How much image manipulation is too much?

-a minor amount of brightness, colour saturation or contrast changes?
-The use of garish film response or large amounts of colour to
oversaturate an image (like Velvia landscapes that look pretty but
fake as Hell)?
-Wholesale deletion and addition of objects into the frame that were
not there before?

When I look at unrealistic images, sometimes they look "nice" but
something about them turns me off from an imaging perspective.
Its like shots of a lion taken in a zoo; Sure you can get a nice
close-up, detailed unhindered by grassland growth, distance, etc,
but it really doesn't represent any kind of work on the part of the
imager. Its essentially staged, much as heavy image manipulation is.
For a magazine ad campaign to sell a camera or a car, it might make
sense, but from a purely photographic standpoint, IMO, its cheating.
Because we're talking art here, I guess there are no rights or wrongs.

 

No matter what ANYONE says, it is a totally arbitrary opinion.....Which
is OK for them but is certainly not binding on anyone else.
There is no "higher authority" that says adjusting levels is good but
cloning or juxtaposing images is evil. We are not talking Religion, we
are just having fun playing with images.
If we are making images for our own enjoyment, the sky is the limit.
Whatever manipulation gives us the most pleasure and enjoyment is the
correct one to use.
Now, if you are a contest moderator, you can set certain rules by which
all entrants must abide. If I don't like the rules, I can choose simply
to not enter the contest contest. Fair enough?
Bob Williams

 

This one has obviously been manipulated a bit, but it came out as a
pleasant picture: in alt.binaries.pictures.astro

message ID:

2XKPf.40460$%[email protected]

 

: Rich wrote:
: > -a minor amount of brightness, colour saturation or contrast changes?
: > -The use of garish film response or large amounts of colour to
: > oversaturate an image (like Velvia landscapes that look pretty but
: > fake as Hell)?
: > -Wholesale deletion and addition of objects into the frame that were
: > not there before?
: >
: > When I look at unrealistic images, sometimes they look "nice" but
: > something about them turns me off from an imaging perspective.
: > Its like shots of a lion taken in a zoo; Sure you can get a nice
: > close-up, detailed unhindered by grassland growth, distance, etc,
: > but it really doesn't represent any kind of work on the part of the
: > imager. Its essentially staged, much as heavy image manipulation is.
: > For a magazine ad campaign to sell a camera or a car, it might make
: > sense, but from a purely photographic standpoint, IMO, its cheating.
: > Because we're talking art here, I guess there are no rights or wrongs.
: >
: No matter what ANYONE says, it is a totally arbitrary opinion.....Which
: is OK for them but is certainly not binding on anyone else.
: There is no "higher authority" that says adjusting levels is good but
: cloning or juxtaposing images is evil. We are not talking Religion, we
: are just having fun playing with images.
: If we are making images for our own enjoyment, the sky is the limit.
: Whatever manipulation gives us the most pleasure and enjoyment is the
: correct one to use.
: Now, if you are a contest moderator, you can set certain rules by which
: all entrants must abide. If I don't like the rules, I can choose simply
: to not enter the contest contest. Fair enough?
: Bob Williams

I have to agree with Bob on this one. The amount of "manipulation" that is
right for you and for the specific image will depend on you, the intent
and the viewer (which could also be you).

If this is supposed to be a "true representation of what I see" then the
least manipulation is probably best. But if it is "art" the skys the
limit. As with any art form some of us will like it and some will hold
their nose. I may not count a "painting" done by throwing cans of paint
into the outfow of a jet engine as worth the cost of the paint, but others
do. I may like a pastoral "cattle in a field" painting that others deem to
be booring and unimaginative. And the funny thing is that none of us are
wrong. The same goes for photography. If you "play with" an image and get
a result that you like, you did just the right amount of manipulation. One
of the nice things about digital image editing software, many of the
better ones allow you to backup to a previous point in the process if you
find that you have gone too far. Lets see a painter do the same (Gee I
think it would have been better if I had painted Mona Lisa a bit further
to the left...).

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 

I agree. Part of the reason for it is that we have become conditioned to
spectacular imagery--saturated colors, tack-sharp focus, frozen action, etc.

