Well, I never claimed those images were “photographs”, and there has been so much editing anyway, but I’ll go along - from now on they are what @mwsilvers led me to, perhaps “edited photograph”. What would you prefer?
Well, I never claimed those images were “photographs???”, Mike please stop. This is just getting very silly.
1 Like
At which point, it may be time to activate the ignore switch.
You don’t seem to get it, do you? The moment you press the shutter, you will have manipulated the image, according to the settings on the camera. Heck, even the default settings automatically convert to jpeg.
Every time you open an image in PhotoLab, default adjustments are made.
There simply is no such thing as an unedited digital image, even straight out of the camera. Your qualifier is unnecessary, meaningless and just plain annoying.
And can we assume that you will no longer be editing your pictures by adding your watermark?
In fact, why do you bother using an editing tool like PhotoLab at all?
2 Likes
Well, I’ll follow the above advice, and stop debating what a photograph is or isn’t, and whether removing parts of an image does or does not make it an edited photo. I’ll also continue using PhotoLab, as I feel it is by far the best, and I’m mostly comfortable with it by now. Your last question is silly. Why do any of us use PhotoLab?
So, please, no more questions about this stuff, unless someone wants a reply.
What adjustments are made, and to what file?
Does the .dop file change every time I re-open an image???
Other than saving the .dop file, as far as I know, the original image file remains untouched.
And once the .dop file is created, I don’t think it ever gets changed unless I do more editing.
I assume this is what you meant.
@Joanna
Not even our eyes are too trust - even without our fantasies and misconceptions they are distorting our view of the world.
About three or four years ago I had eye surgery for cataracts and when they fixed the first eye I saw that the one not fixed was way much more yellowish than the fixed one.
So, after many years with these “yellow filters” I finally found that I actually have had them. What have that made with my photography?? Well I had seen the world as it looks now when I switch to Adobe RGB color space on my monitor!! … way to much yellow!
Today my eye sight is fantastic. When I made the test after the operation the surgeon said pretty astonished that a few procent have that sharpeness and resolution and because of the surgery I now can wear sunglasses again. Before they bothered me mostly by beeing too dark. Today my eyes is like I have suddenly gone from F5.6 to F1.2.
So now I only can use one type of very special sun glasses of the Hawaiian made Maui Jim because they are softly shaded both on the upper and lower part of the glass. That is the only backside because they are much more expensive than other sun glasses.
Mike some call “manipulated” pictures for “undocumentary or not documentary” as the opposit of “unmanipulated” or “documentary”.
This is now really a pretty philosofical stance but an important one since it is so difficult in real life when postprocessing to understand when these lines are passed really.
It is possible today with just pulling a slider to far or the lines in some diagrams to much to totally change the picture from a picture in harmony with what we saw to something that clearly isn’t anymore.
Well that is what in practice will be the new reallity with the new authenticy and provenace CAI and C2PA definition that the news industry is starting to use soon.
With a C2PA rigged camera the image will get encrypted and it will contain motif distance info that will serve as info to prove it is a photograph. IT will only be possible to sustain validity if editing with software that is C2PA compliant. Photolab does not seem to be one of these softwares but Lightroom and PhotoMechanic will.
If you have changed an image with a C2PA compliant software it will add provenance info along with the originally encrypted image authenticy info. If you do it with another tool your image will no longer match the encrypted data and will get flagged as manipulated at a test.
This will make it much easier to stop faked images from being used in future news flows.
I have since long urged DXO to implement support for C2PA because failing to do so will disqualify Photolab from being used as a professional tool in the future wether they like it or not.
1 Like
Never heard or read of anything like this - can you please post a link to where it is explained? Is this added to a camera, or built into new cameras? C2PA ?? Is that what I need to search for? Just curious.
Is this what you mean? https://c2pa.org
An example of what is regarded as (un)acceptable manipulation.
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/contest/2024/verification-process/what-counts-as-manipulation
Any organization can make their own rules.
George
Yes, in the case of Sony they have tested this tech together with Associated Press that have standardized on Sony gear. They have used Sony A7 IV (which is the camera I have) to develop these new work flows also together with Camera Bits (PhotoMehanic) and Adobe. DXO or Capture One is not part of these initiatives called CAI (Adobe initiative) and C2PA. Just a handfull of cameras will get this tech initially and they are Sony A1, A7 IV, A9 III and the latest s-modell which is A7s III.
