Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

SCL · February 7, 2009

Feargul - although I'm sure your question was meant innocently enough, from the beginning you missed the point that all images are manipulated in some fashion or another, whether digital or traditional film. The issue is to what degree. I used to teach a course in corporate ethics in which I asked the employees in each session if they had ever stolen property from the corporation...of course they were indignant and always anwered that it was a repugnant thought and that punishment should be severe for people who did that. About three hours later in the session I polled how many of them had taken home a notepad, pencil, pen or other small item...and everybody had, and of course used it for their personal benefit, never returning it. Most of them were shamefaced when I pointed out their initial response to corporate theft. Like I said on manipulation, it is a matter of degree.

walter_strong5 · February 7, 2009

This issue will still be argued when all of us here are dead and buried. I too have a problem with endless images that've been Photoshopped to the point they are no longer photographs but have become something else (photo illustration?). "Manipulaing" an image is not the problem. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that there is, in fact, no such thing as an "unmanipulated" image. Its a matter of degree, and at some point a photograph morphs into something that is not photography. I can't define that point and that frustrates me but I intuitively know it exists. I'll just have another cup of coffee and try not to sink into an advanced state of angst!

ed_lutz · February 7, 2009

What the heck, I guess I'll jump in...

I share the OPs views I think on manipulated photographs. To me though there is such a thing as a non manipulated shot. I have a bunch of them stored in files. They are the transparency I've shot over the years and they are exactly as I shot them. Those I print are usually not changed in any way, I rarely ask for a burn or dodge I strive to get it in the camera.

However, there are times of course that film just wont do that as it doesn't have the latitude to mimic exactly what I see, or I blew the shot to some degree and something needs to be tweaked to set it right. Now, as long as any changes are to make the picture what my eyes saw I don't think (to me) its over manipulated. Once though manipulation moves toward making the shot "unnatural" then its over manipulated. And yes, Ansel Adams certainly was an early adopter of manipulation.

Now understand that I don't necessarily dislike (over) manipulated pictures, I just recognize a difference and like to know what was done to create a shot. I personally like to know because I want to learn, curiosity ya know? The whole digital side to this is still pretty new to me and I still shoot film almost exclusively. Digital is for me only for experimentation, playing with lighting, goofing around. I've been a film shooter for...eh, well a heck of a long time, and old habits don't slip away very quickly. I learned to try and get it right in the camera since if I didn't I had to trust someone else to get it right in the darkroom. I dont shoot something figuring I can fix it later in PS, although the idea is intriguing.

So when I view photos I sometimes see something that would have been very hard to do in the camera and thus want to know how it was done. Now don't take this wrong but I value the skill to get it right in the camera and so don't just assume that a shot was fixed later. While I see nothing wrong with fixing it later, I strive to get it right in the camera and want to learn how others do the same, thus, to get back to the point, is why I would like to know how much a shot was manipulated during post processing.

joshua_croft · February 7, 2009

Most definately a question of opinion....

I made almost this axact same post about 9 months ago. To be short and to the point I PERSONALLY believe that everything on this site is "photography", but I too would like to know when something is extremely altered. Burning and dodging to bring the photo to a point that it is a representation of the real thing, what you would have seen if you were there..... is one thing. A six image HDR with extreme saturation change etc, or even worse removing a distracting object in your image.....is something that I want to know about. I look at some of the beautiful images on here and wonder....."is it me?", "What am I doing wrong?". I base my abilities off of the work I see on sites like this. I'm not against these types of manipulation, but I definately want to know how a person got there for comparison purposes.

tonmestrom · February 7, 2009

The OP's question got here at Feb 06, 2009; 07:44 p.m.. No more than 8 minutes later it received the only appropiate answer. Freely translated, it's all about the endresult. What more needs to be said?

