Photography vs digital manipulation

[Josh Bear]

Dear All,

Where does photography end and digital manipulation start and indeed cross the line of what is acceptable?

Below there are three takes on the same scene. The first is the actual photograph taken from the walls of Volterra in Tuscany. You can see that the house in the foreground dominates somewhat but unfortunately short of moving the ramparts there was no chance of choosing a different angle.

However using photoshop content aware fill I was able to create the second photograph.

Finally I then cropped that version to give me version 3. So is this a real photograph or something artificial? I have no idea but thought I would share these pictures here.

best regards

Josh

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

Where does photography end and digital manipulation start and indeed cross the line of what is acceptable?

<snip>Josh

Huge debate subject:

Starting inside the camera, we can alter the effect that the photons had on the sensor, with all the processing power that is available. Arguably only the RAW file is the photograph (akin to a negative) and everything from then on is manipulation in exactly the same way we played about in the darkroom and produced a print. Often we would return to produce another print on different paper, exposures, crops, rotations, dodges & burns and the really clever ones would even do selective area montage prints and double exposures, bas relief, cross processing, etc., etc., etc...

As for the "line" it's one drawn in the sand, that thankfully shifts back & forth with trends, opinions and personal choice. For me the deciding line is often draw at the point where the image no longer looks right. I'm not overly fussed if someone has cloned out some phone lines or added in some clouds to fill an empty sky. If the end result is a pleasing picture, then that is no different to the pictures of the Master painters who used "artistic licence" and often several stand-in models to create their works

Every photo ever taken is a representation of the subject, simply through the act of composition. So represent it as you will, but do it well and enjoy the end result. if others also like the product of your efforts, that's the bonus.

Have fun and a Happy New Year.

[Josh Bear]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

thanks for the comments. I like your very sensible view of the topic. I must admit to being a little concerned as to the ease at which the building was removed. I am completely untrained and if I can do this ,what can a trained person do and how can I trust a photograph again?

best regards

Josh

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

<snip>how can I trust a photograph again?

Josh

You can never trust a photograph. A few years ago there was an advert showing two white policemen running down a road behind a black man.

Underneath the picture, it was explained that all three were Police Officers, who were all chasing the same mugger, who was out of the frame...

That, I believe, was shot on film, but purely because of the composition, the image presented a completely and deliberately false "story", that was staged to depict the scene in just such a way...

Digital manipulation just makes it all the more easy to adjust the picture to that which we want to present.

As a tip to what you did with your picture. When cloneing change the source of the clone as much as you can to prevent identifiable areas of similarity. Mix hard (100%) clones with softer (20% - 60%) clones to hide repeatitions. Always use a soft edge clone brush, unless you are being critical in the construction of an element.

Have Fun

[Josh Bear]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

Hi

Thanks for the comments. Re the cloning would you believe all I did was "paint" over the area I wanted to remove. I didn't select a source it was all done automatically by the new content aware filter in elements 9.

I can see some areas of duplication but with a bit more work they would disappear.

Best regards

Josh

[TheBull1875]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

I am absolutely gobsmacked by this tool. I also am very new to digital manipulation and have never seen this tool used. I just went and cut the missus out of a picture at Giant's Causeway. Wonderful! Can it work in real life??


Sorry darling, love you really.

[Ian]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

The camera NEVER lies, didn't you know that?

Of course Josh's question is almost constantly debated. As long as the aim is for an artistic result, then there is no problem with digital manipulation that affects the reality of the scene in a fundamental way. Of more concern is when a picture that has been edited in this way is then presented as a record of reality. A famous example of this was a photo taken of a middle east war scene for a newspaper in the US and some cloning of people was done by the photographer apparently in order to 'balance' the scene. Needless to say, the photographer was found out and sacked, and quite rightly so.

But none of this is new - even before digital, photographers were messing around with reality in the dark room.

It certainly is a bit spooky that reality can be distorted so easily these days, but it's something we should learn to live with and - where appropriate - enjoy. I certainly enjoyed Josh's examples in this thread - great work Josh!

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

Hi

Thanks for the comments. Re the cloning would you believe all I did was "paint" over the area I wanted to remove. I didn't select a source it was all done automatically by the new content aware filter in elements 9.

I can see some areas of duplication but with a bit more work they would disappear.

Best regards

Josh

My view is that it depends on what the photograph is for, if its journalism then nothing should be done other that contrast control or cropping. Cropping can as Graham points out change the message the picture may have, but since it can be done as part of the composition at the taking stage anyway, I see nothing wrong with post cropping.
If its pictorial well anything goes as we are making a picture to look good or not depending on whats driving the photographer.

I attach a picture before and after to illustrates how I feel on the subject.
I offered it on 1x.com in the second form and failed to be accepted, the third version was a result of critique that inspired the new version, and was accepted.
Same picture very different feel

[Josh Bear]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

Thanks Ian and Patrick.

Patrick I think number two is excellent and has a very " classy" look. Re the new tools available to make manipulation easier I might (one day) have the time to go back over thousands of raw files to see what else I can clone out to improve a picture otherwise discarded.

Best regards

Josh

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

<snip>I attach a picture before and after to illustrates how I feel on the subject.
I offered it on 1x.com in the second form and failed to be accepted, the third version was a result of critique that inspired the new version, and was accepted.
Same picture very different feel

Accepted into 1x.com, now that is impressive. As they say "third time's a charm" and it helps to have Holly as the subject. Well done.

[Patrick]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

Accepted into 1x.com, now that is impressive. As they say "third time's a charm" and it helps to have Holly as the subject. Well done.

Thank you, I am fortunate enough to have 14 images published there but I was stuck on 13 for a very long time.

Patrick

[Jocelyn Walker]

Re: Photography vs digital manipulation

As an artist, the 3rd version appeals to me the most because it is subtler, softer & more aesthetically pleasing! It seems to have more tones or subtler tones! I've never heard of that tool you mention before & am absolutley amazed at what it can 'wipe out'!