Ace Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 In the past i have noticed that several pictures appear to have been `digitally altered`? However when you click the info on a picture the digitally altered box is often not ticked. So can anyone please tell me .... when is a picture deemed to have been altered ? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I consider digitally altered when I remove something that was in a picture, say an unwanted post or anything small that might distract from the shot. Of course it can go right up to having an elephant on a skateboard. To me altering a picture is literally changing the physical appearance of an image. Exposure adjustments, contrast, etc are not considered digitally altered. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Thanks for the reply Jill. Was actually seeing that people had HDR photos + more and then not clicked the digitally altered tab. Was just curious ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 No idea why your original post deserved a red mark, have a greeny to compensate! Trying to find images that appear in papers and magazines it becomes apparent that a large number of images have the wrong number of people specified, I get the impression that some contributors just ignore that aspect or randomly choose an answer. It can only irritate a buyer, don't know why more care isn't taken. Re digitally altered I would go along with Jill's interpretation, although I seem to recall David Kilpatrick providing a more detailed response if you care to search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 No idea why your original post deserved a red mark, have a greeny to compensate! Trying to find images that appear in papers and magazines it becomes apparent that a large number of images have the wrong number of people specified, I get the impression that some contributors just ignore that aspect or randomly choose an answer. It can only irritate a buyer, don't know why more care isn't taken. Re digitally altered I would go along with Jill's interpretation, although I seem to recall David Kilpatrick providing a more detailed response if you care to search. I agree Bryan that some people just choose anything. I also think that some people are afraid that if it says digitally altered it will discourage a buyer. I always put in the description field any changes I made to the picture . I have seen shots that you know have to be digitally altered but are not marked as so. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The work from some (all?) agencies is not marked at all for digital alteration. My images from Blend/ImageSource don't have any indication. I think the whole point of this was to make sure people didn't alter the major facts of an editorial scene, i.e. moved buildings in what was supposed to be a factual photo. If I photo shop out a piece of litter etc, I don't consider that digitally altered - I don't work to PJ standards so if I put a commercial lifestyle portrait on a different background, that's just par for the course with commercial - does it alter the facts of the situation, well there was no 'situation' to start with. No agency asks me for the details of what I did in creating the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 No idea why your original post deserved a red mark, have a greeny to compensate! Trying to find images that appear in papers and magazines it becomes apparent that a large number of images have the wrong number of people specified, I get the impression that some contributors just ignore that aspect or randomly choose an answer. It can only irritate a buyer, don't know why more care isn't taken. Re digitally altered I would go along with Jill's interpretation, although I seem to recall David Kilpatrick providing a more detailed response if you care to search. Seems someone has it in for you, Ace, you got another red arrow - I've cancelled that out, too. Anyhow - in full agreement with Bryan & Jill. In Manage Images>Attributes, there is a link under the words 'digitally altered', which brings up the relevant help for that point. The info. there seems fairly clear - and I know that some folk will get upset when questions are asked that are readily available in help files. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Thanks all for your comments. Always good when people try to help. I have a good understanding of what you should and shouldn't take out but kept coming across pictures that had obviously been tweaked a lot but still didn't have the d/a box crossed. I have zero idea why people give out red arrows and frankly couldn't really care but would say I thought they were there to mark down nasty, devious, underhand type comments etc. Ah well ! Just some sad lonely anonymous person out there probably ;-) But thanks for the green ones, appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I have images with Corbis (and elsewhere) that look like record shots/casual snaps but have been carefully constructed. Because they are not in a documentary or press collection there is no need to point out that they are 'digitally altered'. What counts as 'digital alteration' outside of Alamy is dependent on whatever category the image falls under: Commercial and/or 'Fine Art': just about anything goes Regular stock: most buyers won't throw a tantrum if it turns out that skies have been added or piles of rubbish removed, and the description is generic Documentary: changes that accentuate mood might be acceptable but nothing should be removed /added. Great documentary photography often contains some dissonance anyway Press: people have been fired for applying mood altering changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Thanks Robert, some helpful comments there. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Just as a guide as to my personal take on this:Two similar images I have up I have classed as not digitally altered I have classed as digitally altered The alterations are far from being extreme, in my view. All I have done is exaggerate what was already there - deepen saturation, brighten areas, etc. [the flare was in camera, not added afterward], but it is enough to lend a slightly unnatural feel and - I feel - is most definitely digitally altered. A lot of folk might well disagree were this their image, I don't know, but there are certainly many out there who really don't give a monkey's uncle about checking the boxes which clearly and correctly classify their images, whether that be number of people / digitally altered / model or property releases and so on. Just do what you feel is the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I would not have marked that as altered. All you did could have been done in the darkroom. I've done as much to some images. A matter of opinion as you say but in that case it may be assumed that you have added the flare as it's commonly done, often badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Edwards Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Take a look at this scale wrt News Images... http://www.epuk.org/The-Curve/944/image-manipulation IMHO 1 & 2 do not constitute digital alteration, 3 onwards do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.