Just something I've been thinking about lately.
With the ever increasing use of digital cameras and computers. how much of our output can still be called photography?

One dictionary definition of photography is simply "taking pictures using a camera".

By this definition, the image produced by the camera is a photograph.

Once the photograph has been subject to post processing and digital manipulation is it still a photograph or has it become an artistic image?

Many people can take a decent photograph and use processing software to create an amazing image. Does that make them good photographers, or good "image manipulaters"?

Personally, I like to see good images produced straight from the camera.
While I agree that a certain amount of post processing can really enhance an already good photo, I think it is often used as a substitute for good photography.

This is not a dig at people who are better than me in Photoshop (almost everyone), I'd just like to hear other peoples' views on this and stir up a bit of a debate.

Hmm - your dictionary definition would rule out film cameras then since the image they produce is latent and must be developed to see it at all. This is pretty much how I see the digital process and I know a lot of others regard Photoshop (other image software is available!) as their 'darkroom'.

Just like a darkroom, you can use PS to 'develop' an image, or to go mad and produce a cross-processed, contrast enhanced, sepia toned, posterised, solarised, diffused, hand coloured... mess! The amount of manipulation in either chemical or digital depends on the result you want and the image you start with and is entirely subjective. A lot of people, when first starting out in digital photog go mad when they realise what can be done to an image and how easy it is - but most of us grow out of that stage fairly quickly!

Painting can be lifelike or not - so can photography. Personally I prefer less obviously manipulated images (as opposed to less manipulated) but that's just me. I wonder how many people noticed the manipulation in a recent competition where my shot came second even tho, as the image came out of the camera, it was short one helicopter! :hihi:

I do believe you should to the best you can with the camera you have rather than the software on the PC.
I do use Photoshop CS4 but ONLY to remove any marks or dust found when storing images.

Like so

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v372/114/25/551878025/n551878025_1009686_1579.jpg
To
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v358/114/25/551878025/n551878025_989684_7956.jpg

Was a bit annoyed when i 1st saw the photo's on the big screen but then photoshop was a major help :thumbsup:

Wouldn't cleaning the sensor be cheaper???

Wouldn't cleaning the sensor be cheaper???

Yes but didn't know it was as bad + had the camera set to F.22 or so with the PL filter. I didn't have access to a large screen/PC till i got back to the UK so have a real good look.

Photoshop is free for me anyways, one of the perks of working in the sign/graphic design trade.

I am not trying to denigrate the use of Photoshop (or other software). It can be a godsend at times.
I suppose I'm trying to figure out if there is a difference between photography and image manipulation.

The saying "the camera never lies" has never been further from the truth.

Also, as its almost bonfire night, I thought I'd light the blue touch paper and stand well back.

:wink::wink:

This is an interesting point and this is my take on this point.

working an image digitally through pp is a more convenient and cheaper than what used to be done manually in the dark room to further enhance a good image ie using different papers, solutions, push and pulling the negetive etc, after all we all want the best out of our images that we can get. Thats why its called post processing.

image manipulation is another thing in that you are changing an image from what you originally took with your camera ie panoramic shots, digital art, removing and adding parts of an image etc.

I do believe you should to the best you can with the camera you have rather than the software on the PC.
I do use Photoshop CS4 but ONLY to remove any marks or dust found when storing images.Why bother buying it then? You can remove dust spots in Aperture or Lightroom for a fraction of the price.

Just something I've been thinking about lately.
With the ever increasing use of digital cameras and computers. how much of our output can still be called photography?

One dictionary definition of photography is simply "taking pictures using a camera". Photography literally means drawing with light.
So any image made by an illuminated light source is photography


Once the photograph has been subject to post processing and digital manipulation is it still a photograph or has it become an artistic image?So don't you think photographs are art then?


Many people can take a decent photograph and use processing software to create an amazing image. Does that make them good photographers, or good "image manipulaters"?With that daft logic, Ansel Adms was not a photographer, but an image manipulator.


Personally, I like to see good images produced straight from the camera. So only Polaroid cameras allowed then?


While I agree that a certain amount of post processing can really enhance an already good photo, I think it is often used as a substitute for good photography. This is the sort of daft thing usually said by people who aren't very good at post processing.
Now seeing as I shoot RAW, the images that come out of camera look awful. So should I not do anything with them to show how good a photographer I am?


