Enhancement vs. Manipulation?

[Ronald Rosenwald]

I am taking a class in basic photoshop... I had a question for the instructor that led to the discussion pertaining to the words ENHANCEMENT vs, MANIPULATION ..... it was a lively discussion with a few of the 10 students leaning to the decision that the words were interchangeable..... I hold a different opinion..... I believe that enhancement is taking the shot that your camera recorded and making modifications in shadow, color, sharpness, etc.... BUT NOT ADDING/subtracting, altering OR CHANGING the composition of the shot. I also hold that, to my mind anyway, manipulation is changing what the camera recorded... ie.... adding a nice cloud layer to an otherwise bland sky... or adding a boat to a sea scene.... or removal of a boat from a sea scene.... or adding/ subtracting a person... or a group..... etc. NOTE: I am not a prude about this.... and not pro or anti either procedure.... just an interested bystander at this point.

So what say you out there? Is there a difference and if so.... am I on the right track or not?

 

[bosjohn21]

its really not one or the other just varying degrees of manipulation. We should probably move away from the concept that there is any real difference other than degree. Once we accept that its all manipulation in the sense that we alter or modify the original file to best express what we saw or what we want the view to see then its just all processing as you say we are not prudes so I am suggesting a there is no qualitative difference and while there may possibly be a quantitative difference there is no basis so it will not matter. ok ok so its a bit obscure but think about it everything we do to file is changing it.

 

[Steve Throndson]

Ronald,

Thanks for starting the discussion.

Enhancement and manipulation are clearly different. If they were the same, there would be no need to have two words.

I think your interpretation is logical - enhancements being basic adjustments, and manipulations going beyond that.

The examples you gave - adding clouds, or adding a boat to a water scene - would be more properly called 'montage'. (not to be confused with 'collage') Perhaps montage comes under the umbrella of manipulation.

Steve

 

[stevo23]

I am taking a class in basic photoshop... I had a question for the instructor that led to the discussion pertaining to the words ENHANCEMENT vs, MANIPULATION ..... it was a lively discussion with a few of the 10 students leaning to the decision that the words were interchangeable..... I hold a different opinion..... I believe that enhancement is taking the shot that your camera recorded and making modifications in shadow, color, sharpness, etc.... BUT NOT ADDING/subtracting, altering OR CHANGING the composition of the shot. I also hold that, to my mind anyway, manipulation is changing what the camera recorded... ie.... adding a nice cloud layer to an otherwise bland sky... or adding a boat to a sea scene.... or removal of a boat from a sea scene.... or adding/ subtracting a person... or a group..... etc. NOTE: I am not a prude about this.... and not pro or anti either procedure.... just an interested bystander at this point.

So what say you out there? Is there a difference and if so.... am I on the right track or not?

Doesn't matter what the camera recorded, it matters what you felt in the moment. Post processing is how you take the original capture and make it communicate what you felt. Since we see in 3D with all of our senses at once, the camera will always be deficient in communicating that. This being said, I have a certain distaste for people who do heavy manipulation and try to pass it off as original to the capture.

 

[Dr Paul]

I have an over-simplified way of approaching this issue. Although it is a matter of degree, in different language an adjusted capture is a Photograph, and one in which elements have been substantially changed, added, or removed, is an "image." If I clone out a bush, it is no longer an accurate representation of the physical place, but might be a more compelling image of the opportunity found in that scene.

I use this distinction (and have heard it elsewhere) when I discuss my own prints with others. I call it a Photograph if it is a dodged, burned, and adjusted result, and I call it an image if it is altered beyond the basic elements of the original scene.

Of course, there are overlapping areas, such as removing a zit from a face (still a photo).

Just my take on this, which in sum, is a matter of ethical clarity that does not diminish the legitimacy of whatever process is being used.

 

[bosjohn21]

just because things are really the same has never stopped us from having more than one word for it before. but more to the point I am pretty sure we are speaking of say a line from doing nothing to say unrecognizable and there is not one point which we need say this is now one thing or another think of it more as different ends of a continum.

 

[bosjohn21]

but who decides what the when the basic elements are no longer the basic elements that the rub because we gradually move from the raw file to where ever it leads us there is no finite line to cross the line is always shifting in the sand so to speak nor do I think is there anything to be gained by having a line. processing is processing some do less some more and many do more or less depending on which side of the bed they got up on.

 

[bosjohn21]

we deep thinkers spend a life time making dichotomies where they really do not exist.

 

[Dr Paul]

but who decides what the when the basic elements are no longer the basic elements that the rub because we gradually move from the raw file to where ever it leads us there is no finite line to cross the line is always shifting in the sand so to speak nor do I think is there anything to be gained by having a line. processing is processing some do less some more and many do more or less depending on which side of the bed they got up on.

