Is Image Manipulation Wrong?

[ndj]

In a few recent images I took the skys were quite average, but the subjects, and lighting, were quite good. I

found that replacing the sky made the image considerably more appealing(imho). I'm curious to see what other

photographer's opinions are on the subject of image manipulation. I do not agree with image manipulation in

journalism for example, but I think that in photography, as an art form at least, this is acceptable. Painters,

and other artists have long been improving the scenes they create, so why not photographers? What do you think?

<br>

Best wishes,

<br>

Neil

[neilvanderwolf]

As far as I am concerned, it's your photo, do with it as you please...

[tonmestrom]

"Painters, and other artists have long been improving the scenes they create, so why not photographers?"

 

there's your answer

[pankaj purohit]

No, if there is any reason.

[nathancraver]

Well, if manipulation is wrong, then so is dodging and burning, trying different developers, toning, using variable contrast

paper, switching between RC and FB paper, red eye reduction, using a flash, the list would be infinite. Where do you draw

the line? Photography is meant to convey what the artist had in mind, weather it required manipulation or not. The only

exception is like you say in journalism, forensics, product advertisement, things of that nature where the photographs are

required (especially by law) to be realistic and not manipulated. It is also wrong to manipulate an image and pass it off as

real.

[Norma Desmond]

Manipulating a photo is fine with me.

 

But there's a difference between painting and photography. Painters literally create the scene. (I see it as a creation for

both painters and photographers, not as an improvement.) Photographers, while creating, are usually starting with a scene in the

world as the raw material.

 

As I look through photos, I can't help but wonder sometimes whether something has been done in Photoshop or was

accomplished in camera. There are many times when I will like photos equally regardless of how they were created. But

there are also times when my opinion of or reaction to a photo will change depending on how I think or know it was

made.

 

I think there can be a legitimate reason why someone might accept what painters do without being accepting of what

some photoshoppers do, since painting and photography are two very different media (with many overlaps and

similarities).

 

I think, like with most things aesthetic, tastes will and should vary. Some will want to do less work in photoshop and stay

close to what they can capture in camera. Some will do a lot of post processing but keep gimmickry to a minimum.

Some will tweak in post processing what's there but will not bring in new elements or clone out unwanted ones that weren't in the original

photograph.

Some will create electronic collages. Each can be taken for what it is. None has to be excluded from photography. Some

will be liked by some and hated by others.

[geoffs]

I prefer editing to be kept to a minimum.As close as possible within the criteria which PN considers `not

manipulated`.

I love to view a photo that I know was the original scene,apart from simple sharpening and tone changes etc.

Ive heard the argument about film never being a true depiction of reality either and dodging and burning ad

nauseum.....its the wholesale changing of sky or objects that bugs me.

My answer to Nathans question .."where do you draw the line ? " is : "I know where" but I think everyone else has a

perfect right to draw that line in a different place....

[steve_lantz]

“Painters literally create the scene. (I see it as a creation for both painters and photographers, not as an improvement.) Photographers, while creating, are usually starting with a scene in the world as the raw material.”

 

This applies only to some painters and paintings. What about the painter who sets up her easel, canvas, and kit on a beach and paints a beach scene? Or a portrait? Or a still life of flowers or fruit?

 

I have an acquaintance who is a painter. I’m not an art critic so I only judge her work on the basis of what I like and dislike. Apparently many people like her work because she sells a lot of it.

 

She has painted beach scenes, fields, farms, and many historical building in the community we live in including some of the buildings I’ve photographed. When I look at her paintings I don’t see every brick in the wall, many times a tree that is there isn’t in the painting, or utility poles and wires, not to mention whole buildings in the background are missing.

