Does photo.net consider the use of filters manipulation?

[pico]

Those who say that everything is manipulated should understand the concept of limits and

the spirit of the new FAQ is very clear in that regard.

 

There can be never-ending impressionistic arguments about the borderlines of manipulation.

The idea is about limits. Limits are important in any classification. If you feel defensive about

something you have changed in the image that's not covered in the new definition, then just

check [ ]Manipulated. What's the harm?

[pico]

<i>It is the devaluation of my work that annoys me no end.</i><p>

If you feel your manipulation is warranted, then be confident and don't worry about what

others think or say. Persist. Their words cannot change the value of your work, however your

defense can. Say nothing. Make pictures. Check the manipulated box.

<p>

I would suggest the same to people who use contrast masks in wet darkroom printing.<p>

[studor13]

Hi Pico,

 

The problem is this. Later this year I plan to start running photo workshops (for a fee, well gotta put bread on the table), so I can't have people simply coming out with what paramounts to slender. In effect they are calling me a cheat simply because I choose not to use grad NDs or whatever.

 

And the worse aspect is that a lot of these people - who are my potential clients - know nothing about what Ansel and guys like you have been doing since well,.... All that gets drummed into their heads is that if I don't check that NO box, then all my work is simply produced by hitting Enter 3 times in Photoshop.

[don_e]

"I also want to comment on your "aha"."

 

It was "Ah", I think.

 

Andy, the "aha" was in response to your example of a valuation based on manipulation or lack of it.

 

People will make value decisions on things I consider neutral, whether a photo is manipulated or not, whether the print is an optical print or inkjet, digital or film capture. I once sold a print for another photographer. I could see the customer become divided in mind when he learned it was an inkjet print of a 4x5. He bought it, a good photo and an excellent and large print, but it was obvious he would have been happier if it were a optical print. Why?

 

If you can't tell how a photo was printed, whether it is manipulated or not, or is a digital or film capture -- if someone has to tell you -- then it shouldn't affect your valuation. It means you're not knowledgeable enough to see the difference, if there is a difference. It's a good print of a good photo that attracts you enough to consider buying it.

 

Personal value and its monetary expression aside, there is a value in knowing those things about a photograph, if you are a photographer, because it is a matter of learning your craft. From that perspective I want to know if the photo is manipulated or not, film capture or not, optical print or not, and I'd like to know whether my estimation of those things are correct or not for the same reason any craftsman is interested in the nuts and bolts of the craft he or she practices.

 

--

 

Don E

[studor13]

Don, when you don't tick that NO box your images are classified as a manipulation. To some people manipulation is the same as cheating. Some people have accused me of cheating. I have a problem with this and therefore don't like the presence of that box whenever I 'choose' to use two exposures rather than filters to form a single image.

[don_e]

"To some people manipulation is the same as cheating. Some people have accused me of cheating."

 

Andy, there may be a difference in culture, then, between members who are involed in rating and critique, and those, such as myself, who do not participate. So, I am pretty much unconcerned about another's opinion of my photographs here on pnet and if they are irrationally influenced by the information I attach to them.

 

I look at someone's workspace gallery via the forums when someone's comments or inline image catches my attention. I do not leave comments. No point in commenting on mine, as I will not return the 'favor'.

 

So, I have not been thinking of this issue from the rating/critique pov. The Powers that Be on pnet will have to make the call on the issue of prejudice. I'll stick by my recommendation to drop the issue since so many members participate in critique/rating. From what I gather from reading the forums, it is a real hellhole. Those members have more issues with their photography than I can even imagine.

 

 

--

 

Don E

[studor13]

Don, dropping that box was the whole point of my rant.

 

Previously, dodging and burning were favourite tools for minor corrections, but now that they are on the manipulation list, I'd bet that people will use a different tool just to be able to tick that box.