As a new member, I'm interested to know whether there is an editorial policy about the degree of image manipulation (eg with PhotoShop) which is acceptable for posting to galleries or submitting to competitions. Obviously there is a continuum from untouched photo to pure graphic, so are there any rules of thumb about where the line should be?
I was wondering about this as well and the conclusion I reached is that it doesn't matter what you do as long as the editors find the image acceptable. Of course for competitions it helps to read and follow the rules and guide lines.
Where would you put the line? The following is purely my own opinion, so feel free to disagree. In the darkroom a lot of manipulation took place, but that never bothered anybody. Removing telephone wires and power cables is not an invention of Digital imaging, it has just made it an awful lot easier. The final image is the end result and that is what matters. Do what you want with the image as long as it is your image to start with and you do not claim afterwards it is as shot.
I agree with Simon. I think the rule is, if it doesn't look manipulated (unless that is your intention for artistic reasons) then it's good. And come clean, don't say that nothing has been done to it.
This is a photography forum, so the image should originate from a photographic image, and obviously so. Other than that, I think to prohibit the use of any image enhancement tools would risk the charge of being too purist. I'm sure many of us have removed offending objects with the clone stamp, or used creative filters to good effect; and magazines churn out articles on these and other techniques continuously, making their use mainstream. Montages I'm not sure about, but panoramas are fine. But, as others have said, own up if it's not obvious what you've done.
Images for gallery - they're moderated. 99% of things are ok, but nothing obscene pretty much - we're a public website.
Images for competitions - whilst you would have to refer to the individual competition rules, as a general rule the image needs to originate from a photographic source.
This is where its up for debate - what does 'photography' mean?
Well...technically it's 'drawing with light', but that could be stretched as far as 'capturing light'.
There again light is nothing more than a frequency of energy...our eyes can only see so much, but you could use that logistic on any sort of angle!
And in a couple of very short paragraphs I have twisted the tangent that far, that it ultimately becomes fairly inconclusive as to what photography/imaging means these days...use that to your advantage.
Been new to this site and forum I don’t want to upset anyone’s strongly held beliefs on this subject matter, but my opinion for what it is worth is that any amount of manipulation is acceptable.
I started photography at the age of 17 with a OM20 SLR and for years have felt creatively restricted because I could never afford/have time or the time/space to do my own processing and as such have been restricted to using the commercial developers for my photography.
What this has done though is taught me more than anything to get things right in camera as the saying seems to be now.
Last year I was able to finally afford a decent DSLR and PS Elements and what an eye opener it has been for me. All those things that in the past I just read about I can now do and more and I love it.
So what am I saying? Photography is art, (ok I know that it is lots of other things too), therefore it is interpretative. Modern technology allows us access to techniques which allows me at any rate to express myself artistically. So I really do not worry about the amount of manipulation I undertake to an image.
Just my two peneth worth anyway, and complements to whoever is responsible for a great site. Thanks.
As a newbie myself I too wonder where the line has to be drawn. Having subscribed to Digital Photo since the beginning of this year, and seeing what can be done with pictures using Photoshop etc, it seems to me that the picture you take, and then submit into a comprtition, can be as different as chalk and cheese.
I have recently purchased a Nikon D80 and am happy playing around with it, experimenting would perhaps be a better word than 'playing around.' But as I have already said,by using Photoshop, where is the line between a photograph that you have taken, and a picture that has been tampered with? It can be argued 'does it matter?' But I think it should matter, and would like to see competitions for photographs taken, no touching up, no removing telephone lines, no nothing. Just a simple photograph. Surely the photo you take and are proud is of more importantance than one that has been altered considerably? How the hell it could be policed is a matter for another debate.
Just my own views, I'd like to hear what others think. Being a newbie I am probably sticking my neck out, but I am only trying (hard) to learn what makes a good photograph.
I try to tamper with my photos as little as possible, unless I'm making big/obvious changes like desaturating and spot colouring. But I do adjust levels, saturation and shadows and highlights.
I have just looked at that picterLouise, in my mind it's fantastic. And yes, I'd be glad to have that on my wall. But as you say "...having spent 40+ years perfecting a talent, people just automatically assumed it'd been tampered with." it'd be a heartbreaking statement to hear.
But that is what I am trying to say, surely the art is in getting the shot right first time? Oh I don't know, if I could mater Photoshop it would help, but, I can honestly say at this point, I don't want to spend much time altering shots I've taken. But at the same time I can see the 'art' in removing unwanted litter in the shot. I have a beautiful picture of my son's wife in her wedding dress. But guess what ruins it completely? A cigerette butt just to the left of her dress. That's a genuine case for using 'gadgetry' to make the shot better.
