They're All Manipulated
They're All Manipulated
Unless you blatantly misrepresent how the photograph was produced I can't see how there is any ethical issue.
Lens selection manipulates the light before it strikes the sensor or film.
All photographs from a digital camera are manipulated. The data recorded by the sensor is processed by proprietary algorithms to produce am image with minimal manipulation (RAW) or one with much more manipulation (JPEG). The data recorded by the sensor is always processed mathematically by a process known as demosaicing. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing). The result is a RAW image which may, or may not be subject to further manipulation (besides compression) to produce a JPEG. Cameras with Foveon sensors do not use demosaicing, but a RAW image must still be computed from data recored by the sensor. It may be that Foveon sensor images are subject to much less image processing than Bayer sensor images. The point is: all images recorded with digital sensors are manipulated to some degree by strangers and the photographer's results are affected by these decisions.
The situation in analog photography is similar. Different film emulsions and dye granule technologies are also create different types of images and the photographer has no little over how the film responds to light. Of course it is easy to use to different film and impractical to use a different Bayer demosaicing algorithm (unless you use a different camera) – and most people could care less An analog print is effected by the type of paper used and by dodging, burning or numerous other techniques. A film transparency is usually not manipulated when viewed with an analog projector.
In my view, the main difference is: the analog print is manipulated by the photographer with full knowledge of the process. By contrast, in-camera digital manipulations are decided by software engineers, product developers and marketing types who decide what kinds of manipulated images might sell more cameras.
The photographer can consciously affect how the JPEG looks in most cameras by selecting options (sharpening, saturation, etc) before the photo is recorded. Photographers who use RAW images make similar decisions with more flexibility during the post-processing phase of their work. So, producing a photograph from a RAW image is more similar to production an analog print.
Many digital cameras let us select B&W as an option for in-camera JPEG images. This means the color information is destroyed and a color image is not available. Some cameras let the photographer select options that will effect how a RAW image is processed (automatically) by the vendor's proprietary RAW processing software, However the original data is not modified so the photographer can access the unmolested RAW image if needed.
In the example you cite it would be useful to say something like: a giclée print made from a RAW (or JPEG) image converted to B&W during post-processing production (or converted to B&W in-camera).
As others have posted, what really matters is the end result and how other judge the photograph's aesthetics.
