As I do from time to time, I’m reposting a response I shared in an online discussion somewhere else on the web. In that discussion, a proposal was made to come up with some sort of enforceable standard regarding what post-processing could be allowed in photographs. (In the context of the original discussion – wildlife photography – the idea wasn’t quite as crazy as it sounds here, but still…) It seems to me that there are always a few notions underlying these ongoing discussions: that the issue is one that comes up with “digital photography,” that there is some ideal photography that is purely and objectively “accurate,” and that we would actually want to do such a thing.
Here is what I wrote:
It seems so obvious that I’m almost embarrassed to point it out, but does anyone actually believe that there is such a thing as an objectively accurate photographic image, free of interpretation? Which acknowledged “great” photographers can you point to whose photographs are purely and objectively accurate? If digital post is a problem, what about camera movements, contraction/expansion of space via focal length, use of artificial light and reflectors, polarizing filters, graduated neutral density filters, choice of film/paper/chemicals based on color or contrast preferences, selective focus via DOF control, allowing motion blur with long shutter speeds, any night photography, and on and on…?
As I wrote somewhere else earlier this week:
If the goal of photography was to make objectively accurate reproductions of real things… I wouldn’t bother.
Have an opinion on this? Feel free to leave a comment…
G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
Wow, you guys are really arguing over control! What does it matter if my photo is pure, or I used a filter, or I even edited it. It’s my photo! Purity in photography is great! If you catch that once in a lifetime shot.. outstanding but don’t criticize someone else’s photo. A photo is like a painting, sometimes you paint exactly what is there and sometimes you may embellish the scenery a bit but the painting is still someone’s vision. Just enjoy photography for yourself and lets not try to regulate others!
No one is trying to “regulate” anyone, but the subject is certainly one that interests photographers and viewers of photography. As you can see, there is a range of perspectives on the issue.
Dan
Somehow I stumbled upon this blog. Interesting thoughts. I find this one in particular interesting:
“If you could make a photograph that was perfectly real, you would only have equalled the experience of the original subject. I think a good photograph tries to do something more than that.”
A totally puristic approach even if possible will take something away from the photograph. A photograph is not 3D video – so it has to have some element of interference/augmentation. However that interference/augmentation should be minimal to meet “believable”/”realistic” watermark. Beyond that the photograph enters the realm of graphic art or something other than photography.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts…
Thanks for posting.
One thing that I believe is that there is no precise distinction between photography and “graphic” or other visual arts. There is no reason that art created using photographic techniques cannot take something other than representation of the objective as its goal. It is true that photography does carry the burden of its roots as a method of attempting to record the visual appearance of real things, but photography evolves and it can be just as abstract or non-representational as any other art form.
dan
Eric, I’m not really interested in continuing to beat that dead horse (“My Friend Flickr?” ;-), but I’m surprised at your surprise. But you could be forgiven for not knowing the full story about that comment thread – precisely because that photographer kept comments offering effusive praise for his brilliant capture of such a stunning scene (ahem) and deleted any that asked questions about how he created it.
From my perspective – and you are certainly welcome to hold a different opinion – this amounts to not only concealing that the image is not what viewers praised it for being (as you know from reading that thread), but to precisely the sort of thing that I was speaking of when I wrote about things like artistic “integrity” and honesty.
If the photographer feels that it is OK and even a good thing to create a photograph that way – and I’m not taking a position one way or another on that specific question here – then wouldn’t the photographer feel comfortable confirming that it is what it appears to be? And, from my point of view as a photographer, wouldn’t a photographer feel a bit uncomfortable about accolades based on a false understanding of what was created?
Anyway, I left that particular Flickr thread behind a long time ago and I’m not interested in getting back into it. (And that photographer, by the way, has also created some very wonderful and compelling photographs that appeal to me… without resorting to, as far as I can tell, any blatant deception.)
Take care,
Dan
Dan,
One last comment.
You wrote: “Again, the point is not that the photographer had any obligation to avoid inserting a moon into a photograph in post, but rather that doing so and then claiming you don’t is a problem. For me, anyway ;-) *”
I’m surprised that you wrote that. I found the Flickr post and went through all 400+ comments – approaching 500. I confirmed what I wrote earlier: the photographer has claimed *nothing*. I found several responses in which the photographer was asked a direct question regarding the insertion of the moon. The photographer has remained silent. Silence can in no way be interpreted as claiming that the photograph isn’t a fake.
It’s one thing to be convinced that the photograph is a fake. It’s a completely different thing and totally out of bounds to attribute to the photographer a claim he/she never made.
I’m going to be short in my reply since I’ve argued this on many occasions on many forums with many people. I totally agree with you on this issue.
Todd, I especially like short comments that include, “I agree with you!” ;-)
Dan
There are a couple aspects of this ‘is it real or is it Memorex’ type debate within photographic circles I find interesting….
1) Is there any other art form that undergoes such ‘morality’ (mayhaps not the best choice of words) introspection among it’s own practitioners as does photography in general, and maybe landscape photography most commonly? I’m guessing not…..though I could easily be wrong. But if that’s remotely accurate, I have to wonder why.
And it *seems* a likely explanation is that there is a perception amongst John Q Public that a photograph *can* represent a pretty darn physically accurate reproduction of a scene/object. And the notion that it *can* happen has been taken to a philosphical extreme by some suggesting it *should* happen. To the extent that even photographers are members of JQP, we are affected similarly. And probably because we are more acutely aware of what might be a ‘lie’, we are most responsible for pushing the debate to it’s extremes.(?)
2) My own reaction to the debate…….
– Philosophically, I think I *currently* tend to fall into pretty much the same perspective as Dan seems to espouse. But I emphasize ‘currently’ because the more I follow/participate in the debate, the more I find myself leaning towards the ‘whatever’ notion…..ie., whatever you want to do with your images is fine with me…..if it makes a more compelling image. And if painting in an overly large moon in a place/time that it could not realistically occur produces a visually compelling work of art, and the artist chooses not to divulge the deception, so be it….art is art. And perhaps part of the problem is how ‘photographers’ think of themselves….as ‘photographers’ rather than as ‘artists’ whose medium of choice happens to be photography.
– In contrast to a growing liberalization of philosophical notions, I think I’m becoming more and more inclined to paint higher and stronger boundaries around my own work. I.e., I seem to be slowly gravitating toward giving into the ‘the more realistic the better’ end of the debate. At least that seems to be more frequently a conscious motivation when I sit in front of the pc and open a RAW image in PS. Now…., whether I actually manage to accomplish that goal is a highly debatable subject in itself. :)
On an intellectual level, Fo, I also tend to fall into the “whatever” category. I’m willing to be convinced that almost anything could be interesting and compelling in a photograph, and I’ve been wrong enough times and changed my perspective frequently enough to be cautious about applying general absolutes to art in general. I don’t oppose (though I usually don’t like!) stuff like including the phony”giant moon” in the sky or other methods of using photographic processes to create visual imagery. (There is a wonderful “photograph” that is about the displacement of native Americans from Yosemite that makes wonderful use of obviously pasted up stuff. Sorry I can’t think of the photographer right now – perhaps I’ll find it later.)
Again, my separate issue – about which I described my personal accommodation – is with artistic dishonesty. In other words, if I make a big deal about my photographs being “perfectly natural” and “not using any manipulation” and showing “only what was there when I clicked the shutter,” I am making a claim about my work upon which others might develop some trust. However, if I’m really doing otherwise, there is an issue of integrity that is separate from the question of whether it is “right” to use these techniques.
(In the specific case that was mentioned earlier in this thread, the photographer was – at a minimum – going along with the false assumption that the image was “real,” and basking, it seemed, in the credulous adulation of those who trusted that it was “real.” In a Flickr thread the photograph was repeatedly nominated for some National Geographic award or similar. As almost everyone knows, “moving the pyramids” – to reference a well-known NG cover scandal – is strictly verboten by National Geographic. Pasting in a moon would equally disqualify a photograph that had National Geographic pretenses. Again, the point is not that the photographer had any obligation to avoid inserting a moon into a photograph in post, but rather that doing so and then claiming you don’t is a problem. For me, anyway ;-) *
As far as the “stronger boundaries” issue goes, I think I sort of lean the same way that you do, but it is complex. The notion of “realistic” in general is problematic for me – I sort of prefer a term like “believable.” Perhaps it is just semantics, but I think there is a difference. As a goal, making a photograph be “realistic” seems like a fairly low level one – at least in photographs that have pretensions to being art. If you could make a photograph that was perfectly real, you would only have equalled the experience of the original subject. I think a good photograph tries to do something more than that. I am usually more interested in what the photograph tells me than it what it is or what it portrays. I’m especially interested in what the photograph reveals about the photographer and his/her viewpoint and way of seeing. Take any particular subject, and I’m more interested in what person A has to show me about that subject than in what person B has to show me. So, in the end, it is the subjective content of the photograph this is, to me at least, the most interesting thing.
