is there a line?

[Rob Eyers]

Is it acceptable to change images? What kind of changes are within acceptability? Is there a line between Dodging/Burning/Cropping/Sharpening etc. and reworking them to your vision of what it could be?

I ask this because Patrick recently mentioned to me that he didn’t trust my images because I had once changed out the sky on one. (even though I’d detailed the fact).

I’ll hold my opinion to myself . I don’t want to influence any responses there may be. I’ve been away from this forum for a while so if this has already been batted about I apologize.

By the way it’s a Rose-breasted grosbeak

[Patrick]

Hi Rob , i would like to clarify what you said above about me not trusting YOUR images  , i don’t remember saying that , i did say since that day you explained you changed the sky i have not been able to trust what i see in landscape from photos as i once did , i always knew about darkroom editing and what goes on in terms of taking one thing and transforming it into something new , there was a certain amount of skill and knowledge to achieve these results ( all things i know you will have had first hand experience of i am sure ) for me only on a personal level /choice /opinion clicking replace sky with 1 click AI is not for me and i am ok with my opinion , for me a massive chunk of what the photographer actually shot is getting replaced which will most likely also change the whole light on the scene , People are free to do what they wish at the end of the day and no matter what i or anyone thinks people will do what they want.

Cute bird 🙂

In answer to your Question , is it acceptable to change images .. of course it is

Can i just add for the sake of any confusion i have nothing whatsoever against anyone , it is the image i talk about and certainly never the person who shot X Y OR Z  images

[Rob Eyers]

Sorry if I misquoted you Patrick. I stand corrected.

[Patrick]

All good mate , really not any need for that Sir but i appreciate your reply Rob 🙂

[Robert Apple]

I wonder what the response from a AI chat bot would be to that question.

 

But in a time when so many argue what is a woman, reality seems to be a forgotten concept and lines that define such are no longer relevant.

[Patrick]

AI Chatbot reply to the Question – Is it acceptable to change images?

It’s a great question that touches on the core of photographic ethics and artistic expression! The acceptability of changing images isn’t always black and white, and it often depends on the context and intent behind the changes.

Let’s break down the different aspects:

Generally Acceptable Changes:

These are often seen as standard post-processing techniques aimed at enhancing the visual quality of an image without altering its fundamental truth or content:

Dodging and Burning: Traditionally darkroom techniques, now digital tools, used to selectively lighten (dodge) or darken (burn) areas of an image to control contrast and bring out details. This is generally acceptable when used subtly to improve tonal balance and guide the viewer’s eye to existing elements.
Cropping: Removing unwanted areas around the edges of an image to improve composition or focus attention on the subject. This is widely accepted as long as it doesn’t distort the subject matter or misrepresent the scene.
Sharpening: Enhancing the edges and details in an image to improve clarity. This is a common practice to counteract the slight softness that can occur during capture or digital processing.
Global Adjustments: Changes that affect the entire image uniformly, such as:Brightness and Contrast: Adjusting the overall lightness and tonal range.
White Balance/Color Correction: Ensuring colors appear natural and accurate to the original scene.
Minor Saturation Adjustments: Enhancing or reducing the intensity of colors across the entire image.

The Gray Area – Moving Towards Artistic Vision:

This is where the line starts to blur, and acceptability becomes more subjective and context-dependent:

Selective Color Adjustments: Altering the color of specific objects or areas, rather than the entire image. This can be acceptable for artistic effect but can become problematic if it misrepresents reality (e.g., changing the color of a stop sign).
Significant Removal or Addition of Minor Elements: Removing a distracting power line or adding a subtle element that wasn’t originally there. This can be acceptable in some artistic contexts but raises ethical questions in documentary or journalistic photography.
Perspective Correction: Adjusting the angles and lines in an image. While sometimes necessary for architectural photography, extreme perspective shifts can alter the viewer’s perception of the scene.
Generally Unacceptable Changes (Especially in Certain Contexts):

These manipulations fundamentally alter the content or truthfulness of an image:

