Now that we know what the fundamental groups of manipulations do, it should be fairly obvious that manipulations in the "adjustments" group can help overcome limitations in photographic processes. Scenes in real life radiate a tremendous range of light, but photographic prints can only reflect a little of it. Relatively speaking, there are feeble limits in all of our photographic processes. Adjustments like those described can help us more accurately fit a piece of reality onto a piece of paper. But, like subtractive and additive manipulations, these adjustments can also be used to distort reality to varying degrees. That is the matter we take up next.

What is Reality?
Even those who decry any form of image manipulation alter their photographic representations of reality in various ways, whether they realize it or not. They expand or compress perspective by the choice of lens focal length. They represent a world full of color in shades of gray by choosing black and white films, or wildly and inaccurately exaggerate colors by choosing films like Fuji Velvia. Lens mounted filters transport them to other worlds in terms of reality alteration, and even the act of representing a three dimensional world on a two dimensional piece of paper distorts reality. The question we must each ask ourselves is whether the goal of our photography to accurately document reality, or whether there is something more involved. For instance, in "The Print" Ansel Adams writes “Photography is more than a medium for communication of reality, it is a creative art”.

Film, the Paragon of Truth?
People love unreal colors. The nearly extinct Kodachrome 25 is one of the most color-accurate films ever made. When Fuji came out with Velvia 50, Kodak engineers laughed among themselves at its wild inaccuracy and crayon-like colors. Of course we now know Fuji had the last laugh. Professionals stopped using Kodachrome because Velvia images nearly jumped off of editor’s light tables by comparison, and were therefore more often picked for publication. People love the way images on Velvia film look, but no real sunset was ever as red, and no real grass was ever as green as their portrayals on this film. To think digitally boosting saturation or emphasizing certain colors is somehow worse than slapping a roll of Velvia film into a camera is completely delusional.

Our brains automatically white balance everything we see. This is similar to, but much better than, the automatic white balance on digital still and video cameras. Even the most neutral daylight balanced films display colors accurately only when the incident light has a color temperature of 5500 degrees K. This occurs outdoors during only a few hours of each day, and even that depends on geographic latitude. Films also show shadows and objects photographed in open shade with a blue cast. Things never appear this way to our eyes. Obtaining very accurate color in prints from film always requires that adjustments be made, and often they are significant.

Shifty Shifts, Tilts, Fisheyes, and Telephotos
Shift and tilt capabilities available in view cameras and specialized 35mm format lenses are often used to create images of objects as they would appear from locations where a person cannot physically stand, with perspectives that no one could ever really see. Fisheye lenses have a completely warped view of the real world and super-telephotos compress perspective so much that entire mountain ranges appear as paper cutouts. Normal and rectilinear wide angle lenses make parallel lines appear to converge when the lens axis is not perpendicular to the objects being photographed.
.

Human Vision
Our brains do lots of amazing tricks when it comes to seeing things, often acting as a filter capable of removing nearly anything, based on our particular experience and bias. At least initially, our brains often filter out power lines or a piece of litter by a roadside because we are focused on a beautiful scene in the distance. A person who has spent their life collecting litter may well see it first, though, and notice the distant scene afterward. Likewise, a lineman may well see the power lines first. Everyone will immediately notice power lines and litter in a photograph, though. It is interesting to note that while our minds often subtract objects from our vision, only disturbed minds add objects to scenes. Perhaps this is why additive manipulations are the most troubling to the vast majority of people.

Philosophically Speaking
Are all lies equal, or is the exaggerated color of Velvia a little lie while cloning out an errant stick is a big lie? In both cases the image does not accurately represent the original scene. If color exaggeration is acceptable, how much is acceptable? Are cartoon colored people and trees better than cloning out a stick? It is obvious that digital image manipulation is philosophically no different than any other kind of image manipulation; whether it is by choice of film, in-camera technique, lens mounted filter, or darkroom technique. It should also be obvious that film holds no monopoly on truth, and regarding color is more often wrong than right. It may not all be a matter of inaccuracy, lies, and betrayal, though. Perhaps we like Velvia’s color exaggerations because our minds tend to see and remember spectacular scenes with more vivid colors than those that actually existed. In a way, it shows us what we saw more accurately than it shows us what was really there. That might explain why I keep reading about people trying to get "Velvia color" from their digital cameras, which are typically far more color-accurate than the film.

If it is acceptable to render colors the way we "saw" or remember them, should the same standards not apply to the scene itself? As discussed earlier, when we witness an amazing sunset and later think about what we saw, we do not usually remember superfluous items like an old soda can that was also in our field of view. Should we remember that soda can with our images, or does it serve only to detract from what we are trying to convey? Should it be cloned out of the image so the image can represent what we saw and felt, or should it remain in the image to simply document the fact that we viewed a beautiful sunset over an old pop can? What about the equally superfluous and distracting tree branch that could not be avoided and pokes into the edge of the frame?

It's Only a Matter of Goals
Worry and consternation regarding image manipulation is largely a waste of time. Each of us simply needs to take the time to define our own goals and then work accordingly. Do you want to document fact or express your personal vision? On one end of the spectrum, scientific images include calibrated references for size and color, and purposely avoid unique personal influence by the photographer. On the other end of the spectrum, artistic photography exists to convey the photographer’s view of the world to others. You can seldom, if ever, have it both ways in a single image. The vast majority of us, including many who apparently do not realize it, live somewhere between scientific accuracy and purely fanciful art. Each of us need only find a place where we are personally comfortable. It’s that simple, and it always has been.
.
Happy manipulating!