[Scottbad]

But perhaps more importantly, it's important to understand that all images are manipulated. Still photos are the dominant communication medium used for everything from entertainment to artistic expression, journalism to sales. Becoming a more informed, understanding viewer will make it easier to understand when and whether there's any "truth" in the images put before you.

http://www.creativepro.com/article/all-p...anipulated

A little bit of Lightrooming never hurts...

[Toad]

So true - certainly all of my images are...

Personally, I don't have a problem with that - the exception being if I am claiming or implying that the photo is real and unmodified.

Even at its most basic, photography is a manipulative medium. Is it *real* if I am exposing a celluloid strip coated with chemicals to light reflections, bathing that strip in more chemicals and projecting the result on chemically treated paper which I then bathe in more chemicals? The purists would have you believe that is more natural than digital captures and computer processing. I think not. Its just harder.

[shuttertalk]

Exactly... And well said.

Is using a Holga and scanning any different to capturing it on your iPhone and processing it via instagram?

[Scottbad]

I agree with you Toad, but I think the author is going a bit overboard

Manipulation Starts in the Viewfinder ... What you choose to include in the frame is a massive edit of the scene before you

I must disagree with that. It's a practical issue more than anything. So the image has to be panoramic for it not to be classed as edited from the beginning? Then he would be arguing "well you manipulate the photo before you even take it due to choosing the location" and it gets a bit ridiculous. Half of this is semantics I think.

[pinmollusc]

I do manipulate my images often in Photoshop, may be a add a little sharpening filter, a curves adjustment layer or may be some masking for serious edits, however I personally prefer images which do not look unnatural to the eye later, no matter whether we've manipulated them or not.

That is to say, I do not prefer images with all the vintage effects, or nostalgia effects, if it was not the intended theme of the photographer, at the time of shooting. After all adding some effect like that to pop the image is a lame attempt to cover the inability to create a better photograph.

However manipulation is not to be blamed.For example a landscape photographer might use a graduated neutral density filter to evenly expose a bright sky and a land below.It is some sort of manipulation of the scene, although before you press the shutter.The aim is to produce a much more detailed, and beautiful photograph, and finally the photograph doesn't appear alien to the human eye later on,because that type of manipulation is not something noticeable and disturbing.

[kNox]

I agree with you Toad, but I think the author is going a bit overboard

Manipulation Starts in the Viewfinder ... What you choose to include in the frame is a massive edit of the scene before you

I must disagree with that. It's a practical issue more than anything. So the image has to be panoramic for it not to be classed as edited from the beginning? Then he would be arguing "well you manipulate the photo before you even take it due to choosing the location" and it gets a bit ridiculous. Half of this is semantics I think.

I think it's spot on. There are hardly any photos out there that you could describe as "natural". Whether we're talking about the photo's framing (keeping out that one detail that would ruin your photo) or if you're tweaking it in post-processing in Photoshop, GIMP or what have you. It's only natural, and with all this technology available to us it's understandable that we would manipulate photos at least a little bit.

[Photopro]

I agree kNox, every photogragh taken has the stamp of the photographers own personal photographic viewpoint and would look slightly different taken by more than one person. That is the beauty to me, that without changing one pixel or adjusting the image in any way, I can tell my own story about that moment captured in time.
Lori

[vlad]

I agree with you Toad, but I think the author is going a bit overboard

Manipulation Starts in the Viewfinder ... What you choose to include in the frame is a massive edit of the scene before you

I must disagree with that. It's a practical issue more than anything. So the image has to be panoramic for it not to be classed as edited from the beginning? Then he would be arguing "well you manipulate the photo before you even take it due to choosing the location" and it gets a bit ridiculous. Half of this is semantics I think.

I actually agree with the quote. That's the first and most important way of shaping up the message in the photo. Composing is perhaps the most important building block of photography. The photographer always deliberately includes some elements and excludes other. Maybe with the sole exception of lomography.

[alessya]

Regarding to this thread, composing and image doesn't mean you manipulate it, at least not in therms of image editing because I believe that's what the author is actually referring to - composing an image is a matter of the photographic vision one has, or, as Edward Weston wrote, it's a matter of "seeing photographically". That being said, I would recommend you read this essay before discussing the matter further

[photokev]

I agree with Alessya regarding composition not being an editing tool, however if you look at it another way, a visual edit is an edit.

I was going to say that for a truly unedited print you'd have to shoot large format and do a straight contact print but I'm not even sure that would qualify. After all, you do a test strip and chose print exposure based on what your eye perceives as the most flattering representation of the scene, and that in itself is an image edit of sorts...

I can say that for myself, I edit 100 percent of my images in PS.

[alessya]

I believe, as \i said before, that the term "manipulated" is a bit stretched here As a photographer myself I don't really see the poiny of this discussion, but that's probably because to me it doesn't matter if something is edited or not in any way...what matters however is the concept behind a shot and the visual aesthetics of it

[photokev]

I agree with you as far as the importance of this debate. Seems like life is full of pointless discussions on this being better than that or mine is better than yours. This is one of those subjects that will never go away.... LOL

[Tom G]

I agree with you as far as the importance of this debate. Seems like life is full of pointless discussions on this being better than that or mine is better than yours. This is one of those subjects that will never go away.... LOL

I also agree on the subject of "Pointless Discussions". The Real Question is: Does a falling tree in the forest make a sound if there is no one there to photograph it?

[samyshah]

I agree that most of my images are post processed. Somehow either it's just my camera body that does not come up with excellent images which I can use just as-is, or its just my perspective that I would like each image to go through post processing to come up with fine images.