Reading mode: Light Dark

PhotoSIG not DigitallyAlteredSIG

Go to last post
I

Intrinsic

Active member
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA, US
Now, I promise to everyone reading this, I am a nice guy.

With that said, I have no problem with people who like to alter images, none whats so ever. But when people honestly try to pass off Digitally Altered photos, and put them in competition with unaltered photos, it is simply fraudulent. Look at this photo. http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1124142 What do you think?

I think PhotoSIG should have an option where you designate wether or not this photo is an unaltered submission. When National Geographic had it's photo contest, they threw out every single digital submission because they didn't know what was real and what wasn't.

Photographers that do this are the type of people that give Digital Photography a bad name, I remember when I first thought about Digital Photography. Only thing I figured about it was that it was for photographers who like to use digital cameras instead of film because they could fix their photos in photoshop. I figured out later that digital photography was not only used for that, but for easier storage, less money, and other various things. But even so, most digital photographers still fall under that first category, it's simply too irresistable to someone who takes a 1 TU photo, to not pop it in PhotoShop and up the saturation by 20-25, blur the grainulated background, and plop it on PhotoSig and get 3TU. Or even Sharpen their poorly focused image, then blur the pixelation from the sharpening, it's crazy what bad photographers are doing nowadays with computers.

Anyhow, we need to set a standard for what an image can be and still be considered a photograph. Photography is about composition, when I stand behind a photographer at Yellowstone National Park, watch him focus on a subject, then ask him? "aren't those powerlines in your frame?" and have him reply "yeah, but I can just clone those out" because he is either too lazy to move, doesn't care, or doesn't have the motivation to take a respectable photograph, I get a little depressed when I see this happen. I want to buy a digital camera, but I don't want to join the ranks of illegitamate digital photographers.
--
I'm a poet and I didn't even realize it.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
http://www.pbase.com/intrinsic
 
Comments on PhotoSig are probably best left on PhotoSig's own forums. However, the points you make about digitally altered photos are interesting.

How is digitally altering a photo different than say dodging or burning at the enlarger? A lot of wildlife photographers use 81a filters to warm the colors of their images...is this practice wrong? What about graduated ND filters, polarizers, color gels? Should bridal portrait photographers quit airbrushing out the zits on young brides....or try to find an angle where the girl has a perfect complexion??

Photoshop is just a new tool that makes it easier to do something we've all done (at least those of us who aren't PJs) forever. No amount of Photoshop work is ever going to make a poor photograph a good one. What it can do is make a good image even better. That's what it's all about, getting the best image...the one that communicates what we're trying to say.
Intrinsic said:
Now, I promise to everyone reading this, I am a nice guy.
With that said, I have no problem with people who like to alter
images, none whats so ever. But when people honestly try to pass
off Digitally Altered photos, and put them in competition with
unaltered photos, it is simply fraudulent. Look at this photo.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1124142 What do you think?

I think PhotoSIG should have an option where you designate wether
or not this photo is an unaltered submission. When National
Geographic had it's photo contest, they threw out every single
digital submission because they didn't know what was real and what
wasn't.

Photographers that do this are the type of people that give Digital
Photography a bad name, I remember when I first thought about
Digital Photography. Only thing I figured about it was that it was
for photographers who like to use digital cameras instead of film
because they could fix their photos in photoshop. I figured out
later that digital photography was not only used for that, but for
easier storage, less money, and other various things. But even so,
most digital photographers still fall under that first category,
it's simply too irresistable to someone who takes a 1 TU photo, to
not pop it in PhotoShop and up the saturation by 20-25, blur the
grainulated background, and plop it on PhotoSig and get 3TU. Or
even Sharpen their poorly focused image, then blur the pixelation
from the sharpening, it's crazy what bad photographers are doing
nowadays with computers.

Anyhow, we need to set a standard for what an image can be and
still be considered a photograph. Photography is about
composition, when I stand behind a photographer at Yellowstone
National Park, watch him focus on a subject, then ask him? "aren't
those powerlines in your frame?" and have him reply "yeah, but I
can just clone those out" because he is either too lazy to move,
doesn't care, or doesn't have the motivation to take a respectable
photograph, I get a little depressed when I see this happen. I want
to buy a digital camera, but I don't want to join the ranks of
illegitamate digital photographers.
--
I'm a poet and I didn't even realize it.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
http://www.pbase.com/intrinsic
Click to expand...
 
