Editing somebody else's image

Implementing such a draconian policy would seriously inhibit the enjoyment of visiting this forum for me also, and I would probably find something else to do with any spare time that I have. I dont visit social media platforms anyway!

David

The thing about a C&C forum is that both the posters and respondents are engaged in a mutual photographic education process. You post and you criticize with the intent of learning and improving both your skills and your appreciation of images. In this context, I welcome editing of my photos and I don't hesitate to edit if I'm making a point. I appreciate the time that those who have edited my photos put in. However, I would not expect either the photo posted or any edits to be copied and shown outside the forum without the express permission of all parties involved.
This is a key difference between a C&C forum and a forum where the aim is simply to exhibit your photos. I expect that those who use a C&C forum will also engage in critiquing- it's a two way process that relies on critiques being made as well as being received. A photographer benefits from receiving and analyzing and giving.
Should a participant not wish their photo to be edited as part of a critique, they only have to say so when posting.
Speaking for myself, I find the discipline of posting weekly and receiving regular criticism of my work to be extremely valuable. As is the exchange of views with other photographers and seeing images through different eyes. As is the habit of regularly looking at photos critically.

Does it really matter?

It does not bother me if sombody takes the time to play with one of my images I post here. Maybe a second pair of eyes can make some improvement. Or maybe I like the picture the way it is. Be gracious and thank them anyway.

More concerning is the situation where you post some pictures and get no reaction, or comments.

We have been induced to believe our snaps have some value. They do not. We worry about copyright, and maybe how sombody is going to get rich by stealing our snaps. As I wrote in another thread, photographs now have no monetary value, millions of decent photographs are produced every hour. Paper magazines and now the Web have for years wound us up about copyright and such, and places like Peta Pixel are full of stories about photographers hounding people for copyright infringement.

I have found pictures stolen from my Blog, illustrating a local guide book. I came across a school project where some student had raided my blog. I just scratch my head, curse mankind, and move on. I have had a couple of people ask for pictures to use in an University thesis. I sent them a high res file as a reward for being honest.

If sombody gets a little enjoyment out of editing one of my pictures, I am pleased, my photography has achieved something positive

DPR could be very toxic at times, as your post illustrates. Fortunately the worst blowhards, who infest DPR, have not joined this more relaxed forum.

The whole idea of c&c is ridiculous anyway. Get yourself a simple image manipulation program like Elements and learn how to use it . Dink around with it until you create something that pleases you rather than have others do something that pleases them. 95% of a good image is interesting content and composition. If you don't have that you might as well delete the image or use a blur filter on it to make some kind of abstract disaster . If you can't figure out how to enhance your image with your editor , there are thousands of tutorials on u-tube to teach you what you want to know. Again-- C&C is ridiculous and more than likely just a place for people to get you to look at their pics because no one else will look at them. That is why the re-editing and re-posting argument is also ridiculous.

Okay... I guess it doesn't make sense for everyone, sure. There are some (very skilled and uniquely talented) people out there who really have no need for that and are probably better off just sticking to their own intuition and perception. If you are indeed among those, please feel free to ignore such offerings and just do your thing.

I would appreciate it to see some of your images though - I'm always willing to learn in silence as well, without re-editing and commenting.

I see all sorts of assumptions or issues here. Is is not an education organization nor does it claim to be. So the claim of fair use might not hold up. Fair use in the days of social media - and forums such as are really a form of social media - is fairly complex from what I can find out.

There would be zero issues if a simple question such as, "do you mind if I download your image so that I can edit it for illustrative reasons?" A forum such as DPRevived could also disable the option of "right click to download" on the sight. If a user wanted an image to edit for "educational purposes" all they would have to do is contact the source.

I do not have any problems with critique, suggestions or any feedback. But I have a problem when somebody edits my image without permission. If somebody has no interest in giving feedback because of that, by any means just move on.

I think I understand where you are coming from, Sagittarius. I think it's one thing if the poster asks for critique and suggestions, but if (s)he just wants to show an image (s)he probably is satisfied with it can feel intrusive and disappointing if someone grabs it and edit it. Maybe that's not how you think, but for me it isn't about copyright so much, but more about what's polite behavior.

I used to read another photo forum (never posted there) where one person, a mod IIRC, consequently edited photos without asking and was, in my mind, rather rude about it too. He listed everything that he thought was wrong and nothing that was good about the photo.That didn't exactly feel welcoming and including.

I mean, what we have in common is our interest for the hobby we share. We aren't all masters of it. It can be rather discouraging for a newbie (or just someone that just isn't very good) to post an image he feels satisfied with and have it changed to something assumedly better.

One way to get C&C with little chance of someone editing your image is to submit it to the dreaded AI:

A little OT but an interesting read:

petapixel.com/2023/11/13/photographer-trey-ratcliff-creates-ai-bot-that-will-critique-your-photos/

meow,
In general, I agree with you. As with everything in life, balance is the best way.

In photography forums, most of the content is written (it should be) and this should always be the way to start critiquing the photo. If you think you haven't made yourself understood in this way, editing the photo may be the other way, but always explaining why and how you did it, what software you used and what settings you changed.
On the other hand, anyone who posts a photo should be aware that they are on a forum and that it can (and should) be evaluated and criticized by the members.

Just as twenty years ago Facebook was praised as "the last coca cola in the desert" and now we all know the end result. The same will happen with generative AI but in a much more serious way: people will be influenced in such a subtle way that they will never realize it.

Back to the photo critique.
Having C&C from a single person (and always the same one) isn't good, now imagine it being only and always from the same AI bot.
Question from an ignoramus: Is it possible for AI bots to exist on dprevived disguised as members without the administration knowing about it? and is it possible to prevent this?

In normal classes it was common place to tack ones prints up on a cork board and discuss them. Today that is sometimes replaced with a projection of an image onto a screen. Of course such things of composition, exposure, global and local contrast, sharpness, color rendering, tonality, etc. all are items to be discussed. Then there are the more important questions of why what it taken, what "story" does the image tell and does it succeed to the point that it was worth taking. One good thing about that approach leads to the development of a common language to communicated about an image. Given a common language - there is no need for someone to want to take in negative or in the case of digital a file and reedit the image.

There can be real drawbacks when this process is moved to the Internet. First everyone is viewing the image on a different monitor. What person A sees on his monitor might not stand out on person B's monitor and that is not only true in color but also in B&W. An image that is meant for a print will be rendered differently than one that is meant for digital display. For example an image that is destine to be printed would probably look a little "crunchy on a digital display." Not saying it can't be done. The Tampa Camera club does a good job in the assignments and contest. However, if there is any impromptu editing it is by one of the two professional photographers that support the club.

It could be argued that under US copyright law, the downloading without the copyright holders permission, reediting a file and presenting it in order to make a critique is "fair use." On the other hand the routine practice of downloading other peoples copyright images (and every image is copyrighted under US law) just because they like to reedit them I would seriously doubt would be considered fair use.