Dan
* I can imagine reasons to do this is certain types of conceptual or performance art, but that is a totally different breed of cat I think.
Steve, I recall the exact point in the exhibit – fairly near the beginning from where I started – at which the changing style of printing was described. Earlier work had been printed in a “softer” and lower contrast manner, later work was done in a higher contrast and more “edgy” manner with much stronger blacks. Of course, in his case, we have to also understand that HCB wasn’t apparently all that concerned with the print as an object – others did his printing for him. But even with that in mind, I noticed a few things worth mentioning in this regard:
There is a wonderful photograph of three women made, if I recall correctly, in Spain. (There is at least one other nearby in the exhibit that again shows the woman who is at back left in the photograph I’m thinking of.) It would take a lot to persuade me that the positions of their hands was not something that HCB came up with, and it is brilliant on several levels. First, on a human level, there is something very graceful and sensitive (at least to me) in the way they are touching that connects the three women together. Secondly, on a compositional level, their hands form an almost straight diagonal line descending from left to right that is mirrored by the positions of their heads. If that was an accident, it was an astonishingly fortuitous one!
There is another small photograph later in the show that shows, at least as I remember it, a couple of black women wearing white hats or other headgear. I’m afraid that this is almost all I remember about the content of the photograph – I don’t recall the context of the image. However, I do recall the very clear darker halo around the “hats” due to trying to burn in some detail in this area that would otherwise be completely white.
I don’t offer either of these (or some of the other examples I saw, including one of my very favorite photographs of his featuring a woman in a doorway, holding a baby and standing next to another woman, with a man’s out of focus back dominating the center of the frame, and a dog at lower right) as a complaint about HCB or his photographs. Instead, it is just another example of how hard it is – if not impossible or darn close to it – to find great photographic work that is simple “captured in camera” and left in that state without so-called manipulation of the “reality” that was recorded.
By the way today is the last day of this show! Anyone in the SF Bay Area who hasn’t seen it should drop everything and get down to SF MoMA now!.
Dan
Dan, you bring up a very pertinent point regarding the Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibit. You may recall that somewhere around the middle of the exhibit, they displayed different prints of the same image, with a span of about 20-30 years between the prints. They are strikingly different photographs. Sure, the subject and composition are the same, but the mood created by the different printing approaches varies considerably. They are different photographs, communicating different moods as a result.
Under and absolute standard, that would be “wrong.” Under what I think is a more realistic standard, it’s reflective of what happens with every image: it’s the result of the photographer communicating the message they feel at that point in time, using the available technology and techniques they have available at that point. As the text accompanying the two images explained, part of the reason for the difference was the fact that paper chemistry had changed quite a bit in the time between the prints, and you could get different tonality as a result.
Was HCB being dishonest or manipulative? An absolutist position would probably say yes. A more nuanced position would say that they’re just different reflections and artistic choices related to the same subject matter.
Eric, you raise a fair question when you point to my post elsewhere about a photograph in which a very large moon was inserted in an impossible way into an otherwise mundane photograph of a rock on Death Valley’s Racetrack Playa. I could respond in at least a couple of ways:
1. I could just acknowledge that I am not ever going to achieve 100% consistency in my writing about photography, or I could point out that my own ideas are subject to change over time and in different circumstances. Or…
2. I could write a bit more about that specific situation, the questions it raised, and a personal standard that I try to apply to my own photography. (Disclaimer: Keep in mind that I’m not crazy enough to claim moral/ethical perfection, however. :-)
Let me take a crack at option 2. I’ll begin with the “personal standard” business. And recognize that the use of the word “personal” acknowledges and proclaims that I’m writing about my standard for what I do and not necessarily making a proclamation about rules that everyone else must follow. That said, my standard is a part of what informs my reaction to the photographic work of others, along with other things including the context of that work.
