Editing or manipulation? (butchered pig image)

[davidedric]

and basically very few people agreed on anything.

Dammit, I can't even agree with myself! I'm out of this thread

[Inkanyezi]

I took the particular image for a couple of reasons. One of them is that it is the only one of my own where I have tried applying a substantial change of the image content, the other that I am ambivalent on the matter, as I believe that such a manipulation would not change the image into something it was not. After all, the man was there a few moments before, and if I don't want to alter the paving of the street and those manholes too much, with somewhat more work I could make a more thorough job, as this was a quick hack. And of course I could have cropped it out, although I still want it there.

But there is also another dimension to it, expressed in the first posting. Very often people suggest that alterations along the lines of cloning out objects should be applied. I have no problem if someone does that, and I do sense my own reluctance to do such a thing, feeling that if it is done, maybe declaring the fact could be necessary. And I do object to suggestions of falsifying an image when nothing of the kind was asked for. I have no problem with applying tonal curves or correcting keystoning, which I consider akin to straightening up the horizon. If keystoning or slanted horizon are not intentional, the image would often win on adjusting it.

And I have absolutely no problem with the artistic freedom of others. If you want to remove the halter from the horse, an electric fence or the leash from the rabbit. I am quite OK with that, but if someone posts a picture of a rabbit jumping over a fence, and immediately there is a hailstorm of suggestions that the leash should be removed, I regard it offensive, even though I could lend a helping hand if someone asks me how that leash could be removed. It's a personal thing I guess, and also, as many of my pictures are wildlife shots, where I indeed do my best not to influence what is happening, and where I do absolutely no cleaning job, I tend to apply similar standards to my own work, also in other situations where it is less important. Something like: "That man was there at the time, so he's included in the image, because I also want the butcher's bucket to be there, where he placed it." To me, that picture is something I remember from that place at that time, and in my memory, those objects belong there. I am not very picky about the manhole covers or the paving of the street though, and maybe after all I will pull the passerby back a few yards. In case I do that, I will not forget that I did it.

Lately there has been a rather heated discussion here in Sweden about manipulated wildlife images, and maybe that makes these feelings surge. A famous nature photographer was discovered to have picked animal images from the web and inserted them into his own pictures, claiming that the animals were actually there (lynxes mainly, but also some other animals). Apart from nicking photos from others, violating copyright, it was also fraudulent, as he vehemently claimed that the images were of real animals in the place where they had been inserted, even after his fraud was uncovered.

And I still regard it a bit offensive to suggest removing objects that belong there from an image, when not asked for.

[rawill]

So far this has been a fascinating discussion.

I thank all posters for the contributions that they have made, and to the OP thank you for starting the discussion.

[Glenn NK]

I think posts Nos. 18 and 20 are particularly well thought out (Jeff and Manfred). Richard's first paragraph (Post No.14) is the point (which if we accept as true), is where we realize that there are far more exceptions than there are rules to guide us, and that the truth is harder to find than we at first might have realized.

Dave from Cheshire has pretty well summed up what we can conclude (and how I feel)

A further comment on Jeff's post about evidence from trials: Suppose I take a picture of the body and in the background, plainly visible. are two holes in the wall of the building behind the body - but when I change my shooting position a bit, one can see two more holes in an adjacent wall that were shot from a different angle (by someone else?). By choosing my shooting position (or not noticing the other holes), I have tainted the evidence. It's not always so simple. And by the way, recent research on the accuracy of the testimony of eyewitnesses to a crime has found them to in fact be quite inaccurate. Are photographers any better?

Glenn