Photography vs Photoshoppery

peasant

This probably has been done before, but I couldn't find a thread on it ...so here it goes:

Personally (and I stress the term personally) I think Photoshop & all digital image processery is the devil re-incarnated

I come from the school of hard knocks (i.e analog photography) where having shot a film of 36 exposures upon getting the pictures back you realised you still had a lot to learn, as only three or four of them were decent.

With a digital camera you can shoot x exposures of the same object, pick the best one and then photoshop it to perfection.

Where is the photographer's skill in that?

Digitally processed pictures also have the side effect that these days you really can't believe your eyes anymore.

From blatantly photoshopped images (somebodies head on somebody elses body), to airbrushed pictures of stars/celebrities who look like different people in real life, to simple landscape pictures in travel magazines or holiday brochures that conveniently omit the less beautiful parts of the local scenery, to just everyday shots by everyday photogrophers that depict scenes that simply don't exist in such glory or splendour.

In my opinion all processed images should carry an automatic, indelible watermark so that everyone could see at first glance that the original image was fiddled with.

The "new" digital SLR is supposed to arrive in the next few days ...I hope I will be able to resist the temptations of digital cheating and post "real" pictures here. We'll see ...


Opinions?

amcinroy

Photographic fiddling? That's Ansel Adam's out then.

Photography has never been a purely documentary medium. It has never been about truth. It is a highly selective and edited representation of reality.

Photography is about visual communication and the power of an image in communicating ideas is independant of what it was shot on or how it was created. Those are somewhat irrelevant.

Digital photography has only opened people's eyes to the fake that photography has always been, right from its very birth.

Andy

Paulw

peasant wrote: »

This probably has been done before, but I couldn't find a thread on it ...so here it goes:

I come from the school of hard knocks (i.e analog photography) where having shot a film of 36 exposures upon getting the pictures back you realised you still had a lot to learn, as only three or four of them were decent.

The topic has been done to death many many times.

But, here goes - photoshop allows you to do what your print lab does - process raw data in to visible photographs.

Photoshop allows you the control over the final image that you gave to the print lab when you sent your film off.

There is a large difference between processing your images in photoshop and digital imagery, which uses photoshop to create images rather than photographs.

Maybe you'll come to understand the difference once you start taking digital images.

peasant

amcinroy wrote: »

Photographic fiddling? That's Ansel Adam's out then.

Photography has never been a purely documentary medium. It has never been about truth. It is a highly selective and edited representation of reality.

Photography is about communication and the power of an image in communicating its ideas is independant of what it was shot on or how it was created. Those are somewhat irrelevant.

Andy

That is one way (the artistic one) to look at it. The other one is that "seeing is believing". There are many examples where a simple documentary photograph has convicted criminals or shaped history even.

But philosophical notions aside ...in this day and age, where every Tom, Dick and Harry has access to digital altering techniques, should we perhaps start to differenciate between 2documentary photography2 on one side and "digital painting" on the other?

peasant

Paulw wrote: »

There is a large difference between processing your images in photoshop and digital imagery, which uses photoshop to create images rather than photographs.

Maybe you'll come to understand the difference once you start taking digital images.

I understand the difference between processing and imagery ...the problem is that on the finished product it is sometimes impossible to tell whether the picture was simply processed/cropped or massively enhanced or even altered.

Paulw

Are you trying to imply that there is no way to alter a film photograph to produce something false?

As with anything, there are ways and means to determine what is original and what is added.

There is clearly a vast difference between a digital photograph and digital art.

Photographers use applications like Photoshop to "develop" their digital image in to a photograph.

amcinroy

peasant wrote: »

There are many examples where a simple documentary photograph has convicted criminals...

I think what you are talking about now is specific to scientific recording. I got the impression from your OP that you were critical of general amateur photoshoppery.

Live and let live I say. My personal style is go easy with the photoshop tools. ,but I have utmost respect for digital art photography when it is done well.

Andy

peasant

Paulw wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that there is no way to alter a film photograph to produce something false?

As with anything, there are ways and means to determine what is original and what is added.

Of course I'm aware that analog pictures can and have been altered ...it just didn't happen on such a massive scale as with digital pictures, especially not for amateur photographers who didn't have access to a lab and had to live with whatever the shop returned.

amcinroy wrote: »

I think what you are talking about now is specific to scientific recording. I got the impression from your OP that you were critical of general amateur photoshoppery.

Yes, I am a bit critical of general photoshoppery as it ,while a skill in itself, takes away the hard work out of composing and exposing the picture properly before you take it.

Cabaal

People have been editing photos for years, my family recently found some old portraits in the atic dating from the 1900's, they processed the photos so it was very white and then used carcoal to darken parts of the photo...you can actually touch the carcoal and it comes off on your hands.

So photoshop is nothing new
it was just low-tech years ago,

nilhg

peasant wrote: »

This probably has been done before, but I couldn't find a thread on it ...so here it goes:

Personally (and I stress the term personally) I think Photoshop & all digital image processery is the devil re-incarnated

I come from the school of hard knocks (i.e analog photography) where having shot a film of 36 exposures upon getting the pictures back you realised you still had a lot to learn, as only three or four of them were decent.

With a digital camera you can shoot x exposures of the same object, pick the best one and then photoshop it to perfection.

Where is the photographer's skill in that?

Digitally processed pictures also have the side effect that these days you really can't believe your eyes anymore.

From blatantly photoshopped images (somebodies head on somebody elses body), to airbrushed pictures of stars/celebrities who look like different people in real life, to simple landscape pictures in travel magazines or holiday brochures that conveniently omit the less beautiful parts of the local scenery, to just everyday shots by everyday photogrophers that depict scenes that simply don't exist in such glory or splendour.

In my opinion all processed images should carry an automatic, indelible watermark so that everyone could see at first glance that the original image was fiddled with.

The "new" digital SLR is supposed to arrive in the next few days ...I hope I will be able to resist the temptations of digital cheating and post "real" pictures here. We'll see ...


Opinions?

I'd be interested to know where do you draw the line, will it be out of the box settings only, or will you play around with the scene modes on your new camera or even fiddle with some of the more advanced features (the likes of SAT, ect)

When you take the shots off the card and on to the computer will you even use the basic adjustments that you can do on any basic image editor (curves, levels, contrast.....)

I will also be interested to know if you still feel the same way in 6 months time.

mike65

:thumbs up: from me peasant

Getting back a roll of sh1te pixs is (or was) part of learning, manipulation for aesthetic reasons is fine, but using it to "fix" badly taken shots is another matter. If you can't use an exposure meter - learn to!

Mike.

amcinroy

Sigh,

(shakes head and walks away)

magicbastarder

amcinroy wrote: »

Digital photography has only opened people's eyes to the fake that photography has always been, right from its very birth

i think you're overstating the case a bit; stating that photography has never been a truly documentary medium begs the question as to what is?

amcinroy

magicbastarder wrote: »

stating that photography has never been a truly documentary medium begs the question as to what is?

Our own sight and memory. That's about it.

The rest is propoganda. Photography is only a documetary medium under very strict conditions.

deaddonkey

Kinda on the same subject

Is it cheating to clone out a mic stand that's sticking out in a concert photograph?



I've cloned it out, obviously, but is that too much and does it mean i should have positioned myself to not have it in the pic in the first place? I tend not to notice things like that in the head of the moment...

mike65

Poor framing is well, poor! I'd prefer to leave it in, it indicates the subject sings as well.

Mike.

peasant

deaddonkey wrote: »

Kinda on the same subject

Is it cheating to clone out a mic stand that's sticking out in a concert photograph?



I've cloned it out, obviously, but is that too much and does it mean i should have positioned myself to not have it in the pic in the first place? I tend not to notice things like that in the head of the moment...

That's exactly what I'm on about ...if you can remove the microphone by cropping the picture , fine (it might have hidden in the 5% of the image that are not in the viewfinder) ...if you have to "clone" it because it's well in the way and spoils everything, then you took the wrong picture to start with.

amcinroy

You are only cheating in photography if your customers or employer say so.

I personally would have no concerns about removing the mic.

m_stan

done to death alright ... but seeing as I'm here ...

to me photoshopping is part of the process of producing a digital image in the same way as processing in the lab is part of the process of producing a film image.

while I understand it can be overdone, and it's easier to do and much more accessible than it used to be, its the same deal. just in a different format. the format changes nothing.

