How much image manipulation is too much?

[Jonathan Bird]

This is always an interesting question that gets a heated debate going. I have always had an idea, hard to quantify, of a line that I won't cross when it comes to image manipulation. Cropping, exposure adjustment and even cloning out some backscatter is okay, but I would never go so far as to graft elements of one image into another for the sake of creating a more marketable image, unless the resulting composite is obviously not intended to look like a real image (such as a series of overlapping images on an ad, or something like that). Digital composites are to me too often marketed as photographs, not what they are: electronic artwork. (Some magazines are zealous enforcers of full disclosure, others are not--most notably the dive magazines.)

One measure of the acceptability of image manipulation is that its okay to do anything in photoshop that could be done in a darkroom or by standard "old school" photo retouching. Even things like unsharp masking got their start in the darkroom. But other common techniques in place today do not qualify under this definition.

Any thoughts from others as to what level of manipulation is acceptable?

Jonathan

[Clay Coleman]

Good topic. My take is that removing distractions is generally ok. I have no objection to cloning out a bit of backscatter and would even go as far as cloning out edge distractions such as partial small fish. However, adding, moving, or replacing anything is strictly taboo in my book.

Most of the manipulations that offend me are probably not meant to deceive. They include over-sharpening, over-saturating colors, or adjusting white balance to an unnatural hue--the sort of "manufactured" photos made to mask a lack of equipment or poor technique.

[Warren_L]

I'd agree pretty well with what Jonathan has said about only doing things that you would likely be able to reproduce in the film world in the darkroom. That's more or less what I've been doing as far as editing with photoshop.

However, one of the biggest issues is perception by those that do not understand. I shoot exclusively in RAW format, and as such, must use a tool such as Photoshop. And I do do my RAW development using photoshop CS2. Often times when I mention this to non-photographers, it's not uncommon for people to jump to the conclusion that the images are not "real" or are misleading in some sense since using photoshop means manipulating the image to look different than was originally shot.

[Jonathan Bird]

Non-photographers do not understand that ALL photography is now digital. Unless you have your own chemical darkroom, even the prints made by your local lab from print film you have shot on a film camera are scanned, and printed digitally. All stock photography is now delivered digitally, all magazines are published from scans of the images delivered on film. In this way, film is truly dead. Even if you choose to continue to capture your images on film, Photoshop or some form of image manipulation in the digital realm is inevitable if you ever do anything with your images other than view them on a slide projector.

Jonathan

[dbh]

All I do is the RAW conversion, levels, unsharpen, sometimes crop and resize.

In general, if it takes you more than 3-4 minutes to PS your photo....you need to take better pics (IMHO).

Dave

[chris bangs]

All I do is the RAW conversion, levels, unsharpen, sometimes crop and resize.

In general, if it takes you more than 3-4 minutes to PS your photo....you need to take better pics (IMHO).

Dave

You hit the nail on the head.

[Jonathan Bird]

In general, if it takes you more than 3-4 minutes to PS your photo....you need to take better pics (IMHO).

Good one, and so true! Can I steal that quote? ;)

[solisti]

I think it all depends on what you are doing with the pic after you are done with photoshop. If you mean to document something I would stick to mild colour/lightning corrections (no adding or removing anything), but if you wish to make a piece of art to hanged on your (or anyone elses) wall, I think you can do pretty much anything you want.

I think my own photos would need somekinda 'miracle' brush (or FBI filter they use in the movies?)... or maybe I'll just need more practise... (I'm just a beginner with uw photography and new to this forum, so hello to you all!)

[Carl]

Jonathan, All,

In many digital image "competitions" there is a requirement to send the RAW file and the finished file and the type and number of "edits" is looked at with strict limits on the what's, how's and number of manipulations allowed.

Jonathan, could you comment on the "typical" allowances for some of the better competitions that you have entered (won or lost ... )

Caaarrrrrrrllllllllllllllllll

[Jonathan Bird]

Hey Carl,
I refuse to enter photo competitions. I do not think that photography is a competition.

I haven't the slightest idea about the rules for these things!

Jonathan

[walsh2000]

As a late arrival to the digital realm (Nikon D80 in late 2007 after years of film: Nikonos and Nikon N90), I was a purest in thinking that I should perform minimal digital manipulation.

I do agree with all past postings in this thread.

However, now that I've been digital for a few years, I've come across a new application of digital manipulation. After taking a decent pic, I use Lightroom 2.0 features to enhance my viewers experience. My viewers are friends, family and a few local dive clubs. My new technique is to start with a photo of a hard to sea/camouflaged creature, make a virtual copy, darken it and then lighten just the creature. I then do a digital presentation of the original image with a fade in to the manipulated image highlighting the creature. Check out this pygmy seahorse from Raja Ampat, November 10, 2009, dive site: Boo Island/Ridge, The Window.

http://home.comcast.net/~walsh2000/indo/raja_50.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~walsh2000/indo/raja_51.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~walsh2000/indo/raja_52.jpg

[solisti]

Looks like a good technique for a slide show when showing hard to see creatures. Pretty clever!


I think in your exampe you made the seahorse too light and start losing detail. Instead make the background even darker and leave the seahorse as it was.

[Jonathan Bird]

Very cool technique!