Photography without Photoshop?

[Rusty W. Griswald]

Here's a site which lets you display a logo on your site if the pictures have NOT been manipulated in photoshop etc.

http://www.vad1.com/photo/foundview/
"The FoundView checkmark is their guarantee that post-shutter manipulation, if any, was limited to tonal variations (contrast, brightness, intensity, hue) and that no one involved in producing a FoundView photograph moved, added, deleted (except by cropping), or otherwise altered any forms or shapes in that photograph after the shutter was clicked."

A very worthy idea I think that should be taken up more.

I found it when I was looking through http://www.nightphotographer.com/gallery_frameset.htm
An amazing set of images, especially the abandoned drive in, that have not been manipulated in any way!

Perhaps we should all go out at the next full moon and try and take some photos and post them without any photoshopping! Now there's a challenge.

Rusty.

[kipper]

They might not have been altered in anyway but Im sure the bloke has trucked in a lot of various lights to achieve the lighting effects he wants. He's got pinks, oranges, greens and blues. I can't really see how bringing in artificial light is any different than photoshopping a scene.

[stubbsy]

Rusty

I think the concept supported by the site you reference is worthwhile for certain purposes, but for me I see Photoshop (or any other image editor) as a legitimate photographers tool.

In the pre digital days, film photographers used all sorts of tricks both before shooting and in the lab to get what they wanted. For me Photoshop is the digital equivalent of what used to be done in the developing lab and an image that's been photoshoped is still as valid as one that hasn't. And no amount of photoshop can turn a crap photo into a work of art.

Of course if you were in a comp where manipulation of the image wasn't allowed this would be an excellent site to ensure a level playing field.

Edit:

I had a longer rad of the site. What i refer to above is covered by the FoundView approach. Essentially they want to divide photography into 2 types. Those manipulated in tone and hue (qualify for FoundView) and those that have been manipulated in content and form (don't qualify). So from my reading Photoshop or whatever can be used for the image maniuplation and qualify for FoundView checkmark provided only things like tone & hue are manipulated.

Finally the FoundView checkmark is an honour system. Basically the author asserts by use of the checkmark that they haven't digitally maniuplated and composited elements in the photo (I'm guessing removing a dust bunny is a grey area since this definietly is changing the pic, but only to fix a technical blemish).

Well worth reading through the site. Thanks for the post rusty

[PlatinumWeaver]

An amazing set of images, especially the abandoned drive in, that have not been manipulated in any way!

I cannot understand how anyone can consider those images to be un-manipulated.. I can understand adding light to better show features the features of your subject... softbox here.. reflector there.. whatever.. but these shots are as far from 'natural' as you can get..

Did you read some of the justification for the logo?

"Imagine if a photographer of the bombed Federal building in Oklahoma City had seamlessly cut-and-pasted into his photos convincing images of what appeared to be likely suspects running from the bomb scene, privately justifying the manipulation to himself as "art" but not disclosing the manipulation to viewers of the photographs."

Where the hell does this guy come up with this bullshit?

[redline]

running around in the middle of the night with funky colored lights is not my idea of taking photos. you my end up in a dentention centre, heheh

[PiroStitch]

The night photos look interesting though with the different lighting. Didn't bother reading the text as I'm too lazy right now