 

[Aaron801]

its really not one or the other just varying degrees of manipulation. We should probably move away from the concept that there is any real difference other than degree. Once we accept that its all manipulation in the sense that we alter or modify the original file to best express what we saw or what we want the view to see then its just all processing as you say we are not prudes so I am suggesting a there is no qualitative difference and while there may possibly be a quantitative difference there is no basis so it will not matter. ok ok so its a bit obscure but think about it everything we do to file is changing it.

I agree... 100%. unless the photo in question is meant to document something faithfully (like a news photo) then I don't really see a qualitative difference. A friend of mine who's a pro photographer and shoots stuff like food and fashion once said to me that he considers the work that he does to really be just any method of illustration... and with that in mind he's free to alter the results however he sees fit. I think that the same is true... if not even more so for fine art photography.

Some folks get really hung up on whether or not what they see in a photo is as the scene was photographed. if it's being presented as an art work though, it seems that the only question should be "does it speak to me?"

 

[jbf]

I haven't kept any stats on how the words are used, but I've visited these forums regularly for many years where both words are used quite a bit and I believe I have a decent feel for their usage. From my experience, I'd say that the words are used as you defined them slightly more often than not, but it's not uncommon for them to be used in a more generic and interchangeable way.

In an ideal world, the word meaning would be more consistent, but language is far from ideal. I recommend paying attention to how the other person is using the word. If you can't figure out what they mean, ask them to clarify what type of processing they're talking about. When you talk about your own post processing, try to be specific about what changes you made rather than using one of those words and thinking that others will understand. If you stick to your definition even knowing that the other person or people in a discussion mean something different, you'll only come across as arrogant. It seems like you're doing a good job of keeping an open mind by posing the question here assuming you're not just looking for validation that you're right and they're wrong.

I am taking a class in basic photoshop... I had a question for the instructor that led to the discussion pertaining to the words ENHANCEMENT vs, MANIPULATION ..... it was a lively discussion with a few of the 10 students leaning to the decision that the words were interchangeable..... I hold a different opinion..... I believe that enhancement is taking the shot that your camera recorded and making modifications in shadow, color, sharpness, etc.... BUT NOT ADDING/subtracting, altering OR CHANGING the composition of the shot. I also hold that, to my mind anyway, manipulation is changing what the camera recorded... ie.... adding a nice cloud layer to an otherwise bland sky... or adding a boat to a sea scene.... or removal of a boat from a sea scene.... or adding/ subtracting a person... or a group..... etc. NOTE: I am not a prude about this.... and not pro or anti either procedure.... just an interested bystander at this point.

So what say you out there? Is there a difference and if so.... am I on the right track or not?

 

[Tom Axford]

Personally, as an amateur doing photography primarily for my own enjoyment, I take a very purist approach and like to rule out all forms of localised processing, i.e. doing something to just part of the image rather than to the whole image.

This rules out all cut and paste operations, cloning and such like.

Strictly speaking it also rules out dodging and burning and things like ND grad filters and vignettes, although I am not so purist as to rule these out totally provided they are done in moderation (but I can't give you an objective definition of 'in moderation').

Things that I do happily allow are global processing operations that apply equally to the whole image. This includes colour balance, tools such as Levels and Curves, etc.; sharpening and many other filters that operate on the whole image.

However, it is a very interesting question about where one draws the line, and I suspect that everyone who does their own pp has their own ideas on this.

 

[gahtadreem]

Although I see a definite distinction between the two words, for me the end result is all that matters. How that result is achieved is irrelevant. Whether it's by 'enhancement' like color saturation, contrast, white balance, exposure comp. etc. or by 'manipulation' like Vidau uses to achieve images like 'Sunset' or Steve in 'Moon Thrower', or doing compilations where other elements are introduced into the image that weren't there originally....it doesn't matter. Some I'm sure are purists that feel using techniques that alter an image so drastically is no longer 'photography' but instead quasi computer art that just needs a photograph as a starting canvas. For me it's all good. Anything that gives me something interesting to look at is fine.

Bobby

 

[rick decker]

Enhancement is the goal of manipulation!! Many photos have been manipulated and it is questionable whether they have been "enhanced". Enhancement requires a judgement and whether something has been enhanced by manipulating it can be a subject of much disagreement.

--
It's a tough job living in Hawaii but somebody's got to do it.
http://www.rickdecker.photography
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

 

[Jon Conner]

Frankly, I find this kind of question a little bit pointless because it is up to to each individual what sort of boundaries he wants to put in place for his own purposes. This can be to never do anything to the pictures including cropping like Jay Maisel or to getting into major changes that render the image unrecognizable in comparison to the original. For myself, I just want to make the photo emphasize what I saw that caused me to push the shutter button, basically the various aspects of contrast and the elimination of color.

JC

 

[bosjohn21]

let me try this from another angle. we are trying with our negatives to enhance them so they will better express what we want and we do this with manipulation.

