The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

You really had me going. I'm looking at your site and thinking "how can anybody who does image stacking, panoramic stitching and 3D images claim to be so completely against post-processing?"

krb wrote in post #11667573
You really had me going. I'm looking at your site and thinking "how can anybody who does image stacking, panoramic stitching and 3D images claim to be so completely against post-processing?"

Sorry I was thinking about sustaining the drive until somebody joined my side so I can put somebody in the ignore list of POTN that I never used

But if you are not a Bears fan why I would do such a cruel thing to you?

ChasP505 wrote in post #11666831
I made a suggestion along these lines recently when a poster asked something like "Which version looks more correct?". I replied that the most important thing is YOUR remembrance of the scene. This blasphemous concept riled a few people up.

This is true only up to a certain point, however.
If you are selectively changing a part of a picture, or making a red t-shirt green, than you are altering reality. Memory play tricks and 10 people may remember 10 different things, but photography is perfectly capable of objective recording, at least to a large extent.

Of course all the above is meaningless for "artistic photography", but the issue is meaningful for photojournalism, scientific photography etc.

Bye,
Luca

I'm a Beer fan, does that count?

There is such a thing?

bohdank wrote in post #11667154
Sometimes, people believe what they want to believe.

Paul Simon: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

GJim wrote in post #11664401
We all 'manipulate' every image we shoot, regardless of whether using film or digital. By choice of lens, focal length, framing, filters, &c., each photographer uses the camera to (hopefully) capture his/her vision of the subject. Put 12 photographers at Oxbow Bend on a cloudy autumn evening and you'll get 12 different versions of the sunset - none of which may even come close to how a non-camera-wielding tourist recalls the scene the next morning at breakfast.

Even for those who state that their images are SOOC, there is still a lot of 'translation' that occurs between the 'real scene' and what finally appears on the print or computer monitor.

This is why photography i say is so Unique

I think of that picture of a cheery Ansel Adams standing at the door of his shop in his work apron.
In my mind he is the Archangel of manipulators.
In the heavenly places he defends those of us who want to do more than throw a flash card at an editor and run away.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with PP from the standpoint of it being a replacement for what used to be a chemical-filled darkroom. What's the limit tho? If Photoshop had a button to add trees, birds, rocks, mountains, barns, or whatever, and you used it to "fix" your photograph, could you still call the result a photograph? In my mind, the answer would be no because that's not what your camera shot.

Personally, I am way more impressed with those photographs that have that certain something or wow factor that have not been overly processed, colorized, or touched up in Photoshop, and this is the type of shots that I strive for. Otherwise we should all just leave our cameras in 'P' mode.

This leads to the question, if you lack the skilz and take really mediocre pictures but are great at making them a lot more than they were using Photoshop, are you a photographer, or are you really a graphic artist/illustrator?

.

glennr wrote in post #11695906
IMO, there is nothing wrong with PP from the standpoint of it being a replacement for what used to be a chemical-filled darkroom. What's the limit tho? If Photoshop had a button to add trees, birds, rocks, mountains, barns, or whatever, and you used it to "fix" your photograph, could you still call the result a photograph? In my mind, the answer would be no because that's not what your camera shot.

Is the print in this link a photograph?
http://www.geh.org …c6/m19760116000​1_ful.html

krb wrote in post #11695939
Is the print in this link a photograph?
http://www.geh.org …c6/m19760116000​1_ful.html

No, it's a collage, which makes it great art (if you like that kind of art), but since it was the conglomeration of parts from 5 different negatives then it cannot be called "a photograph".

I guess it depends on your definition of photograph, and what you think the difference between a photogrpah and a picture is. To me, when I cycle the shutter on my camera, that's a photograph, but cutting my cat's face out of one photograph and pasting it onto the shoulders of someone in another photograph would render the latter a funny picture and no longer a photograph.

I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn. I personally wrestle with things like cloning out power lines or the stray tip of a tree limb. I suppose that is ok so long as you are not claiming that the photograph is exactly as you shot it.

glennr wrote in post #11695906
IMO, there is nothing wrong with PP from the standpoint of it being a replacement for what used to be a chemical-filled darkroom.

glennr wrote in post #11696109
...it cannot be called "a photograph".

How do you reconcile these two statements, since the image was created in a "chemical-filled darkroom?"

Unless you are shooting for a newspaper I don't see why it's necessary to draw a line at all.

luigis wrote in post #11667238
Real photographers don't need to edit photos. Only those that know very little about photography resort to editing as a way to cover for their limitations behind the camera.

LOL

that just made my boring Saturday night!

glennr wrote in post #11695906
Personally, I am way more impressed with those photographs that have that certain something or wow factor that have not been overly processed, colorized, or touched up in Photoshop, and this is the type of shots that I strive for. Otherwise we should all just leave our cameras in 'P' mode.

I'd say most photographers strive for that quality of capture...

Here I'd say you are missing something -- the fact is that graphics arts have been mixed with photography all along, you have to just accept it, and you can't make this judgement that the use of graphics arts means that your photography is "mediocre". That's a bogus judgement. Judge the works on its merits, whether "purely" photographic or an artistic/graphic expression that goes beyond "pure" photography, or stay out of that aspect of judging altogether!