bob_bill · February 7, 2009

Sorry, but I didnt read every post here because this subject is beyond tedious, I have only one suggestion, before every new member is taught the sites' secret handshake, make them take an oath on the head of their first borne not to ever ask any "is it real or is it photoshop" questions. Feargal, if you are new to the site, you probably didnt realize this, but before posting a question, its usually good to search to see if it has been asked before. It seems to be asked about every other day so please excuse any note of displeasure from the replys, the subject has become somewhat of a joke to some of us. Keep reading and posting, this site is a fabulous resource. Usually the replys are constructive, the repetition of this subject that flys in the face of art has become an irritant to many. Ordinarily, questions arent met with as much ire. I think you are finding what many new photographers believe before they learn photoshop. I usually point out that Picasso and Monet didnt make realistic paintings. Are they lesser paintings? My usual reply on these questions is to suggest the Kelby on line training for photoshop for a painless way to learn it as well as shooting and light classes, all for $20 per month unlimited access. I promise it will improve your images and change your position on photoshop. Another is the book Landscape photography by Rob Sheppard in which he shows what Ansel would do to a print- some 50 darkroom manipulations. I also usually suggest novices consider a good local photo club. All this should really bring you along. And welcome to photo.net, keep shooting.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

To Peter I again say thank you for a very useful answer on how I can in fact filter out images that have been manipulated according to their creator. I find most of the responses are completely off the point of the questions I originally posed, I was not looking for a digitally manipulated/ unmanipulated, which is better thread, I just wanted to know why it's not easier for people learning photography such as myself to ascertain how much images have been manipulated, and to be allowed to filter out those that have been overtly so.

Perhaps manipulated is the wrong word, I come from a film background and nobody seems to have any problem with the term CGI when its applied to films that deploy overt digital effects. couldn't the same option be applied to the photos here that are heavily manipulated, creating something that didn't exist in reality?

To Bill I would say thanks but no thanks for your guidance towards a photoshop workshop, I simply don't find such elements of photography interesting and I'd prefer to work on my abilities in capturing images before I learn to create art on a computer.

Regards to all who have taken their time to express their views.

CharlesBecker-Toronto · February 7, 2009

Feargal-if you really think that post processing is creating art on a computer, you have no idea what many (most?) photographers use it for. I don't do much post processing so Photoshop Elements is all I need. I find that digital images tend to lose a little of their luster and that I can restore it using levels and I do that on most of my images. In addition, I do some cropping ( I regretted not being able to crop back in my slide film days ) and once in a while, a little cloning to correct a slight imperfection here and there. In other words, I post process in order to get back the image I saw in the first place and that's what I use Elements for 99% of the time; the other 1% is to create 'art on a computer' and it's obvious (i.e. I have one on photo.net with a red sky and another with a black sky) and it is noted accordingly. I don't think that I'm the only one who works this way-far from it. As far as your wanting to work on your abilities in capturing images first is concerned, once again, most of us here feel the same way; with the exception of those who just shoot away thinking that they can 'fix it later in Photoshop' we try our best to get it right in the first place. Sometimes a little extra can make for a somewhat better image-that where post processing comes in. cb :-)

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Indeed "create" art is probably too strong a verb in most cases. Again it is your prerogative to use computer programs to help finish your pictures, and I respect it and often admire it.

I personally prefer not to use programs such as photoshop at all on my images, that is my choice. It doesn't stem from a lack of training or knowledge of photography but a personal choice, you may even call it a philosophical one.

So again I pose the question why can't the options be altered to say. Has your image been enhanced with CGI - yes or no?

Then browsing this site; appraising and learning from the great work on display here, would be made much easier for amateurs such as myself.

bernie moore · February 7, 2009

Feargal, I must say you are a scrappy devil. I have enjoyed this thread and your undying determination to see it to the end. Sarcasm is a way of adding humor to make a point. Not loved by all but practices by many. I suggest you put on your chain mail undies before your next post. These threads can be tempest tossed.

CharlesBecker-Toronto · February 7, 2009

I had to look up CGI on Google to see what it meant. If that is what you think should be asked then I think the answer would have to be 'yes' each and every time as every image on photo.net, whether film or digital, got here via a computer and computers impart their own characteristics to images. I understand your philosophy-I have thought about such things myself and it has resulted in my own philosophy to never forget what it was that drove me to record the image in the first place and therefore the limitations I have placed on myself as far as photoshopping is concerned. I'm not alone in this. Does knowing that Ansel Adams spent a lot of time in the darkroom (think dodging and burning) spoil your appreciation of his beautiful photographs? If you could filter out 'manipulated' images, you would never see any of his work-does that mean you have nothing to learn from him? Do you think for one minute that if he were alive today that not only would he be photoshopping, he would probably be the best there is at it? I understand where you are coming from but I think you may be overdoing it. cb

peterblaise · February 7, 2009

.