I think that we need to disregard your post because you clearly did not write it by hand. Obviously, by using a computer to make your post, you gained certain advantages that were never intended by the original writers. After all, writing is about carefully composing your thoughts, measuring your prose, then commiting them to parchment with elegant characters.

By using your computer, you have gained an unfair advantage in speed and accurancy. You are disloyal to tradition because you can go back and correct your mistakes and use artificial aides such as spell check to verify the accuracy of your work.

And the method by which you shared your words...all you did was press the post button on this forum. You failed to claim your words with a wax impression of your personal seal.

~~~~

To be sure, you raise some interesting points. I don't know anything about pbase contests, and I don't know if they are an issue in a "Pro" forum. But to a working pro, Photoshop use is every bit as much of the process of producing images today as filters and gels were yesterday. Its just a tool in the process, much as your keyboard has become a tool of communication.

Eric
 
Eric Jarvis said:
I think that we need to disregard your post because you clearly did
not write it by hand. Obviously, by using a computer to make your
post, you gained certain advantages that were never intended by the
original writers. After all, writing is about carefully composing
your thoughts, measuring your prose, then commiting them to
parchment with elegant characters.

By using your computer, you have gained an unfair advantage in
speed and accurancy. You are disloyal to tradition because you can
go back and correct your mistakes and use artificial aides such as
spell check to verify the accuracy of your work.

And the method by which you shared your words...all you did was
press the post button on this forum. You failed to claim your words
with a wax impression of your personal seal.

~~~~

To be sure, you raise some interesting points. I don't know
anything about pbase contests, and I don't know if they are an
issue in a "Pro" forum. But to a working pro, Photoshop use is
every bit as much of the process of producing images today as
filters and gels were yesterday. Its just a tool in the process,
much as your keyboard has become a tool of communication.

Eric
Click to expand...
--
( http://www.supremepix.com )
 
There are plenty of people like you with the elitist attitude that any modification of a photograph invalidates the image.

The British magazine " Black & White Photography" takes a very purist perspective when it comes to photography, yet you should go to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders bookstore and get a copy of the current (Nov 2003) edition. On page 35 there is an article called "Jumping Johnny flash." England's National Potrait Gallery has the image being discussed in their collection, and it is a photograph commissioned by something called "the Prince's trust".

It's a great photo of some important old guy jumping up in the air about 3 inches. But it is not a photo by your standards, because it is a combination of three photos, since the guy was really too old to jump. AND NO COMPUTER WAS USED TO MAKE THE COMPOSITE. It was done in the darkroom. The national gallery accepts it as a photo, the prince's trust accepts it a photo, the magazine accepts it a photo. So use of a computer is not the issue.

Making modifications to the original image, in order to come out with the best final image, is all part of the process of photography. And it's the final image that should be appreciated, without regard to the process by which it was created (photojournalism excepted).
 
I must admit it has been a while since I have done serious darkroom work, but I was always of the opinion that half of serious photography was behind the lens and the other half was in the darkroom (of course the better job done behind the lens the less time often required in the darkroom). As has been mentioned there is a lot of adjustment that can go on in the darkroom, from burning and dodging to use of filters. For that matter many high end film SLR's allowed for multiple exposures on a single frame of film.

Photography is an art, anything you do to get to your final image is ok. The computer is our new darkroom.

That said, if a magazine, contest or photo site wants unaltered images that is what should be submitted and submitting something that has been "altered" would be unethical (but hey, does that mean we need to shoot RAW, what about in camera settings. Matter fact in my new E1 I can shoot raw and then process the raw in the camera to different settings). Generally speaking something posted to a photo site should mention how it has been "post processed" since the purpose of most of those sites is a learning tool for other photographers, also hard to offersomeone advice if you don't know all the facts. However, for those just enjoying the art, they don't care. In other cases, it adds to the image trying to figure out how it was done.

Definately not a "black and white" issue, lots of shades of grey. But would you expect anything less in photography!!!

Rick Whitman
Intrinsic said:
Now, I promise to everyone reading this, I am a nice guy.
With that said, I have no problem with people who like to alter
images, none whats so ever. But when people honestly try to pass
off Digitally Altered photos, and put them in competition with
unaltered photos, it is simply fraudulent. Look at this photo.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1124142 What do you think?

I think PhotoSIG should have an option where you designate wether
or not this photo is an unaltered submission. When National
Geographic had it's photo contest, they threw out every single
digital submission because they didn't know what was real and what
wasn't.

