UKH

The UKC Photography forum regularly has threads about certain photos and what post-processing they've had, but you rarely get to see the original photo straight out of the camera. Here we are lucky enough to have 12 examples of before & after photos from photographers on UKClimbing.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=212

Please email me or post in the forum thread with any corrections, links to good books, websites, etc. and I'll update the article.

Cheers

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Rather disapointed that you seem to endorse removing spotters from bouldering shots

This is just as bad as removing a rope from a climbing shot; which you gave me a lot of grief for.

In reply to kevin stephens:

No I bloody don't. From the article:

"Clutter in the background of shots distracts from the subject of the photo, and it may be impractical to hide rucksacks, spectators and other clutter before taking the shot. This is very different of course from removing a spotter or a top-rope!"

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Forgive me for getting a little confused but I am wondering if there are any ethical considerations whan "toutching up" photos in Photoshop. I can't see the problem with messing with tone values, histograms and the such. But is it OK to wipe out entire parts of an image such as bystanders, ropes and clutter in the persuit of an image?

Up untill reading a few topics like this I thought that many of the 5 Star images were taken by bloody good photographers and now I am beginning to doubt the validity of the images that are presented on here.

If I see a climbing photo I presumed that it was a factual representation of what actually happened, and at times I marvled at the skilled and techneques used. From this I read that people either bystander, spotter or whatever have been pixelled out of existance. If I see somebody soloing an Ice Route, trad route or boulder problem should I first assume that the climber was using a Tope-ropes before considering what is shown infront of me.

In effect are there any ethical reasons before I submit any images in the future?

Is it OK for me to find somebody with a perfect physique doing a desperate E19 12a and clone my head onto it? This may sound an absurd thing to say but isn't it similar to what is going on with many of the photos that people are voting on?

Are people voting on the technical skills of the photo or are they being influenced by the author's skills at pixel manipulation?

In reply to The Lemming:
This level of manipulation is a bit worrying trend in say photojourbalism; but if I was to do some skillful manipulation to convert my humble efforts into something different on what is essentially a "hobby" site then it only makes a cock of me. Guys that have actually seen me on a rock or a hill (and there are a fair few on here) would crucify me!!

Not really worth worrying about as far as I am concerned in a UKC context.

Nice set of articles BTW and good effort by all involved.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Ah, now I see! It isn't that I can't take a photo to save my life, it is just that I can't use photoshop like that Marek dude. The change from before to after is a revelation, I'm in awe.

In reply to The Lemming:

Well that must be a personal choice, but for me, I'm quite happy cloning out a rucksack left lying on the ground - it's almost impossible to always clear the background of clutter, especially when there are other people using the crag! However I'd never clone out a spotter, bouldering mat, a rope, or otherwise change the ethical status of a climb.

Cheers

In reply to The Lemming:

It depends on whether you consider a photo 'reportage' or 'art'. In the former case, cloning or adding features misrepresents the facts (there has been all sorts of hullaballoo about this in the news recently, regarding a lebanese photographer); but in the latter case cloning can increase the photo's artistic value.

It is a fine line but I think most people accept that, if your cloning out to improve the quality of the image, then it's no real problem. If you're altering the pic purely to distort the facts (i.e. airbrush out a top-rope, only to claim that you were leading at the time!) then it's frowned upon.

In reply to Alun:

Someone's rudely pasted the face of some gargoyle-featured gimp onto this nice picture of an ice cream. I'm disgusted.

Before:
http://www.mealor.co.uk/random/al-cornetto.jpg

After:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/kenny2mri/ClimbingFolk/o-solo-mio.jpg

In reply to The Lemming: I would say it's the final image that counts and not it was captured or how it was made.

For me photography is the capturing of moments as I remember them, so if I need to minap to get that result in my head I will.

With respect to ethics and minaps I will always say what ive changed.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

One of the examples shown is removing a rope though?

In reply to Simon Caldwell: A rope that wasnt being used by either of the climbers though.

In reply to Kenny: looking at the hand to mouth position I think he got of lightly.

In reply to g taylor:
Indeed, but it was there to be used if required and so affects the 'ethical status' of the ascent.

P.S. I've removed ropes from photos in similar circumstances, if it improves the picture, but then I wouldn't have any qualms about removing spotters too!

In reply to ICE:

I was trying to blow some heat into my fingers

In reply to Simon Caldwell: The rope wasnt there to be used as it was tied to me and unbelayed. I'd just tied it on to simplify rope work when we did start belayed climbing. So if Stuart had decided to use it, he'd of pulled me straight down the pitch.

