Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
April 13, 2007
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,022 (2 today)
Favourites
0
Comments
501
×

Gilad's Journal



I think that the digital era of photography brought this question into a whole new level, but this question was always around. Manipulating photography was always around, and Andy Warhol did his Monroe colored portraits long before Adobe came up with Photoshop. Manipulation was done all the time in Fashion adds, where skin flaws were covered with colors and journalistic manipulation tried to illustrate images, when no documentation was available.

So why is the issue of manipulation becoming so controversial these days more than ever before?

Well, these are the problems in my opinion:
1. The fact that digital photography is much more common than what photography was and now days the "tools of the trade" are so easily spread and used, makes the border between to professionals and armatures practically invisible. Many professionals in an attempt to create that border are trying to get the editing tools out of the equation so real photography would be considered a profession, when editing makes it something else. And I agree.
2. It is so damn easier than it use to be. Practically every 12 years old kid can make a photo manipulation it use to take hours of dark room and a lot of knowledge just a few years ago. Photography is a skill that becomes irrelevant when all is needed is a few minutes with Photoshop, and so a set of rules of what is the line between photography and manipulation has to be drawn.
3. Photography is slowly loosing it's respected place as an authentic art form, and so in order to prevent that it is needed to state what is really a "photograph", and on the other hand, when it can't be considered a plain photo anymore.
4. Dishonesty. Photographers that are not satisfied with their technique, gear or the plain results add a lot of manipulation to try and make this look better, and end up with a while different result than the photograph. Even fabrication of the truth is an important moral question in that regard. When it is present it as photography, others feel cheated to. If the artist (and not photographer) would be honest and present it as digital art, or photo manipulation then probably all be clear but at the point people recognize the dishonesty that creates the controversy.


The answer:
1. Reuters (world leading news and media agency) has stated a set of rules of what is the limit of the use of photoshop  blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/t… The say very clearly what is the ground rule for a photograph to still be a photograph, and I tend to agree. Read the article, but just to give you a preview –
ALLOWED: Cropping, Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits, Minor color correction, Sharpening, Careful use of lasso tool, Subtle use of burn tool, Adjustment of highlights and shadows, Eye dropper to check/set gray  
NOT ALLOWED: Additions or deletions to image, Cloning & Healing tool (except dust), Airbrush, brush, paint, Selective area sharpening, Excessive lightening/darkening, Excessive color tone change, Auto levels, Blurring, Eraser tool, Quick Mask, In-camera sharpening, In-camera saturation styles.
Now, you have to understand that the rules applied of photo journalism are not exactly the same as art photography. In photojournalism the rules are harsh case the artistic side of the photograph is not important and it's only the authentic photograph that is important. In art these rules can be bend a bit in my opinion (like I do use Auto levels on my photographs) but I think that as ground rules – these are right.
2. My philosophy is simple, the same "manipulation" that was once accepted as a part of photography, the one you did in the "Dark room" is still a part of photography. The second you start doing things that were once excessive, they still are. Play with levels, convert to B&W or sepia, sharpen it up, change contrast and tone, but that's it.
If you start mixing a few photos together, change selective parts in the picture, clone out people or change the "weather" you are turning the photograph into something that shouldn't be called a photograph.
3. Be honest. Don't say it's a photograph if you know you have changed it so much it looks nothing like the original. If the result is good people will still like it if you state it's manipulated. It's ok, just a different art form.


To conclude my thoughts on this matter, I think that in time it will be easier to see the border between photography and manipulation and we are going through a phase. Or at least I hope so. If we all give extra effort to preserving the ethics on this matter we will help preserve photography as art.


Now, I invite you to take a look with me, at 10 of my favorites Under my weekly spotlight


Gilad's Journal
Not looking eye to eye ... by jchanders

A Great scene.
I can imagine this scene in real life, and it actually crack me up :)


Total views up to now: 148
Total Favorites up to now: 17


Gilad's Journal
:thumb45437461:

Very impressive B&W shot, fulled with details and drama.
It seems there is not very much in this subject, but it still works like a hammer on a nail. Brilliant.


Total views up to now: 343
Total Favorites up to now: 45


Gilad's Journal
Back Alone by ganooov

Strong expression.
A soldier is returning from a long day carrying the weight of his day in his hands. The perspective and depth, and the overall mood makes it work.


Total views up to now: 114
Total Favorites up to now: 18



Gilad's Journal
:thumb52977377:

Beautiful abstract. Maybe it's not an original picture of a staircase, but very well done.


Total views up to now: 109
Total Favorites up to now: 16


Gilad's Journal
Bending Concrete nr.1 by nasht-01

Another great abstract. Great photograpic vision to see this frame and capture it.


Total views up to now: 297
Total Favorites up to now: 46


Gilad's Journal
Sunset Boulevard by incredi

And while the subject of abstacts, here is another beautiful and colorful one. Artistic street photography. My favourite.


Total views up to now: 439
Total Favorites up to now: 51


Gilad's Journal
where by Ivan-Suta

And another. Very simple and very creative.


Total views up to now: 436
Total Favorites up to now: 55


Gilad's Journal
Two Generations by lissvensson

There is not one sole that sees thins and doesn't understand the expression and symbol. It's simple and effective, and makes me want to hug my son (Oh wait, I am...)


Total views up to now: 115
Total Favorites up to now: 26



Gilad's Journal
Walk on Wind by mrgulabull

The footprints leading away into the horizon... It look so beautiful here. Great colors and composition.


Total views up to now: 384
Total Favorites up to now: 60


Gilad's Journal
Fields of Gold by NadavDov

Well, the lonely tree is nothing new, but every now and again you see a picture of one makes you want to go out and be a photographer. The clarity and the the way the clouds fit in the composition. Amazing piece. Bravo!


Total views up to now: 378
Total Favorites up to now: 61




Gilad's Journal
:thumb52706760:   picture on the picture by stupid-princess   Puddles 2 by MatthiasHaltenhof    :thumb52398044:    :thumb45227498:   An unexpected lightning... by Michel-Lag-Chavarria   Oceania by 0slaven0   
:thumb52412899:

It's amazing to see how much beauty and quality is passed un-noticed here in all one week. I hope that more great work will get noticed here. It's up to us. Use the comments favorites power to support the un-noticed.

Keep supporting!



*****

Gilad's Journal

1. Art is all about expression

2. About Photography, and Israel too

3. DA Thoughts

4. Infra Red

5. Let me shed some Light

6. All the Info you can probably get on me – The BTL with G

7. Listen to "One Day"

8. About freedom of speech and ethics

9. A Different Look At Israel / Part 3, and part 4

10. Where you can download the "A Different Look At Israel" presentations.

11. Summing up 3 years of being a DeviantArt member

12. Summing up what I had to say in 2006

13. Special Interview - An Eye On The World

14. Tips on Shooting indoors

15. Tips on recommended filters

16. Using build in flash

17. Keep your pixels yours

18. About making money in photography

19. Do you know how to get exposure?



If you didn't hear about the wonderful project of ArtistsForCharity now its the time! go, share, and help.

These are five prints of my work, I gave to the project so far:
:thumb32432455: and :thumb30663927: and :thumb25868807: and :thumb25653391: and :thumb26333866:


Yours, G




If you don't want to read all this Bla Bla Bla, you can simply download the "A Different Look At Israel" presentations here.

  • Mood: Adoration
Add a Comment:
 
:iconjosespul:
josespul Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2008   Photographer
I now gradually starting to open my eyes...
:jarklarge:
Reply
:iconkajuah:
Kajuah Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2008   Interface Designer
I used to agree with your points, but now I think the idea of honor-bound photography is lame, ignorant and dated. Who are we to define art? Let alone photography, which is an ever changing art. Every art changes.

Either get on board with the new ferry or be left in the dark ages.

One can argue that film photography is the one true type of photography and that digital makes things far too easy and able for anyone to do. The art of the photographer starts ith the image the photographer wants to see, however, not the product of what he captures.

If it were a contest of best quality photos with a certain type of camera then one might as well have a robot or a computer take the shot, and skip the humanity (and art) of photography all together.

While i'm not a big manipulator myself, I don't think we or anyone should restrict, create rules for, or define the standards of what photography should be in order to be considered "genuine."

Davinchi and picasso didn't define the entire genre of painting with their techniques and style, why should you? Let alone i, or ayone else?

Photomanipulation isn't as easy as you write it to be, anyway, I've tried my hand at it it takes a long time to learn the techniques, probably not as much moving around as film might allow but it's essneetially the same practise just different methodology.
Reply
:iconsawnoffshogun:
SawnOffShogun Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2007
I know this response is a bit dated but you may still find this interesting? [link]
Reply
:icondimentichisi:
Dimentichisi Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2007
Interesting, you may have gotten this comment before.. but,

What about portrait photographers? When they have to remove blemishes from the faces of people, do you consider that a conversion from photography to manipulation?
Reply
:iconpro-violence:
pro-violence Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2007
I know this is a very dated journal and sorry for the late comment but I just had a chance to read over it. I completely agree but to this I must consider myself a liar because I in fact manipulate photos in the darkroom. It took me over 4 years of study to develop my technique and I still consider them photographs if not photographs then silver geletin prints. Could you please tell me your insight on my images? *pro-violence

Thank you.
Reply
:iconlowerdezk:
lowerdezk Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2007  Student Photographer
i do think your opinions are right. thanks for sharing it.
Reply
:iconcherrymegumi:
cherrymegumi Featured By Owner May 26, 2007
Wow. This is a helpful entry. I'm only starting out in photography, so the information you gave is very educational.

I have a question. I've always known about those different things you can do in Photoshop, but it's only recently that I really used them on my photographs. Is adjustment of contrast considered manipulation? My photo looked fine as I shot it, but when it was developed, it was different. You can see it here: [link]

Also, desaturation. How do I know if it's one of the "in-camera saturation styles" that are not allowed? I slightly desaturated one of my photos. It's here: [link]

I feel so confused. I'm sorry to ask you so many questions. You don't really have to answer them, but I would really appreciate it. :D I could send you the original shots of the two deviations I mentioned.

Thank you, thank you.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner May 26, 2007  Professional Photographer
this whole journal is about the fact that there is no "ground rule" for that. I believe that doing contrast in a reasonble amount is not. Otheres will say it is. I see no reason considering the work in the links as photomanipulations.. clearly photographs
Reply
:iconcherrymegumi:
cherrymegumi Featured By Owner May 26, 2007
Ah, I understand. No ground rule. Okay. Haha, sorry, I am really just young and ignorant.

Thank you for saying that they still look like photographs. You made my day.

Thanks for everything again! You're really brilliant. I shall add you.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner May 26, 2007  Professional Photographer
:heart:
Reply
:iconpunkie078:
punkie078 Featured By Owner May 1, 2007  Professional Photographer
I think sometimes photoshop can be a useful tool when you don't have access to equipment/facilities that will enable you to do what you want within the photography world.

Although I respect a photographer who can acheive what he wants without any use of photoshop, I don't think that digital manipulation should be any less respected as an artform. It's just not traditional photography, it's digital photography and manipulation.

I don't think that just because there's an easier method to something that using that method is "cheating"... it's just using a different method. It's just that tradition photography and digitally manipulated photography shouldn't be judged the same way.
Reply
:iconjenn4xt:
jenn4Xt Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2007
Yes, just the question I kept asking myself recently as I was applying autolevel, autocolour and auto contrasts to my work, while sometimes increasing saturation, brightness/contrast. I kept asking, is this right? Is this still authentic photography?

Perhaps, if they could have something like a Darkroom software, or Photoshop-Darkroom mode, then maybe it wouldn't be as confusing.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2007  Professional Photographer
That could be a smart thing.. thanks
Reply
:iconciardubh:
Ciardubh Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2007  Professional General Artist
I agree, completely and utterly... I don't mind manipulation in its place, but removing half your photography, and changing all the colours and textures, does not a photo make
Reply
:iconcathou-n:
Cathou-N Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2007
I guess photography is following the footstep of painting, in the 19th century.

Artists were working months to paint a portrait when photography was able to make one in a few instants. Sure, at that time, the result were not comparable, but as the technology evolve and became more accessible for everyone...

