Photomanip Category Redefinition - GFXartist.com - Served over 20,000,000 artworks

Back to forum overview

Back to topics

1 2 3

Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/07/2008 @832 \| edit post

First off thanks to all of those who gave input on the Design and Drawing threads. That feedback combined with previous discussions and personal experiences will help tremendously in redefining those categories.

I can say that I’m dead set on not just having written descriptions in the FAQ. Items that seem to be a continual source of confusion (reproduction/reference) will also have visual examples to accompany them.

------------------------

Now back to business

The photomanipulation section is probably the most debated. This thread is no different. Please post your thoughts on what IS manipulation…not focus on what isn’t.

If you disagree with a posted definition, then come up with one of your own…if you wish to rip apart someone else’s definition, you better have one of your own, or I will edit the message out for the sake of keeping the thread clean and to the point for ease of reference later.

Basically, if you have nothing constructive to say….then don’t type anything

Points to ponder.

Traditional wet photo and digital photo manipulation techniques.
Combination of elements
Color shifts
Enhancement…when is the line drawn?
HDR
Typography
Focus of the image

Please try to keep it to one or two paragraphs.

This thread will be closed on Saturday pm EST (-5 GMT)

Help make this your community.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/07/2008 @837 \| edit post

It should also be mentioned (again) that the programmers are not readily available. So the addition, subtraction, and even renaming of the category and it's subcategories isn't in the near future. This is about making the best of what we have to work with.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
purplerose \| 04/07/2008 @855 \| edit post

Photo manipulation involves the use of heavy post editing in a digital program or traditionally that completely changes the look, feel and effect of the image when compared to the original image(s).

This includes:

Combining several pictures into one photo to create a composite image. (This does not include tonal shifts that are often present in HDRs)
Pasting elements in a photo that were originally not there. (not including text)
Cloning out of objects of a photo that are considerably larger than something the size of a dust speck (i.e. a tree stump or a branch).
Editing the background of a photo to make it completely black or another color.
Blurring parts of a photo that is not done in camera.

I have a longer explanation of what I consider what is and what is not a photomanipulation in one of those infamous photomanip "argument" threads.

Found it: question regarding photography and manipulation It's my second post in the thread.

[Message edited on 04/07 @857]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
pyrokid \| 04/07/2008 @862 \| edit post

To describe photo manipulation you must forst understand what manipulate means. In terms of people it means to make someone to do something or think something to suit your needs I think photo manipulation should be treated the same way:

I think that aslong as the actuall manipulation is there to see like a cyborg fish, or a human techy thingy. As long as the manipulation is quite obviousitt should be posted into the photo manip category however if you make only subtle changes(includes HDR because the camera does most of the work) you shouldn't post it into the photo-manipulation. And I think if you don't need to use a image editing suite to make your image you shouldn't post it into the photo-manipulation category.(I may edit this as I forgot to press the posst reply(der) button the first time and exited the tab.)

P.S
@wysiwig How the hell do you pronounce your gfx name, i'ts been bugging me for ages now. I keep of thinking of dj's scrathing disks when i see it. its driving me crazy.

[Message edited on 04/07 @863]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
emarts \| 04/07/2008 @865 \| edit post

{Hope you don't mind my pasting from my blog}

Photography vs Photo-manipulation
I want to get the differentiation out of the way first because when it comes to the quality issues, they will overlap, if not be identical.

What makes an image a photo or a manip? Well, I've done some asking around of professional retouchers (and of course I have my own ideas) and the general concensus -- and I'm surprised that there was a consensus -- comes down to the intent of the photographer/manipulator (I prefer the term Photo Editor as manipulation sounds negative and with evil intent). The process to a great photograph starts with the click of the shutter. But even before then, the Photographer has made a few critical decisions that will affect the outcome of the image. In the strictest sense of the term, manipulation starts here: What aperture should I use? Should I add a filter? How long should I expose the image? Should I try zooming or panning effects?

