p.1 #1 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Dear friends I try to introduce you on the problem of the digital manipulations in the photographic competitions, if you are interested dates the maximum prominence to the initiative, signing the petition in the link below and forwarding to the friends
p.1 #2 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Sorry...i'm not signing that! it sounds to me like a cry out from the "film era photog.'s" who don't / can't / won't accept the advent of digital photography and the fact that even a newbie w 2000 $ can get a 30D + 100-400mm and get awesome results out of it. they just want to mantain the privelage they had. Anyway it's not true that you can manipulate a file of a bird to the point that becomes unreal. If the file is not sharp to begin with there's no software than can add it! (although you can gain a bit more). How are you gonna fake the 500mm F4 bokeh? even with best PS technique you can see it's fake. the brain cannot be deceived.
I've seen a thread of someone who generated a f1.2 "look a like" bokeh...and for an untrained eye it look great but no one who uses a 85mm f1.2 can be fooled! (not to mention a judge).
How can you fake a bald eagle snapping a fish out of the water?? PS can only enhance the quality of an already good Raw file. Otherwise there will be no need for a 500mm F4 or a 300mm F2.8 and so on....just get a 75-300mm w an extender and you can build everything in PS right?
Anyway that's my opinion and others might have a different take on this 1.
Good luck w your petition.
P.S. when I was about 11, I used my father's Zenith Slr for a few years. it had no AF, no battery whatsoever and yet I still have the shots I took back then and they look quite good. God knows how I nailed the exposures!
Edited on Mar 23, 2008 at 04:53 AM
Mar 23, 2008 at 04:39 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #3 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
a rendering vs. a photograph. i agree focus stacking hdr etc. should not be in the same category as a native photograph. but where do you set the bar? sharpening, burn tool, curves ie. how much and to what degree will/is digital manipulation or post processing allowed?
p.1 #4 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Wow - censorship lives?
Reminds of a conversation I had when I showed Moose Peterson a photo last year. He responded "Don't crop wildlife" to which I replied "why" then he repeated "don't crop wildlife" to which I replied "why" then he repeated "don't crop wildlife" to which I replied sure and walked away knowing full well that I will crop and do whatever I want to my digital file.
I actually happen to believe that most wildlife shots are pretty literal and should be left mostly intact and untouched, but who am I to force my beliefs on other photographers? This is the slippery slope of censorship.
p.1 #5 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I guess I am pretty passionate about this subject judging from my last post - sorry that I seem to like soapboxes.
Question for you - if Ansel Adams was around today do you think he would submit a raw capture? He was certainly a photographer of the natural world and one of the most recognizable, renown photographers of the past several decades. From what I hear Ansel would go back to his original negatives and redevelop looking for the perfect "print" and was a master "manipulator" in the darkroom.
I have had the occasion to visit the Sotheby's NY showroom several times over the past few months. One showcase was of Impressionist (Monet, Sisley, Renoir, etc) with each piece worth many millions of dollars and more recently there was a misc showcase where an Ansel Adams estimated at $120k and a Mapplethorpe I think estimated at $80k hung. Isn't it interesting how we value "art" or even consider what "art" is? Is photography just a literal representation of a scene or "art"? or both? And how do we reconcile something so many of us will have different opinions on?
What if there is a disclaimer on a piece of digital "art" that says it has been digitally enhanced? Artie Morris - Mr. Bird (wildlife) Photographer - routinely adds canvas, fixes wing tips, etc, but he seems to disclose this manipulations. Is that sufficient, not enough or overkill? I wouldn't cut and clone a wing tip, but that is my preference. Why should Artie alter his photography for my preferences?
I don't think this is an issue that will be easily resolved, but good to find out how we all feel about it and maybe there is a compromise?
p.1 #6 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Ridiculous.
Photography, be it film or digital, is a manipulation of the real world as soon as the shutter button is pressed.
The real world is 3-dimensional. Photography is 2-dimensional.
Black and white photography? Since when did Nature lose all its color?
A moving subject as a frozen image. Sounds like more manipulation.
I could go on and on, but what's the point?
p.1 #9 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Anybody censorship, this is not certain the motive for the petition, but if also the digital mean puts all on the same plan of departure, the opportunities of manipulation they are endless and I am not speaking of light crop or sharpness control, here it speaks of collage of images, fake images with cloned subjects more times on the same frame or lights and unreal atmospheres. I'm absolutely not against the optimization of the images, I'm against the heavy manipulations that many contests reward.Technical motivations that prevent the delivery of the RAW file don't exist and it's the only tool to verify the reality of a photo.
Roby
Mar 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #10 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
i would not agree with censorship argument. but there are deep routed philosophical perspectives at play. when does the degree of digital manipulation of a photographed image cross a threshold when it is no longer a photograph but a rendering. the digital dark room aka photoshop is a wonderful tool. is it far to put a heavily rendered image, which is a 'exercise in post process manipulation that attest to the post processing skills of the manipulator, in a contest with out of the box images that represent photographic skill that have been post processed at the very minimum (sharpening, contrast boost, luminosity, saturation)? my answer to that would be no it is not fair. there should be different categories in contest that should judge each on the merits therein. is this censorship? no in my opinion it is not.
one thinks we are observing a maturing of technologies and are at a cross road philosophically. when does an image become a depiction of the digital dark room and its' manipulator? When is an image that represents a frozen moment in time no longer representative of that captured moment? may be the rule of photo journalism is applicable. a true dichotomy.