Photographers that do this are the type of people that give Digital
Photography a bad name, I remember when I first thought about
Digital Photography. Only thing I figured about it was that it was
for photographers who like to use digital cameras instead of film
because they could fix their photos in photoshop. I figured out
later that digital photography was not only used for that, but for
easier storage, less money, and other various things. But even so,
most digital photographers still fall under that first category,
it's simply too irresistable to someone who takes a 1 TU photo, to
not pop it in PhotoShop and up the saturation by 20-25, blur the
grainulated background, and plop it on PhotoSig and get 3TU. Or
even Sharpen their poorly focused image, then blur the pixelation
from the sharpening, it's crazy what bad photographers are doing
nowadays with computers.

Anyhow, we need to set a standard for what an image can be and
still be considered a photograph. Photography is about
composition, when I stand behind a photographer at Yellowstone
National Park, watch him focus on a subject, then ask him? "aren't
those powerlines in your frame?" and have him reply "yeah, but I
can just clone those out" because he is either too lazy to move,
doesn't care, or doesn't have the motivation to take a respectable
photograph, I get a little depressed when I see this happen. I want
to buy a digital camera, but I don't want to join the ranks of
illegitamate digital photographers.
--
I'm a poet and I didn't even realize it.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
http://www.pbase.com/intrinsic
Click to expand...
 
You know, the simple act of hitting the shutter is a way of altering reality. No photograph, digital or otherwise is ever unmanipulated. Choosing the framing, choosing the focus, choosing the moment, all of these manipulate reality.

And of course the choices one makes in the darkroom - color balance, dodging and burning, cropping, toning, contrast adjustments, development times... All of these represent the sort of alterations you're complaining about as well.

Searching for some kind of objective reality in a photograph is a fool's errand. And judging another person's work based on the degree of "reality" rather than the strength of the image is equally misguided.

The shot in question doesn't do much for me, but the reasons have nothing to do with the technique.

The lesson, imho - make good pictures by any means necessary. If you can do it all in the camera, great. If you can't, but the results are astounding, that's great too.

Mediocre pictures, regardless of their provenance, remain mediocre pictures.

(I've made more than my share of mediocre and bad pictures, manipulated and otherwise, in the darkroom, in-camera, in-photoshop. I make no claims to being better than anyone else :) )
 
I understand the points you're making... the photo does look like there was plenty of PS work done, but who knows? Only the photographer...

I think the only real time to be concerned, about issues of manipulation are when the photo is being presented as news or documentary. If we are talking about art, then whatever is done to achieve a successful image is valid.

The arguement about darkroom work stands also... I try to do to my photos only what I would do in the darkroom... although many photographers in todays digital age have never processed film or printed a photo...

One other thing to consider... Would it be a legitimate image if a colored filter had been used on the lens? Photographers have made that a regular practice for years.

--
...nathan...
http://www.musecube.com/BlaneyPhoto/
 
Hilarious!
Eric Jarvis said:
I think that we need to disregard your post because you clearly did
not write it by hand. Obviously, by using a computer to make your
post, you gained certain advantages that were never intended by the
original writers. After all, writing is about carefully composing
your thoughts, measuring your prose, then commiting them to
parchment with elegant characters.

By using your computer, you have gained an unfair advantage in
speed and accurancy. You are disloyal to tradition because you can
go back and correct your mistakes and use artificial aides such as
spell check to verify the accuracy of your work.