This is not a dig at people who are better than me in Photoshop (almost everyone), I'd just like to hear other peoples' views on this and stir up a bit of a debate.Printing/developing/processing the image is as much a part of photography as pressing the shutter. I think it's simply naive to think otherwise.
The only thing that digital has changed is the ease with which one can develop and tweak one's images. 99% of what I do in PS/LR is the same as I did with film/in the darkroom or with slide, only less smelly and to be honest, a heck of lot more complicated and technical in many ways.

I am not trying to denigrate the use of Photoshop (or other software). It can be a godsend at times.
I suppose I'm trying to figure out if there is a difference between photography and image manipulation.

The saying "the camera never lies" has never been further from the truth.
The camera has always lied!

I'm a staunch believer in producing a picture of what you see, not what you want to see.
Apart from cropping a few pictures, the most i've done is remove red eye once.

IMHO making a crap photograph look better isn't what photographic skill i sall about. It is a skill in it's own right.It's almost like editing a movie, the whole thing may be rubbish but by manipulating it the result is better than the original.

Why bother buying it then? You can remove dust spots in Aperture or Lightroom for a fraction of the price.
Photoshop is free for me anyways, one of the perks of working in the sign/graphic design trade.:thumbsup:

This is the sort of daft thing usually said by people who aren't very good at post processing.
Now seeing as I shoot RAW, the images that come out of camera look awful. So should I not do anything with them to show how good a photographer I am?




That's not true at all. I know several professional photographers who teach Photoshop. Yet they all run "real" photography courses where no manipulation is neededor accepted.

People are entitled to an opinion it doesn't mean thay are less able than you.

I can't post process for toffee - but there's a reason I don't want to try and have resisted it since getting a decent digital SLR.

I once saw a fantastic "montage" of Machu Pichu in a photo magazine which inspiresd me to try to take better shots and try to visit Machu. Imagine my annoyance when i read the script to find that the picture comprised 3 seperate photos, taken throughout the day and then blended together.
In other words the scene i was seeing never existed.

A fellow forummer once related a story to me regarding a wedding he was covering. In the church doorway was a static fire extinguisher.
After the wedding he and his partner worked on the "post production", his partner spent some considerable length of time editing and manipulating out the fire extinguisher.When questioned about the extinguisher,he remarked he had simply moved a couple of feet to one side and composed a shot excluding the extinguisher.

So who is the better photographer?

IMHO making a crap photograph look better isn't what photographic skill i sall about. It is a skill in it's own right.It's almost like editing a movie, the whole thing may be rubbish but by manipulating it the result is better than the original.

In that case it's a skill that all serious photographers need. Sometimes it's only possible to get a crap photograph but you need to have a good finished image. Wedding photography is a case in point where sometimes you just have to grab a shot in the heat of the moment and work it up later - maybe compensate for poor framing or poor exposure, or remove some background distraction that just couldn't be avoided. There's a pic of a welder on my website (http://www.impinabox.co.uk/index.php?pic=0) that just couldn't have been produced without some fairly heavy manipulation of an original raw image. Regardless of whether you like it or how ham-fisted the manipulation was you can't deny it's a photograph and it was one worth going for.

I'm obviously not a professional - but as an amateur if the picture is not framed or composed to "my" liking or exposed correctly, i just bin it.
Manipulation is not the recreation of the image you saw, it's the creation of the image you want.

There's nothing wrong with it, and some people produce exceptional images. It's just not my cup of tea.

I'm a firm believer in 'getting it right in-camera' makes a big difference, but PP is a very large part of being a 'photographer' - those without PP skills are bound to suffer. Just ask a Bride with slightly scarred or dimpled skin if she prefers to have the scarring removed, or left in because PP is cheating...

Photography literally means drawing with light.
So any image made by an illuminated light source is photography


So don't you think photographs are art then?


With that daft logic, Ansel Adms was not a photographer, but an image manipulator.


So only Polaroid cameras allowed then?


This is the sort of daft thing usually said by people who aren't very good at post processing.
Now seeing as I shoot RAW, the images that come out of camera look awful. So should I not do anything with them to show how good a photographer I am?


Printing/developing/processing the image is as much a part of photography as pressing the shutter. I think it's simply naive to think otherwise.
The only thing that digital has changed is the ease with which one can develop and tweak one's images. 99% of what I do in PS/LR is the same as I did with film/in the darkroom or with slide, only less smelly and to be honest, a heck of lot more complicated and technical in many ways.

I agree 100% with all these comments.

