such minor(/non?) issue and debated at nauseum) then i can express my opinion, agreement or desagrement with what somebody stated before, <br>Can't I?<p> Before willing to 'change the society' (another big word!) I find useful to have a broader view and experiences, ... and going out, or get a (non-virtual) life seem to me a reasonable and pre-requisite step.<p> The discussion was originated by a member that declare he is <i>tired of the arguments and complaints about manipulation, not to mention the abuse...</i> and I posted to say that I agree with him.<br> Can't I?<p> These days, I see less and less constructive proposal on this PNet forum, just long, vain and ego-centric whining... nothing about what you so pompously called "changing the society".<br> Don't you?

[michael_dimarzio]

Marc G's thread the other day, and this one are two of the most eloquently stated and responded to treads on PN since I joined. All of the responders are some of the best photographers on the site, and have demonstrated intellect and a lot of class.

 

Matt, film photgraphy is here, and it is here to stay. Cars didn't kill off horses, bazookas didn't kill off tanks, nor did MF kill off 135 as predicted way back when.

 

A few years ago, National Geogrpahic did a cover shot in Egypt with some structures moved from their actual location to "improve" the image. They were seriously critisized, it was a scandel. They publicly promised to not to it again. I wonder what their definition of manipulation is today?

 

If you have the interest, look at the book "Robinson Crusoe". Wyeth (my neighbor in Chadds Ford) did the "Illustrations", critic don't consider it "art". R.H Dana's classic Two Years Before the Mast was also beutifully illustrated, again, not considered "art".

 

Does photo manipulation run the risk of neither being considered art nor photography, but an illustration?

 

Matt, you are doing great work, but I agree with Marc that to compare manitpulated and unmanipulated photos may be an apples and organges comparison. The fish example above to me crosses that line, it is neither art, not photography, but an illustration. Do I like Wyeths work on Crusoe any less because it is not considered "art" by someone that went to a university to learn to tell me that, of course not.

 

Lastly, I thank everyone for not calling film "analog", an idiotic term at best, call it alchemy, wet, tradtional, maybe now you could even call it "classic processing", but analog? Never.

 

Regards-michael

[ilkka_nissila]

The lack of constructive proposals on this forum are probably a result of them being systematically ignored by the administration of the site.

 

The two sides of the debate here are (as I perceive them) 1) we would like to have the option of viewing non- and manipulated images separately, selectable by user option, 2) those who think group 1 are wrong and should accept that the visibility of normal photography on the site is very low and manipulated images are great, and just go out and get a life. Now, NOTHING in the rights of those people who like things as they are would be violated by introducing the change in the TRP system. NOTHING AT ALL, as you could still select to view the images mixed. Thus, this discussion doesn't really concern those people who like to see the images mixed.

 

Agreeing with Matt is of course your right. But it does seem excessive to me that the same quote has to be repeatedly posted in the same thread by different people.

 

My comment comparing photo.net politics and other politics was just to point that just suggesting a "put up, and shut up" policy isn't really very adult, and in the real world such a thing would be considered totalitarism. Of course, photo.net is a privately run system and the people who run it can choose to ignore criticism. However, photo.net could be so much more than it now is if it were a bit more open-minded.

 

And more and more of the functions of a real society are of course moving on line. Do you have a problem with that?

[stephen hazelton]

Edward, I wasn't really complaining about the pros with expensive gear- just pointing out that trying to apply the concept of "fairness" didn't work well in a lot of other ways, as well as the PS/not issue. I'm all for knowledgeable people using expensive gear to make great photos- it would be great if that was me. (But it's not!). I sure don't feel like anyone's being unfair when they do that.

[ilkka_nissila]

Michael, your comment about National Geographic is an excellent point. In the real world, manipulation is in many instances (such as the Geographic) considered very unacceptable. On photo.net, which is an online community, manipulation is taken as a matter of course, or so it seems. The difference in attitudes results, as far as I can see from the difference in contexts. The Geographic is read by people with the idea in mind that the photographs illustrate the stories which are documentary in nature. Photo.net gallery on the other hand is a digital only medium populated by people who like to play with computers. It's a sort of game: how vivid can you make your colours, and how much stuff can you put in from different photos? Mixed illustration and photography. That's great as a field of its own, but it's not photography per se. I've got nothing wrong with the idea of using photographs as a foundation of illustration, but neither do I have any interest in viewing such works.

