BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/17/2005
 

Disclosing Use of Digital Enhancement


Should photographers be required to disclose whether an image has been "retouched" in Photoshop or otherwise enhanced digitally? If "yes" why, if "no" then why not?
Mark


To love this question, log in above
12/5/2005 2:22:47 PM

 
Jennifer W
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/26/2005
  If it's stuff that can be done in a darkroom to film, then no.

If it's stuff like removing a power pole or changing a color or "big things", I think it should be revealed in certain arenas. If you turn it into a greeting card, for example, who cares how the image was created since the photograph isn't the point, the sentiment created by the image on the card is? But for other situations (that I can't think of off the top of my head), I think it should be revealed.


To love this comment, log in above
12/5/2005 2:43:20 PM

 
Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/17/2005
  Thanks Jennifer ! Good points, all of them. Any one else? How about stating whether a photo has been enhanced when it's posted on this site?


To love this comment, log in above
12/5/2005 4:04:57 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Interesting question, Mark! I don't think basic editing needs to be disclosed, but adding it sure won't hurt anything. As far as the contest is concerned, from my experience adding a "buzz" or otherwise artistic interpretation to a photo isn't discouraged at BP in any category. I've seen winners from GP to 2nd in just about every category that's had manipulation and often times it's not noted. BP asks that you make note of the fact, however, I don't think it's a requirement. Here's a link to the Photo Contest Categories. Towards the bottom of the page is a statement regarding manipulation.

http://www.betterphoto.com/contest/categories.asp


To love this comment, log in above
12/5/2005 5:07:10 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Mark Feldstein is applying for a job at Ritz?
Removing "big things" (as well as adding) can be and has been done with film. Example would be the pictures used to get people to move out to the midwest prior to the Dust Bowl. If you saw them you wouldn't believe people could be that naive.
Photo to show something that actually happened(photo of a game, photo of nature) or photo to show you were able to get the photo at the right moment(same examples) you all know you shouldn't add anything.
Mag cover photos of celebs, as well as their headshots, always retouched. But entering a contest is all about intent. You're intending to show abiltiy, or what you were able to do at a certain moment. You have to do something with photoshop to make it look like you can take certain kinds of pictures when you haven't(or can't), wrong. It's not a skill nor should credit be given if you have a picture and you say it would look better if something were in the frame, like the ball in a volleyball picture. Everybody knows that.
You're entering to show what kind of ideas or image you can make using photoshop, no reall need to say what you did if it's an image you look at and you can immediately tell it's photoshopped.
Picture of a grizzly hunting salmon at a waterfall, jaws open about to catch salmon in mid air, couple of inches away. Real photo. But if somebody tried to do the same picture but didn't, then added a fish in later, that's wrong to me. Even if it's something on your wall, once people see it and tell you good photo, you need to tell them how you got it like that.
But if you're doing a photo and you have to use two background paper rolls, which leaves a visible seam done the middle. It's not a big deal to clone out the seam.


To love this comment, log in above
12/5/2005 6:14:41 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  ther are many learning photographers who come here to bp who would like to become better photographers.if they see a picture they like and want to take one like it from the settings stated,they will not get the same results and become frustrated because it wasn't revealed that photoshop was used.of course I shoot film and don't have a clue about ps,so maybe i'm jealous?
sam


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 2:10:44 PM

 
Bob Fately   To Jennifer's point, I agree that much of the answer has to do with intent. Current events/news and scientific photos are of a different ilk than artistic or commercial work.

If Osama really went fishing with George W, then it's a news shot. If someone at the Daily Mirror just did a paste-up job, or, equivalently, put them together with Photoshop, then that factoid should be publicly noted.

On the other hand, in the case of an "artistic" shot of the desert, in which the MacDonald's sign was carefully removed, what's the difference? The point of the art (or craft) is to put in front of the viewer the image in the shooter's "mind's eye". The vision is the thing - how it is executed is a matter of craft.

One shooter might wait all day for the light to be "just right", another takes the scene quickly and overlays a beautiful sky shot taken 5 years earlier. Did the latter shot actually "happen"? Obviously not. But does it matter to the viewer? If the judge viewing the shots is more impressed with the shot where Photoshop was used, it makes not a whit of difference.

Or the industrial photog who shoots the factory but needs to replace some broken windows? Or the National Geographic shooter who, for maximal impact, uses PS to place some additonal zebras in the shot to make the herd seem bigger and more vibrant?

Photography, at least in the artistic and commercial worlds, is not a contest to see who has the most patience or the bestest gear or the most timely luck. It's about using the skillset involved to create on a 2-D plane some vision that the taker had in the first place.

And how does Gregory manage to make every message a 24 point screaming font, anyway?


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 2:46:56 PM

 
Kerry L. Walker   Photoshop. lol


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 2:57:31 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Well said, Bob! I don't know how Gregory did that unless he used HTML somehow. It's bigger than life for sure LOL.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 3:23:08 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Kerry's too funny.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 3:28:59 PM

 
Linda S. Pearson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/27/2005
  As a learning amateur, I would like to know whether a photo has been edited in PhotoShop or any other program. If they are enhanced in any way, I would like to know. This way I am not beating myself up all the time because I can't get the same great shot.
Linda


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 7:12:55 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  I know of a BP member that used to simply state, "modified in PS" for most editing or manipulation. I guess that gives most viewers an idea the photo has been edited to some extent without giving everything away. I would imagine some people are reluctant to disclose everything they do knowing that it's likely to be copied especially if it's successful in the contest.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 7:58:48 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  ! points mean screaming, not letter size. Viewer wouldn't mind seeing a zebra heard with wilderbeast on the Serengeti in national geographic if the heard were made up of pictures only from your local zoo. That's a real budget saver. And I realize that some people make a difference in how many you add to the heard, but when you're passing off something that wasn't actually there, to me that's wrong. And I do know that is something other people are happy with.
The fascination and the admiration of some types of photos comes from the intent on showing what was there. The reason why landscapes and nature photos are a favorite is because of natural beauty. You see a wolf or moose pass by on a ridge and are fascinated. You're not fascinated to see a ridge and say, lets pretend a wolf stood at the top of that ridge.
Cut a picture of a receiver from one photo, add to a photo of a db, use the transform to rotate the receiver, use some cloning to smooth the background, finished product is a picture taken at the moment the db flips the receiver right when he catches the ball. Viewer likes it. Still makes a difference. But, it's still a part of whether or not you personally think it's okay or not. Some do, some don't.
A


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 9:05:12 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  i like that size crayon.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 10:05:26 PM

 
Jennifer W
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/26/2005
  "Or the National Geographic shooter who, for maximal impact, uses PS to place some additonal zebras in the shot to make the herd seem bigger and more vibrant?"

I'd be furious if I found out this were actually true. More than half the reason I subscribe to NG is the pictures.

I agree with Gregory, though I wish his posts were easier to read. :P

As for on BP, I always note if I did anything in Photoshop - grayscale, tweak contrast, etc. just so people know. The intent thing again. My intent is for my pictures here to represent my skill (or lack thereof), so I can get feedback on that skill.

I wish people would at least put "altered in PS", but letting me know exactly how would be helpful for my learning process (which I realize isn't the reason why 99.9% of the people are members - to help me - but still. ;)).


" I would imagine some people are reluctant to disclose everything they do knowing that it's likely to be copied especially if it's successful in the contest."

