[OPN] Original or Digitally Altered

I think there's an arguement for both practices.

I personally try to accheive the best possible photograph staight out the camera. However, I also work in the wonderful world of digital technology and spent some time years ago as a finishing artist in an advertising agency. This means I get a good deal of fun manipulating images. A trully great photograph (unmanipulated) is hard to beat, but a well manipulated image can be incredible. As long as the viewer and the taker understand the difference and appreciate it for what it is.

The sign of a good photographer is their ability to make good clear compositions out the camera. A good artist can take an image (not necessarily good) and transform it into a thing of beauty.

Whatever grabs you. It's all part of the digital darkroom.

Rob
--
Go the whole hog....go 4/3 SCCD 4

I agree that nature photos should remain fairly natural, the same with sports photos. I know a guy --- Not me! --- who will cut and paste a softball, etc. into a photo if he didn't catch it in the shot. I haven't done that, as I consider sports photography, like photographing nature, to be a type of documentary shooting, photojournalism of a sort.

I got my job at the studio because I could alter images --- collages, restorations, that sort of thing. But in that context, everyone knows that they've been altered.

Recently we shot a photo of a handicapped boy in the studio dressed in Harley motorcycle gear (Due to his condition, he's never ridden one, but loves motorcycles.), and I shot about 60 photos of motorcycles on the street with my S2, then found a suitable Harley and pasted him on the seat. Put a semitransparency of a closeup of a motorcycle in the background, add some fire and smoke effects and a closeup of him in the foreground, and you have a collage. It was understood to be a work of graphics, and the boy and his parents loved it. Things like that make me feel really good about digital and having the experience working with graphics.

I do some things for fun, like posting the head of a friend on a basketball player playing against Michael Jordan, but I would never try to sell that as a photo to Sports Illustrated.

In the same way, I could never take a moose from the zoo and cut and paste it into a landscape and call it a photograph. Graphic, plain and simple. Nothing really wrong with that, as long as it's presented as a graphic, and not a photo.

The photos I've presented here have benefited from nothing more than the usual touchup stuff --- levels, correcting white balance, etc. The groundhogs, birds, cats, dogs, horses, etc., were all photographed as they were with no manipulating on my part. Now, if I ever post a "photo" of a moose sitting at the dinner table slurping coffee, you'll know something is up.

Excellent points, Derrel. After all, they didn't film the TV show "Wild Kingdom" at a petting zoo.

Tim

--
Photo Gallery:
http://www.georgianonline.com/tims_photos/tims_photos.html

I think what you do with your photos is ultimately your choice. I wasn’t questioning the morality of what we do but more interested in your feelings and where you draw your lines and why.

No one can really impose rules on you!

One other thing, I realize photos have been manipulated for years!!!!! I was really referring to the Amateur and how frequently they would alter images. I have personally been digital since about 1985 if I recall correctly. My first scanner was made by NewTek and was hooked to an Amiga 2000. For color you had to scan three times, RG&B.

Interestingly enough, no one really mentioned how cameras themselves do manipulation. Take even our S2 and the different color and sharpness modes. BTW, I leave mine to Org, Org STD. Filters have been around forever also and they alter our photographs. Some purist think this is ok, but changing the color in a photo package on a computer is impure.

Its really interesting how we see things sometimes.

Sorry if I stirred the pot a little too much, but it did get this thread moving!
--
Be friendly to your fellow forum user, prefix your messages:

[PIC] for posting pictures [EQP] for equipment related posts
[LENS] for discussion on lenses [HLP] for when you need help
[ADV] Advice being seeked [CHLG] Challenges, Photo Assignments
[RQST] Requests, favors, etc.
[OPIN] for expressing your opinion, thoughts and Philosophy

Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro - Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro, 28-300 XR and Nikon 70-200VR
S2 Pics @ http://www.kcastronomy.com/FujiS2Pro/Page.html

Mark Abraham said:

I think what you do with your photos is ultimately your choice.

Click to expand...

I agree!! As a police forensic specialist I was bound by the law to produce a photograph that was a true and accurate representation of the scene, "as I saw it". Immediately, it becomes a subjective opinion. However, the courts are familiar with everyday objects and know enough to be able to determine if a photograph is a gross mis-represenatation of a scene or subject and cross-examination on any point of contention is able to clear up any apparent discrepancy.

