For me, the digital equivalent of everything that you can theoretically do with a negative in a darkroom, or with a set of identical "tripodded" negatives is photography. Using more than one pic (even to change skies) is manipulation.

I mean: I love to play with photographs (sometimes stock, sometimes my own)  but in a way I feel reluctant to add these to my gallery as 1/ it's not photography, and 2/  the atmosphere can be rather dark and macabre. ( see example. title: wake up, honey, time to go to work! )

How do you see this?
Do you sometimes create photomanipulations, and should these be considered "Photoshop"?

Well there is now a sub catagory in Photography to suit just that need called Photo Manipulation so if posted there it stays in Photography, sub cat. Manipulation...hope this helps.. ...

A panorama can be made up of 15 or more different photos, 'manipulated' together... sometimes you have to clone out duplicate 'moving' objects and fill up missing pieces. So, is a panorama manipulated photography..?
Using a flash or artificial lighting, is that manipulation..? (you talked about darkroom work, but not about what happens before you take the picture...).
I know you can add lots of other things to the discussion, like getting people to pose for you, putting a still life together, using filters on your camera, etc...
I only brought up these things to make clear that there is manipulation in everything we do, from the moment we pick up a camera.
An interesting article about this subject can be found here
It seems that photojournalism is bound by strict rules about photo manipulation... Understandably...

As I see it, there must be a basis in photography.  How much photo and how much digital creation..that one I certainly cannot answer.   I supect no matter how distorted, morphed, etc. an image might be, if it or the main components are actual photos then it fits the "manipulation" genre.    Now, a digialt created image with only a photo as background in mimimal support to the image would likely not qualify...who knows.  As Gert said, all in manipulated but when does photography no longer qualify as photography, perhaps due to the value of the photo image to the final composition.   I am thinking off the top of my manipulated head on this reply.      Tom.

Manipulated head... I like that one, Tom. Btw, with all the implants and plastic surgeries, how many 'manipulated humans' would there be these days..? Just a thought... (forgive me, I just saw a documentary on Belgian television about the life and death of Lolo Ferrari, you know, the lady with the big.. manipulations...) ;o))

LOL says Tom.   You are right on that one.

"the lady with the big.. manipulations..."

Ohh...that's a good/bad one....LOL.. ...

heavily manipulated images should be uploaded in the "photo manipulation" genre.

Images that contaiin non-photgraphic elements (such as fractals or 3D elements) belong in the Mixed medium gallery

This is a very touchy subject indeed...

All "well, what about" comments aside (because yes, in film alone, you PICKED the type of film - high or low contrast, B&W, infra-red, etc. - you PICKED the exposure - stylized blown out, etc. - we could go on and on, really), when we shoot something, we put it into a photo manipulation/editing app (Photoshop, Painter, PSP, etc. - I realize some don't, but MOST do).
My personal take on the difference is this:

1 - If only things like Curves, Levels, etc., are used, it's just photo CORRECTION. Sharpness, contrast, even Hue/Saturation (really, it's the reason we used Agfa 50 over Kodak Portra400NC - and then printed it on UltraIII RC paper - we wanted bizzarre color and contrast - much like using color infra-red transparency and printing an Ilfochrome, huh?)

2 - The second we add or remove an ELEMENT (insert a person, a new sky, buildings, reflections - get it?) that was not in the original image, it falls under Manipulation.

No, I'm not saying this is a bad thing in any way (as almost everything I DO is a photomanipulation) - I'm just defining my take on the difference between corrections and manipulation.

Depending on how MUCH manipulation you did would determine what gallery it should go in. And this would be a very personal decision - as some think even the slightest thing should automatically be put in the photomanipulation gallery, others don't care that you replaced the sky with better clouds (if they even noticed in the first place - again, this is the honor system we're talking about).

-Lew ;-)

hmmm...we all manipulate photos. I crop, tweak colours and exposure, and generally fiddle with my photos in tiny ways. Tiny ways, being the operative phrase here....

I suppose what defines a manipulated photo from a non- manipulated photo would be the chances of you replicating the photo with only your camera and no computer. I play with colours and levels because the time of day was wrong, I was in a hurry and didn'y play with the levels enough...etcetc...