Ps and Lr have just replaced what was done in the Darkroom by very skilled craftsmen, and made it easier for average-Joe like me!

EDIT: Willman, I notice you shoot RAW? Can I ask why?

I think there are two ways of producing digital photos that sort of compare to the way we used to shoot film. The straight out of camera jpg is like shooting slide film you need to get everything right at the time of pressing the shutter release, composition, exposure etc. That produces an accurate record of the scene.
In contrast shooting raw and creatively post processing produces an image comparable to the hours spent in the dark room making a print that looks like the photographer wants it to look which is not the same as saying it looks like the scene he originally photographed.
I do both, just as I used to when I shot film, there is surely a place for both?

My my. What a hornet's nest this has stirred up!

Firstly, I merely posed the question in order to create some debate.

At no point did I say that post processing was a bad thing, I just stated my own preference.

I prefer to get my shots as good as possible straight from the camera simply because I am new to photography and I am learning how to take a good shot.
On a personal level, I feel that relying too heavily on post processing will make me lazy in my attempts to learn about photography.

I firmly agree that there is a place for both methods and the two actually go hand in hand.

I think one's viewpoint on this subject depends entirely on whether photography is seen as a means of recording events/places/people etc, or as an art form.
Personally, I believe it can be both.

I'm a firm believer in 'getting it right in-camera' makes a big difference, but PP is a very large part of being a 'photographer' - those without PP skills are bound to suffer. Just ask a Bride with slightly scarred or dimpled skin if she prefers to have the scarring removed, or left in because PP is cheating...



I agree 100% with all these comments.

Ps and Lr have just replaced what was done in the Darkroom by very skilled craftsmen, and made it easier for average-Joe like me!

EDIT: Willman, I notice you shoot RAW? Can I ask why?


I tried RAW 'cos the book said to try it.
I didn't see any significant improvement in the images and reverted to L format jpegs.

I'm a staunch believer in producing a picture of what you see, not what you want to see. So no black and photography then?
So do you only use the 50mm lens too [or equivalent] as any other focal length as that is the only one that reproduces what you see.
And only HDR imaging is allowed as only that can capture the dynamic range of what we can see in most scenes.

Apart from cropping a few pictures, the most i've done is remove red eye once.I've never had to remove redeye as I find it best avoided in first place and how is removing that acceptable, as redeye makes an image lookcrap and as you say.
IMHO making a crap photograph look better isn't what photographic skill i sall about. It is a skill in it's own right.It's almost like editing a movie, the whole thing may be rubbish but by manipulating it the result is better than the original.Oh and editing is how you make a movie, whether editing in the script stages, editing by altering framing, editing by changing planned shots all before you get to the editing studio.
Lots of great photos look crap before editing, very obviously as all RAW shots as they tend to be soft, lacking in colour and contrast, by their very nature. Not to mention that many pictures are shot with post processing involved, so look weak until that is done.

That's not true at all. I know several professional photographers who teach Photoshop. Yet they all run "real" photography courses where no manipulation is neededor accepted.And your point is as it doesn't have anything to do with what I actually said?

People are entitled to an opinion it doesn't mean thay are less able than you.

I can't post process for toffee - but there's a reason I don't want to try and have resisted it since getting a decent digital SLR.As I said, people who cannot post process are the ones who complain most about it. So what I said was indeed true about yourself and in fact has been with every other person I've come across who peddles this naive mantra.

Now you're just being argumentative and pedantic. I can have my opinion, I haven't asked you to justify why you feel the need to edit bad photographs.

I actually used redeye to remove it on some old photos of my deceased dog that were taken on a compact if you must know.
The "skill" of photography TO ME is to use the equipment you have to achieve the best image you can.

I never said YOU had to agree.

And your point is as it doesn't have anything to do with what I actually said?

As I said, people who cannot post process are the ones who complain most about it. So what I said was indeed true about yourself and in fact has been with every other person I've come across who peddles this naive mantra.

No - you're arguing and being unpleasant again. I don't want to use photo manipulation and have stated so on numerous occasions over the past 5 years to other SF photographers.
Being unable isn't the same thing.

If a photographer is totally dependent on being able to rectify problems afterwards, does that not reduce his ability to compose,pose or expose a photo manually?

I once saw a fantastic "montage" of Machu Pichu in a photo magazine which inspiresd me to try to take better shots and try to visit Machu. Imagine my annoyance when i read the script to find that the picture comprised 3 seperate photos, taken throughout the day and then blended together.
In other words the scene i was seeing never existed.Sounds like HDR imaging, which is actually closer to what we can see than the camera can capture. Often a lot of PPing is to make the scene look more like what we saw.


