PP or no PP - A point of view.

[billtils]

Manfred, the pleasure comes from these particular rules making you think about what you are doing before you press the shutter and not depending on digital manipulation after the event. It's nothing to do with whether or not they create better images - I don't think that they do as it so happens. However, my experience is consistently that the ardent, competent and talented Nature & Wildlife photographers that I know personally could never be remotely considered in the category of "they put up artificial constraints to protect themselves". There are lots of other opportunities to express yourself in PP - and to quote duChemin again: " "Make your photographs any damn way you please. Shock us. Surprise us. Use film, or shoot digitally. Embrace or eschew Photoshop, or whatever creative opportunities or constraints you wish to use in order to create your work"

[Manfred M]

Bill - I totally agree with duChemin.

I understand from some of my wildlife photographer friends is that some people take to baiting the birds, even though that is illegal where I live. I suspect that there are no photographic competition rules against (and no way to see that this was happening in the image).

[ionian]

I am showing my inexperience (certainly compared to the majority of members of this forum), but I've been most curious as to the passions this debate illicits from photographers across the Internet. Then it dawned on me - I learnt photography on digital cameras, where processing has always been a part of my workflow. I can imagine that large-scale manipulation of images, especially cloning, just wasn't an option with film and wasn't even possible for most amateur photographers in any detail until more recent and accessible releases of Photoshop.

One glance at just about any of my images tells you that I manipulate my pictures in whatever way I see fit, so I'm clearly on one side of the fence here. I don't think of myself as just a photographer - that is to say, I don't see the image that I download onto my PC as a final image. Once the capture stage is complete, I then get to move the picture to be whatever I want it to be. I like simple compositions, and that may mean cloning out extraneous details; or it may mean manipulating colours to fit my vision. In fact I often actively do not try to expose an image in the camera to match what I want as a final exposure, by exposing to the right to boost my options in post.

Look, no opinion on this is wrong, but technology has brought these tools to everyone - through the cc subscription, or even through smartphones. Many will know I've been processing using mobile apps recently, and all of these tools are available for very little outlay to anyone who has the patience to learn. The use of digital manipulation is only going to increase - and for my money, that means more and more people will be able to create interesting and thoughtful images. Viva la digital revolutione!

[Saorsa]

So is this exceeding the bounds of manipulation?

There was no earthly way to get this shot without my shadow. Or the raindrops. Then there is the matter of colour adjustments to suit my taste. I would probably do more but this was a quick adjustment to make the point

What difference does it make?

The shot with your shadow and the yellow smears (presumably the raindrops) doesn't appeal to me, the modified one does.

What do you want to do with either that you cannot? If you want to enter them in a contest then you are depending on others to judge them and they have established rules by which images will be judged.

In terms of competition, That one could certainly be entered in PSA Projected Image or Photo Travel divisions. It would be DQd in Nature because the barn is 'hand of man'. It could be DQd in Photojournalism competition because of manipulation but could certainly be used in a newspaper article or magazine since the shadow and raindrop wouldn't be a part of the story. An author or editor would determine what manipulation might be allowed in the context of the article. The ethical issue in that situation is that the photographer needs to let them know what manipulation occurred. Given the current state of journalism I'm not sure ethics always apply.

Otherwise, it is probably saleable wherever the image could be used.

[Saorsa]

Bill - I totally agree with duChemin.

I understand from some of my wildlife photographer friends is that some people take to baiting the birds, even though that is illegal where I live. I suspect that there are no photographic competition rules against (and no way to see that this was happening in the image).

That's true. I don't bait birds which accounts for my almost total lack of Hummingbird pictures. There are several photo tour stops where nice backgrounds are set up feeders placed around the area to attract birds, lights set in place and then the feeders are taken away and a flower dosed with sugar water set out.

The ones that get me are the phone apps that will broadcast mating or feeding calls to attract birds. I was once on the boardwalk at Six Mile Cypress Slough and ran across a birder using his smartphone in that manner. I asked him what he was doing and he told me it would pull the birds to him and he could hear another calling somewhere but hadn't seen it yet.