The term "straight out of the camera" gets tossed about as if any image just comes straight out of the camera. In fact, the closest to straight out of the camera is probably slide film, and only if you don't cross-process it.

So manipulation really begins at the start. So should we consider every image to be a manipulation? Hardly. We need to talk about the intent of the artist. When I take a photo, I think it would be nice if I could just click the image, and bang! the most brilliant photograph is created. But I have a retouching background, and to me, every photo can be helped by some kind of post work. Whether it's to correct bad exposure, to remove a wrinkle, to add other pleasing elements. But the majority of the time when I click that shutter, I want to say something about what it is I am capturing onto the tiny little CCD thingy-whatsit inside the camera. I want to tell a story, describe a mood, put something (or someone) in a positive light. I want the viewer to get caught up in the image, not so much in the creation of the image. So even if I take a hat from one picture and put it on the head of a person in another picture (Sweet Melissa), or soften an image to stress a mood (Perchance to Dream), or add detail to correct a flaw (Prehistory -- in this image the eye was brought it from another photo because the original eye was too much out of focus), the intent is to for the viewer to see and relate to the image.

On the other hand, if I the manipulation itself is part of the theme to the image (Ghost Porsche), or I am showing my skill as a retoucher through use of before and after images (Enlighten), then the intent is to showcase the manipulation. To bring attention to the manipulation.

Outside of GFXArtist.com, many manipulated photos exist (and I suppose inside too) to fool the viewer into thinking it represents the real world. Here though, since we are all artists and come here for the teaching/learning environment, I think showing off the manipulation is a celebration of the art form. So keep in mind you audience here. They are not the general public. Many of them are you peers with the same experiences and education as you. Speak to them like a king would speak to a king -- with mutual respect. Place your image with this audience in mind. Do you want them to be engaged in the image or do you want them to be in awe with the technique? Neither is wrong. But putting the image in the right category is the first step to getting the comments you seek.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/07/2008 @888 \| edit post

Good stuff guys, keep it coming.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Millink \| 04/07/2008 @907 \| edit post

Give me one reason why HDR photography isnt photo manipulation? Whatever way you interpret it: its blending several photos together. It happends to be the same setting etc, but its still heavy manipulation...

Why should we treat HDR different? Because a lot of elites and renown GFXers are using it?

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
pyrokid \| 04/07/2008 @913 \| edit post

@millink, We shouldn't treat HDR photography as photo manipulation because the camera really does all the work and theres not much of a difference in a normal vs. HDR image(except the color contrast etc..) photo manipulation is manipulating, not changing saturation levels and so on...

And instead of asking questions you should give reasons.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
emarts \| 04/07/2008 @916 \| edit post

HDR is a way to overcome the inability for the camera to capture a wide dynamic range. No different really than choosing from a variety of film. One day, HDR will be built into new cameras and you'll be able to capture them with one click, within one image. Should it be manipulation until that occurs?

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Millink \| 04/08/2008 @368 \| edit post

My problem with HDR photography is that you really create the image afterwards. You have 1 avarage photo, 1 underexposed and one overexposed photo (if Im right that is!) and you create one gorgeous looking photo. So the real photo-making is afterwards. To me thats a whole lot different then shifting levels or work on saturation. Then you start with a good image from the start. And the only thing you are doing is optimizing your photo (which was good from the start).

My biggest problem however is the simple fact that your using several photo's. To me it still is like a collage... The image just happends to fit closely together.

And I get what emarts is saying... And I dont know a straight answer to that. Until that day its still on a thin line between the two categorys... The several-image thing is my real problem....

But I think Im the only one with doubts... So time to close HDR I reckon

And oh yeah Pyrokid: asking questions can be the most important thing in discussions, some bloke named Socrates (ever heard of the guy?) even came up with a whole theory about it! Plus your argument: your using a camera isnt a whole lot of argumentation.... I think we can dig deeper in this subject then what youre doing.

@ Brett

What do you mean by 'focus of the image' ?

[Message edited on 04/08 @369]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Raphael \| 04/08/2008 @479 \| edit post

@ Pyrokid: WYSIWYG stands for What You See Is What You Get and is generally pronounced 'Wizz-e-wig'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/08/2008 @551 \| edit post

Re: focus of the image.

I had made a statement that manip was the case when you can clearly tell that the edited parts were the focus of the image

...or the fact that edits were made became the focus of the image, however you want to phrase it.

In that case, oversaturated HDR color could fall into that category I'd imagine, though I would rather it not (personally.)

Keep this discussion going!

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Mork \| 04/08/2008 @654 \| edit post

Photo-manipulation is:

controlling how light enters the camera
everything you do to the exposure
how the viewer is manipulated by the photo (by itself or by which context.it is presented)

I'm sorry if you don't have the brains..

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/08/2008 @700 \| edit post

_quote:
Mork wrote on 04/08 @654
Photo-manipulation is:

controlling how light enters the camera
everything you do to the exposure
how the viewer is manipulated by the photo (by itself or by which context.it is presented)
I'm sorry if you don't have the brains..

Well insults will sure win an argument

Seems you look down on those who don't get your message....I look down on those who have to explain things in a cryptic manner.

The ability to convey your message in a manner that all can understand is a true art. Making insults to those who don't 'get your point' is just a way to compensate an inability to make your point clear.

------------------------

This is an open discussion....an additional statements of a malicious nature will result in their removal...in addition, I will edit out any contribution to this thread by the same author.

You can't play nice....you can't play at all.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Millink \| 04/08/2008 @724 \| edit post

@ Mork

.... - get serious, at least try to draw a line.. You mean this is just a photo?:

Just because it happens to be taken with a camera its a photo? Get real...

After I drew a drawing, and I add paint to it, will it stay a drawing? If I add a few small lines, yes, if I paint all over the place, no.

The line is extremely subjective in this matter. Im sorry Brett, im of no help.

Im thinking of something concrete... Im working on that alright?

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
pyrokid \| 04/08/2008 @804 \| edit post

@morks previous reply. My problem with HDR imagery is that the actuall outcome is pretty much the same as a normall image but is just showing higlights and shadows more vividly. Thats to most people isn't seen as image manipulation.

P.S. The reason i asked you to give a bit of the answer was because I didn't understand fully the question is too unspecific (well to me). Just that it would help.

[Message edited on 04/08 @805]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Byonder \| 04/08/2008 @809 \| edit post

_quote:
Mork wrote on 04/08 @654
Photo-manipulation is:

controlling how light enters the camera
everything you do to the exposure
how the viewer is manipulated by the photo (by itself or by which context.it is presented)
I'm sorry if you don't have the brains..

Holy crap on toast! When are you going to quit this amazingly pedantic dissection of the term? When this site mentions "Photo manipulation" it is referring to "Photo compositing." You already know this. GET OVER IT.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/08/2008 @833 \| edit post

Cool it Brandon.

Back on subject.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Mork \| 04/08/2008 @842 \| edit post

_quote:
Byonder wrote on 04/08 @809
Holy crap on toast! When are you going to quit this amazingly pedantic dissection of the term? When this site mentions "Photo manipulation" it is referring to "Photo compositing." You already know this. GET OVER IT.

*sigh*.. Yes, I'd better spend my time creating more images then quarreling on the net. So I retire. But Byonder, do you always have to sound so angered? Calm a bit down, for your own sake at least?

Good bye.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
JordanRoots \| 04/08/2008 @869 \| edit post

What is a photomanipulation:

an image that is composed of different elements taken from actual photos.
a photo that was edited so that it shows another concept or meaning.
a photo that was painted on so as to add some more elements to it.
a painting that has textures directly taken from photos.
a photo that underwent excessive use of editing tools and that it becomes too apparent that the artist used them.

