may be interesting to "... eBay customers concerned about the authenticity of images, people answering personal ads, paranormal researchers studying ghostly emanations and science editors." And photographers who like to debate this kind of thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=1
All my images are manipulated. Can I go now?
Guy
Scenic Wild Photography
not until you've been formally reviewed by your peers!
and the korean government.
Funny that NYT of all the outfits should bring up the question of somebody's authencity. They also conveniently forgot to mention PJs who doctor their photos.
Good catch, paul.
Over developing film is manipulating the contrast. a yellow, green, red filter is manipulating the image, a polarizer or a split grad manipulates the image, changing the paper grade, variable filter or the developing time changes the paper contrast, burning/dodging/flashing all manipulate the image.
So you have always manipulated the analog image. Now digital makes it easier.
And photo restorers always took an analog image and manipulted it to add people, replace torn or faded areas, move people around in an image, etc. And photo retuchers always softened or removed wrinkles, opened eyeys, toned down reflections, remove scratches and unwaanted catch lights etc.
So what is an unmanipulted image? Not one from Adams, Sexton, Weston, Ulesmann, etc.
If you print what is on an unfiltered negative that was exposed and developed according to the film manufacture's specifications and printed on normal grade paper to the paper and developer manufacturer's specifications you have an unmanipulated print that may not be very exciting or interesting.
And then we had the air brush artists.
I once had to laminate, back to back, a series of the 50 best prints, 11 x 14", for Time Life that were to be placed in a bound book and one set was to be presented to the retiring Chairman of Time Life and the other was going to be store in the Time Life aarchives.
We also own a bound set of Life magazines starting with Issue 2 and going through the 60s.
The images that were laminated were from the original negatives from Bourke-White, Morse, Eisenstadt, Stackpole and most of the original Time Life staff.
It was fascenating to compaare these prints from the original negatives to the covers they appeared on. One that stood out was a shot by Ralph Morse of a GI getting an innoculation. In the Time Life print there were lots of other GIs and doctors and nurses in the background. On the Life cover the background was almost black without the other people in it. It was particularly obvious because Ralph lived near us and was the messenger who drove the unlaminated prints to us for laminating and who brought the laminated prints back to ttheir office in NYC. So we could actually talk about the differences in many of the prints.
Many of these imaages were obviously different then the original covers and these images far pre-dated digital imaging.
While I agree that the manipulation debate is about as interesting as the latest FOX show, the main point of the article was not that manipulated art is bad, rather that manipulated data submitted for scientific study results was bad. Art is a matter of personal opinion, but science often deals with life and death. Images that are falsified and passed off as legitimate research results have a much greater impact than someone cloning out a bird or some trash in a landscape shot.
- Randy
If you print what is on an unfiltered negative that was exposed and developed according to the film manufacture's specifications and printed on normal grade paper to the paper and developer manufacturer's specifications you have an unmanipulated print that may not be very exciting or interesting.
Actually, no you don't. The film itself filters the light through its own sensitivity to certain wavelengths or lack thereof. I've read discussions on this very board about how different b&w emulsions give different tonalities. And that's b&w only. With color you only get more manipulation. Think Velvia, for instance.
You have a good point, Bob, but I think you should've made a distinction between enhancement and manipulation. Development, filtering and contrast variations are all enhancements, as they do not alter the factuality of the scene. Adding or moving people, removing wrinkles, and such are clearly manipulations, since they change the facts of the scene.
All of the above based on the newer and narrower meaning of the term "manipulation". And on the assumption any of it matters at all.
Regards,
"If you print what is on an unfiltered negative that was exposed and developed according to the film manufacture's specifications and printed on normal grade paper to the paper and developer manufacturer's specifications you have an unmanipulated print that may not be very exciting or interesting."
Actually, the manipulation takes place, even with the above description. Each and every photograph is in a sense manipulated, because the very act of raising the camera to one's eye, and creating a finite boundry/frame, implies a decision, however concious, to limit what is included within the frame.
"distinction between enhancement and manipulation."
Well then another example.
An extremely long time exposure of a street or building so that the people that are moving essentially disappear.
Or how about a product shot of a package in 3-point perspective?
Or what about those double exposures of buildings at twilight and then little later with all the lights on? You really don't see the building that way at any time but it sure looks great when shot that way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks