What constitutes a photo manipulation?

[garazon]

This discussion got me thinking back to some work I did about a year ago. I was taking some shots of a family who had just moved into a new home and they wanted a particular photo of their daughter against a certain wall, (because of the wallpaper having a pattern they liked and thought would be a good background). However no matter where the subject was positioned, a portion of an undraped window would show up. I told them I could remove that afterwards and they were delighted. So what they consider a "photograph" is now on their wall. To them it is a photograph.

Intent and venue seem to be the consensus here, seems to be the safest way to try and sort things out.. As someone said an altered photo probably wouldn't hold up well as such forensics or representing a news story, but to a someone wanting a picture of their child, manipualtions can be worth more.

I think that with the advances we have seen so far in digital imaging, and the rate things are going, this type of discussion may all be a moot point in the future, as surely some terms we've come to know will have to be redefined, and new terms will have to come into use.

Originally Posted by byRo

Hi there, garazon. Welcome to RetouchPRO
(nice contest entry too! )

Thanks for the Welcome and the compliment Rô. Glad I found this place.

G

[emarts]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think you've got me going in the right direction. It would seem that the intent is the important part. As someone mentioned, it's not my job as moderator to be the manipulation police. However, I was asked for my input in defining certain rules regarding the breakdown of categories.

I think by asking the question of the artist, "What is your intent?" will certainly have a role in determining which category to place their image. An image may even have quite a bit of "manipulation" in it but still be in the photography section, if the intent was to tell a story with the image. If the artist though is displaying his ability to manipulate an image, then manipulation category would be correct. Or if the manipulation itself is part of the subject, like "speed" can be a subject for a picture. This way, they will receive the kind of feedback they are looking for.

Thanks again for all your comments!

[Kraellin]

technically, if you alter one pixel then it's a manipulation. however, there is another use of that term that is used also and much more common. there are classes of alterations in digital. you have 'retouching', 'restoration', 'reconstruction', 'photo-art', 'colorization', and 'manipulations'. each of these has its own characteristics. yes, they could all be called manipulations, technically. but mechanically, there are differences.

a retouch is usually to correct some minor fault, either in the picture taking or in the subject matter. the lighting was a bit off, the subject had a pimple, and small things like this.

a restoration is usually a bit more extensive and has another purpose, to bring an image back to its original state. this involves remove mold, scratches, dust marks, textures, and so on. it generally is also only removing unwanted things but on a larger scale to restore an original.

reconstruction often is lumped into the same category as restoring. i make the distinction that when pieces of the image are actually missing then it's a reconstruction. a corner is gone, large tear marks exist and parts of the data are no longer there and so on.

photo-art is the manipulation with the intent of altering the image into something more or differently aesthetic, or with the intent of telling a better story. it often involves filters and brushes and techniques designed to do just that.

colorization is simply that, colorizing the image either further than what it already is or turning it newly into a color image.

manipulation is the act of interjecting new items or removing existing items from an image. so, if i put a puppy into the picture with the baby, that's a manipulation. likewise if i remove aunt may from the baby picture, that's a manipulation.

now, none of those definitions are necessarily ever 'pure'. sure, there's overlap. and sure more than one defined item may get used in a single image. so, you remove aunt may, add the ball, change the contrast, fix a blown out area, put some texture back in baby's face and so on and so on. so, some images are going to be composites of techniques and classes. that's ok. as to how you class a single image and therefore sort and post and store it, may be a bit of a trick at times. but, as long as you can justify it in at least one correct class, then it's really not going to make that much difference.

we get folks wanting 'critiques' posting in the 'help wanted' section. well, they want help, so it fits. or someone will post a notice about a piece of retouching software in the retouching forum rather than the software forum. well, it does apply to retouching, so it's not totally out of place. though, i'd rather have all software related links in one place for easy finding.

and, most forum software also has the ability to move a thread without removing. i forget what it's called, but basically the thread is still listed in the forum in which it was originally posted, but when you click on it and then back out of it, you now find yourself in another forum where it was link-moved (or whatever it's called). or, you can actually move it.

so, dont get too hung up in the semantics of it all. we all love a good picture, no matter where it's stored

Craig

[emarts]

Actually, I prefer the term Photo Editing. I used to work for a catelog company, and that's what they called it. And for me it really describes what we do. We take a body of work and edit it to whatever level is necessary.

I'm not trying to get too hung up on the semantics, but artists are a sensitive bunch. I reccommended a photo to be moved to the manipulation category, as it contained obvious compositing. But the artist would rather remove it than move it. His point was that his photo, as compared to the others in the manipulation category was not made for manipulation's sake.

That got me thinking and made me start this thread and ask you guys. the general consensus pretty much fit his argument that the intent of the artist and the image he creates is the deciding factor when it's not so obvious. so I PMd him back and thanked him for giving me a new perspective. And I thank you folks here for the same thing.

[byRo]

emarts, glad to hear that it all worked out!

Originally Posted by Kraellin

and, most forum software also has the ability to move a thread without removing. i forget what it's called, but basically the thread is still listed in the forum in which it was originally posted, but when you click on it and then back out of it, you now find yourself in another forum where it was link-moved (or whatever it's called). or, you can actually move it.

Methinks you mean Redirect, that's what it's called here anyhow. we get three options: Move, Move and leave Redirect, Copy.

and, Craig, looking forward to seeing your input over at the glossary forum.

Rô

[Kraellin]

thank you, Ro. redirect was what i was trying to remember. and i believe i have made an input in the glossary before; just not on this subject

Craig