View Full Version : What do you think is legitimate? How far can we go in manipulating photos?
I've been pondering where we should draw the line when manipulating images. Everyone manipulates in some way, but when entering competitions, how much is too much?
A couple of examples here. This location has a car park in the foreground - totally unattractive. I have produced two images which artificially replace that car park with sea. One of them uses entirely my one images, mirroring the castle, using my own sea etc etc. However, 50% of the image is not original although it's all my own work. It's also not all that good when compared to the second image.
The second image uses a "Flaming Pear" plug in, which does a far superior job, but 50% of the image isn't even photographic, and certainly not mine! It's software generated. The question is .... how far can we legitimately go in competitions with images which rely so much on plug-ins and artificially generated imagery. Thoughts anyone?
130025130026
a very interesting question :) I guess it would depend on the rules of the particular competition you entered. I know in any 'nature' categories, manipulation is not allowed.
I quote from the SAPF (South Australian Photographic Federation) Annual Exhibition entry form:
"Open Pictorial are images of any subject matter and are judged on artistic rendition and technical quality. Digital manipulation is allowed in these sections.
Landscape/Seascape Images feature the natural scenery of the terrain and may include any or all of the elements, land, sky and water. Coastal features or the shoreline may be included. Buildings, people or animals may be included but must be incidental to (and not dominate) the image. Minor manipulation is acceptable."
Then we have the 'Creative' category, where ANYTHING is allowed and encouraged!
I guess there is 'digital manipulation' and then there is 'DIGITAL MANIPULATION' LOL
PS - both of your images look great, but I think the 2nd one with the 'waves' seems a little more 'real', but I just love the reflections of the 1st image :)
a very interesting question :) I guess it would depend on the rules of the particular competition you entered.
I guess there is 'digital manipulation' and then there is 'DIGITAL MANIPULATION' LOL
PS - both of your images look great, but I think the 2nd one with the 'waves' seems a little more 'real', but I just love the reflections of the 1st image :)
Thanks ... I agree that the most realistic is the one with the most manipulation, which is my problem. I enter local club comps, and they are often just "Open" comps. Our club doesn't seem to care about the extent of manipulation, but I have seen "photographs" on the 'net which are 100% photoshop and NO photographic content. Obviously that's getting ridiculous, but I'm just not sure where one should draw the line. That second one of mine concerns me due to it being a third "plug in". I wonder if it would be a legitimate entry in competitions here for example ??
Understand where you're coming from Bob, but these days does it matter, as long as you're not impinging someone’s copyright?:(
Understand where you're coming from Bob, but these days does it matter, as long as you're not impinging someone’s copyright?:(
Well, it would seem it's not a concern so far .... 65 views and only 2 comments! :rolleyes:
I just reckon that somewhere there has to be a border that we cross when it comes to entering our photographic work. I'm right into creative modifications, but to me that last image of mine is a bit of a cheat. Apparently the line has moved further than I thought! :confused013
bitsnpieces
12-03-2017, 4:23pm
I think the restrictions, outside of competition rules and whatnot, comes down to personal perspective as to what 'photographic' means.
To me, even though using a digital camera to do it, I try to do it all in camera. That's the photo, that's the memory, the art. Minor touch ups, I get it - exposed a bit too dark to I fix that, or colour a little dull, so I add a bit more, etc.
I personally try to avoid manipulation in my photos because then that's not what I shot, not what I remember, not what I experienced.
So the limit is set based on my perspective, and the advantages of digital editing doesn't change the definition of photography to me, just depending on the work I'm doing.
geoffsta
12-03-2017, 5:44pm
Does it come down to... Are you a good photographer, or a good graphic designer:confused013
ameerat42
12-03-2017, 5:53pm
If a stockman should stray onto the street with his mob and you took a pic of it,
I'd say it would be a fair-crack-of-the-whip. -- Good chance, anyway:nod:
ricktas
12-03-2017, 6:08pm
It is an interesting discussion and I also think we have to consider the other side of the coin. There are some stunning photos out there that show the elements of the image as they were at the time of being taken. However because they are so stunning, they often suffer the same call of 'fake' when some people view them.
I think until some sort of defined standard is created that is recognised by photography bodies all around the world, we will will continue to see this 'trickery' used, and sadly in some cases, photographers who happily lie and say that it 'looked like that'. Even if a standard was created, there will always be those that flaunt the rules.
For now, it is something we have to just deal with, individually and make our own judgements on where the line should be drawn as to what should be classed as photographic art and what should be called photographic digital science. Even the AIPP and Ken Duncan get caught up in this discussion.
I think the second photo looks the more natural of the two, and I have not seen the flaming pear 'flood' filter used for quite some time and Bob has used it very well in this example.
Until photography is removed as an Art and defined as a science, we will likely continue to see these creative adjustments to photographs, and for now, we each have to decide for ourselves what is photography and what is photographic digital science.
Saldy, the uninformed are often the most vocal at yelling 'fake fake fake', to good photos, and even sadder is those that listen to them, undermining the talent of great photographers.
I wonder if the film industry has not got it right, and simply calls the artists who do this work, compositors! I think the term Photographic Compositor should be more willingly used at times.
Some years ago here a photo of a silhouetted frog on a wonderfully big backlit green leave did well in POTY.
It looked so good. The member was known to not be a fan of pushing the manipulating.
Fun discussion followed when he fessed up the frog was a rubber frog. :D Not quite as natural as we all thought and was implied.
Does it come down to... Are you a good photographer, or a good graphic designer:confused013
That's the key question really. However, for me it's a question of "How much is too much?". As David says, when it's not a competition then it's an individual decision - but not so much when you're entering competitions.
When digital first took over from film, we had the debate which the traditionalists lost, and digital manipulation referred to a more fundamental range of tweaking. Since then, software and plug-ins have developed exponentially, to the point where I'm not sure whether there is a line any more. Photographers are always banging on about the plug-ins and effects for Photoshop, but surely there must be some sort of general limit to how much manipulation is acceptable in competitions? My example above is representative of the start of that grey area, I think, because of the fact that so much simply hasn't ever seen the inside of a camera.
Otherwise ..... are we in danger of becoming graphic designers?
- - - Updated - - -
Some years ago here a photo of a silhouetted frog on a wonderfully big backlit green leave did well in POTY.
It looked so good. The member was known to not be a fan of pushing the manipulating.
Fun discussion followed when he fessed up the frog was a rubber frog. :D Not quite as natural as we all thought and was implied.
That's not a problem to me - it's still a photographic image, and whether the frog was real or not doesn't matter. It's still 100% photographic. However, lets say you had a boring landscape and you decided to use one of those plug-ins that grow grass all over the place ...... that starts being distinctly non photographic.
ricktas
12-03-2017, 7:55pm
reminded me of this: http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto
click on each 'image' and then decide if it is CG (computer generated) or Foto (Photo) and click the icons at the bottom of the image, then click X and move onto the next image. when you have chosen for all click on the 'How Did I Do?" icon.
