p.2 #1 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
It seems to me that the organization offering the prize has the right to set the rules. If a person does not like the rules, no one is forcing them to enter.
p.2 #3 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
"what are you guys afraid of a life of imaging without PS? "
Absolutely not afraid and personally I usually limit my PS edits to what I could have done in the darkroom, but why must we enforce our photoshop preferences on others?
Oh, and I agree with browncam.
Mar 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #4 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
one does not advocate forcing anything upon anyone.
one does however, practice, "I usually limit my PS edits to what I could have done in the darkroom". we may be revealing our age with this confession.
personally one has challenged oneself to acquire the skill set necessary to be a 'Master of Light and the artistic skill to attain the photographer's eye' to create stunning images, without having to rely on being a Master of PhotoShop . just my personal preference.
Shoot RAW Print Large cheers.........................
p.2 #5 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
sperraglia wrote:
"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? ...Show more →
There's a big difference between moving or transplanting things via layers and playing with levels. It transforms a photograph into a collage, a completely different art form. I would certainly uphold rules based on this-- a non-photograph shouldn't be entered in a photography contest. Nope, it's not arrogant at all, just calling cheating where it exists (if such a manipulation is entered as a "photograph" in a contest).
p.2 #6 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
"we may be revealing our age with this confession."
RH - didn't your mother ever tell you never touch the subject of a woman's age? For the record I only took 1 b&w darkroom class before getting my D30 and forever going digital so I am not that old! (well, not that young either). Thanks for making me chuckle.
I think this argument will continue on long after we are gone. I remember the first time I heard this I was on a boat in the Beagle Channel of Argentina bound for Antarctica in December 2005. It was actually one of my photos of a jaguar cub (there was a spot in the background that could have been burned in) that started a digital manipulation argument between Stephen Johnson, Mr. No Digital Manipulation, and Michael Reichman (with others jumping in). More than 2 years later the same topic is being argued and I have a feeling ten, twenty, fifty? years from now some folks will be having this same discussion.
p.2 #7 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
jvarszegi wrote:
There's a big difference between moving or transplanting things via layers and playing with levels. It transforms a photograph into a collage, a completely different art form. I would certainly uphold rules based on this-- a non-photograph shouldn't be entered in a photography contest. Nope, it's not arrogant at all, just calling cheating where it exists (if such a manipulation is entered as a "photograph" in a contest).
Well you had better come up with an exact definition of what a photograph is.
As already stated, it is up to the judges of any particular photo contest as to what is allowed and what is not.
p.2 #8 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
R.H. Johnson wrote:
'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.2 #10 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Many of the better competitions already have adequate rules which prevent excessive post processing. The petition is pointless---and 33 sigs isn't going to get much attention!!
p.2 #11 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I don't know if anyone has caught the PBS show about Ansel Adams recently. He spent hours and hours manipulating photos in the dark room. What is the difference to what digital photographers are doing today? I used to feel a little guilty about the small amount of post processing I do in PS - not anymore. The only difference is that our version is easier and less time consuming.
p.2 #12 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
It seems to me that the organization offering the prize has the right to set the rules. If a person does not like the rules, no one is forcing them to enter.
To browncam, do you know some competition that asks only for the RAW for verifies? Me no, the most restrictive rules also allow the JPEG, whose metadata of they very easily alter.
p.2 #13 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
" Nope, it's not arrogant at all, just calling cheating where it exists (if such a manipulation is entered as a "photograph" in a contest)."
I would be interested in finding out what everyone uses as their definition of a "photograph", because I have a feeling there would be many interpretations. Funny, the past few years my mentor has been JP Caponigro, who is an obvious digital manipulator, so his definition of a photograph would be much more a definition of "art" than yours or mine. I think I have established in this thread that I am fairly literal and judicious with my PS and one of the reasons I respect JP is that he has never forced his views or beliefs of his work on me and he sees and respects my work in the context of what I feel strongly about. A novel approach - can't we all get along and respect each others PS ethics even if do agree with them?
Oh, and if you persist in calling it "cheating" then I will have to continue to call it "censorship" and I suspect neither one of us is right.
Wouldn't photograph juries be able to figure out most over-the-top manipulations and judge accordingly? I think Roby said he couldn't find contests that demanded raw so maybe some of you could start your own contests and demand film or raws if you wanted to impose particular standards in the sandbox you want to play in. Hmm, "build it and they will come"? There should be enough room out there where we can all find a place to play.
Mar 25, 2008 at 08:39 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #14 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
'Post-processing skill is a photographic skill.'
how idiotic. therein lies the problem.
does one's photographic work flow, that is, actually taking a picture involve PS or post processing? the answer, a definitive NO. does one's photographic work flow involve observing, framing, focusing, setting up lighting, tracking, verifying camera is set properly, analyzing the scenario in order to determine what can be done with the tool in hand to optimize the effect of the image to be captured, etc?
does one go about taking photographs with the thought of what or how one will PS or post process the image?