A fellow forummer once related a story to me regarding a wedding he was covering. In the church doorway was a static fire extinguisher.
After the wedding he and his partner worked on the "post production", his partner spent some considerable length of time editing and manipulating out the fire extinguisher.When questioned about the extinguisher,he remarked he had simply moved a couple of feet to one side and composed a shot excluding the extinguisher.

So who is the better photographer?Depends, moving to avoid extinguisher may have made for a much poorer composition. Personally, I would have moved extinguisher, if possible. So :P A lot of 'good' photography is achieved by moving furniture! THe proof of the pudding would be by asking people which shot looked better. No one will actually care how it was achieved.

I tried RAW 'cos the book said to try it.
I didn't see any significant improvement in the images and reverted to L format jpegs.
This explains everything, you simply do not understand how [digital] photography works. You have to post process RAW images. RAW is far superior to shooting JPEGs, but only if you know what you are doing.
BTW, JPEGs are heavily post processed by the camera, so how is that any different?

Sounds like HDR imaging, which is actually closer to what we can see than the camera can capture. Often a lot of PPing is to make the scene look more like what we saw.


Depends, moving to avoid extinguisher may have made for a much poorer composition. Personally, I would have moved extinguisher, if possible. So :P A lot of 'good' photography is achieved by moving furniture! THe proof of the pudding would be by asking people which shot looked better. No one will actually care how it was achieved.

The actual Machu scene was shot throught the day,with the camera left on a tripod apparently.So that the grass was green , the sun was out at midday and the clouds were well lit etc. These were obviously genuine photographs of the days work - just not all in one photo, i still have the issue of the magazine somewhere. So in theory the photo was in the imagination of the photographer not reality.

I think the point fo the story is - one photographer used his "skill" to compose an equally good shot with no extinguisher the other decided to take the shot and then work it out afterwards. So 5 minutes consideration on site saved severl hours work.

This explains everything, you simply do not understand how [digital] photography works. You have to post process RAW images. RAW is far superior to shooting JPEGs, but only if you know what you are doing.
BTW, JPEGs are heavily post processed by the camera, so how is that any different?


Yep i knew that , I took the opportunity to have a go at RAW and do a bit of diting ,shopping etc. I spent two days doing layers and other little bits of work on them and then realised it wasn't what i wanted out of photography.

I don't profess to be any good, but i like to use the lens I have on, using my limited knowledge of ISO,f stops etc to take pictures in whatever conditions are available.

We're talking manipulating - which is faking something,not tweaking the skin tones.

Now you're just being argumentative and pedantic. I can have my opinion, I haven't asked you to justify why you feel the need to edit bad photographs. I wasn't being pedantic, I was pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in your argument. And just like you can have an opinion, let others have their opinions too. Is that OK?
Why assume my picures are bad? I can take great shots with slide film and much of my digital PPing is to reproduce film looks such as say velvia or provira film. How is that a bad thing?


I actually used redeye to remove it on some old photos of my deceased dog that were taken on a compact if you must know.
The "skill" of photography TO ME is to use the equipment you have to achieve the best image you can. The darkroom or Photshop are your equipment too, why are you so afraid of them?
Besides using flash or any additional lighting is complete and utter manipulation of the scene, as that is not what you see in front of you. But people who object to 'manipulation' cannot see that.
Oh and the skill of photography is producing a good photo. The equipment is irrelevant.

I never said YOU had to agree.Why get so upset when I don't then? :confused:

Why get so upset when I don't then? :confused:

Probably the inference that all anti photoshoppers can't use it, as though that alone justifies our choice not to use it.

No - you're arguing and being unpleasant again. So you can have an opinion and I cannot? Now that is unpleasant! Besides in case you hadn't noticed, this is a forum - a place for debate.

I don't want to use photo manipulation and have stated so on numerous occasions over the past 5 years to other SF photographers.
Being unable isn't the same thing. But photography is manipulation and always has been. You choose what to shoot, what not to shoot, how to light it, expose it, what film yo use.....all manipulation. B+W is a huge form of manipulation as we see in colour, yet ironically it is seen as having a greater vérité.

If a photographer is totally dependent on being able to rectify problems afterwards, does that not reduce his ability to compose,pose or expose a photo manually?No.
Relying on post to fix problems is very different to you doing the best you can in camera and then improve further afterwards.

Probably the inference that all anti photoshoppers can't use it, as though that alone justifies our choice not to use it.The fact that you think RAW is not better than JPEGs, only underlines the lack of skill in your case. And to best use RAW, one does not even need to involve Photoshop in case you hadn't noticed. In fact PS cannot use RAW files, they have to be developed in a RAW processor first and converted into a non RAW file for PS to open it.
And every other person who has had the same opinion that you do, that I have come across, has also been lacking in [digital] darkroom skills too.

The fact that you do not like to use computer is your choice and I have no problem with that, but to sneer and lord it over those who do chose to use a broader range of equipment is arrogant.

The fact that you think RAW is not better than JPEGs, only underlines the lack of skill in your case. And to best use RAW, one does not even need to involve Photoshop in case you hadn't noticed. In fact PS cannot use RAW files, they have to be developed in a RAW processor first and converted into a non RAW file for PS to open it.
And every other person who has had the same opinion that you do, that I have come across, has also been lacking in [digital] darkroom skills too.

The fact that you do not like to use computer is your choice and I have no problem with that, but to sneer and lord it over those who do chose to use a broader range of equipment is arrogant.

I never said RAW is not better, I said I found to be no better. I never even said that had anything to do with my preference not to use PS,CS3 or whatever. I said I had tried it, to experience it.
I don't lord it over anyone, i expressed an opinion - I don't like to manipulate and fake photo's- is that clear enough.
I never said anything about anyone else having the choice to do it, unlike you.Neither have i questioned your ability or made wide ranging insulting statements about peoples abilities.
The fact that the attitude you have may prevent people from sharing their dislike of manipulation with you and would also limit your association to non users who are professional photographers.

The actual Machu scene was shot throught the day,with the camera left on a tripod apparently.So that the grass was green , the sun was out at midday and the clouds were well lit etc. These were obviously genuine photographs of the days work - just not all in one photo, i still have the issue of the magazine somewhere. So in theory the photo was in the imagination of the photographer not reality.As I said it was a HDR [High Dynamic Range] image, which is when done well, is actually more accurate a representation of what we humans see. It is done to make up for the camera's inability to capture the huge dynamic range our eyes can deal with so easily.
Do you have a problem with photographers using their imagination or something? Photography is an art not a science where empirical data is paramount.


I think the point fo the story is - one photographer used his "skill" to compose an equally good shot with no extinguisher the other decided to take the shot and then work it out afterwards. So 5 minutes consideration on site saved severl hours work.Without the two images to judge one cannot use that as a definitive argument. Avoiding the use of PS is certainly better and what I would prefer to do, but if you know how to use PS, the job you mention is probably only a few minutes work. I've had to remove unwanted objects in post as moving to hide them would have made for a poorer picture. Sometimes, you dont even have that option, so why leave the picture weaker? Not that I would do that with reportage work, but for creative photographer, what's the problem?

I never said RAW is not better, I said I found to be no better. Because you obviously do not understand RAW or know how to best use it properly.
I'm happy to show you how to best use RAW if you fancy. No PS involved.

I don't lord it over anyone, i expressed an opinion - I don't like to manipulate and fake photo's- is that clear enough. But you clearly think your 'purist' approach is somehow better.
And what you seem to keep missing is that what you do is still manipulation.


I never said anything about anyone else having the choice to do it, unlike you. Not true - I never said people must or must not use PS. And never would.
Refusing to use certain tools through spurious reasoning is however something I think is plain silly. :loopy:

Neither have i questioned your ability or made wide ranging insulting statements about peoples abilities. My observations were quite specific thank you, not wide ranging. :P

The fact that the attitude you have may prevent people from sharing their dislike of manipulation with you and would also limit your association to non users who are professional photographers.The attitude I have? I'm not the one being dogmatic and condescending.
People can do what they want, but people sneering at others as if what they do is somewhat better is something I will debate, especially as in your case it seems, your views are based on lack of knowledge.

I think there are two ways of producing digital photos that sort of compare to the way we used to shoot film. The straight out of camera jpg is like shooting slide film you need to get everything right at the time of pressing the shutter release, composition, exposure etc. That produces an accurate record of the scene. This is the nub of the matter I think. - Thinking that the JPEG or the slide straight out of camera is the most 'accurate' representaion.
Depending on what film you use or what digital camera you use, the image can look very, very different. So how can this be the most representative when JPEGs and films produce such different results. The JPEGs out of my camera can be in colour/B+W/toned/tweaked considerably
The reason why film has always looked nicer than video is that it is less representative and more stylised than video, not because it is more accurate.

In contrast shooting raw and creatively post processing produces an image comparable to the hours spent in the dark room making a print that looks like the photographer wants it to look which is not the same as saying it looks like the scene he originally photographed. I find RAW much better for capturing how a scene looked than a JPEG.

Here's a good example of how by 'manipulating' the image, it becomes more accurate and far more like how we see the scene with our eyes.
The picture below was taken in mixed lighting, much like where I am sitting now, yet when I look out of mywindow, the colours outside look correct as do the colours inside. The camera however does not cope well with this sort of lighting, as it can only get one colour temp correct at any one time [film or digital]. So if shooting Jpegs, I can balance for either inside or outside. Unless I cover the windows with CTO gel and set WB to tungsten, which is how you do it when making movies.
But by using RAW where you can set WB after the fact and redevelop as may times as you wish, you can set both inside and outside WBs correctly and combine the images in post. Te end result being very much like what I saw in real life. Both the 'unmanipulated' versions look odd and not real.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/304675219_1f5005aff1_o.jpg

Here's two versions of same image. One is JPEG straight out of camera and the other the RAW file after some basic correcting for colour, contrast, sharpening, overall WB corrected for daylight.
The RAW file version looks far more like the scene than the JPEG, so surely the camera must have 'manipulated' the JPEG!
To make RAW shot more 'accurate' I'd need to correct the yellow colour cast from the tungsten lighting behind head like in above WB examples, but I probably won't as I quite like it in this shot.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/3002068501_5e14d7b2a3_o.jpg

Now you're just being argumentative and pedantic. I can have my opinion, I haven't asked you to justify why you feel the need to edit bad photographs.

I actually used redeye to remove it on some old photos of my deceased dog that were taken on a compact if you must know.
The "skill" of photography TO ME is to use the equipment you have to achieve the best image you can.

I never said YOU had to agree.

Hope you dont mind if a just bring up a point here, is ps on a pc or mac just a piece of equipment the same as having a stack of filters etc with your kit.

There is another point i would like to raise in that not everyone is lucky enough to afford or have bought for them the best equipment ie lenses and such, of which i am one. Using the simplest editing software like picasa can help to further improve a good image and get better results and isnt that what we all strive to do either by at the click of the shutter or post processing after all publishers having been using such software for years and you see the results everyday on magazine shelves.

Hope you dont mind if a just bring up a point here, is ps on a pc or mac just a piece of equipment the same as having a stack of filters etc with your kit.

There is another point i would like to raise in that not everyone is lucky enough to afford or have bought for them the best equipment ie lenses and such, of which i am one. Using the simplest editing software like picasa can help to further improve a good image and get better results and isnt that what we all strive to do either by at the click of the shutter or post processing after all publishers having been using such software for years and you see the results everyday on magazine shelves.

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake. Stitching 3 photos together is fake. Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition. I never said they were worse or better than mine.

I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake. Stitching 3 photos together is fake. Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition. I never said they were worse or better than mine.

I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.

As been as you are now getting personal muka you need to learn the differance between fake and creating a fantasy image, the swan and moon image is fantasy, i will never see that in real life so i made it up, hense the word "fantasy" The quicker you learn, the more creative you may become in your photography.

Cheers, H.

As been as you are now getting personal muka you need to learn the differance between fake and creating a fantasy image, the swan and moon image is fantasy, i will never see that in real life so i made it up, hense the word "fantasy" The quicker you learn, the more creative you may become in your photography.

Cheers, H.

So was it photography or manipulation ?(tbh i didn't know it was you're photo either so nothing personal was intended.)
If you saw that in Practical Photography would you think thats a made up "image" or that's a good photo?

I know what i think - but it doesn't devalue the image or represent any alleged purist view.

Pff i remember the old days when photoshop was a pair of scissors and PVA glue :hihi:

I think the differentiation here is the what is "equipment" and what is fake.

Inserting an image of the moon onto a secondary photo - is fake.So what? Nothing new about that either, been done for years, long before PS existed. Very handy if you need to get correct exposure of both moon and nightscene.
All that really matter is whether people like the photo or not.
The time when compositing is really not acceptable is in photojournalism, or representative images where it is done to mislead the viewer.