I got 34% correct.
It is an interesting discussion and I also think we have to consider the other side of the coin. There are some stunning photos out there that show the elements of the image as they were at the time of being taken. However because they are so stunning, they often suffer the same call of 'fake' when some people view them.
For now, it is something we have to just deal with, individually and make our own judgements on where the line should be drawn as to what should be classed as photographic art and what should be called photographic digital science. Even the AIPP and Ken Duncan get caught up in this discussion.
Until photography is removed as an Art and defined as a science, we will likely continue to see these creative adjustments to photographs, and for now, we each have to decide for ourselves what is photography and what is photographic digital science.
I wonder if the film industry has not got it right, and simply calls the artists who do this work, compositors! I think the term Photographic Compositor should be more willingly used at times.
Excellent point about "real" images being wrongly viewed as fakes - I've seen that happen a bit.
In the example I posted, what was once an iconic scene has changed due to a road being built across what was once sea. Here is what it looked like when i saw it - but due to that causeway and the tourist buses etc, the history and mystery has been destroyed a bit. That's one reason I modified it ... to restore it to its former glory!
I do find that photo compositing is becoming just as interesting in many ways, and i have always admired filmmakers for their creativity in changing reality and giving life to our imaginations. Maybe that's what some of us are becoming.
130039
- - - Updated - - -
I got 59% ! Thanks for that ... I've been looking for a site like this to show someone.
Steve Axford
12-03-2017, 10:08pm
It is quite clear that most competitions have decided that since they can't tell, then they will accept anything. Only nature or doco photography tries to make a no alteration rule. I suspect that some people ignore the rules as it is so hard to tell the difference. But, people have memories and once you are caught for cheating you will probably be remembered for exactly that and no photo you do will be trusted again. I know people who support the anything goes rule, but I can never look at their photos without wondering how real they are. Certainly, people who buy my photos would not buy them if they thought they were faked. So yes, you can win comps with digital images, but it may be harder to go beyond that. People don't like being lied to, and can take offence when they find out.
- - - Updated - - -
It is quite clear that most competitions have decided that since they can't tell, then they will accept anything. Only nature or doco photography tries to make a no alteration rule. I suspect that some people ignore the rules as it is so hard to tell the difference. But, people have memories and once you are caught for cheating you will probably be remembered for exactly that and no photo you do will be trusted again. I know people who support the anything goes rule, but I can never look at their photos without wondering how real they are. Certainly, people who buy my photos would not buy them if they thought they were faked. So yes, you can win comps with digital images, but it may be harder to go beyond that. People don't like being lied to, and can take offence when they find out.
So where do you personally draw the line?
Is cloning a tiny bit of litter out of a landscape any more acceptable than changing a sky, a background, or in Bob's example above, a foreground?
Should we go back to using film, with no in-built camera tweaks? Oh, hang on. Wasn't Ansel Adams the master of dark room 'enhancement'?
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs". Ansel Adams
I suspect that 99.999% of published photos have been enhanced.
Like most of the members here I like to try to get it right in-camera, and I do, once in about a thousand shots.
I guess where the line is drawn is an individual decision, except of course in a comp where there are set rules re PP.
So where do you personally draw the line?
Is cloning a tiny bit of litter out of a landscape any more acceptable than changing a sky, a background, or in Bob's example above, a foreground?
Should we go back to using film, with no in-built camera tweaks? Oh, hang on. Wasn't Ansel Adams the master of dark room 'enhancement'?
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs". Ansel Adams
I suspect that 99.999% of published photos have been enhanced.
Like most of the members here I like to try to get it right in-camera, and I do, once in about a thousand shots.
I guess where the line is drawn is an individual decision, except of course in a comp where there are set rules re PP.
But what Ansel Adams did in the darkroom was his own work. When one ( or more ) of the many plug-ins available is used, is it your own work/photo ?
DacrimL
13-03-2017, 10:05am
reminded me of this: http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto
click on each 'image' and then decide if it is CG (computer generated) or Foto (Photo) and click the icons at the bottom of the image, then click X and move onto the next image. when you have chosen for all click on the 'How Did I Do?" icon.
I got 34% correct.
67% :lol:
The definition by the oxford dictionary is - the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.
Now bearing that in mind, any type of adjustments could be construed as manipulation. In my honest opinion minor adjustments such as exposure, contrast, sharpness etc... are acceptable as i guess is the removal of small unwanted elements. However once the alterations exceed 25% of the original composition it becomes more of a graphic art image. This is why I guess I am so critical of my own images and try to perfect them before showing, however sometimes one needs to show imperfect images to get advice on where and how to correct any faults.
Just my opinion.
But what Ansel Adams did in the darkroom was his own work. When one ( or more ) of the many plug-ins available is used, is it your own work/photo ?
Definitely not. That takes it from a photograph to a graphic representation of a photograph. In a comp I'd consider that as cheating.
Steve Axford
13-03-2017, 5:22pm
I think we should all keep in mind the current fuss about fake news. Well, fake photos are part of that. Maybe we will learn to accept them, but maybe they will be more hated than at present. I doubt that anyone who pretends to make photos that a demonstrably fakes will gain a lot of respect. Like the example in this thread, it isn't hard to show that the photo is fake.
67% :lol:
Me too :D
I regularly see CC on this site about cropping, changing perspectives, adjusting tones, cloning out distracting elements etc and it would seem a degree of PP is expected. A recent weekly photo win was obviously photoshopped - no way in the context of the photo could it have not been - but it still won.
Personally I am leaning now to combining my photography with art such as introducing backgrounds, frames, masking out distractions and combining images. I don't pretend otherwise and for me my photo compositions are about what I want to portray. They are about my memories of the time / event and I find myself caring less and less about the so called rules that surround photography. As I learn more about PP I am enjoying recovering photos that otherwise would have met the recycle bin.
- - - Updated - - -
PS I love #2
But what Ansel Adams did in the darkroom was his own work. When one ( or more ) of the many plug-ins available is used, is it your own work/photo ?
My point exactly. Manipulating your own work is one thing, but introducing substantial content which is totally manufactured seems to me a little over the top. Mind you, if that's what's acceptable these days, then i guess one needs to consider it as an option just to stay in the game! It is indeed moving along the path from pure photography to graphic art.
ricktas
14-03-2017, 5:35am
I think we should all keep in mind the current fuss about fake news. Well, fake photos are part of that.
It would seem fake is becoming the new normal. Sadly. Fake news, fake photos, fake boobs, fake watches, fake 'designer dog breeds' hell, even most people's beauty is fake these days and can be removed with a kleenex. :D
ameerat42
14-03-2017, 9:45am
Soon, Planet Earth will be known throughout the cosmos as the Planet of the Fakes:rolleyes:
Why, all sorts of species will flock here from light years around, eager to lay their
hands/limbs/tentacles/other appendages on Genuine Terran Artifakes:cool:. We will be
responsible for exporting the idea of greed and hoarding throughout the universe:eek:
After that, a new theory of the universe will be needed:nod: - suitably a fake one:(
(Scientists of the future will be heard discussing the Theory of EveryFake, and will have discovered
the prolific Fakeron particle:nod: Just imagine! - Students will vye for their Doctorate of Fakery: PhF :nod:)
Soon, Planet Earth will be known throughout the cosmos as the Planet of the Fakes:rolleyes:
Women around the world will rejoice as faking it becomes legitimate and main stream ! [Did i just put a bullseye on my head?] :D
thegrump
14-03-2017, 11:02am
I have brought this up before. I was not in favor of too much PP. If it is for you own viewing or for sale then I guess anything goes. Entering a photo that has no resemblance to the original, into a photographic competition or challenge, I believe is now artwork on not a photograph. With the example above, I would have said, WOW!!! what a fantastic photo, what a skillful photographer, but now I know it is just a piece of artwork. Nothing to do with the skill of the photographer.
Steve Axford
14-03-2017, 4:59pm
I agree TG. I think that some digital art is stunning, but there is usually no subterfuge about what it is. It is quite clear that it is created art, often using photographs as the base, but not always. Where it gets to be fake, is where it is purported to be a photograph, but it isn't. I think many competitions have encouraged this because it is so difficult to separate the true from the fake. Hence, people who do it are encouraged because they often win. Of course, winning these comps essentially means little and may actually be detrimental if it encourages the participants to think that faking their photos is the way to go. It isn't. It may win you some small comps, but unless you want a career in photoshop it won't get you very far. It may get you lots of Facebook likes (I know that people here hate those), but it will not get you any respect as a photographer, because you really aren't one. It will also probably mean that you have to lie about what you doing. That's not a lot of fun unless you actually enjoy lying.
In my honest opinion minor adjustments such as exposure, contrast, sharpness etc... are acceptable as i guess is the removal of small unwanted elements. However once the alterations exceed 25% of the original composition it becomes more of a graphic art image.
You need to push the setting you have in camera and start taking them photos in JPEG. Gives you another 25% to PP with later.;)
I don't think there is, or ever was, a "line" between "pure" photography (whatever that is) and graphic art (or what ever you want to call it). Maybe there is a spectrum from minimal intervention to total invention. No camera or photographer can reproduce reality, only a subjective representation of it. Every time we choose a camera or a lens or a filter or a time of day or a physical viewpoint or a Photoshop plugin we are selecting what aspect of reality we want to represent in a two-dimensional image. How can anyone justify or rationalise a figure such as no more than 25% of the image may be modified for it to be "really" called a photograph? Indeed how can you measure it - if I alter the exposure or saturation of the whole surface area my just a tiny amount or even radically, is that allowed? What if I paste in some tiny figures of people who were not in the scene when i took the exposure, is that allowed if it is less than 1% of the surface area. To try and draw arbitrary lines in the sand is extreme ratbaggery and ultimately pointless because we will never get consensus.
The world has changed; technology has changed. I wonder if a similar argument was carried on in monasteries in the late 1400s: "It's not a REAL book unless at least 75% of it has been hand lettered on vellum. This printing on paper business is a threat to our self perception (and our business) as book producers!"
Surely the ultimate criterion is "Is this an image that speaks to me?" regardless of how it was produced - film, digital, photoshop, watercolours or oils?
(My personal view. I am not criticising anyone on AP personally. Apologies if you feel offended.)
I don't think there is, or ever was, a "line" between "pure" photography (whatever that is) and graphic art (or what ever you want to call it).
Surely the ultimate criterion is "Is this an image that speaks to me?" regardless of how it was produced - film, digital, photoshop, watercolours or oils?
Certainly that is true of an image produced for sale, enjoyment or creative expression, BUT ....... my question relates specifically to competitions within a photographic framework such as Ausphotography.
Taking my original images as a starting point, would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?
thegrump
15-03-2017, 12:00pm
would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?
For a start. I would not be capable of producing such an image. But I certainly would not be voting for an image I knew was manipulated to that extent. ( If I knew )
ricktas
16-03-2017, 5:43am
So.. how do we spot these fakes.. say in a photographic competition? There seems to be a bit of a consensus that to much processing should be marked down if we were to judge a competition (not necessarily on AP), just a photographic competition. Let's say it is a photographic competition on print, where one of the rules is basic whole of image editing allowed only (sharpening, levels adjustments, saturation adjustments etc) but no changing of individual elements of the image. (elements does not = pixels in this definition).
So considering that, what hints and tips do people have about how to spot a fake, for example where a new sky has been dropped in, or blemishes have been removed from a person's face, and some skin smoothing applied, or even more extensive digital art edits applied? How do we tell?
Hamster
16-03-2017, 7:53am
This sums it up quite nicely for me, so I'll leave it for your consideration.
http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cameras-dont-make-photographs/
Hamster
16-03-2017, 8:11am
.
So considering that, what hints and tips do people have about how to spot a fake, for example where a new sky has been dropped in, or blemishes have been removed from a person's face, and some skin smoothing applied, or even more extensive digital art edits applied? How do we tell?
If it's that important, make submission of the raw file on request a requirement.
Interesting. I had a look at Hamster's response (or more particularly, the article he referenced). That article is both right and wrong. One quote was that "there are no rules. There is no governing body" and that isn't entirely correct because there most certainly are rules in photographic competitions. However, the broader question lies in what we are practicing as individuals and what is the overall purpose underlying our images. I guess once you decide what your end objective is you automatically place yourself within a specific framework that determines how much latitude you have in how you create your images.
However, to address Rick's question, I think that prints are harder to assess than digital images. A digital image can be blown up to pixel level where manipulation is far easier to detect. Prints are viewed at the same resolution, and even a magnifying glass would be unlikely to reveal the same forensic detail. The main indicators might be shadows, which are difficult to "fudge", particularly if an image is a complex composite work. The relationship between components might be another tell-tale sign where proportions or angles on added components might not conform to the rest of the original scene.
I find this whole issue to be full of conflicting considerations. Photography has morphed so much and in so many directions. On the one hand we don't want to be so wholesome as to insist on zero manipulation, but on the other we find it hard to know where we stand on that spectrum of image creation which stretches out into a limitless future. The bottom line, to me, lies in how honest we are about our methods and how we use our images. I am increasingly looking for an end product that pleases me personally, especially given the subjectivity of judges. Nevertheless, I am still uncomfortable in using components which are not my original content and so I rarely would incorporate content which I did not create. That's why i find the manufactured content of plug-ins to be a problem. Using them is not using someone else's images, but it is using content that you haven't created.
piczzilla
16-03-2017, 10:08am
Here to say unpopular opinion :)
Perhaps because I came from different artistic background before stumbling across photography (used to paint), I'm in the opinion that art shouldn't be restricted by the mediums. When it comes to art, I really think anything goes. I do however, think it wrong to falsely advertise the images as what they are not (hence, I'm against drastic manipulation for certain photography genres). But if we present the images as exactly what they are, I don't see a problem with it.
