Image manipulation.

[glsammy]

I know we've had this discussion before, but what the heck I fancy another go!
How far should we go in altering/manipulating images we put up here?
I've often removed the odd branch or twig to make the image look better, but I'm getting a little uneasy about how far I should go.
Take these two images, the first the original, the second after some serious removal work!






Now that eye you see didn't exist, I created it, so should I use the image, is it a fair representation of the bird?

By the way, neither of these shots are in the "proper" Galleries.

[GuyF]

Wow, It's amazing what you can do to an image!
Personally I'd say that if the editing will help show some of an animals key features and therefore help identification then it is fine and good to have it in the gallery. For example, although people probably don't have too much trouble identifying blackbirds it's useful to see the yellow eyering as it is a good identification feature.
Guy

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I know we've had this discussion before, but what the heck I fancy another go!
How far should we go in altering/manipulating images we put up here?
I've often removed the odd branch or twig to make the image look better, but I'm getting a little uneasy about how far I should go.


Now that eye you see didn't exist, I created it, so should I use the image, is it a fair representation of the bird?

By the way, neither of these shots are in the "proper" Galleries.

I'd say it's OK, you haven't changed the overall situation. It's still a blackbird feeding on hawthorn berries. If you had cut an image and transposed it into a different habitat or changed the overall impression by adding false snow (as one famous wildlife photographer did to a polar bear shot in one of his books) then I'd say that was going too far. If you make an image you wouldn't use into something useful and still equally informative then why not.

Have to admire your patience as well.

[Fourwings]

I have no problem with this kind of removal/manipulation if it enhances the view of the subject in its original state, I remember the excellent job you did on those Emperors this Summer ( I still can't believe either of us saw that big stick!!!!! )

I do have a problem with images that have been built up/construted with components from other images, these are usually easily spotted as they seldom look natural, they have their place in Art but should not be put into ordinary gallerys.

[jerryh]

I agree with Rob about admiring your patience, Graham.

I understand what everyone says about the information value, and accept it to a point, but we need to be careful about it. In your example, Guy mentions the eyering - but you've slightly changed the shape, so is that really enhanced information?
Also, for the sake of honest presentation, I'd definitely want to know that the image was substantially not as shot. If your example shot was praised as "well captured" (as images here often are), that would be wrong - "well manipulated", maybe!

Jerry

[cannylad]

That's an excellent image and in no way does it feel artificial to me. I don't do too much to my images just a little cropping or sharpening, but that's mainly because i would not know where to start.

brian.

[glsammy]

A god point Jerry. Perhaps a comment in the description with a rough idea of what you've done? I agree with all the other comments by Steve, Rob and Guy. To take a cut out and place into a completely different situation would be well out of order.
I'll have to work some more on the eye shape Jerry!

By the way, it only took about 10 minutes, so not too much patience needed!

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Fourwings

I have no problem with this kind of removal/manipulation if it enhances the view of the subject in its original state, I remember the excellent job you did on those Emperors this Summer ( I still can't believe either of us saw that big stick!!!!! )

I do have a problem with images that have been built up/construted with components from other images, these are usually easily spotted as they seldom look natural, they have their place in Art but should not be put into ordinary gallerys.

I still look at that Emperor and wonder how on earth we both never spotted that stick!! Especially as I'd loaded it into my viewer, and it was there for all to see!

[jerryh]

Originally Posted by glsammy

... Perhaps a comment in the description with a rough idea of what you've done?

That would be fine for me.

Originally Posted by glsammy

I agree with all the other comments by Steve, Rob and Guy. To take a cut out and place into a completely different situation would be well out of order.

I agree, too.

Originally Posted by glsammy

I'll have to work some more on the eye shape Jerry!

Thanks
It was just an example, of course.


I know what you and Steve mean about not seeing the obvious in a shot. One of my gallery images has a grass stem across the tip of the abdomen of a dragonfly which I didn't spot until several months after I'd posted the shot!


Jerry

[Twizzle]

Hi All

I dont see anything wrong with manipulating an image if its for the good. If nothing had been said everyone would have congratulated the photographer on a fantastic shot. I guess its realy hard these days for anyone to know the difference of an original shot and one that has been manipulated. This is a massive argument that comes up time and time again with the people who still shoot film. I shut them up instantly by saying that digital photography is photography taken further as an art form. How many magazines do you read with all original images that were shot - Absolutely none. Yet we readily accept that so why can't e accept it here at this level. Yes, get the best from your camera but don't be out done by modern methods.

Twizzle

[eeyore]

for my money its like taking pics of animals in captivity , there is nothing wrong with it so long as you admit what you have done.

as far as whether it is right for this site or its galleries I would never presume to try and tell knight commander main man moderator gallery editor glsammy what is appropriate - though I do recall getting roundly panned when I suggested putting one of my manipulated shots of a red kite (against a brilliant sunset sky) into the bird galleries.

[gmsmith]

Hi Graham how are you?

I think Mr Sutton has summed it up admirably, why not, if it is done honestly with the intention of portraying the subject at it's best, fine. A note in the text to say that some manipulation has taken place should allay any concerns or uneasyness one may feel. And it would be for the Mods to determine wether it made it to the gallaries or not.

It would also depend on how rare the picture is for the photographer or the site. a picture of a rare bird spoilt by a branch as with the blackbird? I would certainly spend the time removing the branch.

Yes from me, but honesty and trust play a big part as does the decision of the Mods.

Anyway, a nice bit of manipulating Graham.

