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

[mg]

That's not so sur, HP... daniel Bayer is another excellent Photographer who was one of the first photographers on this site to stop posting because PS works and photos were not separated. He has and still has all my respect - although none of his pictures can be seen in the TRP - which are flooded with jumping fishes and such.

 

Another question on my mind is: why would any photoshopper mind to have 2 separate sections ?! Wouldn't it be good enough for PS works to be top-rated among PS works ? Do PS works need to "beat" photography, or what's the big deal about this ?

[vivek iyer]

Check this out:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DjId

[orensztajn]

I start into photography (for me is a hobby nothing more) just to document things in my surroundings, some kind of legacy to my children (some day they will look dad's photos) I do not like to manipulate photos (adding, cloning, etc) but i thiunk it is ok if you saturate or add some contrast, some crop. But the almost 100% of the thing you saw in the viewfinder will be there.

The example of the fish, I do not like it, it seems unreal, I would not rate that picture in the CR.

 

Somentimes I found very interesting PS work (I even rated some of these very high), and I like them as ilustration, or art, but is nothing that I would hang in my wall.

A good example, somentimes I ask friends or family members to look at some pictures (manipulated) here in PN and they said, "they are fine but too artificial" or "it is pretty ok", this is people that do not know much about technique (like me :-) ), but they can see that they are not real.

 

In my wall I would hang a picture taked by my camera with little PS work.

 

I think PS is necessary in these digital days if you do not use film (I am not).

 

Just my opinion,

Rgds

[mike dixon]

<i>Why anyway would ANYONE who thinks carefully and logically about it refuse the separation of these 2 very different genres - manipulations and straight photography ?</i><P>

Those of us who think carefully and logically understand that all photography is an exercise in manipulation. I don't really care if there's a separation of "images digitally manipulated post exposure" and "images manipulated only before and during exposure, or manipulated only by 'conventional,' non-digital means." I would object to separating images into "manipulated" and "non-manipulated" based on an entirely arbitrary and misleading definition of manipulated. [For what it's worth, the vast majority of my work would fit into the "non-manipulated" category--I'm not much of a photoshopper.]<P>

<i>Another question on my mind is: why would any photoshopper mind to have 2 separate sections ?! Wouldn't it be good enough for PS works to be top-rated among PS works ? Do PS works need to "beat" photography, or what's the big deal about this ?</i><P>

From what I've seen, those making "a big deal about this" are the people insisting on creating new categories. Most of the arguments against it have been based on the drain on system resources and the administrative hassles it would create--I haven't really seen any pro-PS zealots insisting that everything remain together.

[aphanius]

The only type of manipulation that bothers me is menthal manipulation (lol). For instance, the example mentioned above about jumping fish doesn't deserve for me any photographic merit (if really possible to achieve such image without PS manipulation).

<br><br>

Situations where a jumping fish can be shot:

<br><br>

1. A lake where a lot of fishes are jumping. Thus, the chance to shoot one is due to probability. NO PHOTOGRAPHIC SKILL NEEDED

<br>2. An infrarred cell pointing to the lake, where the movement of a jumping fish releases flash and shooter. LESS PHOTOGRAPHIC SKILL NEEDED, MORE ELECTRONIC SKILL VALUABLE

<br>3. A bored man waiting for a fish to jump. NO PHOTOGRAPHIC SKILL NEEDED, GOOD REFLEX AND PATIENCE ESSENTIAL.

<br><br>

What really requires photographic skill is to catch & compose such a beautiful sunset, and to realize that a jumping fish in that situation would appear blurred due to low shutter speed (unless ISO higher than 1600 or flashing while second curtain opens during long exposure).

<br><br>

So, give an expensive camera to an average photographer and he'll turn into a purist proud of his non-manipulated art...

[manel_soria]

It is not a problem of having better equipment. You (Joan Ramon) are doing excellent macros with a coolpix and a home made lens.

 

It is the *attitude* of the wildlife photographer towards the natural subject. I spent many days working with ants, I managed to capture them walking and exchanging food. This is totally different as arranging the same pictures combining the ants with PS.