I think thats were Photoshop and the like come into their own, being able to remove an offending item is great.
Actually since writing the first comment I've thought about how complicated working in PS can be and it is an artform in itself. So I think there is a place for both, as long as people dont try to pass of a heavily edited photography as untouched.
For my photo's I just use Adobe lightroom, and tweak the levels etc in there, as I understand it, all the stuff you can do in Lightroom can be done in a film darkroom (except maybe spot touching up maybe? But I dont use that anyway). Ivery rarely edit things out of photo's, the only reason why I'd do that is for the same reason as above, just to take out offending items. For example, if you have a look in my gallery at the photo called "Doorway to summer", I edited out a few bits of litter on the ground, and also a nice sign saying "no dogs on the beach", which I didnt like. But that's the only way I could get the shot I wanted, because I couldnt just go and take the sign down, then take my photo! That's when I feel that its acceptable, but otherwise I just stick to editing colour levels brightness etc.
I think that we are all artists in our own way, & now we have the means to adjust a pic to our own idea of "better", then why not? After all, "artists" ( people who paint or draw or make pictures in any way they can,) leave out the bits that offend, be it a facial blemish, wires, or a fag-end,so why not the camera "artist"? Me I try to get it right 1st time, but thats not always possible,so I turn to my faithful (free) Picasa to put things how I would like them,& how wonderful it is to be able to do this after years of getting back lousy prints from commercial processors that were nothing like the subject you shot.
I suppose that given the rise of digital imaging as a replacement for film there needs to be an equivalent replacement of 'darkroom' work.
Hark back to the times when digital didn't even exist and there's always been people experimenting with the possibilities. This was the case with film technology where expert darkroom processing and composites of images would end up with some images that are now classics.
People using computers to do, well, pretty much anything in replacement of traditional values is also on the rise. Just look at music for example.
I suppose it's a different way of doing things - at the same time you can never overlook good photography. Good exposure, lighting, position, timing...that can't go away.
It's hard to form an opinion overall - but I would say that it's a good thing.
I've said before, many of you would be amazed at the level of digital manipulation that goes into more or less every image these days.
I love to manipulate images. It gives me a whole new creative outlet. I always wanted to be able to draw, write, sing and play a musical instrament. I can't do any of these but find that photography coupled with photoshop gives me some chance to express myself creativley. That said the most satisfaction I get is when I download an image and it needs nothing to make it better. The other side of this is when I have a dull uniteresting shot and improve it through photoshop manipulation which I feel I achieved in this image http://www.thinkcamera.com/gallery/image.asp?sp=&v=7&uabn=835&uin=7026
The question of where to draw the line I don't believe exists. My father created some wonderful images using a biscuite tin with a pin hole in the lid and piece of tape to act as a shutter. I still remeber him teaching my brother and me this as young boys and developing them in an improvised dark room. Compare this to a modern digital camera and you could argue that the camer itself manipulates the images beyond the idea of caputuring exsisting light. I don't know where I am going with this but in short whether you use a lot of photoshop or none at all if it makes you happy where is the harm.
On the issue of owning up to using manipulation. I don't see that anyone should have to. If you like the finished image and find it pleasing to the eye whether manipulated or not it doesn't matter. If you think it gives some people who are more competent with photoshop and advantage then the same can be said for people who have bigger and better cameras or technical understanding.
For me photography is about creating something that evokes feeling and if technology can help me achieve this then I am happy to use it to make up for my shortcomings.
If you read my last letter (which if you scroll up about 5 letters you should come across it) your'll know that I was unsure about whether the use of Photoshop and good photography go hand in hand.
Well after spending a great deal of time still getting usd to my camera, I have to say that I only wish I could master Photoshop as well as I have woth digital photography. In a perfect world I would have plenty of time to study both photography and Photoshop, but it isn't a perfect world and I haven't. And for those of you who can master both, ya boo show off!!
From an artistic point of view, I see nothing wrong with the use of such programmes as Photoshop for digital image manipulation. It is an acceptable form of self expression and long may it continue.
However we must define what we are doing in terms of digital photography. The enhancement of photographs, both digital and film can be done with Photoshop. Providing it is enhancement, or the removal of unsightly objects in landscapes, it is totally acceptable. In the days of film we used lots of little tricks in addition to dodging and burning.
What is not so acceptable is putting something into the image that wasn't there in the first place. It's as bad as putting the legs of a man on the body of a cow. This sort of thing is NOT digital photography. Digital imaging - yes!
