| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2004 11:44:24 AM · #1 |
Now that we have open editing challenges, I would like to see a new tick box simply saying 'tick here if this image was manipulated'.
Good reading about this here:
//www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 11:50:09 AM · #2 |
that is a very good statement on that site and I agree with it.
but in order to please voters you MUST manipulate your photo some how or it will do very badly in a challenge here at this site
I like this line specifically
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
James |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:00:24 PM · #3 |
manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed
I shoot in tif mode always, when I convert to jpeg, I almost always need to manipulate to get the jpeg back to the tiff. When I upload the jpeg onto the DPC site, it often changes color. I adjust it and upload a new file.
Would I check the box if I manipulated the photo to try to make it look like the original?
(and good luck getting everyone to check the box) It seems some people won't take time to check if the comment was helpful or not.
I've been listing my edits in the photographer comments box as we are encouraged to do in the rules information. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:01:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now that we have open editing challenges, I would like to see a new tick box simply saying 'tick here if this image was manipulated'.
Good reading about this here:
//www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html |
Why?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:04:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jab119:
I like this line specifically
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
|
But that quote is in context of an entirely different form of photograph. The phrases before it read "Obvious examples would be photographs presented as evidence in a court case, as part of a medical record, with an insurance claim, or as an illustration of a news article in a newspaper or journalistic article. Photographs presented in such contexts are assumed by their viewers to be literally true, to be non-fictional documentation, testimony or reporting. "
In such case, then I agree, manipulating those photos would be unethical. However, I see no ethical issues with making changes to photos of artistic qualities. If I was a painter and was doing a portrait of someone, I would not paint a pimple that may be present. Likewise, I would photoshop it out if taking a photograph. Recently, I took a photo of birds lined up on bouys that some of you may have seen. The original had one bird missing. So I added it. I don't see that as unethical. I also removed part of the rope to give the impression that I didn't crop out something on the left side. Why? Because I thought that it added to the artistic quality of the photo and was closer to what I wanted to show.
Original:  Modified: 
Now had I turned this in as evidence in a court case (liability for poop damage to buoys?) then I belong in jail. But for artistic purposes, do as you wish. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:04:08 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now that we have open editing challenges, I would like to see a new tick box simply saying 'tick here if this image was manipulated'.
Good reading about this here:
//www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html |
Why? |
So that "Naturalists" can vote down the Adobe® Photoshop® edited photos easier, without having to think, or even look at the photo.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:06:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Konador:
So that "Naturalists" can vote down the Adobe® Photoshop® edited photos easier, without having to think, or even look at the photo. |
That's what I assumed but I wanted to here the author say it.. lol
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:06:55 PM · #8 |
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
Two different responses from two different aspects of my personality.
Artist: What a load of utter rubbish. Virtually from their inception photographs have been manipulated specifically to show things the camera couldn't capture and the photographer never witnessed. People have forever been turning boring skies into more dramatic ones from another shot. If that's too dramatic an example, how about simply dodging and burning? That's altering the photo. For that matter, if you print it, unmanipulated, on paper A and again on paper B you'll have two very different images (color saturation or contrast or whatever will change).
Journalist: Absolutely true. I say "HURRAY" that some photogs have been busted recently for altering/editing/compositing images that they never shot.
In other words, I think the quote is radically flawed. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:08:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Patella:
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
Two different responses from two different aspects of my personality.
Artist: What a load of utter rubbish. Virtually from their inception photographs have been manipulated specifically to show things the camera couldn't capture and the photographer never witnessed. People have forever been turning boring skies into more dramatic ones from another shot. If that's too dramatic an example, how about simply dodging and burning? That's altering the photo. For that matter, if you print it, unmanipulated, on paper A and again on paper B you'll have two very different images (color saturation or contrast or whatever will change).
Journalist: Absolutely true. I say "HURRAY" that some photogs have been busted recently for altering/editing/compositing images that they never shot.
In other words, I think the quote is radically flawed. |
I agree with this! |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:16:55 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Why? |
Cos I don't think we have enough check boxes on this site ;)
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:18:37 PM · #11 |
A quick note on my previous entry -- I spoke JUST to the quote as it appeared here in the forum. In context, I have no complaint with it. The page that the quote comes from makes a case for photogrpahs that might be used in legal situations where truth is paramount, in which case a manipulated photo is the equivalent of perjury. (Although, I maintain that a given "crime" scene, one that hasn't been set up (ie studio shot), shot properly from two or three different angles might tell two or three radically different stories. Thus, the shot might be "true," but might not actually be showing what you think you're seeing... In other words, manipulated by use of the camera itself.)
