Do You Manipulate Your Images

[wolfnowl]

Hang on a second while I get my flame-proof underwear on...

Okay, then: http://www.wolfnowl.com/2011/10/do-you-manipulate-your-images/

Mike.

[Steve Weldon]

I always thought this was a rather obvious question, or should I say the answer should be obvious.

Photography is the art of manipulating the available variables to achieve a neg/file/print.  The variables include but are not limited to the film/sensor, lens, filters, aux lighting, camera placement, time of day, weather, focal length, focal distance, lens orientation, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and hence the exposure.  More, once we have the neg/file/print.. we manipulate further.

The thing is, we can't help ourselves.  The vision is in our mind and we want to bring it to life in our work.  We'll do anything to achieve the vision.  It might or might not be reality, though I maintain learning to capture reality with consistency is a prerequisite to learning to manipulate reality to better effect.

Perhaps the measure is.. does it look manipulated and if so, in a bad way.  Highly interpretative..

[Kirk Gittings]

The thing is, we can't help ourselves.

And moreover, why would we? I'm not creating courtroom evidence......

[louoates]

I work my images in any way I see fit to get what I want. Everything from removing a single bird in the sky to replacing the entire sky with one I shot earlier. In a sense most of my work are composites ranging from one or two layers to over 300 layers.

[Bryan Conner]

Even when we look at a scene with our eyes, we often "see" something entirely different from the person standing next to us.  Our minds interpret the information that our eyes send to our brains.  So, individual perception of a scene creates a description, or memory, that is a manipulation of reality.

[JohnKoerner]

Nice article Mike.

I think the issue of manipulating images can become important in Nature Photography versus Fine Art Photography.

If your goal is to take accurate photographs of nature's creatures, in their natural settings, then image manipulation should be kept to a bare minimum with the only goal being to render the image as accurately and close as possible to "what you saw." In this case, you are not manipulating the image to change it in any way, but rather to have the image look UNchanged from how you saw it live. In fact, in the forthcoming National Geographic Photography contest, they even have a direct message from the Executive Editor of the magazine, that the goal of all images submitted is to keep it real, and there should be NO "extra" image manipulation at all, besides minor sharpening, etc.

By contrast, if your goal as a photographer is to creat a Work of Art, then IMO you pretty much have poetic license to do whatever you want to do that pleases you: sepia tones, composites, color filters, etc. And that goes for pre- or post-process.

To show an example of this distinction, I recently made my own blog post about digitally-repairing a butterfly's wing. And if I wanted to sell this digitally-manipulated print as a Fine Art Image, there would be nothing wrong with this, because I can pretty much do whatever I want to do as an artist. However, this digitally-manipulated image I used as an example would not qualify for the National Geographic Photo Contest, and IMO it would also be unethical to place my manipulated image in a "nature book" as if it were a shot taken in nature. It wasn't.

So, while I agree with you that there is a world of possibility in manipulating images for the Fine Art Photographer, a straight Nature Photographer has much less leeway was to what is considered "acceptable" manipulation IMO.

Cheers,

Jack


.

[fotometria gr]

Hang on a second while I get my flame-proof underwear on...

Okay, then: http://www.wolfnowl.com/2011/10/do-you-manipulate-your-images/

Mike.

As I have many times repeated I am a fun of Bresson's saying that "the photographer should vision the photograph before he even captures it". If by "manipulate" you mean that I redirect the picture from my intention when capturing it, the answer is "never", If you mean that I follow the process to achieve what was intended when capturing, the answer is "always". Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[jeremypayne]

I will also repeat that "a photograph is only the printed image in paper" that means that for the photographer to vision the photograph before capture he has the whole process in mind, right to the final print, he has even pre-decided the type of paper for his final print, he doesn't have to look at the screen (if he is using digital) either! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Utter nonsense.

[RSL]

I agree Jeremy. Absolute horse-hockey.

[fotometria gr]

Utter nonsense.

Unless you back this up with reasoning, it can only refer to your self.  It seems that you confused your screen with your ....mirror! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

To get back to the original question, the only reasonable answer, IMHO, is "Yes. I'm a photographer."

Eric

[Corvus]

"Do You Manipulate Your Images"

I wasn't aware I had a choice.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

"Do You Manipulate Your Images"

I wasn't aware I had a choice.

You don't, if you are a photographer (or painter, or...)

[Corvus]

You don't, if you are a photographer (or painter, or...)

I was being facetious, of course.

[jeremypayne]

>>> "Utter Nonsense"

Unless you back this up with reasoning, it can only refer to your self.  It seems that you confused your screen with your ....mirror! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

1) A photograph - in today's context - does not have to be printed on a piece of paper.  Your opinion is not shared by most people who have made the transition from the 20th century to the 21st century.  It is your opinion and not a fact.

2) The rest of your nonsense hangs on the notion that a photograph must be printed to be a photograph.

3) If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey.  Sometimes art is a happy accident.  The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning.  Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.

[fotometria gr]

>>> "Utter Nonsense"

1) A photograph - in today's context - does not have to be printed on a piece of paper.  Your opinion is not shared by most people who have made the transition from the 20th century to the 21st century.  It is your opinion and not a fact.

2) The rest of your nonsense hangs on the notion that a photograph must be printed to be a photograph.

3) If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey.  Sometimes art is a happy accident.  The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning.  Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.

Utter nonsense, a non photographers quote. An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values. Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[Corvus]

"An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values."

It's not a question of values or not but simply whose.
Chill out and stop being so absolute and pedantic about it.
It might surprise you to find that there may be more than one path to a great image.

[fotometria gr]

>>> If you ALWAYS know exactly what your final output will be before you click - good for you ... but I call BULLSHIT and assert that this notion of a required 'pre-visualization' is a bunch of pretensious hooey.  Sometimes art is a happy accident.  The perfect example is the birds in flight that I captured on Saturday morning.  Totally accidental capture ... totally cool.

You may have noticed I didn't comment on your pictures that you asked for critique... I was not going to because it was your pictures, although I usually do say my opinion (I don't on you and ...some others), but since you called the blurred birds ART that you ...accidentally captured(!) (You that captured it call it art, nobody else), I have to ask you what is the important message that you find in that CRAP that you thing it makes it important to others so that they will also call it art! By all means I would also like to ask you (the person that insulted Bresson, Koudelka, Kertesz, etc..), ...as to enlighten us (the rest of us ignorants) of what art is. In your own words please..., please..., will you do that for us you great ...accidental artist! Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

[fotometria gr]

"An insult to ALL GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS that defined the photographer as an artist that should visualize the photograph, exactly like a painter visualizes the paint before he paints it, the musician his music, the author his story or any other artist his art. But then again you don't have to be a photographer to use a camera, just a naive ignorant like many, that are trying to create a world without values."

It's not a question of values or not but simply whose.
Chill out and stop being so absolute and pedantic about it.
It might surprise you to find that there may be more than one path to a great image.

Surprise me then... Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr