Post Processing

[tegan]

an image does not have to be heavily processed to be effective and/or successful in the eyes of the viewer... there are millions and millions of images in the world that can speak for themselves... they don't need manipulation..... there is room out there for a class of photographer who remains neutral and unbiased in documenting an image....

Interesting that it could be considered that many of the great photographers did heavily process their images in one way or another. Some used 4 by 5 or 8 by 10 cameras while their colleagues were using smaller cameras. Special film, special plates, processing methods, and one heck of a lot of dodging and burning were also done. At the time, this was considered heavy manipulation.

There is NO such thing as a neutral and unbiased photographer in documenting an image and that includes those in photojournalism which I have also done.

Tegan

[Travis]

you make some good points...

i agree that every picture is framed through the viewfinder of the photographer, and as such, every picture in some capacity lends itself to it's author... and this to me is the essence of photography..

i am aware that a good digital camera can capture images, but it's obviously not that easy. A photographer who's goal is to show a realistic portrayal still has weighty responsibilities and craftsmanship. He/she must firstly find the image that is noteworthy to be documented (this could be the bulk of the work). Then it must be framed properly. Careful consideration has to been given to calibrate the camera in order to best reflect the integrity of the image. Finally, the image may require post processing if (a) the author failed to reflect the integrity of the image or (b) the camera by it's limitation failed to reflect the integrity of image.

If you document a scenic image that lacks quantitive quality, and as a result, you have to manipulate it by taking out this and adding that, I would ask why you journeyed out to document the image in the first place? If you are happy manipulating images to this degree why don't you just stay at home and create them from scratch?

The fact that many of "the greatest" photographers used trickery in some form or another does not deduce my argument. Their work can still be great.... but it is abstract... unless the methods of trickery used are to defeat the limitations of the camera.... then they are real...

I am not saying there is anything wrong with post editing an image to create the desired effect of it's author. If you edit the picture past it's point of truthful representation then the work is abstract. It can still have great value and be admired.

[Marko]

I am totally digging this thread and have a lot to say about it - i feel a podcast brewing LOL.

For me, with photoshop and other graphic programs being adopted by photographers of all skill levels, we are in a totally new phase of photography. Some people may not agree. No problem, that's what makes the world go round'.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, EVEN the nomenclature in photography is changing to include 'photography and imaging' to describe photographs. I am in total agreement with changing the nomenclature for what many of us are now calling photography.

[tegan]

i am aware that a good digital camera can capture images, but it's obviously not that easy. A photographer who's goal is to show a realistic portrayal still has weighty responsibilities and craftsmanship. He/she must firstly find the image that is noteworthy to be documented (this could be the bulk of the work). Then it must be framed properly. Careful consideration has to been given to calibrate the camera in order to best reflect the integrity of the image. Finally, the image may require post processing if (a) the author failed to reflect the integrity of the image or (b) the camera by it's limitation failed to reflect the integrity of image.

If you document a scenic image that lacks quantitive quality, and as a result, you have to manipulate it by taking out this and adding that, I would ask why you journeyed out to document the image in the first place? If you are happy manipulating images to this degree why don't you just stay at home and create them from scratch?

The fact that many of "the greatest" photographers used trickery in some form or another does not deduce my argument. Their work can still be great.... but it is abstract... unless the methods of trickery used are to defeat the limitations of the camera.... then they are real...

I am not saying there is anything wrong with post editing an image to create the desired effect of it's author. If you edit the picture past it's point of truthful representation then the work is abstract. It can still have great value and be admired.

No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal. Take a look in a large book store in the magazine section under Photography. You won't see a single scenic that looks realistic. Water is blurred by a slow shutterspeed. Gradient software filters change the colour. Exposure, contrast and tone have been adjusted in Photoshop. In fact Popular Photography profiled a highly successful nature scenic photographer who used as many as 1,000 shots to create his final image, and it was breathtaking.

For that matter even the term "realistic portrayal" cannot be accurately defined. Are the colours that you see in a scene, somehow more "realistic" than the colours that you don't see? Should a photographer bring out the colours you don't see, in postprocessing? Which is more realistic: the original colours in the scene or the colours modified by the natural or artificial light present? It would seem that even the use of a flash would be a "fib" because that does not portray the realistic lighting in the scene. If the sun is bouncing off a highly reflective surface creating a glare and washed out look, does that mean that the photographer should duplicate that look in order to be realistic despite overexposing his image?

