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?

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

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.

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

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).

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

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".

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

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.

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

Manipulated like, say, printing a photograph in black and white, when we know good and well that the scene in real life was in color? I hope no one does anything so blatantly false.

I began to think more about this and I realized that it's not the "hybrid" point that becomes a sticking point but possibly the "photo" part. I think we can agree that "hybrid" refers to some mix of analog and digital in the process, we don't really care what the ratio is as long as both are involved somewhere in the process.

Now, is there a point where manipulating a photo (or set of photos) makes it no longer a "photo" (I know some say it becomes "illustration"). Is there going to be that distinction here and if there is, where do we draw the line?

I began to think more about this and I realized that it's not the "hybrid" point that becomes a sticking point but possibly the "photo" part. I think we can agree that "hybrid" refers to some mix of analog and digital in the process, we don't really care what the ratio is as long as both are involved somewhere in the process.

Now, is there a point where manipulating a photo (or set of photos) makes it no longer a "photo" (I know some say it becomes "illustration"). Is there going to be that distinction here and if there is, where do we draw the line?

I think that is a reasonable question, that is when does a photo become an illustration. I suppose that is something the viewer must decide.

Like Kerik and Sandy have suggested, making rules trying to define what is acceptable is really unnecessary or undesirable.

My comment about skillful maniluation is subjective, but based on my observation of really bad PS technique I've seen in local gallerires. Halos around masked objects, hard edges around cut and pasted elements, etc.

Anyway the key is to be flexible and not get uptight with how others work.

Don Bryant

Manipulated like, say, printing a photograph in black and white, when we know good and well that the scene in real life was in color? I hope no one does anything so blatantly false.

Well that would then eliminate any digital capture in RGB and then printed in RGB onto the new paper by Ilford.
That is exactly how I am working on a project right now. I am also shooting only colour negative reala. and then converting it to black and white fiber prints.
I am a bit greedy since I want to ultimately print colour gum over platinum with these same images but as well make some silver fibre images.At this point I am not sure but I want my options open.

This brings up a interesting point. How do we as photographers see.
I mentally convert a colour scene to black and white without the aids of filters. When I am imaging I am looking for overall lighting contrast as well as elements of the scene that will create local contrast.
I have never converted the scene to greyscale at the time of exposure. Is this how others work or do you use filters in front of your eyes or do you convert to greyscale if you are shooting digital?

Bob, I shoulda put a smilie face next to that post. My point is that even 'pure' black and white photography is an abstraction from reality. The closer you look, the fuzzier that line gets!


Well that would then eliminate any digital capture in RGB and then printed in RGB onto the new paper by Ilford.
That is exactly how I am working on a project right now. I am also shooting only colour negative reala. and then converting it to black and white fiber prints.
I am a bit greedy since I want to ultimately print colour gum over platinum with these same images but as well make some silver fibre images.At this point I am not sure but I want my options open.

This brings up a interesting point. How do we as photographers see.
I mentally convert a colour scene to black and white without the aids of filters. When I am imaging I am looking for overall lighting contrast as well as elements of the scene that will create local contrast.
I have never converted the scene to greyscale at the time of exposure. Is this how others work or do you use filters in front of your eyes or do you convert to greyscale if you are shooting digital?

Most any mix of traditional and digital is fine and dandy. Collages and even things that become digital illustrations are ok if thay contain both digital and traditional components.

Rules on limiting the degree of manipulation tend not to work unless they are absolute; either anything goes or no fudging allowed. Even then it is probably better to allow free rein provided the manipulations are fully declared.

Maybe I'm just touchy but I don't mind being entertained by a highly manipulated picture but I loathe being deceived by one.

After due consideration of all posts, extensive investigation of all variables and an extensive period of reflection, I don't really care too much what processes are used to create a photograph.

snip snip
Now, is there a point where manipulating a photo (or set of photos) makes it no longer a "photo" (I know some say it becomes "illustration"). Is there going to be that distinction here and if there is, where do we draw the line?

I would hope that such a line isn't drawn. Every artist has their own vision and the means to realise it. There are many examples of photographic artists constructing their images from multiple negs onto the base board. Often (e.g. Jerry Uelsman, as stated) these are obviously fantasy, but this shouldn't be a criterion and there is no reason (IMO) why they can't look realistic, as long as not passed off as photojournalistic. I made multiple neg prints for years, sometimes it was deliberately obvious, sometimes not, but it wasn't an issue as in the latter case they were mostly unidentifiable landscapes. I (and many others) could blend different foregrounds, mid grounds, backgrounds and skies into one and I don't see the arrival of digital editing fundamentally changes anything other than the methodology
Tim

Snip snip
Maybe I'm just touchy but I don't mind being entertained by a highly manipulated picture but I loathe being deceived by one.

I agree and I think this is a key point Maris
Tim