Article About the Ever Popular Image Manipulation Debate

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Two me there are two types of photography,one attempts to capture a moment in time as it actually was,this should have minimal PP to stay within the boundaries of reality,then there is the creative image production this can have as much PP as the presenter wants,after all if he gets it wrong no one will be interested in his creation.
At the end of the day photography ifs a form of expression,we should all be free to express our feelings so long as they dont hurt our fellow man in anyway.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I don't much think about this at all. I either like a photograph or I don't. (Unless it's a really badly executed manipulation)
 

Mike150

Senior Member
My view is that if I'm happy with the shot (as is) I leave it alone. Otherwise I edit it until I'm happy. The important factor in either case is that I end up happy with the shot.
 

Wolfeye

Senior Member
My view is that if I'm happy with the shot (as is) I leave it alone. Otherwise I edit it until I'm happy. The important factor in either case is that I end up happy with the shot.

The Buddhists would say you desire to be happy. Desire leads to suffering. Therefore, your happiness makes you suffer.

Note, I'm not a Buddhist, just sayin' what they say...
 

AC016

Senior Member
What the author of the article may fail to realize, is that photography is subjective, just like any other art form. He seems to be a very accomplished photographer, so i question his reasoning behind writing such a lengthy article? I would think that he would be comfortable enough to take criticism and just let it roll of his back like water off a duck. The article shows that he may have some insecurities. Get over it man and keep doing what you do.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
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. But, 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.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
What the author of the article may fail to realize, is that photography is subjective, just like any other art form. He seems to be a very accomplished photographer, so i question his reasoning behind writing such a lengthy article? I would think that he would be comfortable enough to take criticism and just let it roll of his back like water off a duck. The article shows that he may have some insecurities. Get over it man and keep doing what you do.

The dude obviously got called out for manipulating an image in order to increase its commercial potential and is looking into his soul for some justification that maybe, just maybe, he's still as authentic a photographer in his own mind as he was back in the days before he knew how to do this stuff. So if he can convince us he's OK then he's OK with himself.
 

AC016

Senior Member
The dude obviously got called out for manipulating an image in order to increase its commercial potential and is looking into his soul for some justification that maybe, just maybe, he's still as authentic a photographer in his own mind as he was back in the days before he knew how to do this stuff. So if he can convince us he's OK then he's OK with himself.

Yes, agreed.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The Buddhists would say you desire to be happy. Desire leads to suffering. Therefore, your happiness makes you suffer.

Note, I'm not a Buddhist, just sayin' what they say...
That's not quite accurate. The Second Noble Truth, "All suffering stems from desire", I think, is what you are probably referring to and is one of the Four Noble Truths: The Truth of Suffering, The Truth of the Cause of Suffering, The Truth of the End of Suffering and The Truth of the Path Leading to the End of Suffering.

Coming to understand the Four Noble Truth's is one step that ultimately leads to Enlightenment and True Happiness; versus the temporal and temporary happiness of the ego.

*assumes full Lotus Position*

As for the topic of photo manipulation it seems to me it's much like the difference between nudity in art versus pornography: I don't think we can clearly define where one leaves off and the other begins but I think most of us feel we know both art and pornography when we see it.

It's true that all photos are "manipulated" in some way, that's pretty much the nature of photography, but I don't think that's the bone of contention in this particular argument. I feel safe in saying balancing color in a RAW file is an acceptable practice, or converting an image to black and white. For me, the difference lies in something intangible but important, and I think it is a factor often overlooked: Intent.

Is the intention of the manipulation to enhance what is, or is the intention of the manipulation to create something that is not? If I want to record a moment and I enhance the colors and add a vignette to "manipulate" the viewers impression of what really was, I guess I see that as being One Thing. If I take a photo and then add things that were not there in reality at the time of the photo and my intention is to create a piece art, that's fine too but do I think of if differently; this is Another Thing Entirely. It's not better or worse, but different and different in an important sort of way. Some people take a photo and the photo itself IS the artwork. Some people take a photo and that photo becomes the foundation for a piece of digital art. Both will be manipulated in some way, yes; too me that's not really the point. The point, again, is intent.