 

To some extent I could do the same thing with cloning and other tools but not to the extent she does with her brush. She has taken a scene that exists and portrayed it in paint to express an essence and feeling that she wants to convey. I try to do the same with my photography. I see no difference other then she sells more then I do :-)

[don_e]

"In a few recent images I took the skys were quite average, but the subjects, and lighting, were quite good. I found that replacing the sky made the image considerably more appealing(imho)"

 

As long as you aren't representing the composite as a photo as one of that time and that place, then there is no issue. If you do represent the composite as a photo of that time and that place, then you would be a liar and your photo a lie.

[tomwatt]

I don't see anything wrong with image manipulation.

Early photographers sometimes composited multiple images in order to generate the final picture they wanted (sorry but my photo history book was swallowed by a flood, or I'd give you citations). If you think of the image as only what you saw in the viewfinder, that's one thing. If you think of the image as a final product that reflects your photgraphic/artistic vision, that's entirely another. I happen to belong to the latter school of thought. Sky isn't right? Go get a better sky! (not one of mine if you please, sky's up there 24/7, go get your own!)

[timzeipekis]

The image is manipulated from the very start, the question is how much is too much?

[mrraz]

I've certainly replaced a sky from time to time. I've had some shots that had sky that was clear blue, but adding

a sky with clouds made a better image. No, manipulation is not wrong, but misrepresenting it as original is over

the line as far as I'm concerned.

[lake_photography]

The only thing I see wrong with photo manipulation is when it disappoints me. let me explain. About a year ago I was working

my way through the gallery and saw this one beautiful landscape that was in an area I can drive to in a couple of hours. I was

determined to go to this spot and see it for myself. I e-mailed the photographer and asked for specific directions. He was kind

enough to write back and tell me that his photograph was a "compilation" of three places and what i was looking at did not exist.

I was saddened indeed. It look very real to me. That is when I think manipulation is wrong, when it leads others to think it

represents something real. just my opinion.

[robert_jaques]

Personally I do not agree with what you have done. I did the same thing to a photo once but I must say I never felt proud of what I had done, even though it did result in a better image. I have no problem with image manipulation to a degree. Cropping, dodging & burning, Levels, Curves Adjustments, Cloning out dust, Saturation etc etc are all fine with me. However image manipulation crosses the line for me when you start adding or removing elements of the scene and passing it off as real.

 

Photography is supposed to be about capturing a moment in time. People expect photographs to be representations of reality (a real moment caught in time). This is why photography cannot be compared to painting even if it is for art.

 

Ask youself this, what image would you feel most proud of, a really great landscape captured with a really great sky in it, or a really great landscape where you've added a really great sky in photoshop.

 

It seems like I am in the minority with this viewpoint. In the photgraphy club I belong to Judges often make comment on how the image would be improved if such and such was cloned out in photoshop. I makes me cringe sometimes and sends the wrong message to beginner photographers that slack technique is ok because every thing can be fixed later in photoshop.

[JDMvW]

The early wet plate photographers substituted better skies for the ones in the actual taken photograph in the 1850s and 60s.

 

I believe this argument started just at that time, or perhaps when someone tinted a daguerreotype image.

[Spearhead]

<i>Painters literally create the scene. (I see it as a creation for both painters and photographers, not as an improvement.) Photographers, while creating, are usually starting with a scene in the world as the raw material.</i><p>I have a photograph in my portfolio, a "street photograph," that is a complete set up. It's a re-creation of something I saw, but it's a total creation. It even has an odd thing about it, it's made to look like Mexico, and people always think it is, but the model is Burmese, but everyone has assumed the subject is Mexican.<p>I made the photo on film and printed it on an enlarger.<p>I "created" the scene just as a painter does. I found the elements just as a painter might introduce them, except that they were all put together at once. I picked the model, the clothes, the pose, I told the model how to do her hair, I bought the props, I spent a long time picking the location. While I have had other photos that people said looked like set ups, nobody has ever doubted this one.<p>When I tell people how it was made, nobody complains or criticizes. I don't really see any difference between this and creating composites that combine different images and I can't see how anyone can, when you get to the essence of things. Nothing has changed with modern image manipulation tools except the methodology and its availability, but that's the way photography has been since its inception.

