Comments on: My Eight Simple Rules for Digital Image Alteration http://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html Professional Photography Blog Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:56:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Scott Bryanthttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15600 Scott Bryant Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:59:33 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15600 Except we are not talking about art. We are talking about journalism when photography is the medium.I blogged a while back about photojournalism as art: http://smallvoiceblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/honestly-im-no-artist.htmlIt's really about communication. You can demonstrate "artfulness" in your medium, whether you are a photographer, writer, graphic artists, etc.The competency and natural talent of the messenger can help facilitate deeper understanding. But the very best journalists are those who become transparent in the communication process. Instead of standing between you and their subjects, you feel that you are standing in the place of the journalist. You, the reader or viewer, become the eye witness.When asked about the artistry of his work during a speech (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/photojournalism-can-become--a-form-of-art-615064.html), James Nachtwey responded:"I am not intending to create art but rather to create a profound human communication..."And to quote from my blog on the issue:"While the artist has few boundaries and the freedom to change or alter what they see if it better expresses their vision, the photojournalist is bound to a code of ethics that include a commitment to fairness and accuracy in all they portray.I think what ultimately distinguishes photojournalists from artists is their fundamental role as witnesses to history. While the artist is a voice who reflects and comments on culture through his or her work, the photojournalist gives a voice to others."Sorry to quote myself. Guess it was easier to cut and paste.Anyway, more food for thought? Except we are not talking about art. We are talking about journalism when photography is the medium.

I blogged a while back about photojournalism as art: http://smallvoiceblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/honestly-im-no-artist.html

It's really about communication. You can demonstrate "artfulness" in your medium, whether you are a photographer, writer, graphic artists, etc.The competency and natural talent of the messenger can help facilitate deeper understanding. But the very best journalists are those who become transparent in the communication process. Instead of standing between you and their subjects, you feel that you are standing in the place of the journalist. You, the reader or viewer, become the eye witness.

When asked about the artistry of his work during a speech (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/photojournalism-can-become--a-form-of-art-615064.html), James Nachtwey responded:

"I am not intending to create art but rather to create a profound human communication..."

And to quote from my blog on the issue:

"While the artist has few boundaries and the freedom to change or alter what they see if it better expresses their vision, the photojournalist is bound to a code of ethics that include a commitment to fairness and accuracy in all they portray.

I think what ultimately distinguishes photojournalists from artists is their fundamental role as witnesses to history. While the artist is a voice who reflects and comments on culture through his or her work, the photojournalist gives a voice to others."

Sorry to quote myself. Guess it was easier to cut and paste.

Anyway, more food for thought?

]]> By: DaWiVahttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15572 DaWiVa Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:44:57 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15572 Thank you Lauren - I am pleased that I am not alone with this........... Thank you Lauren - I am pleased that I am not alone with this...........

]]> By: Laurenhttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15570 Lauren Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:27:59 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15570 @DAWiVA Well said. And I think that just about settles it. @DAWiVA Well said. And I think that just about settles it.

]]> By: DaWiVahttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15544 DaWiVa Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:49:54 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15544 I get up early 0400h, every day. I watch the light change the scenery from a window over the desk in my office. The light changes throughout the day, people come by and go by and I enjoy every moment. While there is somewhat of purist attitude in your statement the best part - the one I truly subscribe to, is "It is as it always has been. Conventional wisdom in art is the rule until someone steps up and changes things. Even Monet and Cezanne were considered too outrageous in their early days until their acceptance became universal" Art includes all the tools, be it a paintbrush, a stick to steady your hand, a filter to change the hue and all that exists now and will come in the future. Snapshots should represent without manipulation, art, on the other hand, belongs to the artist. The viewer either appreciates it or is left to critique it - but it is the art and the artist that survive, Thanks for all you do for our art-form. The articles are very thought provoking! I get up early 0400h, every day. I watch the light change the scenery from a window over the desk in my office. The light changes throughout the day, people come by and go by and I enjoy every moment.
While there is somewhat of purist attitude in your statement the best part - the one I truly subscribe to, is "It is as it always has been. Conventional wisdom in art is the rule until someone steps up and changes things. Even Monet and Cezanne were considered too outrageous in their early days until their acceptance became universal" Art includes all the tools, be it a paintbrush, a stick to steady your hand, a filter to change the hue and all that exists now and will come in the future. Snapshots should represent without manipulation, art, on the other hand, belongs to the artist. The viewer either appreciates it or is left to critique it - but it is the art and the artist that survive,
Thanks for all you do for our art-form. The articles are very thought provoking!

]]> By: Scott Bryanthttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15167 Scott Bryant Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:54:37 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15167 Good policy, except for #5: "I will remove background objects such as trees, telephone poles, and reflections from time to time — as long as the change is minor and never noticed."There's simply no reason to do this for any photograph used in the context of news. Either recompose to eliminate such elements, or present the honest representation of the scene, even if it's imperfect."In the context of news" changes the equation, in my opinion. Just because it's possible to do with film and traditional darkroom techniques doesn't justify certain alterations. It's not 1955 anymore. Without getting into a discussion of personal interpretation and points-of-view (which are givens), public expectations and perceptions for news images are different today.I'm not sure this clarifies anything, but perhaps a very general rule could be something like "Photoshop, or any other digital photo editing application, should be used for image optimization, not enhancement" Optimization for the intended context and viewing environment/medium.Is optimization vs. enhancement a clear concept, or is that another can of worms? Good policy, except for #5:
"I will remove background objects such as trees, telephone poles, and reflections from time to time — as long as the change is minor and never noticed."

There's simply no reason to do this for any photograph used in the context of news. Either recompose to eliminate such elements, or present the honest representation of the scene, even if it's imperfect.

"In the context of news" changes the equation, in my opinion. Just because it's possible to do with film and traditional darkroom techniques doesn't justify certain alterations. It's not 1955 anymore. Without getting into a discussion of personal interpretation and points-of-view (which are givens), public expectations and perceptions for news images are different today.

I'm not sure this clarifies anything, but perhaps a very general rule could be something like "Photoshop, or any other digital photo editing application, should be used for image optimization, not enhancement" Optimization for the intended context and viewing environment/medium.

Is optimization vs. enhancement a clear concept, or is that another can of worms?

]]> By: Frederic Sunehttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15145 Frederic Sune Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:00:25 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15145 I almost follow the same rules except number 2. I like to play with the lighting / exposure.Good post! Thanks for sharing... Frederic I almost follow the same rules except number 2. I like to play with the lighting / exposure.

Good post! Thanks for sharing...
Frederic

]]> By: Aaron Lindberghttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15100 Aaron Lindberg Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:24:42 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15100 I can only think of one area of photography where manipulation can get you fired and that is with photojournalists, other than that it's fair game. I can only think of one area of photography where manipulation can get you fired and that is with photojournalists, other than that it's fair game.

]]> By: David Saxehttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15096 David Saxe Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:19:28 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15096 I am primarily a street photographer however I do recognize the need for others (ie. portrait, wedding, studio photographers) to retouch faces. It's just something I don't do. I am primarily a street photographer however I do recognize the need for others (ie. portrait, wedding, studio photographers) to retouch faces. It's just something I don't do.

]]> By: Javier Ghttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15095 Javier G Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:49:30 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15095 When you say "I never retouch people’s faces — ever." what kind of retouch do you mean? Also what kind of area in photography do you shoot?I do retouch skin, and depending on the final use is how much or how little I retouch skin... When you say "I never retouch people’s faces — ever." what kind of retouch do you mean? Also what kind of area in photography do you shoot?

I do retouch skin, and depending on the final use is how much or how little I retouch skin...

]]> By: Jason Northcutthttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15093 Jason Northcutt Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:19:00 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15093 I agree!!!I grew up with film. Learned on film, and still hand roll my own black and white. However, I do like some of the stronger actions that can be done on a photo with todays technology. Granted it's not on a face, etc, but some landscapes I do like to play with! I agree!!!I grew up with film. Learned on film, and still hand roll my own black and white. However, I do like some of the stronger actions that can be done on a photo with todays technology. Granted it's not on a face, etc, but some landscapes I do like to play with!

]]> By: aepochttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15073 aepoc Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:34:22 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15073 I like the picture you put in the article, David. I'm a little confused, however. You stated that once you changed the background you liked the image a lot more. But in your own simple rules, you mention that you never change the background. I'm guessing you mean completely altering the background, but it was a little confusing anyhow.Good article though. My own views on the subject, I'll do whatever I have to do to the image to make it the way I want people to see it. If that's just a simple contrast adjustment, excellent. If it means taking out reflections, fixing a few scars the model may have, taking out small distractions; so be it.jason.kessenich I like the picture you put in the article, David. I'm a little confused, however. You stated that once you changed the background you liked the image a lot more. But in your own simple rules, you mention that you never change the background. I'm guessing you mean completely altering the background, but it was a little confusing anyhow.

Good article though. My own views on the subject, I'll do whatever I have to do to the image to make it the way I want people to see it. If that's just a simple contrast adjustment, excellent. If it means taking out reflections, fixing a few scars the model may have, taking out small distractions; so be it.

jason.kessenich

]]> By: laurenmhttp://rising.blackstar.com/my-eight-simple-rules-for-digital-image-alteration.html/comment-page-1#comment-15072 laurenm Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:26:58 +0000 http://rising.blackstar.com/?p=12292#comment-15072 Hi Dave, Love your perspective. I am an avid novice (shooting DSLR for less than two years). I'm not nearly as knowledge on the history of photgraphy but just by reading and seeing what is going on around me, I was already subscribing to personal principles about what it means to be a great photographer vs. a person really great at manipulating software (no judging! we all strive for greatness). Can you elaborate a bit more on the "no manipulating light" rule. Does this include exposure? Many thanks! Hi Dave,
Love your perspective. I am an avid novice (shooting DSLR for less than two years). I'm not nearly as knowledge on the history of photgraphy but just by reading and seeing what is going on around me, I was already subscribing to personal principles about what it means to be a great photographer vs. a person really great at manipulating software (no judging! we all strive for greatness). Can you elaborate a bit more on the "no manipulating light" rule. Does this include exposure? Many thanks!

]]>