Stitching 3 photos together is fake. Nonsense, if you want to do a panorama and don't have say an X-Pan [not that they are even made anymore] or alternatively shooting with a very wide angle lens and cropping to a panorama, when using a 60MP camera to maintain quality, this may be your only choice. So if you cannot afford those 2 quite expensive options, taking say 4 shots on your cheap camera and stitching them together will end up with basically the same image, so what the problem? All methods end with a good representation of the scene. Maybe more so than a single shot that misses out a lot of the vista.
Extending Field of View through using several shots is no fundamentally no different to reducing FoV by cropping, using a longer lens.
As for the multiple exposure shot you moaned at above. Go and learn a bit more about photography before making such ignorant criticisms. HDR multiple exposures to make one shot [which is what you appear to have described] is nothing more than a fancy graduated filter when you reduce it to basics. Or is using a graduated ND filter to reduce sky exposure cheating too?

Removing an object from a photograph is poor composition. Again complete nonsense. Leaving junk in picture is poor composition. Not always possible to remove unwanted elements in situ in case you hadn't noticed. Besides how is moving an unwanted bits of litter from a shot in person any different from doing so in PS. The end result is identical and you don't have to handle dirty rubbish if doing the second.
I've used both solutions, the latter when the fags ends on the floor only became an issue during shooting as I was up in a tree at the time looking down on my subjects [also in tree]. The odd cigarette butt on the grass looked a bit crap, but as I had little time and resetting shot was tricky, I elected to remove in post as it was the easiest soultion and saved time.



I don't have fancy equipment, i have a low value dslr and fairly low value lenses in comparison to professionals.Again, so what, quite a few of the images in my A3 portfolio were taken on an ancient 2.1mp point and shoot camera, others on kit way inferior to what I now use. Camera gear does not take the photo, the photographer does.
Besides I love the crappy quality of old film, cameras and iffy lenses, so do not always want 'best' quality images. In fact I spent a large part part of yesterday processing images to not look like they were taken on a modern camera.
If you are a good photographer, you can take great pictures with any kit.

Pff i remember the old days when photoshop was a pair of scissors and PVA glue :hihi:
And that's all PS is fundamentally, old fashioned techniques shoved inside a computer, but far more usable by those who are left handed than normal scissors! :D

So what? Nothing new about that either, been done for years, long before PS existed. Very handy if you need to get correct exposure of both moon and nightscene.
All that really matter is whether people like the photo or not.
The time when compositing is really not acceptable is in photojournalism, or representative images where it is done to mislead the viewer.


Nonsense, if you want to do a panorama and don't have say an X-Pan [not that they are even made anymore] or alternatively shooting with a very wide angle lens and cropping to a panorama, when using a 60MP camera to maintain quality, this may be your only choice. So if you cannot afford those 2 quite expensive options, taking say 4 shots on your cheap camera and stitching them together will end up with basically the same image, so what the problem? All methods end with a good representation of the scene. Maybe more so than a single shot that misses out a lot of the vista.
Extending Field of View through using several shots is no fundamentally no different to reducing FoV by cropping, using a longer lens.
As for the multiple exposure shot you moaned at above. Go and learn a bit more about photography before making such ignorant criticisms. HDR multiple exposures to make one shot [which is what you appear to have described] is nothing more than a fancy graduated filter when you reduce it to basics. Or is using a graduated ND filter to reduce sky exposure cheating too?

Again complete nonsense. Leaving junk in picture is poor composition. Not always possible to remove unwanted elements in situ in case you hadn't noticed. Besides how is moving an unwanted bits of litter from a shot in person any different from doing so in PS. The end result is identical and you don't have to handle dirty rubbish if doing the second.
I've used both solutions, the latter when the fags ends on the floor only became an issue during shooting as I was up in a tree at the time looking down on my subjects [also in tree]. The odd cigarette butt on the grass looked a bit crap, but as I had little time and resetting shot was tricky, I elected to remove in post as it was the easiest soultion and saved time.



Again, so what, quite a few of the images in my A3 portfolio were taken on an ancient 2.1mp point and shoot camera, others on kit way inferior to what I now use. Camera gear does not take the photo, the photographer does.
Besides I love the crappy quality of old film, cameras and iffy lenses, so do not always want 'best' quality images. In fact I spent a large part part of yesterday processing images to not look like they were taken on a modern camera.
If you are a good photographer, you can take great pictures with any kit.