Trad arts have a charming style that photography doesn't have. Photography have a way of taking a moment of life that trad arts can't take. Manipulation... it will make it's place, but it will never replace one of the other.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2007  Professional Photographer
I hope you're right cause right now it seems they are mixed together
Reply
:iconohimseeinstars:
OhImSeeinStars Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2007  Student Digital Artist
gosh. I'm completely speechless. In the good way though. I've been having this conflict in my mind for some time now, and i started to wonder if I was just being to conservative. It's comforting to know that someone feels the same way as I. Your work is absolutely beautiful by the way.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2007  Professional Photographer
Thank you :)
Reply
:iconchimbaktu:
chimbaktu Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007
britt bratt, how could you not consider that manipulation? just because the bride doesn't want zits doesn't mean you should be able to remove them and still call it a photograph. as a wedding photographer or advertiser, your job is to make the people look as good as possible, not necessarily portray reality. so manipulating photos is not only accepted, it's encouraged, however at the same time they acquire a different label to note that you did make changes. what's wrong with just accepting the idea that they are photomanipulations instead of taking items out of the photograph and still calling it a photograph?


i agree with gilad that there needs to be a distinction between photomanipulations. i could draganize some horrible photographs and they might turn out interesting. but the skill there is in my use of photoshop, not in photography. which means that i should i label it a photomanipulation and be proud of the work i did in using photoshop as a tool; not in having used my camera effectively.
Reply
:iconluag:
luag Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2007
how is that different from landscape photographers who do "manipulate" sceneries?

The photographer might use velvia/polarizing filter to produce saturation that isnt supposed to be there.

Photographers like Ansel Adams, remove the colors that are supposed to be there and play with contrast that might not actually existed.

(removing colors and removing zits both contain a degree of manipulation, don't you agree?)

In my opinion, there is no photography without manipulation. Because photography itself is a manipulation of reality. (see my previous comment)

In portrait (wedding/commercial) photography before (even now, of course) photoshop, photographers depend on a "level of photoshop" called make-up artists.

Even if you produce a wedding portrait without photoshop help, it is not entirely without manipulation.

I guess I can say that plain reality is boring, it is a photographer's job to make it interesting :D

Cheers.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007  Professional Photographer
Right you are... the discussion continues :)
Reply
:iconquantum3:
Quantum3 Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007
Well... I think the most bigger problem here is that DA hasn't a section for photomanipulation and another for photomontage. It's not the same thing for obvious reasons, but, I will write it here just in case somebody needs to know about it. A photomanipulation is based in manipulating a photo. A photomontage is based in adding different photos. The results are quite a lot different between those 2 things.
However, I think a good photomanipulation is the one that doesn't looks like that.
Anyway, in a few years more, film will dissapear and will remain only digital cameras.
Reply
:icongabrielbelmont:
gabrielbelmont Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007  Hobbyist Digital Artist
art is art lets not hate on eachother
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007  Professional Photographer
That's true
Reply
:iconeditordistriktmag:
editordistriktmag Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
Agree with you in the fact that we're experiencing a transitional phase regarding the new tools and how rapidly they're being applied by many 'amateur' or 'new' photographers.

If we remember the history right where the cinema arrived, everyone said that the photo would disappear after some time...after a while the cinema took its own place and photo remained....

Personally think that everyone should have a camera with themselves every day of their lives and share their images with the rest of the world...therefore don't like to apply still the terms: 'amateur' or 'professional' photographers since most of the people that i've met 'saying' these terms seem to be afraid of the results shown by the so-called 'non-professional' people.

Art is for me any way of pure expression coming from ANY person (professional or non), photography is a form of expression/art accessible by almost anyone these days with amazing results as well....this is JUST GREAT !, the more art we have around, better understanding and meeting points among cultures will be also developed....we're usually in a desperate need of this things.

If 'professional' photographers are having a tough and jealous time accepting great results from 'non-professional' ones, well, this just seems like they're running out of creativity and slowing down on their own evolution's path....this is also OK, since this is how this world and nature works.

After beign a 'professional' photographer for 12 years, after teaching 'traditional' photography in an international University for 7 years and seeing how rapidly the technology evolves, my feelings towards having photo as a more popular tool with better results each day, only invites me to go for more regarding my new techniques and ideas !

Now...As usual, would like to honour, thank and congratulate your work as an image maker and photographer for sharing such beautiful images with the rest of us....it's beautiful to be able to know such images like yours thanks to high-tech and Deviant.

