PP for publication
Aug 12, 2019 20:40:17 #
Yep! Just an interesting conundrum. Journals will take un manipulated JPEGS. Some will even specify what basic PP allowed.
Aug 12, 2019 21:05:47 #
mwsilvers wrote:
FastStone Viewer is not exactly a super-duper file manipulator. Its free to anyone and easy to use. I have around 4 or 5 others image viewers and file managers on my Windows 10 machine which can do the same thing, including Windows file manager. Here's an another image where I changed the taken date to two days in the future. I used the built in file manager to do it.
Date Taken - I can change that in Windows. Can you change all THREE to be the same?
Aug 12, 2019 22:34:05 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Longshadow wrote:
Date Taken - I can change that in Windows. Can you change all THREE to be the same?
I'm not home right now but I'll give it a shot either later this evening or tomorrow.
Aug 13, 2019 06:09:28 #
Certainly rules like those mentioned are the result of ignorance of the technology on the part of the contest's leadership, but I believe the principle of it is they do not want "overly manipulated" or "faked" images to be submitted. This his not a new problem; here is an article on the topic from 1998:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/05/photography-in-the-age-of-falsification/377107/
And here is the germane section (6 paragraphs down):
"The controversy over digital manipulation has been simmering for some time. It first surfaced in 1982, when National Geographic ran a computer-altered photo of the Pyramids at Giza on its cover. To the traditional adjustments of reality that the photographer had already made -- shooting with a telephoto lens to exaggerate the scale of the Pyramids and persuading three camel riders to pass a second time before those great tombs -- the magazine's editors added a new one: digitally moving the camels backward a few paces.
In 1991 the board of directors of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), noting that emerging electronic technology enabled "the manipulation of the content of an image in such a way that the change is virtually undetectable," adopted a statement of principle: "As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public."
As has been mentioned, raw files are not images (and that is exactly correct, though many on this forum and elsewhere refuse to understand the difference between a raw stream of data and an image file which defines precise RGB values for each pixel of the image) so of course there is no such thing as a digital image that has not been manipulated from its original form. But, while their workding is clumsy for sure, the folks at the contest are no doubt trying to prevent entries that involve wholesale changes - in other words, a submission of an image that never occurred in reality.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/05/photography-in-the-age-of-falsification/377107/
And here is the germane section (6 paragraphs down):
"The controversy over digital manipulation has been simmering for some time. It first surfaced in 1982, when National Geographic ran a computer-altered photo of the Pyramids at Giza on its cover. To the traditional adjustments of reality that the photographer had already made -- shooting with a telephoto lens to exaggerate the scale of the Pyramids and persuading three camel riders to pass a second time before those great tombs -- the magazine's editors added a new one: digitally moving the camels backward a few paces.
In 1991 the board of directors of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), noting that emerging electronic technology enabled "the manipulation of the content of an image in such a way that the change is virtually undetectable," adopted a statement of principle: "As journalists we believe the guiding principle of our profession is accuracy; therefore, we believe it is wrong to alter the content of a photograph in any way that deceives the public."
As has been mentioned, raw files are not images (and that is exactly correct, though many on this forum and elsewhere refuse to understand the difference between a raw stream of data and an image file which defines precise RGB values for each pixel of the image) so of course there is no such thing as a digital image that has not been manipulated from its original form. But, while their workding is clumsy for sure, the folks at the contest are no doubt trying to prevent entries that involve wholesale changes - in other words, a submission of an image that never occurred in reality.
Aug 13, 2019 07:02:13 #
Generally speaking, pictures can be optimized in terms of exposure and color, without manipulations that affect the impact of the photos. For instance, correction of lens vignetting is fine, but darkening or lightening specific areas to draw attention to a face or a certain area of the photograph, for example, is not allowed. Manipulation of pixels, such as removing, adding, altering or moving objects, is a complete no-no.
Aug 13, 2019 07:13:56 #
Aug 13, 2019 07:14:20 #
Les Brown wrote:
Some journals say photos submitted may have NO electronic enhancement. If JPEG is manipulated in the camera, should they be disqualified? If this is true, only RAW un-manipulated photos would qualify. Oh, I know they will accept JPEGs, but I thought this is an interesting, likely unimportant, conundrum.
Do you mean manipulated in-camera by the photographer? I wonder how they could tell, and would it be worth their time to examine all photos in such detail.
I like your comment, "likely unimportant, conundrum."
Aug 13, 2019 07:17:01 #
kymarto wrote:
Generally speaking, pictures can be optimized in terms of exposure and color, without manipulations that affect the impact of the photos. For instance, correction of lens vignetting is fine, but darkening or lightening specific areas to draw attention to a face or a certain area of the photograph, for example, is not allowed. Manipulation of pixels, such as removing, adding, altering or moving objects, is a complete no-no.
So were this the age of film, no dodging and burning? I understand from a journalistic standpoint that manipulation should be limited, but lightening or darkening is really just selectively adjusting exposure to create a clearer image from a scene that had uneven lighting.
Aug 13, 2019 07:20:40 #
Les Brown wrote:
Some journals say photos submitted may have NO electronic enhancement. If JPEG is manipulated in the camera, should they be disqualified? If this is true, only RAW un-manipulated photos would qualify. Oh, I know they will accept JPEGs, but I thought this is an interesting, likely unimportant, conundrum.
IMHO, the requirement to getting unprocessed jpegs out of the camera is to prevent some of the less that professional image enhancements that amateurs and enthusiasts are prone to making in an effort to define their "style" - or direct elimination or replacement of elements in the scene, in an effort to create a nicer image. The usual contrast, black and white levels, saturation, sharpening, contrast, noise reduction, when done correctly do not substantially change the image - these adjustments just make the image look a bit more finished. Each journal has their rules and they usually vary from one to another.
So to answer your question - jpegs are fine and direct conversions from raw files without manipulation should be fine, especially if the camera mfgr's software is used, which mimics the camera settings.
Aug 13, 2019 07:22:35 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
CHG_CANON wrote:
Just send them a mental image directly from your mind ...
Aug 13, 2019 07:46:37 #
Gene51 wrote:
IMHO, the requirement to getting unprocessed jpegs... (show quote)
Gene, a very reasonable answer. But I wonder how you feel about other ways an image can be "manipulated", with lighting for example, or simply with the criteria you use for selecting from a set.
I'm thinking about unflattering images used in political ads, most of which are clearly not "real".
Aug 13, 2019 07:49:17 #
Longshadow wrote:
I think they'll go with date created=date taken=date modified attributes.
I think they'll go with date created=date taken=date modified attributes.
EXIF data can be changed.
Aug 13, 2019 07:55:42 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
EXIF data can be changed.
Can all three be changed???
(I've no idea as I don't use an EXIF editor.)
Aug 13, 2019 08:18:28 #
mwsilvers wrote:
I'm not home right now but I'll give it a shot either later this evening or tomorrow.
I'd appreciate that.
Aug 13, 2019 09:44:25 #
Longshadow wrote:
Can all three be changed???
(I've no idea as I don't use an EXIF editor.)
(I've no idea as I don't use an EXIF editor.)
I believe so. I used to use ExifPilot but it quit working on Win10. It did work on all three so there must be other programs that work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_digital_image_metadata_editors
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.