The C2PA specs are pretty technical
Here are the links:
C2PA User Experience Guidance for Implementers :: C2PA Specifications
How it works — Content Authenticity Initiative
Members — Content Authenticity Initiative
C2PA Specifications :: C2PA Specifications
When I tried to lift this half a year ago or so the interest was close to none here at DXO Forums.
In the case of Sony they have not released the whole system to install in my camera yet, BUT yes, there is a special firmware to install and that I already have in place. It will also have to be configured via the Sony Creator’ app in order to work.
What Canon and Nikon is doing maybe some other that know more about can explain .
Interesting that nowhere in that site do they make the distinction between what makes or doesn’t make a photograph. Just that their rules for journalistic photography preclude above a certain level of manipulation, but they still call them photographs, manipulated or not.
2024 Contest verification process: what counts as manipulation
The following information is only applicable for the Singles, Stories and Long-Term Projects categories.
The Open Format category welcomes a range and/or mixture of storytelling mediums, hence the following rules are not applicable (for more information about the Open Format category, see here).
So, even in a photojournalistic competition, there are no rules on manipulation, provided one enters the right category.
This whole argument stems from the possible distortion of truth, where truth matters.
Since the majority of photographers in the world are not worried about “integrity” but just want a beautiful image, there is no compunction on them to avoid manipulation.
Heck, if we all followed this press competition’s rules, we would never create stitched panoramics from more than one image or even correct perspective digitally.
@mikemyers this kind of stuff was only ever intended for those in the media who could be accused of distorting truth.
You are no loner a photo-journalist, the majority of us are not photo-journalists so it is fair to say that, apart from you, no-one else here is really that bothered in the limitations of photo-journalism.
We are here to discuss using DxO’s tools to create beautiful photographs (that have not been manipulated with distracting signatures)
1 Like
… and so does “Watermark Mike”
Leave him stuck in his rabbit hole. He prefers to draw attention to himself through nonsense arguments rather than turning to photography and editing.
1 Like
No need to be disrespectful Wolfgang and others. This is not a school yard and we don’t need any school yard bullies here either. Why not trying to stick to the topics and discuss them instead and let 1000 flowers bloom and have some trust in the process of thesis - antithesis - synthesis. We just have to give that process some time and it will correct arguments that just isn´t resilient enough.
This tread is a bit of an open forum and the beauty of that is that the associations can be left to gently guide us through all sort of topics and that is something Mike ought to have a some cred for instead of these low comments. … and if you don´t like the discussions in this tread you are perfectly free to do something else of your time than disturbing them.
2 Likes
Having looked at the original, it is obvious that you need to use the manipulations you claim to detest, because you couldn’t even get the image square.
Honestly, you should have ignored yourself.
No they don’t. Especially the right lamp explicitly points out of the frame and is far too tightly cropped.
On the other hand, for an image that concentrates on a single subject, rather than presenting a mish-mash of various disparate objects, you could have always done something artistic like this…
I still don’t understand how it works. I did see the video. But what are they adding to the picture? Some IPTC content and further? Is it an image or an history list? It’s not clear to me.
George
It doesn’t say that. They’ve their own rules. I can’t reach the website at this moment.
George
Well, I did want your opinion, which you gave me, but I’ve never said I “detest” manipulations, and this image proves I don’t feel that way myself. Photography can be enjoyable, and while I somewhat thought this image was wasting my time, I wanted to play around with it anyway, and there is no way that I would label the final image as a “photograph”. 
As to “watermarks”, DxO made them a part of PhotoLab, and personally, I feel more people should use them, so we all know who gets the credit/blame for images posted online. I suspect most image editors have that capability. Most/many artists seem to do this.
Why not? it is an unmanipulated, apart from cropping, record of the light that entered the lens.
Possibly when outputting their finished image for printing, but it is just a distraction when discussing composition, which it totally trashes.
As George noted, any organization or contest can specify their own rules for what is, and is not, acceptable.
Before entering competitions, it is wise to check their rules, to avoid being disqualified for an infraction, in an otherwise fantastic image. I read the whole thing. I’m not saying I agree or disagree, which is irrelevant, but I would hate to win the grand prize, only to be disqualified for not being aware of the rules.
For posting images edited by PhotoLab in this forum, none of that applies. If there was a big chunk of garbage in one of my photos, I too would want to remove it - but next time I’ll be more careful about how I do so. …and to keep everyone happy, I would refer to it as an image.
I’d much rather discuss how to do things properly in this forum, so I can learn for the future. Constructive feedback is one of the best things about this forum. IMHO.