DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photo Editing Has Gone Too Far.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 86, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/01/2003 12:57:51 PM · #1
I've seen on this web-site that the majority of the members complain that not enough editing is allowed. In my opinion, most editing is or should be considered "cheating". When a photo is manipulated in one way or another, the person's main objective is to change something in that photo that doesn't please him or her and would like to change it to be more visually pleasing. If that person couldnt get it right in the camera, thats their problem, and changing it is like saying, "look at what a photographer I am that I could take such great photos". But dont get me wrong, some editing, in my opinion, is okay.
07/01/2003 12:59:49 PM · #2
what editing would be okay in your eyes
07/01/2003 01:04:34 PM · #3
I would love you to call up the estate of Ansel Adams and tell them you feel he cheated by manipulating his images in the darkroom. The common editing techniques employed on this site are pretty much what film photographers have had at their disposal for years. ie: contrast, brightness, dodge and burn ( not DPC legal), etc.

Message edited by author 2003-07-01 13:05:03.
07/01/2003 01:12:08 PM · #4
Converting to greyscale is fine, cropping, rotating, sepia tone, anything that doesnt actually change the main point of the photo. If a photo is converted to greyscale, it's still the persons work, he or she didnt change the actual original, anything like that I think is fine, but when you change a photo to make it something other then that, it's too much, in my opinion of course.
07/01/2003 01:18:20 PM · #5
Personally, I don't see the difference between being creative with the camera and being creative with Photoshop. The difference is in the tools and techniques you use, that's all.

I remember reading somewhere (perhaps in another thread) that Adams would chop down trees and move stuff in order to get his shots how he wanted. What's the difference between removing a tree in reality and removing it in PS? Except the latter has rather less environmental impact? If there's a beautiful landscape with power lines right across it that you can't get a shot of without the power lines, why not remove them with PS?

All this is not to say that I think this site should relax the challenge rules - I find the limits here useful in challenging me to improve my photographic techniques, as opposed to my digital darkroom techniques (there are other sites for that).
07/01/2003 01:26:32 PM · #6
There's no law saying a photograph has to be an accurate record of "reality" of the time it was shot. That would make it accounting, not art. The camera, film/sensor, chemicals/software, etc. are all merely tools one can use to produce any artistic vision they want.

I think it was Adams who described photography as "painting with light" in that he used his tools to create the scene he wanted, not a photo-journalistic archive for evidentiary purposes. The painting world seems to have finally accepted the Impressionists, the Cubists, and other "non-Realists" as legitimate practitioners of the art of painting, I feel we should allow ourselves the same latitude when evaluating our artistic efforts, so long as we stay within the rules and tools we're allowed to use.

I'm pretty sure my entry is one of the ones considered "over-edited" this week, but everything I did was within the DPC toolset, and I feel the result is more visually interesting than the source image.

Message edited by author 2003-07-01 13:36:10.
07/01/2003 01:28:35 PM · #7
I take back what I said. What I should've said was, photo editing is fine, but when you go so far as taking say a tree out of the photo, (see Pinback) you shouldn't say that you took the photo. Because in reality you didn't, you didnt go through the effort of preparing for the photo (cutting down the tree, see Pinback again).
07/01/2003 01:31:41 PM · #8
Ansel didn't just convert to greyscale. He shot in it. He masked, he dodged, he burned. He spot edited like a maniac. Fitzharris does it, Wolfe does it. Adams stuff without processing is boring at best. Public TV put out a 1 hr special on Adams and they showed some of his plates without alterations... Boring!!!

A digital darkroom emulates what a master can do in a conventional one. They were doing this stuff long before silicon got involved. IMO the editing rules are too constricting here. I do believe you have to start with a good shot but I also believe that ignoring editing is missing out on a ton of the process. We don't have darkrooms any more. That art should not be lost...

Just my opinion... Dave
07/01/2003 01:38:04 PM · #9
Originally posted by Davenit:

Adams stuff without processing is boring at best.


See? not to say that Adams is a bad photographer, he isn't, but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing.
07/01/2003 01:38:52 PM · #10
What about this? I couldn't cut the wires down and this was the best possible angle. It still maintains the original intent of the photo.

