[QUOTE="Robert Coe"] On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:14:21 -0400, tony cooper <[email][/email]> wrote: : : >On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:12:24 -0400, tony cooper <[email][/email]> : >wrote: : >: Let me make one point clear about my position on Photoshopped images: : >: it's a very legitimate form of the photographer's art. That's what we : >: try to create...art. We try to create interesting and pleasing images : >: that capture the attention of the viewer. Sometimes that comes right : >: out of the camera, and sometimes that comes from manipulation of the : >: image. : >: : >: My only objection to Photoshopped (or images manipulated by any : >: program) is when an altered or manipulated image is presented as a : >: "straight" image and a denial of manipulation is stated. : >: : >: Even this is a gray area. Sharpening, boosting detail or colors with : >: Channels or Curves, cloning out imperfections, and the use of the some : >: of the other tools in Photoshop is manipulation. Changing exposure of : >: a RAW image is manipulation. : > : >Would you call exposure bracketing manipulation? : : No. I was referring to manipulation in post-processing. Exposure : bracketing is done in-camera before the image is taken. : : >What's the practical : >difference between choosing the best of a series of bracketed exposures and : >adjusting the exposure value with a photo editor? : : I didn't say or imply that there is a difference. I was discussing : post-processing only, and specifically in editing programs like : Photoshop. : : I'm snipping the rest of your comments, but not because they are not : valid observations. I'm snipping because they don't address : manipulation in post-processing. It is not manipulation when you set : options in advance of taking the actual photograph. I guess I didn't make my point clear, since you seem to have missed it entirely. My assertion is that if setting the exposure value or white balance in advance is not manipulation, then correcting it afterwards using a photo editor isn't either. Conceptually, this is true in all cases (or so I would claim). But with RAW files, at least on some cameras, it's literally the case, since the in-camera correction is not applied to the image until post-processing. On the face of it, my position appears to contradict yours (not sidestep it, as you seem to imply), especially in view of the clarification you offer above. What about cropping? Is that manipulation? If your answer is yes, then what about using a telephoto lens? I assume that by your definition, that would not be manipulation. But suppose I would use a telephoto lens but don't have one. If I take the picture with a normal lens and crop it to the size it would have been if a telephoto were used, is that manipulation? The common theme here is that with today's equipment and the multitude of options that it offers, simplistic definitions of what constitutes manipulation are inadequate and sometimes counterproductive. Bob[/QUOTE] I would agree. Even with cheap p&s cameras, a fairly extensive amount of image manipulation can be done in-camera. For instance, cimply choosing colour modes can alter the degree of colour contrast and saturation. In pre-digital days, only a rather elaborate filter setup could have come close to the results of choosing, let's say the "Vivid" mode, or sepia setting. In most cases, this type of effect would have been achieved in the darkroom, not in-camera. Take Care, Dudley