 

Other people love to see them. That's fine. Now, the fact of the matter is that they are separate genres and one clearly overwhelms the other in popular taste measured by photo.net ratings. Should it be so?

 

I could perhaps focus on looking at photography in books, which would allow me to do some selection, but photo.net is easier and cheaper. Also, it is fairly democratic in the sense that anyone can put images on the site. It is understandable that visibility of the images must be determined somehow as there are just so many images on the site. One possible method which I would like to see is that critics were chosen every few months (new ones, not the same old five since conception) and they could then show their own selections. The selections of the old critics could be preserved in the database and in time, photo.net would develop galleries much like in the real world, where a small group of people select images to be displayed in galleries and museums. This would help photo.net users find images and photographers that they're interested in by genre. Now, the visibility of images is determined by a mix of user and visitor ratings and strange logic. I am not suggesting that the visibility criteria are bad, but they do not allow the effective purging of photo.net image database for images of interest for individual people. I could go through the TRP pages but my senses get saturated by the types of images on display there and I quickly lose interest. Without finding the kind of work I'm looking for.

What seems to work well are the discussion forums and through them it has been possible to find interesting photographers and their work. So all is not lost. But I do think that with only a little effort, photo.net could be quite a bit more effective as a tool for searching for people and photography.

[ilkka_nissila]

The cost of equipment doesn't really affect the quality of online photos. It does affect print quality and variety of shots possible but online, a digital p&s image looks just as good as one shot with an expensive digital back and $100000 of lenses. In fact, someone who has invested heavily on equipment might think that photo.net is unfair because the hotshot equipment doesn't help you get on top with ratings ... because it mostly only affects things which are invisible online.

[ned1]

I guess I'm a dinosaur. This weekend saw a storm on the horizon. I got in my car and drove 70 miles to meet up with it near the shoreline. I set up my camera and waited until the first sunrays glanced onto the tree that was in my foreground. Five years ago I would have thought the result was pretty cool.

 

But now I realize that the clouds could have been added in PhotoShop, that the sunlight on the tree and the shadows in the background could have been faked. Hell, the tree could have been spliced in from another image. I could have created the entire image without leaving my desk.

 

So my question is, should I simply give up and stop such silly and antiquainted behavior?

 

I know, the answer is probably yes.

[laurie_m]

I've been following this discussion because it's a topic I wrestle with from time to time. I have no problems with "manipulation" and experiment with PS from time to time. I don't really have an opinion yet on wether or not there should be seperate TRP's/catgories for manipulated and non-manipulated photos. I guess it's because I'm still not clear on what would be considered "manipulated".

 

It was stated "if you think it's unmanipulated, check the box". The problem is, the photographer might think it's unmanipulated but others viewing it might think differently. For that reason, I never check the box. While I don't think basic image processing is "manipulation", I don't want someone to think I'm misrepresenting my photos. So, I rarely check the box.

 

Would it be possible to get anywhere near a consensus on the question?

 

For instance, If, to prevent a blown sky, I shoot a high contast scene with a digital camera, make one exposure for the sky and one for the foreground and combine the two exposures via PS, is that manipulation? I could acheive the same result with a grad ND in camera (which is how I would normally handle that challenge).

 

If shooting raw with no "in camera" sharpening, saturation, etc I have no choice but to make those decisions in post processing. If I decide to lean towards a Fuji Velvia look vs. a Kodak look, is that manipulation?

 

If I convert a digital file to b&w and give it a sepia tone, is that manipulation?

 

How would the line be drawn? Who would decide? In priciple, I have no objections to separate classifications. However, I think the lines are too blurred and positions too arbitrary to come up with a definition or criteria that would work.

[laurie_m]

And then there's cloning out distractions. If I clone out an intruding branch instead of pruning it in the field,or at least pining it back, is it manipulation?

