Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I think I prefer the "AS shot" - whilst your adjustments are clever and very good, #3 looks as if something is missing, and looks posed. #1 catches the excitement of the occasion and seems more natural.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Blackest, I'll vote for the "painting". You did a good job taking a photo and "cleaning" it up so the subject of the photo is enhanced, not changed. Perfectly acceptable practice so far as I am concerned. ;)

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

That's the definition of 'news' photography or 'photojournalism' which is fine, but representative of only a segment of our large population...

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

A number of people have referred to the absolute quality of film vs. digital, and have used people like Ansel Adams as purists who logged only the 'truth'.

Before photoshop, there was the darkroom, and the great photographers used it to modify their images to their liking - EVEN Ansel Adams.

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

Singing Swan

I think, too, that this is a repetitive argument. You gave up 'photography' as you try to define it the moment you stopped using film. You entered the 21st century and the Digital Era. Your photo is a digital construct as soon as you push the button. If you do your photography raw and start with a negative just like 'real photography' then you are the one who decides how blue the sky will be or whether the grass is very green on your side of the fence or just dun brown straw.

Adding and subtracting subjects moves into the artistic realm, but as all here are so often pointing out, even the film guys did such things in the darkroom. Unless they had a whole contingent of witnesses there to swear they all saw the same thing, then who is to say their photography is 'true to life'?? And even then, people see things from different points of view and there might be someone who swears Aunt Millie's dress was orange when it was really a horrible shade of magenta.

It's all well and good to try to find definitions for a thing. We want to put it all in nice neat boxes but some just won't fit into a box or the circular file or even the cover of a magazine. It is good to try to capture a true representation of our world today, but in doing so you use digital photography and digital enhancements no matter which way you slice the apple.

charleo53 Loc: Ocala,fl

I agree with all you have said,yes there's a but,if only the "auto" button is used would you think this would be allowable? Your photo"s are something to be seen by all. you should be proud.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Just a reminder it didn't start with digital

http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_cottingley_fairies/
http://s3.amazonaws.com/hoaxipedia/cottin4.jpg

An image taken by school girls august 1920 95 years ago.
From.
Arthur Conan Doyle's The Coming of the Fairies, published in 1922 by George H. Doran Co., New York. According to American law, all works published in this country before 1923 are in the public domain.

To be fair the photo's are real and untouched

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Three photographer that were heavy into manipulation

Jerry Uelsmann

http://www.uelsmann.net/

William Mortenson

http://www.whmortensen.com/

Man Ray

http://www.manraytrust.com/

Also look up pictorialism. In this movement photographer were often manipulated to look more painterly through use of soft focus lenses but often also adding layers of other materials such as gum dichromate to create a soft image.

What about painters? Should they be chided for painting abstractly. why must photography be beholden to "reality." A photograph creates is own reality based upon our greater reality or want is the reality of our mind but it is a separate object.

Given that the act of photography is one of selection and exclusion a photograph can never be as it in reality.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

For those who want to use photography as a record of reality for posterity, it is very well suited to that purpose. But that's not the only use for photography - it's much bigger than just that.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It's not a lie if the purpose of the image was not to make an accurate representation of the subject photographed. Are realist paintings "true" and impressionist or abstract paintings "lies."

Singing Swan

My abstract paintings are not lies. That's really what is going on in my brain at the time :) :) :)

Jim Bob

The line between digital art and a "photograph" is blurred. However, image manipulation is nothing new. Even Ansel Adams dodged and burned, played with exposure time during development, etc. to add impact to his photographs. I did the same when I had a darkroom. I would think that was fairly common during the period before digital.

To me the real question is: what is the photographer attempting to communicate. If one is simply using the camera as a vessel to transmit reality as it exists and is observed by the naked eye (keeping in mind that visual acuity varies between individuals) then that parameter would dictate the level of in camera settings and/or post processing, if any. I usually follow this approach when shooting photos of people.

On the other hand, if one is attempting to add impact,i.e., enhance or minimize the characteristics of the image to draw attention to areas that might be overlooked then a different approach would be utilized. This is where I usually fall when taking nature photographs and landscapes. As an example, take a look at this image: http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/8/2/1438540118883-dsc_0079baseps.jpg I wanted to emphasize color and feather detail so I post -processed with that in mind. We can debate about whether I did a piss poor job which is the subject of another thread. But hopefully the point will be made by the photo.

Finally, if one is using the image as a base only and desires to significantly modify its appearance-think abstract art as an example-then a totally different method of manipulation would be required. I play around with this sometimes, but rarely use it in a finished product.

All of these are equally important to me. The beauty of digital is it makes these options readily available and much easier to exercise than what film allows. My 2 cents.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Everyone always talks about Ansel Adams' darkroom manipulation, but his very process of shooting was an abstraction. We do not see the world in black and white and shades of grey, so that is an abstraction right away. Also, he made heavy use of filters to manipulate tones. In many of his photos, the sky is unnaturally dark to increase contrast against the clouds. Ansel Adams' photos are certainly not an accurate representation of the "real" world.

Jim Bob

Agreed. But this only confirms the observations included in my post.