If I totally blur the background of an image, would that be considered Digitally Altered?

[Jill Morgan]

I want to take some of photos and totally blur out the background but leave the subject sharp. Would this now be counted as digitally altered? I don't think so, but thought I would run it past your guys.

 

Jill

[David Kilpatrick]

If you do it in-camera using your lens, no. If you select it in Photoshop and apply blur, yes - altered.

[IkonographyCollection]

If you do it in-camera using your lens, no. If you select it in Photoshop and apply blur, yes - altered.

And I'd add if you do it in camera without the lens (using some miniture setting, for example) then it would be digitally altered. Anything beyond dust spot cloning, exposure "dodging" and "burning", contrast tweeks and minor colour balance modification and I consider the image altered.

[spacecadet]

'Miniture setting'?

[Bill Brooks]

It is industry standard to declare any alteration if the alteration is done digitally, even if you could do the same thing optically at the the of shooting. This first came about when National Geographic was caught digitally moving the Pyramids for compositional purposes.

 

I declare the digital alteration, and then put a note in the description box as to exactly what was digitally altered.

 

Example would be "Bird digitally moved off image centre for compositional purposes. Bird was at the image location and in the image at the time of shooting"

[IkonographyCollection]

'Miniture setting'?

Sorry for the imprecision. I just checked, its labled Diorama in the "ART" setting on (some) Olympus cameras.  Probably any of the settings in that mode I would be considered digitally altered.  I haven't tried those settings myself.  Never had to even think about it when I was using Canon SLRs.