[mg]

You wrote: "I don't really have an opinion yet on wether or not there should be seperate TRP's/catgories for manipulated and non-manipulated photos. I guess it's because I'm still not clear on what would be considered "manipulated"."

 

PHOTO.NET bothered to have a page explaining what PHOTO.NET considers a manipulated image. Just read it ! Just go by this definition - it's a pretty good one actually -, check the box when appropriate and be done with it. It's really as simple as that.

[mg]

You want a fish to jump out of that water...? Fine, JUST DO IT ! In terms of MERIT, I would consider more difficult to snap a jumping fish with a camera, but then again, you do what you want. The same goes for everybody.

 

Now should you announce before hand that the fish was added in PS ? Some people would say yes, because they are entitled to know what they are looking at. But if I were to produce a jumping fish image, I would like to find out if anyone notices that it's a tricked image ! So I'd request a critique and wait... And I would only later in the thread say how the picture was executed. This is exactly what happened in this thread for example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3104989

 

But here's the main course... Precisely because you, Matt, need to 1)know whether the trickery can be detedted or not, 2) whether people WHO ACCEPT PS WORKS like your manipulated image or not, precisely YOU should be asking for a separation between manipulated images and non-manipulated images in the TRP !

 

Matt, do you care for a 1/1 on your jumping fish picture submitted by a person who just hates PS in general ? Of course not. Because his 1/1 will likely make your picture invisible before you get a smart-eyed person to see your work and let you know that the trick is or isn't working. So, YOU should request for a separation !

 

Why anyway would ANYONE who thinks carefully and logically about it refuse the separation of these 2 very different genres - manipulations and straight photography ? Can you tell me that, please, Matt.

[mg]

1) Only the rates submitted through the "rate recent" are taken into account for certain TRP pages - including the default TRP. This means that quite a number of people who rate images because they want to help the site to sort out the good and the bad are doing it through the rate recent feature. Now just imagine a traditionnalist who really hates PS, and who wades in there through dozens of PS works. Do you expect him to skip ? No, he'll start to be fed up with the PS works that pop up all the time, and he'll low-rate them - according to his own opinion, which will not be abusive, although it will be unfair.

 

So I say: why not let this guy rate the kind of images he can at least tolerate, i.e. only non-manipulated images ?! Why waste his time ? Why wait till his ratings make it impossible for you to get the critiques that will allow you to know how well you did with your latest jumping fish montage ? >>>>>>>> Separation.

 

2) Another danger of NOT separating both genres... Traditionalists - straight photographers - will sooner or later get really fed-up - not just with seeing PS works here all the time, but also because they won't be able to get much comments by other straight photographers anymore. Do you have any idea how many good traditionnal photographers we have lost on photo.net already because of such reasons ?

 

Honestly, each time I post a non-manipulated image nowadays, I hardly get half or a third of the number of comments I used to get back then.

 

Why ? Well, because a simple portrait is, according to some, not as original as a pasted jumping fish. And since, at small size, nobody can tell whether it was pasted properly or not, whereas everyone can tell what's wrong with the lighting in my portrait, the jumping fish will do well, and theportrait will disappear early from the TRP.

 

Do I really have to live with all that and be happy with what I get ? Is it fair ? What if I tell you that about every picture I posted on PN used to get at least 20000 views the first week, whereas I have now pictures not reaching the 2000 views ?!

 

If all straight photographs are seen 10 times less and commented 2 or 3 times less, what do you expect will happen on this site ?

[manel_soria]

To me, the crafted jumping fish is a good example of an unacceptable photo, if it is to be seem among actual photos.

 

I erased all my wildlife photos and I won't upload more in PN until this issue is solved. All the folks who have spent days waiting for a fish to jump will understand me and I suggest them to do the same as me.

 

Wildlife and wildlife photographers deserve a RESPECT that is lost with silly PS tricks.

 

Total separation seems a good solution to me. This is not against digital art, that I like in other contexts.

[h._p.]

Throwing all your toys out of the pram is unlikely to engender respect in any gathering, let alone the wild and wooley internet.