Article on digital manipulation

Roger Carlson posted a link to this article on Digital Diver. I thought it was worth repeating it here:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/manipulation/manipulation.htm

Worth a read (whether you agree or not) and I would expect that this would generate some discussion.

I have never heard anyone complain about... non-digital methods of manipulating images. When the same things are done digitally, someone will complain that the image was digitally manipulated. It would appear that it is not the manipulation that bothers them -- it is the newness of the methods that were used to create the manipulation.

Alex

I have been a photographer since 1966. Some prestigious advertising campaigns I worked on required image manipulation for which we used the very expensive dye-transfer process. Later the photo-comp became more commercially viable. Colour-retouching was something we used as a last resort since it too was very expensive so we often worked for days on one shot, trying to get it right in the camera. I once did an ad for 7-Up where to get the drink spurting from the bottle we had it cast in solid perspex. It looked great. I still have all the Perspex ice I used routinely in drinks ads. For Remy Martin and many whisky ads I used diluted malt vinagar because it did not evapourate so quickly. For a Go Smash An Egg campaign we put raw egg yokes into cooked egg whites. ...and so on. I would love to tell you the story of a White Horse whisky shoot. Manipulation has always been possible - if you had the budget.

I think that the real objection is not that images are manipulated but that almost anyone can do it now - thereby damaging the once-considered veracity of an ordinary snap-shot photograph.

(So, do I retouch out the plankton before sending pictures to publication? By the way, I'm still looking for that dancing pigmy seahorse!)

Nothing much that hasn't been said before I'm afraid. It doesn't mention that you'd need to shoot stereoscopically to help perception as we know it!

Its time we moved on and accepted digital as itself without harking back to times when photographic image creation was far more limited in its scope than it is today. Personally speaking, I am producing images digitally which portray/represent reality far better than I did when shooting film. Having spent a lot of time scanning slides recently, I can honestly say that in the vast, vaast majority of cases, digital produces a more succinct representation of what I saw/wanted to capture an image of, than film. I know that there are exceptions/film adherents, but I would not go back to shooting film except in exceptional circumstances.

The adjustability of digital capture is both good and bad - too much emphasis is often placed on the bad (misrepresentation and falsity) without sufficient emphasis placed on the good (better 'accuracy' of image capture/adjustment) to the detriment of ourselves as photographers. We need to move on.

JOhn, White Horse whisky is rather inexpensive here in Yap, so can't say it was your ads that make me drink it...

JOhn, White Horse whisky is rather inexpensive here in Yap, so can't say it was your ads that make me drink it...

 

The point of all the ads was NOT to make you drink it but to make me enough money so that I could afford to give up work and go diving!

The point of all the ads was NOT to make you drink it but to make me enough money so that I could afford to give up work and go diving!

Well we can't argue that you pulled that one off John.

How was the whale shark thing in Africa anyhow ?

Don't know if you saw the BBC last week but thankfully most of us ended up on the cutting room floor, though you did make a fine background with your outragous strobe arms with a starring Oceanic....

Paul C

As stated, there is nothing really new that has not been mentioned on this forum. But I think it does summarize the discussion very well. A good reference when the 'film guys' give us a hard time.

HI

for me I have not really got the hang of photoshop yet (perhaps I should spent more time learning!)

So I try to shoot the best image I can, on the workshop I was on last year I was surprised how much

time some are using Photoshop I mean hours & hours, does this mean that the image taken was just

so so & that the taker knows they can rework it in to a great image. If thats the case then perhaps A

better undrstanding of how to better images in the first place may be a better route. This is only my

point of veiw, I know its horses for courses, so just enjoy its your image.

Andy