I agree that the more you can do on camera alone, the better. Same on digital as film. Again, the format changes nothing. (seeing a trend in my argument?)

personally, I can produce much more pleasing photgraphy when using a combination of the knowlegde I have of the gear I am using, and my abilities in front of image processing software. I can create something thats really quite good that otherwise I would not be able to if I took what came out of the camera alone. the end result gives me much more satisfaction AND I enjoy the process (excuse the pun) more - to me thats justification enough

Spyral

TBH I see lots of pictures where its totally unrealistic and would be impossible to take 'naturally'. While the picture, for it is a picture not a photograph, looks striking it also looks v. fake.

I'm not against some manipulations that can be done but excessive photoshoppery annoys me

Valentia

peasant wrote: »

I come from the school of hard knocks (i.e analog photography) where having shot a film of 36 exposures upon getting the pictures back you realised you still had a lot to learn, as only three or four of them were decent.

Oh dear YAWN!!
Have you ever developed your own film, used a lab to develop your film or used a filter on your camera?

If so then your image has been "photoshopped" in one way or another. Are you really telling me that you let your photos loose to public viewing without any manipulation? If so what camera are you using? It's possible the camera is doing the "photoshopping" for you, you know. Most decent SLR RAW output is purposefully neutral so that it can be "developed". Have you ever seen the amount of detail that is in a negative. Without selective processing this detail is lost. PS facilitates this process on a digital level.

It's like everything else, less is better. Just because some people don't do that with PS doesn't mean you should generalise. 95% of the time I just smidgen my shots with PS. Occasionally the humour takes me to go further.

Cabaal

this topic is done to death and more, fully agree with Valentia

peasant

Valentia wrote: »

Are you really telling me that you let your photos loose to public viewing without any manipulation?

Remember diapositives?

Sort the good from the bad and throw the good ones on the wall

elven

There are many different kinds of photography and photoshop/manipulation has a different role to play in most of them. I think it's very dangerous to go making sweeping statements like "Personally (and I stress the term personally) I think Photoshop & all digital image processery is the devil re-incarnated" when you haven't actually seen what you can do, on your own, with a digital camera.

It's easy enough to pick out the heavily maniulated stuff from the relatively 'realistic' but that is even only relevant if you consider photography to be a truly representational medium. Discounting the fact that you have to choose a lens, a viewpoint, and frame a shot which immediately makes it non-objective, you're translating something that's 3 dimensional into a flat scene - how close are you ever going to get to reality from there? Anyway, I think it's wrong for people to go touting things that are cloned and the likes as 'reality', but my own perspective of photography is an aesthetic one so I couldn't give a monkeys if someone made the grass greener or the shadows blacker... never mind the fact that they could inevitably have done the same thing through choice of film and processing. The same as vaseline on the lens or starburst/prism filters, it can be done well and it can be done badly - and it isn't dependent on digital.

If you don't like heavily manipulated stuff, don't look at it. I'm not keen on black & white street photography, and although there's a huge amount of it out there, I somehow manage to resist calling it the root of all evil...

Are you friends with Ken Rockwell, by any chance? :rolleyes:

Calina

peasant wrote: »

This probably has been done before, but I couldn't find a thread on it ...so here it goes:

Personally (and I stress the term personally) I think Photoshop & all digital image processery is the devil re-incarnated

I come from the school of hard knocks (i.e analog photography) where having shot a film of 36 exposures upon getting the pictures back you realised you still had a lot to learn, as only three or four of them were decent.

With a digital camera you can shoot x exposures of the same object, pick the best one and then photoshop it to perfection.

Where is the photographer's skill in that?

Digitally processed pictures also have the side effect that these days you really can't believe your eyes anymore.

From blatantly photoshopped images (somebodies head on somebody elses body), to airbrushed pictures of stars/celebrities who look like different people in real life, to simple landscape pictures in travel magazines or holiday brochures that conveniently omit the less beautiful parts of the local scenery, to just everyday shots by everyday photogrophers that depict scenes that simply don't exist in such glory or splendour.

In my opinion all processed images should carry an automatic, indelible watermark so that everyone could see at first glance that the original image was fiddled with.

The "new" digital SLR is supposed to arrive in the next few days ...I hope I will be able to resist the temptations of digital cheating and post "real" pictures here. We'll see ...