I do not have an objection to the so-called “manipulation” of images as a general concept. In fact, I do believe that a general idea that “photographs should not be manipulated” would be, to put it bluntly, unrealistic and naive. The “no manipulation” idea seems to begin with the belief that photographs are natively “true” in an objective sense. To me that fundamental notion is simply not possible. From the very beginning the creation of a photograph (at least any photographs that we are thinking about here) depends upon a whole bunch of subjective decisions that necessarily alter the content of the image. To be a bit pedantic, these include what direction the camera is pointed, the choice of when to press the shutter (timing for “best” image), what to include and exclude, the weather on the day we showed up, what lens we used, aperture choice, the decision about whether or not a thing is worth photographing, not to mention the experience of viewing the thing in two dimensions on a sheet of paper or a screen without all of the other sensory inputs that were originally part of the subject.
In other words, a fundamental condition of all photography is that it alters/manipulates the subject.
In my view, this makes any “no manipulation” argument or argument that photographs must “show reality” suspect from the very beginning. It simply isn’t possible. A photograph cannot be wholly “real.” (This relates to my use of the word “naive” earlier.)
So we are left with the idea that what is OK is a matter of preference or taste, both of which are relative – we won’t all have the same preferences, and even the general preferences will change over time. I know that some want an absolute standard and relative standards like taste and preference may not satisfy them, but I prefer that to some absolute standard about what is and is not OK in photography… or music, or cooking, or people, or politics, or…
However, there is another criterion that I think has some value. This is the honesty or truthfulness of the image in terms of what it expresses. This is not the same as “truthfulness to the subject” – it is more about artistic integrity. So, to get back to the photograph of the giant moon in a place in the sky where no moon could be, my reaction was and is mainly about this issue of honesty. If someone wants to photoshop a giant full moon (and eagles! and unicorns! and angels!) into the sky to create some sort of fantasy image, who am I to question them? (This is not to say that I like the image at all, but that is a different issue and a matter of taste, not ethics.)
However, if someone does something like this and then wants to pass it off as real, the result of their incredible effort to get to a certain place at the right time, and even claim (as certain photographers will do) that their work is honest and natural where the work of others isnt… this raises a serious ethical issue for me.
Notice something important here. For me it is not the fact that the image was constructed that creates the problem for me. It is the fact that the artist is intentionally and willingly participating in a deception that suggests that the art is something other than what he/she knows it to be. (I love food analogies. If someone wants to sell a Twinkie that has “additives” in it, so be it. But if someone wants to see the same Twinkie as Organic Health Food Twinkies, I have a different issue…)
I acknowledge that this argument begs another question: If it is dishonest to claim or imply that the giant moon in your sky is real rather than faked, how is it less dishonest to photoshop out a twig or dodge a shadow or color correct some bluish water and so forth?
For me the question is, where do I draw my own personal line? I (and virtually all landscape and other photographers) “manipulate” our photographs all the time as we work to make them express whatever it is we want the finished photograph to express. This has been true throughout the entire history of photography as an art and is nothing the least bit new or surprising. (I was at the Henri Cartier-Bresson show at SF MoMA yesterday. I am absolutely certain that some of his photographsin the show were “enhanced” by burning and dodging…)
I use the contemporary analogs of traditional darkroom procedures such as dodging/burning, spotting, contrast/curves adjustments, filters, tilt/shift, adjusting for lens field curvature, color adjustments, and so forth. I don’t recall ever adding anything to a photograph, but I certainly will remove or diminish things in post if the result is a better image, though in the vast majority of my photographs I do not remove anything at all aside from dust spots. My “position” on this has two parts:
1. If an photograph of mine is “highly manipulated” I indicate this in the title or description if necessary. For example, I have a small series of images that are obviously modified/constructed in post that I refer to as “imaginary landscapes.”
2. More to the point, I avoid any modification of a photograph that I would not be willing to discuss if the subject came up. In other words, I won’t lie.
Lots of words, but since the previous discussion also contained lots of words I hope no one minds.
Take care,
Dan
Deborah:
Sorry to be a nit-picker, but have to point out that one can’t control/expand space via focal length.
It can only be done by changing the camera position relative to the subject.
Take a picture from the same spot with two different lenses. Enlarge the one taken with the shorter lens to include the same area as the one taken with the longer lens.
Surprise, surprise! The two images are identical as to content, perspective, spatial relationships.