I kept on going to the spot where I wanted to set up and about 50 yards away around a corner of the boardwalk was another guy doing the same thing. I'm relatively sure they both logged the calls without an actual sighting. Photographers, at least, need to come back with a picture

[Manfred M]

Simon - I find your observations to be quite interesting, because when I got into serious photography in the film days, I almost immediately dove into the wet darkroom, simply because I did not like how the processing labs were turning out my images. Manipulations like cropping, straightening the horizon line, dodging and burning were something I didn't even give a second thought about (nor did most anyone else). These were simply steps everyone assumed were done.

There were some purists who would include the edges of the film in their prints to demonstrate that they were not trimming anything of their images. The rest of us that printed on standard size papers had to, as the negative's dimensions were not the same as the photo papers. B&W film, especially the lower speed stuff had a dynamic range of somewhere around 10 stops, so while we could afford to be a little sloppy.

Where I learned to be good on my framing and exposures was when I shot colour transparency / slide film. These would be mounted in cardboard or plastic mounts and except for a tiny bit that was trimmed off by the mount, you had a full-frame image that was not cropped. These films also had a very low dynamic range, probably in the order of 4 to 5 stops. Your exposure had to be bang on, otherwise you might as well throw out the image.

[ionian]

Manfred - I wonder if your experience of developing your own prints is typical of photographers, especially those who do not like digital manipulation. I would guess (and it's just a guess) that many had to put up with whatever the print shop were able to provide, at least a majority of the time, because a dark room isn't available to many.

Indeed, your ease with darkroom manipulation has segued neatly into your digital processing, which is (in my experience of your work) often non-intrusive enhancements - a slight vignette, clone out a distracting element, dodge an area you want to draw attention to etc. I guess what I'm saying is your photos always look like photos, to your credit!

This whole discussion reminds me of discussions in a recent thread by Richard when he spoke about learning to expose an image by eye rather than using the exposure meter. Many of us (well, you and me) agreed that it just wasn't necessary because you would never need the skill with today's cameras. I think of digital processing as the same idea - I could make an excellent image in camera but with so many enhancing tools available in post, why would I deny my images the chance to be as good as they could be?

I don't look to underexpose to push shadows on purpose - indeed, I'd think of that as lazy photography for me with a live histogram in my evf - nor do I want to have to clone something out if I can remove it at the capture stage. It takes 5 secs to move a leaf out of shot, and around 45 minutes to clone it out seamlessly, and life is too short!

[tbob]

There was no earthly way to get this shot without my shadow. Or the raindrops. Then there is the matter of colour adjustments to suit my taste. I would probably do more but this was a quick adjustment to make the point

What difference does it make?

I was responding in a round about way to Shanghai Steve's comments in post number 7. No matter how much I would like to compose with no shadow or raindrops I could not. So if post processing to remove is not allowed ethically, then I am beat.

My personal jury is in with a decision on this topic. What makes me happy prevails. The competition and strict documentary aspects are of no import as I do not do those. And those who enter competitions or sell images are well advised to read the rules and abide by them. If money and fame are involved then The Golden Rule applies ; them what has the gold gits to make the rules no matter how arbitrary.

[John 2]

............................................ I can imagine that large-scale manipulation of images, especially cloning, just wasn't an option with film and wasn't even possible for most amateur photographers in any detail until more recent and accessible releases of Photoshop...........................

I am not taking you to task here Simon because we are clearly on the same page. I thought it worth pointing out however, that manipulation of images was regularly practiced in the darkroom. Even some of the very early photographers would ink in areas of a glass plate. It's just that the tools have improved and made it much easier to achieve a good result. Progress in photography is all about the march of technology. The abiding constant is that it is still used to make images using light.

[pnodrog]

I am not taking you to task here Simon because we are clearly on the same page. I thought it worth pointing out however, that manipulation of images was regularly practiced in the darkroom. Even some of the very early photographers would ink in areas of a glass plate. It's just that the tools have improved and made it much easier to achieve a good result. Progress in photography is all about the march of technology. The abiding constant is that it is still used to make images using light.

