Photo or Manip - GFXartist.com - Served over 20,000,000 artworks

Back to forum overview

Back to topics

Photo or Manip
emarts \| 04/30/2008 @815 \| edit post

I'm working on this image and I'm wondering which category to put it in. Personally, I'd like it to go in the photography section when I'm done with it.

Click here to see it unsquished:
http://images.gfxartist.com/images/ArtworkItem/full/166273.jpg

Re: Photo or Manip
Wysiwyg \| 04/30/2008 @829 \| edit post

Having only one picture to judge by (you only provided one) I can't tell what, if anything, has been changed/tweaked.

[Message edited on 04/30 @830]

Re: Photo or Manip
emarts \| 04/30/2008 @833 \| edit post

Well, you see, that's the point. I don't want to showcase the manip. But, I'll let you in on it. The car is not moving. And it's a tone mapped HDR image. I'm going to work on the windows next to remove the reflections and so that the interior is more obscured.

[Message edited on 04/30 @834]

Re: Photo or Manip
Raphael \| 04/30/2008 @929 \| edit post

I think you know where the image really belongs Sam, and that's why you posted the question, hoping to get a different answer to the one you came up with yourself.

The amount of alteration of the original image clearly make this a 'Manipulation'. (HDR well and truly aside)

I think the question you really need to be asking yourself is: Why do you want to publish it in Photography and/or not in Photomanipulation,

Whether you post that answer here or not. Answer yourself honestly.

You could, of course, publish the unaltered photo in the Photography section, maybe with a link to the Manip in the description.

Personally I'd like to see more of that from the Photographers, it'd give more insight as to the separate creative processes involved

[Message edited on 04/30 @931]

Re: Photo or Manip
Byonder \| 05/01/2008 @027 \| edit post

It's a single photo, therefore photography.

And round and round we go...

Re: Photo or Manip
emarts \| 05/01/2008 @142 \| edit post

_quote:
Raphael wrote on 04/30 @929
I think you know where the image really belongs Sam, and that's why you posted the question, hoping to get a different answer to the one you came up with yourself.

The amount of alteration of the original image clearly make this a 'Manipulation'. (HDR well and truly aside)

I think the question you really need to be asking yourself is: Why do you want to publish it in Photography and/or not in Photomanipulation,

Whether you post that answer here or not. Answer yourself honestly.

You could, of course, publish the unaltered photo in the Photography section, maybe with a link to the Manip in the description.

Personally I'd like to see more of that from the Photographers, it'd give more insight as to the separate creative processes involved

Please read my blog for the reasons why I believe this image belongs in Photography and NOT Photo-manipulation.\:
http://emarts.gfxartist.com/blog

The reason I am asking is precisely because there has been so much banter over what is and what is not a manip. I haven't posted in a long time, and I didn't want to cause too much offense.

Honestly, I make my living as a photo-retoucher (I hate the word manipulation; I prefer image editing), and I get plenty of real critiques of my retouching work at work. What I really want is honest critiques of my art, which includes elements of photography, manipulation and illustration. The end result of my work is a continuous-tone image, commonly referred to as a PHOTOGRAPH. I am not making any claims to the reality of the photo (that would make it an editorial photo). Perhaps, because it contains a logo, this whole thing should fall under DESIGN?

If I had actually taken the photo as the car drove past, would it still be a photo? Does the manipulation of the image outweigh it's real qualities, such as color, composition, balance and theme? I'm not trying to fool anyone and I would share my techniques with anyone who asked. But to me, it's still and always will be a photo. Even if I were told to post it in manipulation.

[Message edited on 05/01 @146]

Re: Photo or Manip
Raphael \| 05/01/2008 @313 \| edit post

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
Please read my blog for the reasons why I believe this image belongs in Photography and NOT Photo-manipulation.\:
http://emarts.gfxartist.com/blog

I have read your blog and at no point does it say why you feel Manipulation is evil, which seems to be your reason for not wanting to place a clearly manipulated (or edited) image in the Photomanipulation section.

This, I think, is your problem. Photographers have been calling Photomanipulation "evil" and "cheating" for so long that when they've started doing it themselves they don't want to be 'tarred with the 'Manipulation brush'.

Some of us knew from the beginning that what you are trying to argue about photographs just being photographs was true, but we embraced it and didn't start labelling simple tools as "Evil".

It was the photographers that demanded such "Evil" be disassociated with "True Photography" and there be a different definition for it. Now your all choking on it.

You've edited specifically selected areas of the image to substantially alter it to represent an inaccurate representation of the original scene. It's a photomanipulation.

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
The reason I am asking is precisely because there has been so much banter over what is and what is not a manip. I haven't posted in a long time, and I didn't want to cause too much offense.

Just because there has been banter doesn't mean a manipulated image is in any way less manipulated.

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
What I really want is honest critiques of my art, which includes elements of photography, manipulation and illustration. The end result of my work is a continuous-tone image, commonly referred to as a PHOTOGRAPH.

And why do you feel you won't get such honest critiques of your art in the Photomanipulation section? Is it because only Evil people hang out there?
And Even in capitals that definition would be commonly referred to as a DIGITAL IMAGE. A non-manipulated digital photograph would be one type of such.

A Photograph is a manipulation of light upon a medium, not the manipulation of pixels within editing software, that is a Photomanipulation.

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
If I had actually taken the photo as the car drove past, would it still be a photo?

Yes, it would, see, you do understand.

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
Does the manipulation of the image outweigh it's real qualities, such as color, composition, balance and theme?

No it doesn't. Why do YOU believe that posting it in the Photomaniplation section would mean that? This is what I'd like to know.

_quote:
emarts wrote on 05/01 @142
I'm not trying to fool anyone and I would share my techniques with anyone who asked.

Yes? And? So? What? Photomanipulation doesn't require 'intent to deceive', it only requires that you manipulate a photo to represent something other than what was in the original photograph. ie A motionless car to a car in motion.

[Message edited on 05/01 @332]

Re: Photo or Manip
Gigoman \| 05/01/2008 @497 \| edit post

from what I can hear, it's should be posted in photo manipulation. The real problem with this issue is that heavy manipulation lies within the photo manipulation category. This is a problem, because people cannot tell where to draw the line and classify it as heavy editing. I class this as heavy editing, thus it belongs in the photo manipulation category. And I thank you for reading my views on this. *bows and leaves*.

Re: Photo or Manip
Byonder \| 05/01/2008 @560 \| edit post

Raphael, your definition of photography is so rigorously unyielding that the category might as well be eliminated altogether. Cloning / healing is manipulation, color adjustments are manipulation, blah blah blah... it doesn't even seem to be about art at all, but about the same ridiculous semantics game that

Mork plays. How exactly is this useful as far as art is concerned?

Re: Photo or Manip
emarts \| 05/01/2008 @571 \| edit post

Raphael, you post really good points and for the most part I would agree with you. But I don't think you really understand my point. Firstly, I don't consider photo-manipulation evil. I was just stating that the term connotes negativity and that many people when confronted with it automatically assume that the artist is hiding something. People demand to see the EXIF data.

You said:
"It was the photographers that demanded such "Evil" be disassociated with "True Photography" and there be a different definition for it. Now your all choking on it."

Isn't that a bit of a generalization. You got data to prove that?

You ask, "And why do you feel you won't get such honest critiques of your art in the Photomanipulation section? Is it because only Evil people hang out there?"

Give me a break. I meant that I am not interested in comments about the manipulation. I'm more interested in critiques of the image itself. It's not about how I made it. It's about what I made.

I asked, "Does the manipulation of the image outweigh it's real qualities, such as color, composition, balance and theme?"

You replied, "No it doesn't. Why do YOU believe that posting it in the Photomaniplation section would mean that? This is what I'd like to know."

Because (and perhaps I'm wrong) placing it in photomanipulation, emphasizes the technique. I don't want to read, "You did a good job with the radial blur." I want to read, "Hey, nice idea using a fisheye lens to give the image a more dynamic effect." Or even, "I think the sun's glare is distracting."

If we get caught up in the semantics of definitions and play hard-ball, then really, almost none of the artwork in the painting category can be called a painting. They are digital manipulations of pixels designed to look like a painting. If I were to paint something wonderful by hand and then added a canvas texture filter to it, would it then be a manipulation? I think most people would consider it still a painting.

Anyway, if more people seem to think that it should be in the photomanipulation category, I will put it there.

[Message edited on 05/01 @573]

Re: Photo or Manip
emarts \| 05/01/2008 @575 \| edit post

One more thing. I get the same attitudes from the snobbish art elites who believe anything digital is not art. That any artwork created electronically has very little value and cannot be considered art.

Simply defining a work based on how it's created is short-sighted and arrogant.

Re: Photo or Manip
Raphael \| 05/01/2008 @600 \| edit post

I'm sorry Brandon, regardless of my personal opinion as to what constitutes Photomanipulation (Not of Photography, it's ALL Photography to me, manipulated or otherwise). I don't ever see how changing a photo of a static car into a moving one. Manipulating one image into a totally different one is ever not going to come under GFX 's Photomanipulation heading. Unless of course we do as Mort asks and remove Photomanipulation all together.

Will get back to your points when I get home Emarts.

[Message edited on 05/02 @311]

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

@679: LoStSidE
@679: XeriuX
@679: davy-filth
@678: LordSparko
@678: purplerose
@677: zaclab
@676: kierjuno
@676: clownsed

Web GFXartist.com