Unmanipulated forum anyone?

[western_isles]

<p>I am, I must admit, an old school photographer. Which is probably a function of my age but that's another story.....</p>

<p>Would anyone favour the idea of a new forum entitled "Unmanipulated"?</p>

<p>Film/slide format could be any size from 110 to 8x10 colour or monochrome. </p>

<p>Allowing for the above, the main criteria would be that the image is as near as possible to how it came out of the camera. Some processing would have to be allowed for the image to be displayed on the screen. </p>

<p>Yes, I do know that there is a section where one says yes or no to manipulation of a particular image.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm curious what would be discussed on such a "forum"?<br>

Multiple posts saying how much the participants prefer photography "neat"? Purity of Essence?</p>

<p>Aren't you talking about something that is more appropriate to portfolios and the ability to search portfolios for "unmanipulated" images?<br>

Isn't that possible now?<br>

I confess I don't know since I don't worry over much about it although I personally prefer images that don't have too much figurative "mascara" and "lipstick" on. I have no problem just not paying attention to those that do.<br>

<br />I confess that I occasionally remove a intrusive sign or ex-spouse from my images, however. :)</p>

[western_isles]

<p>"I'm curious what would be discussed on such a "forum"?" I had thought photography as it comes out of a camera without manipulation or minimal manipulation by software.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Images on film "as they come out of the camera" are latent images and need to be developed first - would you care to elaborate where "normal" developing stops and "manipulation" starts? Can I push the film? Can I use my own developer formula? Can I deviate from the manufacturer's recommended developing parameters? Can I make a print and scan the print for display or is only scanning of the negative or slide allowed. What defines "as close as possible" to what came out of the camera - can I only display film as a negative?</p>

<p>Seems to me I should stay as far as possible away from such a forum should it come into existence.</p>

[charles_wass]

<p>The rubric to this forum states "If it uses film and requires batteries to run, it probably has a home on this forum". I have always seen the end result of the use of film as being little manipulated and so this forum seems suited to your wish. I know that there are opportunities for manipulation of the end result, but those who are aiming to do that nowadays are more likely to use digital. I confess that I do IR photography at times, highly manipulated, but admit that I use digital for that purpose.<br>

<br />In any case, as others have asked, in the absence of significant manipulation, what is there to discuss, except congratulate each other on our efforts?</p>

[western_isles]

<p>"as near as possible to how it came out of the camera" does not preclude:</p>

<p>1. Pushing the film which photographers have been doing for decades both in camera and at processing time<br>

2. Using own developer formula has been around for decades and is still active<br>

3. Deviating from the manufacturer's recommended developing parameters is still fairly common <br>

4. Print and scanning of the negative or slide would be allowed<br>

5. Display film as a negative if you wish, not my taste but some people enjoy that</p>

<p>All of the above would be as near as possible to unmanipulated. The above techniques have been around for decades and compliment modern digital photography very well.</p>

<p>Then again, followers of the proposed forum could shoot the film and just leave it in the camera and be a really unrealistic purist!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>What would be discussed aside from who/what was allowed in and what should be excluded.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>David that is where I was hoping to go, discussion on a variety of topics concerning unmanipulated photography.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I have always seen the end result of the use of film as being little manipulated</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> You've never gone to a photo exhibition? I don't know anybody whose work is well know that meets the criteria above. I always thought the purpose of photography was great photos, not some obscure technical requirements that the masters would have instantly rejected.<br /> <br /> From the forum point of view, it's highly unlikely that there will be a huge amount of discussion as JDM's comment indicates. The history of photography since the enlarger, at least, has been, in part, the history of manipulation. I've had lots of shows and have never shown a photo, whether made in the darkroom or done digitally, that did not have manipulation. Seems like a technical exercise at best.</p>

<p>And why would "unmanipulated," as far from traditional photography as it can get, exclude digital?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>And where does manipulation stop?<br>

How about use of extreme wide angle lenses, and super-tele? They gravely distort perspective.... So... I'd strongly urge only photos, taking at the height of a normal, fully extended tripod ('eye level' more or less), with lenses close to what is regarded normal for the format (normal +/- 20% focal length max), avoiding the use of extremely wide apertures. Otherwise, you get all of those silly manupulations like extreme perspective distortions, supershallow depth of field, and so on.<br>

Thinking of that, also not admissable should be any film with high saturation, or low contrast, lots of grain, and most certainly not B&W film. No studio lights, no flash. No posed models. No posing at all in fact....<br>

So, where do you draw the line? At what point is something manipulated, at what point it isn't?</p>

<p>Now, apart from being a continuous battle of "No, your posting is not admissable in this forum, your fixer bath wasn't clean enough!" (and inevitable zealotry on "pure" photography), what would discussions be about? For sure it would not be about photos, but only about the process (or lack thereof).... Seriously, try making up some topic starts; what would you discuss, the act of <em>not</em> doing something? What is this "<em>variety of topics concerning unmanipulated photography</em>"?</p>