[lovcom_photo]

A good Catholic would NEVER manipulate a photo!

[cmitchell]

No, I don't think it's wrong if you declaring it to be digital art. Yes, I think it's wrong if you're declaring it to be photojournalism. It all depends on what it's supposed to represent. Photojournalistic photography should be true to the actual image while digital art has no boundaries.

[jayanti]

When I am in a mood for crossing the boundaries, I think image manipulation is the wing I can ride on. When I am in a prim and proper role, I say a big NO to image manipulation. Manipulation is my way to a fantasy world - like fairy tales. Who says fairy tales are forbidden in photography? Just remember that the sun rises in the east even if in your story you may get it riding on a chariot from the west.

[sandysocks]

Manipulation is not wrong, but it usually looks wrong.

[nhut-nguyen]

It's wrong if you don't reveal the manipulation.

[patrick j dempsey]

It's personal choice. However... if you attempt to pass off a heavily manipulated image as a straight photograph and you are caught doing it, you will loose alot of respect. If you notice, photo.net has a check-box when you upload images asking if the image has been "manipulated". If you read carefully, you will see that basic touchups like dust removal, contrast and brightness and color balance are not considered "manipulations" and are totally within reason as being "unmanipulated". The reason for this being primarily that the nature of photography is very different than painting. With a painting, it is absolutely understood that the painter created the scene and it's very likely that details were made up.... however the opposite is usually the automatic assumption with a photograph. When we view a photograph, we automatically assume that the image is exactly how the photographer saw it when he photographed it. A great deal of the praise and appreciation of a photograph is often associated with this assumption of "truth" on the part of the photographer. Despite the fact that this assumption is often wrong, we still tend to believe it.

 

I've seen many photographs pass through the photo.net "Photo of the Week" archives which claimed to have been "unmanipulated" but which in-fact upon close inspection were obviously heavily retouched in some blatant manner. I've gotten criticism for pointing out the obviously Photoshopped elements of these images which otherwise received wide praise from people specifically because they wanted to believe that what they were viewing was unadulterated and there-fore unique and special.

 

I don't think manipulation is wrong or bad, it's your art, do with it what you want. But if you attempt to pass off a digital composite as anything other than that, then you are a liar, and that's that. You either get to live with the guilt of receiving false praise, or worse, you get caught. If you do really good manipulations, then you should be just as proud as that as you are of your photographic ability and you should advertise the fact, because really... most people just plain suck at Photoshop, it's harder to use well than it looks.

[geoffs]

It may be my prejudices but In this thread at least,there seems to be a shift away from the idea that manipulation should have no boundaries.Its interesting to see.

 

I get the feeling people are beginning more often to feeling misled at times.The thing I find very interesting is in relation to the point Patrick just brought up regarding acknowledging if our photo is manipulated or not, ( within the criiteria Photo Net describes as manipulation.)

 

Do some people miss that obligation, or are they hoping that they do not have to admit their fantastic photo is in fact created on a PC...........?

[vancouverphotographer]

I don't think it's wrong - one can create their art anyway they choose and even though I am a klutz at image manipulation, I still fool with some basic settings. But having said that, I believe it is the degree of manipulation to me, there's a lot of highly manipulated images that I love but I prefer to see images that are more natural and approximately how we saw it with our own eyes.

[vandit]

The principle of "it is your work of art, do as you please" is certainly a cornerstone of how one chooses to treat their

image.

 

However, art does not exist in a vacuum and people do have certain perceptions, etc. as to what is and what is not

acceptable. I just wrote a blog entry on this a couple of days ago here which I feel is germane to the topic:

http://www.vanditkalia.com/VanditKalia/Blog/Entries/2008/8/30_Why_digital_manipulation_matters.html

 

I'd be interested in hearing what people think of it.

 

Vandit