 

But I'm not the best example, some people spend weeks preparing a hide, and then many hours inside the hide, just to catch a bird.

 

To present such works next to silly PS tricks that *look like* true photos is not acceptable at all.

 

A Dali oleo of a tiger coming out of the mouth of a girl is excellent artwork... but obviously it is not a photo !

 

Now there is the discussion about to what extents minor changes should be considered or not a manipulation. After a decision has been taken to separate true photos and PS artwork, we can talk longer about that.

[root]

Joan, your view of photographic skill is a bit frightening. You've given credit to a photographer who consults his sunrise and sunset charts and has the ability to take an exposure reading, yet give no credit at all for serendipity and patience. For many of us it's about the ability to LOOK at the world, hoping to see something interesting and share it with others, perhaps inspiring them to go out and hone their own vision. An essential part of that purpose is recording what you're seeing with reasonable accuracy, by definition.

 

Matt, thank you for uploading your fake fish image. It may appeal to some people who use a camera to record moments, but I can't imagine why. It seems that there are a lot of people who look at pictures with no interest at all in understanding them. As mentioned about, the physics are obviously all wrong from a photographic standpoint, and the reality of the shot from a nature standpoint is probably all wrong as well (if you wait patiently, will a fish ever jump out of this body of water at sunset?) So I ask you, don't you feel a bit strange if a lot of ignorant raters promote this image AS A GREAT CAPTURE?

 

And how do you think I should rate this image if I recognize it as a fraud? This is very different from Marc's wilds colors rendition of the model on a bike, although more of the same raters who are photographically naive will rate it to the heavens, stating clearly that it's the treatment itself, rather than the underlying photograph, that is the sole reason for the high rate.

 

It wouldn't matter, I suppose, except that the variables in the sort of the default TRP pages don't change very often, so we see people upload stuff that appears to be popular currently, even change their photographic style to conform to PN trends. That's scary, given how little relevance PN has in helping you develop your photography for real world visibility.

 

But sadly, Mike is correct that the option to categorize images as part of a search is too expensive - meaning too much of a drain on the time to sort the database for each request. Even if it wasn't, it's very clear from many previous discussions, that people would define manipulation as they see fit, rather than read guidelines. The proof is in the inability of most current raters to read, understand, and apply the ratings tutorial.

[mike dixon]

<i>It is the *attitude* of the wildlife photographer towards the natural subject. I spent many days working with ants, I managed to capture them walking and exchanging food. This is totally different as arranging the same pictures combining the ants with PS.</i><P><div></div>

[aphanius]

Manel, bird shooters may also manipulate natural scenaries, basically feeding birds, automating equipment, automating habits, arranging perchs and controlling every single parameter in the shot, often leading to unnatural, overlightened and overfreezed short-distance images.

<br><br>

Thus, I prefer the ATTITUDE of a nature photographer shooting spontaneously a wild non-feeded bird, <b>BUT</b> I won't ask PN managers to create a separate category for partially-wild feeded-bird shooting. Do you know what I mean? Sure... Aside, bird shooters may (must) be respectful with nature, but this is another question.

[jhenry]