Geoff

Just seen the post by Twizzle. Absolutley agree

Just seen all the other posts too Some things never change

[goosey]

I'm so pleased that its not just the case that I can't take decent photos!
I was relatively proud of my nature photos but seeing other images here as well as every where else makes me feel on one hand totally in awe and amazed at peoples talent but on the other hand totally useless. I often think this would be good if it wasn't for this, that or the other and would change things within reason if I had the know how.It's an art form and it's human nature to push boundaries.

[jerryh]

Originally Posted by Twizzle

Hi All
I dont see anything wrong with manipulating an image if its for the good. If nothing had been said everyone would have congratulated the photographer on a fantastic shot. I guess its realy hard these days for anyone to know the difference of an original shot and one that has been manipulated. This is a massive argument that comes up time and time again with the people who still shoot film. I shut them up instantly by saying that digital photography is photography taken further as an art form. How many magazines do you read with all original images that were shot - Absolutely none. Yet we readily accept that so why can't e accept it here at this level. Yes, get the best from your camera but don't be out done by modern methods.
Twizzle

Hi Twizzle.
You're right, but what is "for the good".
Scientific information? My example about the eye applies. British Birds magazine contributor guidelines state "All digital images must be submitted in their original state with no manipulation (e.g adjustment of colours, curves, etc.)." Their rules for the Bird Photograph of the Year competition state "...should be submitted with an absolute minimum of manipulation, which should be restricted to minor blemishes. Any manipulation that in any way changes the ‘science’ of the picture (even minor changes to feather detail, for example) is expressly forbidden!"
Aesthetic value? I'd be happier to accept manipulation to enhance the beauty of a shot, because scientific accuracy is not so important.
Illustration of a technical point? Manipulate as much as you like if it clarifies what you want to say.

Images are posted here for these and other reasons, but to me the manipulation of images is acceptable to different degrees depending on those reasons. Similarly for how important it is to know what's been done.

I admit (unashamedly) to being an in-the-camera purist on this matter. All I've ever done on my WAB images is crop, adjust levels, remove colour noise and/or add a little sharpness to my images (occasionally in selected parts of the frame only).
For my audio files, I have occasionally equalised to remove an intrusive hum - but I've said so in the description.

Jerry

[eeyore]

mind you , as ive just said on another thread one of the great things about photography is that there is no "right" answer - as a form of personal expression you should feel free to do anything you are happy with.

Of course not every interpretation would be acceptable to the WAB galleries - but then there are other sites such as Deviant art where manipulated art can be displayed.

[AlphaZeroOne]

Interesting topic. Brings to mind the old adage: the camera never lies. But the reality is that with the digital age of photography, we have an increasing ability to manipulate information in ways that we couldn't imagine even just a few years ago. It's true that photographers have always been able to manipulate the final image but that was always considered to be part of the skill and art of the professional studio.

Today, with the development of software that becomes more and intuitive to use, anyone with just a basic knowledge and skill level can manipulate the digital information and bring about transformations to images that they would normally have had to accept as being far from perfect. Striving towards perfection, in the eye of the beholder, can almost be seen as 'plastic surgery' for the masses; click of a button here, click of a button there and ... viola; a transformation that can bring sheer joy and delight to the beholder.

And why not! Gone are the days when we had to accept mediocrity as the standard. (Remember the rolls and rolls of film we sent off with first class stamp and high hopes, and the utter disappointment felt when the sorry results were returned.)

The digital age of photography will swell the ranks of photographers and now, with the learning of some new skills, many more are able to produce results that at least approach those of the professionals. The many examples of outstanding photographs on the this site stand as evidence to that - I am still amazed and agog at the high standards. Only the purists will object. But their outcrys will be drowned out by the sighs of statisfaction as amateurs like me are able to transform a disappointing experience into something to be proud of and is much nearer to our perception of the perfect photograph. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. And to able to remove that offending twig that ruins the perfect shot; plastic surgery for the masses and big smiles all around!

[DaiTheDragon]

Nothing wrong with image manipulation as long as the image is a fair representation of the original. If the clone tool wasn’t there you wouldn’t use it, but the same goes for the unsharp filter, levels, noise reduction ect.
It also depends on your skill. Cloning a twig out of a dark bird with little feather detail is a lot easier than a bird with a bright plumage in good light.
At the moment I am going back and redoing my old images as my skill has improved.

David

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by DaiTheDragon

Nothing wrong with image manipulation as long as the image is a fair representation of the original. If the clone tool wasn’t there you wouldn’t use it, but the same goes for the unsharp filter, levels, noise reduction ect.
It also depends on your skill. Cloning a twig out of a dark bird with little feather detail is a lot easier than a bird with a bright plumage in good light.
At the moment I am going back and redoing my old images as my skill has improved.

David

This is so true, hence the reason I chose a blackbird as an example!

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by gmsmith

Hi Graham how are you?

I think Mr Sutton has summed it up admirably, why not, if it is done honestly with the intention of portraying the subject at it's best, fine. A note in the text to say that some manipulation has taken place should allay any concerns or uneasyness one may feel. And it would be for the Mods to determine wether it made it to the gallaries or not.

It would also depend on how rare the picture is for the photographer or the site. a picture of a rare bird spoilt by a branch as with the blackbird? I would certainly spend the time removing the branch.

Yes from me, but honesty and trust play a big part as does the decision of the Mods.

Anyway, a nice bit of manipulating Graham.

Geoff

Hi Geoff, good to hear from you again! I used to enjoy our posts.

[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!

I've enjoyed reading your replies, all very interesting and thoughtful stuff. Glad I raised it again!

[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.