' . substr('//www.mateov.com/photo/nature/catorig.jpg', strrpos('//www.mateov.com/photo/nature/catorig.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//www.mateov.com/photo/nature/cattail.jpg', strrpos('//www.mateov.com/photo/nature/cattail.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
07/01/2003 01:39:27 PM · #11
we like beating dead horses.
07/01/2003 01:40:58 PM · #12
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

we like beating dead horses.


?
07/01/2003 01:41:02 PM · #13
I think a little of the photographer's goals and outlook come into play here...

Sure, if you don't cut down the tree, but edit it out later, its not a documentary photograph anymore... if that's what you want to do, capture events as they occur faithfully... street photography, photojournalism, environmental portraiture, then yes, extensive editing should not be performed...

but just because I took a tree, a trash can, or sky out of my photo, I can't say I didn't take it.. If I do montages, totally surrealistic landscapes, I'm still out there photographing the elements of my image. I need as much knowledge of light, exposure as the next guy. My goals are different - I want to create art, or impart a mood or feeling with my photographs...if that involves changing a few things, I don't see why people should not do those things without losing their "photographer" status...

A discussion on this topic always rears its head from time to time... I'm sure a couple of years down the line we'll hear of it less and less...

Originally posted by DavidLevin:

I take back what I said. What I should've said was, photo editing is fine, but when you go so far as taking say a tree out of the photo, (see Pinback) you shouldn't say that you took the photo. Because in reality you didn't, you didnt go through the effort of preparing for the photo (cutting down the tree, see Pinback again).
07/01/2003 01:42:45 PM · #14
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

we like beating dead horses.

Shhh ... we don't need the PETA folks harrassing us too!
07/01/2003 01:42:50 PM · #15
Originally posted by DavidLevin:

but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing.


Could you name one?
07/01/2003 01:43:36 PM · #16
David, you're still young. Keep an open mind before it's too late!
07/01/2003 01:51:36 PM · #17
Originally posted by Jak:

Originally posted by DavidLevin:

but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing.


Could you name one?


Sam Abell is an amazingly talented photographer and im almost positive he doesn't use editing to the extent of taking objects out of the photograph- you could see in his work that he expirements with things.

' . substr('//www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/images/sa_pears.jpg', strrpos('//www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/images/sa_pears.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2003-07-01 14:02:29.
07/01/2003 01:57:15 PM · #18
Originally posted by DavidLevin:

I take back what I said. What I should've said was, photo editing is fine, but when you go so far as taking say a tree out of the photo, (see Pinback) you shouldn't say that you took the photo. Because in reality you didn't, you didnt go through the effort of preparing for the photo (cutting down the tree, see Pinback again).


You can say, "I took the original picture, from which I created this image." Which is no less artistic than capturing a shot which requires no editing at all. Although, to a degree I see your point. I think some editing that IS allowed is a bit odd, considering we can't dodge or burn or spot edit, which could all be done in the dark room (and so I think they should be legal). We can make our pictures look all super wacky and jazzed out, but we can't do a little dodging and burning. Unfortunately, I have spots on my sensor. So it really IS a challenge for me to get a great shot in the camera.
07/01/2003 02:20:22 PM · #19
I have a few ideas about photo editing. Primarily, there is a big difference between artistic and editorial photography. Artists are notorious for doing whatever they want. That is what art IS, people - get used to it.

However, on DPC, they have chosen to test the photography skills, rather than the editing or artistic skills. Which makes a lot of sense.

In the print media, it is a different matter altogether:

[/Ethical dilemmas regarding photo editing and manipulation in the print media[/b]

(an essay written by SharQ in 2002)

This essay will offer an ephemeral outline of the history of image manipulation, before presenting a discussion about the definition of image editing. Through exploring a number of interviews with editors, journalists and news photographers, this dissertation will present different perspectives on questions surrounding image editing; how pictures are edited in newsprint on a day-to-day basis, what the value of a picture is depending on its context, and how both pictures and text can skew "the truth" of a scene. It will ultimately try to recommend what solutions are available to ease the ethical dilemmas, in the eyes of the readers, the photographers, the journalists and the editors of a news print medium.

Brief historical overview

Ever since Photography was invented and made practical with the Daguerreotype photography early in the 19th century, a photograph has been perceived to be identical to "the truth".