2 excellent points Mike made above! <br>How many filters would we need here? and for what interesting purposes? <p>1- Color manipulations: depending on film used, BW as a manipulation of real life, desaturation, sepia, different kind of filters used. <br>2- Contrast/brightness manipulation, usage of reflector, flash unnatural light or PS <br>3- usage of DoF and blur manipulations: either coming from the usage of specific lens, aperture or PS...<br>4-Set up manipulation: arranged/set up, posed or natural (so call candid picture, I don't like the candid word),...<br>5- usage of camera: manipulation of vision implied by the size/aperture of lense (wide angle, long lense...)<br>6- alteration of appearance: grain, darkening, sharpening...<br>7- special PS/Labo effects (polarization,...) <br>8- usage of funnier PS tools (changing shape, exchanging colors,...) <br>9- image composite (typically one image with landscape on one side with extra added clouds from another image, panoramic made of several images,...)<br>10- those other manipulations I forgot.<p> Personnaly I also consider <i>'that all photography is an exercise in manipulation'</i> so where to place the border is totally subjective. Even in the case of composite, as far as the photos are all made by the original poster of the final image (rings a bell to my PNet memory!), I have no problem with that. Not meaning that I like 'heavy' manipulation, I not using much of PS thou, but it is CASE BY CASE so a differenciation (and dozen would be necessary) would not help at all, and probably less IMO. To give you example I like B&W Magnum style photos but also photos of <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=484267"> Ben Goosens </a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=823235">Lisa Grant</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=526277">Emil Schild </a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=487369"> Pavel Kaplun</a>... So I feel that rather than publicly differentiate using manipulation tricks which would be always arguable, I prefer to set up my own list of favorites photos/photographers by my own taste. And I would be very embarrassed to split all them between manipulators or not! <p> To be constructive and propose something to 'change the society' [as Ilkka would say!:o)], I would suggest to differentiate and split photography/er by their style rather than by their 'manipulation', ...it is done like this for Painting (surrealist, realist, impressionnist,...), Music, Litterature, ...and all kind of art!

[orensztajn]

Soon, we are going to re-define photography.

 

Maybe "bitography"? The ability of painting with bits.

Rgds

[minicucci]

FWIW, the bugaboo of this subject is the definition of 'manipulated". Composite photos are

an easy call. Everything else gets a little hairy. For example, is the attached file manipulated?

(The image shows the original raw file and the finished image.) Clearly, it has been retouched

to a fare the well. But nothing that could not have done in a wet darkroom.

 

Why not add a checkbox for composite images (anything added from another image) and add

a small thumb space for uploading a tiny JPEG of the original image on the details page? Then

anyone can see what's been done to an image. Full disclosure, in a sense. I'd certainly

welcome that.

[root]

Patricia, that's an easy call for me. One of the most challenging parts of most styles of photography is getting the background right using framing, angle of view, focal length and/or DOF. Selecting the subject and placing it on black velvet puts this in the schlock PS camp.

[ned1]

Patricia, interestingly enough, everything in that picture could have been done in a darkroom. The color negative could have been printed on high contrast b&w paper. The dark areas could have been burned in. If you look at the PN definition of unmanipulated, all of those are kosher. What is NOT kosher is sticking a dramatic sky over a field shot during a cloudless day.

[minicucci]

Perfect. It just makes the point that people will always disagree on a definition of

manipulation.

[root]

1) You can't burn in the background of Patricia's image with that degree of precision in the darkroom.

 

2) Just because you can do something in the darkroom does not make it a straightforward unmanipulated image.

 

Patricia's image is manipulated by any reasonable definition of the term, regardless of how it was done.

[h._p.]

"What is NOT kosher is sticking a dramatic sky over a field shot during a cloudless day."

 

Nope, can't find anything in the Torah about not masking in skies. I reckon that means it *must* be kosher.

[minicucci]

Carl, I'm really not arguing your definition of manipulation. It is yours and you are welcome

to it. I'm just pointing out that it will not be held in common by all or even, perhaps, most.

[manel_soria]

All of us know that the difference is absolutely clear:

 

-Photography: Be there with the camera, catch the light and print or display it.

 

-Painting: Invent something and represent it with oleos or PS if you want to be modern.

 

Both are interesting, but if you insist in mixing them.. soon you will say the photos from Saturn rings can be made with PS.

 

I don't like this moral relativism and the so clever silogisms you like to invent to justify it, such as saying "everything is manipulated". If you see a photo of yourself on top of Everest and you have never been there, that is a manipulation.

[manel_soria]

I haven't seen jumping fishes in your photos. I can't understand why you post this text here if most likely you agree with me.

