zootshooter

<p>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. <br>

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. <br>

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?<br>

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

<p>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. <br>

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?<br>

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. <br>

Regards to all who have taken their time to express their views.</p>

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

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Well I guess so maybe, but for me I look at images; especially from photographers who I really enjoy, and feel surprised that their images are manipulated and I can't see it. I then wonder if perhaps maybe they simply missed ticking the box when submitting or didn't deem it important to do so. I don't think a clearer option when submitting photos would do any harm to anyone.<br>

And probably I am being petty in these views I hold, but I simply find it much more enchanting and impressive in most instances when a photographer captures a moment in time and processes it rather than artistically creates a beautiful image on a computer. I reiterate that I see these images as beautiful in their own right but for me some of the magic is gone. In the same way that I look at old movies using animatronics and live action and feel more bewitched than with CGI. <br>

One of my favourite photographers is Man Ray and none of the magic of his photos is lost by the fact they went through heavy post production, but I don't think that he would have shied away from stating how his images were produced. I don't see how people interpret these views as a call to arms. </p>

<p>Well it is encourging to see helpful feedback coming in at last. Regards to all who took their time to respond in a friendly or constructive way. <br>

" If not could someone post a sensible response to why its not an option or why people can't say yes or no about whether their photos are altered?" That option is already there. cb</p>

<p>But it's not is it? or am i losing it? it says no / or unknown or yes. That isn't a simple 50/50 answer to me it muddies the waters too much, doesn't anyone think it would be simpler just to say yes/no and maybe if you really insisted you could have have yes/no/unknown as options. Is that so disagreeable?</p>

<p>Thank you Charlie I was beginning to give up on these forums. I do understand that all photos are the result of a proccess of manipulation be it in a dark room or on a computer program. I think that it is fairly easy to categorise images and the amount of digital manipulation they have been subjected to though. Well perhaps not easy but I think it's worthwhile for photographers to state whether they see their work as manipulated. I simply see is a puzzling that to a simple yes no question, there is a negative response but no positive. For people such as myself who only wish to see those images wherein the photographer has subjected his photos to none or the very minimal of manipulating, can't a simple filter be applied in the critique forum or perhaps a different section?</p>

<p>Digitally manipulated images.. how can I avoid them?"<br>

You can get a job as a police officer, or a journalist where digitally manipulated photos are a no-no ?</p>

<p>As hilarious as these responses are; how pathetically laughable it is how feathers are ruffled on this site by someone stating an opinion in amicable terms. I posted this thread to find out if there is an option I can deploy to filter out digitally manipulated images. If not could someone post a sensible response to why its not an option or why people can't say yes or no about whether their photos are altered?</p>

<p>Come now, Matt. Instead of replying to a query in a helpful fashion you couldn't resist a dig at a member for stating a preference. I think its extraordinarily petty and symptomatic of an overly sensitive disposition to see an adjective such as "trickery" as me coming out swinging. Read any photography book or magazine, do you find it extremely upsetting that they may have a digital tricks section?</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 06, 2009; 08:06 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Maybe you should take a minute to think about why you got the answers you did get...</p>

<p>mmmm.. because people on these forums can't allow for someone to have an opinion about photography that differs from their own?<br>

I specifically said that I respect other people's wish to create and enjoy digitally manipulated images. <br>

I see them as works of art in their own right but personally i prefer images that have not been manipulated. Can you explain why that opinion is so hard for users here to accept..</p>

 

<p>"I know what you mean. Just other day I was trying to figure out how to avoid the endless stream of grotesquely desaturated images that completely rob the photographs of their original, true colors. It's like a plague, this whole "black and white" thing. I can't believe that people would manipulate the truth of the image like that when there's perfectly good color film available."</p>

<p>Well done you've learned how to be sarcastic.. now what is it that people say about that relating to wit?<br>

Any photo.net users who see a query as something other than an opportunity to behave like an idiot please let me know if I'm missing something in relation to being able to filter out images that have been manipulated.</p>

<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.<br>

Congratulations for your opinons you're obviously ever so proud of them, of course i'm not entitled to my own.</p>

<p>Hi, I am fairly new to this site so forgive me if I am missing something obvious, but why are the options about whether an image is digitally manipulated so unclear. why do people not have to say yes - an image is manipulated or no- it is not digitally manipulated. Why must it be no / unknown or yes. Doesn't this muddy the waters far more than is necessary.<br>

I personally don't care at all for digitally manipulated images above the most basic of tweaking to do a captured image justice. I love photography and hope to develop some skills in it because the truth of a photographic image is very important to my enjoyment of the medium. When I look around photo.net though I see a huge amount of digitally manipulated images in the photo critique forums and the editor's choices of pictures. I have no problem with this; each to his own ideas about photography. But I would expect that photographers should have to state what level of computer trickery their work has been subjected to or at a more basic level simply have to answer yes or no rather than the current options. <br>

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. Perhaps I am missing some obvious option because of a lack of familiarity with the site, if so my apologies, 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. <br>

Regards,<br>

Feargal</p>