To use your photo as an extreme example of what I'm saying, could you take that pic without your comp.?? I know there are some freaks out there, but they only come out at night......lol

That's why I'm sooooooo glad they added the photo manipulation subcategory. I can't help myself. I always have to do something to my pics. It's what I love to do most of all. :^)

Incidently, I uploaded an extreme  high-key b/w image of my face the other day, and all I did was keep using screen, whilst maintaining the individual features. And while I wouldn't call that 'heavily' manipulated, per se, it sure looked it.  But the same thing could have been done in the darkroom... with a lot of dodging and burning, ( and some skill, of course,  lol. )

Anyway, my point is, that I uploaded it in the photo-manipulation category. Hope that helps... :^)

Thanks for your comments.  I guess it all boils down to what pushinfaders wrote: "heavily manipulated images should be uploaded in the "photo manipulation" genre. Images that contaiin non-photgraphic elements (such as fractals or 3D elements) belong in the Mixed medium gallery."
That leaves a bit of freedom for interpretation.

My problem is more personal as I feel that manips don't fit in my gallery. I can't mix manips with "normal" photographs. Feels a bit like being schizophrenic (which I'm not, and neither am I).
I'll have to think this over.

As for panorama shots from multiple captures: I forgot to mention those. Theoretically they are manips, but practically they are like composites (hdr) to enhance or extend the luminosity range.

You could start a separate gallery, just for your manips...

Just a thought. :^)

@Margana and Tanchelyn....
Rather than have everyone start a new gallery with a new nickname....wouldn't it be nice if Rendo allowed us to segregate our galleries into different genres?

Yeah...I already asked them a few times....
The old  saying is that good things come to those who wait...sheesh, I just hope I live long enough....LOL!

BTW, really cool manip there Tanchelyn!!!

@Tanchelyn... ......no different from someone like myself who has Terragen renders right alongside Imagine3D renders....markedly different from each other but I agree w/gradient, it would be very cool to be able to sub divide our galleries to accomadate many the styles/apps we work with.. ...

Quote -
My problem is more personal as I feel that manips don't fit in my gallery. I can't mix manips with "normal" photographs. Feels a bit like being schizophrenic (which I'm not, and neither am I).
I'll have to think this over.

OMG, my gallery must be a sign of a huge personality disorder - there's mixed medium, manips, photo's, 3d from Bryce, 3ds Max and Blender in there.......

I'm afraid I should be referred to as Sybil... I'm across the entire board of 2D, 3D, and photography ;-)

"I'm afraid I should be referred to as Sybil... "

LMFAO......me too.. ...

Completely and utterly OT, but a quote from Steven Wright is going through my head: "I have a dog with 14 personalities - it's a Sybil Shephard."
;-)

I agree with you, John. That would be wonderful. But like in that moldie oldie of a movie, 'Now Voyager',  I won't ask for the stars, when I've got the moon. ;^P

But maybe one day.... :^)

*Two people in every one is a schizophrenic.

:^D*

Quote - A question: I have a fairly good idea where photography ends and where photomanipulation begins, but how is that seen here on the forum/in the gallery?

For me, the digital equivalent of everything that you can theoretically do with a negative in a darkroom, or with a set of identical "tripodded" negatives is photography.

I agree. Except that in my case, I'd paraphrase it to:

"everything that you could have done to the picture with your camera if you knew how to use it properly in the first place" ;-)

Seriously, for me, all changes limited to contrast, hue, saturation, focus improvement, etc - are photography. Everything beyond that is manipulation.

"Seriously, for me, all changes limited to contrast, hue, saturation, focus improvement, etc - are photography. Everything beyond that is manipulation."

That's where I sit, too.

Darkening the sky with a masked Adjusment Layer - grad filter used when taking the picture. Bumping up contrast and color with Adjustment Layers - used a higher contrast film and paper, and dodged and burned while printing. Sharpening Filters - took the time to find good focus, not just relying on Auto modes - focus was on the tip of the nose, not the eyes - besides, even when SCANNING it is a sampling of color and won't be as sharp as you think. Basically, anything that eneters he digial world - either straight from a camera or scanned even at high res, it needs to be sharpened a bit.

Insert a small house in your landscape or remove distracting elements (tree limb behind your subject, etc.) - photoMANIPULATION - thank you Jerry Uelsmann ;-)

I mentioned above replacing the sky - even if it's invisible in the final. While we mostly take that for granted, that's still a manipulation (even something like removing band-aids on pics of our kids). Depending on how drastic the manipulation should determine which gallery it should go in.

Well, there are several things that you can do with a photo that cannot be done with a camera.