Good morning Feargal,

I'm considering your new thoughts from a refreshed mind this morning after a restful night's sleep (why aren't you out shooting, not reading here?) ... but, I started the laundry, and might as well wait for it. So, let me share my take on all this. So far, we addressed two things (at least):

- no, photo.net has no in-built way to filter photographs by the terms "manipulated/non-manipulated" even though each photographer can declare such on a line in their gallery page for each photograph. We explored a little that there is no objective threshold where everyone agrees on what is and is not "manipulation". However, search wise, a site search here, or via Google Images, using the words "manipulated/non-manipulated" brings some filtering after the fact. Unanswered is the question of whether or not that search is satisfactory, whether or not the found images are any more or less satisfactory to the viewer than randomly selected images, or images selected from the opposite criteria. Try this ald let us know how it works for your preferences.

- we've explored how all photos are not real (see Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte</a> ) and photography itself is nothing but manipulations. But, we also began trying to find a feel-good middle ground where perhaps the resulting feel of "accuracy" in a picture is a better word -- you are looking for pictures where the presentation feels accurate to the viewer, and where the photorapher claims the image is an accurate representation of their memory of the original scene ... regardless of the manipulations used to get there (not like the over-the-top samples at <a href="http://www.howstrange.com/">http://www.howstrange.com/</a> for instance).

Now, Feargal, I'm curious. I'm guessing that some images here at photo.net surprised you, either in the way they look, or in what you learned about how the photographer created them, and then you felt cheated. Have I got it? I guess what I'd like to explore, if you can do some self-research, is for you to share some links to photos that example your thresholds so we can see what you see -- what pictures tipped you over into starting this thread?

Maybe there are three ways to consider "accuracy" in a photograph:

- accurate and non-manipulated,

- accurate and manipulated, and

- inaccurate and manipulated.

I just noticed that there might be a fourth criteria:

- inaccureate and non-manipulated.

In fact, we could have a rating system where each photographer self-rates, and then each viewer also votes, and the rating reflects some combination:

<a href="http://i42.tinypic.com/33kes06.jpg">http://i42.tinypic.com/33kes06.jpg</a>

... I imagine most people might be surprised to find that they enjoy photographs that happen to land anywhere on that quadrant, and they hate and feel tricked by photographs that also land anyhere on that quadrant. In other words, I suspect that such statistics collection would serve only to prove that such statistics collection is meaningless because our preferences would wander all over such a quadrant of variables.

But, perhaps any viewer who collected the results of, say, 100 images they enjoyed looking at and studying, and might even print for display in their own home or studio, might find that their image preferences return ratings for accurate/inaccurate versus manipulated/non-manipulated really do hover in one quadrant ... or, perhaps the results would be all over the map, so to speak, where two equivalently satisfactory pictures were created via opposing methods.

Unless we actually do this, I imagine that our back-and-forth here will never resolve the mystery of what it is about a picture that moves us, that engages us, that inspires us, that conencts -- is the important thing how the picture got here, or what the picture brings to us regardless of how it got here?

Can a satisfactory picture be ruined by knowing it was "faked"?

Can a "fake" picture be more satisfactory than a "real" one?

In other words, even if you could get photos labeled "manipulated" or "non-manipulated", how would that be accurate with such imprecise interpretations of the meanings of the words, and more importantly, would it matter? Worse, would it inappropriately stigmatize and block some photos and photoraphers who are worthy of attention, who we might be glad to pay attention to otherwise, even feel inspired by?

.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Ha Bernie thanks it is indeed an uphill struggle to get my point across but I persevere.

Charles, I am not in anyway saying that Ansel Adams' work is tainted as a result of his darkroom techniques. I'd just like to be able to ascertain when a photographer has deployed them.

In a movie it is very clear when a movie uses CGI and from what I know film makers have no problem saying they have deployed Computer Generated Imagery to create alternate realities in their films, in fact they are proud of their mastery of modern techniques and I say good luck to them.

