Digitally altered, what does it mean ?

[Ace 246]

I've just been looking at some Alamy contribs photographs online.

 

Some of the photographs i have looked at have obviously had massive amounts or `help` huge saturation levels etc

 

I know that skies are not blue, yellow, red and purple all in the same photograph.

 

Then i see the contrib states `not digitally altered` !!

 

Am I missing something here ?

 

 

[spacecadet 3,265]

Anything you could have done in the darkroom isn't usually reckoned to be alteration. I certainly wouldn't.

[Radim 61]

Sometimes I see the moon over the world-famous building, evidently Added in Photoshop, but is marked as non Digitally Altered. Radim

[wiskerke 2,886]

Sometimes I see the moon over the world-famous building, evidently Added in Photoshop, but is marked as non Digitally Altered. Radim

 

Add balloons, men in boilersuits, branches of the same tree, windmills and tulips and probably many more.

Most of these even come up at the same page, which may make me laugh out loud when I see it. But to the client it's very clear that digitally altered: no, can not be trusted.

 

There has been a sweep for those moons at some point. And a lot of contributors have cleaned up their act on the moons after that. Mostly by declaring them digitally altered. Some added a line in the description declaring the moon inserted. I have done the opposite: declaring my moon or sun genuine ;-)

So when I declare an image digitally altered I usually describe what that has been: like removing power lines.

 

wim

[Matt Limb 140]

My 10 pence worth - is it is boosting the normal colour, pushing the clarity, tweaking the exposure or within reason the colour balance I regard this as not digitally altered, I regard this as processing and enhancement. 

 

But if anything is removed, power lines, people, objects or items or there is a significant colour change, then it has been digitally altered - in which case I put a note to this

[Martin P Wilson 1,139]

Anything you could have done in the darkroom isn't usually reckoned to be alteration. I certainly wouldn't.

I adopt the same approach.It is essentially true but I would make that not NORMALLY done in the darkroom. I have recently been looking at combination-printed pictures by Angus McBean and Hag. That was real craftsmanship!

Edited March 8, 2016 by Martin P Wilson

[Julie Edwards 406]

If it is not what would have been experienced when there, then it is digitally altered.

 

On the list below, items 3 to 5 should be marked as yes...

 

http://www.epuk.org/the-curve/image-manipulation

[Martin P Wilson 1,139]

If it is not what would have been experienced when there, then it is digitally altered.

 

On the list below, items 3 to 5 should be marked as yes...

 

http://www.epuk.org/the-curve/image-manipulation

Arguably the more extreme versions of point 2 should also be marked as digitally altered. As in this one of mine. It has a note:

Heavily processed to give toy camera, dreamy look

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Martin P Wilson

[spacecadet 3,265]

 

If it is not what would have been experienced when there, then it is digitally altered.

 

On the list below, items 3 to 5 should be marked as yes...

 

http://www.epuk.org/the-curve/image-manipulation

Arguably the more extreme versions of point 2 should also be marked as digitally altered. As in this one of mine. It has a note:

Heavily processed to give toy camera, dreamy look

 

 

Not in my book. The World Press Photo criteria are surprisingly restrictive. I can think of some great press pix of the past they would have disqualified. Remember Joe Gormly and Derek Ezra?

[Ace 246]

Thank you for the replies.

I always use lightroom and adjust slightly to to what was there on the day. it was just seeing some photographs that had been massively altered and that confused me a little

I wouldn't want to risk QC with too much !

[Alexandre Fagundes 55]

There is a very thin line here that will get to the interpretation of the photographer.

Some might be purists saying that any changes is a digitally altered image even if its just a tweak in the color temperature so it looks more natural.

Some other will say that getting rid of power lines you are not altering the essence of the image.

Its a nice debate, but you will not get to any conclusion in the end, sorry.