Back in the early 80's I gave a photograph to my amateur wine making neighbour for his 60th birthday. It had his head on a naked torso emerging from a wine bottle with his own label with the addition on the label of "The wine with body in it". The photograph was a montage of three separate photographs, two of which were pasted onto the main print. Then touched up with retouch inks and rephotographed. The 16"x 20" print hung over his bar for years and looked as genuine as could be expected unless you examined it reasonably closely.

At the party the funnest thing was that being reasonably merry he went around showing the photograph and pointing out his trim body. His wife realising it was not his torso said to everyone's amusement she had got me to take a photo of her boyfriends chest.

So it took much more time before photoshop but could certainly be done.

[Manfred M]

I guess what I'm saying is your photos always look like photos, to your credit!

"Always" might be a bit of an exaggeration.

[ionian]

Beautiful picture Manfred - consider my experience of your images broadened!

As I mentioned, my inexperience was clearly showing thinking about how far a photo could be pushed pre-digital, but the fact that this sort of complex manipulation is now available to everyone is what's new. Paul's story is great, and clearly he had great skills in the darkroom, but these days there are dozens of apps that will composite a comedy pic for you on your phone. Do they look seamless? No, of course not, but they serve their purpose.

I still stand by the point that this sort of manipulation was only available to a select few pre-digital - those with the wherewithal to develop their own images. Now, it's available to everyone at the touch of a button, for better or worse.

[pnodrog]

Beautiful picture Manfred - consider my experience of your images broadened!

As I mentioned, my inexperience was clearly showing thinking about how far a photo could be pushed pre-digital, but the fact that this sort of complex manipulation is now available to everyone is what's new. Paul's story is great, and clearly he had great skills in the darkroom, but these days there are dozens of apps that will composite a comedy pic for you on your phone. Do they look seamless? No, of course not, but they serve their purpose.

I still stand by the point that this sort of manipulation was only available to a select few pre-digital - those with the wherewithal to develop their own images. Now, it's available to everyone at the touch of a button, for better or worse.

Simon you are absolutely right. At the time there would have been one or two others in my photography club that would have attempted it. Now the majority of club members would with varying success be happy to give it ago using digital PP and in general the results would be superior.

[JBW]

Found this today and in view of some recent discussions it seemed worth sharing a professional's take on the subject. One statement that resonated with me was:

"Art made in submission to the rules of others is not art. It’s bondage."

the full article can be found here.

http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cam...e-photographs/

I'd be interested in what others on here think of the article. A link to a description of what caused the original debate is here:

http://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botc...oshop-scandal/

Agree. How I use my tools to tell my story is up to me.

[Shanghai Steve]

I am noting a keen defense of personal choice in this thread, which is of course fine. But also overt suggestions that I am being naive or 'difficult' and that 'real' photographers do whatever they want, whenever they want, that it is unrealistic to expect "artists" to tell potential customers in what way the image has been manipulated away from reality, that reality in fact does not exist, that Art is Truth and Truth is Art and The Artist is King.
I disagree.
For myself, the line is crossed when adding or substracting elements which were/were not there, in reality, within the frame, at the time the shutter activated, unless the resulting image is an obvious fantasy creation.
That's it.
That is my opinion in this matter.

[JBW]

I am noting a keen defense of personal choice in this thread, which is of course fine. But also overt suggestions that I am being naive or 'difficult' and that 'real' photographers do whatever they want, whenever they want, that it is unrealistic to expect "artists" to tell potential customers in what way the image has been manipulated away from reality, that reality in fact does not exist, that Art is Truth and Truth is Art and The Artist is King.
I disagree.
For myself, the line is crossed when adding or substracting elements which were/were not there, in reality, within the frame, at the time the shutter activated, unless the resulting image is an obvious fantasy creation.
That's it.
That is my opinion in this matter.

fair enough

[pnodrog]

I am noting a keen defense of personal choice in this thread, which is of course fine. But also overt suggestions that I am being naive or 'difficult' and that 'real' photographers do whatever they want, whenever they want, that it is unrealistic to expect "artists" to tell potential customers in what way the image has been manipulated away from reality, that reality in fact does not exist, that Art is Truth and Truth is Art and The Artist is King.
I disagree.
For myself, the line is crossed when adding or substracting elements which were/were not there, in reality, within the frame, at the time the shutter activated, unless the resulting image is an obvious fantasy creation.
That's it.