Whether the images should still be considered "photos" or whether they can be entered into competition - Now that gets messy, and honestly I don't have any opinion on that. However, since this particular discussion came up so often these days, I personally decided to keep my manipulated images to myself & my IG.
Should I be considered a photographer or a visual artist - I think a little bit of both.
landyvlad
16-03-2017, 10:58am
An interesting discussion, but I'll address it only from my personal perspective as a voter in competitions on this site.
I judge the IMAGE - obviously this will be as presented, with whatever manipulations have been done.
As the link above demonstrates it's not always possible to judge what's photo and what's 'fake' but in the context of this forum, it often is apparent. I think there are more and better photographers here than photochop experts... just a hunch anyway.
And of course, it doesn't really matter. Simple is often better and I find that heavily photo-shopped images are very rarely simple ones.
I can see where "no manipulation" is excellent for some categories, and to me the only alternative is "any manipulation you like".
There is no, and I don't think there can ever be, any fixed definition of "minor" manipulation. Everyone will have a different idea what that means.
Well that's my $0.02 anyway.
John King
16-03-2017, 12:10pm
Some very thoughtful and wise replies already. Pretty much cover my thoughts.
I will add that I am in the minimalist school, if for no other reason than presenting whatever I managed to capture forces me to critically examine my composition of form and colour. This has always been the weakest part of my photography.
Apart from when correcting obvious perspective distortion, I almost never crop my images. 'Product photography' being one other exception to this discipline I impose on myself. With the latter, it is often difficult to frame the product precisely enough without cropping later.
Over the last ten years or so, forcing this discipline on myself has improved my photography considerably, according to others as well as my own assessment. It also helps prevent one becoming sloppy when shooting IMHO.
I have always preferred facts to interpretation in other parts of my life. I guess that spills over into my photography as far as this current topic is concerned.
landyvlad
16-03-2017, 3:26pm
I generally do very little PP to my photos - a resize and perhaps a crop, maybe 'auto adjustments' now and then.
I really don't know much about PP so don't do it much !
Steve Axford
16-03-2017, 4:35pm
I doubt that many people do a lot of manipulation in AP comps, partly because they don't have the skills but mainly because they are not interested. But, I do think there is a problem because people have the perception that it is legal do do it but, at the same time, it is not socially acceptable. So they do it without admitting it - or at least that is what many people think. The occasional incident, like the rubber frog photo, reinforces that perception. I think the rules should ban it, even if those rules are hard to enforce. Just because many murders are unsolved doesn't mean we should make them legal. Most people will stick to the rules even if they are hard to enforce, particularly if they agree with the rules - which apparently most people do. By all means, enter digital art, but always say that it is just that. Maybe have separate comps for it if the demand is there.
Hamster
16-03-2017, 4:53pm
Some years ago here a photo of a silhouetted frog on a wonderfully big backlit green leave did well in POTY.
It looked so good. The member was known to not be a fan of pushing the manipulating.
Fun discussion followed when he fessed up the frog was a rubber frog. :D Not quite as natural as we all thought and was implied.
Can you find the link? It would be interesting to see the discussion.
Hamster
16-03-2017, 4:56pm
I think the rules should ban it,
Can you give your example of what the rules would say for the competition you would like to see?
arthurking83
16-03-2017, 5:35pm
I don't think the 'rubber frog' incident is an issue with respect to the topic of image manipulation.
Photo shoot set ups are a normal part of photography life, and if you have to use a rubber frog to set up a photo of a silhouetted frog .. well, that's a part of the photograph.
Adding in a silhouette of a frog using any graphics manipulating software(ie. not limited to photoshop) doesn't make it a photo of a silhouetted frog!
The inclusion/exclusion of elements in a photo is the issue here. (exclusion of dust spots being the only exception!)
There's nothing wrong with digital arts, and in general I like the majority of what I've seen myself.
It's just that there should be a distinction between what was created using pixel manipulation technology and what was captured as a photograph.
I think the issue will become more important looking forward into the future, as the technology of pixel manipulation becomes more sophisticated and easier to produce.
I don't think there is, or ever was, a "line" between "pure" photography (whatever that is) and graphic art (or what ever you want to call it). Maybe there is a spectrum from minimal intervention to total invention. No camera or photographer can reproduce reality, only a subjective representation of it. Every time we choose a camera or a lens or a filter or a time of day or a physical viewpoint or a Photoshop plugin we are selecting what aspect of reality we want to represent in a two-dimensional image. How can anyone justify or rationalise a figure such as no more than 25% of the image may be modified for it to be "really" called a photograph? Indeed how can you measure it - if I alter the exposure or saturation of the whole surface area my just a tiny amount or even radically, is that allowed? What if I paste in some tiny figures of people who were not in the scene when i took the exposure, is that allowed if it is less than 1% of the surface area. To try and draw arbitrary lines in the sand is extreme ratbaggery and ultimately pointless because we will never get consensus.
The world has changed; technology has changed. I wonder if a similar argument was carried on in monasteries in the late 1400s: "It's not a REAL book unless at least 75% of it has been hand lettered on vellum. This printing on paper business is a threat to our self perception (and our business) as book producers!"
Surely the ultimate criterion is "Is this an image that speaks to me?" regardless of how it was produced - film, digital, photoshop, watercolours or oils?
(My personal view. I am not criticising anyone on AP personally. Apologies if you feel offended.)
I'd prefer to see a photo with all the pixels darkened or lightened or tonally manipulation by 100%, rather than see even one pixel altered with the small people in it(or removed) ... even if it were 1 pixel in 100 million.
That type of debate happened in the earlier part of this century when Frank Hurley was assigned to shoot images during WW1(in France).
He had many arguments with the AIF top brass, as to what his assignment was supposed to be.
They wanted photos, he gave them graphic art.
He has famous images of a WW1 battlefield where biplanes overhead are bombing the scene and troops in the foreground.
To you and I, just casually looking at them, we assume that this is a great historic scene and that's what happened.
But back in it's day, this type of event never happened. Troops on the ground with planes overhead would never happen at the same time, and the top brass were furious at Hurley for implying that they were.
If you don't mind 'being lied too' in that sense .. then digital art is what you'd prefer ... rather than a mundane reality, even if it were so only for 1/250s.
This argument is not new, and is as old as photography itself.