And the method by which you shared your words...all you did was
press the post button on this forum. You failed to claim your words
with a wax impression of your personal seal.

~~~~

To be sure, you raise some interesting points. I don't know
anything about pbase contests, and I don't know if they are an
issue in a "Pro" forum. But to a working pro, Photoshop use is
every bit as much of the process of producing images today as
filters and gels were yesterday. Its just a tool in the process,
much as your keyboard has become a tool of communication.

Eric
Click to expand...
 
I can see your point of view. Personally, unless something is promoted as documentary work, I accept a photograph at face value. Photography is a visual medium, so it's the image that counts for me.

That said, your original post is somewhat inane, since the photographer in question says that he didn't perform the alterations you allege. There's no evidence to the contrary, and he's not on trial, so I guess we'll have accept his response.
Intrinsic said:
Now, I promise to everyone reading this, I am a nice guy.
With that said, I have no problem with people who like to alter
images, none whats so ever. But when people honestly try to pass
off Digitally Altered photos, and put them in competition with
unaltered photos, it is simply fraudulent. Look at this photo.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1124142 What do you think?

I think PhotoSIG should have an option where you designate wether
or not this photo is an unaltered submission. When National
Geographic had it's photo contest, they threw out every single
digital submission because they didn't know what was real and what
wasn't.

Photographers that do this are the type of people that give Digital
Photography a bad name, I remember when I first thought about
Digital Photography. Only thing I figured about it was that it was
for photographers who like to use digital cameras instead of film
because they could fix their photos in photoshop. I figured out
later that digital photography was not only used for that, but for
easier storage, less money, and other various things. But even so,
most digital photographers still fall under that first category,
it's simply too irresistable to someone who takes a 1 TU photo, to
not pop it in PhotoShop and up the saturation by 20-25, blur the
grainulated background, and plop it on PhotoSig and get 3TU. Or
even Sharpen their poorly focused image, then blur the pixelation
from the sharpening, it's crazy what bad photographers are doing
nowadays with computers.

Anyhow, we need to set a standard for what an image can be and
still be considered a photograph. Photography is about
composition, when I stand behind a photographer at Yellowstone
National Park, watch him focus on a subject, then ask him? "aren't
those powerlines in your frame?" and have him reply "yeah, but I
can just clone those out" because he is either too lazy to move,
doesn't care, or doesn't have the motivation to take a respectable
photograph, I get a little depressed when I see this happen. I want
to buy a digital camera, but I don't want to join the ranks of
illegitamate digital photographers.
--
I'm a poet and I didn't even realize it.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
http://www.pbase.com/intrinsic
Click to expand...
--
There's only one 'e' in 'lens'. Thanks.



http://www.thehiddenworld.net
 
"I don't do art"
  • Dave McKean, from the introduction
to Narcolepsy, his latest book of paintings,
comics illustrations, photographs, retouches
etc.. Words of a genius.
  • Anfy
nrwhitman said:
Photography is an art, anything you do to get to your final image
is ok. The computer is our new darkroom.
Click to expand...
 
Ship the photographer to Hungary. They'd get the truth for us, one way or another! See reference in Retouching forum, if you need a clue.

Eric Sterns wrote:
...
the photographer in question says that he didn't perform the
Member said:
alterations you allege. There's no evidence to the contrary, and
he's not on trial, so I guess we'll have accept his response.
Click to expand...
 
is calling Photosig competition. Who cares what people do there.
Intrinsic said:
Now, I promise to everyone reading this, I am a nice guy.
With that said, I have no problem with people who like to alter
images, none whats so ever. But when people honestly try to pass
off Digitally Altered photos, and put them in competition with
unaltered photos, it is simply fraudulent. Look at this photo.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1124142 What do you think?

I think PhotoSIG should have an option where you designate wether
or not this photo is an unaltered submission. When National
Geographic had it's photo contest, they threw out every single
digital submission because they didn't know what was real and what
wasn't.

Photographers that do this are the type of people that give Digital
Photography a bad name, I remember when I first thought about
Digital Photography. Only thing I figured about it was that it was
for photographers who like to use digital cameras instead of film
because they could fix their photos in photoshop. I figured out
later that digital photography was not only used for that, but for
easier storage, less money, and other various things. But even so,
most digital photographers still fall under that first category,
it's simply too irresistable to someone who takes a 1 TU photo, to
not pop it in PhotoShop and up the saturation by 20-25, blur the
grainulated background, and plop it on PhotoSig and get 3TU. Or
even Sharpen their poorly focused image, then blur the pixelation
from the sharpening, it's crazy what bad photographers are doing
nowadays with computers.

Anyhow, we need to set a standard for what an image can be and
still be considered a photograph. Photography is about
composition, when I stand behind a photographer at Yellowstone
National Park, watch him focus on a subject, then ask him? "aren't
those powerlines in your frame?" and have him reply "yeah, but I
can just clone those out" because he is either too lazy to move,
doesn't care, or doesn't have the motivation to take a respectable