So we're back to insult again. Weak argument if all you can do is reduce it your percerption of peoples understanding and knowledge of a subject.
As a professional I would expect you to have more knowledge than me on the subject. I would also have expected a little more of a professional attitude.

I was trying to illustrate that i don't use mod cons and fancy filters, just the basics, to a previous post.

I view photography as an art, and think it absolutely should be developed using any tools available.

http://andrzejdragan.com/ the personal section of this is a good example of what artistry can be achieved by heavy manipulation of photographs.

So we're back to insult again. Weak argument if all you can do is reduce it your percerption of peoples understanding and knowledge of a subject. Duh! You obviously are lacking in knowledge as evidenced by your posts. You are making decsions based on an a ignorant foundation. You have repeatedly demostrated your lack of knowledge, my pointing that out does not make it insulting.
The fact that you couldn't get better results from RAW, than JPEG only shows a failure on your part to correctly learn the software or maybe your camera. And it certainly takes more than a couple of days to understand PS and the RAW workflow.

As a professional I would expect you to have more knowledge than me on the subject. So why dismiss or simply ignore the knowledge I have then?
I would also have expected a little more of a professional attitude. Sorry, should I not try and inform you of your misconceptions then?
I have even offered to show you how to best use RAW, I have also posted examples to show how useful it can be. But you completely ignore that, as you do anything that counters your view of what photography is.


I was trying to illustrate that i don't use mod cons and fancy filters, just the basics, to a previous post.Nothing wrong with that, but do not sneer at others who prefer to be less luddite like in their outlook.
Can you imagine a carpenter saying he didn't use power tools as that was cheating and not real carpentry. Besides your basic stuff may be very fancy and considered cheating to someone with say a film camera with manual focus and no built in lightmeter. Could you use such a basic camera and get decent pictures? I know could.


What you completely fail to understand is that most people try and get the shot as good as possible in the camera and then use LR/PS/Aperture/Picassa... to then improve on the what the camera produces.
And if you care about producing the best images, then you have to shoot RAW, so you have no choice but to spend time processing your photos, just as those who used B+W film had to spend time in darkroom. But if you know what you are doing , it's can be a very quick process.

http://andrzejdragan.com/ the personal section of this is a good example of what artistry can be achieved by heavy manipulation of photographs.His work is done by an alternative use of HDR to that used by landscape photographers, who normally use it to capture a fuller dynamic range than the sensor or film is capable of.

Well I'm just a beginner and I'm enjoying learning BOTH how to use my DSLR and how to improve my images in Lightroom.

I'm just enjoying the fight! :hihi:

Yur, and a massive amount of photoshoppery etc.

There was this tutorial thing in 'digital photographer' that claimed to use some of his ideas. It also has a well illustrated section on professional adult photography. Obviosuly I bought it for the tutorial.

The next time I start to ponder these things, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

For the next debate might I suggest "Peace in the Middle East".
It should be easier to sort out.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:

Lmao!!!!!!! far from it paul, i think its very healthy to have these debates, everyone has a differing opinion and should be allowed to air them in a calm manner, after all you know i am a very calm sort of chappy.......honest!

Cheers, H:rant::hihi:

Ps this one is for you Willma, untouched, straight from RAW

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3007/2978523315_21ca09edf8_o.jpg

Flippin eck, i can press a button. Sorry willman i couldnt resist. seriously though to me this is just another flower shot so i wanted to create something a little out of the norm so it stands out and this was the result, i have posted this next shot before.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2979637202_4b0b006996_o.jpg

To explain, i first converted the image to b&w and then added a split tone of pale blue on the highlights and darker blue on the shadows. Yes! you can call this fake but also yes! it is creative and imaginative. Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers, H.

Lmao!!!!!!! far from it paul, i think its very healthy to have these debates, everyone has a differing opinion and should be allowed to air them in a calm manner, after all you know i am a very calm sort of chappy.......honest!

Cheers, H:rant::hihi:


:roll::roll:

roflmao!!!

The next time I start to ponder these things, I'll keep my thoughts to myself. Nah this is the most interesting this group has been for a while.

For the next debate might I suggest "Peace in the Middle East".
It should be easier to sort out.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:What about the photoshopped missile launch image. We can combine PS and the Middle peace process into one thread! :hihi:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2979637202_4b0b006996_o.jpg

Call that a photograph, it sooooooo obviously a fake and not anything like a REAL photograph. Looks more like crochet work than real photography. :D
Nice pic BTW. Even if it is such a fake!!