manipulated photo ?

[sinan -turkey]

What is a manipulated photo ?

 

"If you shoot in RAW, you can develop your images anyway you wish after the

shot" (i got this from a comment) is that a manipulation ?

Resized photo, cropped photo are considered manipulated ?

 

At where a manipulated photo is acceptable and/or not ?

 

Thanks.

[kari v]

I don't consider basic adjustments "manipulation". Developing RAW is like developing and printing film in a certain way. Nothing is really added or omitted, it's just a way to make a picture look good. Camera doesn't take the picture, you do.

 

Art, do whatever you please.

 

Reportage / document, take a situation representative picture.

[Nowhereman]

This question has been discussed to death in other, more appropriate forums, and simply

does not belong here; but I'll let the moderator deal with that -- if there is one here who is

awake. All I can say is that it's a boring question that is asked by people who don't know

anything about the history of photography, as subject on which there are a good number of

books.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Matt Laur]

Sinan: acceptable to who? For what use? If the person for whom the image is intended likes it, then it's always acceptable.

[kevinteo]

<p><a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a

></p>

[mike dixon]

Note that the photo.net definition was something that was made up for the ratings system because people were complaining that they should know whether an image was "manipulated" or not when they were giving ratings. It's not a definition based on the history of photography or any kind of industry usage.

[sinan -turkey]

i've asked this question because it's asked me if the photo was manipulated etc when i was sending photos to my folder in here.

That's all. Thanks

[william_john_smith1]

<I>What is a manipulated photo ?</I><P>A good example is, "Moonrise over Hermandez,

NM" October 31, 1941 by Ansel Adams.

[Norma Desmond]

Sinan--

 

You have learned one valuable lesson here. (I'm assuming you are relatively new to PN.) I

think it's an unwritten PN rule (I've never seen it in print unless someone can point me to

it) that anyone asking a question in any forum will be accused by someone of asking a

boring question and then be told about their lack of knowledge of photographic history.

These people seem to be hired as part of some sort of cynics welcoming committee.

They've purposely not been trained in the art of grace. They assume their pithiness makes

up for what they lack in mature socialization skills not to mention empathy for those who

dare to expose their lack of knowledge by doing something as ridiculous as asking a

question. Their motto, instead of something like "Inquiring Minds Want to Know" is

something like, "Shut up, I'm too ornery to listen to you and rather than just move on to a

forum I find interesting, I'd rather come in and put you down since I'm on an internet web

site and no one will punch me in the face for being an old sod with a holier-than-thou

complex."

[Norma Desmond]

As to your question, I consider manipulation to start when the camera is picked up,

sometimes in the thought process beforehand. When one adjusts lights in a room, when one

waits for a certain shadow from the sun to pass or cloud to come into view, one has begun

the manipulation process. For me, it falls on a continuum. Every photo is manipulated to a

greater or lesser degree. The PN definition is a good working definition for what we all sense

is a certain line we like to talk about crossing or not crossing. My point is that that line will

always be a bit blurry. I tend to go with my gut when looking at photos and when creating my

own. If it feels manipulated, for me, it is too manipulated. Others like that manipulated feel.

[don_e]

"Manipulation" is a word some cranked up people use instead of "develop".

 

A raw data file is analogous to exposed but undeveloped film (which you manipulate in a tank filled with developer). Shooting jpeg means the raw data is developed in the camera according to the various settings and modes the photographer chooses.

 

I think it is valid to distinguish between digital (including scanned film) photography and computer art based on photography. It is a matter for the artist and their intention.

 

http://moca.virtual.museum/hourigan/hourigan07.htm

[bronx]

Fred that was great post! The balls these people have behind a computer screen are unreal. As for the question, I agree with Fred as well except, I could not have said it as well.

[jcuknz]

Manipulation didn't come in with digital photography since the better workers have been doing it since they started mixing their emulsions and pouring it over a plate of glass. A more modern example is Ansel Adams quoted above.