photograph, I get a little depressed when I see this happen. I want
to buy a digital camera, but I don't want to join the ranks of
illegitamate digital photographers.
--
I'm a poet and I didn't even realize it.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
http://www.pbase.com/intrinsic
Click to expand...
--
http://www.joesimages.com
 
Photosig used to be a kewl site. They changed it so you have to buy

your way in. It's now the equivalent of "vanity press," and has lost its status.

stay with usefilm.com

they give you the option of paying, or not

Bob
 
When your all grown up, and know what an "F-stop is exactly"..

Your only 17...and want to believe that things exist in Black and white....Well they don't......

Quandry #1???... What do you call someone who feels that people should follow some sort of rule...then post's a signature to the likes of " Learn the rules, then forget the rules."... I call them a hypocrite.

Quandry #2 what do you call someone who posts flame bait....then dosn't reply to his\her own post....I call them a flammer/troll.
BTW...anyone who has to start off with " I'm a nice guy " ..generaly isn't

I've read your other posts...you either diluted (yeah...I know the spelling.,...inside joke), or are trying to flame/troll.....

--
Regards....Matt K
' Why isn't Phonetic spelled the way it sounds ???? '

'You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn't waste either.'....Galen Rowell
 
Bob BC said:
Photosig used to be a kewl site. They changed it so you have to buy
your way in. It's now the equivalent of "vanity press," and has
lost its status.

stay with usefilm.com

they give you the option of paying, or not

Bob
Click to expand...
You can use Photosig without paying. You just need to put in a little work critiquing photos. To some that is part of the learning process. Do enough helpful critiques and you can upload a photo. Do enough critiques and someone can upgrade you to a basic level where you can uplaod one photo every three days without doing any work.
 
I used to retouch images to make women "younger", blur images with a nylon stocking to create a "glamour" look, change colours over-all or in selected parts of the image, superimpose multiple images on a single print, make a flat image into high-key, dodge, burn, adjust the RGB values independently, hand colour, measure RGB values with a colour analyzer, use special filters in front of the camera lens, change colour temperature with fancy polarized colour temp filters, etc.

Remember that Photoshop is simply the mechanization of the photographic and graphic arts techniques - and a few extra things thrown in by the mathematicians.

The only major things I can do in photoshop that I could not do in ancient history is provide an apparent sharpening to an image and eliminate grain/noise with special numerical algorithms. Of course, most of my manually done things are somewhat easier in photoshop.

tony
 
Here are some thoughts, first off, I have been into photography a little over a year now, second, do you realize how many pro photographers still cannot answer that question correctly, and now I can, third, about the age thing, to me age is really irrelavant, I do notice however, that when I was 14, I look back on my veiws and opinions and realize, holy cow, I was really wrong for thinking that. But that can happen when your 17, or 27... Most older men that I meet right off that bat assume I am some 17 yr old punk white boy wearing pants that hang halfway down my ass trying to act all smug. And that just isn't me... once you oldfolks get to know me you realize I ain't so bad.

Anyhow, my reply, guys, I don't have anything against the computer as a dark room AT ALL! As you know already I am 17, I don't own a damn darkroom, I own PhotoShop7, which cost more, PS7 or darkroom.. hmm LOL! Anyhow, I use PhotoShop, but I don't take a photo of Mt. Rainier, then slap a Bald Eagle flying across the screen, upload it only EgoSIG, get numerous 3TU and take all the credit for being there at the right time at the right place... do you see my point?

And yes, I am not a bad guy, I am a nice guy, and people like me. END OF TAPE 2 PLEASE FLIP.
 
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.

Now, to the person who called me a hypocrite, Learn the rules, then forget the rules, is a famous quote by Bruce Lee, the martial artist.

That has nothing to do with putting a shark in a helicopter photo and passing it off as a real photo of a shark lunging out of the water trying to take a bite off a rescuer...

It has to do with Learning all the techniques, and mastering them, then forgetting them and doing it your way, if you know how to do it the correct way, then your way will also become the correct way, nomatter if it follows the perfect rule. Have you heard of Picasso? O wait, Photographers are supposed to avoid Painters, I forgot lol.

O and about the comparism from pencil to keyboard, I think a better one would be Editing before and after spell checker, before you had to have intelligence, now kids just need to learn how to move the mouse pointer over of the word "edit" wait, then move the mouse pointer staight down to the words "Spell Check" and PRESTO!

Yes I do think that is a much better example.

and again, I use PhotoShop, I love it, but I don't pass fraudulent images as real photographs.
 
Bob BC said:
Photosig used to be a kewl site. They changed it so you have to buy
your way in. It's now the equivalent of "vanity press," and has
lost its status.

stay with usefilm.com

they give you the option of paying, or not

Bob
Click to expand...
Bob:

Vanity press? No vanity in getting ignored or worse. PhotoSig is a very valuable site, as it really forces me to reach the highest standard I can. Any flaw in a shot and it is toast. As for the price, $25 is noting when you think of all we spend on our stuff. It has made me a better photographer, so I fealt the need to defend it.
--
Charlie
E-10, UZi & EZi, A-200, MCON-35, DCR-FE180PRO, Epson 2200

Better lucky than smart. The more shots I take, the luckier I get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top