'Post-processing skill is a photographic skill.' that is asinine. it depicts and enforces the one's precept concerning digital photography and the over use of PS PP.
p.2 #15 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
R.H. Johnson wrote:
'Post-processing skill is a photographic skill.'
how idiotic. therein lies the problem."
Let's dig up Ansel Adams and ask him. As Brian and I have pointed out he was a post-process master in the darkroom. I don't think he would have considered post-processing skill idiotic.
Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #16 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
that is not what one said. one contends that they are two distinctly different skill sets. albeit they are combined in the final product or image. i remember when i was in photography class way back when. we had a young female that could shoot circles around anyone on campus. she was lousy in the dark room. could not unload film into cannisters. could not develop negatives. could not develop paper. she was a disaster in the lab. she was also a genius behind the glass. we became the best of friends. i tried my best to teach her the lab. she would shoot i would develop her works. she taught me the photographer's eye.
the point one is making: there are facets of photography each is a distinct and separate skill set. one does not have to be skilled in PP to be an exceptional photographer. literally one has made a choice not to blur the line between skill sets. ansel adams was a master photographer, master of light, and a master in the dark room with a photographers eye. when he combined all of his 'skill sets' he produced images worthy of the masters.
p.2 #17 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
R.H. Johnson wrote:
'Post-processing skill is a photographic skill.'
how idiotic. therein lies the problem.
The only problem would appear to be your narrow-minded interpretation of photography.
does one's photographic work flow, that is, actually taking a picture involve PS or post processing? the answer, a definitive NO.
Maybe in your limited outlook. You seem to think that the photographic work flow stops the moment you click the shutter. Did you also think that developing the film and making the print was not part of the photographic work flow?
does one go about taking photographs with the thought of what or how one will PS or post process the image?
For some people sometimes, yes. I guess you have never heard of stitching images to make panoramas, or combining differently exposed images to create an image with greater dynamic range? Just two examples of taking photographs with the thought of how one will PP the images, whether shooting with film or digital.
'Post-processing skill is a photographic skill.' that is asinine. it depicts and enforces the one's precept concerning digital photography and the over use of PS PP.
"Over-use" is a term applied by you. If you think everyone else agrees with your opinion, you are sadly mistaken.
the point one is making: there are facets of photography each is a distinct and separate skill set. one does not have to be skilled in PP to be an exceptional photographer. literally one has made a choice not to blur the line between skill sets. ansel adams was a master photographer, master of light, and a master in the dark room with a photographers eye. when he combined all of his 'skill sets' he produced images worthy of the masters.
Take two photographers who are equally good at capturing an image in the camera. The one with the better PP skills will produce better photographs and therefore be a better photographer. Unless of course, the other one has a friend or good lab with better PP skills.
This very forum has many examples of images (i.e. photographs) that would look much better if the particular photographer had better PP skills. You are basically saying that if those photographers had better PP skills, they would not be better photographers and they would not produce better photographs. That is as silly as saying that Adams was not a better photographer and could not produce better photographs because he was adept at PP skills in the darkroom.
p.2 #19 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
No way!
Post processing and optimizing and image is vastly different to changing an image. Change an progress is inevitable as in all other fields. photography is no exception and Digital technology has just made life so much more vibrant. All cameras capture RAW and the JPEG is always a processed version from the RAW data, either in camera in which case one trusts the cameras automatic algorithms, else if one chooses to take control of the conversion you then do it manually which requires skill.
p.2 #20 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
sperraglia wrote:
" Nope, it's not arrogant at all, just calling cheating where it exists (if such a manipulation is entered as a "photograph" in a contest)."
I would be interested in finding out what everyone uses as their definition of a "photograph", because I have a feeling there would be many interpretations. Funny, the past few years my mentor has been JP Caponigro, who is an obvious digital manipulator, so his definition of a photograph would be much more a definition of "art" than yours or mine. I think I have established in this thread that I am fairly literal and judicious with my PS and one of the reasons I respect JP is that he has never forced his views or beliefs of his work on me and he sees and respects my work in the context of what I feel strongly about. A novel approach - can't we all get along and respect each others PS ethics even if do agree with them?
Oh, and if you persist in calling it "cheating" then I will have to continue to call it "censorship" and I suspect neither one of us is right.
Wouldn't photograph juries be able to figure out most over-the-top manipulations and judge accordingly? I think Roby said he couldn't find contests that demanded raw so maybe some of you could start your own contests and demand film or raws if you wanted to impose particular standards in the sandbox you want to play in. Hmm, "build it and they will come"? There should be enough room out there where we can all find a place to play....Show more →
One may have an incorrect definition of "photograph". I have nothing against collages, etc., but the fact that each pixel or piece of information in an image originated in some other photograph does not make a collage or other similar art form a photograph. That's just the way it is-- different words for different things.
With respect to the contest angle, I guess the main question is whether one should assign value more to photography skill or striking images. If the focus is all on the striking/pleasing aspects of an image, one doesn't care about the method at all. Photography-contest rules indicate that some people DO care. Cheating is just breaking the rules of a contest, not making a collage and telling someone it's a photograph.
