I've read many posts now and talked to several people who are into digital photography but refuse to make use of image manipulation software. But so far I haven't heard one good reason for this. Everytime I ask people about it all I get is "religious" answers about how it is "evil" to retouch your photos and that only what came out of the camera is truly "pure". Are there any real valid reasons for not using image manipulation programs?

I understand that trying to get the perfect shot on the spot and not relying on software will ultimately make you a better photographer, but no manipulation whatsoever??? To me this sounds like if someone has a six string guitar and only plays one string because the others are somehow unpure. Or am I wrong about this? Is image manipulation an integral part of the digital photography work process or something that only blasphemers do?

Why ask? I think you've already made up your mind!

If I had already made up my mind, I would have known and therefore wouldn't ask. I honestly want to know.

If it has WOW factor...does it really matter how the image was made? Not in my mind:--)

I think everyone has there limits, basicly at least in my opinion if its a picture to document or educate about something as it is, dont manip, on the other hand if its art, then whats the harm?

Photographs have been manipulated ever since photography was invented. Even the grand master Ansel Adams spent a lot of time in the darkroom manipulating his negatives. Then he wrote books to teach others how to do it. I think you are putting yourself to a huge disadvantage if you don’t manipulate to some extent.

There are some in this world that will never change their views .. be it peanut butter preference .. or .. ill-conceived views on purity

no point in losing sleep over them ....

and, years from now, when the food police announce that your own choice of peanut butter causes insanity ... you can laugh along with them while they are laughing at you

chances are they are either lying or deluded as digi cams do lots of manipulations all by themselves whether or not the user knows it :-)

ok, can we substitute "post-production work" in place of "editing, adjustments, or manipulation" for the purposes of this conversation? it might make it clearer... IMHO

fair enough. Unless you have a very good sensor - say an EOS 5D or better coupled to pro-grade glassware - you will always have to do some post work. Digital captures are inherently soft and if nothing else usually need a bit of sharpening and/or some auto fixes. You can choose to leave them but why would you? the idea of capturing a scene - to me anyways - is to present it in it's best possible light. Leaving your digi image untouched is the artistic equivalent of being a vegan - a nice idea in principle but not very pretty to look at :-)

lmao... i was seriously nodding my head in agreement until that last line...i am among those who, at least for a time, believed in the 'purity' of an image. i had to be reminded of my own 'manipulation' of neg's back in college before i was able to re-align my point of view.

i do however,understand both sides of the argument. i think not enough people focus enough effort on taking a good shot, knowing a) it's disposable and b)'fixable' in post-prod
the end result (and NO this isnt directed at anyone) could wind up being a technically superior, but poorly composed piece...and again..just my own opinion..

True - but post work can only take an image so far - there has to be a sound foundation already there in the image to begin with. You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear etc etc…..

In my opinion the old maxim 'garbage in, garbage out' applies equally to digital photography. Post-production can't really make a bad pic good, but it can help make a good pic great. Cakes are always better with icing. Of course occasionally it'l be possible to take an image so good that no post-production is required. When that day comes, I'll let you guys know.

Bad photos can always be made good by inverting them and adding a lens flare.

dont forget a twirl filter.

Thanks for the replies everyone. The general consensus so far seems to confirm the assumption I stated in my first post. Post processing is in fact an important part of digital photography but you need to have good photos to begin with.

Another question is how much post processing is still acceptable, assuming you're not going for the "surreal art" effect? Looking at the really top quality pictures here, how much does a typical 10/10 entry look different from what came out of the camera? Just a little auto sharpening and subtle colour levels/curves adjustment or something more? Is a heavily post processed photo (cloning, erasing, compositing several photos, etc) considered to be somehow "inferior" or does anything go?

It's fine, but if you are doing anything like cloning or erasing than it should go under "Photo->manipulation". That way you know exactly what you're getting.

Even when all you do is clone out unsightly blobs of light or whatever from the background? Because I do that all the time.

i would count removing dirt/blobs etc as just an enhancement not a manipulation so would be fine under normal galleries - i think sam was referring to cloning out or in entire sections of an image.

Yeah sorry. What I really mean is if you change the "soul" of the image, you should put it in manipulation.

my stuff should go in mangleation

lmao!

wow, an entire thread on wether image manipulation is right or wrong without a single person getting there head bitten off, it could only happen at caedes :-)