Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 457350" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>There's manipulation and there's misrepresentation. As has been said, every digital or analog representation of a real life moment in time is a manipulation of what actually was. We can argue where that manipulation goes in terms of being representative of actual reality or potential reality, but it's still a manipulation. </p><p></p><p>Regardless, I don't get hung up on it if the photograph is represented in any way outside of with some sort of journalistic intent. If you want to put sunbeams in a shot and call it art without ever mentioning whether or not they're contained in the original image file or manufactured from filters or a composite I could care less - though if I ask and you lie to me then we have an issue. <strong><em>But</em></strong>, if you're acting as a photojournalist then what you put in front of the world better be a 100% accurate representation of what was in front of the camera when the shutter was pressed. Sure, fix light, fix color, even for a bit of dramatic effect, but it needs to be truthful. If the manipulation causes me, or anyone, to view the image differently than it appears SOOC then it's no longer journalistic but editorial and needs to be expressed as such.</p><p></p><p>And for the record, I don't consider shots of models or celebrities promoting products or themselves as journalistic photography in any sense. Photoshop the hell out of them, but be willing to take the heat when you're called out for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 457350, member: 9240"] There's manipulation and there's misrepresentation. As has been said, every digital or analog representation of a real life moment in time is a manipulation of what actually was. We can argue where that manipulation goes in terms of being representative of actual reality or potential reality, but it's still a manipulation. Regardless, I don't get hung up on it if the photograph is represented in any way outside of with some sort of journalistic intent. If you want to put sunbeams in a shot and call it art without ever mentioning whether or not they're contained in the original image file or manufactured from filters or a composite I could care less - though if I ask and you lie to me then we have an issue. [B][I]But[/I][/B], if you're acting as a photojournalist then what you put in front of the world better be a 100% accurate representation of what was in front of the camera when the shutter was pressed. Sure, fix light, fix color, even for a bit of dramatic effect, but it needs to be truthful. If the manipulation causes me, or anyone, to view the image differently than it appears SOOC then it's no longer journalistic but editorial and needs to be expressed as such. And for the record, I don't consider shots of models or celebrities promoting products or themselves as journalistic photography in any sense. Photoshop the hell out of them, but be willing to take the heat when you're called out for it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate
Top