I did Real Estate photography where the cloning out of power lines in the view etc was an absolute no no as we had to portray the property honestly. However I did not hesitate to clone out an over looked remote on a chair
That is my opinion in this matter.

I did Real Estate photography where the cloning out of power lines or a rubbish tip in the view etc was an absolute no no as we had to portray the property honestly. However I did not hesitate to clone out an over looked remote on a chair or a child's toy left on the lawn. I was open to censure if the photograph was misleading but I never have been in trouble. The difference is that I was trying to make the photo as attractive as possible and true to the time someone would view the property not necessarily true to the time the camera shutter closed.

It could in fact be more misleading to park an Aston Martin on the drive and stage a room by hang a Monet on the wall. Reality or truth is not necessarily represented at the closing of the shutter. An authentic image and truth are not always the same thing. I think the truth is more important.

[John 2]

I am noting a keen defense of personal choice in this thread, which is of course fine. But also overt suggestions that I am being naive or 'difficult' and that 'real' photographers do whatever they want, whenever they want, .............................................

...................................That is my opinion in this matter.

I honestly don't think that's true Steve. No one has suggested that you are either difficult or naïve. In making what you describe as a keen defence of personal choice, like you, most have merely stated their own opinion and in truth, the difference is not fundamental but one of degree. Most are of the opinion that whether changing an image is right or wrong depends on circumstances and the what the photographer intends to portray to a viewer. Your view is that should never ever be the case. Personally, I always worry about absolutes because they can be dangerously restrictive to open thought but we are all entitled to our opinions, all of us.

[Saorsa]

I am noting a keen defense of personal choice in this thread, which is of course fine. But also overt suggestions that I am being naive or 'difficult' and that 'real' photographers do whatever they want, whenever they want, that it is unrealistic to expect "artists" to tell potential customers in what way the image has been manipulated away from reality, that reality in fact does not exist, that Art is Truth and Truth is Art and The Artist is King.
I disagree.
For myself, the line is crossed when adding or substracting elements which were/were not there, in reality, within the frame, at the time the shutter activated, unless the resulting image is an obvious fantasy creation.
That's it.
That is my opinion in this matter.

Well, everything is personal choice. The issue to me is what purpose is intended use. I'm a competition photographer but I don't enter ever image into a salon. I have pictures for that and am careful to follow the rules per the PSA when I enter a picture.

I can make a personal choice to clone the horn of a narwhal onto a picture of a Zebra in a zoo, call it a unicorn and put it up on a web page, hang it on the wall, or sell it to anyone who wanted to buy. I could enter it into the Color Division or a competition, convert it to BW and enter Monochrome. I could not realistically enter it into a Nature, Photo Travel or Photojournalism competition.

Of course, for competition you need to consider whether something would actually be worthy of acceptance or award. Here is a shot that I have entered in the Monochrome division of a couple of recent salons. No results yet.


Heart of a Rose

I could legitimately enter that into a nature competition since it is a flower but I really doubt that the judges would give it more than the minimum points allowed.

I'm not sure if it will do anything since a frequent judging comment is "what is this trying to show" or "there is no subject" or there is no place for the eye to land. Fine, that tells me the choice the judge is making.

I still like this image though as an abstract because of the tones and lines within it. I don't need a place for my 'eye to land' because it is following the lines that makes it relaxing and interesting to me.

If you go beyond personal choice, you are making your images to suit the expectations of others. You can do that but in doing so you are setting your own expectations of them.

[dennybeall]

One more vote for personal choice. If I say the photo is "REAL" then it should be and will be, but if it's just a photo for viewing and personal enjoyment or to document an occurrence that's not for legal reasons, why not use all the creativity and skills available to make the picture all it can be?
I've made a bit of money altering Family Photos to remove the ex daughter-in-law since the new daughter-in-law is coming to visit. Is that wrong? There are a couple of whole sets of wedding photos out in the world that no longer have the groom in the pictures. Is that wrong?
If I was writing a story I'd certainly add, or remove, a word or phrase to make the prose read better and tell the story so why not manipulate a photo for the same reason?