I don't see how this is a problem for the original artist. Painters learn how to do Monet's or Rembrandt's paitning techniques, and it doesn't take anything away from their paintings. People even copy "master" paintings, and it still doesn't take away from the original's grandeur. It just helps the learners grow in their own way.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2005 10:19:25 PM

 
Diane Dupuis
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/27/2003
  Greg - nothing personal but the fonts are truly annoying!
Jennifer - you probably haven't been around BP that long - but it's very annoying to think you've created an original shot to find the next month everyone is copying you and doing the same thing. I'm sure Monet and Rembrandt didn't sit down with all their admirers and teach everyone how they did it. I think saying modified in PS is plenty. The contest doesn't insist that we divulge all - and sometimes you can work on something for a long time and I never write down every step I took to create my "Masterpiece"... So even if someone asked - I couldn't give a detailed blow by blow of how I created it.
That's the joy of PS and other programs like it - exploring, learning how to do new things.
It's like having the best cookie recipe in town. If you give everyone that same recipe - then your cookies are no longer special. So some people like to give out some info about their shots - but don't expect a full recipe - it's not happening...
If you really like how someone did something - feel free to e-mail them directly and ask. Many BPers are very friendly and more than willing to help. And others can't be bothered answering you...


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 3:34:37 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Not worried. Some fonts come out looking better than others.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 4:11:55 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Just as an observation, you hardly ever see anyone ask in a Q&A why a photographer doesn't disclose which lens they used or what the camera settings were. It's always about Photoshop. There are many unique special effects that can be obtained with camera settings and technique, yet the only thing I see questioned is whether the photo has been manipulated or not. If manipulation were an issue with BP they would ask to see an unedited version of the file. If it doesn't bother BP that photos are manipulated with little or no explanation it doesn't bother me. If I'm really curious I email the photog. It's rare to find someone here that won't answer you.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 6:59:00 AM

 
Bob Fately   Boy, this subject gets beaten to death in a lot of photography forums!

First - Jennifer - the Geographic story is true - happened a couple of years ago and it did create a bit of a furor. I believe it was for a cover shot, actually - there was a gap in the shot of a herd of zebra that the photographer (editor? I don't know) decided would look beter with a zebra in it.

Back to the original issue - which boils down to "what constitutes manipulation?"

If a fast lens speed used, leading to shallow depth of field and blurring out of the background, is that manipulation? The human eye/brain visual perception system does not defocus backgrounds per se.

If a filter (warming, polarizing) was used, does that constitute manipulation? The flesh tones weren't "really" that warm, or the sky that deep a blue...

If a PC lens (or view camera) is tilted and shifted to change the plane of focus or perspective, is that manipulation?

If the original shot included a telephone pole on the left side, but the final image is cropped to exclude that pole, is that manipulation? What if PS is used to rotate the shot slightly to make the horizon level?

If high contrast film or paper (or their equivalent operations in PS) is used, is that manipulation?

If the shot was underexposed and then recovered by overdevelopment (film) or corrections (PS) is that manipulation?

If a zebra is installed into the gap in a heard, is that manipulation?

Obviously, the final question's answer is yes - but the follow-up question is "does it matter?" For that matter, where does one draw the line between acceptable/inherent and forced manipulations that must be disclosed to some governing body?

As I said previoiusly, in the journalistic and scientific worlds, where the photographs are a tool to transfer knowledge of some sort to the viewer, then alterations are either unacceptable altogether or should be clearly noted. But in the artistic and commercial worlds, where there is no such intent of edumacation, it really isn't important if the image was tweaked in some way. Remember the bru-ha-ha some years ago when it was made public that a cover shot of Michelle Pfeiffer (forgot which magazine) had some thousands of dollars worth of retouching? If the tabloids didn't make a big stink over it, would anyone have really cared? Or does anyone think that all those models and celebrities in the media are completely naturally beautiful, and no retouching is ever done? If so, then I say "hi, and welcome to reality!"

To those who 'want to see how it was done in PS was used', I can only say - well, that's why you want training. And if you're reading a book on how to use gaussian blur in PS then certainly the instructions should include all of the details. But for a beautiful image with a blurred out background, presented as the incarnation of what the photographer wanted the viewer to see, it doesn't really matter if she took the shot at f1.2 or used PS to knock out and blur the background.

PS is just a tool for retouching, folks - get over it if you think that all the pictures in your daddys' days were untouched. It's just that digital technology has brought along with it the ability for more folks to make use of the same techniques that have been used for decades.

