Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>1. why can't a simple checkbox can't be added as a filter in the critique forum to find results that are to my personal tastes i.e photographs submitted wherein the submitter has chosen to state that he believes his images are unmanipulated according to the standards set out by photo.net here they are so we can avoid the same tired discussion about what constitutes a manipulated image:</em> <br /> <br /> Because your standards are not necessarily the standards of anyone else. And photo.net doesn't want to dive into the issue of trying to make everyone agree on what is "manipulated" or "unmanipulated", or trying to police uploads according to some set of arbitrary standards that people will simply disagree with and ignore. (At least that's my read of Josh's posts, and I would agree.)<br /> <br /> It's a can of worms.<br /> <br /> Take for example your standard #1: a single uninterrupted exposure. Multiple exposures of a single scene are frequently used as a replacement for graduated neutral density filters. It's called exposure blending. (Not quite the same as HDR.) If a slide shooter can use a GND filter, why can't a digital shooter blend two exposures? Does the digital shooter have to buy expensive filters to meet your criteria? Multiple exposures are also used to produce clean star trail shots digitally. Why should that be labeled "manipulated" when the result is the same as a film star trail shot?<br /> <br /> What about a film pre-exposure to lift shadow detail? That's a double exposure "manipulation." How is that more manipulation than a curves adjustment? Or a false color image through extreme color temperature manipulation?<br /> <br /> Why allow curves, but not dodging and burning? You realize with curves you can be quite selective in the image tones you manipulate, don't you? What about curves with a mask? You didn't mention those, somebody will assume they can use them, now there's no difference versus dodging and burning.<br /> <br /> Why is a tilt shift lens unmanipulated while a Photoshop distortion correction is manipulated? Imagine a digital shot, color balanced to match the real world scene as closely as possible, with PS distortion correction. Now imagine the same shot using a TS lens and Velvia 50 with a GND filter to darken the sky and a ND filter to allow longer exposure to blur moving elements. Which is more "manipulated" here? By your standards the most manipulated photo is labeled "unmanipulated" while the photo closest to what the eye might see is labeled "manipulated".</p>

<p>Thinking about the above examples, what exactly are you learning by seeing or searching on that check box? That check box doesn't give you any useful details other than somebody met some arbitrary standard, or was clever enough to work around it.<br>

<br /> Here's the #1 question: why would photo.net want to get into this stupid debate, or worse, try to enforce it on everyone?</p>

<p><em>It's very sad that the same things must be repeated and the same denigrating stance must be assumed by those of differing viewpoints than me.</em></p>

<p>It seems to me you automatically assume that disagreement = denigrating. At this point no one is trying to put you down, they're trying to make you understand the can of worms you wish to open.</p>

[znabal]

<p>The answer then to your root question (which was only about 25% of your original post) is: A "simple" check box won't work because we simply can't agree on the definition of manipulated. <br /> For instance, I wouldn't agree that a double exposure is necessarily manipulated, any more than a lengthy exposure that is lit with bursts of flash, or "painted" with light. I wouldn't agree that correcting (or conversely distorting) perspective (with a lens or software) is necessarily manipulation....so one person's "no manipulation" would be other person's "yes manipulated" and vice versa. Daniel beat me...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>It seems to me you automatically assume that disagreement = denigrating. At this point no one is trying to put you down, they're trying to make you understand the can of worms you wish to open.</em></p>

<p>I guess I stand corrected. Bernie's post was out of line.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Daniel: A Kodachrome-focused group is a very, very different thing than a "not-modified" flag. I'm sure you understand the difference. Yours is the <em>perfect</em> application for tagging. The YES/NO that Feargal wants, in relation to "modified" or "not" is hopelessly meaningless - as Josh pointed out early and well. All that does is measure the submitter's willingness to check the box or not - and says nothing about the manner in which that descision has been approached. It's a Psych 101 lab test more than a way to actually separate the honest and pure-as-the-driven-snow photographs from those that were shot in non-truthy way (or made thus, later, by any of a jillion means).<br /><br />Tagging is a great tool, especially when sorting for specific hardware, materials, locations, etc. Tagging generally fails at helpfully tying into entirely subjective issues like what is, and is not too much of a contrast boost or fisheye correction to quality for a FNPW (the coveted Feargal Norton Purity Waiver). I'm all for tag-based enhancements to this platform. But I'd hate to see the wading go away, actually. Unless there's a way to specifically eliminate the cat photos.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>"Because your standards are not necessarily the standards of anyone else. And photo.net doesn't want to dive into the issue of trying to make everyone agree on what is "manipulated" or "unmanipulated", or trying to police uploads according to some set of arbitrary standards that people will simply disagree with and ignore. (At least that's my read of Josh's posts, and I would agree.)"</p>

