Photography or photo manipulation?

Lumani

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
11
Reaction score
10
Location
Alberta
Website
www.facebook.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
This has been bothering me for awhile and I was wondering at what point does one cross the line into the other?

I have seen a lot of new photographers in the area who heavily edit their photos to make them 'prettier' or add effects afterwards. Is that what clients are after these days? I tend to do as little editing as possible as time is money, and ethically I would have trouble passing a manipulation off as a photo, but I am finding the heavily edited photos tend to get more recognition. So how much editing do you consider OK before it crosses that line?

I was a digital artist before photographer but tend to keep my paintings separate from the photos. I have done manipulations a as a fantasy artist in the past, but they are very obviously not real photos.

For the record, I have 0 issue with manipulations as a type of art, they are often beautiful, but they have always been advertised for what they are.

Certainly not trying to stir the pot, I'm just struggling to decide if I should include such practice to help promote my work.

Thanks!!
 
In my opinion there is no line. Do whatever you want to do with the equipment and software you have.

Why wouldn't you want to use everything at your exposal to promote your work? Isn't it great that only you get to decide?
 
We are 15 years into the twenty-first century. Image editing software has been with us now, at full strength, since the late 1990's, when computers became powerful and widespread, and digital imaging technologies (plural) exploded in number and popularity. People today have, in large part, come to EXPECT that a photograph has been 'adjusted', at the very least, and perhaps that it has been "Photoshopped" to varying degrees. Instagram has a bunch of built-in, easy to use filters and effects like tilt/shift simulation, and so on. There are mobile phone image editing applications. People are seeing loads of highly, highly manipulated images in magazine advertisements and on-line images, every single day. Pixlr-o-matic offers easy image editing and filter effects, borders, and overlays, FREE, either run on-line and off the web, or downloaded to your device and run off the local drive. "Modern" images are edited images, for the most part.

If you cannot manipulate images in today's world, you are a member of an absolutely teeny-tiny little minority of people in the photographic arts field. Not to say that a person can not make a career that eschews image manipulation, but, again...we are fifteen years into a new century. Go to a magazine stand (there are still a few of them left!), or even the local supermarket's magazine section, and spend 15 minutes looking through say five or six different magazines.

In most fields, people are after images that look contemporary, not stodgy and old-fashioned. Images that look like they were shot in 2015 are going to sell much better than images that look like they were shot in 1959.
 
Last year I was at this very spot:

Ansel Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It didn't look like that.

Photography isn't about objectivity, despite what Adams himself argues, it's about projecting what you see. For Adams, he can look at this photo and immediately know that it's Lake McDonald. For me, I wouldn't have guessed without the caption. Adams and I see the same subject differently, and he photographed - and yes, processed - the image to reflect that.
 
I think it's different for everyone, and you just need to follow your own instincts and desires in that regard.

Some folks prefer not to edit if at all, and that's fine. Others choose to use heavy editing, and that's fine too. Everyone else is probably somewhere in the middle, and that's okay-fine as well.

Where's "the line"? Gee, I dunno. Tbh, I don't really care though either. I just do what makes me happy, and sometimes others like it enough to pay me for some of it. That's enough for me. :)
 
Photo manipulation existed way before the digital age. Obviously, powerful computers and software have made it more accessible and lowered the learning curve. To each their own. I don't worry about what other people do much but focus on what I do for my business and clients. That's what important.
 
I'm just struggling to decide if I should include such practice to help promote my work.
Do you think it will help?

You obviously have a problem with other photographers enhancing their photographs, so why not step back to look at the big picture? IOW: Is it that some folks just use too much and make it seem like it's totally invented? Yes, I've seen that, and it's not my style, but if those folks can sell more photos, then why not?

So you get to decide if more fantastical editing will promote your business.
 
I do not sell my photos for money (been there, done that) so I personally have no thoughts what clients want, it's something that is outside my world view when it comes to photography.

I just like to make fun snaps.

Having said that, I'm old and I started out in the 70's in the (actual) darkroom, and I studied the works of the great masters. The greatest (at least in fame) landscape photographer of the century was Ansel Adams, and I think most people would be astonished to learn how much manipulation he put into making his prints... he just did it analog, instead of digital. I had a chance to meet and talk with Mr. Adams in the late 70's, and I asked him about this very subject, about whether what he was doing in the darkroom was enhancing photos or creating images of things that never were. He definitely was on the "making it look right" school of thought.

My own take on it is this. You have really three options in digital photography.