Is your intent to show me what was and what you saw, or is it your intent to show me what could be, or what you saw in your Mind's Eye?

I like and appreciate both approaches. I guess what I don't like is presenting the latter as the former.
.....
 
Last edited:

J-see

Senior Member
Even intent will be a hard case to make.

In the end is there a difference between me adding a beam of light because it is visually attractive or removing power-lines because they are visually unattractive?

When I shoot at 1/2000s and freeze a bee in flight, is there not the same intent to show something we do not see? Something that isn't there for us? The same for a 30 second exposure during the night, or during the day if you like.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Even intent will be a hard case to make.

In the end is there a difference between me adding a beam of light because it is visually attractive or removing power-lines because they are visually unattractive?

When I shoot at 1/2000s and freeze a bee in flight, is there not the same intent to show something we do not see? Something that isn't there for us? The same for a 30 second exposure during the night, or during the day if you like.
Yes, I very much DO think there is a difference between removing a power line and adding a beam of light. Both are manipulations, yes; but lets be clear about things like power-lines vs. beams of light. They're not really on the same level if you ask me. Beams of light like that carry with them powerful, even iconic, meaning or significance; if not for all then certainly for many. Power lines do not. Adding something powerful, to me, is definitely NOT the same thing as removing something as common, as routine, as a power-line.

But all that being said, it is like the art vs pornography argument: there simply is no clear cut definition we can create but we all know it, or more likely, I think, feel it when it when we see it.
.....
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Even intent will be a hard case to make.

In the end is there a difference between me adding a beam of light because it is visually attractive or removing power-lines because they are visually unattractive?

Both are manipulations, but there are many that would argue that additive manipulation is more deceptive than reductive. If the justification is creating art then they are the same, if it's representing truth then not so much.


When I shoot at 1/2000s and freeze a bee in flight, is there not the same intent to show something we do not see? Something that isn't there for us? The same for a 30 second exposure during the night, or during the day if you like.

The "truth" represented is not necessarily relative to the naked eye but the eye that is behind the shutter. Any level of stopped motion is a variation of what the brain interprets in the moment through what is seen by the eye, not to mention that most of us have binocular vision and perceive depth and spacial orientation far differently in our minds than in a photo. The photo is an interpretation in time - instantaneously short or protractively long - of the constant motion we are fed by our eyes, and we instinctively look to deconstruct that back to "reality" when we see it. Our (in)ability to do that with an image is generally the basis by which we judge the truthfulness of it. Our expectation is what then chooses to bless or damn that "truth".

It's all in the eye of the beholder.
 

J-see

Senior Member
I don't know if there's that much difference between removing or adding. In the end we're talking about hypothetical realities and in how much they resemble the "real" reality ignoring the fact that one is as hypothetical. Personally I think it's a debate about degrees of manipulation and maybe it is not the manipulation that bothers us but the fact we assumed something to be real and then discover it isn't. Which makes it an emotional issue.

On some level I agree with the art vs porn argument but then again; what I call art, some call porn. So it's again my reality vs theirs.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Did anyone ever ask Leonardo Da Vinci if he added those mountains behind the Mona Lisa or were they there in the first place?
Even if come to find out that those mountains weren't really there, would that actually bother anyone? Would it make the painting worth any less?

I think manipulation should only be questioned if the photo is for journalistic purposes. Anything else I consider art. Whether be it good or bad art ,that's a whole different conversation. IMO
 

J-see

Senior Member
It makes me think of Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe."

Maybe such a disclaimer should be added to each photo: "This is not a landscape", "This is not a bird"...

Btw; about art vs porn. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Jeff Koons but if not, it might be interesting to check his Made in Heaven series. It shows how thin the line is, if there is one at all.
 
Top