- This topic is empty.
Misunderstanding with the word "MANIPULATED IMAGE"
-
CianMcLiam wrote:
AndyL wrote:
We cannot record a scene as a viewer sees it. The MkI eye is a far better tool than any camera, and thats before the brain interprets the image. Two people looking at the same scene will have a different perception
There shouldn’t be any significant difference between what people percieve, they may differ in attention and recollection and emotional reaction but their brains will be presented with roughly the same data. Evolution could not ‘design’ a completely arbitrary visual system as it would be of no benefit for one guy to see a leopard and the other a labrador. The visual system is designed to allow the being survey the world and get an accurate indication of the things of consequence. Since humans descended from fruit eating primates, colour tones were vital to discern types of fruit and their ripeness, hence our high sensitivity and emotional reaction to colour, and our discriminating sensitivity.
AndyL wrote:
Thankfully, there are no correct answers on this one, only opinions.
Well, the question on whether a colour is natural or exaggerated is surely an empirical one with a correct and an incorrect answer, as is the question of whether the scene actually looked like a resulting photograph. Whether it’s good or bad to exert artistic licence on the other hand is not an empirical question, and this is the point when taste and opinion can and should diverge.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, just trying to clarify the issues we are and are not talking about :)
As has been said above. The brain sees and not the eyes. The eyes weren’t “designed” (might tread on some toes here), they evolved to deliver information to the brain for various purposes.
To try and link the picture to the mood of the time, is completely sensible; this may be by boosting colours, contrast, darkening a scene… adding a cooltone (feeling blue) etc etc.
The use of universal quantifiers and absolutes really has limited usefulness on these sites. Words like “Must”, “Should”, “Correct” etc really are only opinions.
I don’t get landscapes anyway, nothing that a person or two wouldn’t “Correct”. :)
Si
Anatomically speaking, the eyes and brain are all one organ, what matters though is that both are essential parts of the processing. You’re right of course, I used the word design in quotes because it’s the most economical metaphor.
To try and link the picture to the mood of the time, is completely sensible; this may be by boosting colours, contrast, darkening a scene… adding a cooltone (feeling blue) etc etc.
Couldn’t agree more, the only qualifier I think that holds is that the effect should not be obvious to the viewer or become a hurdle the viewer has to cross before accepting the 2D image as a 3D scene if that is your intention . There’s a surprising amount of room for added effect when done sympathetically, but I don’t think it’s boundless and this is where timeless artistic judgement comes in.
To add to the musical analogy, I think it’s similar to bands recording in studios. We expect great musicians to write great music and play their instruments with enough competency to carry the song but the vast majority of bands use a producer who’s finely tuned ear and artistic judgement brings out each key voice from instruments and singers from what can be a mass of noise. Even live albums produced today have all had post-production to fine tune the sound to bring out a good sonic experience after repeated playing. I think it’s a similar case with photogrpahers who have good capturing skills as far as composition and exposure but (over) post-production can detract from an otherwise wonderful picture. We have to do this post-production ourselves in the main, but I think master photographers blend each stage from capture to print in a finely tuned balance and do not let one stage over-power the others, unless it’s what we would consider an interpretive/manipulated image.
On the other hand, this is only relevant if you are presenting your images for criticism or for a general audience, if you’re doing it for your own pleasure then anything goes. When putting them into the public sphere though, remember that as long as there are artists, there will be art critics, each being a valuable enterprise.
I dont agree that it’s a matter of opinion whether a heavily HDR’d image is manipulated or not, that’s kind of like saying it’s only a matter of opinion whether you’re bread is baked or not.
Wow here is enthusiasm of everybody involved….what an interesting and inspiring thread, thank you for all pepper – salt – flower cretics! And here are so interesting point of views…i was looking for that. Thanks to all of you.
Gregor: Hi Gregor, thanks for your input….just to make sure: i don’t expect to get clapping hands with a post in this forum, i am not upset when people don’t like it and i am happy when some poeple find a moment of beauty in it and love it (: i started this thread because in many online foren like flick, redbubble, artwanted…. there is this hot discussion about “manipulation” since the digital world is exploding and exploring, and the different point of views are searching for an answer, “what is allowed, what not, what is a good photograper, what is a bad photographer”. I found it kind of strange to argue in that way. I didn’T and i still don’t understand, that an created image is set on fire…regarding the use of the word “manipulated”.
