Image Manipulation.

[curly42]

This may have been covered on here before but I'm not aware of it,so I'd be interested in peoples views regarding the amount of changes made to images once they come out of the camera.
When it becomes a false image (for instance removing a tree,power lines or unsightly buildings,or introducing a more interesting sky from another photo) would it be acceptable to enter into (for example) the picture of the week competition ?
Other than a small amount of cropping and sharpening I'm very loathe to do anything else,but then I'm from the old school of photography where we were taught to do as much as possible within the camera.
At what point does it become a manipulated image so far removed from what the eye has seen that it is almost imaginary ???

 

[Phoenix]

I would say it becomes a false image if the main focus of the photograph is moved around in any way and the same goes for the background.
All touch ups and slight alterations are cool with me and I do it all the time.
But just because the shot is fake after some heavy alteration doesn't mean it cant be good.

 

[minette]

I'm sure I read somewhere that altered photos, at some point, cease to be "photographs" and become "pictures" instead. I also tend to be wary of changes made on the computer - I've only just come round to the idea of cropping, on the grounds that scissors would have served the same purpose in the old film days! Even sharpening seems almost like cheating to me. Maybe that's why I rarely get a vote on POTW

 

[90019]

Generally, I won't edit most photos (apart from cropping and sometimes sharpening because the photo quality of my camera is starting to deteriorate a little), but when I do, I'll always keep the original photo, and have the edited one in a separate folder, with all the other edited ones. I've uploaded a couple to the POTW competition which had the contrast altered very slightly, but apart from that, they're as taken.

Sometimes I will do full edits, but usually it's just putting an effect on the whole image (like this one) or on most of it (like this one), but these will usually just be used as my desktop background, or will just be done when I'm bored, or if i want to try an effect out

I would never say that a photo which has had anything more than a little sharpening or cropping done to it is my photo. I'll say that the original was my photo, and that I've done some editing.
I'll also edit some for printing to get effects that I like for putting on my bedroom wall

 

[thefab444]

I generally just crop (if required) and sharpen a bit to bring out the details. If the photo is a complete fudge-cake and it's of something important, I might have a fiddle around in Photoshop, cloaning out twigs etc. It also depends if you want a photo with the train in it (thus more interested in photo quality) or a photo of the train (thus more interested in capturing the actual train).

Each to his own really!

 

[mumrar]

I'm afraid I sit very much in the camp of using the editing techniques at hand to better your photographs as much as possible. You have to start by getting the initial shot right in the first place though, like the old phrase goes you can't polish a t^&d!

I am a bit perturbed by the stance adopted by some of the film/slide collective because they are incredably niaive if the think they put their films in to be developed and the lab technicians just carried out standard developing with no dark room techniques to enhance the finished image. After all, what made people use certain labs was the way they produced the final results, so dodging, burning, cropping and many darkroom techniques have just been replicated now in the digital form. The main difference is that the photograoher is both in control and (largely) in the know too.

We also have to bear in mind that whilst manufacturers concentrate on 3 main areas with digital photography, being sensor size (MP), shooting rate (FPS) and reducing noise, they are not doing anything to increase the dynamic range that the sensor responds too. This is where we still have a lack of parity with film SLR photography, on a cloudy day or in night shots film can fully capture the range of brightness and darkness far batter than ANY digital SLR currently. Night photography can prove the exception if you have a static subject and use HDR techniques.

Below are three example shots from my website, one is the original RAW image taken off the camera and converted straight to JPEG.

In this shot you can see how with the photo exposed for tones to be retained in the sky, you lose a lot of the actual train

This shot shows what can be changed with the CameraRAW importing tools available with Photoshop CS3 to right some of the wrongs in terms of light balance before you do any other editing in Photoshop

Laslty we have the final photo after more tweaking in CS3 and applying a technique *like* a graduated ND filter to keep the sky light and the train light also.

I did also remove the flower that I hadn't noticed in the right hand frame of the shot, a shortcoming on my behalf but if I can I am not going to let it ruin a shot I purposely went out to take!

All of this I hope will add some substance to peoples debate and I hope that whilst i take on board others views they can do the same with mine, these are just my views of what I think we can do. I think if it's there, use it.

 

[Richmond]

Just a question, does anyone use filters to improve the images they take on digital rather than doing it in photoshop? I use a range of Cokin filters to help improve images on certain days and polarisers.
As an old film user on digital, alsways found the best way to produce an image is at source rather than later so get the image on the camera right in the first place.

 

[Swiss Toni]

You have to start by getting the initial shot right in the first place though, like the old phrase goes you can't polish a t^&d!

Exactly!

This particular topic has been done to death on photography forums many times before and is usually started by people who don't fully understand digital cameras and/or don't know how to use imaging software.
There would also seem to be a little "sour grapes" here as well however.

Photo manipulation/retouching has gone on since cameras were invented, it's nothing new, all the images you see in magazines have been edited in some way or other.

Before digital came along photographers used filters to achieve better results, now the same effects can be obtained using software. What's the difference between using an 82A filter on a film camera to alter the colour temp. or doing the same thing with software to a digital image.

It's called progress!

 

[minette]

Exactly!

This particular topic has been done to death on photography forums many times before and is usually started by people who don't fully understand digital cameras and/or don't know how to use imaging software.
There would also seem to be a little "sour grapes" here as well however.

Photo manipulation/retouching has gone on since cameras were invented, it's nothing new, all the images you see in magazines have been edited in some way or other.

Before digital came along photographers used filters to achieve better results, now the same effects can be obtained using software. What's the difference between using an 82A filter on a film camera to alter the colour temp. or doing the same thing with software to a digital image.

It's called progress!

If this is progress, I'm not interested!
When I put my films in for processing, I was trusting the staff to faithfully reproduce what I had taken - whether it was good or bad.
When I see the original shot of what was entered in last week's POTW, compared with the edited picture that won it, I do wonder if the people who voted for this picture were aware of the extent of the editing involved.
I'm sure many people have seen the picture of the HST powercar pulling a freight train, as created by one of the railway magazines some time ago. It was published then as an example of "going too far", and I thought this thread might clear up what is regarded, at least on this site, as just that - but it looks like it is turning into another point-scoring exercise. How very boring...

 

[Phoenix]

The point scoring is basically us who do edit our photos and belive it is practical verses the other side who believe a photo has a soul and cannot be tampered with.
I am strongly for the use of photoshop etc but rather than manipulation in my case I would call it enhancement.
I mean all I do is clean up the shot and change the exposure composition and whatnot.
The passion for me is getting the right shot you know making it all fit in and work and like what was said if your shot is rubbish it's rubbish no matter what you do to it.

As for this argument I think it is a good one as it gets people talking about photograph as a whole rather than "OMFG Hellfire Clag shot" which frankly does my head in.
But Swiss toni the whole "Sour Grapes" statement isn't exactly true and does end up offending the other side so then it turns into an argument.

 

[Swiss Toni]

If this is progress, I'm not interested!

Then fair enough don't edit your photos, but it's a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It means you will never achieve the maximum from a digital camera/image, but if you're happy with that situation then ok.

When I see the original shot of what was entered in last week's POTW, compared with the edited picture that won it, I do wonder if the people who voted for this picture were aware of the extent of the editing involved.

As for your objections to a perfectly valid entry into the POTW competition, if you don't like it don't vote for it, and if it happens to win then don't complain, it's just democracy at work.

 

[mumrar]

When I put my films in for processing, I was trusting the staff to faithfully reproduce what I had taken - whether it was good or bad.

I am not criticising either the lab technicians or the film photographer here at all. I have MASSIVE respect for people who did all the metering and focussing manually because it made the whole shot a more personal experience. It lends more to the result with what has been put in and got out.

I can see why people think that when you take objects away it is going too far, but where would any technology be without ambition? It reminds me of a brilliant Honda advert about the word OK. They said it's the most used word, but why invent the lightbulb if candles are OK? Why invent the lift if stairs are OK?

The point is, no matter how you use it, new technology must be embraced. After all we don't see a generation of kids saying they refuse to watch CGI stuff because it's just cheating (Why use CGI when actors are OK??? LOL).

minette, I hope you've not considered anything I've said as wanting to point score from my side of the fence, but just because a lot of dark room or in the field effects for film were more hands on doesn't take away from the fact that using a filter is the same kind of manipulation as me brightening part of a picture. It's a post operative 0.6ND grad filter that's all (By the way - I have purchased soem Cokin P series filters to understand the process better, but with trains as a moving subject it is very awkward)

 

[minette]

Let's see if I'm reading this right.
Photos are old hat now, the whole point of what we used to call a photo is to "enhance" it to within an inch of itself and call that a photo instead.
And the POTW competition is not about photos, it's about who can play with their computer the best?
If that's how it's going, then it's no longer "a bit of fun" for me. I'm out.

 

[Dennis]

You have to start by getting the initial shot right in the first place though, like the old phrase goes you can't polish a t^&d!

I churn out such crapshots that I have to try and polish the t*rds I'd be lost without Photoshop.

On the subject of HDR images, although I do generally like the results obtained, they often look a bit unreal...more of a pretty picture than a photo offering a true representation of real life.

 

[mumrar]

Let's see if I'm reading this right.
Photos are old hat now, the whole point of what we used to call a photo is to "enhance" it to within an inch of itself and call that a photo instead.

WOW, that is nothing like I said, and you'll end up with arthritis if your knee jerks this quickly too often. I mean, why don't we all shoot black and white film on a box brownie, because film cameras weren't invented with colour film. And whilst were at it, anyone who has used a motor-drive, thats out of the question too. When the first camera was made it needed 8 hours of light to expose properly, so any film shots of moving subjects that are stopped are chucked out too. Where does it start and where does it end? The first film camera was made in 1814, and digital came along in 1972 when Texas Instruments registered a patent. Consumers didn't get a digital in their hands until 1986! So, 172 years of progress and evolution beyond all resmeblance to the start point with film cameras is totally acceptable but the last 23 is just too far, come on.

I hoped this post wouldn't turn into a rant but I feel my hand has been forced.

Here is the first ever photograph taken around 1826

And now here is a safe shot from 1988, do you know what you're right, the colour and all other stuff ruins it, lets go back to the first one as soon as possible please.
http://theironroad.fotopic.net/p33581536.html

On the subject of HDR images, although I do generally like the results obtained, they often look a bit unreal...more of a pretty picture than a photo offering a true representation of real life.

I know exactly what you mean about not offering a true representation, like paintings. Just look at those countless paintings all over the place showing a nice country station, a lovely steam engine, and nice rolling fields. No shadows on the train in the station at all, yet the sun is on the front of the station, so how can that happen?

http://www.railart.co.uk/gallery/austin25.html

Where for example do you think the light in this painting is coming from? It's only backlit by the moon, but has moonlight on the front side. Photography, like painting is a creative art, so what's wrong with being creative?

 

[curly42]

Can we please have a little sense on here and get back to the original subject which was about the amount of manipulation.If you think that removing the overhead lines and associated equipment is improving a photograph that's fine,it's your choice but I dont think that trying to lecture people in a cheap nasty snide way with a short (and somewhat innacurate) history of photography is of any help at all.
I've enjoyed taking part in this competition in the past but when we get levels of manipulation going this far it's all over for me.
In future could you please keep on subject and not try to force your views onto other people.You may be right,you may be wrong - it doesn't give you the right to lecture people.

 

[minette]

The sad thing, as I see it, is that I spend time going out, with my camera, to see what I can capture through the lens. That then is, to me, a photograph which can be entered, or not, into POTW. Then I see images entered against mine which have either been painted over to remove a major feature of the line where the shot has been taken, or have been edited together to form one large image - 97 photos for heaven's sake! That should be called a montage in my book! And then these same people have the nerve to tell me I'm incredibly sad for not manipulating my photos in the same way they do!
Sorry to hijack your thread, curly42, but those comments are beyond what I find acceptable. The saying used to be "the camera never lies", maybe now that should be changed to "the camera never lies, but watch out for the later manipulation".

 

[Swiss Toni]

In future could you please keep on subject and not try to force your views onto other people.You may be right,you may be wrong - it doesn't give you the right to lecture people.

In almost 50 years of railway photography I've seen a lot of pictures that convey movement - picture number 4 doesn't. Pure and simple. People may think that it does but it doesn't.

Hypocrisy rules then?

You took it upon yourself to try to sway the vote against a legitimate entry into the POTW competition for reasons best known to yourself.

Then shock/horror when the majority of voters didn't agree with you and it won you couldn't let it go. You had to have another "go" with this thread, which is nothing but the same petty jealousy regurgitated.

I don't need to defend my photography I let it speak for itself, unlike you I don't think I know it all (although I can take a picture that's straight!) I'm always trying to improve.
If there are new techniques that will improve my images I will take the time to learn them.

I've enjoyed taking part in this competition in the past but when we get levels of manipulation going this far it's all over for me.

You can throw your toys out of your pram if you want to but I shall continue to enter the competition.
For some of us it's not life and death it's a bit of fun and I suggest you remember that.

As I said I let my photography speak for itself obviously you daren't.

 

[minette]

Check again, mate. I was the one who originally called into question the motion in your picture - and I still think it shows no motion at all. The fact that it was manipulated to the extent that it was, is just another reason for not voting for it - and yes, I still think it's a stunning picture, it's just not - in my book at least - a photograph.

 

[curly42]

If we're going in for name calling I'm going to call you Alfred.
Rarely have I ever seen such an example of.....(raves on and on for ages,froths at the mouth and eventually falls over)... and I am adamant in that. So there,with whatever on,or off,whichever.
Having been caught out,found guilty and hung drawn and quartered (not to mention the tar and feathers) I guess the only thing to do is to copy your post,print it out,frame it and look at it in moments of doom and gloom.
Fare Thee Well cruel world,fare thee well POTW,and fare thee well Swizz Toni - I retire from the race in humiliation and disgrace,oh and a rather fetching pair of blue trousers.
See you all on the other side.

 

[dan_atki]

Allow me to clarify a few things regarding POTW and the entry that is in discussion here.

Jordy is primarily the one in charge of it, however in instances when he is unable to do it for whatever reason then one of the other members of staff here holds the fort - since I become a moderator last year, that job is normally entrusted to me.

I was in charge the week that this photo was approved and despite the argument about whether there was any motion whatsoever it was allowed.

Me and Jordy discuss POTW and its entries, and the general consensus that he has (and, as such, I have to follow) is that *unless* the picture strays so very bizarrely off topic it gets allowed through. It is then up to the voters to decide out of the entries:
- which ones fit the theme in their opinion; and
- which is the best photo out of those, in their opinion.

We have said many times before that having a discussion about whether or not the photo is valid on the thread itself is pointless and achieves nothing apart from people getting hot under the collar. The person who entered the photo cannot defend themselves as everything is done anonymously so what can we do? Obvious answer here would be to turn off posting in the threads so that these sorts of debate do not erupt in future.

So, based on what I said above, many people thought the entry fitted the topic, and was the best entry in the competition hence they voted for it. Obviously that will disagree with some people who feel the entry did not fit the theme or was not the best.

Now, I say entry here. It is not possible to take every photo and see whether or not it has been Photoshopped. In some instances the competition may even call for an entry to be edited slightly (e.g. black and white photos).

In the case of this entry it is not obvious (if at all) that any Photoshopping has occurred to it. Look at it in the gallery - a very good job which looks exactly like a photo. Now, me and Jordy are not photo forensics and analysing every image entered is simply impractical anyway. And let's be honest here, until it was found out who had entered number 4 into the competition and you looked at their own website was it obvious to you? Or did you believe it was an unedited photo too?

Based on the fact that there have been requests to have photos removed from the competition this week I'm assuming the latter. It is evident things were found out after checking an external website. I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm not taking sides but simply giving a practical answer with regards to the integrity of the competition. Until such information about entrants is revealed it is impossible to determine who's entry it is (or should be - I'll come to this in a moment), and as such check their personal galleries for things such as this - that's even if they upload both versions too.

Regarding entries being anonymous too. Looking a moment ago at this entry, the name of the entrant was put on the image. Wasn't so much a big deal in this instance, but again that messes with the integrity of the competition. I shall discuss with Jordy how the rules can be changed and how the competition can move forward.

It may be decided that things won't be so relaxed any more. Names wrote on images should certainly be disallowed (although if we just exclude them on Sunday 1900 then there is no opportunity for the entrant to re-upload). It may be decided that the list of entrants will not be disclosed each week after the voting. It may also be decided that entries to POTW must not appear on your own personal gallery.

Should Photoshopped entries be allowed? Well that's going to cause a big debate and there's pros and cons to each side of the argument. Sometimes it's needed as per the competition (as mentioned above) but in other cases is it necessary? Maybe the rules should be changed to disallow entries unless they are explicitly allowed.

That causes its own problems. We determined above it is impossible to tell from the winner of POTW306 that there are giveaways on the the entry, so we'd have to trust people to abide by that rule. Can we do that? I don't know, personally. In some cases sneaky entrants will bypass that and, in some instances, will win the competition. Then that's when we have a problem - someone flouting the rules deliberately. Remember, as it stands, Photoshopped entries are not currently mentioned in the rules and, as such, entering one is not breaking any rule so is technically valid. It's down to the voters to determine things like that as it's a matter of personal opinion.

These may seem a bit extreme but we have to think about how to move the competition forward. Any suggestions are welcome.

Mod Note: Please don't flame others any more than already has occurred in this topic. Posts will be deleted, members may receive warnings/infractions for their behaviour, and the topic may be locked.

 

[Jordy]

Hello Everyone,

Just a brief one, Dan has covered just about everything in the post above and, as we have said many times, POTW has always been quite slackly moderated, with any photos which may not fit the theme not usually getting any votes, so as such it has always sorted itself out.

However, I am aware that the competition has had a sudden boom and there have been a number of members joining the forum primarily for the POTW competition, this is of course much appreciated, its great to see the competition grow! However, it is a somewhat different group of individuals we now seem to be appealing too, where POTW was always a casual competition with entries from general forum members, we're now getting many more 'professional' style photographers entering (although there were some previously too).

As such, the competition may not be a strictly moderated as you would expect, but I hope you can understand that this transition from a casual competition to a serious one was somewhat sudden and unexpected, I agree entirely that it is time to tighten up the rules, quite how yet i'm not sure but a decision will be reached soon.

Finally, can I please ask those of you who have joined the forum primarily for POTW (or anyone who has become more serious about the competition recently for that reason) to please bear with us, we are working towards a better competition and it would be a shame to loose valuable entrants before we have chance to make the competition more suitable for 'professional style' photographers.

I have had a number of PMs from people stating their dislike of a photo with so much editing winning the competition, many of these people have also stated that they wish to leave the competition. If you wish to do this, I have no power to stop you doing so, but can I request that you bear with us while we assess the competitions future.

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please PM me

Cheers,

Jordy

 

[eezypeazy]

Hmmm... now I know why I've never won POTW!




Seriously, though, I thought I'd take a look at the rules for the Railways Illustrated annual competition, and found this:

6.None of the digital images must be manipulated – with no removal of objects or enhancements to ‘improve’ the picture. Any entries found to have been manipulated in this way will be disqualified.

Now, that's obviously open to interpretation, but I would have thought that "simple" retouching, such as cropping, contrast, brightness and saturation, and even sharpness, should be OK - after all, the first four are nothing more than could have been achieved with good old film.

But, if RI bans the removal of objects in photographs in its competition, it suggests to me that we ought to consider doing the same.

I also found this rule in the RI competition:

14.The judges’ decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.

which we might also like to think about - ie., once our little, fun, weekly competition is over, it's over.

Regards to all,

eezypeazy

 

[Phoenix]

which we might also like to think about - ie., once our little, fun, weekly competition is over, it's over.

Yeah I would like to add to that final thought when the competition ends and a photo wins unless you want to congratulate the winner I think nothing should be said because as of late there has been so people who want to say "that shouldn't of won"
Fact is that it did win so it shoulds have won if you don't agrre then well keep it yourself as you just wreck the moment and end up getting on peoples bad sides.

I love the discussion we all generally have with regards to photos but honestly this rubbish attitude that some photographers have towards each other just ends up dissolving any professionalism you had before.

 

[TEW]

Hmmm... now I know why I've never won POTW!

I feel just the same actually.
I always thought how could people get such brilliant photos and actually admired them for that. Now that I realise its not them doing the work but the computer, it just makes it seem completely unfair.
I will go out and take photos, come home and upload them to my website but that's it. They are what they are, if they are rubbish so be it. I won't edit them, simple as.
I have only edited a photo once, that was for the Black and White competition on here.
I will still enter POTW but I just feel anyone just taking a photo is never going to beat the photoshopped images.

 

[minette]

I feel just the same actually.
I always thought how could people get such brilliant photos and actually admired them for that. Now that I realise its not them doing the work but the computer, it just makes it seem completely unfair.
I will go out and take photos, come home and upload them to my website but that's it. They are what they are, if they are rubbish so be it. I won't edit them, simple as.
I have only edited a photo once, that was for the Black and White competition on here.
I will still enter POTW but I just feel anyone just taking a photo is never going to beat the photoshopped images.

THANK YOU!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one - I was starting to feel like I was some kind of reject. I'll crop my photos, but as I said before, that could be done with scissors in the "old days" - that's my limit.
I'll now go and stick my nose back on!

 

[Techniquest]

Couple of general comments from this amateur photographer:

Dan and Jordy: Please do not remove the list of whose photo was whose, I like knowing who entered what.

Conner: I generally agree with you, the levels of editing some people do is bordering on unfair for entry into what has until now been a casual and fun competition.

I stopped entering at all often ages ago when I didn't have an Internet connection to enter, so I just don't check it very often. The competition referred to by posters within this thread I did happen to vote on. I didn't vote for Swiss Toni's photo, I voted for what I liked the look of. One primary reason for not voting for Swiss Toni's photo was because it featured 'that' steam locomotive. Not only do I not like that thing, I will not vote for a photo featuring LNER, LMS, LNWR or Southern steam. Normally, I will leave traction preferences out of a vote but when it comes to steam, I vote for what I like. It may have been a perfect photo (with or without editing), but I just can't vote for non-GWR steam!

As for the subject of image manipulation, I am (as stated at the top of this post!) an amateur photographer. How one determines such labels I'm not sure, but I know for a fact I'm in a very different league to mumrar and EE Type 3! Like minette, I will go out with my camera (when I know where it is!) and basically record what I see through the lens. To my eye, that's a photo whether it be with a digital or film camera.

Using the camera's functions, I will invariably use the exposure setting to ensure the photo is as clear as possible. I'll also use the auto-timer (for getting a seminar or just for when it's placed on a flat surface so as to avoid the inevitable shaking hands!) and rarely the different filters. The only other function I tend to use is the continuous shot function, only to ensure I get a good photo of a rare working usually though (47375 dragging 43002 and 43003 from Old Oak Common on 7th March 2008 comes to mind), especially if they feature in any small part my preferred traction (again, as the previous example did) and/or they are unrepeatable photo opportunities.

When it comes to editing digital images, the only function I allow myself to use is the cropping tool. Anything else detracts from the photo and makes it an enhanced picture instead.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques mumrar has shown on page 1 of this thread does make the photo entirely different and better. But it's a step too far to me. I just don't like messing around with my photos. Whether that's right or wrong is entirely down to personal opinion, but it suits me.

As for manipulated photos winning POTW, I'd say personally that as this has for many moons been a friendly and casual affair with members uploading whatever they thought stood the best chance of winning according to the theme, then that's the way I'd prefer to keep it as. I like the idea of having professional photographers entering, it does give people like me an idea of what passes for professional quality and some different ideas, but the professional will always win POTW. The rest of us have no chance. POTW is an awesome opportunity for us non-professional/casual/amateur photographers to showcase some of our best work (again according to the determined subject of course), but with professionals now in the game too it's sort-of akin to Arsenal playing League 3 teams. ie, the league 3 teams have no chance!

Anyway, this post is lingering on becoming a rant. Apologies if it reads as such, I hope my opinions do not cause any further flame wars (they're not intended to!). I'll probably start re-entering POTW when it returns this week since I currently have an Internet connection that's reliable, so long as I've something that fits the entry requirements. One thing I can promise you is it won't be edited!

 

[Jordy]

Please note the new rules.

Removing, adding or moving objects in a photo is no longer permitted.

 

[Techniquest]

Agreed with those myself!

 

[minette]

Please note the new rules.

Removing, adding or moving objects in a photo is no longer permitted.

Thank you for clarifying - we all know exactly where we stand now.
I'll go away now and keep quiet for a while - I'm sure that'd be favourite for loads of people on here!