Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

[peterblaise]

<p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... an option I can deploy to filter out digitally manipulated images ..."</p>

<p>Images OFF in your browser.</p>

<p>

<p>Earlier: "... it is fairly easy to categorise images and the amount of digital manipulation they have been subjected to ..."</p>

<p>Oh please suggest such a scheme -- I await your insights, and will not even speculate what you consider a manipulation threshold. C'mon, what would such a form look like, specifically?</p>

<p>.</p>

</p>

</p>

[elliot1]

<p>A camera is not a photocopier.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Elliot-that's very good; I'm going to have to remember it. cb :-)</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>Ha Peter I feel privileged for having received such a curiously thoughtful and interesting post even though I don't agree with much of what you say it was a pleasure to read. Kind Regards.<br>

It's 2.19am here I'm too tired to type anymore. Thanks all for your input (though i'm still not convinced). </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>mmmmm... thanks a lot for the totally unconstructive answers. I posted an innocent query related to a personal preference and this is the unrelated rubbish that you deem fit to reply with... well done. Thats me taught not to come to this forums looking for a reasonable response from its users</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's think about where the rubbish is. Your "question" with a chip on its shoulder is one that has been endlessly debated since the days of the Calotype and the Daguerreotype*. You really need to look at some decent histories of photography to see what these issues are and why they will never be resolved by the kind of approach you are insisting on.</p>

<p>_____________<br>

*and before that in painting...</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>As a final question i simply ask why can't I select an option to just see the photos that have been submitted by photographers who have chosen "no - this image has not been digitally manipulated"?<br>

Doesn't seem like such a big ask to me....</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>As a final question i simply ask why can't I select an option to just see the photos that have been submitted by photographers who have chosen "no - this image has not been digitally manipulated"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps. Except for the fact that, as I mentioned, it wouldn't get you what you wanted. I'll say it again, the current "this image is unmanipulated" system should probably be pulled out since nobody pays attention or uses it correctly anyway.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>As a final question i simply ask why can't I select an option to just see the photos that have been submitted by photographers who have chosen "no - this image has not been digitally manipulated"?<br /> Doesn't seem like such a big ask to me....</em></p>

<p>Josh answered this.</p>

<p>But I would like to be able to search on an option "no - this image has not been manipulated by choice of film, or by darkroom techniques." Those blasted people with their Velvias and their dodging and burning...where's the truth in that?</p>

<p>Elliot - I've got a list of quotes from books by various photographers...and you just made the list :-)</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Alain Briot covers this well in: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/just-say-yes.shtml</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> but could someone please point out how I may be able to spend my time on photo.net looking at photos that are free from digital manipulation. </p>

<p>Two words: Tinfoil hat.</p>

<p>Works for me, but the voices never stop...</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I personally agree that a posted picture should say yes or no. One of the major purposes of this site is to help people learn how to take better photographs. Almost on a daily basis people post questions on "how can I do this?" and post an link to an example (frequently in photo.net). Frequently in the example the manipulated field is not filled in (as well as other fields). So how can we help that person? Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is not.</p>

<p>If a person sees an image that they really like, and the field says the photo was not manipulated then that person knows that simply improve how the he or she takes the picture with the camera or by using a different flash / lens or other camera equipment they could do the same. If the field says YES then they know that they could do the same with computer work.</p>

<p>A lot of people getting started in photography now assume you MUST do a lot of computer work on a photograph to get a great image. This is simply not the case. In another case I have see a comment on one of the Editors picks pages that stated:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Good or bad HDR photo rules in your "picks". Dear editors, this kind of photo is <a href="../casual-conversations-forum" target="_blank">computer</a> work, impossible to do only with <a href="../casual-conversations-forum" target="_blank">camera</a>, so please create " picks" for this kind of photography experts"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I took a close look at all the photos and went through all the comments and details page (which took considerable time), I found that a number were not manipulated or used Split Neutral Density filters to achieve the effect. I could only confirm that 2 pictures were HDR. In one photo that really impressed me the photographer stated in the comments that he simply took two pictures and stitched them together.</p>

<p>If you want to encourage people to get into this hobby and you post photos you should say what / how you got the impressive results.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>Perhaps. Except for the fact that, as I mentioned, it wouldn't get you what you wanted. I'll say it again, the current "this image is unmanipulated" system should probably be pulled out since nobody pays attention or uses it correctly anyway.</p>

<p>Ok once again hoping to avoid any more theoretical discussions about photography. I would like to add that I would be happy just looking at the photos that were submitted by photographers who claim their image is unmanipulated. I can then judge for myself if that photographer is true to my idea of what an unmanipulated image is. <br>

Lots of photographers have no problem saying their art has been produced with the help of computer programs. To those photographers I tip my hat and often enjoy their work. i simply would like the option of viewing only the work of photographers who avoid overt digital manipulation and are happy to claim so.<br>

In your opinion the system should be pulled, alright good for you, but i appreciate the system and simply think it could work better.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>Thank you so much Steven for making really valid points. I am an amateur seeking to learn and I would like things to be clearer so I can learn according to my own inclinations. </p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Actually the system shouldn't be pulled, it should only have one answer: this image is manipulated.</p>

<p>There is no such thing as an unmanipulated photograph. Trying to classify the types of manipulation is silly. If you want to know how an image was produced, ask the photographer.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Thank you so much Steven for making really valid points. I am an amateur seeking to learn and I would like things to be clearer so I can learn according to my own inclinations.</em></p>

<p>Then we should have a box where the photographer describes the creation of the image. Not just the technical details, but what he/she was thinking, feeling, and seeing, both physically and in the mind's eye, throughout the process. A checkbox regarding an arbitrary definition, applied differently by different people with different definitions, is not educational.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Do keep in mind that we cannot force people to give out every bit of information abotu the creation of an image. Nor do we have any interest in doing so. Some people like to keep this information private and that is their prerogative.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Feargul, go to bed!</p>

<p>Earlier: " ... <em>APUG.com</em> ..."</p>

<p>... is Asia Pacific Utilities Group -- instead did you mean the evil bunch of analog manipulators at The Analog Photography Users Group:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.apug.org/">http://www.apug.org/</a></p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>A camera is not a photocopier</em> ..."</p>

<p>May I suggest:<br>

A photographer is not a photocopier. <br>

A photograph is not a copy.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>can't I select an option to just see the photos that have been submitted by photographers who have chosen "no - this image has not been digitally manipulated</em>"? ..."</p>

<p>136 lies, more lies, and damn lies on photo.net here:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/gallery/caption-search/search?query_string=unmanipulated">http://www.photo.net/gallery/caption-search/search?query_string=unmanipulated</a><br>

1,290,000 lies, more lies, and damn lies on photo.net here:<br>

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=-manipulated+site:photo.net&safe=off&imgtype=photo">http://images.google.com/images?q=-manipulated+site:photo.net&safe=off&imgtype=photo</a><br>

There, that's an ever refreshing way to explore 1,290,136 photographs and more on photo.net that claim to be unmanipulated by their dirty lying manipulating photographers.</p>

<p>Now Feargul, go to bed!</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Where's Feargal -- has he gone to bed yet? Good.<br>

Maybe I WANT manipulated pictures, if THIS is what I get searching for unmapulated. =8^o<br>

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7833565-sm.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7833565-sm.jpg</a><br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?photo_id=7833565">Howard Carson</a></p>

<strong>Date Submitted:</strong> 2008-09-14

<strong>Caption:</strong> <em>Bound Unbound - 3 Girls: First impressions of this piece may be deceiving, but really, it's an ...</em>

<strong>Gallery:</strong> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=748753">Urban Art</a>

<strong>Equipment:</strong> Nikon D3

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7833565">view</a> | <a href="http://www.photo.net/general-comments/comment-add?on_which_table=ph_photos&on_what_id=7833565&item=Bound+Unbound+%2d+3+Girls%3a+First+impressions+of+this+piece+may+be+deceiving%2c+but+really%2c+it%26%2339%3bs+an+%2e%2e%2e+by+Howard+Carson&module=photodb&return_url=%2fphotodb%2fphoto%3fphoto%5fid%3d7833565">critique</a>

YIKES!

