• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Image Manipulation.......

Latest Gallery

Refuge

H
Refuge

  • 1
  • 0
  • 32
Solitude

H
Solitude

  • 1
  • 0
  • 25

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,610
Messages
2,857,055
Members
101,927
Latest member
paulbesley
Recent bookmarks
0
blansky said:
I often find the presence of a camera an interesting aspect of news coverage. It's much like the debate of cameras in the courtroom. All of a sudden everyone is an actor.
Click to expand...


“the very act of measuring something changes it”. (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.)
 
There seems to be a lot of naievity here about what the purity of the news, media and tv organisations is. None of this has anything to do with an individuals integrity as a photographer. If they are paid staff they'll do what is "expected" of them. Freelancers will do what makes them money. There must hundreds and thousands of cases where the photographer or news/media/tv organisation was NOT found out. Welcome to the real world!!!

As for individuals you can set your own level of integrity. My view is that if you don't aim to set it as high as possible then you don't have any at all. You can delude yourself saying you didn't make the rules or that you make your own but that is irrelevant and also means you don't have any. Its the rules the viewer/buyer has imbedded in their minds that count and what you will be judged by, not your own. Get caught out once and your whole lifes work becomes suspect in the minds of the public, galleries and buyers. If you're unknown then no one will care. If you have good reputation you won't for long.

So which camp are you all in...

Oh, and a photograph isn't a painting and judging it as a piece "art" just the same as a painting is neglects the basic differences in how the image is made and how people perceive it.
 
rbultman said:
What are the camps again?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The:

I'm in the aim for the highest integrity in my images as peceived by others camp

or the

It's my image and I'll do what I like without regard to other peples perceptions of integrity camp.

Is that simple enough for you?
 
RobC said:
There seems to be a lot of naievity here about what the purity of the news, media and tv organisations is. None of this has anything to do with an individuals integrity as a photographer. If they are paid staff they'll do what is "expected" of them. Freelancers will do what makes them money. There must hundreds and thousands of cases where the photographer or news/media/tv organisation was NOT found out. Welcome to the real world!!!
Click to expand...

I don't really think being naive is the real issue or total cynicism either. I think most people know and understand the point of view issues.

But within that there is an acceptable balance we sort of expect. Something like the Iwo Jima picture. We all know it was a redo. But it wasn't a lie.

The sailor kissing the girl on the street at the end of WW2. If I was the photographer walking down the street and saw a couple hugging and celebrating, I might have said. Give her a kiss. And made history with it. Was it a lie. Was it real. Well it was sort of real and the celebration was going on.

We know the photographer in the original post that altered the colors of the funeral processions, didn't alter the people in the picture to change the underlying picture. So he may have altered the mood but didn't change the intent.

So I'm not sure we are naive. It's just that different genres have certain expectations, and we hope that they are adhered to on some level and the WPP does too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blansky said:
in this new world, we deal with the mistaken concept of photography as "truth", and as well the reality of how photographs affects perception.
Click to expand...

I think the truth you speak of is in the eye/mind of the artist in question (and not all photographers could be described as artists). Take Atget for instance, who I would suggest was completely sincere in his wish to express the truth of his feelings through his images.
 
RobC said:
...

As for individuals you can set your own level of integrity. My view is that if you don't aim to set it as high as possible then you don't have any at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Prof_Pixel said:
Back in the days before digital, commercial labs used to do some pretty amazing in-camera masking on reversal materials for image manipulation.
Click to expand...
I imagine it was a real art. I'm more referring to my own stuff. When I take digital pictures, I feel the urge to enhance my photos, because it's so easy, and like the tour de france in 2000, "everybody does it". With a roll of slide film, I hit, or I miss, and the hits feel nicer. At least, I imagine the hit will feel nice when I finally get it!
 
tomfrh said:
This is why I enjoy shooting slides! No cheating!
Click to expand...

In the early days of digital, slides were the reason for digital manipulation.

Photographers would have a slide scanned commercially, and then use the relatively rudimentary tools available to modify the files. The result would then be input into a film recorder, with which an edited original would be created on transparency stock.

Much like the way Hollywood movies were made until recently.
 
tomfrh said:
This is why I enjoy shooting slides! No cheating!
Click to expand...

Oh, slides are wonderful. I sure miss sending my Kodachrome to A&I.

But when I go to scan them, I can't resist dialing in a little Digital ROC (restoration of color)... And that's against the rules here. Not on DPUG though, maybe - just maybe - I'll start uploading a slide show there. Oh rats. Then there's the little matter of royalties to ASCAP. Ahrgh the Internet is cruel.
 
Bill, If you are Apple based, use Garage Band to create a sound track without such issues. (A new version was just released.)
 
Prof_Pixel said:
Bill, If you are Apple based, use Garage Band to create a sound track without such issues. (A new version was just released.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip... Problem is these slide shows are already synchronized to certain rock tracks...
 
Oh, and one has a track by Acoustic Alchemy. The whole royalty system is different for instrumentals. For them, I have to provide boiling water for tea (because tepid water just doesn't make tea).
 
Bill Burk said:
Thanks for the tip... Problem is these slide shows are already synchronized to certain rock tracks...
Click to expand...

An expert user of Garage Band wouldn't have any problem in resyncing the music - the difficulty is in reaching the expert user level :smile:
 
I mean, if I can't have Firefall "Clouds Across the Sun" or Fleetwood Mac's "Storms" what sense will it make?

Or are you saying this software supports / allows name brand sound and includes royalty payments?
 
Bill Burk said:
I mean, if I can't have Firefall "Clouds Across the Sun" or Fleetwood Mac's "Storms" what sense will it make?

Or are you saying this software supports / allows name brand sound and includes royalty payments?
Click to expand...

Nope. It just has lots of loops that let you create your own tracks. Your pictures will have to stand on their own without a name band assist.
 
Well, considering how much I value my creative copyright... I want to respect the musicians' theirs.

I did look into it once. That's how I knew about the tea.
 
Oops sorry about the diversion...

I'm in the camp where I have high values.

Until I feel like making a photograph in a genre with lower values.

For example (not implying portraiture has lower values..) Last weekend my niece and her boyfriend came to dinner.

I fired a shot on 6x9 and the shutter locked open. Dang-it. So I reset the shutter and the Bessa II responded positively.

So she had just pecked a kiss on his cheek, and I asked her to do it again. Missed the first shot, got the second.

Was that too much direction?

I love the story Philippe Halsmann tells about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as he took a sour-puss pose... "You can't look at my camera like that... You are the most romantic couple in the world. The King who has given up his throne for the woman he loves". And he got a beautiful cover for Life Magazine.
 
MattKing said:
In the early days of digital, slides were the reason for digital manipulation.

Photographers would have a slide scanned commercially, and then use the relatively rudimentary tools available to modify the files. The result would then be input into a film recorder, with which an edited original would be created on transparency stock.

Much like the way Hollywood movies were made until recently.
Click to expand...

Heck, if ones uses Photo$hop, then one can make fauxographs without the use of a camera. Yet another reason to keep APUG digital free zone.
 
blansky said:
I just don't consider landscape photography as documentary photography.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of garbage that some hack would otherwise call a "fine art landscape" so I use the same strict rules in shooting landscapes as I do in a journalism piece or documentary. So that way, the challenge is to always find something extraordinary, amazing convergences of light or actual moments, reality being far more impressive than someone's lunch break photoshop fantasy.

In fact, this is how I shoot all my work, 99% of it camera, regardless of who the client is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom