About Hello Kitty, the Eyes on You photo contest winner . . .
Was it "photo shopped"? The actual term is post processed as in using editing software to manipulate the image. I don't use Photo Shop, I use a different app but it's become like 'kleenex' to facial tissue.
Yes, it was. Below is the before and after.
The steps involved were:
Crop in close to emphasize the kitten's face.
Repair the damaged leaves on the plant so they don't distract.
Enlarge the eyes, the windows to the soul.
Enhance the brightness and color of the eyes.
Turn the lips up to simulate a smile.
(The last two anthropomorphize the kitten, make it more human like.)
Darkening the outer edges to bring the eyes into the center of the picture, back to the eyes.
Now the question; is it fair to use post processing in this way? I checked with both the contest administrator and the winner of the last contest who chose the theme and they both approved the entry. But beyond that, is it fair to manipulate a photo in such a way?
Two answers:
For a photo journalist ABSOLUTELY NOT! In college our journalism class had a long discussion about such things. At the time the Vietnam War was still going on and a newspaper ran a picture of Generals before a congressional hearing. The image had been mirror imaged to make it fit the place on the page, i.e. facing into the page instead of facing the edge. Was that an appropriate use of editorial privilege? We decided that it was not because the occidental eye is taught to read from left to right. Had the image been printed as-shot the Generals would be looking to their right, making the image more friendly to them but the mirrored image had them facing their left, signifying a more difficult argument being made. Movie makers do this all the time, a chase scene moving from left to right favors the escape but from right to left a more difficult escape. These cultural inclinations make a difference in how the image is perceived. Note: anyone in the military would spot the flip instantly as the ribbons were on the wrong side of the uniform but not a casual observer.
For general aesthetic presentations yes, it is absolutely appropriate. Photography is a visual art, no different than water color or pen & ink. What makes the picture more appealing or adds to the emotional content is totally acceptable. That photographers now have those tools available puts us on a level with other visual media.
It's my position and generally accepted in the medium. For portraits I routinely remove a few pounds, smooth wrinkles and repair wispy hair. Never had a complaint. YMMV.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Is it art? Photographers have been pretty unanimous in saying Oh heck yeah! But traditionalists (and those working in other media) said no because it uses a mechanical device. Photogs came back with How's that different from using a hammer and chisel to create the David? Or brushes and oils to make a Starry Night?
Should I be criticized because I own $10,000 in equipment? If not, how is that different from using $100 software? Is it the creative eye? If so why limit the eye to what is before the lens and not the imagination behind the eye? 
*not my work.
Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2022, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)
The enlarged eyes and upturned mouth looked too unnatural to me and were therefore a turnoff. I have absolutely no problem with cropping or making the image larger or smaller, lighter or darker. Changing the size and shape of key features in relation to each other and/or to the image as a whole is where things become problematic, IMHO.
The original photo was very cute. Cropping it to make the kitten the focal point was definitely the way to go. The leaves? No problem, didn't even notice them. At that point, it's still a very naturalistic portrait of a cute kitten.
The problem, for me, came in when the eyes were made noticeably larger than an actual cat's eyes, and the mouth was edited into a shape that, to me, doesn't look like a shape that a cat's mouth would take naturally. The result no longer looks like an actual normal kitten to me at that point. It becomes an uncanny valley kitten (https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-is-the-uncanny-valley), realistic and natural but somehow...not?
I'm trying to be as tactful as possible, but I also don't want to beat around the bush so much that my point gets lost. So I'll just say it: that kitten creeps me out. 
Obviously, not everyone reacted that way (look how many votes it got!), so you may feel free to tell me to go [fill in the blank]. 
Did AndyS do anything wrong? Not really. After all, the decisions he made were perfectly valid from a purely artistic standpoint. And he certainly did not break any rules about manipulating images, because we don't have any. In the end, my opinion is just that: MY opinion, which everyone is free to ignore.
Having said all that, however, I am wondering if maybe it is time to make some rules for our photo contests about image manipulation. Just we we can all be on the same page and prevent misunderstandings in the future, because this sort of thing is bound to come up again.
