Ethics of Photo Manipulation

[marant]

As one fairly new to photography, and particularly to digital, I have a question as to the post exposure processing of images. I understand that it has been done for decades, with some of the absolute best photos being created more in the darkroom than by the camera (ie, Ansel Adams).

My question is, what is the test for acceptable manipulation and where does it cross the line to deception? (I expect most would require the basic subject matter be preserved, but is that all that is required?) In this day of digital photography where it is possible to do so much more than was easily possible in the darkroom I think this is an important concept to be discussed.

As a related question, if I wish to submit photos to contests, etc, is there an accepted standard for what can be manipulated and what cannot?

Mike

[marant]

My daughter, the cynic, thinks it comes down to "don't ask, don't tell"

Given the interest in the subject she may be right.

[northbeach]

As much as I dislike some post manipulations, ie. over saturation, looking at it objectively it seems to me that how your process a photograph in post is as much a part of taking the photograph itself. We're given the chance to second guess ourselves, the gift of photographic hindsight. I see nothing wrong with that.

You use Ansel Adams as a good example, he was a genius in the darkroom. I also think he was a genius in the field too. Choice of subject, angle of subject..etc. Imagination. That's a very rare combination and what makes him such an outstanding photographer....it's the whole ball of wax.

Imagination. I think that's what so many of our weekly photo contest winners lack. They are in danger of becoming cookie cutter photographers.

[marant]

Northbeach,

Thanks for the response. I was disappointed that I might be the only person who thought a discussion could be important and educational. Hopefully others will lend their points of view.

For me, I think it comes down to whether or not the post adjustments actually change the essence of the shot. I have no problem with improving the basic picture, but I do have a problem with changes that alter the content (unless it is disclosed).

[ratcheer]

I have been involved deeply in several such discussions, previously (not all on this site).

I see it much the same way as you. I want realistic photos, so I primarily edit to improve realism (color balance, sharpness, contrast, etc).

However, I have come to see that, as in so many areas of life and discussion, there are two ways to look at things. Do you view your photography as an art or a craft?

If you want to be a photo-artist, then you open yourself to endless possibilities and can make any changes you can dream up and implement.

But, if you consider yourself a photo-craftsman, you are constricted by what you deem to be realistic.

Or, I may just be full of it.

Tim

[Paul_OH]

Interesting topic and it's good to hear all of your thoughts. In my opinion there is a few different ways of looking at this.

Firstly if you records a scene and what your photo shows is different to how the scene looked then that is the most basic form of manipulation (ie replacing blown out skys etc).

Secondly, when studying digital photography at a local university, our tutor is an accomplished landscape artist. He changed many aspects of his photos to reflect "how he saw it", as opposed to what it looks like. The results were usually great but when compared to the original capture it really made me wonder......?

I'm with Ratcheer in that I like my photos to look as natural as possible although if I have to bump up the colours a bit to bring out some flowers against greenery then I will do it.
Marant, in relation to the photo contest, there is a set of rules which are shown in one of the forums somewhere and are quite liberal on what you can do.

I look forward to other's opinions re: this

Paul