If you are being pedantic you could of course say that any movie created using digital cameras or edited on digital programmes is a CGI creation, but there appears to be a consensus that this is not the case, that CGI implies creating something that would not be possible in reality without digital techniques.

I simply pose the question why the same honesty and clarity can't be applied to photographs when submitted?

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

In a movie it is very clear when a movie uses CGI I think we're starting to get to the crux of the matter, Feargal. CGI is now routinely used in flim production in order to do everything from removing powerlines from an exterior shot, to changing anachronistic hubcaps on a car, to adding a few more birds to a flock. These skills, when used by their true masters, are invisible. They aren't crowed about, and they're not pitched as a significant part of the film's raison d'être. While some Peter Jackson epic may rely so much on CGI that it makes sense to talk specifically how brialliantly it's been used to synthesize a vision, the tools are now commonly used to make up for on-set visual sins or logistical problems. It's now inexpensive enough to convincincly change the signage on a location shot's background storefront in post production that (unlike in years past) the production team actually has to decide whether to pay a designer and set crew to physically and expensively alter the scene during the shoot. CGI is now used to correct for simple costuming/prop continuity errors, or to help the cinematographer handle otherwise unsolvable location problems. Used subtly, the tools don't leave a meaningful trace. They aren't what the image is about, they're just a tool to get the job done. Why would the production crew advertise that they used CGI to mask over the glint of sunlight flashing off of a five-kilometers-away passing car in an otherwise perfect sunset take while shooting a period western? If the scene is beautifully shot, effectively acted, and delivers the goods... a little post time to invisibly correct a minor flaw isn't just acceptable, it makes financial sense, too. If we were discussing films here, and the director of such a scene had to check "manipulated" or not in that case - what would you recommend? Everything about the image is as-shot (focus pull, actors, sweet dusky light - the works), but a minor flaw is corrected. Should the same checkbox that you'd check for Jobba The Hut be used for Windshield Glint? The same issue applies here, with stills. Your willingness to let the photographer's assertion (by checking, or not, the Manipubox) satisfy you as to the state of the image doesn't even come close to resolving the wildly varying standards that will be in thousands of people's heads as they hover their mouse to click, or not to click that box. I think Josh is right to consider pulling that option entirely. It's a red herring. Though, he could make it a slightly more blue herring, and forget to tell you, and you'd never know. Would that make it a less distracting fish? One man's manipulated herring is another man's color-temp-corrected herring - and unless you're going to also read some sort of per-photographer discussion about their personal thresholds and thoughts on the matter, filtering on a single binary field is quite useless, methinks.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Good morning Peter and thanks again for an insightful post, but again I think the waters are being unnecessarily muddied by over analysis of what consitutes a manipulated image.

I have a very modern interpretation of Art and care very little for the techniques deployed to bring about its creation. The aforementioned photographer's work is in no way tainted by the fact that they used post production manipulation to bring about beautiful results.

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.

I do not wish to consign myself to only view images on photo.net that I or the relevant photographers feel is unmanipulated. though I would like to have the option if I feel so inclined.

On occassion and especially as an amatuer wishing to learn a craft I do think I should have the option of looking at work that has not been submitted to overt post production manipulation by its creator.

I think that the system suggested by you is mind bogglingly confusing. I just suggest a simple more pronounced option of stating yes or no when submitting your work and perhaps a filter that can be applied when viewing the photo critique forum. People seem to take issue with the mention of images being manipulated, doggedly maintaining that all images are as such. I agree with this so perhaps a different term is more appropraite. I suggested CGI, but I'm sure that someone could think of something more befitting since people also seem to take issue with the lack of clarity enshrined in this term also.

I could give examples of what I'm talking about in relation to specific photos, but I don't deem it neccessary. Look at editors picks, photographers of the month, the preponderance of HDR images in the critique forum and it seems pretty clear to me that the site is swamped by overly manipulated images. Many people enjoy this work I have no problem with that, I also do on occassion. I'm just suggesting a simple tweaking of some options to allow me to explore the work on display on this site according to my own tastes at any given time.