Adding or Removing Significant Elements: Inserting objects or people that were not originally present or completely removing key elements that were part of the scene.
Cloning or Healing Content to Change Meaning: Using tools to copy and paste parts of an image to remove blemishes or distractions in a way that alters the narrative or misrepresents what was there.
Compositing Images from Different Times or Places: Combining elements from multiple photographs into a single image without clear disclosure.
Gross Distortions or Warping: Intentionally manipulating the shape or form of objects or people in a way that is unrealistic or misleading.
Misrepresenting Data (e.g., in scientific or journalistic contexts): Altering images to support a particular finding or viewpoint in a dishonest way.
The Line Between Enhancement and Reworking:

The line is often drawn based on the intent and the impact on the viewer’s understanding of the original subject.

Enhancement aims to improve the visual quality of the photograph while staying true to what was captured. The goal is to present the scene in the best possible light, correcting technical limitations.
Reworking to your vision involves a more significant departure from the original capture. It’s about using the photograph as a starting point to create something new that reflects your artistic interpretation, even if it means altering reality.
Context is Key:

Fine Art Photography: Often allows for significant manipulation as the goal is artistic expression rather than factual representation. Transparency about the techniques used is still often valued.
Documentary and Photojournalism: Strict ethical guidelines emphasize the need for accuracy and minimal manipulation. Changes are typically limited to basic adjustments like cropping, dodging/burning, and global tonal corrections. Altering the content of the image is generally considered a breach of ethics.
Commercial Photography and Advertising: Manipulation is common to create visually appealing images, but there are ethical considerations around misrepresenting products or creating unrealistic expectations. Disclosure of significant alterations may be required in some cases.
Social Media and Personal Use: The lines are often more blurred, but transparency and honesty are still important, especially when it comes to portraying oneself or others. Heavily filtered or altered images can contribute to unrealistic beauty standards.
In Conclusion:

It’s acceptable to change images within certain boundaries, primarily when the changes enhance the image without altering its fundamental truth or misrepresenting the subject. Techniques like dodging, burning, cropping, sharpening, and global adjustments are generally accepted.

The line is crossed when manipulations start to add, remove, or significantly distort elements in a way that changes the meaning or misleads the viewer about what was originally there. The acceptability of more extensive “reworking” often depends on the context, with artistic fields allowing for more creative freedom than journalistic or documentary work, where accuracy is paramount.

Ultimately, transparency and ethical intent are crucial. If you significantly alter an image, it’s often good practice to be open about the techniques used, especially if the context demands accuracy.

[LightandShadow]

@robertapple ‘s point is important and so often misrepresented in conversation and even in writing. Language has ALWAYS been used to define both the what and how of daily interaction. I know I was at least puzzled by the use of “they” when used in the singular. I understood that its intent was to communicate that the person did not wished to be defined by gender, even in what can be unintentional stereotyping. Similarly, in photography, what we do with our images nearly always is intended to define the reality we are trying to portray and our manipulations (edits) try to render that view. Even in photojournalism.

It ain’t physical reality that’s being questioned. It’s the terms we use to understand that underlying reality. That isn’t just a difference in search of a distinction; but it’s a difficult line to define and keep hold of. It’s especially difficult in socio/political contexts, especially as the bleed over into other domains, even issues that should involve science in all its complexity.

[LightandShadow]

That’s an interesting AI generated response. It does, as any narrative would, overlook some areas where the line is not as clear as the description makes it sound. I have lightened or darkened background areas of a photo involve a person. My mind simply erases some distractions that are there and I alter the lighting to reflect that “erasure.” White balance adjustments are often necessary to return the image to the mood and even the perception of what is seen. Kelvin is one thing but the mind also adjusts, sometimes applying it own “rose colored glasses” to a scene.

Our camera club once had a show and tell. They provided a several images and asked members to edit them. One image was of a fighter jet. Being of a non-militaristic background, I wanted to show it in what I intended to be anti-war sensibility, altering color and harsh contrasts–decidedly different from the more patriotic displays of others. The responses to my image and description? Silence. “Next please.” No one questioned my alterations. I suspect most simply didn’t like where I was going with it. That’s okay though.