Opinions?

peasant wrote: »

Of course I'm aware that analog pictures can and have been altered ...it just didn't happen on such a massive scale as with digital pictures, especially not for amateur photographers who didn't have access to a lab and had to live with whatever the shop returned.



Yes, I am a bit critical of general photoshoppery as it ,while a skill in itself, takes away the hard work out of composing and exposing the picture properly before you take it.

Yes. I have an opinion - this is a monumentally elitist position to take. You are implying that it was okay in teh past because the common person couldn't do it by merit of not having access to the tools of the trade. So that for those who did, it was somehow alright.

Boards is playing up so I do not know when I will get to post this.

Firstly, you are not the only person who came from the school of hard knocks. I shot film from the time I was 11 years old until I was 33. I shot 110 film and 35mm. I remember when you used to have to post the colour film away and wait weeks for Bonusprint to send it back because to get it done through the local chemist cost a fortune. My holiday snaps used to come back two months after I did. Postcards were faster. I know all about the school of hard knocks. I know about films not loading correctly and not winding on so that although you thought you had 36 pictures of something beautiful, in fact, you had 0 because the film didn't catch in the fully manual camera. I used to think autofocus was cheating, you know. I did everything manually and I am a graduate of the school of hard knocks photographically speaking. I learned to take the photograph at the moment I hit the shutter.

If you honestly think that digital imaging processing is the devil reincarnated, and you have time to think about this, you clearly have too much time on your hands and an overly closed mind.

It is extremely emotive to accuse people of "digitally cheating" when they use processing software and it displays an arrogance beyond belief that your way is the only way of seeing things. However, it is not. I wonder why you went digital since you seem to have so many issues with it.

You've been reminded that in fact, film photography equally allowed for jiggery pokery and your response is to imply that it's somehow alright for no other reasons - that I can see that a) it's hard and b) not everyone could do it. If it is wrong in principle, then it is wrong for both film and digital. Allow it for film and you will have to in principle allow it in digital photography.

It's also worth recognising that implying that there is no skill involved in using Photoshop displays a level of ignorance which is breathtaking. It takes a huge amount of skill to use Photoshop effectively. You don't appear to understand that and to disregard that skill is evidence of a closed mind.

You are at liberty not to use the tools. However, your opinion is worth no more than those who do choose to use the tools.

Regards.

amcinroy

A short history of the hatred of photography
by Andy McInroy

Now - I hate Photoshoppery
1988 - I hate Digital
1977 - I hate Autofocus
1948 - I hate Polaroid
1938 - I hate Autoexposure
1913 - I hate 35mm
1885 - I hate Film
1855 - I hate Dryplates
1826 - I hate Pewter
Earlier - I hate everything

Thirdfox

In agreeing with what most of the posters have said above - by ignoring improvements in technology and criticising those who use it you leave yourself open to be labelled a luddite and dinosaur.

In fact - the very fact that we are discussing this topic on an online forum should not be lost upon you. Is it any less of a real discussion than if it were in a boardroom meeting or via post? Just because it is more convenient and easier for people to meet and air their views does not mean we're not having a fruitful discussion?

Based on my analogy just because we have autofocus, auto-exposure, auto white balance etc. does not make it any less photography (or auto-levels in photoshop etc.) It depends on what you define photography by - if you say it is something hard that not everyone can do, well, that seems rather snobbish. But if you say that you enjoy the feeling of manually focusing a lens then I'll whole-heartedly agree - sometimes it's nice to have a manual focus and manual exposure photographic experience.

But I'm safe in the knowledge that if I need the extra features of my digital camera or software I can call them up to aid me in my photography.

Hugh_C

Paulw wrote: »

Maybe you'll come to understand the difference once you start taking digital images.

Oooooh!

Condescending or what?

Horses for courses - I generally use a bit of lightroom or photoshop to do a bit of cloning, toning and vignetting but I don't use the tools to materially alter the meaning of an image as I perceive it.

As far as pure, documentary street photography is concerned, I find it supremely dull. A bit like (running for cover here) gig photography, mic stands cloned or not.

I habitually use photoshop/lightroom to remove blemishes on film originated stuff, dust on the neg, hairs etc. This is in no way cheating as far as I'm concerned.

HDR on the other, hand is something I mostly abhor with the odd exception (sasar), looks fake and doesn't achieve what it's supposed to achieve. It should be unilaterally consigned to Room 101.

Hugh_C

amcinroy

Hugh_C wrote: »

HDR..... looks fake and doesn't achieve what it's supposed to achieve. It should be unilaterally consigned to Room 101.

Another sweeping and absurd statement that is ignorant in the extreme.

And, I'll back up my comments with my own photographs
http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port.htm

Hugh_C

If you're going to quote me amcinroy, do not edit the quote prejudicially.

amcinroy wrote: »

Another sweeping and absurd statement that is ignorant in the extreme.

And, I'll back up my comments with my own photographs
http://www.andymcinroy.com/5port.htm

Your own HDR photographs are immaculate, beautiful and an exception amcinro, it's stuff like this I'm referring to (and challenging this photo and its ilk is neither absurd or ignorant):

Eirebear

Hugh, do you honestly think that photographers have only just started to use multiple exposures of one shot, combining them to give the desired effect?

"HDR" has been around as long as photography, and while i agree...90% of the time it looks bloody awful, i'd say this is more the fault of people using it the wrong way...or not doing it properly.

Calina

Hugh_C wrote: »

Horses for courses - I generally use a bit of lightroom or photoshop to do a bit of cloning, toning and vignetting but I don't use the tools to materially alter the meaning of an image as I perceive it.

As the photographer, it is up to you to define the meaning of the image as you perceive it. But it being a photograph, other people are free to define their own perception of the photograph. Once it's out there, to a certain extent, you no longer own the meaning of the photograph because people will insist on drawing their own meanings from it.

Hugh_C

Eirebear wrote: »

Hugh, do you honestly think that photographers have only just started to use multiple exposures of one shot, combining them to give the desired effect?

i do not disagree with you 'bear, I suppose dodging/burning in the darkroom was the precursor to HDR. But most of the monstrosities out there miss the point utterly.

It's that 90% that really turns me off HDR, with my apologies to amcinroy, I'd never seen his/her hdr images before.

Calina wrote:

But it being a photograph, other people are free to define their own perception of the photograph. Once it's out there, to a certain extent, you no longer own the meaning of the photograph because people will insist on drawing their own meanings from it.

But only after I've made my alterations are they free to interpret it. So to a large extent I "own" the meaning until I display the picture. I guess we're agreeing then.

Interestingly, I made a comment on a picture on flickr from a south African buddy of mine, who then went and replaced the picture with a completely different one. It made rubbish of the preceding comments and I called her on her "cheating". She saw nothing wrong with that, I did.

Hugh

peasant

I have no issue per se with digital imagery, anyone can fiddle with their picture as much as they like ...

...as long as they say that they did afterwards.

But these days very few people do and it is so hard to tell sometimes if you're actually looking at a superbly taken photographic picture or a skillfully crafted digital "painting".

I have no problem admiring good artwork, I do feel cheated however if such artwork is passed off as "a little snapshot I took the other day ...and amen't I a brilliant photographer ?"

It's like it is with women ...I can appreciate a well dressed and well made up woman, but to decide if she's beautiful or not I'd like to see her in street clothes and without make-up

PS: the same comments and attitude also applies to edited analog images ...just to be clear

m_stan

Hugh_C wrote: »

i do not disagree with you 'bear, I suppose dodging/burning in the darkroom was the precursor to HDR. But most of the monstrosities out there miss the point utterly.

It's that 90% that really turns me off HDR, with my apologies to amcinroy, I'd never seen his/her hdr images before.




But only after I've made my alterations are they free to interpret it. So to a large extent I "own" the meaning until I display the picture. I guess we're agreeing then.

Interestingly, I made a comment on a picture on flickr from a south African buddy of mine, who then went and replaced the picture with a completely different one. It made rubbish of the preceding comments and I called her on her "cheating". She saw nothing wrong with that, I did.


Hugh

the whole 'replace' thing in flickr is well weird. if you replace something, it should kill all previous comments/faves - any related history

Calina

regardless of how the image was created, there is skill involved. If you feel cheated by the application of skill, then that is *your* issue and not anyone else's. Either way you are making a qualitative judgment on what constitutes acceptable skill and cheating skill.

As far as photography is concerned, you might as well make an argument that once you use anything more complex than a pinhole camera, then it takes away from the skill of creating something special. Ultimately although some good photographs come about by chance, they are rarely little snapshots that anyone took the other day. The skill is there. I can't figure out whether you recognise that skill or not. I'm suspecting however, that this is more prejudicial than rational.

Eirebear

At the end of the day, if it looks good to you...or to the viewer, then that is all that matters.

90% of the time photographers are actually using information that is already contained in the file (especially when shooting RAW) and bringing it out in processing.
For me this does not constitute what you call "cheating"

Any photographer worth their salt will go out to take the best photograph they possibly can, framing, composition, exposure, timing etc etc.
Most will then go and process it in the editing software of their choice....much as a film photographer would in the darkroom.

As soon as you start adding information that wasnt there in the first place you are looking at digital imaging, or manipulation, which in its own right is every bit as artistic (and possibly more creative) than taking a "quick snapshot".

If you dont take a good photograph in the first place, you wont get great results no matter what you try to do with it.

Proccessing is handy for fixing little things, like dirt on the lens or a slightly skewed horizon etc, but if the photograph is completely off, you will only manage to "rescue" it, this may be ok for the average consumer photographer, but not for anyone who see's themself as someone who actually takes good photographs.

Fenster

Scathing counter-point and veiled insinuations regarding the original poster's parentage. Bored reference to dead horses and sticks.

Gleefully spiteful exaltation of victory.

Eirebear

Fenster wrote: »

Bored reference to dead horses and sticks.

I dont completely agree with this either.

Just because we have discussed it over and over again doesnt mean that someone completely new to digital photography wont have the same issues to face as many of us did when we started out.

I was actually very like the OP when i first started, and refused to use editing software for anything other than resizing and cropping. i soon realised that every photo could do with a little help now and then.

peasant

Calina wrote: »

Ultimately although some good photographs come about by chance, they are rarely little snapshots that anyone took the other day.

Then why am I under the impression that quite few "photographers" spend hours on editing a picture just so that they can pass it on to the unsuspecting viewer as just that "little snap" they took by chance the other day?

Because there is more "photographic kudos" in the perfect, unaltered image, isn't there? Simply because it is so bloody hard to achieve

Why are there so few people out there that post the initial photograph next to the edited end result and then look for acclaim for their editing skills?

Paulw

The only time I would spend any amount of time using photoshop (or similar) on a photo would be either wedding or portrait photos, since you want to give the client the best possible image.

Other than that (like the rugby game Saturday), it took me 30 min to process all my images and have them online.

Some images require more adjustments than other - white balance, exposure adjustment and maybe some saturation.

As for posting a before and after ... posting a raw image is not much good to anyone since it is raw and requires processing.

Would it be any good to show someone your roll of film before you send it to the lab for processing?

TelePaul

Fenster wrote: »

Scathing counter-point and veiled insinuations regarding the original poster's parentage. Bored reference to dead horses and sticks.

Gleefully spiteful exaltation of victory.

High five!

ThOnda

There is NOT anything that could be called "real" or "true" photography. For the first. The most altered type of photography is black and white. Because the 2D picture of 3D smelly reality is transformed to shades of gray. Not to mention spectral sensitivity of films with(out) using filters.

For the second - exposure, film development, printing - all those processes require skills and could be altered if you want to know more about it. If you only made the exposure and left everything else for the lab, it was only your choice not to use another two steps in creative process called photography.

Yes, I do agree that some pictures look awful. Because of post processing. But there were and there are tons of prints from films that look even worse.

Photography is visual art and it's product is a picture on the screen or on the wall. Art is defined as the (creative) idea behind the final product.

If you have decided not to do something, not to use some of possible tools, not to learn how the new technologies can enhance and enrich your creativity, please, don't say that it is wrong or not right.

For love of Jaysus, people, be creative, be open minded and use the possibility to choose what to do and what to see!

I am hungry again from such arguments.... :-(

amcinroy

OK, so far I've defended the use of photoshop. I can see hints at what Peasant is really getting at regarding truth and reality in photography. At a deeper level his points have some merit although his criticism of "photoshoppery" isn't well thought out.

Here's my take on it.