And yes I really should be out there taking some pictures :)

Regards,

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

Out with it, Feargal! You'd like Josh to change the text next to that checkbox to read: "Be honest, PN member, is the image you are about to post Over Manipulated?" so that you can filter those out. But how many people are going to (honestly or at least in keeping with the Feargal Standards Of Manipulation) rate their own work as over manipulated, or even consider a color temp and distortion correction to be such? They saved to a PN-friendly JPG when they considered the job done, and to their liking. Not over- or under-anything. The checkbox is only as good as the (largely unknowable) state of mind, experience, ethics, history, world view, and even mischievousness of the photographer. That's a lot to invest in a single checkbox, and is a pretty shaky foundation on which to include or exclude images from view while you're in the learning mode.

peterblaise · February 7, 2009

.

Okay, perhaps, after many iterations, we are getting someplace after all.

I think the threshold you are after is SHUTTER RELEASE. You want to know how much of the final presentation was done post shutter release, and how much is a product of work done prior to releasing the shutter -- because you yourself are trying to learn the latter. You are interested in improving your field technique, and you want to study other people's pictures where their presentation is exemplary and instructive of skilled field technique.

Also, you want to know if the post-processing was "merely" tweaking for accuracy to overcome technical limitations (dynamic range, color accuracy, sharpening, distortion reduction, noise reduction, cropping, and so on), versus how much was new pixel insertion (CGI as you call it -- a foreign term to photo.net photographers, Google search for "CGI" versus "exposure" or "focus" or "crop" and you'll find at least 10 times the references compared to "CGI" -- but also cloning, removing or adding items, combining frames -- would double or multiple exposure and sandwiches be pre or post shutter release by your criteria? and so on).

If I understand you correctly, your goal is to learn how somene else's picture arrived to your eyes, and, at the moment, you are mostly interested in the photographic craft PRE shutter release, because that is where you are trying to learn and improve your technique today.

Have I finally got it?

Our points in response are manifold:

- this request has nothing to do with the term "amateur" since photo.net is full of "amateurs" who are begging for deep Photoshop help after releasing the shutter, and not just contemporaneously, we are delving into Photoshop to re-present ancient antique found photos from our family's shoe boxes where we no longer have any control of pre shutter release conditions. There is no objective specific meaning of what an "amateur" is or wants.

- this request begs further argument, such as, did the photographer "salt the mine" and create an "artificial" scene by anyone's standards, even pre-shutter release, or is the scene "as found"? Would non-candid portraits be eliminated since the subject new they were being photographed and therefore may have responded with a "fake", non-realistic pose? And so on. Again, there is no objective criteria for a "real versus fake" threshold anywhere in our many and varied photographic capture-to-presentation sequences.

In other words (that seems to be my phrase of the day: "in other words"), while I appreciate your criteria, there is no easy way for others to agree with you or each other as to what those words mean, and, photo.net wise, voluntary collection and selection by such ersatz and variable criteria seems highly improbable, so ... you are on your own.

Perhaps the resolution, to so speak, is to dwell on one photo at a time, marry it, and contact the photographer, engage them, and explore what was their process. Occasionally, you may find a pohotographer who is not only willing to self-scruitinize, but who also communicates in ways that correspond to your way of experiencing yourself. Marry that photographer! ;-)

I read someplace that a great way to enter a field is to write to a different person in the field each day and see what comes. The author of that idea claimed that they got few responses, but the ones they did receive were wealthy and wise, and some became life long friends and mentors who made all the difference in the author's success and self satisfaction.

That's hard to do on a word-wide public discussion thread with hundreds of readers, where so often the theme of the thread is the self-interest of the original poster, and not the connections built in the dialog.

.

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

Matt I understand your points about film making, but I don't agree with them at all. I find it absoloutely the laziest form of film making to resort to digital manipulation to correct a lack of craft on the film makers part. For many movies this is perfectly acceptable, but these are for the most part big budget hollywood procutions, that I have little interest in.

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

I find it absoloutely the laziest form of film making to resort to digital manipulation... So... dragging an entire production crew back out into the desert to very expensively re-shoot an entire scene because of a three-frame flash of light on the horizon during the "keeper" take is preferrable to a simple, invisible post-production fix because - and only because - it's not lazy?

zootshooter · February 7, 2009

So... dragging an entire production crew back out into the desert to very expensively re-shoot an entire scene because of a three-frame flash of light on the horizon during the "keeper" take is preferrable to a simple, invisible post-production fix because - and only because - it's not lazy?