It's the same with music - if you hear a lovely piece of music, must you know if it was played on "real" instruments or digital midi equipment? Does the latter reduce the beauty you originally heard in the piece?

Again, if it's for training purposes, obviously the technique must be described. But there is no implicit obligation to tell the (appreciative) viewing public that "oh, and this shot was sharpened with a radius of 4 pixels)".


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 7:52:01 AM

 
Diane Dupuis
BetterPhoto Member Since: 12/27/2003
  Well said!


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 8:28:21 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  "Boy, this subject gets beaten to death in a lot of photography forums!"

It gets beaten to death here too, but it's always fun even if Gregory is using HUGE colorful text LOL. Hey Gregory, what did you do with Granny???


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 8:32:14 AM

 
Jennifer W
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/26/2005
  I'll have to go look up info about that NG story. :( I know about fashion magazines and stuff, but I always liked thinking that NG photographers actually caught that moment. Call me naive. :)

All good points, Bob. Never thought of it that way.

Sharon, I like to know that lens/filter/aperture, etc. information. Maybe it's how I learn, but since getting my digital that remembers that information for me ('cause I sometimes didn't/wouldn't take the time to write it down in a notebook) and I can look at a variety of shots and read what the aperture, focal length, shutter, etc. were, I'm learning faster what works. Just reading it in a book wasn't doing it for me. So seeing other people's pictures with that information helps me even more.

I sort of get what you're saying, though, Sharon; but I guess since I haven't ever created anything worthy of copying, I just can't get it fully. :/

Plus, I'm a "share my recipe with everyone" kind of girl. I always share my recipes for anything. I never did understand people who wouldn't share their cookie recipes. =)


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 10:05:35 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  I'll share recipes but not with people I work with LOL. Next thing you know they're taking your favorite dish to the party :o). The only time I really find shutter speeds interesting is when it's a special effect. It's really helpful to know what shutter speed someone used to get an abstract image of a grove of trees or the smooth silky effect on a waterfall, but for an average scene I don't find it too useful. You can underexpose drastically and still make an image useable in PS CS with the highlight/shadow tool.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 10:31:13 AM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  We can talk about some fonts are naturally bigger than others


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 1:27:52 PM

 
Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/17/2005
  I just LOVE a good controversy. Sharon's comment is particularly interesting to me. I think a lot of us "older timers" (speaking for myself only, of course) can look at an unedited photo in many instances and tell you what kind of lens was used and basically what setting, like f-stop, or close.

It just seems to me that since digital came of age, rather than teaching photographers we have pixel technicians. I don't object to that, per se, but what I object to is when a pixel tech creates an image electronically that a photographer who knows his / her craft, could do in the camera on film and darkroom on paper.

So yes, I do think any time an image is modified or digitally enhanced / modified, regardless of the photo's use or what was enhanced, I think that should be disclosed. I also believe that's especially true around BP.com, for the reasons someone else stated so well. Someone tries to create a similar image to one posted here and can't because it was photoshopped to one degree or another. So around here, I think it should always be disclosed and in detail.

You know everything is better when it sits on a Ritz. So Greg, relax and have a seat. Oh, and did you order those new pixels you needed?
M.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 2:52:11 PM

 
Linda S. Pearson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/27/2005
  I don't want to steal anyone's ideas or anything. I am learning and since this is a learning site, I think photographers should just mention if they touched up a photo. They don't need to tell me what they did, just that they did.
I am not that familiar with cameras, lens, filters, etc. so it helps me to know whether the photo presented is as it was taken or was it enhanced with software.
Linda


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 6:27:40 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Sometimes a pixel tech fits into the plans and budget better. If the job goes to him, deal with it and move on.

Don't need new pixels right now. Taking care of the ones I use now.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 7:34:32 PM

 
Corinne M. Thompson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/31/2005
  Hi everyone....hope you dont mind if I butt in. I too am fairly new to this site, and I agree with Linda P.'s comments. I'll leave now! ;)


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 7:45:47 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Well, I plan on entering one tomorrow that is manipulated, enhanced and totally messed with in PS :o)! I'll be sure and mention what I did as much as possible.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 8:29:04 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/28/2003
  Who would enforce it? And, who would do the audits to ensure that the claim that it is or is not PS'd is true or not?

