Photo Manipulation

[Pieter12]

No, I can't see the shark and the helicopter and the UFO, only what I see in the viewfinder. Read my Francis Bacon quote below.

Your quote says it quite well, "the contemplation of things as they are..." Things are not black and white, nor 2-dimensional. One experiences things/scenes with all the senses, however (unless the photo has a residual chemical smell), only vision is engaged when contemplating it.

 

[Pieter12]

Since the they never exist together in the real world, even a fisheye could not make the photograph.

But we can photograph things that cannot be seen.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But we can photograph things that cannot be seen.

But to be photographed they have to exist and exist in relation to each other ... jumping shark and the helicopter do not. Therein lies the problem with FauxTow$hop and reality. Notably if they do not exist in relation to each other, then they are not in the composition and therefore manipulation.

 

[MattKing]

Reality and photography overlap nicely.
Some people prefer to work in the parts that coincide almost exactly.
Others prefer to work at the edges, where there is very little coincidence - Jerry Uelsmann being an example.
I would suggest that everyone celebrate the variety, and consider "playing" outside their comfort zone.
And whatever you do, don't tell people what they "should" do!
We will be watching you:

Jerry Uelsmann, "Philistine's Eye", 1961

 

[rick shaw]

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't see any issues with darkroom (or PhotoShop) manipulation of images as long as there is no intent to deceive or mislead.

At each step of the way, photography includes manipulations which alter images. The real world rarely looks as colorful as my Velvia slides.

Planning and photographic are making the composition. Manipulations are altering images. Manipulating images means changing the photograph to mislead or misinform the viewer. Calling composing and photographing manipulations is just weasel wording it get a license for lying and deceit.

 

[MattKing]

Manipulating images means changing the photograph to mislead or misinform the viewer.

I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.
I use filters to manipulate the spectral response, and vary the tonal relationships.
I don't do a lot of soft focus work, but I know others who do, in order to manipulate the apparent accutance of the image.
I take photos from unusual angles of view, in order to manipulate the apparent relationships between the elements in the scene.
I have friends who manipulate photos by hand colouring them.
I doubt anyone is misled, and I hope many viewers end up being better informed.
Manipulation can be used to mislead or misinform, but very few manipulations do that.

 

[Vaughn]

I think a photograph can be manipulated/changed to lead and inform the viewer...for example, Matt's friend might color clothing differently than 'reality' in order to better express the emotional content of the image.

One has to accept that Sirius has his own private definition of manipulation from which he'll not budge. And take it from there. Abstraction might be, and might not be, considered manipulation. As long as we know what each other is talking about.

 

[markjwyatt]

But if you can indeed compose it in the viewfinder, you can see the shark and the helicopter and the UFO.

Not if it were a black helicopter, because you would then see a projected area representing the absence of reflected light in the shape of a black helicopter. (think photographing a black hole).

 

[markjwyatt]

I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.

That is nice and can make beautiful images. Since your medium in this case is likely monochrome, this is not changing that, just changing the mono (one) chrome (color) a bit (from grey to something else).

I use filters to manipulate the spectral response, and vary the tonal relationships.

I tend to use filters to make the spectral response of the resulting image closer to what the eye actually experiences; thus correcting some imbalances in panchromatic film. I also use filters maintain sky density, lest the viewer be under the incorrect and potentially misleading thought that there was no sky. I also do use filters to manipulate sometimes (medY, deepY with orange citrus for instance does look nice at times; MedR for over dramatic sky; etc.). In these cases you could accuse manipulation, but I would say filtration is part of the monochrome medium toolkit.

I don't do a lot of soft focus work, but I know others who do, in order to manipulate the apparent accutance of the image.

Portrait photographers use soft focus to sell prints. Husbands and boyfriends use it to maintain relationships on good terms. This is strictly manipulation.

I take photos from unusual angles of view, in order to manipulate the apparent relationships between the elements in the scene.

I see the world from unusual angles and views, so not sure why that would be manipulation (ever laid down on the ground and looked up- I did this in 1984 at night while backpacking in the the San Bernardinos and was informed that there were artificial satellites following an orbit every 30 minutes)?

I have friends who manipulate photos by hand colouring them.

Almost as bad as those people who manipulate white canvas by painting colorful images on them!

I doubt anyone is misled, and I hope many viewers end up being better informed.
Manipulation can be used to mislead or misinform, but very few manipulations do that.

Adding clouds that likely would never exist in that setting or location, or that time of year, or generally at all, is manipulation, and only misinforms, for instance. This is often done for dramatic effect, but perhaps changes the image from a photograph to a work of graphic arts. Add the UFO while you are at it. Don't bother with the black helicopter because no one ever saw it or heard it.

 

[guangong]

A variety of manipulations exist. For example, selecting the one shot from a roll that displays a politician’s personality as desired by photographer or editor.
Scenes are often manipulated by sketchers and painters so as to improve composition. Photography is unique because it has a greater claim to reality, which limits manipulation to some extent. We have all seen pics that have been Photoshopped to death. In some ways, creating a photograph is much more difficult than a drawing because of its constraints. Also, with the exception of still life’s, changing position and aiming camera are about the only ways to establish basic structure of photograph.
So, manipulate are much as you desire. The only limit is when manipulations become obvious, for the anphoto becomes something else.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tone regularly, to manipulate the image tone and colour.
I use filters to manipulate the spectral response, and vary the tonal relationships.
I don't do a lot of soft focus work, but I know others who do, in order to manipulate the apparent accutance of the image.
I take photos from unusual angles of view, in order to manipulate the apparent relationships between the elements in the scene.
I have friends who manipulate photos by hand colouring them.
I doubt anyone is misled, and I hope many viewers end up being better informed.
Manipulation can be used to mislead or misinform, but very few manipulations do that.

I find nothing wrong nor offensive in what you do. What I have stated many times this the addition or deletion of objects to create a false story.

 

[removed account4]

all of photography is adding and subtracting elements, and transcribing/translating something "real" into something else.

 

[cliveh]

all of photography is adding and subtracting elements, and transcribing/translating something "real" into something else.

Yes, but there are degrees of alteration. With film photography, this could range from using a bit of dodging in the darkroom, to using multiple negatives on one print. If you introduce Photoshop then you can take it to the stage of digital painting and turn any image into something completely different. I am suggesting that with minimal alteration you are preserving greater integrity with the original scene. I accept that many people don't believe in working this way, but I do.

 

[Auer]

There are no rules.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, but there are degrees of alteration. With film photography, this could range from using a bit of dodging in the darkroom, to using multiple negatives on one print. If you introduce Photoshop then you can take it to the stage of digital painting and turn any image into something completely different. I am suggesting that with minimal alteration you are preserving greater integrity with the original scene. I accept that many people don't believe in working this way, but I do.

Well stated. Thank you.

There are no rules.

Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.

 

[Auer]

Well stated. Thank you.



Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.

Sure, but people worried about lack of morality also have burned books and art.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, but there are degrees of alteration. With film photography, this could range from using a bit of dodging in the darkroom, to using multiple negatives on one print. If you introduce Photoshop then you can take it to the stage of digital painting and turn any image into something completely different. I am suggesting that with minimal alteration you are preserving greater integrity with the original scene. I accept that many people don't believe in working this way, but I do.

totally get where you are coming from but no matter what one does with photography there is not much integrity to the original scene. Whether it is black and white or color. It all goes back to Plato and the cave... the idea that someone believes they are not manipulating a scene just by lens choice or camera positioning is rather strange. I don’t see the world I live in in fractions of seconds or less than 270 degree either.

 

[radiant]

Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.

Moral? Maybe to underline the thruth we know.

Humans cannot communicate anything in 100% objective way; even the communcator could themselfs the person listening/reading makes their own assumptions based on their own beliefs and experiences on the communicator.

So I ask if it is really morality or the need to spread their own truth, beliefs, etc. You might think you have strong morality but in reality we make small decisions all the time which affect to the message we pass forward.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sure, but people worried about lack of morality also have burned books and art.

Actually the book burners added and deleted people from photographs. It is the core of George Orwell's 1984.

 

[cliveh]

totally get where you are coming from but no matter what one does with photography there is not much integrity to the original scene.

The original scene has complete integrity. Zen, here and now.

 

[removed account4]

The original scene has complete integrity. Zen, here and now.

right, but as soon as it is captured in an apparatus, any apparatus it loses its integrity .. sure zen here and now totally get that .. but the only way a scene retains its integrity is with ones eyes
wide open
but even then its probably not faithful because the instant our memory is involved that's the end.

 

[Pieter12]

Well stated. Thank you.



Maybe for you, but some of us have strong moral feelings about truth and changing reality for false narratives and propaganda. We have already seen the results of the lack of morality as recently as 6 January and 9–10 November 1938.

Post #2:
"It's your photo. Do anything you want. Just don't represent it as documentary or photojournalism."

 

[Pieter12]

totally get where you are coming from but no matter what one does with photography there is not much integrity to the original scene. Whether it is black and white or color. It all goes back to Plato and the cave... the idea that someone believes they are not manipulating a scene just by lens choice or camera positioning is rather strange. I don’t see the world I live in in fractions of seconds or less than 270 degree either.

Schroedinger's Cat.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here’s a classic non-Moonrise example of exactly that by George Tice
View attachment 264247

I would need to see the original, but it looks like he threw a lot of the darker areas to black (similar to a digital sensor saturating on the highlights). So basically he threw a lot of information away, but probably kept correct tonal relations in the bright areas. It is a nice shot, actually. It is somewhat manipulative I suspect, but not dishonest. It is art. He basically super-cropped in a non-rectangular manner and implied that outside the crop (and within the print borders) was very dark, which in a relative sense is true.