What do you think is legitimate? How far can we go in manipulating photos?

[Hamster]

I think the rules should ban it,

Can you give your example of what the rules would say for the competition you would like to see?

[arthurking83]

I don't think the 'rubber frog' incident is an issue with respect to the topic of image manipulation.

Photo shoot set ups are a normal part of photography life, and if you have to use a rubber frog to set up a photo of a silhouetted frog .. well, that's a part of the photograph.
Adding in a silhouette of a frog using any graphics manipulating software(ie. not limited to photoshop) doesn't make it a photo of a silhouetted frog!

The inclusion/exclusion of elements in a photo is the issue here. (exclusion of dust spots being the only exception!)

There's nothing wrong with digital arts, and in general I like the majority of what I've seen myself.
It's just that there should be a distinction between what was created using pixel manipulation technology and what was captured as a photograph.

I think the issue will become more important looking forward into the future, as the technology of pixel manipulation becomes more sophisticated and easier to produce.

I don't think there is, or ever was, a "line" between "pure" photography (whatever that is) and graphic art (or what ever you want to call it). Maybe there is a spectrum from minimal intervention to total invention. No camera or photographer can reproduce reality, only a subjective representation of it. Every time we choose a camera or a lens or a filter or a time of day or a physical viewpoint or a Photoshop plugin we are selecting what aspect of reality we want to represent in a two-dimensional image. How can anyone justify or rationalise a figure such as no more than 25% of the image may be modified for it to be "really" called a photograph? Indeed how can you measure it - if I alter the exposure or saturation of the whole surface area my just a tiny amount or even radically, is that allowed? What if I paste in some tiny figures of people who were not in the scene when i took the exposure, is that allowed if it is less than 1% of the surface area. To try and draw arbitrary lines in the sand is extreme ratbaggery and ultimately pointless because we will never get consensus.
The world has changed; technology has changed. I wonder if a similar argument was carried on in monasteries in the late 1400s: "It's not a REAL book unless at least 75% of it has been hand lettered on vellum. This printing on paper business is a threat to our self perception (and our business) as book producers!"
Surely the ultimate criterion is "Is this an image that speaks to me?" regardless of how it was produced - film, digital, photoshop, watercolours or oils?

(My personal view. I am not criticising anyone on AP personally. Apologies if you feel offended.)

I'd prefer to see a photo with all the pixels darkened or lightened or tonally manipulation by 100%, rather than see even one pixel altered with the small people in it(or removed) ... even if it were 1 pixel in 100 million.

That type of debate happened in the earlier part of this century when Frank Hurley was assigned to shoot images during WW1(in France).
He had many arguments with the AIF top brass, as to what his assignment was supposed to be.
They wanted photos, he gave them graphic art.
He has famous images of a WW1 battlefield where biplanes overhead are bombing the scene and troops in the foreground.
To you and I, just casually looking at them, we assume that this is a great historic scene and that's what happened.
But back in it's day, this type of event never happened. Troops on the ground with planes overhead would never happen at the same time, and the top brass were furious at Hurley for implying that they were.
If you don't mind 'being lied too' in that sense .. then digital art is what you'd prefer ... rather than a mundane reality, even if it were so only for 1/250s.

This argument is not new, and is as old as photography itself.

It doesn't diminish Hurley's images at all, but for us looking back on them it's a total fabrication of what we assume would be a historical piece. In that respect, is does his photographs some injustice!
Like Steve said earlier:

[QUOTE=Steve Axford;1400802] It is quite clear that most competitions have decided that since they can't tell, then they will accept anything. Only nature or doco photography tries to make a no alteration rule. I suspect that some people ignore the rules as it is so hard to tell the difference. But, people have memories and once you are caught for cheating you will probably be remembered for exactly that and no photo you do will be trusted again. I know people who support the anything goes rule, but I can never look at their photos without wondering how real they are .....[QUOTE]

I like my photographs to be photographs .. brightened/darkened or contrasty or muted.
But digital additions(or deletions) don't make them photographs.

ps. Some Frank Hurley images for reference

[Steve Axford]

Can you give your example of what the rules would say for the competition you would like to see?

I haven't given the wording any thought, but I have noticed that there seem to be no rules.

- - - Updated - - -

To Arthur, you are quite right, setup has always been a part of photography. But people have commented many times in many threads so it has been noticed and I don't remember any favourable comments. I guess my point is that people don't like to be fooled. If they know what has been done then there is no problem ( or at least that something has been done), but if it is presented as something it's not then ... you lose your audience. The whole point of a site like AP is to gain an audience.

[Hamster]

I haven't given the wording any thought, but I have noticed that there seem to be no rules.

There are always rules, and they have varying descriptions of levels of manipulation allowed. See the upcoming AIPP competition for an example. My question was to help you see the difficulty of coming up with rules that define what is and isn't allowed. Especially given the vastly different views displayed just in the thread alone about what minimal, acceptable, a bit of cloning, no cloning, some tonal adjustments means.

[Hamster]

I guess my point is that people don't like to be fooled.

And that is exactly the point of the link I posted, which also provides help in how to get over this.

[Steve Axford]

There will always be debate about where the line is but if you just throw your arms up and say it's all to difficult and do nothing ... then you will lose your audience.

[Hamster]

There will always be debate about where the line is but if you just throw your arms up and say it's all to difficult and do nothing ... then you will lose your audience.

No, I'm not saying it's too difficult, I'm saying it's not relevant. But seeing as you think it's important, and a line CAN be drawn, let's see your attempt at some rules for the inaugural Steve Axford photo comp.

[Steve Axford]

I don't think a Steve Axford comp would work as I don't think I am quite on the right wavelength. Anyway, there is too much else to do.

[ktoopi]

I was always a strictly get it in camera and minimal processing kinda girl until I went to a workshop run by Christian Fletcher who was Landscape Photographer of the Year a few years ago and he blew my mind with the amount of manipulation that went into creating his images. I naively had no idea that people manipulated that much!! For me I guess it depends on the rules of the competition and what each photographer has as their vision and what they want their work to show. These days I am not adverse to removing distractions and enhancing the image to represent what I saw in my minds eye.

[bobt]

I naively had no idea that people manipulated that much!!

My son-in-law absolutely hates photo manipulation - in fact he's so obsessive that he refuses to even hold a camera in portrait mode - landscape all the way!! Never had the heart to point out that a huge and expensive floor to ceiling picture he has on his wall is totally processed from top to bottom!

[ktoopi]

yeah don't tell him

[landyvlad]

I don't think a Steve Axford comp would work

Me neither. Nobody would enter in case they had misread it and 'Steve Axford" was the prize....

[Steve Axford]

What a horrible thought - for both me and the winner

[Mark L]

Can you find the link? It would be interesting to see the discussion.

Spent some time looking an can't find it. Was at least 4/5 years ago so I'm surprised I even remember it.

[Hamster]

Spent some time looking an can't find it. Was at least 4/5 years ago so I'm surprised I even remember it.

Oh well. Thanks for trying though.

Edit - a bit of Google-fu found me this.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...10+year+winner

this it?

[teylward]

I love natural photography, I love "worked" photography and I love the extreme manipulations. Every type of photography has it's place and as it is an art form, it is all up to the creator to make it what they want. All different arts get judged by the public and the art community, why should photography be any different?
As long as works aren't been made out to be something they are not.

[Mark L]

Oh well. Thanks for trying though.

Edit - a bit of Google-fu found me this.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...10+year+winner

this it?

yep and good searching there
does it eventually live up to what I suggested?
Post #30 on page two starts some discussion.

[Hamster]

does it eventually live up to what I suggested?
Post #30 on page two starts some discussion.

Interesting, but kind of expected I guess. A mix of people who felt deceived by their own assumptions and others that just said they took it at a fairly superficial level and don't feel too worried. I can see why people might feel that there is deception, since they may have credited the photographer with additional skill for capturing a shot using a live subject. Then they discovered that he didn't lie in wait for hours or employ some other kind of in depth knowledge of the subject to get the shot.
I am now wondering if the same feeling could be felt by someone viewing a landscape and then finding out it has been edited. I don't feel that way about a landscape, but maybe would about a wildlife shot, and I can see why that could seem inconsistent. I did note that the shot of the frog was not submitted in a wildlife competition and hence was not subject to the same type of "documentary" type rules so, I have nothing against that shot.

[bobt]

As long as works aren't been made out to be something they are not.

This is an interesting comment in the overall context of this discussion. If one enters an Open competition, and does so with an image which is fabricated in some way - does that qualify as being "made out to be something they're not" ? Does the maker make any sort of implicit statement when they submit that image ? Does the act of entering an image carry any presumed adherence to any particular level of authenticity? I think many images are presented which are really not what they purport to be, but I'm not sure whether a photographer is deemed to be knowingly deceiving his audience simply by entering it in a competition. Most images are a version of reality rather than an accurate representative of reality.

[Hamster]

This is an interesting comment in the overall context of this discussion. If one enters an Open competition, and does so with an image which is fabricated in some way - does that qualify as being "made out to be something they're not"

No. It's not a documentary category. An image is only "made out to be" what the viewer perceives. It is about telling a story (see the link I posted). As was said, only a child feels cheated when they discover that Hogwarts doesn't exist, but an adult can still enjoy the story. People need to stop being so naive as to believe that the camera captures reality. It doesn't, and has never been able to.