Talk:Photograph manipulation/Archive 1

Adding html a good or bad idea?
Should this be reset to previous version or can it be developed?--Profero 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you've on photos are mentioned in the text and should remain "close", but move your images and the two of the woman to another section. Imroy 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had hoped someone, like you, with better skils than mine would help out in a friendly way with an expanded improvement of the less than perfect. Someone that immediately knows how to use the Meta:Help:Table.
 * In the meantime I shall read more about it myself, revert to an earlier version of the article and also read more about the Civility Etiquette and No personal attacks. I suggest you read those articles too. and also this!  --Profero 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? If you wanted someone to fix up the table you should have just said so. I simply offered my opinion and some suggestions. Try to be more clear in the future. That was not uncivil, and how can it be a personal attack? Yeesh. Imroy 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your point of view. To clarify my point of view, the first thing I asked for was help. So in that situation I found the "Wow", the "screwed" and the "at least" insulting. (Although no longer necessary for practical purposes, perhaps you, or someone else, could come up with an example of a friendly and constructive way on how to reply to the question.) Practically, I would think it is easy, for someone used to handling this type of layout, to revert and improve my idea without unnecessary fuss or uncivil insulting expressions like "Huh" and "Yeesh". 
 * For more on language use, please see user discussion pages. --Profero 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement is spam:
Time illustrator Matt Mahurin was the one to alter the image, saying later that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling."

The focus of the first half of the sentence is Matt Mahurin and his role as a New York Times illustrator. Andyohio 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

identical material found elswhere on the Internet
Look at the series of images and the content of this web page:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html

It has the same general content, but it quotes its sources better than this Wikipedia page. Perhaps someone took material from this source and put it in Wikipedia. Andyohio 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While the content is similar, the purpose of using it isn't. Here we are presenting the styles of photo manipulation while they are commenting on changing history for bias or other purposes. There is no copyright violation present as all pictures appear to be properly sources with appropriate fair use rational, or are otherwise ineligble for copyright and no text was directly copied from the aforementioned link. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

on definitions
Hi, I am a selftaught digital artist using Photoshop: http://abstract-digital-art.com I should like to comment on : Digital Art> Fields of art> Photography/cinematography-related: Would you pls. consider changing the definition to read: “Artwork created through a camera or through alterations of digital imagefiles”, as the noun manipulation may imply abuse or tricks. The subtitel >Photo manipulations< should read: “Alterations of digital imagefiles” as we are not manipulating photos but applying alterations to digital imagefiles. keas

Article is too negative and political
I changed the title and various instances from "manipulation" to "editing". Excessive use of the word "manipulation" implies that there is no good reason to edit photos. There needs to be more said about the creative and aesthetic reasons for photo editing to offset the negativity. If enough cannot be said to offset the negativity, then the political implications needs to be in a separate article titled "controversial photo manipulation" or something to the effect. Oicumayberight 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article could be greatly improved
I think this article is, in its current state, fairly poor. The structure of the article for one needs improving; starting the first paragraph "In digital editing.." seems premature or too specific as surely a paragraph discussing history or general overview should be first. There is nothing about the continuity from traditional retouching to digital retouching e.g. unsharp mask, nothing about the growing use of cgi alongside photoshop within the industry. What about a mention for photoshop aside from a link? I would also say that there is a fairly good argument for either merging the article with digital image editing into an all encompassing article or making clear that this article soley discusses the social/propaganda side of photo editing. And an additional article or pre-digital techniques? I would also question the redirect to this article from "retouching"; i think most people use the term with the sense of digital image editing. Also what is the point in saying that images can be obtained from stock libraries?? They have originated through either a digital or film-based process in the first place - isn't this a bit like saying tomatos can be grown in a greenhouse or a field or brought in a supermarket? What about the cited controversies over retouched images within the press - how extensive is this? There a case last summer where a Reuters (i think) photographer was sacked for using the clone tool in photoshop to make explosions look more impressive.

3tmx 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry just spotted link to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies

3tmx 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)