A most important lesson for photographers interested in controlling the composition of their images.
Actually, John, you can “control/expand” space with focal length.
Folks often express concern when someone suggests that focal length changes perspective, which, technically, speaking it doesn’t. This is more or less the (valid) point that you are making. (And notice that I didn’t use the term “perspective” to describe what I did… :-)
However, in practical terms the choice of a longer or shorter lens when keeping the main subject approximately the same size in the composition, does make it appear than other objects in front of and behind the main subject are separated from it by a greater or lesser degree, and the use of focal length in this way is a powerful compositional tool.
The key idea is that I’m not necessarily use focal length the way you describe – e.g. shooting from a single position using two different focal lengths. More likely I’ll move my camera position, possibly keeping the subject roughly the same size in the frame. For example, if I use a 100mm focal length and move back a bit versus using a 24mm focal length and moving in closer, in the former case background objects will fill more of the frame and appear closer and larger relative to my main subject. Not only that, but foreground objects that might be behind me when shooting at 24mm may now be between me and the subject and included in the composition. If I move to a 24mm focal length and move in close so that the main subject is roughly the same size it was at 100mm, objects behind the main subject appear smaller relative to the subject (e.g. – “further away”) than they do at 100mm.
In any case, and related to my points about “manipulating” photographs, the choice of focal length is one that the photographer uses to impose a “perspective” (in the interpretive sense, if not the optical sense) on the subject – by restricting what is/isn’t included in the frame, to control the relative size of objects in the frame, to handle effects of atmosphere differently, to exaggerate or flatten the relief and texture of subjects, and so forth.
Take care,
Dan
Okay folks it is really easy, in order not to manipulate a photograph as is stated in one of the posts, No one would ever see it. As there is manipulation in every form of photography in every camera. The way the camera dispenses the light on the film/sensor. In the film world it was lets get Koachrome (red), or Ektachrome (cooler Pictures (blue)) or Fuji (Green), and ASA 32-800, 35MM,110, 120 roll film, 4×6, 8×10 or bigger sheet. then came the paper and processing techniques. Oh and we haven’t even seen the picture. But once you process the film you have effectively manipulated the image.
Now in the digital world, RAW, or JPEG, Adobe (PNG DIgital Negative), if raw or PNG you have to convert it (MANIPULATE the image). ISO 50-128000, White Balance At least we have already seen the image.
At some point somewhere either in the camera software or in th computer software there will be manipulation.
As one writer above me said, removing from the image something that is fixed or permanent because oh it takes from the picture that to me is changing the picture as it was taken. But adjusting for detail, colour, and white balance as well as other changes to improve the image without removing from the image.
All digital cameras have a sweet spot in manipulation that every picture requires to have done to it, to get it close to what was seen or is being seen.
The bottom line as long as you are not destroying the original image (removing objects) and or altering the image to the point it is not the same picture at all. It is now part of the art of photography but it is also the science of photography that has evolved. But then again even in film we altered images, create new ones, most of the functions being done in photgraph were done in the lab as well.
How many pro photographer’s out there have not heard of Colour Corrected Prints at your Pro Labs
OOPS sorry that’s manipulation. You can’t use that photo if the no manipulation rule was applied.
As was said manipulation has occurred since the late 1800’s and will continue to happen no matter what the format.
I’ll probably be perceived as being argumentative, but that isn’t my goal. I enjoy your photography and have purchased a print. I’m not a troll.
I say you DO believe in objectively accurate photographs. You posted in your blog a while back a comment about an image posted at Flickr. I tried to use your search engine to find your blog entry but was unsuccessful. Someone had posted an image at Flickr of a moon over the playa at Death Valley. You posted a response at Flickr explaining at great length how there was no way the moon could have been in that position at that time at that location. Doesn’t that assume on your part that there IS such a thing as an objectively accurate photograph? By questioning that photograph, weren’t you in fact saying that image was NOT objectively accurate? The moon was either there or it wasn’t. That isn’t a subjective thing. I seem to recall you writing about how commenters were saying how “lucky” he was to have been there. That’s what concerned you. I cannot find that Flickr post right now, but I don’t remember the photographer claiming anything, much less accuracy. I do know that commenters ASSUMED it was objectively accurate. And that’s the heart of the issue: the average Joe who looks at an image ASSUMES it is objectively accurate, ESPECIALLY with nature/landscape photographs. They know better when they look at an image by someone such as Uelsmann, because an Uelsmann photograph clearly isn’t objective. But why question the photographer about the accuracy of that image? He, like you, knows there is no such thing as an objectively accurate image: “If the goal of photography was to make objectively accurate reproductions of real things… I wouldn’t bother.” If commenters falsely assume that Flickr photograph was objectively accurate, shouldn’t THEY be corrected? It just seems that there is a logical inconsistency between your action at Flickr and what you’re posting on this topic of photographic accuracy.