It doesn't diminish Hurley's images at all, but for us looking back on them it's a total fabrication of what we assume would be a historical piece. In that respect, is does his photographs some injustice!
Like Steve said earlier:
[QUOTE=Steve Axford;1400802] It is quite clear that most competitions have decided that since they can't tell, then they will accept anything. Only nature or doco photography tries to make a no alteration rule. I suspect that some people ignore the rules as it is so hard to tell the difference. But, people have memories and once you are caught for cheating you will probably be remembered for exactly that and no photo you do will be trusted again. I know people who support the anything goes rule, but I can never look at their photos without wondering how real they are .....[QUOTE]
I like my photographs to be photographs .. brightened/darkened or contrasty or muted.
But digital additions(or deletions) don't make them photographs.
ps. Some Frank Hurley images for reference (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=frank+hurley&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&imgil=CnGmmCyqypFL0M%253A%253Bjjr80R3Jc7wdnM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FFrank_Hurley&source=iu&pf=m&fir=CnGmmCyqypFL0M%253A%252Cjjr80R3Jc7wdnM%252C_&usg=__dgA_vS7xzuGvV13a1hWytzfaIWw%3D&biw=1936&bih=1157#imgrc=CnGmmCyqypFL0M:)
Steve Axford
16-03-2017, 7:39pm
Can you give your example of what the rules would say for the competition you would like to see?
I haven't given the wording any thought, but I have noticed that there seem to be no rules.
- - - Updated - - -
To Arthur, you are quite right, setup has always been a part of photography. But people have commented many times in many threads so it has been noticed and I don't remember any favourable comments. I guess my point is that people don't like to be fooled. If they know what has been done then there is no problem ( or at least that something has been done), but if it is presented as something it's not then ... you lose your audience. The whole point of a site like AP is to gain an audience.
Hamster
16-03-2017, 8:07pm
I haven't given the wording any thought, but I have noticed that there seem to be no rules.
There are always rules, and they have varying descriptions of levels of manipulation allowed. See the upcoming AIPP competition for an example. My question was to help you see the difficulty of coming up with rules that define what is and isn't allowed. Especially given the vastly different views displayed just in the thread alone about what minimal, acceptable, a bit of cloning, no cloning, some tonal adjustments means.
Hamster
16-03-2017, 8:08pm
I guess my point is that people don't like to be fooled.
And that is exactly the point of the link I posted, which also provides help in how to get over this.
Steve Axford
16-03-2017, 8:47pm
There will always be debate about where the line is but if you just throw your arms up and say it's all to difficult and do nothing ... then you will lose your audience.
Hamster
16-03-2017, 8:59pm
There will always be debate about where the line is but if you just throw your arms up and say it's all to difficult and do nothing ... then you will lose your audience.
No, I'm not saying it's too difficult, I'm saying it's not relevant. But seeing as you think it's important, and a line CAN be drawn, let's see your attempt at some rules for the inaugural Steve Axford photo comp.
Steve Axford
16-03-2017, 9:21pm
:lol: I don't think a Steve Axford comp would work as I don't think I am quite on the right wavelength. Anyway, there is too much else to do.
ktoopi
17-03-2017, 11:18am
I was always a strictly get it in camera and minimal processing kinda girl until I went to a workshop run by Christian Fletcher who was Landscape Photographer of the Year a few years ago and he blew my mind with the amount of manipulation that went into creating his images. I naively had no idea that people manipulated that much!! For me I guess it depends on the rules of the competition and what each photographer has as their vision and what they want their work to show. These days I am not adverse to removing distractions and enhancing the image to represent what I saw in my minds eye.
I naively had no idea that people manipulated that much!!
My son-in-law absolutely hates photo manipulation - in fact he's so obsessive that he refuses to even hold a camera in portrait mode - landscape all the way!! Never had the heart to point out that a huge and expensive floor to ceiling picture he has on his wall is totally processed from top to bottom! :lol:
ktoopi
17-03-2017, 12:18pm
:lol:yeah don't tell him :D
landyvlad
17-03-2017, 1:37pm
I don't think a Steve Axford comp would work
Me neither. Nobody would enter in case they had misread it and 'Steve Axford" was the prize.... :D
Steve Axford
17-03-2017, 2:26pm
What a horrible thought - for both me and the winner :eek:
Can you find the link? It would be interesting to see the discussion.
Spent some time looking an can't find it. Was at least 4/5 years ago so I'm surprised I even remember it.:)
Hamster
17-03-2017, 9:45pm
Spent some time looking an can't find it. Was at least 4/5 years ago so I'm surprised I even remember it.:)
Oh well. Thanks for trying though.
Edit - a bit of Google-fu found me this.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77186-2010-Ausphotography-Photo-of-the-Year-WINNER&highlight=2010+year+winner
this it?
teylward
18-03-2017, 6:27am
I love natural photography, I love "worked" photography and I love the extreme manipulations. Every type of photography has it's place and as it is an art form, it is all up to the creator to make it what they want. All different arts get judged by the public and the art community, why should photography be any different?
As long as works aren't been made out to be something they are not.
Oh well. Thanks for trying though.
Edit - a bit of Google-fu found me this.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?77186-2010-Ausphotography-Photo-of-the-Year-WINNER&highlight=2010+year+winner
this it?
yep and good searching there :th3:
does it eventually live up to what I suggested?
Post #30 on page two starts some discussion.
Hamster
18-03-2017, 11:33pm
does it eventually live up to what I suggested?
Post #30 on page two starts some discussion.
Interesting, but kind of expected I guess. A mix of people who felt deceived by their own assumptions and others that just said they took it at a fairly superficial level and don't feel too worried. I can see why people might feel that there is deception, since they may have credited the photographer with additional skill for capturing a shot using a live subject. Then they discovered that he didn't lie in wait for hours or employ some other kind of in depth knowledge of the subject to get the shot.
I am now wondering if the same feeling could be felt by someone viewing a landscape and then finding out it has been edited. I don't feel that way about a landscape, but maybe would about a wildlife shot, and I can see why that could seem inconsistent. I did note that the shot of the frog was not submitted in a wildlife competition and hence was not subject to the same type of "documentary" type rules so, I have nothing against that shot.
As long as works aren't been made out to be something they are not.
This is an interesting comment in the overall context of this discussion. If one enters an Open competition, and does so with an image which is fabricated in some way - does that qualify as being "made out to be something they're not" ? Does the maker make any sort of implicit statement when they submit that image ? Does the act of entering an image carry any presumed adherence to any particular level of authenticity? I think many images are presented which are really not what they purport to be, but I'm not sure whether a photographer is deemed to be knowingly deceiving his audience simply by entering it in a competition. Most images are a version of reality rather than an accurate representative of reality.
Hamster
19-03-2017, 11:00am
This is an interesting comment in the overall context of this discussion. If one enters an Open competition, and does so with an image which is fabricated in some way - does that qualify as being "made out to be something they're not"
No. It's not a documentary category. An image is only "made out to be" what the viewer perceives. It is about telling a story (see the link I posted). As was said, only a child feels cheated when they discover that Hogwarts doesn't exist, but an adult can still enjoy the story. People need to stop being so naive as to believe that the camera captures reality. It doesn't, and has never been able to.
arthurking83
19-03-2017, 3:52pm
This is an interesting comment in the overall context of this discussion. If one enters an Open competition, and does so with an image which is fabricated in some way - does that qualify as being "made out to be something they're not" ? ......
If there were strict guidelines as to what an image is supposed to be representing in an open theme, then abstract photography would have to be banned for the most part.
I have no issue with images like that frog one in an open comp, just as long as it wasn't nature oriented in any way(ie. reptile based, or nature or animal or whatever).
As Kym commented about the merits of that frog photo it's place in the comp that it won .. ie. all good.
.... Most images are a version of reality rather than an accurate representative of reality.
So the key point here is not to deceive folks with photos that simply aren't a reality, when the reality is the main point of the image.
Ergo. if the image presented is supposed to be a photograph(ie. and not a digital creation!) then you would be allowed the courtesy of editing that photo in a way that the camera could(ie. colour tones etc).
As an extreme example of this editing: we humans can't see in IR(infrared) and need devices as such to see it(for what it is). False colour IR(the colourful looking IR) doesn't exist in any world, but a camera can create it.
What we'd see in terms of colour in IR is simply black and white images, with varying degree of grey tones. This is what IR actually is.
But the camera can capture false colour IR due to the capability of the sensor, the ability to render those colour tones and the choice of filter used.
Creating an IR image in this false colour manner doesn't preclude it from being labelled a photograph tho, even tho it looks surreal(or unreal) to us. there are many creatures that can see in this IR manner(apparently).
A version of reality is still a reality.
Two seconds ago was a reality for me(and for you) but that moment has passed now, it doesn't mean that that reality 2 sec ago never existed.
BUT!.... in your two image examples at the start of this thread(and then compared to the actual photo) they aren't a reality, most likely they never have been, as I'm assuming that the land area where the car park exists has always existed.
The car park and the people may have changed over time(since that castle was built), but it appears that the land in the foreground has existed for as long as the castle has.
Had you captured that castle from the other side, where it appears to be all watery, then that's a reality that does exists. Edit that with as much tonal manipulation as you like .. to me it'd still be a photo.
The first two image presented are basically digital renderings .. ie. not photographs.
BUT!.... in your two image examples at the start of this thread(and then compared to the actual photo) they aren't a reality, most likely they never have been, as I'm assuming that the land area where the car park exists has always existed.
The car park and the people may have changed over time(since that castle was built), but it appears that the land in the foreground has existed for as long as the castle has.
Had you captured that castle from the other side, where it appears to be all watery, then that's a reality that does exists. Edit that with as much tonal manipulation as you like .. to me it'd still be a photo.
The first two image presented are basically digital renderings .. ie. not photographs.
Well now, that's an interesting comment. In actual fact it is a tidal island, and it's been either connected or not connected at various times over the centuries. The tides vary in height as much as 14 metres in that part of the world, and so when the tide's in you need a boat to get there. It hasn't been naturally connected to the land since pre-historic times. So if I'd been there at a different time, there would indeed have been water all around it. It's very similar to its "sister" site off the coast of the UK, where I also went, and on that occasion I walked across to the castle, ands caught a boat back, becuase the tide came in during my visit.
So .... by your reasoning above, that legitimises both my images ..... or does it?: :confused013
Some really good thought-provoking discussion here. I particularly liked the link to David duChemin's blog (http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cameras-dont-make-photographs/). He, and others here, have clearly made the point that ALL photography is a subjective representation of reality, not reality itself. The problem seems to be, how do we define "photography" in this digital age?
Getting back to bobt's question: "Taking my original images as a starting point, would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?"
My answer would be similar to David duChemin's - how are you representing (or labelling) your photo? Are you claiming it is a "realistic" representation of what you saw?
Maybe it would be up to the competition organisers and judges to say "These are my rules - sure they are subjective, but so is photography, so abide by them. If I question your photo I reserve the right to disqualify it. If you want to argue the point, you prove to me that it meets my criteria."
Good luck proving that one way or the other!
- - - Updated - - -
I was just looking at anohter post - http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?151660-Wow-so-this-is-what-mornings-are-like&p=1401638&posted=1#post1401638 - and the original poster replied to a comment "The reds were actually even brighter but I didn't want to make it look over-processed."
As I said in that discussion, "Have we reached the point where we process our shots to make them look unprocessed?"
Getting back to bobt's question: "Taking my original images as a starting point, would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?"
My answer would be similar to David duChemin's - how are you representing (or labelling) your photo? Are you claiming it is a "realistic" representation of what you saw?
Ahhh ..... and here lies the crux of the problem. If I enter an image, am I in fact making any representation at all ? When we enter an image in an Open comp, we don't attach any declaration of authenticity, so I'm not sure that we can be said to be claiming anything. We simply say "Here is an image - judge it". The title should be irrelevant, and indeed need not include any claim at all. So the conundrum remains.
ameerat42
21-03-2017, 12:06pm
...When we enter an image in an Open comp, we don't attach any declaration of authenticity, so I'm not sure that we can be said to be claiming anything. We simply say "Here is an image - judge it". The title should be irrelevant, and indeed need not include any claim at all...
Bob. In such cases I'd say that to "judge" such an image is not relevant, and one can simply like or dislike or be neutral to it:confused013
Judging is a measure of how something stands up to certain accepted criteria.
My 5c worth, what, given inflation and the lack of smaller denomination coins:(
Hamster
21-03-2017, 12:56pm
Judging is a measure of how something stands up to certain accepted criteria.
Wouldn't the accepted criteria be the rules of the competition and then the judges opinion of what constitutes a good or bad photo? Hence, once you've adhered to the specific rules, the composition, processing, mood, story etc are down to the opinion of the judges and you can win in one and bomb in another competition with the same shot.
In AP comps the judges are many and the criteria will vary greatly. In international/national comps the judging reaches a bit more consistency, but you can still win one and bomb in another :-)
ricktas
21-03-2017, 5:56pm
So let's play this out... cause I like you people.. and it could be fun.
WE (the members of AP) have been awarded the rights by the United Nations to define 10 rules regarding photography editing in the digital age. To make it easier, we have been told that our rules only apply to photography competitions. We have to define ten golden rules regarding 'digital enhancement' of competition photos that will have to be applied to every photography competition, going forward.
What are our ten rules?
Hamster
21-03-2017, 6:29pm
So let's play this out... cause I like you people.. and it could be fun.
WE (the members of AP) have been awarded the rights by the United Nations to define 10 rules regarding photography editing in the digital age. To make it easier, we have been told that our rules only apply to photography competitions. We have to define ten golden rules regarding 'digital enhancement' of competition photos that will have to be applied to every photography competition, going forward.
What are our ten rules?
Haha. What's the task after this, world peace ? [emoji3]
ricktas
21-03-2017, 6:34pm
Haha. What's the task after this, world peace ? [emoji3]
That I shall leave to Mr Turnip Trump...
Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.
Rule 2: PPing must be done by the photographer.
Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.
Hmmm .... now that would only be appropriate once it was decided what they could or could not do!
This certainly a tricky set of rules to write, and I've written a few!
How about .....
1) Submitted image(s) may be either a single photographic image or a composite image produced by combining two or more images. All such images must have been photographed by the entrant.
2) Any subsequent manipulation of those images must have been performed by the entrant.
3) Any manipulation of images is permissible provided that such manipulation does not introduce additional information (pixels) which were not present in any of the original image(s).
4) The original untouched image(s) must be made available on request by the judge(s).
ricktas
22-03-2017, 5:38am
5) Entrants must provide a list of all edits done.
eg: replaced sky, sharpened, cloned out foreground rubbish and a person. Removed power lines.
5) Entrants must provide a list of all edits done.
eg: replaced sky, sharpened, cloned out foreground rubbish and a person. Removed power lines.
The only problem with that is that every entrant would need to submit a list, even those who had entered an image with vary little done to it. I'd also struggle to remember everything I'd done to some images I work on, which can take place over a long period of time. I figure that the only time anyone would need to see the "recipe" was if there was doubt about whether the image passed the earlier questions. In any event, all of those edits fall within Rule 3, and would therefore be legal. If the manipulation is legal, then the judges don't need to know. The aim of any set of rules is to remain as simple as possible for both entrant and judge.
It would appear that we don't have too many "courageous" rule writers here!! :D
Just as they do in formula one motor racing and run "control tyres" I suggest that we make a rule for control processing software.
6) All post processing must be done with Paint.net.
Just playing the devils advocate for a moment.
Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.
I know you asked for rules for the digital age. So are you excluding all film photographers? What about those who shoot jpeg. Or perhaps that should have been a Trump "raw" and actually includes the original negative and jpeg.
Rule 2: PPing must be done by the photographer.
Well where do I start with this one? Um, well I agree.
How do we provide proof? "raw" video of the whole editing process perhaps, count me out as a judge.
How about .....
1) Submitted image(s) may be either a single photographic image or a composite image produced by combining two or more images. All such images must have been photographed by the entrant.
2) Any subsequent manipulation of those images must have been performed by the entrant.
3) Any manipulation of images is permissible provided that such manipulation does not introduce additional information (pixels) which were not present in any of the original image(s).
4) The original untouched image(s) must be made available on request by the judge(s).
Solid rules Bob. See above in relation to proof of editing.
Just as they do in formula one motor racing and run "control tyres" I suggest that we make a rule for control processing software.
6) All post processing must be done with Paint.net.
Now there is a challenge.
I think one of the issues that lies at the core of any competition is simply the need to accept that any entry complies with the rules unless we can clearly see that it does not. The reason for this is simple. None of us have the slightest idea if an image is original or was even taken by the entrant. There is no way of knowing that the image wasn't taken by a friend, their spouse, a passing orangutan or an extended time in Photoshop. We start every competition here and in every other forum on the presumption that the image was created by the entrant. That's simply because we have no way of knowing otherwise.
The rules are simply to ensure that we are all singing from the same songbook, and the one who hits the right note wins! We cannot possibly check for compliance with all the rules, so we tell everyone what those rules are and then assume that they all abide by them.
This may be a red herring, but here goes...
In the pre-digital era, a photograph was something produced by light hitting a light-sensitive medium, with varying degrees of manipulation in the field and in the darkroom. People did all sorts of things in the darkroom such as use hand-made vignette shapes, or placing lace tablecloths under the enlarger, or swirling ink in the developing chemicals to produce interesting silhouettes, then combining these with something produced in the camera in the field or studio. Were the final images produced by these methods still classed as "photographs"? Where was the line drawn last century?
These days we photograph rocks and sand and peeling paint to get textures which are then applied to other "photographic" elements to produce a final image, or other items are scanned at varying magnifications and may or may not be combined with other image elements.
The final product is the thing we are judging, not the process by which it was created. If we want to impose arbitrary rules in order to create a "level playing field" for photographers, that's fine, but it's probably impossible to enforce. And how can you measure the degree of editing done before and after the shot was taken? Do I have to admit to moving some untidy rubbish out of the way before taking my landscape shot? Or do I have to admit it only if it is removed in PhotoShop?
There are similar parallels in the world of music: Composers often blatantly "steal" other musicians' melodies or chord sequences, yet their final products are still "music" - and often highly praised. How many magnificent compositions are there based on Paganini's famous theme? And then, modern musicians often "sample" tiny bits of other works and rework them into their own compositions, and use pre-made digital "beats" and rhythms resulting in the musical world arguing in a similar fashion to us over what is the meaning of "original" and what can be said to be a musician's own work and what is a machine's output. Listeners don't care how it was produced, only what it sounds like in the end.
Steve Axford
23-03-2017, 7:19am
I can't see that copying music has any bearing on this argument. That's like saying that someone used the same viewpoint for a photo. All music is essentially created. It doesn't represent reality. The issue is that, rightly or wrongly, people have come to expect that a photo doesn't lie. This is connected to the idea that seeing is believing. We can take the line that anything goes, but there is a certain inevitability to that line, and it is that people will walk away. Sure, have digital art if you want it, but call it digital art, not photography. It can then compete with fine art photography, which is essentially similar in that it is created. Maybe split things into photography as one category and fine art photography/ digital art as the other. I suspect that almost all entries here will be photography.
Just read through all 4 pages of this post and it's certainly an interesting discussion. Personally, I don't have a problem with composites (provided all images are taken by the photographer) or any PP if done well. When I first joined this site I used to look at the landscape section with such envy and of course, as a beginner, blamed my rather basic equipment for how my images looked in comparison. It wasn't until Dylan posted an original raw and his processed image that I realised how much PP played a part. This just made me want to learn how to do it. I can understand Steve being against it, particularly for his fungi images, as these fall into the nature category for me, and most competitions I've seen in that genre, specify that PP must be very minimal and basic. The only comps I enter are here on AP and in camera clubs. Most camera clubs allow any PP, if done solely by the photographer, and obviously they have to rely on honesty there, except in nature or social documentary categories where it is restricted.