<p>Again I'm avoiding being drawn into a debate on what is considered manipulated, it has been covered ad nauseum in this thread. <br>

Photo.net provides guidlines; these are what I would like people to try and stick to, and from my experience people who check that box saying no they are not manipulated seem to be pretty honest about it. <br />In most cases I don't think it would take long for people viewing their work to question the truthfulness of their submission and they can reflect this through critiques of the image or ratings. Also I don't see why people would be inclined to lie. </p>

<p>It seems to me you automatically assume that disagreement = denigrating. At this point no one is trying to put you down, they're trying to make you understand the can of worms you wish to open.<br>

mmmm.. take a look at Bernies helpful input and say the same thing. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>I will once again return to my original question of ... <strong>stick to the original thread</strong></em> <br /><br />You mean, the one where you opined about the truthlesness of others' photographs, and that "photographers should have to state what level of computer trickery their work has been subjected to" and so on? <em>That</em> original thread, which you started, using those words?<br /><br />It may be that you later wished you'd only asked the question you're now <em>saying</em> you asked, but you didn't. You brought a lot more baggage to the conversation, and we've seen those bags go 'round and 'round a thousand times before you brought them up with your own non-new but dismissive, condescending, passive-aggressive tut-tut, right out of the shoot.<br /><br />The far more polite dismissals (on the topic of what other photographers <em>should have to do</em>) that you got back just stirred you to spout insults. Which is fine, if that's how you operate. But don't pretend that you aren't the author of this thread's tone and direction.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>"It may be that you later wished you'd only asked the question you're now <em>saying</em> you asked, but you didn't. You brought a lot more baggage to the conversation, and we've seen those bags go 'round and 'round a thousand times before you brought them up with your own non-new but dismissive, condescending, passive-aggressive tut-tut, right out of the shoot."<br>

I retract nothing from my original post and proudly stand by it. I politely questioned an element of the site that I found needlessly confusing and wished to find other people's opinions about it and garner an explanation of why things are so. I expressed my personal opinion regarding my preference for images that are unmanipulated according to photo.net's guidlines. You seem to take issue with the word trickery, I fail to see why. I said it before and guess I'll repeat myself once again: open any photography magazine or book or browse many websites; often there are people referring to digital tricks, or there is a digital tricks section. Trickery is an alternate form of the same word with the same connotations. Deal with it. </p>

[cyr_smith]

<p>If ever there was a thread that shows what this site is all about it's this one. Photographs actually take a back seat at this site. A long time ago this site used to be about photographs. Today it's about money and moderators. </p>

[zootshooter]

<p>"If ever there was a thread that shows what this site is all about it's this one. Photographs actually take a back seat at this site. A long time ago this site used to be about photographs. Today it's about money and moderators. "<br>

I've been here just 2 months, but from the evidence displayed throughout this thread in how poorly my original queries have been addressed for the most part. I second this motion. </p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Feargal: "<em>From my own personal viewpoint though: photography and film that I particularly enjoy are as much about the creative proccess for me as the finished product. That's what sets them apart from other artistic mediums. I am awestruck at how beautiful sequences in film or photographs of moments in time are captured without the use of computer effects. That's just me.</em> "</p>

<p>So, why can't the creative process be inclusive of the computer? The tools for the acceptable creative process for you seems to stop with tools from the pre-computer industrial age: mechanical, industrial and chemical tools and processes in the form of the camera, film-processing, enlarging and printing. What is the inherent distinction then in the electrical technology that has allowed the use of computers to advance the creative process in photography? You have already said that you accept that all images, be it film or digital, are manipulated in some fashion. So, if you care about the creative process then the means to achieve the end should not matter.</p>

<p>The problem also is that you yourself have left room for ambiguity in saying that you accept that some manipulation is inherent in photography but you want people to denote excessive manipulation. Since there is not an established standard for what excessive manipulation is, for a vast majority of people here that flag would be completely meaningless. I know you keep getting the same answer, but it is likely because you keep going back to asking the same question as to why you cannot have the filter. The answer does not change: it is because that filter produces meaningless results.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>This thread has reached it's logical end. Now we're just down to nit picking and personal attacks on a subject that is too contentious to ever be solved. The OP has gotten his answer to the original question and photo.net's explanation as to why we're not going to wade into the "what is and what is not 'manipulated'" argument. So I'm going to close this thread. But don't you fret anyone, this topic never actually disappears. You'll have a chance to jump in and argue in a future never ending thread. In fact, given past history, I'm guessing that a week won't even pass before you have that chance again.</p>

<p>It's the weekend for most of us. Go have a beer, shoot some photos, work on house projects, or spend some time with friends. This argument isn't going anywhere. It'll still be here next week/month/year/decade.</p>

<p>Thread closed.</p>