 

The better question is 'how much is acceptable?' for which I have no answer except a firm belief that manipulation permits us to create the artistic rendering of a subject that we cannot achieve by simply pressing the trigger through lack of skill or physical impossibility to create what we want to show rather than what we captured.

 

Even in the news media manipulation has a place if it is done by photographers with integrity. The classic case to me was the shot taken by a LA stringer at the start of the Iraq War. After reading the story I felt his manipulated photo more accurately illustrated the story than any of the shots it was made up from ... my only criticism is that he didn't do it well .. which was understandable given the conditions he was working under. But a lot of folk got all high and mighty over it, more fool them.

[Hector Javkin]

The question of what is unacceptably manipulated gets difficult for photojournalism, and possibly to a lesser extent for nature photography. Different news organization have issued guidelines for their reporters and photographers. <a href="http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=46973">This site</a> provides information on what some of these policies are.

[Hector Javkin]

In looking for other policies, I couldn't find the policy of the Argentine newpaper "Pagina 12" which I find interesting because it often uses photographs with manipulation which is intentionally obvious. That way, it doesn't deceive the reader. When Chile's Augusto Pinochet was held in the UK for possible extradition for crimes against humanity, Pagina 12 showed him, on its front page, in prison stripes. There is no evidence that Pinochet was ever made to wear prison stripes. The photograph essentially served as a second headline -- it encapsulated what the article was about, even if it didn't represent a visual reality.

[don_e]

There's a legitimate argument to be made that some images are not photographs even if photography was involved. Such "manipulation" is not what Ansel did in the darkroom or what I do when framing the exposure.

 

The traditional term is "computer art" and more recently "digital art" (although it can also be "darkroom art"). Artists producing such work here may be unaware of the scope and depth of "computer art", and I think they should be pointed to resources that better fit their interests, rather than to-the-last-breath defense that any image that involved a camera is photography, as we usually see in the forums. Apparently to such defenders there is no artistic endevor called "computer art" or "digital art" -- an attitude that might be called patronizing.

 

I am not referring to the complaints of the "purists" and their delusions about "straight photography".

[JDMvW]

Two thoughts:

 

Asperger Syndrome - but just because people lack social skills, doesn't make what they say wrong-you have to bypass the search to post at all, so why do people not look to see what is already here? Is it laziness or lack of social skills on the part of the poster?

 

If a photo is so changed that it could not be used as a forensics exhibit in a courtroom, then it is manipulated, for sure.

 

However, a relatively modest amount of cropping, dodging, and burning, just as in the film days is not considered 'manipulation' in any sense important to make a difference here.

 

When you edit your ex-spouse out of the picture of the sail boat, that's manipulation.

[Norma Desmond]

"so why do people not look to see what is already here? Is it laziness or lack of social skills

on the part of the poster?"

 

JDM--

 

A thought on your thought. I don't know what the poster's intention was in this case. But

let's consider something. Socrates and Adimantus, centuries ago and according to Plato,

had a long discussion on the topic "What is Justice?" It's called The Republic. An awful lot

was said about "justice" in that novel-length dialogue. Yet, still today, people have new

and interesting conversations about justice. Sometimes, people may want to revisit a topic

that's already been discussed or they didn't get to participate the first time. Just look at

the number of people who made contributions directly on topic here and you'll see "why

people do not look to see what is already here?" Just because it was already here does not

mean there ain't more to be said. Just like with your television. Don't want to hear more,

turn it off. Here, the option is, you see the same old tired question, you don't open the link

and move on to something that interests you. No Aspergers about it!

[JDMvW]

Well, I don't disagree at all about the use of continued inquiry, and I was not particularly targeting the OP, though the post didn't reveal much effort at that, did it?

 

My point was just that rudeness and being inconsiderate can occur on both ends of a posting.

[john_hughes4]

Spot the odd one out.1 Adams,2 Socrates,3 Art,4 computer screens.

[sinan -turkey]

As an ignorant beginner i've asked this question in order not do mistake even by accident. Now i'm enough enlighten about the issue and want to thank all of you.