<p>I've recently seen a nice series of work from local photographers from the period ~1890-1920. Every single photo was heavily manipulated, far beyond what most photographers do these days. It was standard process back then. Maybe rather than searching for some idea of purity, learn about the medium - its history, its masters and their approach and what it actually envisions to do. It's about photos, you know.</p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>1. Pushing the film which photographers have been doing for decades both in camera and at processing time<br />2. Using own developer formula has been around for decades and is still active<br />3. Deviating from the manufacturer's recommended developing parameters is still fairly common <br />4. Print and scanning of the negative or slide would be allowed<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are all examples of manipulation. Manipulation isn't necessarily digital. </p>

<p>Perhaps Frank meant, without digital enhancement ?<br>

But I don't know how I'd get a decent digital representation of what the film holds, without the same processing I use for images from a digital camera. Nor why I'd want to.<br>

I'm a little baffled actually.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>What would there be to talk about?</p>

[wogears]

<p>Out of curiosity, do you consider using a 45mm lens and a polarizer on 6x7 to give an 'unmanipulated' result? :)</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>As Ansel Adams said, what comes out of the camera (the negative) is just the score. The print is the performance. If you consider a color slide an end product, that might be the closest thing there is to an unmanipulated image, but even that has been affected by the photographer's choice of lens, exposure, film, filter, etc. not to mention subject matter and time of day and where he stood to make the shot. I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "unmanipulated" image.</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "unmanipulated" image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that sums up this thread pretty well.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>This post had me thinking back to the days when Modern Film cameras were being developed. The Canon A-1 and the Minolta XD-11 were all the rage. I had set up my own film darkroom which allowed me to do B&W and color.</p>

<p>With B&W the options were wide open as far as your choices. With color the main emphasis was proper exposure and then adjusting your color filters to match what the Kodak chemists decided was natural. I always wish I could manipulate color images like I could do B&W.</p>

<p>With digital I can manipulate as far as I want. That being said most of my digital images show very little manipulation. They look pretty straight forward as if they just came out of the camera. It takes a lot of practice to achieve this.</p>

<p>Watch an athlete. Watch a musician. It looks very easy to do. Cranking up a dial to eleven is easy. Making it look natural is much harder.</p>

<p>I think I would like a forum that discusses how photographers can reach their individual vision. Taking film and bringing it into the digital world involves the world of scanning. Taking a digital file and bringing it to the point where it can be displayed or printed requires a similar skill set. A step by step process could be very valuable no matter where the final image takes you.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Purity again, hmm? Wasn't that a gooey, runny sentient alien, known as "cancer" by the Russians in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_oil#Black_oil">The X-Files</a>?</p>

<p>To achieve this sort of photographic purity you'd need to completely eliminate any sort of negative film. There is no way to print or scan negatives without taking choices that would eventually be considered impure manipulations.</p>

<p>So your hypothetical pure, unmanipulated forum would be confined to color slide film, b&w positives (assuming everyone agrees to have only one lab do the reversals), Polaroids or Fuji instant film.</p>

<p>And, photographers and artists being what they are, eventually some camel will nose into the tent wanting a bit more attention than he or she is getting. Said camel will find a way to pre- or post-manipulate the film (pre-flashing, cross processing, etc.) in order to stand out from the crowd.</p>

<p>And the subcommittee on photographic purity will harrummmph around and decide whether to accommodate such deviations and... well... you know where this is going. Same place these proposals always go: Ansel Adams vs. William Mortensen all over again.</p>

<p>It could make for an interesting exercise or contest - just to say you'd done it, once - by strictly limiting equipment and accessories (filters or no filters?), choosing one specific film and lab to handle processing and scans to minimize variations, and judging the full frame prints or scans. But you'll need to get the subcommittee on photographic purity to harrummmph around on it a bit.</p>

[colin carron]

But also the Purity sub-committee would be split on the question of whether cameras do not in themselves produce wholly artificial views of the world. Some would say the human eye doe not see like a camera, while others would boldly break with that fundamentalism and decree that a purely rectilinear view of standard focal length was acceptable manipulation of the human eye view. The unmanipulated forum would descend into factional fighting with the hard-line Real Unmanipulated Forum splitting from the Original Unmanipulated.Forum and the more liberal Progressive Unmanipulated Forum attempting to reflect new thinking. Lofty ideals would end in bitternesss.