Sort of like fake boobs--at first they were eye-catching, but now every
woman has 'em, and they've become a prerequisite for any girl that wants to
get into show business (or be a waitress at the local diner . . . )

 

My feeling is much the same. It's a matter of "What effect are you
going for?" In most of my photography (which is all non-professional,
just for fun) I'm aiming to document what's there in a way that evokes
some kind of emotion. Now, "what's there" is kind of a philosophical
question: your eyes and your brain are fooling you all the time; what
you see is not exactly what shows up in a photograph.

I took a photograph of a building the other week, and there were
some tourists milling around. I didn't feel like they added anything to
the picture, and I would have preferred that they weren't in the shot,
but there they were. I could have edited them out, but they were there
when I pressed the button. If I were doing commercial photography and
just trying to represent the building, then maybe I'd edit them out, but as
it is I feel it would be a little like cheating.

 

For a photographer, as little as possible... for an artist who is only using
photography as one element in his/her "vision" the sky's the limit.

 

In the original context of the question, I don't agree. I've got a problem
with accepting an image that been "photoshoped" within an inch of it's life
as a "photograph".

However, I can accept that image as an original creation that happens to be
"based" on a photograph.

Understand, we're talking about substantial changes to "reality" here, not
correcting or tweaking the image while still keeping it more or less
faithful to the original scene.

 

In part it depends on the use. If I was sitting on a jury in a trial I'd
want to see unedited photos, for instance.

In my own work, I usually want my editing to be invisible. Like I took a
picture across a harbor with some docked boats in the foreground. One
boat had a large red "for sale" sign on it that was very distracting to
the print. It was easy to clone out, and if you saw the picture you
would never know it wasn't there.

I don't really consider changes of levels and curves manipulation, just
another part of the exposure process.

Bob

 

wrote:

: No argument there. What I and others object to is when someone makes
: extensive alterations and enhancements to a photo to make it look nicer
: and still calls it photography. If he calls it art with the original
: photo as the starting point, no objection there either. Whether we like
: the end product or not is a different matter.

Unfortuantely the word Photography is defined (in part) as:
The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.

And Photograph is defined:
An image. A positive print, recorded by a camera.

(the Concise American Heritage Dictionary)

You will notice that art IS included in the description. It is true that
nothing is said about manipulation of the image. So this is not specific
for or against such manipulation. Thus many of us tend to lean toward any
image that was (originally) captured with a photographic process is still
a photograph. Even "fakes" or "artistic manipulated" photographs are still
photographs.

Maybe what needs to be found is a word that specifically means an image
that is captured, processed, and printed in such a way that the completed
output is as closely consistant with the original view as can be achieved.
The word Photograph (and all its derivitives) is just too vague for the
purists in the field. This is not wrong, as a vague definition allows each
of us to define it in our own narrower designation. But our own definition
probably will not match everyone elses.

If you have any suggestions of how to designate a photographic image with
no processing (and/or one with only minimum processing to adjust for
inaccuracys in input/output technologies such as printer profiles). Who
knows, you could be the inventer of a new word or word use that could
become popular enough to make it into the next dictionary.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 

wouldn't a photograph that is manipulated enough to change the original
scene captured considered digital art and not a photograph? If it was done
with inks and dyes, wouldn't that be considered art as in a visual art
piece? A photograph is an image from a camera and printed as an original,
with minor changes such as exposure, contrast, or minor blemish removal.
It is only when people "manipulate" the definition of a word that problems
arise.

 

It's visual art, but it's also still a photograph by some people's
definition. After all, a painting doesn't need to look a particular way
to be a painting - it just has to be produced by a particular process.
So a photograph can be an image produced by photography - even if it's been
greatly altered.

Clearly, you would like that to be the definition of the word
"photography", but good luck getting everyone to agree with you.
You may not think a manipulated image is a photograph, but your opinion
really doesn't matter much outside your circle of friends, particularly
if it is at odds with what the generally-accepted definition is.

If your definition doesn't agree with the dictionary's definition, just
who is trying to manipulate the definition?

Dave

 

Yes, but would be a photograph of a manipulated photograph which would be a
piece of art, be it digital or not.


