p.3 #1 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I have to agree with at least some of what Casmerodius is saying, at least about putting different pictures together. For instance I saw an amazing photograph that won a nation wide contest (can't remember what contest). It was of a wolf standing behind a tree in a birch tree forest. It was absolutely stunning, the best picture I have ever seen hands down. Until I noticed it was a composite image. This guy could have easily taken the picture of the wolf and pasted it in the picture of the beach forest. I think this kind of stuff is wrong, at least to be entered into contests with people that don't do it, as its an unfair advantage, like athletes using steroids. If you want to frame the picture and hang it in your house, thats fine. I'm all for sharpening, exposure compensation etc. but putting two separate pictures together and submitting it in a normal wildlife competition is wrong. Make a category for these kinds of pictures.
p.3 #2 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
"One may have an incorrect definition of "photograph". "
Or one may choose not to use your literal definition of "photograph". Gee, a hundred years ago I wouldn't have been able to vote, but times change and rules change. So is it possible the the definition of "photograph" could change in the 118 years since the 1st permanent photo was taken?
p.3 #4 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
This is such an interesting topic for a new member!
Just to put another slant on it, there are things one simply cannot do without a suite of expensive, fast L lenses (or equivalent), no matter how gifted the photographer may be. So immediately this creates a division between the `haves' and the `have nots' which is unrelated to photographic skill.
My most expensive lens purchase to date was 100-400mm Canon L, imported from the US to Australia (where rrp is still $2550!). And it was soft wide open at 400mm. I did return it after a few days, but lost $200 from import duties/GST and return post.
Now because this lens was soft, it had to be stopped down to f/8.0 at 400mm, creating the infamous `wormy' backgrounds that this lens is known for. This was not a limitation of my skill, but a limitation of the lens itself. The same goes for my 70-300mm IS, which is also useless wide open on the long end.
So to make my pictures usable for sale, I have to literally cut out the backgrounds, apply gaussian blur, and apply some degree of usm/curves to the foreground.
This might be `cheating' but if I could afford a Canon 500mm f/4 IS, I would not have to do this. But the simple fact is I cannot.
And my pictures, once sorted out in PP look very good!
I will no doubt continue to seek out better lenses, but in the mean time rely heavily on PP to make up for the limitations of the ones in my price range.
Mar 25, 2008 at 04:07 PM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #5 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Imagemaster, you are making a hell of a lot of ass-umtions. you don't have any idea of what one thinks.
your logic is flawed. with all things equal both photogs captures will be equal from a RAW perspective (pun intended). from your scenario it is the reproduction of the captures via post processing that will be different.
yes, one has a very precise, concise, literal perspective of photography at large. when honing ones skills one wants to be specific concerning the specific discipline within photography targeted.
p.3 #6 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Well said, Natalia.
The petition says, quote: "Just like every competition, photography contests should be subject to rules that allow anyone who wants to participate to start from the same level, to compete on equal terms even with the most renowned photographers."
Following that logic, every competitor would have to shoot with the same model camera, the same lens, shoot the same wildlife at the same location, etc., etc. Do you really think the person with a cheap P&S camera stuck in Hicksville could compete on equal terms with a person having the best equipment and able to travel anywhere in the world to take wildlife photos? All things are not equal in any photo contest.
p.3 #7 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
R.H. Johnson wrote:
Imagemaster, you are making a hell of a lot of ass-umtions. you don't have any idea of what one thinks.
your logic is flawed. with all things equal both photogs captures will be equal from a RAW perspective (pun intended). from your scenario it is the reproduction of the captures via post processing that will be different.
yes, one has a very precise, concise, literal perspective of photography at large. when honing ones skills one wants to be specific concerning the specific discipline within photography targeted.
I certainly have no idea what you think.
So what if both captures will be equal from a RAW perspective
Sit down at your TV and how many RAW perspectives do you think you will see. Look through most magazines and how many RAW perspectives do you think are printed?
It is the final image that the vast majority of people want to see, not the RAW perspective.
p.3 #8 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Casmerodius wrote:
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.
Roby
Roby,
Whilst your entries to Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year are JPGs, if your image makes it to the final rounds, you must also submit your RAW files to ensure that the photo has not been manipulated outside of the rules. It does allow alterations to levels, saturation, contrast, removal of dust spots etc. It does not allow you to overall alter the image.
In terms of comparing a RAW file to Slide, it not a fair argument. RAW files are limited by technology cannot absorb all the levels of light like slide film for example. Therefore, they need to be optimized to put it on a level playing field as slide.
p.3 #9 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
This is not the first time or place I have seen this discussion. If this was on DP Review there would have been pages and pages of discussion. I should probably check. Anyway, this will not be resolved here and possibly never will. Ultimately it is up to each photographer to draw their own line as to what is enhancement and what is manipulation. Personally, if I spend more than 15 minutes working on a picture in PS, I failed as a photographer. That is my ethic and mine alone. If someone is good at manipulation and beats me in a contest, so be it. Life isn't always fair. I take pride in knowing I did my best and stayed within my rules. Most importantly I try to become a better photographer and take a better picture next time.
Mar 26, 2008 at 08:52 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #10 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
p.3 #11 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Images should be submitted at their native resolution with no interpolation applied. Scans or prints are not permitted. Save images as JPEGs at the highest possible quality setting (eg 12 in Photoshop).
Do not use subfolders when saving images onto CD/DVD. The original capture as it was recorded by the camera with no manipulation applied (eg *.DNG, *.JPG, *.NEF, *.CR2, *.CRW) will be requested if your image reaches the final stages of the competition and must be supplied to us in early May 2008. We will contact you to request these.
