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

[arthurking83]

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" ? ......

If there were strict guidelines as to what an image is supposed to be representing in an open theme, then abstract photography would have to be banned for the most part.

I have no issue with images like that frog one in an open comp, just as long as it wasn't nature oriented in any way(ie. reptile based, or nature or animal or whatever).
As Kym commented about the merits of that frog photo it's place in the comp that it won .. ie. all good.

.... Most images are a version of reality rather than an accurate representative of reality.

So the key point here is not to deceive folks with photos that simply aren't a reality, when the reality is the main point of the image.
Ergo. if the image presented is supposed to be a photograph(ie. and not a digital creation!) then you would be allowed the courtesy of editing that photo in a way that the camera could(ie. colour tones etc).

As an extreme example of this editing: we humans can't see in IR(infrared) and need devices as such to see it(for what it is). False colour IR(the colourful looking IR) doesn't exist in any world, but a camera can create it.
What we'd see in terms of colour in IR is simply black and white images, with varying degree of grey tones. This is what IR actually is.
But the camera can capture false colour IR due to the capability of the sensor, the ability to render those colour tones and the choice of filter used.
Creating an IR image in this false colour manner doesn't preclude it from being labelled a photograph tho, even tho it looks surreal(or unreal) to us. there are many creatures that can see in this IR manner(apparently).

A version of reality is still a reality.
Two seconds ago was a reality for me(and for you) but that moment has passed now, it doesn't mean that that reality 2 sec ago never existed.

BUT!.... in your two image examples at the start of this thread(and then compared to the actual photo) they aren't a reality, most likely they never have been, as I'm assuming that the land area where the car park exists has always existed.
The car park and the people may have changed over time(since that castle was built), but it appears that the land in the foreground has existed for as long as the castle has.
Had you captured that castle from the other side, where it appears to be all watery, then that's a reality that does exists. Edit that with as much tonal manipulation as you like .. to me it'd still be a photo.
The first two image presented are basically digital renderings .. ie. not photographs.

[bobt]

BUT!.... in your two image examples at the start of this thread(and then compared to the actual photo) they aren't a reality, most likely they never have been, as I'm assuming that the land area where the car park exists has always existed.
The car park and the people may have changed over time(since that castle was built), but it appears that the land in the foreground has existed for as long as the castle has.
Had you captured that castle from the other side, where it appears to be all watery, then that's a reality that does exists. Edit that with as much tonal manipulation as you like .. to me it'd still be a photo.
The first two image presented are basically digital renderings .. ie. not photographs.

Well now, that's an interesting comment. In actual fact it is a tidal island, and it's been either connected or not connected at various times over the centuries. The tides vary in height as much as 14 metres in that part of the world, and so when the tide's in you need a boat to get there. It hasn't been naturally connected to the land since pre-historic times. So if I'd been there at a different time, there would indeed have been water all around it. It's very similar to its "sister" site off the coast of the UK, where I also went, and on that occasion I walked across to the castle, ands caught a boat back, becuase the tide came in during my visit.

So .... by your reasoning above, that legitimises both my images ..... or does it?:

[dacar]

Some really good thought-provoking discussion here. I particularly liked the link to David duChemin's blog (http://davidduchemin.com/2016/06/cam...e-photographs/). He, and others here, have clearly made the point that ALL photography is a subjective representation of reality, not reality itself. The problem seems to be, how do we define "photography" in this digital age?
Getting back to bobt's question: "Taking my original images as a starting point, would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?"

My answer would be similar to David duChemin's - how are you representing (or labelling) your photo? Are you claiming it is a "realistic" representation of what you saw?
Maybe it would be up to the competition organisers and judges to say "These are my rules - sure they are subjective, but so is photography, so abide by them. If I question your photo I reserve the right to disqualify it. If you want to argue the point, you prove to me that it meets my criteria."
Good luck proving that one way or the other!

- - - Updated - - -

I was just looking at anohter post - http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...=1#post1401638 - and the original poster replied to a comment "The reds were actually even brighter but I didn't want to make it look over-processed."
As I said in that discussion, "Have we reached the point where we process our shots to make them look unprocessed?"

[bobt]

Getting back to bobt's question: "Taking my original images as a starting point, would you feel comfortable entering an image in a competition here if a third of it was generated by software and had no photographic content at all?"

My answer would be similar to David duChemin's - how are you representing (or labelling) your photo? Are you claiming it is a "realistic" representation of what you saw?

Ahhh ..... and here lies the crux of the problem. If I enter an image, am I in fact making any representation at all ? When we enter an image in an Open comp, we don't attach any declaration of authenticity, so I'm not sure that we can be said to be claiming anything. We simply say "Here is an image - judge it". The title should be irrelevant, and indeed need not include any claim at all. So the conundrum remains.