Well here is a good place to get an overview about the different motivation of
image creators… i like that. (sorry for my bad bad english)petercox: thanks for spending time with the idea and to carefully judge some of my images with a benevolend motivation. I see myself as an artist and i guess my brain selects scenes and moments in nature by its own interpretation. Of course it is an individual exprience wich creates a handsing in the images. Human beings are emotional observers. My desire is not the one of an reportage photographer, my mainfocus is the artistic light in nature. I agree that i still look for more balance because the hdr software is like a wild wild horse or a goat…I am very happy to come closer and closer to my see exprerience….my world is fuuullll with stunning colours (; full with stunning and surprising kerry light.
Rossco: Well i will never forget the day, when a topphotographer gave me the advice to buy a polfilter. After using it i stopped to rail at my camera (;
oh there is more to read…. i will be back (:
:arrow: Andy: self obsessed. i like this word but i have to add “self obsessed with natural beauty” to express my own motivation to spend days and night in forest, on hills, at beaches….. I guess that a landscape potographer enjoys to be alone in nature without feeling alone! Nature is my best entertainer at all, never boring, every time exciting and surprising. i agree that first of all, it is a selffullfilling act just to take the photographs and to enjoy a good timing for a brilliant shoot, fixed beauty – a great satisfaction to survive the ever changing light in nature…”i’ve got it” and a big inner smile. Now we can see it whenever we like. The second layer of a landscape potograph is the essence of inspiration for others, a give-away moment to others whose can enjoy it, find their own beauty (or uglyness) in it. The next layer is the print, a chance for others to be surrounded by the beatuy every day. All together…a very powerfull package of ease of mind!
Cian: thank you….so interesting and a “clear” opinion. I know photographers, whose describe their work as artistical interpretation of an own exprience, the imagereality is different from the own see exprience, inspirering and somehow “so beautiful”. Then i know photographers, where you can’t really say….did it look this or not….nature is a big surprise sometimes and we need techniques to translate this into a digital file….i personally love that kind of photograph where the imageresult is dreamlike and possible, sometimes archived with special techniques, sometimes based on brilliant light conditions with good responds of the camera…..
i think, that landscape photography gives us a lot of room because it isn’t “limited or fixed” on a realistic interpretation of an observer. Reportage photograpy is another matter.The power comes from the story with social aspects, interaction between human beings or their results of actions. Clouds, raindrops, suns, water, skies….are free of concepts (except nature laws) and invite me to tell a visual story after spending time wit them (; and my brain is drunk of colours!
I hope my english wasn’t to messy (;Sharon: i agree, lazyness shouldn’t be hide with exchanging unpleasent parts of the images….If it is based on an artconcepts – this is another story!
Peter: regarding the foreground light discussion: i don’t understand your suggested rule how natural light works. the dramatic patchsky of ireland shows me very often bright foregrounds, dark backgrounds, based on sun holes. The waterville HDR is a good example for the soft fading light-shadow areas in wideangle landscapes. Isn’t there a way of saying: the clouds to the left play a different game than the clouds to the right? Storm in derrynane, sunshine in Cahersiveen.
Just to repeat: You haven’t trod on my toes, I make my own decisions about inspirering advices or listening to another opinion. All good in kerry!My statement is this: every single photograph, taken, selected and processed by me, is an invitation into my world of beauty, archived by use of technology, guided by my brain-eyes-memory, decided by my artistical mind ((:
interesting topic indeed.
My personal (therefore wrong because subjective) opinion is that, if you’re an artist that image is ok.
you gave your interpretation of that moment. underlining what caught more your attention.
you simply used a picture as starting point as a canvas to create your piece of art.
and it works. it’s a strong image, well composed, that grabs the attention.but does that shows reality? I say no. Unless you have problems with colours.
and since I gave more importance to the natural part of my picture (the one natural-related), that images _for me_ loses part of its strenght.
it’s like it’s screaming “fake”.our eyes have a wider dinamyc range compared to a film or a sensor, fair enough if you want to add that with a NG filter or a double (means 2) exposures. but even with a velvia underexposed you can get that colours, I am afraid.
now this image (copyrights to Andy the cave hunter)
to me says “HDR”. but apart from that, the colours are there and pretty much as they are in reality. maybe the foreground is too clear, anyway this is the limit for this tecnique. the limit I decide to have, and I know it’s personal (again).in conclusion (sorry maybe this post is full with errors!): for a naturalistic picture, I represent nature as it is. tricky for landscapes where you must deal with the sensor (which is different from our eyes). less tricky for animals. apart from this “photographic field”, everything to me is ok.