Best Regards

Alfonso

[link]
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
The cinema history is correct, but there was no confusion that it was the same thing, and that is the real "danger" in this. When one is pretending to be the other and not just to replace it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts :bow:
G
Reply
:iconnyarlotep:
Nyarlotep Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007
Very interesting and informative news, thanks for writing this article =)
Can I ask you a cuestion, HDR is considered a Photograph or a Photomanipulation, because if is a Photomanip I have to change a lot of categorys on my gallery =P

Thanks :thumbsup:

Nyarlotep
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007  Professional Photographer
As I've written and answered here before (about 6 times I think ;)) HDR is not manipulation in my opinion. It's a process you aim for when taking the pictures, and the software only helps you in the process. Since the intention was there when you took the pictures, it's ok IMHO
Reply
:iconnyarlotep:
Nyarlotep Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007
Thanks for the info, Sorry for make you repite yourself, it wont happen again
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007  Professional Photographer
that's ok :)
Reply
:iconbritt-bratt:
britt-bratt Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007   Photographer
I am a photography student and I kind of disagree with some of those rules. No cloning or masks? Sometimes, when I shoot, there are wrinkles in the background because we need to get new ones in our studio. It shouldn't be there and I am going to clone it out so that my models and customers are not upset. I don't consider that a photo manipulation. It's still a photograph, I've still done the lighting and the posing and all the work.

My teacher has given us some rules and boundaries but when it comes to pleasing people in the commercial world, sometimes we have to do things to the photographs. I am not a digital imaging student or a designer and I don't consider most of my work to be photomanipulations, I consider them to photographs. It's not a lie. I mean really what bride wants to have a big zit on her face the day of her wedding. I certainly don't and I'll remove as many as she wants and it's still a photograph.

When it comes to my outdoors and nature photography I would only ever tweak. But commercially and in the studio I do a lot of dodging and burning (which is possible to do in a dark room) and I do clone unwanted things that I have tried but cannot remove before the photo. A good photographer should remove all that shouldn't be in the photo but if that's not possible I do like the clone tool.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
Very good point. Thank you!
Reply
:iconbritt-bratt:
britt-bratt Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007   Photographer
:)
Reply
:iconluag:
luag Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007
Maybe this has been said before.

But photography itself is already a manipulation of reality.

With your lens of choice, you choose what element of reality you want to include in your film/digital sensor. Using tele, you exclude more. Using wide you include more.

Same with color, you have the choice to exclude it or even enhance it. (ilford? velvia?)

Say...you and your friend encounter a beautiful scenery. both of you've set up your tripod and cameras, then you noticed a soda can in the foreground.

if you choose, to remove it yourself before you pressed the shutter (either by zooming, moving or you walk there and throw it in the trash can). how is this different the other guy who just take the picture then cropping/removing it in photoshop?

sure, the guy who used photoshop might appear more lazy, but when the end result is practically the same, it is hard for me to judge about who is wrong or right in this case.

For me it is about the vision I have in my head. If I can achieve it without/minimal amount of photoshoping, so be it. but if I have to use photoshop quite extensively, so be it as well.

Ansel Adams used the "non-digital-photoshop" a lot to manipulate reality the way he saw fit. And he is still considered a photographer.

Maybe now it is simpler to do that, but that is how technology behaves. It is [supposed] to make things easier.

What is real, anyway? "How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." yay for matrix quotes! lol

Cheers.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
Very solid points that have been said, but all are good and valid. I think that for most people the big change is the cheapen way that manipulation have taken over the photographs. Ansel Adamas knows how to take beautiful photograph and it's not a photoshop work that made him what he is
Reply
:iconluag:
luag Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007
I don't know about cheap...some "retoucher" charge quite expensively for their services lol.
It sure is comparatively much easier, but it also opens new possibilities :)
(like HDR)

Ansel Adams didn't use photoshop, but his darkroom skills are amazing.
(I'm very very curious to what Ansel Adams had to say if he had the chance to see and experience the digital world like nowadays, especially HDR)

In the end, the community needs great photographers like you to keep the rest of us inspired :D

The great men/women behind the cameras :D

Thank you for sharing your photographs, they are beautiful.

Cheers.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2007  Professional Photographer
:bow: G
Reply
:iconneloial:
Neloial Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007
I think the real problem here like in most cases of art controversy, it's a problem of tolerance. In other words - one, as a photographer, is outraged by the flood of mediocre art that all of the sudden turns out all shinny and bright thanks to Photoshop. But outraged is exactly what he shouldn't be, because, like you said and i tend to agree - manipulation is simply a different form of expression than photography - one much more suitable for beginner levels and one easier to operate. When it comes to manipulations you just have to have an eye for on screen details, not necessarily a soul of an artist but! Because there's always a "but" - being a photographer before starting to manipulate images is actually a plus because you can work with both forms of expression - that's why, instead of outrage or rejection - i believe tolerance is a much better choice - that way you can use both photography and manipulation to express an idea, a concept - to artistically show your world - who you really are.
Why so much fuss about innovation? it was bound to happen sooner or later, don't you agree?
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
I agree nothing should be so heavy to create such a fuss, but hey... it does. There are ways to go in art, and artists want to preserve the artistic trade. It's nostalgic but also worthy
Reply
:iconcrazykira:
crazykira Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2007
i agree with you thought about what photography is

in first photos i posted i changed them a lot, but now i absolutely avoid to do something like that, just play with levels a bit, and crop it if necessary but that's all

if a photo does not satisfy me, instead of posting it changed at all, i avoid to post it.

and it's true that people get angry when they see some absolutely manipulated photos in photography gallery.
i get angry. maybe i'm wrong, but of course if you put some texture and some brush in you photo, you cannot call it a simple photo anymore!

sorry, things just make me angry ^^"

ps. excellent selections, and of course great gallery, you really make some emotional phots, that reach the heart, not only satisfy the eye
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
:hug:
Reply
:iconainulaire:
AinuLaire Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007
Oh, excellent journal entry! I am taking digital photography in school, and the things he wants us to do in Photoshop make me wonder if I am taking digital photography or photo manipulation classes.

But your article made me feel a bit better about my own photos. I only crop and adjust levels on most photos, and on a select few I turn into b&w or slightly sharpen. I sometimes wonder if I'm cheating a little by using these methods, but my camera is *complete* crap (it has manual override and zoom, but... it's not a nice, DSLR camera), so this article made me feel a lot better.

Thanks for the clarification ^^
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2007  Professional Photographer
My pleasure, glad I could help :D
Reply
:iconriobard:
Riobard Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007
Great information like everything else you write in your journals. I just recently decided to minor in photography rather than digital media because I figured that the digital stuff I can learn on my own or take later, but the photography is were the art is (or begins for the photoshop people).
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007  Professional Photographer
I appricate you saying it. I agree!
Reply
:icontiripseerf:
Tiripseerf Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007
Noise reduction (e.g. Neat Image) doesn't count as manipulation, right? Then I do follow the rules :)
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007  Professional Photographer
:)
Reply
:icontiripseerf:
Tiripseerf Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007
Great journal :)
Reply
:iconoaksong:
oaksong Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2007
While I appreciate some of the considerations, some are, as you say, someone's effort to provide a delineation, that may not in fact, truly exist.

As a person who has been making images for over 50 years, I don't have a problem with someone using Photoshop to enhance an image, as long as the degree of enhancement is noted.

As to what constitutes manipulation, I think it's pretty straight forward, anything that emulates what could be done in a darkroom doesn't count as manipulation any more than those darkroom enhancement techniques counted against, say, Ansel Adams, who used every creative darkroom technique he could muster.

A darkroom master could solarize an image and then do negative sandwiches to come up with some pretty amazing images. This was considered Photography with enhanced darkroom techniques. At the time, the purists looked down on it, but it sold a lot of images, and then they changed their tune.

I think the larger issue is Photo Journalism vs. Photo Art. Vogue, and it's sisters, use photo art, as do virtually all publications outside of the news press. So if you can convince someone to buy your image, the degree of manipulation is completely irrelevant. It's ART.

If you're trying to cover a story for a newspaper, then you take the shot and print it, with any enhancements that will make the intent of the image clear, less being more in this situation. (There's a recent story about a photographer at an Ohio newpaper who lost his job for removing the legs of someone standing behind a poster. The newspaper decided he'd failed their standard, and that's there perogative.)

So, to wrap it up, if a 12 year old photo manipulator can sell his or her images to Vogue, I'm all for it. And if they can sell to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, I'm all for that to.
Reply
:icongilad:
gilad Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2007  Professional Photographer
But there is one difference in opinion still - is that photography or digital art?
The fact that it is allright and all fair is understandble, but is it still photography?
Reply
Add a Comment: