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

[Hamster]

Maybe split things into photography as one category and fine art photography/ digital art as the other. I suspect that almost all entries here will be photography.

OK, but we're back to the problem of defining this line. So you'd need to tell people what you would say constitutes a "photograph" for the purposes of an AP competition, i.e. the rules. Saturation change allowed? How much? Contrast adjustment? How much? global or selective?..... An interesting point somone made was that they can move a coke can from a scene before they take the shot, but if they remove it using the clone tool then that might be too much manipulation for some. That seems very silly to me, but is cloning in or out?

I agree with Glenda. I don't see a real issue with photo manipulation. There are some spectacular images presented here and elsewhere and I am not all that concerned with how they get to that end, ... If it means that I need to learn how to do these post processing manipulations, then so be it, it will mean that I can present "better" images.

As for Steve's fungi images, his are more of a reportage style and probably need to be accurate for identification purposes. However, that is a different topic. We are not discussing reportage photography, we are discussing what constitutes a pleasing image and one that we would love to have hanging on our wall. If it is obvious photo manipulation people will either like it or not like it at vote accordingly. If it is not obvious then does it really matter? If it looks great then people will vote accordingly. The point is, would you have it hanging on your wall? If so, then vote accordingly. If not, then also vote accordingly. I think there is a little bit of jealousy that some do not have the skills to manipulate a photograph and are thus possibly against photo manipulation....
At the end of the day, we all make our judgements as we are the ones scoring the photo, not faceless judges. If it were supposed to be a perfect representation of what the photographer saw, then that is a different matter, this is reportage photography and most of those I wouldn't have hanging on my wall unless it meant something to me for some reason. However, this may mean it doesn't mean anything to someone else.

*Paraphrased for the key bits I like*

Exactly. Do you like it or not, does it evoke some emotion, does it make you feel calm, angry. Do you like the tones, the light, the composition (ooh probably cropped, take points off - of course it is, but was it done well...to enhance the story)
I too suspect that some peoples dislike of PP is linked to their lack of skill in this area. Understandable in some respects, but no one ever achieved something great by saying, hey you, stop cycling so fast, I can't go that fast so this cycling competition has a speed limit that just happens to match my maximum.

[piczzilla]

I too suspect that some peoples dislike of PP is linked to their lack of skill in this area

That's what I suspected too until I met this co-worker who came across my online images. He's not a photographer, but is extremely hostile towards editing process and those who do/support it (inc me). From the stuff that he spouted, I gather it's got to do with "hiding the lack of skills", "unethical", "cheating", or "being too lazy to get it right on camera". He's got very strong view on it for someone who's not a photographer. Hounded me for weeks until I snapped.

[ameerat42]

He sounds like a right sausage, Picz. I'm sure all the polemic is internal.
Educate him in the ways of lemmings

[Hamster]

Yes, a right sausage, as you say

[piczzilla]

Was in the middle of writing this when I got dragged out for lunch. I was involved in similar discussion on Reddit, and I think some people there raised very valid points on the matter.

First issue was the deceitful nature of photo editing. Now, if we go back to the history of photography, camera equipment might have been invented to record "factual images". However, even back in the days, there were things that got adjusted during the printing process - like the cropping, exposure, and contrast. While these sound like simple adjustments, they can drastically alter the mood & the message of the photograph. E.g. imagine if we have an image of someone staring down & intently observing a strange object, then the message of the image was "that object is strange". Now let's crop that strange object and we are left with the image of the person staring down with perhaps slightly furrowed brows, then the message is "this person is in a heavy or angry mood". Should the photographer be condemned for cropping & hence deceive the audience, or should we accept that the nature of photography has always been subjective & perhaps even deceitful.

Then the 2nd issue. Since the introduction of digital photography, manipulation (removing/adding objects into a photo) has never been easier, but did it actually start after digital photography was introduced? I'll let Wiki explain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_...y_manipulation
Well, basically although manipulation was probably never the intended direction of photography, manipulation has always been engraved in the history of photography. Meaning, challenging the definition of "photographs" would require challenging all the early photographs too, including the one that was printed on the original Lincoln five-dollar bill. What actions should be taken then, perhaps removing all these images from the history of photography & photo museum/gallery, retract any statements/awards that deem these images as good "photos", then perhaps also remove any materials that reference these images as photos?

Of course these cannot be applied to some photography genres. And I think I should mention, these are some of the stuff I caught from another discussion, not my personal opinions.