'is photography just a literal representation of a scene or "art"? or both?'
IOHO both and therein lies the problem. there are 3 components at play: 1. technical photographic skill. 2. photographic artistic skill (photographer's eye). 3. photographic post processing skill. one tends to think the that the conflict is between art forms 2. & 3. this conflict creates resentment even tension IMHO.
'Artie Morris - Mr. Bird (wildlife) Photographer - routinely adds canvas, fixes wing tips, etc, but he seems to disclose this manipulations. What if there is a disclaimer on a piece of digital "art" that says it has been digitally enhanced?'
i too have a disclaimer for images that i render. i like to err.. one the side of honesty.
'Ridiculous.
Photography, be it film or digital, is a manipulation of the real world as soon as the shutter button is pressed.
The real world is 3-dimensional. Photography is 2-dimensional.
Black and white photography? Since when did Nature lose all its color?
A moving subject as a frozen image. Sounds like more manipulation.
I could go on and on, but what's the point? '
being facetious?
Edited by R.H. Johnson on Mar 23, 2008 at 09:53 AM GMT
p.1 #11 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Well,
I'm glad to see I'm not alone in this. I saw the petition last night & read it & went.... I'm not signing this. Fact is, most of us have digital cameras.... That means we have settings in camera. That's actually doing some adjustments already there. So this is mute if you ask me.
I sign petitions all the time for worthy causes..... This is not one of them.
Lil
Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #12 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
the facet of perspectives are being simplified. there are different types film for different applications and effects. in camera settings are merely emulating those variants from a digital perspective. we have ND filter and polarizers to help image manipulation in camera there are movements rails in LF. but, at the heart of this conversation is photographic skill vs. post processing skill.
a marginal image can be manipulated digitally into a good or even exceptional image. the question at hand is, at what point does post processing manipulation create an unlevel competitive field in contests judging photographs. is the competition fair? what is being judged, a photograph ie. basic minimal post/in-camera processing or a photograph that has been heavily post processed ie. photoshopped eg. HDR, Focus Stacked, etc. so what is being judged photographic ability, post processing ability or both? there is a difference between the two skill sets albeit they combine in the final image, in some instances.
just trying to SOP. one does not think that response to this post will be very good. reason, IOHO most modern digital photogs are not shooting SOS and are relying on PS heavily. the gate is open correct me if i'm wrong......................
p.1 #14 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Casmerodius wrote:
you leave to the juries (delivering the RAW) the difficult judgment.
Roby
But Roby,
even RAW shots may have been manipulated by camera settings & filters....
I have my sharpening at a 3 in camera (out of 9) - - in post I adjust it depending upon my lens most of the time to anything in between a 4 - 6. That's manipulation. Where to draw the line?
I shoot RAW & prefer to make my adjustments in post, not in camera. If I wanted to use the medium like you suggest..... I'd just go back to my old film camera body. Why bother with digital?
p.1 #15 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
It's all about bending the light, painting with light, developping technique -be it chemical or digital-, it's all about creating an image.
Whether you're using pencils, brushes, toes and fingers, lenses, pinholes or whatever, on paper, canvas, a monitor, on a screen, or on whatever,
just about creating an image.
There are no rules, it's about creating something worth looking at.
p.1 #16 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I have seen some pretty awfully over-the-top manipulations. I don't think this petition is about dodging and burning. If you have to put an eagle in a layer to move it, etc. or combine the results of multiple images into one (and hide the fact), it's cheating.
p.1 #17 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
"I have seen some pretty awfully over-the-top manipulations. I don't think this petition is about dodging and burning. If you have to put an eagle in a layer to move it, etc. or combine the results of multiple images into one (and hide the fact), it's cheating."
How do you draw or define what is permissible and what isn't? And although it may be cheating to us many would not consider it cheating. Why do we get to suddenly make the rules and call it cheating? Isn't it a little ego centric and perhaps a little arrogant to say others have to play by our rules in the sandbox when it is a pretty big sandbox we are playing in?
p.1 #18 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Hi,
I'm just a photographic nobody but thought I'd share this with you.
Over at dpchallenge.com, there are photographic contests with varying levels of editing permitted - basic, advanced, and otherworldly. The photographer needs to keep an unedited version of the original image(s) from the camera in order to substantiate that the contest's particular choice of editing rules were followed and that the image was taken during the contest preparation period.
I think that system addresses both the concerns of those who don't want editing restrictions and of those who do:
If you want to perform extreme editing, there are fewer contests to enter.
If you shun extreme editing, then good luck in those contests where it's permitted or encouraged.
Cheers,
JH
Mar 23, 2008 at 08:09 PM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #19 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
good find JH. what are you guys afraid of a life of imaging without PS? see ladies and gentlemen it can be done.
p.1 #20 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
How do you draw or define what is permissible and what isn't? And although it may be cheating to us many would not consider it cheating. Why do we get to suddenly make the rules and call it cheating? Isn't it a little ego centric and perhaps a little arrogant to say others have to play by our rules in the sandbox when it is a pretty big sandbox we are playing in?
Ok ok, no restrictions, PS how much we want, but please remove that useless written by the rules "the manipulation is forbidden" so at least we can compete to equal weapons without being braked by that useless ethics that has motivated thin to today the wildlife photographers.
Roby
