Digitally altered? Monochrome/BW + Grain

[ann]

Digitally altered? NO YES

 

When an image taken in color & without obvious grain is presented as captured, but in monochrome with grain, is it digitally altered? (ex:  bit.ly/Z4x6By ) 

 

How about when an image taken in color & without obvious grain is presented as captured, but in B&W with grain - digitally altered? (ex: bit.ly/Z6toHt )

 

When one sees images that appear to fit above descriptions, some have YES & some have NO selected for "Digitally Altered"  - but, for all I know, the ones marked "Digitally Altered" include some manipulation such as cloning.

 

thank you - Ann

 

(edited: don't know how long above links will work, so here's gallery link High Line gallery )

 

[spacecadet]

Not that particular image, no. It's just a mono version of a colour original.

If you could have done it in the darkroom, it's not altered.

[Paul Thompson]

I too would say no for both of them, I think it is more about adding something that was not there in the first place like changing the background. Or cloning out lamp posts and bins that were there originally. Or really heavy manipulation. Could be proved to be wrong though!

[Ed Rooney]

I agree with Mark. But I'm curious, Ann, why you decided to convert those images to B&W? If a newspaper or any other client/buyer wants B&W for some reason, they can do the conversion. This has always been the case. 

 

 

I categorize most of my images as romantic realism, that is I pick up candy wrappers and cigarette butts. I consider this spotting and not digital alteration. 

 

[ann]

spacecadet & Paul Thompson, thank you so much for your feedback.

 

Ed Rooney - I referred to those 2 images because they fit my "Digitally altered" question, but I certainly agree with you.  Those BW/monotone versions have even more limited use to newspapers, or any other sort of client,  than the color ones do.  (After seeing your post, I temporarily put both color & BW/monotone versions of the 2 images in High Line gallery.)

 

In fact, though the High Line visit was great fun with friends, I might as well have left DSLR at home - the mime shots were the only ones I uploaded to any agency.

...I plan to return sometime at dusk.

 

- Ann

 

[Ed Rooney]

spacecadet & Paul Thompson, thank you so much for your feedback.

 

Ed Rooney - I referred to those 2 images because they fit my "Digitally altered" question, but I certainly agree with you.  Those BW/monotone versions have even more limited use to newspapers, or any other sort of client,  than the color ones do.  (After seeing your post, I temporarily put both color & BW/monotone versions of the 2 images in High Line gallery.)

 

In fact, though the High Line visit was great fun with friends, I might as well have left DSLR at home - the mime shots were the only ones I uploaded to any agency.

...I plan to return sometime at dusk.

 

- Ann

 

LOL Ann . . . I had exactly the same High Line experience last week. I met an old friend and we walked up and down the whole thing, but as soon as we were in motion the day took on a London-style overcast, and I decided to enjoy the company of my friend and revisit later to shoot, maybe at dusk!  

[David Kilpatrick]

Mono conversions - never leave it to the client... they maybe just desaturate or convert to greyscale. The worst methods. Channel blending (the basis for mono conversion plug-ins) produces much better results, combined with the necessary tone curves. My mono conversions are very specific to the shot.

[ann]

David Kilpatrick- thanks for pointing out the plus of photographer doing the mono conversions

 

E.R. & rest of NYC area forum members - High Line Summmer Shoot at Dusk?

 

- Ann

[Brian Yarvin]

Ann, are you suggesting a meetup? An event in Manhattan could be major.

[StudioOnePcola]

Read this:

 

Michael

[ann]

Yes, Brian, a Manhattan photo outing, ex - High Line, could be fun this summer!

 

If we're lucky enough to get good turn out, though, we might need to consider more spacious area. When I went to High Line with 3 friends recently, certain places were so crowded we split into pairs.

 

Since it likely would be an unofficial meet up, from a safety angle it should help if we have it in a public area and welcome each contributor to bring a friend.

 

I'll post a new topic to see who might be interested...  

 

[edited to add: Created new Topic on Photo Meet Up, in forum's Talk About Pics section, with a Poll, and before I could post it, my browser spun to new page. Will have to recreate it later.]

 

- Ann

 

 

Ann, are you suggesting a meetup? An event in Manhattan could be major.

[RedTel]

I agree with David Kilpatrick ref b&w conversion BUT surely " digitally altered " shouldn't carry so much weight. If the image has been digitally altered, maybe it needs to go into a " fine art " or " creative art " folder. 

Most image editors consider " additions " or " subtractions " ( not colour or tone ) as digitally altered. BUT it's an argument with lots of legs !

[Doc]

I would not count simple to conversion to B&W as being digitally altered, but addition of grain is an interesting one...In those occasional photos where I have been unsure,  I tick the "Digitally altered" box, and then make a comment in the Description field as to what I have actually done; for example "The only way this photo has been digitally altered is in the addition of some grain" so the purchaser knows that nothing else has been done.

 

(In fact whenever I tick the digitally altered box, which is only very rarely, I always qualify it with a comment in the description field) 

 

Kumar Sriskandan

[fotoDogue]

I would not count simple to conversion to B&W as being digitally altered, but addition of grain is an interesting one...In those occasional photos where I have been unsure,  I tick the "Digitally altered" box, and then make a comment in the Description field as to what I have actually done; for example "The only way this photo has been digitally altered is in the addition of some grain" so the purchaser knows that nothing else has been done.

 

(In fact whenever I tick the digitally altered box, which is only very rarely, I always qualify it with a comment in the description field) 

 

Kumar Sriskandan

 

Also the first image appears to have been toned. It may be monochrome but it's not black and white. Granted, digital alteration is probably in the eye of the client but I would include some mention that it's been toned in addition to the monochrome conversion.

[ann]

thank you RedTel, Doc, & fotoDogue

 

about adding specific info in Description Field about alterations: Yes, I find that useful, too.

For example, in a couple of photos of rare pedigreed cat, I selected "Digitally Altered" because of some limited alteration, such as darkening background, and then added in  Description Field exact info about CAT  (ex: Cat has not been digitally altered; saturation increaed in Cat's eyes, but shape & size not altered....)

 

- Ann

[fotoDogue]

Back in the days of film and darkrooms most photographers burned and dodged during printing. Some even used multi-grade paper with different filters to retain detail in the highlight and shadows. I couldn't necessarily consider darkening the background digital manipulation.