[ameerat42]

...When we enter an image in an Open comp, we don't attach any declaration of authenticity, so I'm not sure that we can be said to be claiming anything. We simply say "Here is an image - judge it". The title should be irrelevant, and indeed need not include any claim at all...

Bob. In such cases I'd say that to "judge" such an image is not relevant, and one can simply like or dislike or be neutral to it
Judging is a measure of how something stands up to certain accepted criteria.

My 5c worth, what, given inflation and the lack of smaller denomination coins

[Hamster]

Judging is a measure of how something stands up to certain accepted criteria.

Wouldn't the accepted criteria be the rules of the competition and then the judges opinion of what constitutes a good or bad photo? Hence, once you've adhered to the specific rules, the composition, processing, mood, story etc are down to the opinion of the judges and you can win in one and bomb in another competition with the same shot.
In AP comps the judges are many and the criteria will vary greatly. In international/national comps the judging reaches a bit more consistency, but you can still win one and bomb in another :-)

[ricktas]

So let's play this out... cause I like you people.. and it could be fun.

WE (the members of AP) have been awarded the rights by the United Nations to define 10 rules regarding photography editing in the digital age. To make it easier, we have been told that our rules only apply to photography competitions. We have to define ten golden rules regarding 'digital enhancement' of competition photos that will have to be applied to every photography competition, going forward.

What are our ten rules?

[Hamster]

So let's play this out... cause I like you people.. and it could be fun.

WE (the members of AP) have been awarded the rights by the United Nations to define 10 rules regarding photography editing in the digital age. To make it easier, we have been told that our rules only apply to photography competitions. We have to define ten golden rules regarding 'digital enhancement' of competition photos that will have to be applied to every photography competition, going forward.

What are our ten rules?

Haha. What's the task after this, world peace ?

[ricktas]

Haha. What's the task after this, world peace ?

That I shall leave to Mr Turnip Trump...

Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.

[Mark L]

Rule 2: PPing must be done by the photographer.

[bobt]

Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.

Hmmm .... now that would only be appropriate once it was decided what they could or could not do!

This certainly a tricky set of rules to write, and I've written a few!

How about .....

1) Submitted image(s) may be either a single photographic image or a composite image produced by combining two or more images. All such images must have been photographed by the entrant.
2) Any subsequent manipulation of those images must have been performed by the entrant.
3) Any manipulation of images is permissible provided that such manipulation does not introduce additional information (pixels) which were not present in any of the original image(s).
4) The original untouched image(s) must be made available on request by the judge(s).

[ricktas]

5) Entrants must provide a list of all edits done.

eg: replaced sky, sharpened, cloned out foreground rubbish and a person. Removed power lines.

[bobt]

5) Entrants must provide a list of all edits done.

eg: replaced sky, sharpened, cloned out foreground rubbish and a person. Removed power lines.

The only problem with that is that every entrant would need to submit a list, even those who had entered an image with vary little done to it. I'd also struggle to remember everything I'd done to some images I work on, which can take place over a long period of time. I figure that the only time anyone would need to see the "recipe" was if there was doubt about whether the image passed the earlier questions. In any event, all of those edits fall within Rule 3, and would therefore be legal. If the manipulation is legal, then the judges don't need to know. The aim of any set of rules is to remain as simple as possible for both entrant and judge.

It would appear that we don't have too many "courageous" rule writers here!!

[I @ M]

Just as they do in formula one motor racing and run "control tyres" I suggest that we make a rule for control processing software.

6) All post processing must be done with Paint.net.

[mpb]

Just playing the devils advocate for a moment.

Rule 1: Entrants shall provide the RAW file to judges, on request.

I know you asked for rules for the digital age. So are you excluding all film photographers? What about those who shoot jpeg. Or perhaps that should have been a Trump "raw" and actually includes the original negative and jpeg.

Rule 2: PPing must be done by the photographer.

Well where do I start with this one? Um, well I agree.
How do we provide proof? "raw" video of the whole editing process perhaps, count me out as a judge.

How about .....

1) Submitted image(s) may be either a single photographic image or a composite image produced by combining two or more images. All such images must have been photographed by the entrant.
2) Any subsequent manipulation of those images must have been performed by the entrant.
3) Any manipulation of images is permissible provided that such manipulation does not introduce additional information (pixels) which were not present in any of the original image(s).
4) The original untouched image(s) must be made available on request by the judge(s).

Solid rules Bob. See above in relation to proof of editing.

Just as they do in formula one motor racing and run "control tyres" I suggest that we make a rule for control processing software.

6) All post processing must be done with Paint.net.

Now there is a challenge.

[bobt]

I think one of the issues that lies at the core of any competition is simply the need to accept that any entry complies with the rules unless we can clearly see that it does not. The reason for this is simple. None of us have the slightest idea if an image is original or was even taken by the entrant. There is no way of knowing that the image wasn't taken by a friend, their spouse, a passing orangutan or an extended time in Photoshop. We start every competition here and in every other forum on the presumption that the image was created by the entrant. That's simply because we have no way of knowing otherwise.

The rules are simply to ensure that we are all singing from the same songbook, and the one who hits the right note wins! We cannot possibly check for compliance with all the rules, so we tell everyone what those rules are and then assume that they all abide by them.

[dacar]

This may be a red herring, but here goes...
In the pre-digital era, a photograph was something produced by light hitting a light-sensitive medium, with varying degrees of manipulation in the field and in the darkroom. People did all sorts of things in the darkroom such as use hand-made vignette shapes, or placing lace tablecloths under the enlarger, or swirling ink in the developing chemicals to produce interesting silhouettes, then combining these with something produced in the camera in the field or studio. Were the final images produced by these methods still classed as "photographs"? Where was the line drawn last century?
These days we photograph rocks and sand and peeling paint to get textures which are then applied to other "photographic" elements to produce a final image, or other items are scanned at varying magnifications and may or may not be combined with other image elements.
The final product is the thing we are judging, not the process by which it was created. If we want to impose arbitrary rules in order to create a "level playing field" for photographers, that's fine, but it's probably impossible to enforce. And how can you measure the degree of editing done before and after the shot was taken? Do I have to admit to moving some untidy rubbish out of the way before taking my landscape shot? Or do I have to admit it only if it is removed in PhotoShop?

There are similar parallels in the world of music: Composers often blatantly "steal" other musicians' melodies or chord sequences, yet their final products are still "music" - and often highly praised. How many magnificent compositions are there based on Paganini's famous theme? And then, modern musicians often "sample" tiny bits of other works and rework them into their own compositions, and use pre-made digital "beats" and rhythms resulting in the musical world arguing in a similar fashion to us over what is the meaning of "original" and what can be said to be a musician's own work and what is a machine's output. Listeners don't care how it was produced, only what it sounds like in the end.

[Steve Axford]

I can't see that copying music has any bearing on this argument. That's like saying that someone used the same viewpoint for a photo. All music is essentially created. It doesn't represent reality. The issue is that, rightly or wrongly, people have come to expect that a photo doesn't lie. This is connected to the idea that seeing is believing. We can take the line that anything goes, but there is a certain inevitability to that line, and it is that people will walk away. Sure, have digital art if you want it, but call it digital art, not photography. It can then compete with fine art photography, which is essentially similar in that it is created. 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.

[Glenda]

Just read through all 4 pages of this post and it's certainly an interesting discussion. Personally, I don't have a problem with composites (provided all images are taken by the photographer) or any PP if done well. When I first joined this site I used to look at the landscape section with such envy and of course, as a beginner, blamed my rather basic equipment for how my images looked in comparison. It wasn't until Dylan posted an original raw and his processed image that I realised how much PP played a part. This just made me want to learn how to do it. I can understand Steve being against it, particularly for his fungi images, as these fall into the nature category for me, and most competitions I've seen in that genre, specify that PP must be very minimal and basic. The only comps I enter are here on AP and in camera clubs. Most camera clubs allow any PP, if done solely by the photographer, and obviously they have to rely on honesty there, except in nature or social documentary categories where it is restricted.

[Lance B]

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, as Glenda pointed out with Dylan's images. 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. At the end of the day, Dylan's images are stunning and I would like to be able to present images as nice as his and as nice as many other's I've seen elsewhere.

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. I just look at it as the next step to better images since digital photography has really meant that it gets photography to more people and thus makes it more difficult to get your photo to stand out compared to others. If it means I need to learn new skills in post processing, then so be it.

Looking at Bob's original photos, it can be seen (not that easily, mind you as they have been quite well done) they have been manipulated and I would thus vote them down a little due to this. However, if they were done "perfectly", I would probably be more than happy to have them hanging on my wall if I took them. So, it's a case of, would I be happy enough to have it hanging on the wall or not? A photo that I score as a 9 or 10 in an Ausphotography competition I would be possibly quite happy to have hanging on my wall whether it be highly post processed or not at all. A photo that scores less than that I would not put on my wall and that could be because it is over processed, looks overly processed or is poorly processed or is under processed. In other words, I am the end arbitrator of what I feel is over processed and what I am happy with. I guess what I am trying to say is, if it looks great and I would have it hanging on my wall then I am happy to mark it well regardless of how it got to that end and I will score it that way. I do not think Ausphotography need go down the path of trying to set rules on how much manipulation can be done as where do we draw the line? 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.