PP for publication (Page 3): But bringing up shadows or bringing down highlights in the image would be the same as developing a print from negative. Even bringing up something...

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

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.

But bringing up shadows or bringing down highlights in the image would be the same as developing a print from negative. Even bringing up something selectively would be like dodging or burning with a film negative.

old poet

Thanks to all for the interesting comments on my topic. Being faithful to the subject should be the guiding principle.

old poet

Thanks to all for the interesting comments on my topic. Being faithful to the subject should be the guiding principle.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

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.

Your correct in what you say but many, if not most, people just don't seem to understand that all digital images are "manipulated" or "proceeded" so they say a lot of things in error. This used to bother me, too, but I've given up on it in general.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

f8lee wrote:

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.

Certainly rules like those mentioned are the resul... (show quote)

I recall that National Geographic imposed a rule for their photographers that required submission of the raw file along with the final edits to ensure that no deceiving changes had taken place. A luxury they have because NGS owns the rights to the material.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Les Brown wrote:

In other words, it is impossible to submit un-PP images. Also, if as most UHHers advise, we shoot RAW, then can't we submit them as they will have to be manipulated?

Very few, if any, publications or photo labs accept raw files.

Why?

A raw file is likened to a frame of exposed, unprocessed color negative film. It may be converted to a bitmap image and "developed" in infinite ways, by many different applications, all of which interpret the data in different ways.

In the case of labs, they don't support raw files because it would be very difficult to collect software that converts every type of raw file from every model of camera. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to assume that a raw file should "look" a certain way. It was bad enough to assume that, or for a lab to attempt that, back in the days of film and optical printing! (I worked in both film and digital photo lab environments, and attended conferences and seminars with others who did the same. We compared notes over lunch, often!)

True experts at photo adjustment and raw file conversion are expensive. They usually can make FAR more money as commercial photographers than as lab technicians.

Yes, some agencies, forensic organizations, and media editors want an "unedited" image. By that, their intention is most often to avoid all traces of fakery. They don't want images with subjects moved, parts of the scene retouched out, parts of the scene artificially added from other images, etc. For that reason, they may request straight-out-of-camera, un-edited, un-adjusted JPEGs. They are willing to give up some measure of image quality in exchange for more probable authenticity.

SOME of these people will accept JPEGs that are converted and developed from raw files outside the camera. But they are likely to insist you provide an unaltered comparison/verification image from the camera, as a check against unauthorized content manipulation.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

via the lens wrote:

Your correct in what you say but many, if not most, people just don't seem to understand that all digital images are "manipulated" or "proceeded" so they say a lot of things in error. This used to bother me, too, but I've given up on it in general.

Interesting...
I'm not faithful to the way the scene "looked", I adjust for the best aesthetic looks of the image,
which may or may not be the way the scene ACTUALLY looked.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

What is photography to you?

Documentation or photojournalism: It's important to have the subject look like reality. In most cases the placement of items in the image should accurately represent the placement of those items in real life. Color rendition may or may not be important.

Art: What the subject really looked like is completely irrelevant. What's important is what the final image looks like.

Casual photography: Whatever looks good to you.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

What is photography to you?

Documentation or photojournalism: It's important to have the subject look like reality. In most cases the placement of items in the image should accurately represent the placement of those items in real life. Color rendition may or may not be important.

Art: What the subject really looked like is completely irrelevant. What's important is what the final image looks like.

Casual photography: Whatever looks good to you.

I also.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

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.

The vast majority of journals don't say anything to the extent that you describe. Darkening/lightening of areas within the image, adjusting hue and contrast, and cropping is generally accepted.

old poet

You are correct. Sometimes they do not specify the acceptable manipulation, and would accept minimal PP, but some say the minimal, "no electronic manipulation."

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Les Brown wrote:

You are correct. Sometimes they do not specify the acceptable manipulation, and would accept minimal PP, but some say the minimal, "no electronic manipulation."

As opposed to mechanical manipulation???

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DirtFarmer wrote:

What is photography to you?

Documentation or photojournalism: It's important to have the subject look like reality. In most cases the placement of items in the image should accurately represent the placement of those items in real life. Color rendition may or may not be important.

Art: What the subject really looked like is completely irrelevant. What's important is what the final image looks like.

Casual photography: Whatever looks good to you.

I think that's fair and reasonable. I have approached my own photography that way for 50 years.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

burkphoto wrote:

I think that's fair and reasonable. I have approached my own photography that way for 50 years.

Bill P

You are talking about Journals that have in house lawyers, of maybe an experience publishing bogus photos. The person that wrote that qualification probably doesn't know a RAW file from a raw diet. And they probably have to bring in a highschool kid to read the metadata.