[laurie_m]

Manel, I don't think you'll get much arguement that if you cut and past an image together, it falls into the "manipulated" category. The extremes are easy. It's the other, more subtle, techniques that will always be in that gray area and debated to death. There isn't even a consensus among those posting in this thread regarding the burning on the cow image. One person feels, by the sites own definition that it's not manipulated. Another says it is. Personally, I think it is manipulated by the site's guidelines and my own sense of where the line is drawn. But clearly, not everyone agrees. What if only 50% of the dodging had been done so that the background wasn't completely black and you could still make out a faint rendering of the cows in the background. Then, by my interpretation of the sites guidelines, this wouldn't be "manipulated".

 

This is why I don't check the unmanipulated box on my own photos. It's a meaningless data field since, despite the sites written guidelines, everyone has a different interpretation. Because I shoot RAW, I always adjust color balance, contrast, levels/curves, clone out senor dust, often crop or correct for level, etc. It just isn't worth the potential arguement to defend my decision to check the box. I know what I did to my photos, I'll gladly share with others if asked. If I've done anything drastic, I would include it in the technical details. However, I don't feel the need to "declare" one way or the other on each and every one of my uploads.

 

 

Hmmmm...

 

Matt....see what you've started :)

[manel_soria]

Laurie: I have been browsing your photos. I bet you and mee will agree in what images have been manipulated in 90% of the cases.

 

My idea:

 

1-Two separate cathegorires "Classic photography" and "Images". In "Images" you can do what you prefer. In classic photography you can not copy and paste, use reflection filters and so.

 

2-In "Classic photography", the user must upload BOTH the final image after adjusting levels, saturation, etc AND the original untouched image, and with the original camera parameters if it was a RAW file (unless of course they are exactly equal). This must be visible before rating or commenting the photo.

 

 

I already do this:

 

 

http://frikosal.blogspot.com/2005/09/confieso-que-he-recortado.html

 

http://frikosal.blogspot.com/2005/09/ligero-reencuadre-de-la-luciernaga-y.html

 

http://frikosal.blogspot.com/2005/09/primer-dia-docells-un-blauet.html

[laurie_m]

Manel, You are probably right that you and I would agree about 90% of the time. However, I don't think the general population of PN would necessarily be in agreement with us 90% of the time. It's that other 10% that will be the big problem.

 

I'm not likely to take the time and effort to upload two separate images each time I upload. I'm lazy when it comes to that stuff. I suspect the site might also have some problem with the additional resources/space needed to accomodate double posts. I understand your frustration. I've spent my share of hours in wait for just the right moment that often never materializes. I could easily have created the elusive "magic" in PS but it isn't as personally rewarding so I don't. I think your suggestion might work if it was applied just to the "Nature" catogory. In that category, manipulation or fabrication is an ethical issue. For the other categories, that aren't necessarily documentary, it's an aesthetic issue or more a matter of personal taste.

 

I happen to appreciate a well done PS composite (my personal definition is "mixed-media"). Most of the photographers posting the well done composites proudly declare their PS work. Those are not necessarily the ones that float to the top of the TRP. I wouldn't know for sure since I go out of my way not to view the TRP anymore. I don't find it productive. I'd rather find my own treasures through other search methods than to follow the opinion of the masses.

[vivek iyer]

Interesting assertion there, Laurie!

 

Are you saying that most *Nature* images posted here are manipulated?

 

Are you also suggesting that the aesthetic rating column for *Nature* images which are supposedly documentary be removed?

 

The ratings business here appears to be taking the focus away from photography, IMO.

[orensztajn]

It seems to be a common point that if you do things that can be made in darkroom, this is acceptable in PS and the photo will not be called manipulated. I think here we agree.

 

The problem here is to be able to accept manipulation above that point, putting sky, three suns, fishes jumping around, etc.

Some wil accept that and will go home with a big print of these photos to hang on their walls.

These may be the same person that put 7/7 to these kind of photos, and that is fine, everything is a matter of taste.

 

We are just going around the subject and this thread could be the longest in PN history.

Just I wanna say that I think ,to get a really good picture through the viewfinder is more difficult than do a PS work.

 

It is only what I think.

Rgds