[western_isles]

<p>The idea was to generate some discussion regarding manipulated/unmanipulated images and to see if there was any interest. As you all will be aware, there is interest but not quit what I was expecting. Most of the feedback strikes me as negative which I think is disappointing.</p>

<p>Possibly I should have phrased the question better. Keith used the phrase "without digital enhancement". This is probably what I should have said. Thanks to Keith for that.</p>

<p>I am not against digital manipulation per se but do think some creations have gone well beyond what I would regards as photography in it's traditional sense. </p>

<p>Yes, I do '<em>manipulate</em>' scans by taking out dust spots in PS. That task was performed by hand on medium/large format images before digital came along and we are better off for it.</p>

 

[phule]

<p>I think the most important question about this proposed forum still has not been answered:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What would there be to talk about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on your original post, we already have a forum for this: <a href="/no-words-forum/">No Words</a>. </p>

<p>You're able to start threads for various film sizes and types calling for contributions devoid of manipulation based on whatever rules you wish to establish at the time. Everyone wins. </p>

[Bill C]

<p>Frank, I largely agree with you. I seldom look through the galleries here because I'm so distrustful as to the basis of the photos. Back when I was more naive about these things, I saw some incredible photos and was amazed at the skill and perhaps luck involved. Until I came to the realization that they were fabricated from multiple photos, or otherwise heavily doctored.</p>

<p>Speaking as someone who grew up doing photography, and who's entire adult work life has been in some form of photography, I think that this sort of thing just devalues what I call "real" photography. I also recognize that other people have different views, and that this website is a business and should therefore accomodate as many "customers" as it can. If that's what the customer wants, then the business should probably cater to it. It's just not for me.</p>

<p>If you want a bit more support for "unmanipulated" guidelines, you might look at the National Geographic "your shot" website. Here's an excerpt from their guidelines:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We encourage you to submit photographs that are real. We trust contributors to submit unaltered image files—we want to see the world through your eyes, not through photo editing tools.</p>

<p>Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness. If you have digitally added or removed anything, don't submit the shot. ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The full guidelines are here: <a href="http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/">http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/</a></p>

<p>I wish that Photo.net's galleries had the option to separate out such photos, but I just don't care enough to argue for it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Most of the replies here, even the snarky ones, are serving a constructive purpose in pointing out the difficulty in defining an "unmanipulated photograph".</p>

<p>Also, this proposal has been made before. But so far, at least as far as I can recall, no one has followed through by proposing a specific set of guidelines while asking members for suggestions to refine the guidelines.</p>

<p>For example, Frank, your photo.net portfolio as of this writing includes what appear to be all scans of medium format 6x6 square color slide film, using only a "normal" lens, with only spotting done in digital editing. That would seem to be a very narrowly defined form of photography and could easily achieve some consensus, assuming all participants adhered to these types of equipment and media: a camera with a fixed lens or "normal" focal length, using color slide film.</p>

<p>However, even your own photos stray outside that narrowly defined niche: Most, or all, appear to have included the use of a polarizer. It seems reasonable to ask whether the polarizer be considered a form of manipulation? And, if this is not "manipulation", would this also accommodate colored and/or graduated polarizers?</p>

<p>By following through on this reasoning, you can see how complicated it can become to reach consensus on what, specifically, is meant by "unmanipulated".</p>

<p>I recall that even during the pre-digital era there were plenty of debates and arguments over whether the use of color graduated density and polarizing filters resulted in excessively "manipulated" photographs. Yet even before fellows like Moose Peterson popularized those filters (anyone else remember his favorite "Mono Lake" colored polarizer?), decades of photographers had sought to distinguish their photos from hoi polloi "straight" photography. They'd use exotic, specialized lenses, filters and optical doodads, vignetting masks, pre-flashing color film with various types of light to manipulate the final look of the color slide and negative film.</p>

<p>Then came the cross processing fad, and embracing flaws in cameras like the Holga, Lomo and toy cameras for the optical distortions, light leaks, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I am not against digital manipulation per se but do think some creations have gone well beyond what I would regards as photography in it's traditional sense."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many of the "digital art filters" I see do little more than conveniently emulate the same techniques used by the 1980s-early 2000s generations of film photographers. Whether in-camera JPEG effects or post-processing effects, there isn't much difference between using a super-saturated film like Velvia or applying a Velvia effect to a raw file. Or between using a Petzval or other soft focus lens and applying a filter in post. Or between using a color graduated density filter from Cokin, Lee, etc., and applying the same effect in Picasa.</p>

<p>Plenty of folks have proposed a niche for "unmanipulated" film photography before. But so far I can't recall anyone actually tackling these tedious nuts and bolts administrative details to make it happen. They just want it to happen. I suspect most folks feel as Bill does, who said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I wish that Photo.net's galleries had the option to separate out such photos, but I just don't care enough to argue for it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it won't happen unless someone takes the time to reach consensus on a set of guidelines and follow through in a proposal to photo.net administration.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p> I think that the main content of such a forum would be grumbles about (other peoples) manipulation and where the line between "manipulated" and "unmanipulated " falls. neither of which is interesting to me.</p>

[anirbanbanerjee]

<p >Agree.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=948092">Donnie Strickland</a> , Aug 28, 2013; 09:11 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "unmanipulated" image.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that sums up this thread pretty well.</p>

</blockquote>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>The full guidelines are here: <a href="http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/</a><br>

I wish that Photo.net's galleries had the option to separate out such photos, but I just don't care enough to argue for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The guidelines you link to specifically PERMIT HDR. If that's not manipulation, what is?</p>