Manipulated/Non Manipulated Photographs

[TheFathersCreation]

Can someone explain the difference to me? I shoot all of my photos in raw so therefore I think that they are manipulated photographs. Please explain the difference for me. Thanks and God bless!

[candleman]

IMHO RAW is not manipulation.

manipulation is when we start altering the actual content of an image.

EG.
Photojournalists are not allowed to alter the content of an image (adding a ball that wasnt there)
but they are allowed to make contrast, sharpness & saturation corrections.

when you shoot jpeg the camera creates a raw file, processes it and spits out a jpeg.
when doing Raw conversion all you are doing is taking that decision making process away from the camera and into your own hands.

[Tittan]

As one who's been using Photoshop since 1997, I think I would like to use one of my first posts here on this forum to give my answer to this. Note: This is my personal opinion, and it might differ from other peoples opinions.

You shoot in RAW, and then you convert it to TIFF/JPG or some other format. This is not manipulation. (If this was manipulating your photo, you could say that developing 35mm film is manipulation as well.)

You fix the white balance, adjust levels, add a S-curve, fine tune the colours, and other small tricks you've got up your sleeve. This is not manipulation. (Things you can do "easily" in a dark room)

You clone out something that shouldn't be in the frame. This is borderline manipulation. You could've waited for the item/person to move out from the frame, but perhaps the light would go bad, or the object you wanted in your frame might have moved.

You clone out a person who was there (this is done a lot by newspapers, and politicians in dictatorships, among others). This is manipulation.

You shoot more than one frame of the same item/situation/person, and use parts from different frames to make one frame to show people. This is manipulation.

You add an item/person that wasn't there. This is manipulation.

You add random filters you can from the drop down menu in Photoshop, creating "art". This is not manipulation, it's ugly and evil and should stop!


But, as stated above - these are only my £0.02

[lputman]

Originally Posted by Tittan

You add random filters you can from the drop down menu in Photoshop, creating "art". This is not manipulation, it's ugly and evil and should stop!

Too funny!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Tittan

As one who's been using Photoshop since 1997, I think I would like to use one of my first posts here on this forum to give my answer to this. Note: This is my personal opinion, and it might differ from other peoples opinions.

You shoot in RAW, and then you convert it to TIFF/JPG or some other format. This is not manipulation. (If this was manipulating your photo, you could say that developing 35mm film is manipulation as well.)

You fix the white balance, adjust levels, add a S-curve, fine tune the colours, and other small tricks you've got up your sleeve. This is not manipulation. (Things you can do "easily" in a dark room)

You clone out something that shouldn't be in the frame. This is borderline manipulation. You could've waited for the item/person to move out from the frame, but perhaps the light would go bad, or the object you wanted in your frame might have moved.

You clone out a person who was there (this is done a lot by newspapers, and politicians in dictatorships, among others). This is manipulation.

You shoot more than one frame of the same item/situation/person, and use parts from different frames to make one frame to show people. This is manipulation.

You add an item/person that wasn't there. This is manipulation.

You add random filters you can from the drop down menu in Photoshop, creating "art". This is not manipulation, it's ugly and evil and should stop!


But, as stated above - these are only my £0.02

Excellent description. That last one should be made punishable by law.