That is correct. Photography is not reality. I tire of folks saying the image has been digitally enhanced.  Enhanced bodies are one thing…corrected and artistically altered images are something else.   NO photo is reality.  All are simple slices of time counted in the speed of the shutter and then the darkroom work.

Do these who criticize digital corrections not know that “unsharp mask” was a sharp scissors and accurate cutting in the darkroom?  Do they not know dodge and burn are confusing to digital correctionists because these are darkroom techniques?

Not long ago I read a nice article about the reality of photography. Well, as for me, I like the image if I like the image.  The wonderful landscape of blooming blossoms brings me joy.  It does my imagination well.    I do not sit in the actual field of blossoms being bitten by bugs and watching ants carry my picnic away.  I see the photo and am carried there to an unreal world based on the real world and in that part of appreciation is the photo valuable.   In this photo world, I can be there without the bugs and ants.  In this world I see beyond the simple click of a shutter and see in imagination and joy what it is to me at the moment.   That is a magical sort of thing.

My late night thoughts.         TomDart.

something pleasing to the eye and to the soul is ok with me.....digitally corrected or not  :)
by the way....you can dodge and burn with photoshop also ... i use it to "digitally correct" my images all the time :)

i've noticed some folks get irate when you add a photograph to a terragen or bryce image as well...to me anything that i think enhances one of my images makes me happy...and thats the only person i'm trying to please  :)

I think we need to remember that back before digital...most of us did not do our own developing of film!  We brought it somewhere to get processed... not knowing that there was some kind of postwork or enhancements done on the prints to make them look good. It was all done behind the scene and was pretty much taken for granted.  I think now we all realize the work involved on some pics.   

Out of all the photos you see posted these days...how many you think are straight out of the camera and even then, it depends on the settings one used at the time, not to mention if the camera does it  own thing...  like noise reduction or compression.    All  of these can be considered digital enhancements in one way or another.

Nothing wrong with digital correction. I developed my own films, printed my own images, used special filters long enough to know that all serious photographers used darkroom techniques to enhance their images, long before digital techniques were available. Even the lenses you use are already an initial 'correction' to the world as you see it. The same goes for flashlight... the choice of cropping you do... etc. And if photography is 'painting with light' as it is often referred to, how can you expect all of that light to be represented in your photographs anyway? We just have to take it for granted that photography has very little to do with reality... My father always says: 'a picture can never be as beautiful as reality'... that's because he wants to capture the beautiful reality that he sees before him. And he's always frustrated with the results he gets LOL. I always reply that a photograph and reality are two separate things, that both have their own beauty... and a photograph can be just as beautiful as reality can be. As long as you treat them as two separate things... I hope this makes some sense to some of you (LOL) Again, a very interesting late night thought, Tom. You always come up with something heh.

To me it doesn’t matter how it is achieved if I like the end result that is what matters to me.

Manipulation is nothing new and was done as far back as the late 1800's from glass negs in Edinburgh (the home of photography some say)

Later manipulations were done in the 50's in Hollywood

No photographic image film or digital is un-manipulated, digital has made it easier (more accessible) for some and as with darkroom some are better at it than others.

I have seen superb (witnessed being done) perfect symmetries in the darkroom using mirrors, it takes a long time and in PS it can be done a lot quicker, but the end result is basically the same.

The only thing that really bothers me is seeing manipulation that I can’t understand or do! lol

..@ TomDart ----i like the way you think ------ a photograph and reality are just two different things -  much like Magritte's painting of a pipe with his caption " This is not a pipe! " ------------ and  if one actually went to the - say, landscape itself and started painting the grass purple -- or adding and subtracting objects -------- then I could see getting pissed off with 'processing' reality ----but that monitor image ---  or paper print in ones hands -- is just a sketch ,at best ,in trying to convey the subject. matter.

Photography is art and all art is seen and viewed through differant through the eyes -the windows to the soul .  Each soul interpetes and relates in various ways . The major ramifications of viewing art at the end of a day is the feeling and emotion it evokes.  How it stirs up the soul is the true beauty . How i see it  manipulated or not, the end effect  shows the artists own particular touch and to me there is beauty in that and in all forms of creative expression= as there is an understanding of composition.  The endless results that can be achieved is infinate. and the manipulation itself is every bit as important in creating and producing the desired result ( in my mind ) as taking the shot to begin with.  I know some do not see it this way and i can respect that . But respecting peoples work how they come by it and relate to it  purist or not i feel is simply respecting other aritsts perspective and perception.

