Manipulated NOT?

[John_4185]

Have you ever had a straight photograph that was called manipulated? I did. Several years ago an online 'editor' put it on his site saying, "This manipulated photo ...". I was dumbfounded, but then I'm easily dumbfounded.

Maybe because the photo was old, and the "kids nowadays" thing...?

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

Years ago at the Boston MFA there was a thematic exhibition of works by scores
of photographers. A tour guide spent a lot of time explaining how one sidewalk
landscape was a complicated montage of a half dozen separate images, and proceeded
to demonstrate how it had put together. The photo was a well known straight contact
print of a storefront window display with multiple reflections of the street and
intersected by shadows cast by awnings.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have had quite a few images that people swear were heavily manipulated in Photoshop, because of the surreal nature of some of them. The irony is that the ones that they claim to know this about were taken long ago before PS even existed.

[Stephen Willard]

Just about everyone of my photos people believe I use PS. The fact is though, I am a purist using only LF film and no filters. I process my own film and print all my own images in my own darkroom. Period.

Consider this







So are suspicious?

Hi JJ, I am the fellow who posted a question a while back about using a greflex as it was intended - fast, candid, and intimate. I have been observing the enthusiasm you bring to this bulletin board. Good stuff.

[Duane Polcou]

I once photographed Playboy Model Amy Miller for the cover of Femmes Fatales magazine in a skimpy suede outfit to pay homage to Raquel Welch's classic movie poster. Resisting my suggestion that abdominal bling, albeit sexy, was not apropos to Neanderthal females, it appeared in the photo nontheless. Readers actually e-mailed complaining that it was inappropriate. I felt manipulated.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I often get asked about manipulating my photographs. Funny thing is that the colour ones I never manipulate other than trying to achieve a suitable colour balance - usually referenced back to the original chrome. Yet the black and white ones that I manipulate by dodging, burning, split printing, I never seem get get questioned about. But burning, dodging and multi grade printing are not considered manipulations in the wider community, but an acceptable part of the art.

[j.e.simmons]

I've quit entering stuff in my local camera club's competitions since a judge once said that the problem with my entry was that it was too heavily manipulated in Photoshop. She said it was impossible to get that kind of contrast without heavy manipulation and that the manipulation just looked too unnatural.

The photo was a contact print on Azo developed in amidol. She didn't care for my suggestion that she had spent too much time looking at digital desaturations rather than real B&W prints. Ha.

juan

[Bruce Watson]

Well, interesting. As a photographer who *does* use Photoshop, I have to tell you that I do less manipulation of my images now than I did in the darkroom. Many, if not most, are now "straight prints."

Now, there are some corrections. After drum scanning my 5x4 Tri-X, I do make a levels correction (because my scanner software really wants to leave the last 7-12 levels empty for some reason, and I do want an actual black as opposed to a dark gray). This is comparable to setting enlarger exposure/development time. Then I often do a small curves correction, which is comparable to selecting a paper grade. And that's it.

In the entire time I printed in the darkroom, I don't think there was a single print that didn't require some level of dodging/burning. So this Photoshop thing, for me at least, is a refreshing change of not having to rely on manipulation to get an excellent print.

All I'm saying is, Photoshop != manipulated. But people will always have their preconceived notions, and they do hate to be contradicted by facts.

[John Flavell]

I also do less manipulating or enhancing in Photoshop than I did in a traditional color darkroom.

Not long after we started using our first digital camera, I made a picture of a steelworkers leaving a local mill. Behind the mill is Ohio River and beyond the river is the far bank. From my position, with a 300mm lense, the background compressed so that the color of the far hill was prominent.

A letter to the editor accused me of using Photoshop to insert the color into the background, which I had not. I let the letter run, then called the guy and had him meet me at the spot where I made the picture and let him look through the lens.

Now, he's mad because I let the letter publish without calling him to explain how and where the picture was made. He just seemed so certain about it.

[Steve J Murray]

It sounds like the real issue to the viewing audience is "does the photo look manipulated," which is a completely different issue from actually being manipulated. It seems OK to most people when the manipulation is obviously for an "artistic" effect, like making it look like an old photograph. In other words, to the public, the manipulations should stay within certain accepted norms and conventions unless they are obviously serving a special artistic purpose.