It’s forbidden to add or remove content. Very simple. I believe some organizations allow to remove dust but not sure which one. And then there’s the discussion to change content.
Here’s another example. Personal I don’t like this image. To much editing. Read the article too.
George
When I started to use converters and firstly faced the concept of “manipulated image” and the rules defining it I felt that we are really standing on a slope. You don´t need to pull the sliders a lot to make your image something entirely different.
@Joanna
Inspired by one of your friends picture. The only thing I have done compared to the seagull image above was just to exaggerate an S-curve in the Tone Curve Tool a little bit. After that I feel much more creative 
What I mean is that you don´t have to do especially much to break the rules of “manipulated images” standing in that slope I talked about and that is the real reason why I look upon all of my digitally born images and my repro photographed analog positive film images as “manipulated”.
@George , than we are two who don´t like that special Paul Hansen image, but I think we dislike it of totally different reasons i think.
Paul Hansen has won a lot of prices and acknowledgement over the years and he is really a very good photographer at Swedens most important morning paper Dagens Nyheter and he writes too.
I have heard him once when he showed this very image and a few others from this Hamas sponsored funeral in Gaza efter the israeli bombings some years ago. It was at Fotografiska in Stockholm (he is swedish despite his danish name). I got quite a bit suspicious already when I read the article (I´m a subscriber of DN since 40 years).
The reason to that was that I have lived in Israel a year between 1972-73 and I have followed this conflict since then. I have also been on the other side both in the Middel East - in Palestine, Syria and Jordan and I have travelled a lot in many other muslim countries. A numeroes times I have got stones throwed after me when taking pictures of other funeral processions and even when just peacefully taking some pictures at various different grave places. It has not happened just a couple of times but quite a few. But in this case no one was hostile to the photographer despite a lot of hostility in the air because they really wanted to put up a staged show for the press, they really had made sure was there to cover it.
I lifted my suspicions at his slide show but I don´t think I really got any good answers and it might have been because he got embarrased but he did admitt that Hamas stood behind the event. People are poor in Gaza and the parents were probably glad for the support and consideration and that Hamas sponsored the funeral.
This image shows a funeral staged and payed (ackording Hansen himself) by Hamas and Paul Hansen was not sensitive enough to look through that he was used as a propaganda tool when publishing these images without fully explaining the images in the article for us readers. I´m not jewish and I´m still very critical to for example the israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Golans and the illegal settlemants there and I really feel for the Gaza-civilians terrible situation when they get sqeezed between the israeli defence forces and Hamas. It´s really sad but a journalists job should always be to tell us the truth as good as possible and Paul Hansen failed to do that during that evening in Gaza. Maybe he was to fond of his scope and his pictures.
Yes, that:
…but a photojournalist can’t control what the people buying the images will do with them. That needs to be done ahead of time, and it the people publishing the images have their own ideas as to what to do with them, once you’ve submitted the images and received payment, your control over the images may have ended, depending on what “rights” you gave them along with the images.
I guess that means you need to check out the people buying the images, to make sure they are treating them ethically, and you need to specify what rights you are providing along with the images.
The magazines I worked with were aware of this, and looked out for me. When an advertiser wanted to buy my images, they send that advertiser to me, and sometimes the amount they paid me was more than I ever would have asked for, but they made good use of the images in promotion and advertising.
Paul Hansen is and wasn’t anybody in this case, since he was sent by the Dagens Nyheter morningpaper to Gaza. He is and was employed even then by DN and wasn’t some kind of free agent. He is and was DN and he is responsible for participating in that propaganda show. He became part of it and a news journalist and photographer should not have that roll because it’s really not possible to have that if you want to preserve your and the newspapers credibility - at least not in my eyes but maybe in yours.
DN has a an employed specialist called Nathan Shachar. He normally covers the Middle East since he speaks at least hebrew and probably even arabic. I don’t think he should ever have lent him to something like this. I think Paul Hansen didn’t have the slightest idea what he had gotten into that day. He wasn’t really up to it and he got too fond of his scoop and his images to really reflect on what he was doing and taling part of…
Everybody can make misstakes but participate in that contest made it even worse sad to say, because for me that was a sign of that he still hadn’t taken in that he had got played by the Hamas.
@Stenis
I don’t know that story of that image. But I think there’s no objective reporting. It’s through the eyes of the reporter we see what happens somewhere else. That’s also with political parties, newspapers,our social position etc.
I used the two images of this contest to illustrate what was possible and not. For those who are interested in the specific image 2013 Paul Hansen SN1 | World Press Photo. Camera settings are shown to. I often am curious how an image was taken.
George
It’s one thing to blatantly misrepresent something for nefarious purposes (such as cranking up the saturation or actually change the color of the water to make a tropical resort look more inviting or “Photoshop” someone’s head on another body (the still version of a deep fake). That’s just wrong and illegal in many cases. Fashion magazines have been manipulating photos to alter the appearance of models for decades and they’ve been getting a well-deserved backlash in recent years for doing that.
On the other hand, true art knows few boundaries. I’ll continue to quote Ansel, as he’s not only one of the greatest (if not the greatest) photographers ever, but also a great teacher. His quote, “you don’t take a photograph, you make it” (and related discussion) illustrates that as you can’t accurately replicate a scene using a camera (as they can’t “see” the world the way we do), the better approach is to use your skills to realize your vision–your interpretation of the scene. That’s what painters do (at least those who deal in some form of “realism”). I used to paint abstract expressionist non-objective works that were in many cases inspired by nature, but they sure didn’t look like any recognizable landscape (I now try to do that with a camera). Do you think Constable or Turner would deliberately include a distracting element in a painting? Of course not–they’d “edit it out.” They also took liberties with colors, tonalities, and even basic structural elements–whatever it took to get the image they envisioned. Monet dreaded the changing light as it made it harder for him to capture the scene as he saw it (look at all of those paintings of Rouen Cathedral). They weren’t trying to exactly replicate what was in front of them, but rather convey what they felt when they saw it. It also takes a lot longer to sketch or paint an image than it does to click a shutter!
That said, it’s not clear where the line between photography and “digital art” lies (if that matters). IMHO, using programs like Luminar to significantly alter the appearance of person (like some people do to make themselves look better for their online profiles), isn’t ethical. Nor is replacing the sky in a photo with someone else’s sky! Unethical (and lazy), but not illegal. Check out the work of artists like David LaChapelle–clearly there’s a lot of staging and “digital collaging” going on there. Nobody would mistake his work as “documentary” in any way, shape, or form, but it’s still in the realm of photography.
There’s a similar problem in “popular” music, where things like Pro Tools, auto-tune, and sampling have ruined artistic integrity (things were much better in the late '60s-'70s)!
Do what you will, but unless your photos are being used as evidence in a legal proceeding or in any form of advertising (certainly including political), there’s no obligation to make them “realistic.” Just relax and have fun!
@George
Of course there is a lot of pot holes to fall into as a photo journalist but it is essential that journalists stay out of beeing activists. Paul Hansen isn´t because this was a mistake due to naivity or maybe political ignorance but in my country we have had a huge debate the last years about our “opinion corridor” that has limited a free and open debate about topics like immigration, crime and environment issues, a debate that is necessary if we as a society should be able to find a working path out of something not so functional. It went so far that the cultural chief at our biggest tabloid admitted that it was she and her boss that built that opinion corridor with the barbed wire and all.
