The difference between processing and image manipulation.

DrGed

DrGed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
847
Name
Ged
Edit My Images
Yes
What is the difference?

As a newbie my guess would be that processing is altering properties of the image like saturation, contrast, sharpening etc whereas image manipulation involves things like cloning out unwanted features, like spots on a person's face, etc.

As I say, I'm a newbie and that's just a guess so I could very easily be wrong.
 
Hi, I dare say someone will think different but as far as I'm concerned they're all the same thing, just under a different flag.

Call them what you want but they all amount to manipulating the image in one way or another to make it look more to a our liking.

Whether it be improving the colour balance, sharpening, removing bits, etc, etc, the list goes on its all the same.

Only my opinion of course for what it's worth.:)
 
One of those areas where there's no specific line just a heap of grey.
Though my personal take is:
Processing - what you do to an image to make it look like the original scene you captured
Manipulation - what you do to an image to make it look different from the original scene you captured

Where does it cross from one to another - dunno - and I'm not even going to try to go there..... :)
 
I suppose it's easier if you ever shot film:thinking:

There really isn't a consensus on this, but if you think of it like this it might help:

When light hits your sensor it creates a load of electrical signals that include lots more than just the image data you'll need. Your camera can be programmed to produce a JPEG image from this data, using a set of parameters for sharpening, saturation etc (either selected by the camera or photographer). Or you can download this Raw data and create the image yourself by altering a set of parameters in software.

history:
In the old days - most photographers shot print film, took it to the chemist and got a set of prints (these would all have been colour enhanced etc by a machine). Some photographers paid more for their prints to be assessed and for some effort to go into making sure the processor was getting the best out of the negative.

A few people shot slide film, which was chosen for it's particular 'look' it was also possible to manipulate certain colours on the film by under or over exposure, which led to lots and lots of bracketing and the 'best shot' being selected (for it's colour profile). And still slide film shooters try to pretend they're the only people who don't take advantage of processing because the end product is SOOC:lol:

So now we've got our JPEG (or TIFF etc), if we start to retouch it at a pixel level, cloning, smoothing, selective sharpening etc, that's image manipulation. ANd in the old days it would have been done to the negative / slide / print by a skilled retoucher.

So; this is still as old as photography itself and should be accepted as part of the 'photographic process', the only difference in the digital world is the accessibility of the tools.

You can take it any way you like but there's no such thing as an 'unprocessed image' that you can view. Generally the belief that all of this is somehow 'cheating' is borne out of ignorance.

I hope that helps.
 
Processing is 'anything' you do to get an image.
In days of film, 'Developing' the latent image to get a negative was some-times reffered to as 'Processing'... certainly if you did anything away from the book-standard 'recipe'...
Taking a 400ASA film and exposing it as an 800 for example, then 'compensating' by over developing it, was called 'Push-Processing', could go the other way, and expose as a 200ASA film and under develop it... that was 'Pull' processing.
Printing the pictures? that's another 'process', and putting the developed negs into an enlarger and making a positive exposure on paper; you would make 'adjustements'.
From a standard aspect ratio negative, usually from a 35mm camera 24x36mm or 2x3 proportions, enlarging onto standard printing paper, 10x8" or 5x4 proportions, you would have to 'crop' to fit the paper-frame for a start; then you had brightness and contrast controls from your positive exposure and paper grade or filter..... and so it went on.
In colour printing you changed colour balence to remove or add colour casts with filters; and then you had all manner of means of further tweeking the image; Dodging & burning to over or under expose selective parts of the print; tilting the base board to correct converging verticles and stuff.....
Its ALL 'Processing' the image.

Pre-Processing? Composition. anything you do BEFORE the moment of image capture. Posing the model. Setting up lighting. Arranging scenary. Framing. Exposure measurement.

Post-Processing.... anything you do AFTER moment of image capture.... which technically, would include straight film development if a film camera. (also implies that film selection or even making your own calodian plates is 'pre-processing'

Its ALL processing... doing stuff to make a finished image for the viewer.

Manipulation..... well, subjective, almost all processing requires you to make changes to the image.... usually that is the object of processing, so ALL processing could be considered manipulation.

But, generally, 'Adjustements' to the image; 'corrections' between the captured image and the viewed image; small changes to the whole picture, perhaps slight brightness or contrast or colour 'corrections' to bring the captured image back closer to the 'true' scene....

Then you have 'Enhancements'; changes trying to make the viewed image something slightly 'better' or more idealised or simply nothing like what was actually seen.

Technically, if you say that adding or removing compositional elements from the image is definitely 'enhancement' then cropping, even as necessery to fit to print frames, ought to be deemed such.... but many would argue other wise.... so its a very big grey area, where any-one sticks the goal-posts and says, "Thats where 'adjustement' stops and where 'enhancement' starts.

Thing IS, cameras do NOT make a 'true' image. Soon as you use selective focus to blur a back-ground, or panning to catch a speeding car, or any of 101 other 'in camera' techniques, you are NOT getting what was seen by the naked eye; which means that no-one can say what a 'true' image ought to be to begin with!

People get all rather squiffy about 'Processing', particularly 'Post-Processing' and suggesting that you ought to capture everything clean, in camera, and get it right at point of exposure... everything done in 'Pre-Processing' so that you dont have any errors to 'corect' by adjustment after.... and philosophy has some merit... there is a LOT of craft in pre-processing... and modern digital editing has made it ever so easy for people to rely on Photo-Shop to post-process rather than pay attention to in camera discipline.

But end of the day, they are all just tools to get an image... and the end product is the final picture presented for viewing. THAT is what matters, how you got there is usually of little importance to 'most' people that will ever look at it... unless they are other photographers more interested in the technique and not the actual interest of the asthetic you created.......

Then it may be VERY important.

But it remains 'subjective'.
 
Thanks for the replies.

I would also say that the people who go about "cheating" are the ones who rarely, if ever, take "serious" photographs.
 
I would say none. When you process an image, work on it, you manipulate it. The only difference is that sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is right in your face. Both can work and both can be screwed up.

In the film days, if you developed images yourself there is also a lot of manipulation you could have done in the darkroom to achieve certain effects. So PP and image manipulation is not something that is inherent only to digital photography.
 
When processing you manipulate the image. The two words have a pretty similar meaning don't they so not sure why it would matter what you call it?
 
All images are processed, whether it be letting the camera process the raw data by shooting jpg or by shooting raw and processing yourself.
Both methods will result in various adjustments to the raw image such as sharpening,colour saturation/correction, brightness, contrast, etc.

The same processes carried out when developing a raw file yourself in software, including cropping and b&w conversion are to me covered under the term processing as your processing the raw file in a similar manner to that available in camera.

Removing elements of the image, adding elements, using filters to add effects, smoothing (ie portrait pro etc), selective colour and similar are to me manipulation.

It can matter when entering images for competitions etc where no manipulated images are allowed but this usually means adjustments are ok, heavy photoshopping etc isnt ok
 
Last edited:
Process - A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result
Manipulate - influence, manage, use, or control to one's advantage by artful or indirect means
 
If it's for fun and/or personal use I'd say who cares?

The only time I'd care is if there was an intent to mislead and profit in some way from it.
 
woof woof said:
If it's for fun and/or personal use I'd say who cares?

The only time I'd care is if there was an intent to mislead and profit in some way from it.
Click to expand...

You talking about those moon landing shots, you little conspiracy theorist
 
Wallace and Gromit would never lie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top