Topic: Photo Manipulation

[This-is-damion]

I know, who needs yet another post about the evils.merits of PS over the trad darkroom,  But after reading Rons post about Aline (top stuff by the way) i stumbled across this.

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/002221.html

goes to show the newspaper industires view, to an extent,  i found it interesting and hopefully you will also!!

[Dave_M]

That is indeed very interesting. I can fully see the reasoning behind not wanting the "cut + paste/cloning" work in photojournalism (ie the photographer who 'added' more smoke to the bombing photo). Changing the background colour of the photo is 'slightly less' manipulation of the 'truth'. I'm not condoning it, just trying to place it on the sliding scale of 'evil' eg Colour balancing is less evil that colour replacement, but it is still manipulating the image.

In my opinion this is not just a manipulation Vs non-manipulation issue. Rather it is an issue of where to draw the line. Dodging and burning? Local contrast enhancement? Or do all photographs in newspapers have to be 'straight shots'?

I don't see it as pshop Vs traditional either. Pshop may be used by these people (and massive manipulations are certainly easier) but everyone manipulates their darkroom work to some extent. Unless of course you have never burned in a sky or dodged the odd rock  And there are plenty of examples of dodgy photojournalist practices before computers came on the scene.

From Phil Coomes, BBC News website's picture editor, here is where the BBC draw the line (albeit not a very precise line!)

The standard line is that photographers are allowed to use photo manipulation to reproduce that which they could do in the darkroom with conventional film.
This usually means, colour balance, 'dodging and burning', cropping, touching up any marks from dust on the sensor and perhaps a little sharpening. If we are honest though, an accomplished darkroom technician could do almost anything and there are many historical examples of people being airbrushed from pictures.
All this sounds fine until you look at the reality - one man’s colour balancing is another's grounds for dismissal.

taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Top post Damion. It certainly got me thinking.. Pity they don't have the same 'ethics' when it comes to writing the text 

[Tammy]

Photographers are going to be put on the spot more and more I think.  Even those able to pull off amazing things "in camera" will be questioned by purist editors, putting everyone on the defense regardless if they have manipulated things or not.  Someone I know had recently submitted an amazing shot to a magazine and was promptly rejected because of suspected "digital  manipulation".  He had to then defend himself in order to be considered by the editor.

This will be an interesting time for photojournalism, and photography-

[moominsean]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be fired over something like that. I could see being stripped of the awards, depending on the rules of the contests in terms of what is an acceptable submission and the means of producing the image. But I see nothing wrong with making a photo look better for a newspaper or magazine. If digital is going to be the norm for photojournalism, then I think we have to accept the fact that post manipulation is going to happen. Photogs do the same thing with filters to bring out certain colors in the sky, etc. Or adjusting the colors on the machines that produce the prints (at least that's what we did when I worked for a paper...I'm sure it's completely digital now). It's just a different skill set. Again, for contest purposes, this should be up to those running the contest, but who really cares how your cover photo was produced, as long as it looks good on your cover?
I use photography to get away from computer manipulation, personally, but for a periodical (aside from photography journals), I don't think it matters in the slightest.

Oh and I'm not including addind/removing objects...but something like removing a hydrant or something is a bit different than adding more smoke or more people running down the street. Guess that all depends on the subject and whether you are improving the look or changing the truth of the photo.

[Francois]

I know this is an issue that has been "sleeping under a rock" for a lot longer than we ever thought.
I don't know if any of you ever read National Geographic magazine?
How many of you found some of the photographs amazing?
Anyone ever suspected them of altering the images?

Well, in a video they published all the way back in 1995 (and possibly earlier) that I found in yet another rummage sale, they clearly brag about altering the images for the reader's viewing pleasure! They even show the expensive machine they were using for such a purpose. In those days, it wasn't even a Mac or a PC, it was something custom made that looked like it cost a million bucks. Just to give a comparaison, in 1995, my computer was a 80486 DX 40mhz with 8mb of ram and a 270mb hard disk and a 2x cd-rom! And I had paid a small fortune for it!

In those days, they were already saying in the National Geographic office:
"Here is a picture of pristine forest, lets remove that hydro pole and it will be OK"
"I don't like the way this guy dances... lets remove him"
"Lets give this picture that other image's sky... and remove the car tracks in the sand, we're National Geo, it's got to look like it's totally remote."

When you see this, you stop wishing you could take photos like they do. You somehow loose trust in the images they show. They are still nice... just not as much as before computers.

[Tammy]

I had my picture taken by a National Geographic photographer once.   Seriously.  He didn't work any magic on me, that's for sure.  I look like a mutant...   Maybe that was the entire point since it was an article about nuclear waste in the US.

But, well.  Just thought I'd share that.  I've never told anyone outside of immediate family, and well the people who saw the photographer in the lab with me.   

[This-is-damion]

I cant say i fully understand it as a photographer who shoots a front page shot for a newspaper is expected to turn in an unmanipulated shot. But then they are asked to go and shoot a model for the sunday supplement and expected to airbrush the hell out of her.

I seem to remember seeing some software that did all the airbrush work, it showed a before and after shot.....incredible.





 

[Francois]

I seem to remember seeing some software that did all the airbrush work, it showed a before and after shot.....incredible.

You're talking about the Kodak Applied Science Fiction (ASF) Digital GEM Airbrush plug-in...
Made by the Digital ICE people..
Seen it too. Pretty amazing stuff.

[beck]

Very interesting indeed. Worth the read...and the great responces from everyone here. I have to use PS for my Diana work...it is a must. I don't use plug-ins, or anything fancy, but I have developed a sickness for altering images using Photoshop and one filter.

Here's an example. My friend, Tristan, just a skate rat, wanna be...nice kid though...I thought he could use a few extra pounds, some cosmetic surgery...and some hair. Haha...poor, Tristan. Fun stuff to do is all really...

The frame on the left is the actual photograph taken with the Yashica...

[Japan Exposures]

http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification/

Automatic Digital Face Beautification, presented at this year's SIGGRAPH

[db]

Here's an example. My friend, Tristan, just a skate rat, wanna be...nice kid though...I thought he could use a few extra pounds, some cosmetic surgery...and some hair. Haha...poor, Tristan. Fun stuff to do is all really...

Oh Beck Beck Beck- ya gotta isolate him in a layer so you can beef him without bending those stripes in the window behind!
Of course, portraits of my clients NEVER loose a chin or two along the way..(they never ask, I never tell)

Seriously tho- I am glad some newspapers make an ethical stand, even though they may be completely hippocritical in doing so.

[JOhn Reeves]

The New York Times Photo Editor was asked about manips in an online chat. You gotta respect the truth in news stories - images are stronger than words (pictures of Mohammed anyone?).
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/business/media/21asktheeditor.html?ex=1156392000&en=6ee67d550d0a97e3&ei=5070

Photo Manipulation

Q. Now that more or less all photojournalism is done in the relatively new world of digital photography, how do you draw the line between acceptable editing in Adobe Photoshop and unacceptable manipulation? What if that one decisive shot has been manipulated? Do you try to fix the damage and run the photo or is the image abandoned altogether? How do you formulate guidlines specific enough to encompass the vast possibilities of a program like Photoshop?

-- David Brody, Altanta, Ga.

A. We have a very definitive policy regarding manipulation. For news pictures it is unacceptable. Our ethics guidelines make this very clear. For feature sections we sometimes combine photography with illustration. They are clearly labeled as illustration.

Our production department prepares images for reproduction. They are able to detect anything out of line and if they do, we will not run it. If the cause is murky, we will ask for the raw file. We do allow basic contrast/tonal adjustments as well as some sharpening and noise reduction. Our photographers have been taught these basic photoshop techniques and are well-versed in their use.