What is not a photomanip:

a photo that is almost identical to the original, except that some parts are edited to be brighter, darker, blurrier, sharper, cropped, changed to black and white, (HDR included), etc.
a reproduction of a photo is not a photomanip but a painting. (I think it should be tolerated as it helps the artist to practice their realism skills. It should not be painted over the photo however, although it's very hard to prove.)
a photo that a person not knowing much about photography would not immediately guess it was edited since the editing is plausible.

[Message edited on 04/08 @882]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
JordanRoots \| 04/08/2008 @878 \| edit post

Here's an example of photomanip.
The image manipulation was done by

acidlullaby and can be found here: http://acidlullaby.deviantart.com/art/Spring-Light-81959889
I hope she won't mind me using her work to explain my definition.

What's makes this picture a photomanip:

The very strong blur effect everywhere, especially about her hair.
the addition of flowers in her hair that makes the picture not immediately identical to the original.
the removal of the door handle in the background.
the addition of the green color in her eyes.

*****edit

Oh, and I would strongly advise photomanipulators to follow acidlullaby's method by asking the author of the original photo permission to use it. Also, credit ~~should~~ must ALWAYS be mentionned in the description.

[Message edited on 04/08 @881]

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Almost-Human \| 04/08/2008 @954 \| edit post

For me it s simple, if it can be done in a conventional Darkroom its a photograph..

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Wysiwyg \| 04/08/2008 @957 \| edit post

_quote:
Almost-Human wrote on 04/08 @954
For me it s simple, if it can be done in a conventional Darkroom its a photograph..

Even if you make a photocomposite in the darkroom in post editing? Overlaying negatives and what not? Using various items to create the illusion of texture?

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Juro \| 04/09/2008 @984 \| edit post

_quote:
Millink wrote on 04/08 @724
@ Mork

.... - get serious, at least try to draw a line.. You mean this is just a photo?:

[image]

Just because it happens to be taken with a camera its a photo? Get real...

After I drew a drawing, and I add paint to it, will it stay a drawing? If I add a few small lines, yes, if I paint all over the place, no.

The line is extremely subjective in this matter. Im sorry Brett, im of no help.

Im thinking of something concrete... Im working on that alright?

Yes, that is just a photo of a rip in the time space continuum.

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Almost-Human \| 04/09/2008 @009 \| edit post

Even if you make a photocomposite in the darkroom in post editing? Overlaying negatives and what not? Using various items to create the illusion of texture?

Hummmmmm.. well, its just a very simply well of defining it !
But as you know this wont be easy.....

Re: Photomanip Category Redefinition
Raphael \| 04/09/2008 @034 \| edit post

I've always felt that Photomanipulation is anything that has been done to photographs that could have be done by someone other than the person that released the shutter.

Everyone always seem to assume that it's the Photographers that Manip the shots. To me that is a case of one person doing 2 jobs.

I've been a 'Photomanipulator' as part of my trade for 16 years, I am generally handed a specifically hired photographer's shots and/or stock imagery to produce the work from.

Example: One of our clients wanted photos of their hot tubs in varying locations (Beach, Field, Garden, Moorland.) in their brochure. We hired a photographer to shoot the tubs in studio, bought stock images of the locations and I manipulated the images to put the tubs in place, including reflections, ambient and reflected light etc, so that you could not tell we hadn't shipped the tubs to location and had them shot there.

@Mork so who's the 'photographer' of such finished images then, within your definition?

Topic closed

1 2 3

Read the Terms of use and Privacy Statement.
This site is a property of Brothers in art For more information and support, contact .

@695: LoStSidE
@694: Wallace
@694: davy-filth
@694: simpy
@694: freerider
@693: satorm
@693: kongart
@692: shidohell
@692: ARTOONATOR
@691: Maddagone

Web GFXartist.com