P.S.
Strange, but not long after that post I went back to the Flickr site and noticed your post was removed. Did you remove it or did the photographer?
Eric.
The other photographer removed my post. I’ll perhaps say more about this later, as I’m at SF MoMA right now.
When it comes to post processing I have one simple mantra “manipulate presentation, not content”.
While I generally try to make the resulting image file truly represent the original transparency, there are times when dodging and burning are required for example – “manipulate presentation”. However, I would never photoshop out something that is a fixed part of the scene, like change the sky for a different one, or removing a tree for example – “manipulate content” – I consider that lying.
I won’t change my mantra for the sake of a “pretty picture”. There are naturally grey areas, but these are resolved by attitude and personal charachter.
I won’t spend any significant time going through the idea of photography itself being a distortion of reality, since others have stated it and all I can do is agree.
There are multiple problems with something like an enforceable standard (even setting aside the logistics like who’s going to establish it and who’s going to enforce it, and what are the penalties for going astray). As Chris points out, there’s a ton of detail in the application of the standard that not only makes it difficult to form any kind of consensus (assuming there was even consensus on the concept of a standard), you’re left with a lot of “it depends” sort of responses. The fact is, it does depend on the scene, on the type of shot, and on what the photographer’s intent is. I’m going to judge the acceptable level of manipulation differently for an image that is purported to be documentary in nature versus one that is intended for illustration versus one that is intended for fine art. Frankly, it inevitably ends up being a Potter Stewart standard.
The other problem is I feel like these sorts of efforts have little to do with photography and have much more to do with a very unfortunate aspect of human culture and society, and that’s the fact that there always have been and always will be people who aren’t content to do things the way they believe they should be done, but who insist that everyone else must conform to their standards as well. Fortunately, it’s a pretty harmless tendency in this arena, but it’s still annoying and counterproductive. I think people would be much happier – both in the abstract and as individuals – if they simply focused on determining the approach that’s right for them, not misrepresenting their work, and just enjoying producing images that please them. And let others do the same.
This debate in photography is almost as old as photography itself and it’s nothing new to digital. In fact in a philosophical way it’s older than photography and indeed it is impossible to separate observation from interpretation even within our own observation of the world.
So you’re right Dan that there is no absolute method of locking down some sort of objective and pure photograph. On the other hand I feel as though there is a spectrum where images and photographers can choose to fall on.
So in a lot of ways trying to find the absolute misses the point. Just because we can’t achieve perfection does not mean we shouldn’t try to get as close to it as we can (or should we?).
That’s the debate I find interesting and important – where each photographer falls in the spectrum. Is it okay to clone out a cloud that throws off your composition? Is that honest? how honest is it? I don’t necessarily feel like there are easy answers and certainly there is not a useful standard that can be developed for this. Even if you feel it’s okay to clone out the cloud, what about cloning in clouds? what about cloning in clouds, jacking up the colors, adding birds, and using infared film.
There will never be a solution for this argument but being aware of it makes us better and more informed photographers, simply by considering where we might fall on the scale we are able to make choices with our images which take into consideration the implications of using things like the clone tool or jacking up the colors on an image or using infared film.
The variables are infinite, murky, and there are no absolutes. We can’t be pure and objective. So while the argument of “photoshop” or “no photoshop” isn’t particularly interesting, the devil is in the details.
Manipulating an image in “post-processing” has been going on for over 100 years so what’s new. As far as I am concerned as soon as you put your camera on your tripod and point it towards what you want to photograph, you manipulated the scene. I’ll let the “purist” discuss this “post-processing” in the digital world while I go out and take pictures. However, while photographing wildlife and/or nature, I try not to show the “hand of man” in my photographs. This is as close as I come to accepting their argument.
Ben