Yes in most cases for film and photography purists such as myself such a cop out option shouldn't always be readily grasped. For many productions such concerns are completely irrelevant, because the film maker has no problem with making use of all the tools at his disposal... again i say good luck to them, a lot of great art has come out from this outlook.

I myself as a 24 year old find it truly shocking that more senior photographers and members of this site see no value in being able to differentiate between photos that have been taken using techniques available for centuries, and those have been crafted using programs such as photoshop.

I find it sad and I resign myself to finding no satisfaction with a meeting of viewpoints with the majority of modern photographers. I guess it does at least give me a niche in the market to fill.

Good Luck all.

Spearhead · February 7, 2009

I myself as a 24 year old find it truly shocking that more senior photographers and members of this site see no value in being able to differentiate between photos that have been taken using techniques available for centuries, and those have been crafted using programs such as photoshop.

</blockquote>

I find it amazing that the primary photographic criterion for someone is technique rather than communication and vision.

I guess it does at least give me a niche in the market to fill.

</blockquote>

So your market is what technique you use rather than what your photographs have to say. I can't see that going very far in any "market."

peterblaise · February 7, 2009

.

Feargal, please read and respond to my prior post about what you are after -- identifying field skills versus post production skills. Have I got it?

Earlier: "... techniques available for centuries ..."

Er, photographically speaking, modern photography's invention in the 1860's to 2009 is only a century and a half. But the eye itself in the form of a camera has been around for millions of years, so ...

Earlier: "... I resign myself to finding no satisfaction with a meeting of viewpoints with the majority of modern photographers ..."

Me, too. (Or, me neither?) So, don't try to relate to some undefinable and variable "majority". Instead, pick one.

Me? I like Andreas Feinninger. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=andreas+feininger">http://www.google.com/search?q=andreas+feininger</a>

You?

.

Matt Laur · February 7, 2009

I guess it does at least give me a niche in the market to fill I wasn't aware that there was a market that decides to purchase photographs based on how lazy the photographer was when he captured the image. You might be able to talk a curator into making a big deal about how all of the images in an exhibit were produced in a particular way, and that the photographer only went into the field while wearing particularly itchy woolen underwear... but be careful about your "market" aspirations, here, and how much you can expect such variables to ultimately matter. Many people like to purchase recordings of live (in front of an audience), rather than studio-recorded music. But most will appreciate a recording that was initially captured on multitrack equipment, and which was thoughtfully post-produced to prepare the audio for playback on standard equipment, with an aesthetically pleasing response curve and mix. Does that diminish the performance, or the enjoyment of the music? Not in the least. There is certainly a tangible market for recordings of live music. But is there a meaningful market for live recordings produced by engineers that dwell dramatically on when, whether, and how they equalized the bass response in the recordings, or avoided phase cancellations in certain frequencies because of the wall coverings in the recording venue? No, there isn't. There's a market for the music, not for the recording crew's introspection about whether deciding where to place a microphone is or isn't "manipuation" compared to using a compression routine to make the final recording's dynamic range suitable for broadcast.

James G. Dainis · February 7, 2009

Film is manipulated also with the choice of filters, processing and film. Shoot a flower with saturated Velvia as opposed to more natural Astia. Should the Velvia shot be labeled as manipulated? But then this thread is concerned with digital manipulation. Manipulate film all you want but not digital.

rossb · February 7, 2009

"""I also think that I should be able to apply a filter to exclude digitally altered images from my view of the photo critique forum if that is my personal preference""".

If there were such a filter then it would removed all the images because all digital images are manipulated. It might be easier to just not view them, but if such a filter exists then you should get one.. But on a slightly different note, a person who wanted images as free from manipulation as possible then as someone suggested above is to shoot slides. Astia is a very realistic nice slide. Just do not scan it because then you are back to manipulation. Another option that many people elect is to manipulate their images and then pretend they did not. I guess that could be called a hippo non-manipulator..Myself I shoot RAW and therefore an image manipulator. I enjoy my hobby..My philosophy is. "I can do anything I want because it's a hobby afterall". I figure someone else can do whatever they want. It's fine with me and it makes for some interesting images and styles.

Sign In

Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in