The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

Ryan McGinnis wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated".

"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)

It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the thing
in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!

w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?

Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.

BugBear

On 1/18/2011 8:23 AM, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated". These folk usually have their noses
held high, and say things like "Yes, I don't have nearly as many keeper
shots over the years as a lot of people do, but I that's because I do it
the hard way instead of taking shortcuts".

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis

The image has always been manipulated. In the old days we would start
by deciding on film to use. E64 or K25 ? Both had their own way
with the captured image.

In the digital age, every single image we see has been manipulated, even
if it is only by the in camera JPEG processor. Purists that avoid
processing are the ones with the flat looking images :-)


Paul

In rec.photo.digital bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

Not to people who think their images are unmanipulated.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In rec.photo.digital bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated".

"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)

It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the thing
in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!

w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?

Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.

I wear glasses. Everything I look at has been manipulated.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On 19/01/2011, Paul J Gans wrote:
In rec.photo.digital bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated".

"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)

It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the
thing in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!

w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?

Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.

I wear glasses. Everything I look at has been manipulated.

Not as much as it would be if you didn't wear them.

In rec.photo.digital N wrote:
On 19/01/2011, Paul J Gans wrote:
In rec.photo.digital bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:

On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:


A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated".

"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)

It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the
thing in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!

w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?

Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.

I wear glasses. Everything I look at has been manipulated.

Not as much as it would be if you didn't wear them.

True, but still...

--
--- Paul J. Gans

In rec.photo.digital Whisky-dave wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:56Â*pm, Paul J Gans wrote:
In rec.photo.digital bugbear wrote:



Ryan McGinnis wrote:
On 1/18/2011 3:10 AM, bugbear wrote:
Ryan McGinnis wrote:

A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
with.

Provocative|? It's stating the very obvious.

Â* Â*BugBear

One would think, but I have had long and fruitless conversations about
this topic with many people who believe that only a slide straight out
of a film camera (or worse, a JPEG straight out of a digital camera) can
truly be considered "manipulated".
Â*"unmanipulated", I assume you meant ;-)
It might be an unmanipulated negative(or slide), but reality/nature/the thing
in from of the lens has already been beaten to a pulp!
w.r.t the scene, what are exposures, apertures, filters, focal lengths
if not manipulations?
Let alone (this is more journalistic than artistic)
deciding *where* to point the camera and *when* to press the shutter.

I wear glasses. Â*Everything I look at has been manipulated.

Everything anyone looks at sees a manipulated image as that's what our
brain
does to make sense of it. Our eyes adjust for colour correction and
brightness
to within certain limits of course. Other creatures see things
differently too.

Of course. As you realized, I was just trying to make the
whole "unmanipulated" discussion go away.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
can you take double exposures with a digital?
Just curious,
Dick

On 2011.01.19 17:50 , dickr2 wrote:
Way back when I was using a Canon T90 film camera, it was easy
to take double or even triple exposures. I have a double exposure
shot of the moon over a California sunset ... somewhere.
Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
can you take double exposures with a digital?

I don't know of a digital camera that does.

OTOH, layers in PS (or other apps) will allow you to do so with relative
ease.

Or of course a multi flash exposure in a dark environment. Hold the
shutter open in the dark - pop flash(es) to make each exposure on the
sensor.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.