Anyway -- just wanted to clarify... |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:51:52 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Patella:
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
Two different responses from two different aspects of my personality.
Artist: What a load of utter rubbish. Virtually from their inception photographs have been manipulated specifically to show things the camera couldn't capture and the photographer never witnessed. People have forever been turning boring skies into more dramatic ones from another shot. If that's too dramatic an example, how about simply dodging and burning? That's altering the photo. For that matter, if you print it, unmanipulated, on paper A and again on paper B you'll have two very different images (color saturation or contrast or whatever will change).
Journalist: Absolutely true. I say "HURRAY" that some photogs have been busted recently for altering/editing/compositing images that they never shot.
In other words, I think the quote is radically flawed. |
yup - photographic verasity only matters if you are claiming that it is. Artistic license only occasionally aims to represent superfiical truths or 'reality'
Even ignoring the entire issue that compositional decisions reflect photographic bias more directly than any post editing can often do, I don't see the point unless we were having a 'journalistic' challenge, to have any reason to 'confess' to post processing.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:53:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jab119:
I like this line specifically
"A photographer breaks faith with the viewer and violates important canons of professional ethics if he manipulates the photographs so that they are not what he or she witnessed and what the camera captured".
James |
So if you compose an image of a beautiful scene, and deliberately make lens and compositional choices to omit the liter and waste that was perhaps deposited in the car park you are shooting from - are you violating important canons of professional ethics by manipulating the scene such that it isn't what you witnessed ?
People who believe the camera never lied, even before photoshop, are sadly deluded.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 01:32:57 PM · #14 |
| Gordon, if you read the source of that quote, it was in reference to photographs for documentary purposes such as court photographs or insurance photographs. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 02:10:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Gordon, if you read the source of that quote, it was in reference to photographs for documentary purposes such as court photographs or insurance photographs. |
Actually it isn't - its for people submitting to photo.net who want to appear better than people who 'manipulate' their pictures. Read any of the photo discussions to find out that many are not interested in the 'truth' of the image, just scoring bizzaro anti editing points.
Message edited by author 2004-01-16 14:10:30.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 02:16:57 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Konador:
So that "Naturalists" can vote down the Adobe® Photoshop® edited photos easier, without having to think, or even look at the photo. |
hahaha right on. ya bad idea. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 02:19:29 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Now that we have open editing challenges, I would like to see a new tick box simply saying 'tick here if this image was manipulated'.
Good reading about this here:
//www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html |
I think that if you can't tell a photo was manipulated without the photog admitting it, then the manipulation was very well done.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 11:37:50 PM · #18 |
| What's wrong with a photographer being proud of the results they can achieve without the use of manipulative editing techniques? Why doesn't someone who has achieved an equally good photo using such techniques want people to know how it was done? Apparently it is because we still value a great photo done without manipulation to be superior to one equally great that has been manipulated. |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 11:58:06 PM · #19 |
I hated the idea of having to PS a picture to make it as good as it can be. I guess you have to go with the flow.
I really was not into crabappl3 1st place photo in December Study(after I saw it enhanced) .........because it was complete different pic from the original.
But ya know what...better learn to do it, or you will be left behind. |
|
|
|
01/17/2004 12:00:16 AM · #20 |
| Usually around now someone mentions Ansel Adams, so I just thought I'd get that out of the way... |
|
|
|
01/17/2004 12:07:46 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
What's wrong with a photographer being proud of the results they can achieve without the use of manipulative editing techniques? Why doesn't someone who has achieved an equally good photo using such techniques want people to know how it was done? Apparently it is because we still value a great photo done without manipulation to be superior to one equally great that has been manipulated. |
how can it be equally good AND superior?
|
|
|
|
01/17/2004 12:20:22 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Refracted:
how can it be equally good AND superior? |
Equally good can be read to mean they both earned the same score in a dpc challenge. Superior is to acheive that score without benefit of the editing techniques allowed under the Advanced Editing Rules but denied under the Basic Editing Rules.
Hope this makes it clearer. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 03:04:19 AM EDT.