 

[Schroedingers_cat]

Interesting question that has some relevance to the DPreview Challenges.

One host, the same one who requires that entrants put a border around their photographs, lists one of the entry requirements as "No photo doctoring", but has unsatisfactorily defined exactly what "Photo doctoring" means in regard to his challenges.

This regularly leads to questions from prospective entrants as to what is permissible and what is not. Replacing a background in it's entirety would seem to clearly constitute "Photo doctoring", as would for instance adding a subject which was not present in the original scene.

However, how far along the continuum of say, burning and dodging, old staples of the wet darkroom, are you allowed to progress?

Where does adding a strong "S" curve fall?

Can you sharpen an image? If so, how much?

Regarding the difference in the two words originally mentioned by the OP, I personally regard them much as the distinction between "light" and "dark" or perhaps "loud" and "quiet". Where the observer's perception changes from one to the other depends upon who is doing the observing and from where they are doing it.

And I'm not totally convinced that it matters very much

--
http://www.nightstreets.com
-
"Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named...but a dying culture invariable exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners is more significant than a riot."
This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength. ...Friday, it is too late to save this culture--this worldwide culture... Therefore we must now prepare the monasteries for the coming Dark Age. Electronic records are too fragile..."
--Robert A. Heinlein in "Friday"

 

[LifeIsAVerb]

.

A lot of consideration has been given this topic since the advent of digital. This won't be the last time the topic has come up. The "answer"—or range of tolerance—is, obviously, going to vary with the context the photos are viewed in, the intent of the image maker, etc.

Since digital workflow allows for so much a wider range of potential manipulation than analogue (film/paper printing via enlarger), there's more to talk about.

Part of what comes into play is that decades of analogue photography have set a sort of base level of what a photographic image "should" look like. And that was influenced by the available tools, techniques, and technology at the time. So, film type (with inherent grain and color-rendering characteristics), printing manipulations (burning, dodging, printing through fabric), lens filters, etc., determined the various "looks" of what photo images had the potential to look like.

Radical manipulations (collage, photograms, very high contrast, solarization, etc.) were obvious, and wouldn't be confused with a "straight" photographic rendering.

But, even for the more standard kinds of photographic images, the "enhancement" techniques, if poorly or excessively applied, called attention to themselves and made it apparent that the image had been manipulated. Compare, for example, the mostly invisible burning, dodging, etc. of an Ansel Adams print with the clumsy burning and dodging common in photojournalism of the 70s and 80s, even in some high-profile publications.

For documentary and photojournalism work, i think there still are some fairly rigid lines that can't or shouldn't be crossed—staging or recreating a scene or event, adding or removing people or objects in an image, etc.

But outside of that context, in the current world, i don't think there's any way to get around the fact that, for many, anything goes, given the range of people taking pictures, the tools available to manipulate them, the many ways to share them, etc. I suspect that there will be some generational/age differences in how people think about this.

My own view, even with digital, is that i still draw a distinction between a traditional approach that produces a more or less "straight" image, and something that moves toward photo-illustration. Neither is better than the other, but i think about them in different ways.

The former puts the emphasis on the vision and attention involved in the recognition and evaluation of the elements of the original scene—light, tonalities, colors, relationship of the elements, moment, etc. Rendering and processing decisions should enhance or emphasize, but not materially alter them. I know there are still ambiguity here (HDR), but that's my starting point.

When an image is so drastically manipulated so that the aspects of the original scene become overwhelmed, obliterated, or otherwise so diminished as to become secondary, that crosses the (admittedly, at times, blurry) line to something i'll call illustration. It still may result in a compelling or interesting image, but i can no longer appreciate it in the same way as what i'm calling a "straight" photograph where the original recognition and capture of the scene has primacy.

.

 

[DenWil]

My negatives are the image I intended to shoot. The negatives (positives as well for that matter) express exactly what I saw and what I intended to present to the viewer ... or I messed up.

Yes, when originals are scanned there is a certain amount of restoration of levels involved to accommodate anything tweaked in the scanning process - contrast, brightness, tint- but that's it. The resulting file looks exactly onscreen as you'd expect with the original in hand.

Beyond the basic tinkering (and with some folks very precise and detailed tinkering) required by limitations inherent when switching from one medium- film to paper, film to digital file, digital file to paper...etc.- to another, anything more than tinkering ceases to be a photo.

Although the terms are not interchangeable , they can be lumped together, so whether you refer to your actions as enhancement, manipulation or modification you are still most likely reinventing an image that probably did not hold up on its own. I throw those images out. Some people do not. To each his own.

 

[stevo23]

Enhancement is the goal of manipulation!! Many photos have been manipulated and it is questionable whether they have been "enhanced". Enhancement requires a judgement and whether something has been enhanced by manipulating it can be a subject of much disagreement.