Off duty, I was also a photographer and specialized in portraiture. I had no hesitation in manipulating the film, developer, enlarger controls etc. to produce an image that was a "hard copy" of what I saw in my mind. Whatever tools were necessary, such as burning, dodging, double exposure, water bath developing, were all fair game.

Then along comes digital. Different ball game - no way. The same rules apply to evidentiary photography, but so do the same "rules" or lack thereof, apply to personal expression through the medium of photography.

Digital is another tool in the arsenal of the photographic artist to take something conceived in the mind and, through scientific means, translate that into a piece of visual art or documentary record.

The problem comes when someone passes off the result as something other than what it really is. This as much applies to photographic art as it does to documentary photgraphy. It is then that the viewer is cheated of the true image.

A case in point. My wife has a tiny mole just above her lip. When we were a young married couple and I was getting into portraiture I used her frequently as a model (not a good idea incidentally, but that's another story) and inevitably she looked for the then-fashionable mole. Later on, when the mole became unfashionable I had to learn how to touch it out. Now all that is made easier in Photoshop.

In summary, my belief is that whatever turns your crank is OK, as long as you don't deliberately mislead where truth is necessary.

Long-winded, I know, but having gone from glass plates to a I gb micro-drive, I feel I've formed some opinions on this.

Dave Roberts
http://www.pbase.com/deewun

My 'line' is to occassionally clone out small branches/blemishes which may disrupt the presentation of one of my bird photos. I sold a series of photo cards to a store and the woman asked me "Can you remove that branch?", to which I replied "Certainly!" (not yet sure exactly how to).

I went home and found PS's cloning tool easy to use... and the branch disappeared from the photo. When I delivered the cards she noticed immediately and was pleased. I neglected to include a 'branch removed' disclaimer on the card's back.

I have yet to ADD anything to a photo (moon, more birds, whatever) and don't expect to find the need and/or desire. That's a graphic arts endeavor, IMHO.

Cheers,
Greg

--
Greg S
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=301372

Haven't done a wedding in a while and I did one this weekend as a favor to a friend. Very short wedding, second time around for both of them and only 20 people there. Shot some 200 images and culled them down to 80. On my monitor they looked great. Dropped them off with a roll of film I had shot of a group of seniors at a swanky party, for prints and I returned 4 hours later and picked up the prints.

Wow..the film prints sparkled but the digital prints looked flat.
Had I sharpened them-no

Did I adjust contrast and set exposure just so, no because it didn't really look like I needed it.
Oh well...

Back to the PC and I sharpened all of them at once to 1 pixel and altered the levels on about 10 of them. Back for processing and they now look as good as the film images.
Did I digitally alter the shots?
Perhaps.

But, as was pointed out, the camera does a heck of a lot of digital processing way before we get to look at the image.

Have I ever put a nice blue sky with billowy clouds when the original had a dingy grey?
You bet I have when the customer has asked for it.
Did I feel bad about it?
No, but I guess I do feel it's no longer a photograph.

One photo I made for a guy, a 24x36 digital enlargement of his 35mm shot, a marshall at Pebel Beach by the way, has been re-ordered more than 200 times so, hey, it was worth dubbing in the pretty sky.
Well, it clearly paid for the canvas and ink and my time.

Now comes the tough question..he wants to enter it into a photo contest.

I told him he couldn't do it as a pure photograph and of course, he's angry. After all, he did take the picture.
Didn't he?

They can dodge and burn, modify exposure, etc etc. I think they are all still photos, but some will look over-digitized if you mess with them too much and some people may not like that. It's still a photo though. Just my opinion.

Teski

Mark Abraham said:

How do you feel about alterting your images? Where do you draw the
line between pictures and images? Many places draw the line by
saying you can resize, adjust contrast, sharpen and crop, but
anything more makes it an digital image rather than a photo.

Whats your line?

--
Be friendly to your fellow forum user, prefix your messages:

[PIC] for posting pictures [EQP] for equipment related
posts
[LENS] for discussion on lenses [HLP] for when you need help
[ADV] Advice being seeked [CHLG] Challenges, Photo Assignments
[RQST] Requests, favors, etc.
[OPIN] for expressing your opinion, thoughts and Philosophy

Thanks!
Mark

Fuji S2 Pro - Tamron's 19-35, 90 Macro, 28-300 XR and Nikon 70-200VR
S2 Pics @ http://www.kcastronomy.com/FujiS2Pro/Page.html

Click to expand...