Most of my pics have a little tone and colour correction. I have one that I have turned into sepia tone, I might add some grain for authenticity (Not posted yet). Which raises the question:

At what point does a photograph become a manipulation?

When ever you change it either at negative, print or on computer even if its in the dark room. anything other the the original capture is a munipulation.

i dont agree, seeing as this is a digital site (duh), with digital pictures, and just about everyone who posts has photoshop, i think people have the right to do colour correction, blurring, saturation, even slight changes such as removing a distraction from the image without haveing to call it a manipulation.

While I respect Prismmagic's standards, I think he has set the bar too high. I would define a manipulated image as one that can be judged to have been visually altered to such a degree (from the original image) that the modified image could be considered a discrete representation.

I agree with both comments to a certain extent. Clayton is right that anything other than the the original image is a manipulation in textbook knowledge. I also agree with Carl that a little touchup to create an image that is suitable as a desktop is acceptable. To categorize an image as a manipulation on Caedes I think there has to be a more drastic change in the images appearance. Images posted to Caedes appear different on idividual monitors and as such there is manipulation whether we like it or not;-) Such simple changes as color correction, levels and brightness/contrast do not warrant calling an image a manipulation. This of course is also dependent on the severity of the change. Sepia is definately a manipulation! Just my point of veiw;-)

The only time that an image is not considered a manipulation is when it is set in stone as a varied change or is being put to use as and altered image. In this case it is considered an original image depending if it does not infringe on the original images content or the rights of another artist. There for in the respect of the opinions and the other statements yes a manipulation can be considered an original image; if it was meant to be manipulated from the beginning. But still in all cents of the word if an image is changed in any form by rights it is a manipulation. Either way it is still considered art in the end result.

I respect everyone’s opinion and thank you all for responding to my question. I’m quite happy to relegate my sepia photo to manipulation.

My wife’s camera allows her to take sepia shots as well as colour. That makes her sepia an original capture. Perhaps the answer depends on which camera you use when you take the picture?

Hmm, I hope I haven’t thrown a spanner in the works.

to auto alter an images colour balance or contrast to corect poor lighting or exposure I would say is an enhancement - anything over and above that would be a manipulation - a fine line indeed that cuts through a very grey area.

Thank you for your input phil.

I would say that merely altering tone, contrast, etc in order to enhance a photo should not be classed as manipulation (even though it obviously is manipulation in the strict sense of the word).

If an image can be seen to have been obviously altered through the use of filters, layers, desaturation, etc then I think it can be said to be a photo-manipulation.

I like the enhancement>manipulation definition as proposed by philcUK. Perhaps this should become the clarification or determination factor for all future categorizations of such images.

Just remember what the galleries are there for when you are posting. They are there to make it easier for members to navigate; so just think, if I was a member looking for this image, what gallery would I look in? Personally, if I was looking for a photograph that had just had it's color/sharpness enhanced, I wouldn't look in "Manipulation". I would look in that gallery for a photo that had been deliberately altered to look different from the original. I hope you get what I mean...

Thanks Sam, I understand your meaning.

I need help, I have lots of digital photos but Idont know how to get them to desktop size, HELP!

What image applications do you have? EG photoshop, paintshop pro, paint etc...

Im currently using my freinds photoshop, and I have yet to buy my own.

OK then , you can either go image -> image size and change it to the size you want (1600 x 1200 is best if the image is large enough) or if the proportions aren't carrect, just open another new document of the correct size, and drag the image into the frame. Hope this helps!

Thanks thats great, but my camera just got stolen and Im about to kill somebody! >(

I know someone from Jersey who can 'manipulate' and 'render' them for a small upfront fee.

I have never manipulated an image , in all my gallery is one manipulated image(ochre flower).
Thanks to my friend,Darryl.I agree Prismmagic.Anything other than the original is manipulation for me.

That’s an interesting comment Joost. I don’t disagree with you, its right for you and that’s OK.

Tracy, what do yo mean by manipulate, and by the way do you mean New Jersey, the state, and finally, why would you pay a fee to have someone manipulate your picture?

Chris -- relax. Jokes about New Jersey have been around for as long as there's been a Manhattan with a garbage problem. Of course, I'm talking about the narrow 'Tony Soprano' strip from Newark to Trenton. Now, Far Hills is my kind of place.

ooh, okay, lol