Image manipulation

[Janice]

A person in a photography group of mine is pulling her images together for the PPOC Accreditation.(Canadian organization). However, is stuck at an impasse and not quite sure what is meant by Image Manipulation because anytime we edit a photo to be pleasing to the eye we manipulate the image.

Could someone please explain to me what, Image Manipulation, would mean in this context? I too am confused as we manipulate an image any time we edit. Do you think it means compositing? TIA

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

That is a debate for the ages isn't it!
I would argue that the line in the sand is probably drawn at intentionally editing the pixels. You can expose the picture, or play with image sliders for color correction, but at that point you have not intentionally manipulated the content of the photo. Now if you go over that line and "touch-up" a picture by removing a client's blemishes, or dodging & burning, or clone stamping a scene, THAT to me is image manipulation.
I'm not a professional though, just thinking out loud.

 

[Ziggy]

Anything that significantly alters the original image in a way that prevents forming an opinion about the capability of the shooter? Eg cloning out or inserting something, canvas extension, substantial change in exposure or white balance.

Why not ask them... PPOC Office at: info@ppoc.ca

 

[garuda]

I'm certainly NOT an expert on this topic, but I suspect that if this organization specializes in accreditations, they likely assume the most purest attitude toward anything relating to the accreditations.

So my guess would be that any change, modification, or alteration of the original image as it first hit the sensor initially, is considered an "image manipulation." Even a crop could be technically considered a manipulation since the crop could make the image conform to the "Thirds Rule" which could reflect on the skill of the photographer by a scrutinizing organization.

If the accreditation relates to the skills of the photographer, I'm guessing there could even be controversy over the technical definition of "Manipulation" since cameras nowadays can manipulate images while still in the camera --- no post edit is needed to manipulate image. If there is a way to detect if an image has been manipulated in any way, I would think an accreditation organization would capitalize on it when granting official accreditation for authenticity, originality, skills, etc.

The definition of Manipulation is likely contingent on how stringent the accreditation rules are and what's at stake in deciding the threshold for accreditation. Medical accreditations for cardiologists (neurosurgeons) are likely much more stringent than for photographers. At least I hope so, before they put the rib-spreaders on me.