This perception is exemplified by the common phrase "seeing is believing". This phrase is likely to have originated in "the technological fact that photographs, videotapes and motion pictures are, in some ways, `fossilized light', created by a chemical and mechanical process that captures a direct physical imprint of reality." (Winick 1997) "That the camera cannot lie is true only in the sense that the images it captures must have existed in one form or another at some particular time" (Lester, 1988)

Image editing has been around as long as photography has existed. The first counterfeit photograph was made by Hippolyte Bayard more than 160 years ago, in 1840 (Lester 1991). Controversial, manipulated photographs have been part of history ever since.

To get pictures of usable quality in the early days of photography, photographers used dye or ink on their negatives and final prints to remove blemishes and errors. It is a well-known fact that the sports pages of newspapers around the world had a box full of pictures of footballs, to make the pictures from football matches look better in print. (Thrane 2002)


Image editing explained

"Image editing" is a concept that might be rather difficult to define. The notion that a photographic picture offers the whole truth is an axiom, but is nevertheless incorrect. As a matter of fact, a photograph has never been an exact representation of reality. Initially, all photography was black and white, and the world was hardly in greyscale when photography was invented. (Lester 1991)

What is image editing, then? Although cropping objects or people out of an image can make a picture just as misleading as actually editing the picture itself, the cropping of images is an artefact inherent in the genre of photography. Cropping of images can happen within several stages of the photographic process: when it is taken, the photographer might decide to pick out certain elements of a picture by using a telephoto or zoom objective. After the picture is recorded, part of the negative might be masked off, or the picture can be cropped digitally after it has been scanned into a computer.

We can assume that cropping an image is usually acceptable (Cromey 2002). There are, however, numerous of other changes that can be made to a picture;

It is possible to change the colour space , hue and saturation of the picture. These three are crucial in newsprint, because of the physical differences between the visible light spectrum and print processes. The colour space, hue and saturation have to be calibrated to resemble "reality" as closely as possible. However, when editing these three, it is also possible to make a picture taken on a grey, cloudy day look like it was taken in sunshine. Making a picture look "colder" (more blue) or "warmer" (more red) may change the way an image is perceived. (Cromey 2002)

While the changes described earlier might change the "feel" of an image, they do not change the actual content. A common technique used particularly in fashion magazines, is to remove imperfections in a model's skin, through a process known as cloning. When cloning a part of an image, you effectively replace an area of an image with other areas of the same picture. This technique is not limited to small shortcomings - it is possible to clone out debris, or even people, backgrounds or anything else from a picture.

For scientific photography, Cromey (2002) concludes that there are a few uncomplicated guidelines to what is and is not ethical in image editing. He explains how simple adjustments to the whole image, such as hue and saturation mentioned above, are normally acceptable. Manipulating a limited part of an image (Such as only a face or a sky) is unethical. The idea of limited-area editing being unethical is further extended to cloning, using software filters, dodging and burning


Image editing in news print

Cromey's rules are related to scientific photography. However, news has a different role in society. In news, there are different ways of changing the content of an image - but there are also different degrees of change; "Changes to content can be Accidental or Essential. Essential changes change the meaning of the photograph and accidental changes change useless details, but do not change the real meaning" (NPPA 2000)

It is just here - in the margin between accidental and essential changes - where the major ethical questions are found. Through my own research, it became clear that news photographers disagree strongly between them. As a simple example, we can discuss the red-eye phenomenon. Although most press photographers should be professional enough to be able to avoid red eyes from flash use in their photographs, it does occasionally happen. The ethical argument would be whether or not it is "right" to remove the red eyes from an image. Purists would say that changing anything like this in an image is incorrect. On the other hand - the person in question would never be seen with red eyes if it had not been for the photographer taking the picture. The majority of the photographers asked agreed that removing red eyes is an acceptable practice, because this is an accidental change.

More controversy is caused by the following scenario: Imagine two people, dressed in 1960s hippie clothing, are sitting on the lawn in front of a public building, protesting globalisation. A press photographer gets a few pictures, and runs back to his newsroom to get the pictures back to the editor. In front of the couple, there is a Coca-Cola can. In the background, you can see the side door of the press photographer's Porsche. Removing both from the pictures can be done in less than ten minutes. It could be argued that the photographer could have moved his car and thrown away the Coke can. If he had done that, the photograph would not have required editing.

