Amount of manipulation allowed on this site

[frugal]

I'm curious as to how much digital manipulation is allowed for images posted on this site?

For example, I have done some digital collages in the past but most of the images used were scans of negatives or slides that I shot for the project.

I'm also interested in creating digital images (possibly with analog captured images, possibly created 100% digitally, or some mix), outputting them as negatives to print with an alt process.

I guess what I'm asking is if there is a point where things become "too digital" even if analog processes were used at some point?

[Kerik]

I'm for keeping rules to a minimum. As long as analog is involved in the process, I say show what you got.

[frugal]

I'm for keeping rules to a minimum. As long as analog is involved in the process, I say show what you got.

That was my own thinking, that the site is meant for any process that at least involves analog at some point of the process but I wasn't sure how people would feel about images that are heavily manipulated through digital means.

[Don Bryant]

That was my own thinking, that the site is meant for any process that at least involves analog at some point of the process but I wasn't sure how people would feel about images that are heavily manipulated through digital means.

I have to disagree somewhat about this. Personally most of the time I don't massage or manipulate my images but there are some that I do.

For the images I do manipulate considerably, the changes can't be detected as manapilations. I also think that some people can create very interesting images that are obviously non realistic constructs.

In short as long as the manipulations are done skillfully I don't have a problem with it.

Don Bryant

[frugal]

I have to disagree somewhat about this. Personally most of the time I don't massage or manipulate my images but there are some that I do.

For the images I do manipulate considerably, the changes can't be detected as manapilations. I also think that some people can create very interesting images that are obviously non realistic constructs.

In short as long as the manipulations are done skillfully I don't have a problem with it.

Don Bryant

I agree, for straight photo stuff, my digital work is just used as a way to get good quality prints from slides and the manipulations are just to get an image that matches the original scan as closely as possible.

But I also have done some collage work (a bit by hand but I like the possibilities that digital offers with this) where the end result is obviously a composited piece. In those cases, I might use photos of objects or I might use images for textures. For instance, a few years ago for my final project for the photoshop class I was taking I used several of my own images and a few public domain images from the net as image elements, I also used a few images for textures (including an overexposed, out of focus photo of a funky shag carpet for the background).

[Don Bryant]

I agree, for straight photo stuff, my digital work is just used as a way to get good quality prints from slides and the manipulations are just to get an image that matches the original scan as closely as possible.

But I also have done some collage work (a bit by hand but I like the possibilities that digital offers with this) where the end result is obviously a composited piece. In those cases, I might use photos of objects or I might use images for textures. For instance, a few years ago for my final project for the photoshop class I was taking I used several of my own images and a few public domain images from the net as image elements, I also used a few images for textures (including an overexposed, out of focus photo of a funky shag carpet for the background).

So would the work by photographers like Dan Burkholder or Jerry Uelsman be accepted here? I would hope so.

Don Bryant

[frugal]

So would the work by photographers like Dan Burkholder or Jerry Uelsman be accepted here? I would hope so.

Don Bryant

Well there's some platinum over pigment stuff in the gallery. I'd definitely say yes.

My understanding is that any "hybrid" process that combines analog and digital processes is welcome, I was just wondering if there was a line where things get "too digital".

[Kerik]

Yes, please let's keep the rules to a minimum. Hmmm... who is going to judge weather work is "done skillfully"? Too subjective, IMO.

[frugal]

Yes, please let's keep the rules to a minimum. Hmmm... who is going to judge weather work is "done skillfully"? Too subjective, IMO.

I agree that "done skillfully" is a subjective thing. Obviously I'd love to only see well done stuff but part of the site is for people to get feedback and advice so banning things because they lacked skill seems like a bad idea.

The main reason that I was asking about "too digital" was because there's not really anything inherently analog in any collage work that I do other than the fact that I prefer to use film for "capturing" the images and then scan. Compared to something that might be worked on digitally but is then printed with an alt process.

I think that keeping things loose so that as long as analog was involved at some point in the process is good enough.

[sanking]

Yes, please let's keep the rules to a minimum. Hmmm... who is going to judge weather work is "done skillfully"? Too subjective, IMO.

In fact, there should be only one rule as I understand it, i.e. that the work be hybrid in some way. Whether it is 99-1 analog to digital, or 99-1 digital to analog, should be irrevelant. Whether it starts with digital or film should also be irrevelant.

Digital manipulations is not an issue IMO. A work flow could be almost entirely analog (film ending in a wet-processed print, for example) and be strongly manipulated in the analog or digital phase. Or, a work flow could be heavily digital, and have very little manipulation. I don't see why anyone should be concerned about that here, assuming that the final product is a photograph that reflects the artistic vision of the photographer. Each guy and gal gets to make his/her decisions as to what goes.

Photographers highly concerned with photograhs that *mirror* objective reality, if such a thing exists, will severely limit digital intervention to avoid manipulation or falsification of reality.

Sandy King