B/W? same as above. personally I agree with the rule that “wildlife” pictures must be in color.:arrow: Gizzo: Great great input gizzo. i should call some of my images “natural pixelart” (; I like the idea of the canvas for some of my images! Indeed! And i guess that we can classify the landscapes photographer in surrealists, realists, romanticers, expressionist…what else. Maybe that solves the problem because “manipulation” got its bad taste (i guess) from the realists – an idea. :D
:arrow: Those are images of my “HIGHLIGHT”-COLLECTION.
HDR is a great tool to express this imagery-concept. And after reflecting this thread, i place them in the freestyle-Artsphotography-section. Is there somebody just shauting “manipulated” without checking the essence of it?? :lol: I
© Madeleine WeberThere are no hard and fast rules-
as I mentioned earlier in this thread-
anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to impose his own way of seeing-Anything is possible- and invariably, will be done-
And people will buy it-
just go in to Harvey Normans to see what people put on their walls-
Maybe it’s not photography (is it?)
but they’re the kind of burning sunsets that people find attractive-(Edit- written before you put your pictures up-
I wasn’t referring to those specifically)However, as I also mentioned earlier, each picture has to stand individually-
whether it’s part of an individual artist’s body of work,
or part of a wider genre.Not many do, ultimately-
how many of the pictures seen here and on sites like this will ever make it to print?
and if they do, will they look anything like they look here?All discussions about the nature of perception notwithstanding
(and Cian has come close to answering a long standing question I’ve had,
regarding why human’s see within such a tiny sliver of the spectrum of wavelengths)
producing a picture is something distinct from the mechanics of sight-
do we have to see into all the deep shadows on a bright day?I take exception to the usual description of the sensitivity of the lighting brightness range of the eye anyway-
of course you can make out detail in a darkened cellar, but stay there too long,
and you wont be able to open your eyes at all when coming out into bright sunlight-The natural habitat for HDR would appear to be a computer monitor
preferably one with a contrast ratio of over 1000:1-
you certainly can’t represent that in a print,
which has a maximum brightness range of about 1:32, or around 5 stops.Compressing a much greater range into a much smaller space will inevitably lead to distortions in colour and tone-
and perhaps because it is software generated, these distortions seem to take place locally- in small areas-
not like the extended range possible using negative films, which is (usually) far more linear-Even so, in print, the range will still be around five stops…
I’m not likely to find extremes of processing either credible or attractive-
it will tend to overpower a picture-
and it will make me wonder if there was a picture there at all, without it-However, others will like it- and do-
so all it goes to show is that there is something for everyone-
and again, there are no hard and fast rules…j
Gizzo,
Cheers for posting that example of mine. That image is in fact a straight exposure with no HDR. No funny business at all other than weak 1 stop ND grad filter over the sky.
The danger is that the light hunters get mistaken for photo fiddlers. There are some amazing and almost unbelieveable colours out there for those willing to wait until the last light of day.
Andy –
It’s a beautiful shot, although it did jump out as a possible HDR to me, too. Out of curiosity, do you have an unfiltered version of that shot? I suspect it would look more natural – even the one stop grad would seem to be too much in this case. In my opinion, anyway.The thing with these images (both Madeleine’s and yours) is that the eye can figure out where the light is coming from – in your case, the setting sun on the horizon. In neither case does it make visual sense for the foreground to be as bright as it is, relative to the other elements of the image. Also on your exposure the effect of the filter is visible on the cliff at the left of the frame, which again provices a clue to the eye that something is different. In fact, subtle dodging of that cliff would go a long way towards making the photograph appear much more natural.
There are many cases in photography where you have sun coming through an unseen hole in the clouds out of frame, and illuminating a patch of foreground. In those cases, this looks fine and natural because there are no contradicting elements in the photograph. It’s when the viewer can see where the light is coming from and the way the light behaves in the shot varies from what we expect that there is an issue. We have a lifetime of understanding how light behaves at an unconscious level.