Sign me up for the Digital Manipulation Bandwagon. For me it is all about the image and showing it the way you like it best. Need a sky? - put one in! I can understand the purists and that has it's place too, but once that scene captured by the camera has become 1s and 0s, then it has already been more manipulated by technology then anything I could ever do in the "darkroom".

I'm still awaiting approval on my comment for the Paula Sanders front page article about postwork, but basically I said something along the lines of:

• Pro studios use postwork of all levels  for images, photos & animation/vfx that we pay to see. So why is postwork a problem here?
• Its a range of techniques that you learn so why would you NOT use them once you know how?

I'll also add that at college I was actively encouraged to use extra techniques in the darkroom, thats postwork too, so was my tutor wrong?
Tom, you said, "Enhanced bodies are one thing…corrected and artistically altered images are something else." No they aren't, have a look at this (one & the same thing):
http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/
I've never worked on photos of 14 year old girls (see the link), but I have used Photoshop to make pasty faced, gap toothed, hung-over computer geeks look more human. Or bad product photos usable for brochures and web usage - its part of my job so I'll never be convinced its wrong.

And define purity in photography anyway, Didn't classical painters look down on photographers as vulgar and their images were considered to be cheating? This is just history repeating itself.

Has this been a problem in the photography forum in the past? I've only really noticed this arguement in the poser forum.

Photoshop is my Digital Darkroom........and if I use it, I'll let you know in my postings what I did to the image....

@ anastasia.. yes.. this topic has come up time & time again over the last few years.. purists vs manipulated.. sigh

& i won't bother repeating my opinion.. but those that know my work know where i stand ;~]

Cindy, I know where you are on this one...the same place essentially I am and I do consider that a very nice place to be.  It is a place where a slice of reality and faeries come together in different amounts, of course.

anastasis20,  that is a wonderfully neat website.  Yes, I know that goes on all the time. Just see a "playboy bunny" running loose on the ranch then compare the cellulite with the one in the mag.   My comment was more related to physical body parts, fake buns, breasts and abs..more that than photography.  Sure, "mastering" an image is little different in general view than mastering a recording to get the best sound.   Still, fake breasts are not the same in a physical sense, if any man actually cares.  In photos...there is a slight differenct in my thought. Thanks for the very neat and revealing link.

Peace to All.   Manipulate your life with kindness.           TomDart.

Having done wet process manipulation to the extent that the original capture is no longer recognizable (and have done the same in PS) making the issue of manipulation older than I am, I fail to see the problem with it.

In each medium I am better than some at doing it and not as good as others, image manipulation spans over 100 years.

To put it in my very basic terms, PS or whatever you use is just the 21st centaury way of doing something that is age old, many people go to work in a car and don’t walk or ride a cycle, a purist may say that this is not how we were meant to travel and that we should walk. Do any of you walk to work and leave the car at home? Not many I will bet.

99% of what I shoot is pretty much as shot except a levels/curves tweak, one might say that a simple conversion to a monochromatic image is manipulation, this is of course a radical manipulation from the original image.

Going a step backward I also use coloured gel filters in the studio or a polarizer for landscapes this is manipulation before the fact (prework) to get the effect that I want, that too is manipulating an image.

This topic will most likely be discussed at length long after I am gone and forgotten.

Using an ultra wide lens or super tele lens also manipulates an image by distortion or compression.

However you view manipulation the topic is very subjective and non exhaustive.

It wont change how people will work.

I once read a good article in pixmag.co.za about dig mani vs dig correction. As with film burning, dodging, tinting and many other natural processes were used. The problem with digital that comes in is when the image is something that can't be captured in real life, like adding snow capped mountains to the back of a meadow... I like the manips but then feel that they fall out of the photography spectrum in the BEEGER picture. For rendo it's fine but for selling it's not common proctice it's mixed medium or 2D work... SO while I love manis and add ins I feel touch ups are totally allowed for the BEEGER market... Just me, not purist or naturalist but just putting it into perspective...