Lance B
23-03-2017, 8:23am
I agree with Glenda. I don't see a real issue with photo manipulation. There are some spectacular images presented here and elsewhere and I am not all that concerned with how they get to that end, as Glenda pointed out with Dylan's images. If it means that I need to learn how to do these post processing manipulations, then so be it, it will mean that I can present "better" images. At the end of the day, Dylan's images are stunning and I would like to be able to present images as nice as his and as nice as many other's I've seen elsewhere.
As for Steve's fungi images, his are more of a reportage style and probably need to be accurate for identification purposes. However, that is a different topic. We are not discussing reportage photography, we are discussing what constitutes a pleasing image and one that we would love to have hanging on our wall. If it is obvious photo manipulation people will either like it or not like it at vote accordingly. If it is not obvious then does it really matter? If it looks great then people will vote accordingly. The point is, would you have it hanging on your wall? If so, then vote accordingly. If not, then also vote accordingly. I think there is a little bit of jealousy that some do not have the skills to manipulate a photograph and are thus possibly against photo manipulation. I just look at it as the next step to better images since digital photography has really meant that it gets photography to more people and thus makes it more difficult to get your photo to stand out compared to others. If it means I need to learn new skills in post processing, then so be it.
Looking at Bob's original photos, it can be seen (not that easily, mind you as they have been quite well done) they have been manipulated and I would thus vote them down a little due to this. However, if they were done "perfectly", I would probably be more than happy to have them hanging on my wall if I took them. So, it's a case of, would I be happy enough to have it hanging on the wall or not? A photo that I score as a 9 or 10 in an Ausphotography competition I would be possibly quite happy to have hanging on my wall whether it be highly post processed or not at all. A photo that scores less than that I would not put on my wall and that could be because it is over processed, looks overly processed or is poorly processed or is under processed. In other words, I am the end arbitrator of what I feel is over processed and what I am happy with. I guess what I am trying to say is, if it looks great and I would have it hanging on my wall then I am happy to mark it well regardless of how it got to that end and I will score it that way. I do not think Ausphotography need go down the path of trying to set rules on how much manipulation can be done as where do we draw the line? At the end of the day, we all make our judgements as we are the ones scoring the photo, not faceless judges. If it were supposed to be a perfect representation of what the photographer saw, then that is a different matter, this is reportage photography and most of those I wouldn't have hanging on my wall unless it meant something to me for some reason. However, this may mean it doesn't mean anything to someone else.
Hamster
23-03-2017, 9:52am
Maybe split things into photography as one category and fine art photography/ digital art as the other. I suspect that almost all entries here will be photography.
OK, but we're back to the problem of defining this line. So you'd need to tell people what you would say constitutes a "photograph" for the purposes of an AP competition, i.e. the rules. Saturation change allowed? How much? Contrast adjustment? How much? global or selective?..... An interesting point somone made was that they can move a coke can from a scene before they take the shot, but if they remove it using the clone tool then that might be too much manipulation for some. That seems very silly to me, but is cloning in or out?
I agree with Glenda. I don't see a real issue with photo manipulation. There are some spectacular images presented here and elsewhere and I am not all that concerned with how they get to that end, ... If it means that I need to learn how to do these post processing manipulations, then so be it, it will mean that I can present "better" images.
As for Steve's fungi images, his are more of a reportage style and probably need to be accurate for identification purposes. However, that is a different topic. We are not discussing reportage photography, we are discussing what constitutes a pleasing image and one that we would love to have hanging on our wall. If it is obvious photo manipulation people will either like it or not like it at vote accordingly. If it is not obvious then does it really matter? If it looks great then people will vote accordingly. The point is, would you have it hanging on your wall? If so, then vote accordingly. If not, then also vote accordingly. I think there is a little bit of jealousy that some do not have the skills to manipulate a photograph and are thus possibly against photo manipulation....
At the end of the day, we all make our judgements as we are the ones scoring the photo, not faceless judges. If it were supposed to be a perfect representation of what the photographer saw, then that is a different matter, this is reportage photography and most of those I wouldn't have hanging on my wall unless it meant something to me for some reason. However, this may mean it doesn't mean anything to someone else.
*Paraphrased for the key bits I like*
Exactly. Do you like it or not, does it evoke some emotion, does it make you feel calm, angry. Do you like the tones, the light, the composition (ooh probably cropped, take points off - of course it is, but was it done well...to enhance the story)
I too suspect that some peoples dislike of PP is linked to their lack of skill in this area. Understandable in some respects, but no one ever achieved something great by saying, hey you, stop cycling so fast, I can't go that fast so this cycling competition has a speed limit that just happens to match my maximum.
piczzilla
23-03-2017, 11:24am
I too suspect that some peoples dislike of PP is linked to their lack of skill in this area
That's what I suspected too until I met this co-worker who came across my online images. He's not a photographer, but is extremely hostile towards editing process and those who do/support it (inc me). From the stuff that he spouted, I gather it's got to do with "hiding the lack of skills", "unethical", "cheating", or "being too lazy to get it right on camera". He's got very strong view on it for someone who's not a photographer. Hounded me for weeks until I snapped.
ameerat42
23-03-2017, 12:03pm
He sounds like a right sausage, Picz. :D I'm sure all the polemic is internal.
Educate him in the ways of lemmings:D
Hamster
23-03-2017, 12:54pm
Yes, a right sausage, as you say [emoji3]
piczzilla
23-03-2017, 1:18pm
Was in the middle of writing this when I got dragged out for lunch. I was involved in similar discussion on Reddit, and I think some people there raised very valid points on the matter.
First issue was the deceitful nature of photo editing. Now, if we go back to the history of photography, camera equipment might have been invented to record "factual images". However, even back in the days, there were things that got adjusted during the printing process - like the cropping, exposure, and contrast. While these sound like simple adjustments, they can drastically alter the mood & the message of the photograph. E.g. imagine if we have an image of someone staring down & intently observing a strange object, then the message of the image was "that object is strange". Now let's crop that strange object and we are left with the image of the person staring down with perhaps slightly furrowed brows, then the message is "this person is in a heavy or angry mood". Should the photographer be condemned for cropping & hence deceive the audience, or should we accept that the nature of photography has always been subjective & perhaps even deceitful.
Then the 2nd issue. Since the introduction of digital photography, manipulation (removing/adding objects into a photo) has never been easier, but did it actually start after digital photography was introduced? I'll let Wiki explain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation#Early_manipulation
Well, basically although manipulation was probably never the intended direction of photography, manipulation has always been engraved in the history of photography. Meaning, challenging the definition of "photographs" would require challenging all the early photographs too, including the one that was printed on the original Lincoln five-dollar bill. What actions should be taken then, perhaps removing all these images from the history of photography & photo museum/gallery, retract any statements/awards that deem these images as good "photos", then perhaps also remove any materials that reference these images as photos?
Of course these cannot be applied to some photography genres. And I think I should mention, these are some of the stuff I caught from another discussion, not my personal opinions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.