Cheers,
Peterandy mcinroy wrote:
Gizzo,
Cheers for posting that example of mine. That image is in fact a straight exposure with no HDR. No funny business at all other than weak 1 stop ND grad filter over the sky.
well, I was wrong so :oops:
but somehow I was also right. Personally I consider a double exposure made in PS the same as a single exposure made with a ND filter. generally darkening the higlights a little bit.
Melting 6 or 7 shots, that’s a whole different thing. (and I call this a HDR, the former is a double exposure -not sure about the translation italian/english though-)
I am trying to save money for a decent filter set, meanwhile I try to create manually the very same effect. But the image must be _real_
I post a picture I took using this technique.
I tried 5 or 6 versions in order to be satisfied. maybe it’s still unreal. in this case, comments are welcome.Here’s the original shot from Kinnego bay. Processed with all RAW process settings set to 0.
You can see that there are a couple of ajustments in the edited version posted by Gizzo. A tiny amout of saturation and contrast. A little bit of burning of the top of the tower and a chromatic abheration correction which is noticeable at the high contrast edge.
I’ll see if I can dig out one without filtration. But really, it’s not a major manipulation job and 1 stop of ND filtration is almost imperceptable. That’s just how the light was. Hopefully this is a good demonstration of how easily we are tricked into assuming manipulation.
Hi Madeleine and others (by the way Madeleine, superb selection on the site, really stunning).
I think there’s two things getting confused in the discussion, on the one hand there’s some who say that using heavy HDR and saturation approaches more closely what the scene looked like, my comments above are directed at that argument. On the other hand, using photography as the foundation for creative expression is not troubled with these concerns. Photography will always tread a line between but when they get confused, you could end up judging one against the standards of the other and this is where the problem rises.
I shot an art exhibition a couple of months ago, the curator hired a photographer so what does he expect? If I had sent a CD with over saturated colours, white balance all wrong and jarring light anomalies, would he be right to complain or not? People have a perception that photography is capable of accurate representation, and it can be with the right skills and equipment. If I replied that at the time I felt this sculpture was a deep red instead of baked clay or the white canvas felt tinted with blue, I could end up with a serious problem! You have to bear in mind the expectations of your audience if you are photographing for an audience. Do you intend people to think ‘this is what he/she saw’ or ‘this is what he/she created’. Using heavy processing puts an image in the second category, claiming it gets you closer to the first can, as Peter suggests, make people deeply suspicious of photography in general. Because photography is assumed to be capable of accurate representation, there is an extra consideration for photographers that artists in other mediums don’t need to think about.
The big problem I see with the latest technology and processing is that people forget what their goals are. Aiming for a linear shadow to highlight distribution of tones, or pulling in every detail in the shadows and highlights just because we can misunderstands how human vision works. When we see, we use a combination of hardware and software techniques to create a 3D image. The hardware part is our stereoscopic eyes, we use the difference in the visual field input from each eye to infer depth. Obviously, with a 2D image like a photo on screen or paper, this is not going to achieve much. Instead we use software that recovers depth from shading, and that is an evolved technique that is done automatically based on built-in assumptions about the nature of surfaces, light and reflectivity. A surface at an angle obviously reflects less direct light in our direction than a face-on surface. Near things have greater differences in shading than far things, under flat lighting. The brain uses this assumption to calculate what surfaces are at an angle, how far away it is and what it’s relationship with other surfaces is.
When we run an image through HDR programs or use arbitrary dodging and burning to bring out every last surface, we certainly do get a lot of extra detail but we also run great risk of creating a flat, unrealistic image devoid of depth. This is why it looks fake, spectacular maybe, but fake.If fake is your goal, then this is not a big issue, if on the other hand you want to draw your viewer into the scene and immerse their senses in it, these are big concerns that we shouldn’t forget just because software allows us to view all tones. Sometimes, less is most definitely more.
Very good post Ken,
I would agree with most of your points. I have long argued that HDR is not a beginners tool. I personally believe it has a tendancy to contaminate the mind at a time when a photographer should be focusing on the basics of light, reflection and contrast.
However, I believe that these techniques shouldn’t be dismissed completely. In good hands (e.g Ansels dodging and burning) they can lift a photograph from one representation of reality into another equally valid one.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