Sounds like a big mess. Who cares? If you enjoy the image, that's all that matters. If you want to be a purist, then just simply be one. If you don't then you don't have to.

Digital photography has given us more choices. Most of the things you can do could be done with film, but it's easier now.

Jerry


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 8:45:43 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  LOL Jerry! There's always the manipulation police :D In all honesty I got out of the habit of making note of basic editing because I feel it doesn't really matter if you used curves or levels to make corrections. If you see images taken with a D70 that look good chances are the photog did some editing LOL.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 8:57:15 PM

 
Samuel Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 1/21/2004
  you can't butt in!each and all comments are welcome here.at least they let me put mine on here and i'm not really sure if they like them.
the jury is still out on wether I care or not.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 10:08:38 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  Very true, Samuel! You just have to wade in and post whatever you have to offer!


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2005 11:06:39 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  This is an annual every 32 days question anyway. 16 more days until the "will film be around if I buy a camera, or should I buy digital". So you'll have another chance.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 7:32:43 AM

 
Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/3/2005
  most people can see if the shots been manipulated and if you think it has, then just ask. I dont say if anyof mine are or not, not that im trying to decieve you all but I dont feel I have to. if I remove a powerline or tree limb, that is my perogative as the photographer. if I was submitting pics to a news article as proof of something..then its a different story. I guess its like saying, the original shot wasnt too sharp but you used unsharp mask and now it is... your a liar!!
lol
If anyone wants specifics on any of my shots, just click the "discuss photo" link under the pic and I will be happy to spill my guts!
Craig-


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 9:37:47 AM

 
Corinne M. Thompson
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/31/2005
  I for one can't always tell if someone has intentionally "blurred' a photo...so me being a kindly soul, sent a msg to one such person, saying that the picture didnt seem to be totally in focus. It wasnt the entire picture, just a small part of it. Mud in my face, when the response was, I did it on purpose. I think if they say that some blur is intentional, it would alleviate things like that. I wasnt being critical and didnt mean to offend the photographer :(.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 9:51:06 AM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
  Do "traditional" artists disclose what brush size they used or their formulas for mixing paint for different shades? Do "traditionl" artists disclose whether they traced a photo and used a Wacom tablet?

Do you consider photography an artform?

It's a new world and I think we need to embrace it.

As I see it, the problem is what to call the image. How much alteration changes the image from a photograph to "digital artwork" or is anything "born" in a camera still a photograph?


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 11:05:11 AM

 
Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/3/2005
  Joan's response brings up another point.... where or when does a photograph become more of a picture (art) than just a photograph? (even though photography IS an art form in itself) If you apply too much photoshopping, does the photo become a different type of art form? like a painting or drawing... in other words, for lack of a better term...digital-Art?

I think if you are Interested in knowing what was dont to the shot, ask. if not, just enjoy it.
ask me what I did and I will tell you, wanna know how I did it, ask.i will show you, want to know what to do or need advice? ask, I will try to help you.
Craig-


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 11:16:57 AM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
 
 
 
This is a photograph of bubble gum that was inside a large bubblegum machine; you know the round, colorful, hard shell gum... I filtered and manipulated it to get this abstract piece of artwork:


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 1:02:56 PM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
 
 
 
This is a photograph of bubble gum that was inside a large bubblegum machine; you know the round, colorful, hard shell gum... I filtered and manipulated it to get this abstract piece of artwork:


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 1:03:23 PM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
 
 
  stones and tiles
stones and tiles
Digital manipulation of the candy photo Bubba Gum. Effects from Paint Shop Pro.
© Joan Warburton
Nikon D70 Digital ...
 