What do you all think?
and absorb the meaning of your point of view and I respect that view and your opinion. I'll oversimplify for the sake of giving you an opportunity correct me if I'm mistaken; your point is that it's alright to 'correct' shortcomings in the original image, to 'improve' it but not go further in changing it's appearance. Several others have said the same thing.
This begs the question; If it's okay to 'correct' an image to make it better, where does that stop? And what's "better"? Is better increasing the viewer's empathy, the emotional connection with the subject?
Case in point the following image: Is it acceptable?
I ask because this bird was not sitting on that tree. It was sitting on this ugly bird feeder:
(I've long since lost the original image.)
I cut out the bird, found a tree lighted in the same way as the feeder, placed the bird on the tree and then added the leaf to balance the composition. In addition I created the bird's shadow out of whole cloth!
The original would have been fine for a bird identification handbook but the 'new improved' version brings the viewer closer to nature and the bird's relationship to the natural world unspoiled by a wire feeder. Which is 'better'? It depends on the use and the audience.
BTW I don't do this often 'cause it's a lotta' work and it's so much easier to just shoot it right to begin with. But sometimes it's worth it. Still my lazy side wins out most often
Cuz I JUST WANT TO HAVE FUN.
Last edited Tue Jul 19, 2022, 02:12 PM - Edit history (3)
I came in second place, with the shot of the Osprey. FYI, the only editing that I did on my photo was some heavy cropping, image sharpening, and I made the sky a little bluer than the original. I used a 500mm lens on a 45mp camera. I'll post the original here for comparison.
People often ask me "did you photoshop that picture?" My answer is usually, "well, you know, we don't really have darkrooms anymore, so yes, I did use a computer to process the photo." Most of us have been using digital cameras or phones for about twenty years now, and we've lost sight of a few things. We've all forgotten how wonderful Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Kodacolor, Fujichrome, Agfa, etc. were. The colors were deep and saturated right out of the camera, and they were beautiful. Many people just don't realize that the cameras and phones are actually processing the photos for us, and in most cases, doing a very poor job of it. We've become accustomed to drab, washed out, or muddy photos, and we think that they're okay. They're not.
As some of you know, I worked in broadcast news for forty years, so I'm very familiar with the ethics of image manipulation. In our business we sometimes referred to the raw news video of an event as an "actuality." I think that speaks for itself. I have a friend who once was suspended for a week because he was shooting an interview in a clothing store, and he moved the clothes on the rack behind the interviewee to get a better background. That was considered manipulation, and it wasn't allowed. The rules were strict.
The other area where manipulation is forbidden is the gathering of forensic evidence for a legal proceeding, for obvious reasons.
Well, I'm retired now, and my perspective has changed. I now want to produce images that people like to look at. I hope it gives them some enjoyment, and I hope that they will want to put them on their wall and look at them everyday. I participated in over eighteen thousand broadcasts, and no one will ever remember a single one of them. My photography is something that will live on after I'm gone. I've won several of the contests here, and in every instance, I certainly used my skills to enhance the photo. In my mind, I'm just trying to achieve what we did with Kodachrome forty years ago.
That said, let me say this about processing for contests. I often enter contests for "Outdoor Photography" magazine. Their rules state that basic edits concerning exposure, color balance, cropping, etc. are acceptable, but not much beyond that. I've checked, and our rules don't say that. Anything goes here. I'm very competitive, but I also realize that most of the folks here don't have that high of a skill level, so I try to keep my photos relatively simple.
Here is an excerpt of our contest rules:
"There will be no extra rules on the Seasonal Contest beyond keeping your entry no larger than 1024 pixels in its longest dimension and under 675K in file size and limit photo editing to a reasonable amount. We would prefer your photo look like a photograph instead of a digital design. If you aren’t sure, ask the group in a separate thread. You’ll get plenty of feedback to specific questions."
I support AndyS, and I think his photo was sensational. I almost voted for it. Almost! 
His entry was well within the rules. If some folks think the rules should be changed, that is something that can be considered.
Don't forget this is a fun contest. Let's just have fun.
Just my humble opinion.
Grumpy
Original
Contest entry