.

[joshroot]

<p>Peter, I deleted the photo. The link is fine, no need to post up someone else's photo.</p>

[zootshooter]

<p>Ha cheers Peter yeah I'm gone. for sure this time!</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Hey Feargal, try <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php">Apug</a>, they do not allow any digital manipulation.</p>

<p> </p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Google Image Search finds on [site:photo.net]:</p>

<p>1,940,000 photos when searching with only [site:photo.net]:<br>

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=site%3Aphoto.net">http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=site%3Aphoto.net</a></p>

<p>1,290,000 photos when searching [-manipulated]:<br>

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=-manipulated+site%3Aphoto.net">http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=-manipulated+site%3Aphoto.net</a></p>

<p>9,170 photos when searching [unmanipulated]:<br>

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=unmanipulated+site%3Aphoto.net">http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=unmanipulated+site%3Aphoto.net</a></p>

<p>404 photos when searching [unmanipulated -manipulated]:<br>

<a href="http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=unmanipulated+-manipulated+site%3Aphoto.net">http://images.google.com/images?imgtype=photo&safe=off&q=unmanipulated+-manipulated+site%3Aphoto.net</a></p>

<p>Cool Feargal, now I have another way to explore photo.net!</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>He's young, Tim. I gave up smoking in 1969. But I'm sure I'll have other bad habits and questionable decions accompany me to my grave.</p>

<p>In your own profile, you write, "<em>My images remind me of the past</em>" -- and isn't that ALL photographs are? The past? </p>

<p>You start with, "<em>I am not sure why I take photographs</em>. " I'm not sure any of us is absolutely sure why. We're all on a journey, including Feargal, who is exploring why we look at photographs, and so I've lookd at hundreds in response, trying to understand my own inner answer tonight. </p>

<p>My partner struggles with being in the moment, and so sees the camera as clinging to the past. But, we LOVE her pictures and have them on our perpetual slide show most. Connundrums. Riddles. "<em>Life is one long enigma my friend</em>." -- Sir George Harrison</p>

<p>Very provocative and productive thread -- thanks Feargal, and all.</p>

<p>.</p>

[rossb]

<p>My pictures are all manipulated. Every one of them. I do not even know how to produce a non manipulated image...For me my manipulation starts with my camera..I do like f2.8 a lot but that manipulates the scene drastically by blurring out the background..My normal vision shows an in focus background. Then I select from 3 different color modes, levels of sharpening, contrast and saturation. I also use filters when I think that the level of manipulation from them will enhance my photo. Finally I upload to my RAW program that immediately manipulates the images with the default settings for contrast, color, white balance etc, etc. Eventually I open the image and utilize other functions for cropping, and removing disturbing objects like dust from my sensor, etc, etc. I then save with color profiling which alters colors somewhat and off to the lab..If you do not specify no color correction then you get further manipulation during the printing..So, my images are all manipulated but I figure not excessively which is one of my goals...One thing about photography is it's a hobby for me. If I have to have a bunch of limiting rules that make the hobby boring then what's the point. So, I figure I will do what I want because it's my hobby. We are now well into the digital world. Our camera's have a lot of functions and our computers are very capable. My own view is to use the tools you have to produce an image that is pleasing to you and hopefully somebody else that may see it. Obviously you cannot please everyone.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>or we could just be annoyingly pedantic and contrary, and not accept that other people can make valid points.</em></p>

<p>What you're missing...the reason for the responses you got...is that most people don't consider the point you raised to be valid. Spend some time reading Adams or Rowell, or read Briot's essays which are free online. There's no such thing as an 'unmanipulated', 'true' photograph which sees exactly what a human would in the same context.</p>

<p>I don't actually have anything against Velvia or darkroom work, but I made a joke about those to make a point: merely loading your camera with Velvia is equal to significant, heavy Photoshop work. To say nothing of what the greats did in the darkroom.</p>