Image manipulation.

[FungiJohn]

Actually, I'm glad you've raised it again Graham.

Certainly in fungi photography it can be a real asset if you wish to have a good resultant image to aid in helping others ID fungi. For example, a fungi cap covered in leaf debris which cannot be removed without damage to the cap or plant stems and the like which if removed would damage a specimen … such as singular species of Mycena.

I have uploaded several (positively - I hope) manipulated fungi images to the Gallery and will continue to do so if I feel it is justified. I do however disagree with any image that has been largely “built” up from other images or altered in terms of extreme sharpness, colour saturation, contrast etc.

I think the end result should always look as natural as possible …. Otherwise it becomes just another manipulated abstract image …. Nothing wrong here btw … Just on the wrong website

John

[Jon]

I go along with much that has been said. Images are submitted to WAB in a non competitive arena and a little cloning here or there seems legitimate to me. Cutting and pasting a subject onto a better background or adding a different sky is a different thing, but again depending upon circumstances it is perfectly acceptable. The circumstances i.e. rules or guidelines have to be defined.

I don't think many people would argue that a JPEG printed straight from the camera had been manipulated or fiddled with, but of course it has to be technically speaking otherwise the image would not have been captured and created in the first place. Do you get my drift?

Adjusting sharpening, contrast etc is not fiddling it is a part of digital photography , just as dodging and burning was in the old days. The sharpening and contrast and colour may be done, i.e. preset in camera by shooting JPEGS or by taking RAW and manipulating on a computer, the latter method provides greater control, it is the same thing only more sophisticated.
If images are submitted in a competitive mode then to my mind the rules of the competition should be adhered to - simple as that.

If images are submitted to WAB in the general spirit of this is what I captured on the day then a little cloning to remove a bit of grass, boulder or twig seems reasonable to me in the sense that it is a relatively small enhancement to make a significant improvement in the image. I suppose we need to agree on what is a minor adjustment and when does a minor adjustment become a fairly significant one. This is subjective and it is a difficult one to pin down. Jon

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by glsammy

Just to confirm, I will NOT be putting this image into the Gallery, and I've never put one in that had so much work done on it. An odd twig here and there maybe, but never gone so far as to rebuild an eye!

Correction; I did the Emperor... That was a build up job, but a faithful representation of what I'd taken.

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Jon

Adjusting sharpening, contrast etc is not fiddling it is a part of digital photography

Sharpening was a dark room technique, even if seldom used or even known about. One variant has a very pale, out-of-focus copy of the negative made (hence "unsharp mask"). When placed in register with the original negative, the blurred mask spreads out the light at boundaries between light and dark: it adds density overall, but with extra on the dark side of boundaries, but less on the light side. In this way it increases the apparent difference between light and dark sides of the boundary -precisely what is achieved by digital USM.

Most of the digital image techniques that are used, were also used in the darkroom.