This is an extract of the Shell Wildlife photographer of the year 2008, the contradiction is evident since is possible to also deliver the file jpeg, whose attached metadata are very easily modifiable, those of the RAW no!
Zooloo I agree, but if you are beaten by a photo evidently manipulated, like a collage of some pictures you can't try "to become to better photographer and take to better picture next time", If you want to compete will be necesary to start to manipulate the images as they do those people whom the contests win or to ask for more severe rules.
Roby
p.3 #12 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I'd like to hear what Ansel Adams would have to say to them... go suck rocks
The only difference to me is A) a manipulated image to improve your visual idea and B) a cut and pasted artwork which includes photographic elements, which isn't a photograph any more.
This will be argued for decades to come... HDR, graduated filters, polarizers, contrast control filters, in-camera color or monochrome.... it's all manipulation isn't it
Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30 PM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #13 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
'HDR, graduated filters, polarizers, contrast control filters, in-camera color or monochrome.... it's all manipulation isn't it'
p.3 #14 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
It is a fascinating concept - the need for truth in an image. Personally, I think that there are only certain circumstances in which a photo MUST be completely truthful, and they are mostly journalistic ones (though I don't believe all photo journalism requires absolute truth).
I think that there is a simple question that defines whether a photograph you take can be manipulated or not - "Are you trying to capture a moment or create an image?". If you're trying to 'capture a moment', to record the light that is reflected off a specific scene at a specific moment in time for the purpose of documenting that exact scene at that exact moment in time, then your processing should be kept to a minimum. However if you're trying to 'create an image' you are pretty much free to do whatever you want in terms of processing, it's simply part of the creative process.
And after all, processing has always and will always be a part of the photographic process. You can't make a print from positive or negative film without processing both the film and the print. And often you process a photograph in order to make it more truthful.
So where do you draw the line? Well obviously doing something like substituting the subject from one photograph on to the background of another is unreasonable in a photographic competition, but there's a simple way around this - just outline the rules of the competition to its competitors, and make sure that those rules include any restrictions on post-processing that you wish to enforce.
Again, for me it all comes down to this: "Are you trying to capture a moment or create an image?"
Mar 27, 2008 at 10:04 AM
R.H. Johnson Offline • • • • [X]
p.3 #15 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Mark Kenfield, well said. one is of the perspective 'to capture a moment of time'. sounds sort of romantic, to capture a moment of time....................
p.3 #16 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
Dave In La wrote:
well stated Tony and Tim.....and I used to warm the Dektol a bit sometimes too
All you did was warm it up? Sometimes I had to add a little sodium hydroxide; other times a little bromine for a warmer print, or a little more for a greenish cast in the print.
The whole thing smacks of an elitist bent of mind, since only the most skilled photographers seem to even want to shoot RAW. I've tried it and either do not have the patience and skill, or simply don't see the point...
p.3 #17 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I cannot even begin to think about signing that! I wonder if there ever was a petition saying you had to submit slides only in the film era.
There are various degrees of manipulation (digital or otherwise) that can be applied to an image. Unless there is a "consistent" set of definitions that can be applied to the post processing techniques, rules created to allow for a limited subset and then measures put in place to ensure that only the subset of rules have been used, it is pointless to even begin this argument.... smacks of "protecting the turf" psychology to me.
Also, as Imagemaster so eloquently put it, even the definition of manipulation is open for debate...
p.3 #18 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
sperraglia wrote:
"One may have an incorrect definition of "photograph". "
Or one may choose not to use your literal definition of "photograph". Gee, a hundred years ago I wouldn't have been able to vote, but times change and rules change. So is it possible the the definition of "photograph" could change in the 118 years since the 1st permanent photo was taken?
It's really very simple. If you copy and paste pixels, you no longer have a photograph but rather a collage or other form.
p.3 #19 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
jvarszegi wrote:
It's really very simple. If you copy and paste pixels, you no longer have a photograph but rather a collage or other form.
Do you? To remove a dust spec from a digital image requires that you copy and paste some of the pixels adjacent to it to cover it up - do we qualify that as manipulation or collage? In the film days you'd simply have to blow or wipe that dust spec off your negative, digital doesn't afford us that simplicity, so how do define our newfound need to physically manipulate our digital images to affect even the slightest change? After all, any change you make to a digital image (RAW files aside) affects the very substance of that photograph (i.e. the ones and zeros that define it).
Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here, but I think that it's a more complex issue than that.
p.3 #20 · Digital manipulation in wildlife photography
I don't have a problem with a contest requesting an "original" to confirm that the image meets the rules of their competition. What those rules should be will certainly be debated for a long time.
This petition only attempts to define what file formats can be considered "original". Unfortunately it is already behind the times when it comes to the format specifications. What about DNG? Some people convert their RAW formats directly to DNG when transferring files from the camera. Do they now also have to save the "original" RAW file formats
Although most of us probably shoot RAW, disqualifying JPEG or TIFF is rather presumptuous. Maybe the photographer can't afford a camera with a big buffer and needs to shoot JPEG to get a decent frame rate? Are people really so focused on winning contests that they would try to create "fake" originals. I can't imagine why anyone wanting to enter a major contest to build a reputation would risk the embarrassment of discovery. Could it be that the Shell Wildlife competition accepts original JPGs because they do not percieve that "fake" originals are a problem with their winner selections?
Sorry, I can't sign this petition. Why should one small faction be allowed to define the rules for "...all wildlife photography contests..."?
Also, the opening statement, "...minor mistakes that film would not forgive can now be corrected on the computer..", makes me rather suspicious. I didn't think "minor" digital corrections were an issue with most competitions. If it is, maybe they should change their rules?
