Digital Enhancement or Digital Manipulation

[root]

Jennifer, manipulation in the service of commerce, as ron describes, is fine because there really is no deception unless you're naive. There are, of course, famous photojournalism case where that is not the case. Then there is my favorite example of the "flaming pear" fake reflection filter which deceives a lot of people on this site and looks incredibly cheesy to people who actually shoot reflection shots.

 

On this site, deception is important because, as the case with the recent horse's head POW, we have a right to know if this scene can be captured. If I want to capture a shot like that, don't go sending me on a fool's errand. I've got better things to do. Photography is a form of communication and the how-to component is implicitly part of that communication on this site. A lot of popular photographers fool those who are less experienced and less observant, yet they refuse to own up to their deception.

 

ron, YOU may live in a photoshop world, but there are other photographic worlds that are governed by standards and procedures that are different than yours. They add value to our work, just as yours do.

[szrimaging]

Reminds me of an old article in Outdoor photographer on the subject. They were talking about the principle behind it and came up with the term Photo Enlightenment. Basically, it was bringing the photo back in line with how the photographer saw it when he originally took the image.

 

As mentioned earlier, we have thousands (millions?) of rods and cones in our eyes dedicated to seeing brightness and color. We refocus our eye hundreds of times per second (at least I think it was that fast). The camera is nowhere near the capabilities of our eyes. Thus, the photo gets "enlightened" to bring it back to that point. Anything beyond that, borders into manipulation. Sometimes it can be really grey to tell if it is, sometimes it is obvious.

 

And obviously there are different rules for different markets, as Carl suggests.

 

And Carl, excuse my asking this, what is a flaming pear reflection?

[root]

I don't have one bookmarked . . .:-)

 

They're all too common in the TRP.

[szrimaging]

http://www.flamingpear.com/flood.html

 

Is that what you mean?

[root]

That's not the way it's usually used. Take an object, add black background, flip and distort it, make it look like a water reflection . . . . it looks awful.

[ronmatt]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

 

For the many of you who don't think that photo enhancement or photo manipulation in Photoshop requires skill and expertise (Mark Ci) take a look the link. Photoshop simply is a major factor in photography today. I'd bet that there isn't a studio or lab that implements current technology that doesn't have Photoshop as part of their workflow. As to the comment that no skill is required and that any Tom, Dick or Harry can do my job, well you're entitled to your opinion. As to the enept use of PS plug-ins such as Flaming Pear and Andromeda, etc. I wholeheartedly agree. Most are tacky and bogus as are most layer styles. None of these props are often used in serious manipulations. As opposed to adjustment layer functions, which controls the color. None of this has much to do with composition or content of good photography, that's the photographer's job. All Image editing software like Photoshop does is what all of you do in the darkroom. ( or did ) or paid some lab to do for you.

 

When I say "we live in a Photoshop world", I'm not defending anything. It's a simple statement of fact, like it or not. Use it or don't, who cares? But to deny it's existance and global use is unrealistic. It's a tool that is available to the photographer, graphic designer and illustrator that simply replaces other tools that have been used to do a job. Some use it well, some don't, just like the old tools. To state " [no skill is needed]" is simply bulls**t.

[jennifer_durand]

Ron I'm on your side. I don't know where some of the comments are coming from but they

are a bit weird and show lack of tolerance and lack of understanding.

 

Carl.........has made so many comments that show up who he really is and quite honestly

he's not worth reading. Imagine having to write stuff like this ........

1. "deception is important because, as the case with the recent horse's head POW, we

have a right to know if this scene can be captured."

Reply.......In your dreams fella, no one has to tell you anything!

 

2. "don't go sending me on a fool's errand. "

Reply......why not, you haven't got a sense of humour, I'd stand in line to send you on a

fools errand.

 

3. "I've got better things to do."

Reply.......You wish and we know better from what you have written. Get a life and find

things out for yourself.

 

4. " the how-to component is implicitly part of that communication on this site."

Reply.......So know you think you are going to force people to do your bidding. You know

nothing about people man. People give what they want to - not waht you want them to. PN

encourages a climate of sharing - not forces a climate of sharing.

 

Carl, this post has sent you plummeting in my estimation. You are right down there, its

dark and you are alone. How do you come back from this I don't even want to know. Why

did you pick on me anyway?

 

Some people around PN, no names mentioned, are a bit big for their bootees.

[root]

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer . . .

 

Everything I've said is consistent with the site's goals of an honest give and take. Sometimes we teach. Sometimes we learn. Sometimes people want to play games and essentially subvert those goals and it is reasonable to take issue with them in this context.

 

And sometimes a perceived slight gets in the way of all this attempt at communication (or lies and deception.) In this case, your whole post is put in perspective by the give away line: "Why did you pick on me anyway?"