I think a lot of portrait photographers would be out of work if they realistically portrayed scars, acne, cold sores, wrinkles, red eyes, pouches under eyes, prominent chins and double chins of their clients. People want to see a flattering portrait of themselves without the unflattering problems whether they are realistic or not.

The ONLY area of photography where realistic portrayal is at all important is legal photography. In any other area of photography it is totally irrelevant.

Tegan

[Travis]

"No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal"

It is not right for you to assert this comment because you do not represent all serious and experienced photographers. If you google any combinations of the words "ethical" "photography" "without alteration" "manipulation" you can find millions of hits in which both theories are debated and supported by professionals.

The North American Nature Photography Association has a guideline on misrepresentation:

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/truth_caption.pdf

http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_con.html

and so does the National Press Photographers association:

http://www.nppa.org/professional_dev...ipulation.html

those were just a couple that i found very quickly, but there is plenty more on the topic...

"Take a look in a large book store in the magazine section under Photography. You won't see a single scenic that looks realistic. Water is blurred by a slow shutterspeed. Gradient software filters change the colour. Exposure, contrast and tone have been adjusted in Photoshop. In fact Popular Photography profiled a highly successful nature scenic photographer who used as many as 1,000 shots to create his final image, and it was breathtaking."

If it is obvious the scene does not look realistic than it is photo fiction or a photo illustration. It is pretty, but not real. Personally, I think some blurring of the water infers motion and is naturally occurring in the shot, so it would be truthful. Exposure, contrast and tone adjustments are all acceptable to defeat the limitations of the camera, but not to exagerate the integrity of the scene. If your work is photo fiction, you are not subject to any post editing restrictions and are free to create carte blanche. I am not arguing this right. I participate, view and enjoy photo fiction.

"For that matter even the term "realistic portrayal" cannot be accurately defined."

The art of documenting an image of interest in which the author preserves the truth and integrity of the image to the best of their ability. As they, and most others would see it by eye.

"Are the colours that you see in a scene, somehow more "realistic" than the colours that you don't see?"

Yes... because the colours you see are generally equal to the colours are viewer would see. The colours we don't see are a moot point pertaining to the truthful recreation of the image.

"Should a photographer bring out the colours you don't see, in postprocessing? Which is more realistic: the original colours in the scene or the colours modified by the natural or artificial light present?"

Generally speaking if I am documenting an image in a room with a light bulb. The colours cast and/or reflected from that light bulb would be considered truthful, as a viewer in the same room would experience the same result.

"It would seem that even the use of a flash would be a "fib" because that does not portray the realistic lighting in the scene."

Tell me about it. Flash is tricky. My first post to this forum was to seek advice on how to obstain from using flash in order to get a more truthful looking image. Even still, a flash is acceptable because it serves to defeat the limitations of the camera in the most truthful way possible.

"If the sun is bouncing off a highly reflective surface creating a glare and washed out look, does that mean that the photographer should duplicate that look in order to be realistic despite overexposing his image?"

It depends what you see with your eyes. If the glare in the photograph does not accurately reflect the image as you(and others) would have viewed it at the moment it occurred, then post editing for truthful purpose is acceptable.


"I think a lot of portrait photographers would be out of work if they realistically portrayed scars, acne, cold sores, wrinkles, red eyes, pouches under eyes, prominent chins and double chins of their clients. People want to see a flattering portrait of themselves without the unflattering problems whether they are realistic or not."

Deception is defined as the manipulation of perception to alter thoughts and feelings through lies and cleverness (wiki)

If people want to pay photographers to deceive, and photographers want to accept money for deceiving on their behalf then so be it... it's a free country... the fact that this happens every day as common practice in no way makes the work more legitimate. It is still a form of deception and is not a truthful representation. Except you mentioned red-eye, this is a camera limitation.

The manipulation of photographs is so common practice it has gotten to the point that the viewer doubts the integrity of every shot. This is unfortunate as it degrades what was once the photographs strongest ability.

I have enjoyed the debate and feel I have no more to offer this thread as we are going circular. I would like to add that I agree with your opening post on the thread as it pertains to photo editing for rectification of camera limitation. However, I still remain unchanged in that a photographer must use their moral compass when manipulating an image, if that image could be perceived by the viewer as authentic when it's is not.

In closing if you have time check out this link:

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM

The ethics of Digital Manipulation by Jerry Lodriguss

I find this author to best articulate both our points.