I do think AI got it right: disclosure and adherence to rules and ethics of the use is paramount. What’s hard is for the photographer to be sensitive to context, aware of the unspoken rules.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

I’d say changing too much is a strict no. And how do you know where the line is?

Kind of like the difference between erotica and porn. You know it when you see it.

I suppose the thing is, for those of us unfortunate enough to remember the dry chemical smell of old darkroom, the thing about Lightroom and even Photoshop is that I can’t do that much in them that I couldn’t do in a darkroom – it’s just a hell of a lot easier.

AI does stuff that I couldn’t do in a darkroom. That first image is a perfect example. I could probably change the box. I would have serious trouble with something as complex as that branch. I might be able to fudge it, but the size and position would be a huge problem to get that perfect.

[LightandShadow]

So, perhaps the line is crossed when the image claims to be something that it isn’t. Double exposures, even including an object from one photo in another, is acceptable as long as it is claimed as a double exposure? AI generated objects are okay as long as they are acknowledged?

Some of the AI constructed images I have seen are so obviously unreal (almost have a plastic appearance even worse than 1st generation HDR’s) as to not require the description.

Just looked at the March Dreamscapes post. Most of these are obviously composites, not the traditional “reality” old time purists insist photographs must be. Obviously allowed in the setting.

[Rob Wood (Admin)]

Double exposures have been part of the photography world since that portrait of Abe Lincoln.

Thing is that a lot of double exposures are relatively straight forward in a darkroom. But the intricate ones are a extremely difficult, if not impossible.

I dunno, I am definitely not a purist, but I am having a hugely hard time philosophizing my way through parts of AI.

I suppose part of it might be – that branch in your photo might well be based on other branches , but yours in particular never actually existed in the physical world. It is an imagination of reality, not a capture of reality itself.

[Robert Apple]

Interesting discussion, though somewhere in the darkness AI assumed a much larger role then before, its in our phones, watches, cameras, editing software, often editing colors, sharpness, hdr , in ways we can’t even control, in reality the line wasn’t crossed, it was erased, what is considered a purist in the photography world can’t even be defined any more. Honesty and full disclosure are not compatible features with most of the human race. Not that long ago we pondered if AI images would be the end of photography as a career, it has definitely replaced graphic design as a profession. I imagine as with genders photography will split into a multitude of identities no one will be able to reconcile in reality.

[Robert Apple]

And Robs branch was a based on a image taken by some random photographers and scooped in to the digital collections of the AI database, it did exist in some form in some place in some photo.

[LightandShadow]

With some AI, the user types in words and description for the AI engine to include in the image. The source is a photo from its database (that may include one of yours or anyone else’s it has scooped up). In most cases, it isn’t yours and it is chosen based on written text, not your vision (literal sense here).

With a recent encounter with AI in Lightroom, I used the erase tool and it offered to replace (not erase) a person with a cow (and I don’t have that picture of a cow anywhere in my collection). That was when I began to suss what AI meant. What I also didn’t understand though was that when I erased a tree trunk, AI created the background based on elements surrounding that trunk!

At least in the latter case, the image was based on where my camera was aimed, focused, exposed–somehow acceptable to me without description while the cow wasn’t.

[Rob Eyers]

Just for clarity here is a completely unedited photo taken at the same time at ISO16000. The juniper is right behind the feeder which can be seen out of focus in the bottom left corner. Yes the branch in the Ai version is fictitious but not without some semblance of reality.

I think everyone has to draw there own line of what is acceptable as long as it doesn’t go beyond the boundaries of what is ethical.

[Rob Eyers]

A quick edit using…noise removal, sharpening, branch removal…all Ai assisted! It would be hard to get away from Ai these days. Do we really want to avoid it or is it just another tool? Ai noise reduction, as an example, has opened up a whole new world of possibilities with high ISO when no other choices are available.

[davidc]

I believe that if it’s used for deliberate deception, it’s wrong. However, if it’s used to create photographic art or fulfill a client/customer request, then it’s acceptable. The artistic use is more readily understood, as most fine art photography involves extensive editing.

[Author]

Posts