The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

Here's an examples of where I "photoshopped" to get something "different":

On this one the camera couldn't capture the moon with any detail without making the foreground totally dark, so I took two shots and pasted the moon over the foreground shot and also did some cloning of a telephone post and a building corner:

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I don't think I am missing it, I just think I am lousy at explaining what I mean. When you use your camera to take a picture, what comes out is 100% a digital photograph. Most of us think of the RAW as a digital negative of sorts. Someone who does not even use a camera, but instead creates a picture from scratch all in Photoshop, well to me anyway, that's 100% a digital painting. So, once you start to alter your digital photograph in Photoshop, at what point does it become less a digital photograph and more a digital painting, and when does it become more disingenuous to post it on a photography forum with "Look at what I shot last night"?

We all have our own opinions of where on that scale we draw the line, and no two people on this forum are gonna agree on where to draw it.

No it's not...it's a bunch of 1's and 0's that has to be interpreted by software, which is the initial step in the post production process, and then converted into a photograph.
But as I consider what I just said, I was wrong...it starts with the camera settings. Do I want a slow SS and pan or a fast SS to freeze the action. The interpreting of an image start before you press the shutter.
Utilization of post production software is merely a continuation of the interpretation process.

Consider this study of flight...is it not a photograph because I chose to include a series of wing movements in one image?

glennr wrote in post #11697483
I don't think I am missing it, I just think I am lousy at explaining what I mean.

...

We all have our own opinions of where on that scale we draw the line, and no two people on this forum are gonna agree on where to draw it.

Perhaps if you could explain the value of this line that you insist on drawing. Maybe define why drawing this line is more important than drawing a line between the creation of fine images and what so often seems like mental masturbation over a distinction that doesn't really mean anything?

chauncey wrote in post #11697702
No it's not...it's a bunch of 1's and 0's that has to be interpreted by software, which is the initial step in the post production process, and then converted into a photograph.

But as I consider what I just said, I was wrong...it starts with the camera settings. Do I want a slow SS and pan or a fast SS to freeze the action. The interpreting of an image start before you press the shutter.

Not to disagree, but for me it starts when I look through the lens. As you say, it's a continuous process from there on until it's printed and I'm happy with it (not necessarily the same thing). I've never been aware of transiting from one mode to another. (Gee, I think I'll be creative now...)

So far as I can see, using Photoshop is conceptually no different from the darkroom in that you can really affect only four things: local contrast and brightness and global contrast and brightness. You can do that with real light projected through a lens and filters and hand tools like dodging and burning, or you can do it through the "lens" of your CRT or LCD screen with a mouse or pen. I've never seen the see the need to draw a distinction.

glennr wrote in post #11697483
... So, once you start to alter your digital photograph in Photoshop, at what point does it become less a digital photograph and more a digital painting, and when does it become more disingenuous to post it on a photography forum with "Look at what I shot last night"?

We all have our own opinions of where on that scale we draw the line, and no two people on this forum are gonna agree on where to draw it.

People altered and removed and added elements to photographs well before photoshop or digital photos existed. I think by that standard it doesnt stop be coming a photo when you are clipping between photos and editing elements.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Photo_manipulat​ion

Editing out and in elements has a long history in photography, and IMO, is part of the art. Look at THIS photo of Lincon. Not his body, his head was 'ye old PS'd' on there using tools of the time. Tons of old soviet photographs have elements removed out of them for political reasons. Ironically it took a while for photoshop to catch up to the editing capabilities of non digital work flows. I think purists are just bad historians

I think the line is alot further away than some people are willing to admit.

krb wrote in post #11698141
Perhaps if you could explain the value of this line that you insist on drawing.

Yep.
Not to offend anybody, honestly, but the need for a "line" sounds a whole lot like "Mine is better than yours because mine's real and yours isn't."

If someone is making a false claim and using a manipulated photo to back it up, that's a different story. Otherwise, who cares?

glennr wrote in post #11697483
I don't think I am missing it, I just think I am lousy at explaining what I mean. When you use your camera to take a picture, what comes out is 100% a digital photograph. Most of us think of the RAW as a digital negative of sorts. Someone who does not even use a camera, but instead creates a picture from scratch all in Photoshop, well to me anyway, that's 100% a digital painting. So, once you start to alter your digital photograph in Photoshop, at what point does it become less a digital photograph and more a digital painting, and when does it become more disingenuous to post it on a photography forum with "Look at what I shot last night"?

We all have our own opinions of where on that scale we draw the line, and no two people on this forum are gonna agree on where to draw it.

This comes up periodically. Sure, the more "Photoshopping" you do, the more "painting" is involved. But really, when you get caught up in this "where is the line" business it becomes a waste of energy. Each person will find their own level of expertise in both the craft of photography and the art of post processing and there is no line that separates one from the other, just points of contact that may be large or they my be small.

In this forum, the emphasis is photography -- we are all out to capture images of quality. But then in this particular sub-forum we talk about post processing those image to enhance, to bring out the qualities of those images in the digital darkroom.

There are of course those who are masters in going beyond -- being able to select parts of an image and say create a new background and such -- these are graphics arts skills that have always been in, say, the commercial arts and you can make a good living being able to do such things, although those skills will not appeal to, say, a "fine arts" photographer (who will often be of the "starving artist" variety). Well, sure there's a difference...so what?

luigis wrote in post #11667370
Whenever you remove a powerline or change a color you are making photography cry, you change reality into an illustration, a photographer needs to be very unsure about his craft to do such a thing. I've never ever done it!

You are so cool, I'll bet you have to wear a parka in the summer.

"Making photography cry"...that's about the dumbest thing I have ever read.

This subject is akin to the old argument of whether photography is actually art at all. Only that argument has a splinter of legitimacy when compared to this "Straight from the camera argument".

Beating a dead horse that died a century ago.

****!, Im a sucker fish, I just swallowed the bait and hook.

True Story: Once at a car show, I had this photographer and his car club (gang) form a semi-circle around me and this photographer threatens to beat me down etc.

Turns out we have the same barber, and I hear from the barber that he was complaining about me one day. Saying that all I am is a photoshop photographer while he a "real photographer" and the best in the city.

Guess he was jealous on account of my making good money at the time and seeing my photos on the news stands in car magazines.

To get professional results today is impossible without digital alterations. I am talking editorial stuff. For yourself you can do whatever, but 99.9999 of photos you see printed in a major magazine, who rely on photography was altered in some way.

chauncey wrote in post #11665293
At my age, being able to confront cretins, is one of the few joys left in my life.

Yeah, and like me you likely get those "they're old and to be politely tolerated" looks while people squirm in their seats feeling sorry for you and your feebleness.

Automotive Photography wrote in post #11704975
****!, Im a sucker fish, I just swallowed the bait and hook.

LOL, relax. I think some dinosaurs still live in our world and man they are very mad about the extiction thing!

Hen3Ry wrote in post #11672255
Paul Simon: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

That's why so many relationships fail ...