Some would argue "if portions of an image for publication were selectively enhanced, the author should state it clearly in the figure legend" (Cromey 2002). However, this would probably result in a picture caption like "Two children playing on the beach, before the oil tanker sank just off the coast. Picture ©2002 Haje Jan Kamps. Two Coca-ColaTM cans and four SnickersTM wrappers and a twig protruding from the sand were removed from the image. The sky was digitally enhanced to look more blue, and the colour of the spade one of the children is playing with has been desaturated a little, to make sure that it did not dominate the image". Needless to say, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Corrective editing such as described in the image caption above happen every day in newsrooms around the world (Lester 1988), and beginning to point it out would be more pointless and confusing than useful. More importantly, however, is that the lack of legends does not matter;

The key is Education. "Only through education will people be able to `read' the Media in a useful way" (Sheridan 2002).

Most people are aware of how easy it is to skew or slant a written news story, by choosing a specific angle, by including or omitting information et cetera. The same goes for photography. "Every photographer takes pictures the way they see things. If you ask ten photographers to cover a demonstration, everybody would have returned with different photographs." (Landfald 2002)

It has been suggested to mark all edited images with an M or with the (x) symbol. The main problem with this would be that marking edited images with a symbol that the general audience would perceive as meaning "fake" would imply that all non-marked images convey the "truth". As Murray (2002) points out, "Pictures tell truths, but not necessarily the truth.".

In the research interviews for this essay, it became clear that media professionals are more inclined to trust pictures printed in broadsheet media than pictures found in tabloids. Pictures in fashion magazines were regarded more as art - and therefore further removed from "the truth" - than other images. If the general audience would attain the same attitude, this would be a great step towards making image editing less harmful.


How images can skew reality

"There was a famous picture of the late Princess of Wales on an official visit to Korea with her husband the Prince of Wales. They were both looking in opposite directions and the British press said it was because of their marital difficulties. As it happens, when we saw the whole picture, they were watching people laying memorial wreaths in two different places: the Prince watching one group, the Princess the other." (Hughes 2002)

All the major image libraries have stock images of Saddam Hussein. When something happens in the world that is relevant to Iraq, VG have about a dozen pictures to choose from. If Hussein, for example, were to announce that he had nuclear weapons, what image would VG use? The picture where Hussain just became president and is grinning, looking content over his victory? Or would they choose a picture where he was listening to somebody else, looking sincere?

The two examples above illustrate how even non-manipulated pictures can build controversy. In the first example, an editor who wants to sell extra newspapers could have maliciously cropped the image. But the photographer could also crop it at the time of recording, which means that the picture would be "legit". The keyword here, as in all journalism, is context. (NPPA 2000)

The use of archive photos, as illustrated by the second example, is normal practice in newsrooms. This does, however, leave editors with a very vital responsibility. The response from the readers would be very different if the image used shows a grinning Hussein holding a machine gun, to if the archive image used shows a responsible looking Hussein.

Providing the context necessary to understand both the examples above is the responsibility of the editors. This factor is why broadsheets are generally more trusted than tabloid newspapers - because the editors of broadsheet newspapers in general have deserved the trust of the readers more than their tabloid counterparts.


Conclusion

We have seen how image editing has been a part of the history of imagery since the beginnings of photography. There have been numerous examples of newspapers and magazines breaking common sense in the handling of edited images. As the technology for image editing becomes more readily available, cheaper and easier to use, the temptation to perform editing on images is likely to become stronger, even for smaller publications with limited resources.

The only real solution to the problem of image editing is not to force magazines to mark their images, but rather to educate the general public to be critical to images, just as they would be to any text written in a news publication.

As editing tools, such as Adobe Photoshop, become more easily available, chances are that more people will realise how easy it is to edit a photograph.

If "an image is worth a thousand words", and the average newspaper article is 500 words long, logic would dictate that one has to be twice as critical to photographs as to the text that goes with them.


