Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

Reply
Thread Tools

The Myth of the Unmanipulated Image

 
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/18/2011 3:22 PM, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "Ryan McGinnis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4d352323$0$12280$c3e8da3$(E-Mail Removed) eb.com...
>
>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
>> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
>> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
>> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>>
>> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/my...ted-image.html

>
> Had a post drafted then nuked it. Someone is just after page hits and
> any discussion is just a time sink.
>


Thanks for letting us know, we were all wondering why you started to
reply and then didn't. Also, please adjust the webcam up a bit, you're
cutting off the top of your head.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/dJSi08 Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNNjWJAAoJEPMySnllEV5M2b4P/0FoNAYfz4St3KxVMGUlurJN
bAXcAotBpS1lghIdyC45m31Ew2hDorkVqSTQSoanPEKAwIVNqE usq1U28APxIe/b
swd3XaRHL6JC4rpJdEM6hXhoY3gZlQuoM4yUlmMvVhzXizLN3f O7kxYEGzYkoYi5
AKuFxCP6U4hOIELqVWMuwPWfxOMS+6Z3b0B6cBs1NnR5pzbuUZ IvItjXkInv2JxG
+SU9CjLqWGUyTWSu56RJ6aQDBfZppiHJYk+WTu/09DHqj6dqzxPnOoNl1pMhQg1a
Dgqp34en8zh03kad4Ow6RDncaqtuI8jmidU9wlSuc5ShtuB8HZ KMr5ZXc5/AG6Sb
b11g277g7Fe7J+aFzBbghqjw5PBgVT3aRFH6gmCGgi04bF+Nu8 qg55o5Qvz+7XAc
mVGVO8HVuBRkGuYz9Og885ohthUG4spjTZEb7rEL1kyuZg3/jOGL7Q6J2pabr4rq
Cw9K9MB8OQXjPCVeNlKoaRF9eWI9aOB4hRgboFhYybj6Y271YJ WbVU+gtRvGBvL7
ieVgC7OtTGJewoFOXhs/0mo4CVpwD4DoSWiayCitEEG2BoZGEwLu7AQKbXhxFXcL
NPx3e99Wf2UVQOHVo5r/Uwo7wXHprHxMpReylGzbf9BpfMnR0E0y1XMl9vcZ9DcO
flCcMtxjP4uWxbmA6CCM
=PcEU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
Charles E Hardwidge wrote,on my timestamp of 19/01/2011 8:22 AM:
> "Ryan McGinnis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4d352323$0$12280$c3e8da3$(E-Mail Removed) eb.com...
>
>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
>> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
>> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
>> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>>
>> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/my...ted-image.html

>
> Had a post drafted then nuked it. Someone is just after page hits and any
> discussion is just a time sink.
>


bingo...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
On Jan 18, 8:56*pm, Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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.


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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
In rec.photo.digital N <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 19/01/2011, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
In rec.photo.digital Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Jan 18, 8:56*pm, Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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.


>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
 
Reply With Quote
 
dickr2
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2011
On 2011-01-19 23:09:09 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> 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.


Mine can take up to 10, either gain adjusted or not. I have absolutely
no use for the facility, I just remember reading about it in the manual
and thinking "So what?"

> 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.



--
Pete

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:50:08 -0600, dickr2 <(E-Mail Removed)>
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?
>Just curious,
>Dick


I can take n-tupal exposures with my D300.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Stevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:22:50 -0000, "Charles E Hardwidge"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Ryan McGinnis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:4d352323$0$12280$c3e8da3$(E-Mail Removed) web.com...
>
>> A rather quick and provocative article -- and one that I fully agree
>> with. While one can certainly defensively hold a position that there is
>> a line to be drawn where manipulation takes a photograph beyond truth,
>> it's very difficult to maintain a position in which only images farted
>> directly out of a camera qualify as "real" photographs.
>>
>> http://www.bhinsights.com/content/my...ted-image.html

>
>Had a post drafted then nuked it. Someone is just after page hits and any
>discussion is just a time sink.


How to express disapproval without actually addressing the topic.



Eric Stevens
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Nebenzahl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-20-2011
On 1/19/2011 2:50 PM dickr2 spake thus:

> Since I'm still using film and digital P&S cameras, I would ask;
> can you take double exposures with a digital?
> Just curious,


isn't that pretty much a moot point?

After all, it's trivially easy to combine two or more digital images
with practically any image-editing software, so why would you even want
to do that in-camera?


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
antistatic/carsickness prevention a myth Troy Piggins Computer Support 32 01-10-2009 11:05 AM
Racial equality is a myth! Toby Inkster HTML 47 05-24-2005 12:57 PM
pooled connection myth David McDivitt Java 42 03-18-2005 09:26 PM
The Myth of American Generosity - HTML 21 01-11-2005 02:12 PM
ICMP myth. NNTP Cisco 11 05-24-2004 11:02 PM



Advertisments