The viewer really doesn't know what the photographer is claiming when they first see a photograph. In fact, the viewer, particularly a non photographer viewer, will start by assuming that what they are seeing is factual and based on reality unless they see something obviously odd or amiss in the photo.

However, if they make this factual assumption and then they later discover significant manipulation, they will almost certainly feel cheated. This is a problem. The photographer may therefore be wise to state upfront exactly what they have done. Digital manipulation can sometimes be detected by the eagle eyed viewer and if it is to work it needs to be done incredibly well. If you don't declare it and you get found out you may lose respect from your viewer or customer.

It's all about assumptions. Nobody feels deceived by the antics of the film "mission impossible". But a film like "touching the void" has an assumed accuracy. If Joe Simpson now told us that he was never anywhere near that mountain would you feel cheated?. I sure would. I'm sure if Tom Cruise told you likewise, you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

I think we have missed a very important point. What does the viewer expect from the picture? And with every viewer comes with a different set of expectations and assumptions.

Here's one final example to illustrate my point. I know a photographer who cloned a lightning bolt into his landscape image. I personally don't feel cheated by this because he told me what he had done. What would happen though if I were a customer and had bought the image to later to find it was a manipulation. I personally would have a problem with that.

Hugh_C

amcinroy wrote: »

It's all about assumptions. Nobody feels deceived by the antics of the film "mission impossible". But a film like "touching the void" has an assumed accuracy. If Joe Simpson now told us that he was never anywhere near that mountain would you feel cheated?. I sure would. I'm sure if Tom Cruise told you likewise, you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

[tangentially]

As it happened in Touching the Void, the "action" took place far from the chattering classes so nobody knows what happened on that mountain other than that a 21 year old and a 24 year old had their lives changes unutterably. And possibly the Third Man (whose name I forget).

There were rumours of further breakdown between the two during the making of the film - incidentally one of the best pieces of drama I've ever seen. I stress drama though. The piece was highly subjective both from the two main protagonists, the film maker and the "film climbers". It's all an interpretation, a collaboration. It's all about assumptions.

Fenster

TelePaul wrote: »

High five!

Mutual exclamation!

elven

Andy, that's a good point, and well put across.

It's something I've seen plenty of with non-photographers, and it always pained me to see anything I did written off without twice a thought, once i mentioned that I had processed it. What I'm interested in, though, is what's the difference between someone exaggerating the colours by using velvia rather than 400 ISO print film, and someone using photoshop to give it some pop? Did nobody question the unrealistic colours with slide film?

Valentia

elven wrote: »

Andy, that's a good point, and well put across.

It's something I've seen plenty of with non-photographers, and it always pained me to see anything I did written off without twice a thought, once i mentioned that I had processed it. What I'm interested in, though, is what's the difference between someone exaggerating the colours by using velvia rather than 400 ISO print film, and someone using photoshop to give it some pop? Did nobody question the unrealistic colours with slide film?

There's one thing that has always puzzled me. Do I see colours the same as everyone else and do they see colours the same as me? I reckon not. So where does that leave us?

Eirebear

Valentia wrote: »

There's one thing that has always puzzled me. Do I see colours the same as everyone else and do they see colours the same as me? I reckon not. So where does that leave us?

Did i really read this? Or is it all just a dream?;)

nilhg

Valentia wrote: »

There's one thing that has always puzzled me. Do I see colours the same as everyone else and do they see colours the same as me? I reckon not. So where does that leave us?

Probably closer to philosophy than photography.....





And needing a pint or two.........

amcinroy

elven wrote: »

What I'm interested in, though, is what's the difference between someone exaggerating the colours by using velvia rather than 400 ISO print film, and someone using photoshop to give it some pop?

A good question Elven and really there is no difference other than the fact that using a specific film stock standardises the enhancement to saturation. We've all seen images in magazines that are labelled as shot on Velvia so we understand the transfer function between the photograph and the reality. Therefore we don't feel cheated. Digital manipulation has no such standardisation.

However, the arguement becomes even more complex when film stock is scanned and then enhanced further. The standardisation is lost and the viewer can again feel suspicious and cheated.

I do feel that the layman's faith in "honest photography" has probably taken a knock as they discovered digital imaging for themselves. But my arguement is that this faith has always been unfounded. They haven't realised the deception of photography because, before now, it was going on behind a technical closed door.

It's now clear for all to see.