In reply to g taylor:
You're a braver man than me!

In reply to Simon Caldwell: It really wasnt very steep. Maybe 50 degrees.

In reply to g taylor: This is a weird question, but as I was there and know how steep it was, it has changed my perception of the picture. How steep does it "look?"

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Bit of a subjective call: Spotter / observer?

These sort of edits should only be allowed if explained in the caption / notes (as I have always done)

If you want to remove clutter, physically remove it from the scene before firing the shutter

Substituting skys etc is just not on

IMHO editing should just be cropping, levels, colur balance, contrast, unless specifically explained.

In reply to ICE:

He "got off" eh? Mmmmm does that explain the "vinegar stroke" expression?

In reply to kevin stephens: Could we "substitute" your ears on your profile pic? ;-P

In reply to kevin stephens:
Are you not getting a wee bit excited here Kev? It's only a hobby; climbing and photography. There is nothing wrong with improving the aesthetics of a picture by taking out the odd rubbish; when you are trying to deceive for profit it's a different matter; and then as I said previously you are only taking the pish out of youself when you do it on a site like this.

In reply to Removed User:
and then as I said previously you are only taking the pish out of youself when you do it on a site like this.


Over the years I have grown to respect much of the content of this site, including the photos. I obviously ignore the trolls and idle banter, of which I include myself when I'm pissed and on here late at night, but isn't this site building up a reputation for the vast aray of climbing knowledge and overall Life Skills knowledge as well?


Does this argument also hold for the images that we place on here? Can I actually believe or trust what I am being shown in the photo galleries or should I view every single image as an artform which has been deliberately manipulated beyond what was actually in front of the lens?

Even though I hate bouldering, purely because I can't boulder myself, I find those images exceptionaly interesting to look at. They all have shape, form and interesting subject matter. Should I now view them as art, because they have more than likely been doctored, or should I view them as an accurate representation of what the boulderer had achieved?

Where do we draw the line for pixel manipulation?

Should we even draw a line in the first place?

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

How about a tickbox for each photo?

1. Unprocessed digital / scanned print / scanned transparency.
2. Tweaked digital (levels and sharpening) / scanned dodged or burned print.
3. Processed digital (cloned/multi-layered etc.

You get the idea? Posters could declare honestly the state of the photograph...

In reply to The Crow: why should I? I'm creating pictures, not reporting news...

In reply to The Lemming:

Am I missing something? Does removing a spotter from a picture, change the achievements of the boulderer?

In reply to The Crow:


Good idea, will keep people happy.

In reply to Ian Hill:

You misinterpret me. I meant as an 'option', you could choose to do as you wish.

Anyway it would be of interest on an artistic basis as well as a news basis as a measure of photographic ability vs darkroom skills. How people judge those relative merits is entirely up to them...

I fail to see how the option to add more information could somehow be a threat to art?

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: this is lame........most photos arent doctored on here at all. If anything landscapes are most likely to be altered to match what the photographer imagined at the time, which I cant see a problem with at all.

As for climbing pictures, anyone that removes a mat or harness and ropes to make themselves look more extreme is a tw*t, and I cant imagine many people do that. However, as long as you dont change the essentials of what is happening, I dont have a problem with cloning out distracting elements. In fact I've cloned out top ropes before. Ive left the harness and the rope from the climber to the anchor but removed the rope from the anchor to the belayer, not because I want to change what people think about the climb/climber, just because it looks shit. The essentials are still there, it is clear to see that the climber is on a top rope, its just you dont have a great big red rope cutting right through the photo. You could have the same argument about composition, as you could frame a picture that is equally 'misleading' as the one I have described.....

In reply to The Lemming:


I think that's a pretty key question. Every camera "sees" a different image, every eye sees a different image and every brain perceives a different image. And none of those are the same as the event or scene itself.

My opinion is that any line anyone tries to draw is going to be arbitrary and based on whether they feel deceived by the difference between an image someone shows them and what they saw themselves.

The rope example is a good one - there was a rope in the original, and it was removed. This could be seen as a change in the style of ascent (and hence deceitful). But then you're told the rope wasn't belayed to anything, it was essentially useless. Assuming the climber knew this, the rope may as well not have been there, hence the "doctored" photo could be considered more truthful than the original one.

Amazing article and examples though, it does show that some of the photos I take could be greatly improved if I learnt to use the available tools. Thanks to all the photographers involved.