[Marko]

A Well written post Travis and I'm loving the tete a tete (head to head) in this provocative debate.

In terms of tegan's quote

"No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal"

I'm fairly confident that that statement in itself was meant to provoke

[tegan]

To summarize from your post, I would say that there are "conflicted" organizations and individuals who are "conflicted" to the point of confusion.

NANPA has an agenda to promote wild life, conservation, education and the environment so it is logical that they would not want to be promoting wild life with photos from a zoo or preservation of the environment with a photo of an artificial environment created for captive animals.

At the same time, at least they seem to realize that their agenda is not necessarily the agenda of a photographer who for example, simply needs a photo of "a lion" for a client. Labeling is the obvious compromise to these conflicting agendas with the further addition that it is only a guideline. So their "line" is really not surprising.

The problem with the individuals and their discussion of ethics is that everyone has their own interpretation of ethics and photography and one even indicated that he has gone over his own line. By that I mean despite espousing truthful photography, they all have their own version of what is or is not appropriate manipulation and what is or is not truthful photography.

Some have also made the historical argument that photography was more "real" in the past while at the same time recognizing that almost all the present manipulations were possible in the past. They were simply more difficult to do which contradicts their assertion.

Trying to set back the clock to before the advent of Photoshop is like trying to put your fingers in the dike. The reality is that unless an individual photographer sees a conflict between his postprocessing/editing of an image and its use, he will continue to label it as he sees fit. A photographer has no more responsibility to indicate how he produced the image, than a television director has, concerning how he produced the television program even if it is documentary or educational.

There have been hysterical attempts by some such as Reuters to maintain their perceived credibility for accurate photojournalism but the reality is that newspaper photos are still edited and processed and will continue to be biased at the camera level as well.

Most photographers and most knowledgeable members of the public see problems with processing and editing, only when it reaches the totally fraudulent level such as adding bodies to a battle scene. They also see more of a problem with adding something to a scene rather than taking a distracting element out. That is probably the basic line that most photographers follow now and will continue to follow in the future, despite any efforts of organizations or individuals to impose their own ethics or views on the field of photography.

Tegan

[tegan]

A Well written post Travis and I'm loving the tete a tete (head to head) in this provocative debate.

In terms of tegan's quote


I'm fairly confident that that statement in itself was meant to provoke

A little too sweeping but I was trying to suggest the reverse, that it is a view that is prevalent with some newbies that changes as they gain more experience.

Of course I need to keep aware of the differences between amateurs and pros. Amateurs who have no aspirations of becoming pros can do their own thing in photography.

Pros need to take a more "balanced" view between their personal attitudes and the views of their clients in order to be successful. We also need to be more aware of general trends in our markets.

To take a strictly pro view, in order to be successful, I shoot to meet the needs of the client, related to use. Clients are concerned with how an image fits into the content or visual look of their book, notice, ad, poster, etc. Realistic portrayal does not even come into the picture. (good pun)
I am designing a book and am finding that I am also shooting to design needs.
The shots are "real" as far as I am concerned but I am making no effort to try and duplicate any perceived "reality" at the scene. It is not fiction or photo illustration, it is just other priorities determining postprocessing and edting.


Tegan

[Kiddo]

A really interesting debate, being a complete noobie to photography, i always wonder where the line is drawn for doctoring or adusting/editing pictures. Being a graphic artist, i often have images given to me to adjust, and they're often minor adjustments, but sometimes you come across ones where you're making vast changes to the image.

In my very humble opinion, the way i see editing or pp is always that experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited, i myself cannot tell at this stage when a photo has been subtly edited. Then there is the other extreme where the image has been altered enough to become "digital art" as opposed to a photograph.

It's all art for me, but photographs, even edited, i always find breathtaking because the image feels more real than digital art.

*Edit*

Thankfully being on a forum like this, i'm surrounded by a wealth of experience and talent, so will get to learn more about the different facets of photography.

[Travis]

In my very humble opinion, the way i see editing or pp is always that experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited, i myself cannot tell at this stage when a photo has been subtly edited. Then there is the other extreme where the image has been altered enough to become "digital art" as opposed to a photograph.

I'm not so sure the average experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited.... at least not at first glance.... maybe pixel peeping at 300% looking for irregularities okay.... but a printed, framed image can easily be edited and go unnoticed.