A Photographic print is a print from a camera be it digital or film. Minor
changes such as exposure and contrast (dodging and burning) are done to
remove and improve the photo in the printing process.

Not the definition of photography but of photograph. It's not what I want
people to believe, it is written in hundreds of books.

Most photographers with any knowledge of the processes of photography and
photo manipulation (Digital or manual) and a little knowledge in the field
of art know that a manipulated photograph would be considered a piece of
art. Photographers who deal with photographic manipulation know at least
some of the basics of the visual arts.

Where does my explanation counter the definition of a photograph??

 

A photograph of a photo is also known as creating a copyneg. The process of
photographing a photograph to create a negative.

Digital art is actually a common term in the digital age of photo
manipulation.

 

But that's not the point. You may have a whole roomful of
photographers who agree that a particular manipulated image is a piece
of art, yet some will say that it is *also* still a photograph. The
important question is: When it is manipulated enough to become visual
art, does it stop being a photograph?

Alternately, are manipulated photographs no longer photographs, or are
they simply one type of photograph along with realistic photographs?

The several dictionary definitions posted by other people don't require
"photograph" to mean only unmanipulated or lightly-manipulated
photographs. Heavily-altered images would still be photographs, by
those definitions.

Dave

 

If the photo is digitally enhanced then yes it would still be a photograph
but of a digitally manipulated scene, concluding digital art. Is this too
difficult to understand or are you just one of these people that are
constantly manipulating photos to look like nothing that could exist and
calling your work photography?
If the photograph is manipulated with inks and dyes, you are basically
coloring the photograph to change the appearance, does this mean a coloring
book is full of photographs once colored?
This is a battle that can not be won by either side. Therein lies the major
problem with clasification of any type of media. Everyone changes the
description to meet their own needs.


The

No because a photograph is already classified as visual art. When
manipulated beyond reality it would be considered a photograph of a
manipulated work of art. not just a photograph.

Yes, and that's where most people go wrong. They are another type of
photograph. A photograph of a manipulated work of art. The same question
gives the same answer no matter how many times you ask

Once again a photograph of highly manipulated images would be a photograph
of a work of art.
knock, knock, knock, anyone home in there?
I'm sure you will come back with a question, once again, probably worded
differently but essentially the same as all the past statements and
questions you have posted.
Have a good day, and manipulate your photographs into works of art all day
long

 

Well, I'd say no. I'd say that photography and visual art are domains
that overlap somewhat, and the set of manipulated photographs remain
photographs, but not all photographic visual art needs to be
manipulated. (Also that not all manipulated photographs are art!)

Dave

 

No one is arguing whether manipulated photographs are art. Stop saying
that; it just confuses the issue. The disagreement is whether a
photograph can ever *stop* being a photograph when it is manipulated.
You seem to be saying that if an image looks "like nothing that could
exist", it is no longer a photograph - even if it started out as one.

I don't generally manipulate *my* photos beyond trying to recreate what
I saw - so I do little beyond contrast and colour adjustments and
sharpening. But I accept that images that started out as photographs
and were drastically manipulated are *still* photographs, while you seem
to be trying to say that they are *not* photographs any more.

So what sort of manipulation does someone have to do to turn a
photograph into a non-photograph?

No. A photograph and a colouring book start out different before the
colour is added, and remain different. Hand-colouring a photograph
(with physical ink or in Photoshop) does not make it stop being a
photograph, no more than adding ink to a colouring book can turn it into
a photograph.

True. So your definition of photograph may not agree with that of
others.

A photograph *of* a work of art is not the same thing as a photograph
that *is* a work of art - though both are photographs, and both can be
art.

They are photographs *of* whatever the original subject was. A
"photograph of a work of art" surely must be made by aiming the camera
at something that is already a work of art.

That makes much less sense than what you've said before. A photograph
of a tree (for example) remains a photograph of a tree when manipulated.
It may become a work of art that is a photograph of a tree., but it is
not a photograph of a work of art. To create a photograph of a work of
art, you would need to take a new photograph of the manipulated
photograph.

Actually, I don't make more than minor adjustments to my photographs,
and I don't claim that they are works of art. I just don't want you
trying to dictate that somehow photographs stop being photographs when
they are manipulated.

Dave