In reply to adam carless:

I too have learnt loads from the article and how to improve my images. The techneques of sharpening, adjusting tone and saturation are similar to those of when I was a student playing in a darkroom so I can happily tinket with such tools.

It's just that I don't think that it is ethical to change a climbing photo to remove articles to make the composition/ subject more interesting, exciting or make the climber appear more skilled than was acctually portrayed when the shutter was released. However I don't have a problem if this was made perfectly clear from the outset, especially if it is a form of artwork. Such examples are photo montages, advertising and promotional posters. It's taken as read that such things are flights of fancy and are viewed as such.

In reply to Ian Hill:

Hey Ian - do you remember me predicting this would all end in tears......

In reply to ChrisJD: sadly yes...we've opened a real can of worms (extra wriggly digitally enhanced ones of course...)

In reply to Ian Hill: As long as they aren't CGI ones, I think we should be OK.

In reply to Ian Hill:
Yeah but you cloned out the ring pull to make like ye opened it with your teeth therefore upping the grade. Sno' fair.

Again; congrats on a nice article. I'll keep it bookmarked.

In reply to The Crow:


OK in theory but...

There's no such thing as "unprocessed". If you shoot RAW, it can't be displayed. If you shoot JPEG, some processing has already been done. Maybe you chose not to control it but never the less it has been processed (default camera settings?). Scanned print? That was "processed" (i.e., artistic decisions made) in the printing process. Scanned transparency? Did you chose the film type? Why? Scanner settings?

As for the degree of processing, its a bit more complex than you suggest. Layers are typically used for all processing simply because it give the best control. Its nothing to do with the degree of "fakery". Cloning may be used simply to clean up a contrail in the sky or to remove a leader's rope. Big difference.

At the end of the day, the camera & photoshop are just tools which people use for different ends. Its the motivations that are important, not the tools.

Marek

In reply to The Crow:
So you would have to tick box 1 and 2 for every single photo submitted, as levels are always adjusted at some point during processing, be it traditional B & W printing, high street colour processing, or scanning.

In reply to Ian Hill:

Surprised Padraig not been on here yet......

In reply to Marek: You must type faster than me.

In reply to ChrisJD: that brings an image to mind of Ian Paisley in full flow...

In reply to Ian Hill:

I know EXACTLY what you mean.....

The mind's eye is a wonderful thing

In reply to Chris Fryer:

So you accept the idea and are now arguing about the classification of the various levels of manipulation?



It was just an idea like...

In reply to The Crow:
Going back to my comment about not confusing "tools & techniques" with "motivations", it would make more sense to classify pictures as either "reportage & evidence" (the object of any processing was only to maximise/clarify the information content of the pictures) or "arts & crafts" (the object of any processing was to make a nice picure).

But still pretty pointless.

Marek

In reply to The Lemming: I take the view that if presented as factual, then it should have the correct 'flavour'.
I don't care what is done in 'art' shots, but records should be as straight as possible.

YMMV, of course...

TTG

In reply to Ian Hill:


You're not wrong there!!

In reply to Ian Hill:


That's two this week...

Did you get them from Mick Rockfax?

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: Glad to see that the article has stimulated some debate

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Glad none of you lot work for Reuters. You'd be sacked!

In reply to Henry Iddon: justify that?

In reply to Ian Hill:
A sense of humour?

This site is not an art gallery. People plan trips and make climbing decisions based on photos they see here.

Therefore, while the line between enhancement and MANIPULATION is a fuzzy one, you have an obligation to carefully state in the caption if you cross that line.

Removing a crash pad, rope, or other safety device without stating your "enhancement" in particular strikes me as very disturbing and potentially dangerous.

The whole spectrum of digital "enhancement" can lead to amazing images and be worthwhile to post here. Just be clear about which images are which in your caption otherwise you are MISLEADING YOUR VIEWERS.

In reply to John Blab:
If you can't make decisions on pro, ropes or mats etc. when you are there then maybe you shouldn't be climbing there.

In reply to John Blab:
Who's said they've removed important elements like that? The cloning done of the photo's in the article was to remove clutter only. Yes, a rope was removed from one of the photo's but it had nothing to do with the climber on the photo.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Thanks for the artice, very interesting.

(Incidentally, my grandfather was using darkroom techniques to do some (admitedly not all) of the things you can do in Photoshop in the 1950s if not before - my parents used to have a nice photo of a 'flying horse' he'd created!)