Sources:

Cromey, D W (2002) Digital Imaging: Ethics //swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/micro/digimage_ethics.html
Hughes, G (2002) Original Research See appendix 1
Landfald, J (2002) Original Research See appendix 1
Lester, P (1988) Faking images in Photojournalism //commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/faking.html
Lester, P (1991) Photojournalism; An Ethical Approach New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Murray, F (2002) Original Research See appendix 1
National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) (2000) Ethics in the age of Digital Photography NPPA publication, //www.nppa.org/services/pizpract/eadp/eadp7.html
Sheridan, J (2002) Original Research See appendix 1
Thrane, D (2002) Bildemanipulasjon i trykte media. Discussion forum //www.foto.no
Winick, R. (1997) Intellectual Property, Defamation and the Digital Alteration of Visual Images. Journal of Law and the Arts, issue 4 (winter) 1997. New York: Columbia University press.


(edited for length)

Message edited by author 2003-07-01 14:20:53.
07/01/2003 03:18:30 PM · #20
I would like to see a challenge with photos submitted straight out of the camera... NO EDITING at all, I think that would settle this whole dilemma and we could really see how good a photographer you are not how well you master photoshop

Message edited by author 2003-07-01 15:19:08.
07/01/2003 03:37:06 PM · #21
Originally posted by photogirl66:

I would like to see a challenge with photos submitted straight out of the camera... NO EDITING at all, I think that would settle this whole dilemma and we could really see how good a photographer you are not how well you master photoshop


Fair enough - I'm a bit of a purist too (and I have been obedient in the challenges), but that does give the advantage to those who can afford the best kit. Photoshop is necessary for some who have to compensate for their lower-grade equipment.

And dare I say, there may be those members who do edit their images illegally, but unless they look artificial they'll probably get away with it (unless the moderators have an automated system in place).
07/01/2003 04:03:07 PM · #22
Before you can decide if editing is good or bad, first you must decide "what is too much editing".

Take for example the following two photographs of mine.
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=19637
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=17848

Which has more editing?


The first of these started out it's life as:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=20857
and the second as:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=27092

Granted this isn't the wholesale removal/insertion of objects, but I think the point still holds.
-Matt
07/01/2003 04:11:34 PM · #23
Originally posted by DavidLevin:

Originally posted by Davenit:

Adams stuff without processing is boring at best.


See? not to say that Adams is a bad photographer, he isn't, but there are those photographers who have genuine talent and don't need editing or proccesing to make their photos intersting and appealing.


So Adams didn't have genuine talent because he moved images in a darkroom? That is a really wild statement and one I absolutely don't agree with. The camera lens can't pick up 1/10th the contrast the human eye does. The darkroom helps even it up.... Every well known image is edited David. To think it's not is not being realistic. Very few are out of camera. All of the big nature and wildlife photographers today edit. They did in a darkroom, they do in a digital dark room.

And for the record IMO Ansel is one of the true genuises of photography. Not taking picture, but photography. The darkroom is included in that statement...

Dave
07/01/2003 04:33:58 PM · #24
Originally posted by photogirl66:

I would like to see a challenge with photos submitted straight out of the camera... NO EDITING at all, I think that would settle this whole dilemma and we could really see how good a photographer you are not how well you master photoshop


Digital images require some form of editing no matter what you intend to do with them. Resizing your shot alone will require you to do some form of sharpening. Every digital camera comes with some type of editing program, why do you think that is? Id probally say its even safe to say that almost all of the images that go for sale on this site, have been edited beyond the DPC rules. Thats what is required in digital photography. Its the marriage between software, hardware, and camera.

You will not find a pro photographer who isnt editing his shots. There is no mind set in the digital photography world that evens thinks for a moment that editing ( Im talking, dodge, burn, contrast, anything that works,etc. ) is bad for buisness. Its a neccessity! Alot of entry level cameras are geared towards people to point and shoot, leaving everything up to the camera. They figure the easier it is, the more they can sell to the average jo picture taker. Its the same in the film camera world. Nothing wrong with digital point and shooters, but learning the most you can about all the processes can only make you a better, well informed photographer. Remember were not talking about turning crap photos into good ones. With proper editing, you can complete your shot in a way that not only will satisfy yourself, but maybe a potential client. Editing in the "spirit" of photography is not wrong. When will people here learn this?
07/01/2003 04:36:01 PM · #25
There are a lot of dead horses.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/24/2021 10:40:26 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/24/2021 10:40:26 AM EDT.