Our state television SVT has an obligation to be (as good as it gets) impartial, objektive and a few other adjectives too and that is to create a platform as neutral as possible. They don´t succeed all that good all the time but unlike the state televison in Russia their faults get registred and followed up in order to get them to improve. Unlike the state television in Russia they still call an invasion an invasion, a war a war and a war criminal a war criminal even if he happens to be prime minister or not. They still are the media source with the highest credibility of all media we have but the papers has always been biasad after the political parties that own them or are associated with them. That goes even for DN as a liberal paper and they have an agenda these days that some readers feels borders to pure activism. Still the readers expect the papers reporters to give them a true view when they describe whats´s going on out there in the world and they have to because when the paper newspapers die their “protected work shop” also dies and they have to compete with the rest of the worlds biggest megaphones and there is nothing that says people will prefer them before other sources on the net.
Don’t hold your breath.
I’ll be happy to just create acceptably good images. If I get one or two “great” images (in my mind) in a year, I will be very happy. Most of my time, effort, and energy over the past couple of weeks has gone into bullseye shooting, and I’ll never be “great” at that, either. To be “great” at that, I need to be able to use a bullseye handgun and shoot ten rounds into an area the size of a quarter, with the gun held in one hand, at 50 yards.
Is there anyone on this forum who claims to be “great”? Even @Joanna sometimes learns new things in this forum. Ansel Adams is to me, the very definition of “great”. Photography became his life.
By the way, I enjoyed the photos you posted, but then you stopped posting?
to brush up you memory
→ Processing "dull", gray-sky images in PhotoLab 5 - #288 by Wolfgang
and from → Processing "dull", gray-sky images in PhotoLab 5 - #289 by mikemyers
Looking at the photos you listed,I can’t “relate” to many of them, …
Maybe you write less, but finally concentrate on photos.
@Stenis → How to create photos like "the masters", and is PhotoLab a useful tool? - #12 by Stenis
Yes, for the shown B&W versions I used SilverEfexPro, printed them and also put them in a book.
some more
taken at Kingdom of Elfia, largest outdoor cosplay and costume event in Europe
Two photos taken in Kathmandu in November, 2006. Many of the buildings collapsed in the earthquake, and are now gone forever. As I walked around, I found structures I wanted to photograph, and kept waiting until the people seemed to add to the photo, and not detract from it. Are either of them a “masterpiece”? Hardly. I can’t blame the camera gear - it was a Nikon D70, which at the time was more than adequate. Obviously, I should have captured the images in ‘raw’, but hindsight is usually 20:20. My goal at the time was to capture photos of some of the very unique buildings, and to try to wait until the people and bicycles and everything else added to the photo, rather than detracting from it.
I’ll only post the edited images - if anyone wants to try to work on them, let me know and I’ll post the originals.
I’m pretty sure I’ll get back to India later this year, but I doubt I’ll get back to Nepal. I’ve got lots more photos of Nepal to go through - these are my two favorites taken in Kathmandu.
In no way was I trying to create “art”. I was trying to capture what I saw, and felt, and heard, in a simple photograph. Perhaps video would have been better. Perhaps a lot of things, but this is what I decided to do.
One more photo, taken as I walked by this snake charmer:
Ah! Now that is what I call a picture. Wonderful 
Thank you! I have several more photos of people just doing their thing, as I tried to capture a photo without being too obvious about it.
Here’s a photo of Dharmsala, India, also taken in 2006 with my Nikon D70 and an inexpensive Tamron 11-18 lens - I no longer have it, I think I gave it away?
I think it will be obvious as to why I took it, and why I like it. Again, no RAW image, so here’s the edited jpg, but not very much editing, mostly eradicating three dust spots. I loved the sky, and the “mule train” which is how things get moved around in that part of the country - no roads.
Another photo of a “mule train”:
Last photo for tonight - a young Monk. There are many monks in Dharmsala - I thought I might get to see the Dalai Lama, but ran out of time before we had to catch our plane back to Madurai.
I need to add one more bit of information. Along with a group, we went to Dharmsala for a “Convention” to talk about internet, and how to transfer information. One person showed a cell phone which had network connection - which was unheard of at the time. I struggled to buy one when I got back to Madurai, but had to wait a while to find one. That was my first-ever mobile phone!
Nice photos Mike 
and with this photos answer yourself the questions you ask in the posts.
You have a camera that I also owned around 2005, a not so very bad lens, they are JPEG’s and still the pictures say more than the harbor pictures 
Also, not always faster, bigger, more expensive is important but mostly passion, feeling and mastery of the equipment you already own.
Also saves the environment and petroleum reserves 
Welcome back in the world of photography from the world of bit fucking 
In June 2008 I traveled to Pondicherry India, to the small fishing village near the hospital that I volunteer at. This time I had my Nikon D2X with me, which at the time, as as good as it gets - I figured I might be using this camera for the rest of my life. It was “only” a 6 meg file, which at the time I considered huge. I guess it’s now a “Photographic Illustration” as I’ve taken my electronic vacuum cleaner and removed some of the debris on the beach. I took a few photos of her, but this is the only photo I liked, as it excluded the other people walking around on the beach. I tried to crop it tighter, but I didn’t like the result. I didn’t really do very much editing at all to the photo.
It’s now 7am, and my room is starting to light up from the sunlight starting to stream in through my windows. No more editing for a few hours. My calibrated ASUS display is starting to look too dark, and my Apple display which adjusts automatically to room brightness needs to be just slightly brighter than what I want, in order to get the right image settings for upload. It’s a good reason to do all my editing after sundown.
Looking at the image, I also remember my guilt-feelings from capturing an image like this, but not doing anything to make the person happier. At the time, I never had an answer. Now, it’s obvious - I should have bought some of what she was selling. Not sure what I’d have done with it, but I would feel better about capturing her image.
Another very early morning photo, taken with my ancient Canon PowerShot Pro-1. It’s a “mirrorless” camera, from before they were called that, with all the benefits and detractions, including “focus by wire”. It cost a lot, and at the time I bought it I was very impressed, but in the years since, I start thinking of it as not much more than a fancy toy - but it’s the very proof of the saying “the camera doesn’t matter”. I never got rid of it, just pushed it in the back of one of my drawers, and thought it would be fun to see if I could still get nice photos from it. Twice now, the battery has died, and I had to buy a new one. I always wonder why I even bother.
I took it to Kannayakumari, at the southern-most tip of India. I’ve already posted a sunrise photo from it, but here’s another, without the sun. I loved the way the light from the rising sun was illuminating all the people, who stood there, transfixed, enjoying the moment.
I have a thought which after re-considering, sounds pretty silly. Part of me wants to go back to the same place, maybe with my D750, and try to do better. But, I’m not sure what “better” means. The camera, or the sharpness, or the noise isn’t what “makes” the photo - it’s the natural lighting, and the people’s expressions.
As I review these old images, I feel very fortunate to have been able to be there to capture them. I’d like to go back there again, but maybe I should just let things be, and concentrate on new things to photograph.
Hope you like it, and according to my warped method of editing images, this one is still a Photograph, not a Photo Illustration. What you see is natural. It’s what I saw and felt while standing there, trying to find a good vantage point to photograph from.
I’ve enjoyed the Miami Photos Mike but IMHO they pale in comparison to this!!! Also it further reinforces that it’s not “the camera”. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I wonder if older cameras, even the old film cameras, allowed me to capture better images than today’s digital wonders. Amazingly, I found refurbished cameras on Amazon, and even found a “retro review”: Canon PowerShot Pro 1 Retro Review
Back then, with less stuff to think about, I found more time thinking about the image, and less time thinking about the camera.
I did edit my photos back then, but when I look at the edited images now, I don’t like what I see. PhotoLab 5 brings out my memories of what I was seeing when I took the photo. Even my D70, and later the D2x seemed simpler than what I use nowadays. I especially loved my Leica M2 and M3, as the only controls were aperture, shutter, and which film to use.
Miami photos have been mostly me trying to learn PhotoLab. The old photos were just me, capturing what I saw. The camera didn’t matter all that much.
Thank you - I enjoy looking over those old images from overseas!