Like choosing the hardness/softness of your paper, like, after exposing for the highlights, developing for the shadows, like local enhancing, unsharp masking, solarisations (I admire Man Ray for these) . Etc etc.

I agree that knowing your camera is very important (and I admit that I don't yet know what my digital camera can do - I do miss the spot metering) but it's only part of the whole process.

My opinion of course.

"heavily manipulated images should be uploaded in the "photo manipulation" genre.

Images that contaiin non-photgraphic elements (such as fractals or 3D elements) belong in the Mixed medium gallery"

To me that is clear enough.  It is up to me to determine how manipulated is the image. I convert to bw in software, I sharpen in software...and do a few other things.   With digital, to shoot in bw is not wise and sometimes the camera will not do it. To sharpen in camera can lead to halo problems...and other things.   So, just as my dad did many, many years ago with the basement darkroom, dodging and burning, perhaps cuting out an "unsharp mask" and tricking the baths, I do in software.  That is not manipulation..that is the art of photography and includes much I did not mention.

So, I will simply decide if "heavily manipulated" or not...and if mixed media then there it will go.  Each contributor here has that choice to make.
Sounds ok to this Tom.

So do I now. Digital camera's include a mini computer with software. But this computer has a processor that is quite weak when compared to the one of a basic PC or mac. Which is why you don't have the same quality of algorithms of, say, Elements, PSP or PS in your camera. So black and white can indeed better be done afterwards on your puter /digital darkroom. And there is, my opinion of course, nothing wrong in using all available channels (rgc, cmyk, lab) and use all available tools to get your final result.  For example switching to a tri-tone. Yet, if you want to print, you'll need either a printer that you keep for it and in which you introduce four grey inks, or a ten or so colours machine that has additional greys. If not, get a very subtle, barely visible colour.

One big advantage of digital camera's though is that you can easiy extend the sensitivity range as compared to a traditional camera. I say "sensitivity range" because I don't know that exact English word or expression. I mean the range between the lightest and the darkest spot that your camera can capture without getting burned-out white or murky black. Call this the admired/feared zone-system.  I never used the real one, but I did use Ansel Adams findings, and still do.
Getting a good slide was sometimes quite difficult. No possibility afterwards to play, to combine...it had to be good from the first moment. Black and white film was more tolerant. I usually took a medium grey card with me to get a good central value. Or used my hand, which is the same. (skin is translucent greenish grey, and it's non-dead colour comes from blood on the deeper levels).

But the digital camera can outperfrom them all when using RAW. I haven't tried it out, but they claim that a 14-bit RAW can get you nearly 10 zones.
Up to now I used jpg best (which, indeed, uses the camera's processor) but I intend to switch in the near future.
This 10 zones (even 8 would be great) would give a superb base material that would need as good as no postwork.

Seems to me this debate/discussion comes up on a regular basis.

Let me ask this:

WHY is Photo-Manipulation just a genre instead of a gallery in and of itself? You're obviously not going to have 2d or 3d elements in a photo-manip or that would make it Mixed Medium or possibly 2d RIGHT?  It even states this in the photo gallery disclaimer:

"This gallery is for members to display their original photographs for review, critique & feedback from other members. Please use your judgment when uploading photo manipulations & photos that have been heavily changed. Images containing 2D elements (tubes, fractals..), stock photos or 3D elements (Bryce, Poser, etc) should be uploaded to the
Mixed Medium or 2D galleries."

Now wait a sec!  Isn't a photograph, 2d in a sense?  Whoa, this is getting complicated! If I grab a bunch of STOCK photos and combined them... is THAT really PHOTOGRAPHY, a MANIP,  or what?  Geez,  talk about confusing!

Maybe we should just do away with all the galleries and just have ONE.....call it ART!  LIFE would be a helluva lot simpler then...don't ya think?

Just my less than perfect sense!

Joe

Yeah, but that would make us artists, and then we'd have to be serious  ;)

Lol,
This discussion is quite amusing :)  My work is all over the place, from straight architecture up to composites with as many as 90 layers .. (Ya, I have to flatten and start again to achieve that)

As a displaying gallery artist with so many categories, it would be cool to be able to split, and/or be able to arrange simular pieces near eachother. Thats what I currently do in my shows.  My May show featured my abstracts from water treatment plants where my June show featured only my Naturals.

Kurt

Glad you replied here, Kurt!
Just opened your gallery, and there's a lot to enjoy over there.!