 
OOoops:


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 1:05:43 PM

 
Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/3/2005
  wow...talk about manipulation gone wild..it looks more like some stones and some sort of tiles..not like bubble gum at all.
lol..... got ya!!!

ever the wise-A$$
Craig-


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 1:33:10 PM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
 
 
 
Here's the original photo. I call the piece "stones and tiles", LOL!


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 2:09:41 PM

 
Joan Warburton
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/28/2005
 
 
  Bubba Gum
Bubba Gum
autofocus, Bubba Gumps restaurant in Times Square, 12/7/05.
© Joan Warburton
Nikon D70 Digital ...
 
 
I did it again, LOL! I have a lot of trouble on this site.....


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 2:13:10 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  I personally feel that this manipulated image is graphic art and not photography, IMHO. That's just me though.

Photography is defined according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the following:

the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 2:21:59 PM

 
David A. Bliss   My definition between photography and mixed media has always been, when the manipulation becomes the subject of the picture, instead of the original photograph. That can still be translated in a broad way, I realize.
All photography is manipulation. The very act of capturing light on a media is a manipulation of light. If you use a slower shutter speed, there might be blur that your eye didn't see. If you use a fast shutter speed, you might stop motion that would have been a blur to your eye (hummingbird's wings). Your choice of fstop is manipulation. A wide depth of field is actually not what the human eye sees, especially if you are looking at something fairly close and there is something farther in the background. Try it out sometime. Focus on something close, and in your peripheral vision, look at something further away. It will be blurry. The human eye actually has a fairly narrow DOF, it's just that our eyes focus much, much faster than the fastest lens. Or using a very narrow depth of field, to blur out the background. We can under or over expose, to gain or lose contrast and saturation.

Moving on to on camera filters. Who can honestly say that using a filter is not manipulation. Filters can be used to make the final photo more closely resemble what our eye saw, compensating for the relatively narrow range of film and digital, or they can be used to completely change what it originally looked like. Then there are darkroom manipulations, like dodging, burning, cropping, cloning (yes, even before digital, people were removing unwanted elements from photos), or sandwiching negatives.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 4:21:28 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
  "Then there are darkroom manipulations, like dodging, burning, cropping, cloning (yes, even before digital, people were removing unwanted elements from photos), or sandwiching negatives."

Not to mention darkroom work like cross processing, solarization, posterization, and one that I think looks really neat, bas-relief. I wish I had a darkroom and could do some of these for the SE category, but I guess that's supposed to be in-camera effects rather than darkroom effects.


To love this comment, log in above
12/8/2005 5:22:27 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light"


Like a retina.


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 3:37:27 AM

 
Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/3/2005
  "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light"

Now Im more confused, Does this make us artists? or processors? If a picture of a flower, just a red rose on a black background is taken with a camera, its a photograph...correct? Now if the same picture is painted on a canvass with paint, it's a picture..correct? so then, a camera actually takes photos and an artist paints pictures. Now, if a photo is manipulated electronically and turned into a picture... how long will it take?
God, I am so confused right now, you have no idea.. My brain actually hurts!
it does!
Craig-


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 4:58:01 AM

 
David A. Bliss   Anybody can point a camera at something and release the shutter. Anybody can put paint on a canvas. The ART of photography is combining an artistic framing with the technical knowledge of the camera to produce something that is pleasing to view.

Did Ansel Adams feel he needed to explain what he did in the darkroom? Do you think he felt guilty because he manipulated his negatives? Yes, you can use Photoshop to cover up a poor photo. But it will show, especially in the long run.


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 9:14:11 AM

 
Dr Silly
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/28/2004
  If a person was not going to manipulate his photo (that goes for you too girls.)then all he would need is a point and shoot camera. That simple. As to the main question, yes one should tell if they manipulated a photo, digital or film. But if they forget ( on this site)
big deal, smile and get a life. If the reason the photo is to make a better picture what is wrong with that. File shooter use roll after roll of film to get good shot. How it is just simpler to do.

Hey have a nice day.
Bump a nose and have some fun.
Dr Silly


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2005 11:06:24 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.