 

What you need to hear is that for some reason you were in a frame of mind when you read my post that prompted you react to the word "naive" which if you go back and reread it doesn't refer to you directly.

[jennifer_durand]

Carl,

I didn't react to the word "naive" I didn't notice it. My opening line which is very important

states "shows lack of tolerance and lack of understanding." This is the important line that

tells you about my motivation.

 

In my opinion, you said things which show your lack of tolerance and understanding for

photography, especially digitally manipulated photography. Your opinions and views on

digital manipulation is very biased and very outdated. One of the first lessons to learn

from photography is that it is subjective and it should not be relied upon as a truthful

document.

 

Digital photography has come of age. The newest digital cameras are up to the same

quality output as a 5x4 negative on analogue. More and more people are experimenting

and having fun crafting and gratfing things into images because they can.

 

Most people appreciate that photography is subjective and manipulation just pushes this

boundaries. What is the point in searching for truth in an "untruthful" medium. Its not

photography or the camera that lies, its the subjective human hand behind the camera

that by framing the shot, has manipulated his/her audience.

 

Non of us have the right to demand information, tips or tricks from another PN member. I

get the impression that you were annoyed at not knowing how a certain PN member made

his images. It was a personal attack because you gave a very clear references to his work

which everyone recognised, except perhaps the newest PN members. I don't believe this

work warrents being pointed out in this negative manner. It was clever and funny and very

well done.

 

Perhaps didgital isn't of much interest to analogue users. Many members have invested in

digital photography and work hard at attaining the results they get. Their work will one

day be seen as pioneering work in digital terms and this won't apply to analogue in its

dying phase.

 

I encourage photographers to be different and celebrate their work however its made.

There is nothing wrong or illegal or bad about playing games with and enjoying the

freedom digital photography gives. Most people are worldly enough to know when

someone is fooling about and when someone is being serious with their camera. The

young members are specially canny. The older generation of photographers give their age

away by being intolerant of new methods, it shows fixed ideas have set in.

 

Its misleading to say that the culture on PN encourages something it doesn't. This was a

point I had real issue with, because its grossly dishonest.

 

I understand you are trying to calm troubled waters, so I'll forgive you this once.

[root]

I, on the other hand, am not feeling quite so charitable. I have written quite a bit on the subject of digital manipulation during the five years I've been active on this site and yet have somehow managed to avoid someone with your attitude. You have - again - mischaracterized my views and grossly underestimated my familiarity and comprehension of the points you've made, all of which have been hashed and rehashed in these forums . . . but then you've been here closer to five weeks than five years, so this may all be new to you. You might start by browsing the archives of the POW discussions.

[petemillis]

It would be nice to know, purely out of interest, whether the photo is striaght up or manipulated. I'm not bothered either way, just intrigued, and I don't want to know how it's actually achieve.

 

I notice with the POW Horse image that the "manipulated" box is left unchecked meaning the image could be manipulated as Christopher has not stated it's unmanipulated.

 

This is what PG says:

"Definition of Unmanipulated

by Philip Greenspun; created February 2007

 

Your photos in our database here at photo.net are intended to help other readers learn how to become better photographers. It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated"). In other words, to produce a image like yours, do they need to work on their camera technique or their Photoshop technique?"

 

 

Like I said, I ain't bothered as I have no desire to recreate such an image. But I am intrigued and I can understand how the answer could be helpful to others.

[jennifer_durand]

No one mischaracterised what you said. You have said it or you haven't. I stand by my

words and everyone else should too. I don't mind anyone having a difference of opinion, I

respect other peoples opinions.

 

This site encourages people to share information, it's not a requirement. You have written

in such a way that a new member may feel there is an obligation to share where there

isn't. My intention is to highlight that information is volunteered if the member wishes to

share.

 

Urban legends are formed by misinformation that is taken up as truth and fact by the

majority. It then becomes entrenched.

 

Your uncharitable speak and your patronising attitude is misplaced. Your obvious

intention to intimidate because I have been a member here for 5 weeks opposed to your

five years will not work. I may be new to you and PN, but I assure you, I am not new to

photography, analogue or digital, or to the real world.

 

If a thread has been discussed at length, as a member, I don't feel I want to be the one to

end it. Where the moderator, as the gate-keeper, allows the thread I'll answer if I feel

inclined.

 

Where members don't tick the boxes required by PN then the images should be declined

until this requirement is fulfilled.

 

Members who have been at PN for years should not resent the emergence of new blood.

Remember back to when you first joined.

[root]

Your July 23 post (6:46PM) seems to have been long forgotten.

 

Have a nice day . . . .