1) Be a purist, who does little to no post processing... I call these people "flat earth" photographers, who believe what they believe despite all evidence that shows that there is a better way... (I mean, honestly, if it's a digital image, there is ZERO image purity coming off of that sensor. The sensor is designed to enhance certain things, the lenses are designed to enhance certain things, the camera's software is designed to enhance certain things, your computer's software is as well, yadda yadda yadda...

2) Be a journalist... try to recreate, through software manipulation of an already digital image, what it looked like being there. As much as possible, the goal is to present a realistic image of the situation/scene/subject.

3) Be an artist... instead of trying to exactly duplicate what it looked like at a specific place and time, the artist uses whatever tools necessary to create an image that lets the viewer FEEL like they were there at the time. The idea isn't to perfectly recreate anything, but rather to reach out and engage the viewer, to draw them into the picture/scene.

That's what Ansel Adams did, he made people FEEL like they were there at moonrise, or in Yosemite, and all of the other places...

Just my two cents.
 
Photography:

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.


No where in the definition does is state where the line is drawn as there is no line.
 
Thanks everyone. I will always find it ethically wrong to
I think it's different for everyone, and you just need to follow your own instincts and desires in that regard.

Some folks prefer not to edit if at all, and that's fine. Others choose to use heavy editing, and that's fine too. Everyone else is probably somewhere in the middle, and that's okay-fine as well.

Where's "the line"? Gee, I dunno. Tbh, I don't really care though either. I just do what makes me happy, and sometimes others like it enough to pay me for some of it. That's enough for me. :)

Thank you very much for voicing your opinion. I appreciate it. :)
 
I do not sell my photos for money (been there, done that) so I personally have no thoughts what clients want, it's something that is outside my world view when it comes to photography.

I just like to make fun snaps.

Having said that, I'm old and I started out in the 70's in the (actual) darkroom, and I studied the works of the great masters. The greatest (at least in fame) landscape photographer of the century was Ansel Adams, and I think most people would be astonished to learn how much manipulation he put into making his prints... he just did it analog, instead of digital. I had a chance to meet and talk with Mr. Adams in the late 70's, and I asked him about this very subject, about whether what he was doing in the darkroom was enhancing photos or creating images of things that never were. He definitely was on the "making it look right" school of thought.

My own take on it is this. You have really three options in digital photography.

1) Be a purist, who does little to no post processing... I call these people "flat earth" photographers, who believe what they believe despite all evidence that shows that there is a better way... (I mean, honestly, if it's a digital image, there is ZERO image purity coming off of that sensor. The sensor is designed to enhance certain things, the lenses are designed to enhance certain things, the camera's software is designed to enhance certain things, your computer's software is as well, yadda yadda yadda...

2) Be a journalist... try to recreate, through software manipulation of an already digital image, what it looked like being there. As much as possible, the goal is to present a realistic image of the situation/scene/subject.

3) Be an artist... instead of trying to exactly duplicate what it looked like at a specific place and time, the artist uses whatever tools necessary to create an image that lets the viewer FEEL like they were there at the time. The idea isn't to perfectly recreate anything, but rather to reach out and engage the viewer, to draw them into the picture/scene.

That's what Ansel Adams did, he made people FEEL like they were there at moonrise, or in Yosemite, and all of the other places...

Just my two cents.

Thank you for your input!
 
You could always argue that changing your exposure setting on your camera is photo manipulation, in the end I feel as long as you get the results you or your client are after then all is good.
Personally as I am hopeless at editing I generally prefer not to mess with the photo too much, but do dabble from time to time. I just aim to capture that I envision / see.
 
Photography:

the art or practice of taking and processing photographs.


No where in the definition does is state where the line is drawn as there is no line.

Thank you for the definition...and your opinion for which I asked. While I do agree that photography does include a certain amount of processing, I also think that some pieces would better fit into a Mixed Media category. Is there anything wrong with Mixed Media, absolutely not.
 
You could always argue that changing your exposure setting on your camera is photo manipulation, in the end I feel as long as you get the results you or your client are after then all is good.
Personally as I am hopeless at editing I generally prefer not to mess with the photo too much, but do dabble from time to time. I just aim to capture that I envision / see.
I certainly don't disagree! I don't think I came across the way I intended when asking the question. Basic processing is to be expected by photographers and clients alike. My question has more to do with Mixed Media type art being portrayed as photography. It will always be a personal opinion and I certainly appreciate yours. :)
 

Most reactions

Back
Top