Enhancing or Defiling: Post-Processing & 'Reality'

[ShaneS]

Mike;

I'm a reasonably intelligent woman but honestly had no idea how big the super moon would appear contextually in a scene. Over the last few months I have been seeing some awesome images and made a point to going to the meet up so I could photograph it myself. Needless to say I was disappointed in reality because of the image I had in my mind due to the many 'viral' images I had already seen

Colin's statement was pretty close to how I felt:

It's probably even worse in their eyes when the photographic reinterpretation is presented in such a way as to give the impression that it's photorealistic.

I have no problem with enhancing a scene in photoshop and don't even object to removing an island or two (ask Grahame) but I'll be honest when I say that I was a bit shocked when that image showed up in my news feed on Facebook.

I think that is where Colin hit the nail on the head for me. I don't have a problem with her artistic presentation of the scene but it did bug me that others (including myself) who hadn't seen it might think it was real

The experience has made me a bit jaded but also more determined than ever to use my tools well and to hone my artistic sensibilities and define MY limits as a 'photoshopper'. It boils down to a personal choice IMHO.

EDIT: Before those lovely red unblemished tomatoes get thrown my way I will add that I had not spent much time analyzing the images (or others) that I had seen to determine it they could logically be real. I don't think that I am alone in that...

[Mike Buckley]

That makes sense, Shane. I can imagine being disappointed at seeing reality not realizing that I had previously been fooled by a photo. Perhaps the solution is to make the moon, sun or whatever in the photo so different in size, shape or whatever that nobody could possibly be misled by it. Either that or accompany the photo with an explanation preventing deception.

Ironically, almost every time I see a gorgeous scene, its beauty far exceeds any photo I've seen of it (examples: Grand Canyon and other national parks, saguaro cacti, Washington DC monuments, fall foliage, the list could go on and on including photos made by Ansel Adams compared to seeing the subjects he photographed).

[John 2]

William,

Debate is for rational people whom know better, to find a rational solution. Arguments is for boys whom think their daddy is the strongest man on earth.

.....................................I wish those image manipulators would be honest enough to call their work "photographic images" instead of photographs.

Andre, God help us if you are right. If I'm ever in a court of Law and the "arguments" being delivered on my behalf are only at a level of "boys whom think their daddy is the strongest man on earth", I will really be in trouble. I also don't understand why we would want to differentiate between "Photographs and "Photographic Images". Where would you draw the line and why is there an issue of "honesty" involved. Are you saying that a subtle amount of "enhancement" which by definition may not be detectable, is honest but that heavy manipulation that is blatantly obvious, is somehow dishonest. I don't follow the logic. The truth is that photography is many things to many people and if there are those that wish to present something more imaginative than a straight forward shot, then provided that they do not seek to deceive (a point that has been made several times already), good luck to them. That is not to denigrate straight forward photography. It's just that as an art form as opposed to a record, one is not better than the other. They just represent different interests. I have more of a problem with people, usually competition judges, that on viewing what is a well caught straightforward shot, presume that it "must" have been manipulated to achieve the displayed result. That to me is the real curse that Photoshop has brought upon us.

[ShaneS]

I just hate to think that I need to look at photographs and really analyze them when they purport to represent reality now. That makes me a bit sad and I think is why this whole debate rages on and on and on....

BTW, that won't make an image less beautiful in my eyes but it will now be a beautiful 'artistic rendition' if that makes any sense.

[Mike Buckley]

I just hate to think that I need to look at photographs and really analyze them when they purport to represent reality now.

Consider it a fact of life. We even learn from time to time of journalists that have altered photographs to meaningfully alter reality.

[William W]

. . . Where would you draw the line and why is there an issue of "honesty" involved. Are you saying that a subtle amount of "enhancement" which by definition may not be detectable, is honest but that heavy manipulation that is blatantly obvious, is somehow dishonest. I don't follow the logic.

Because there is no logic.

If, as AB's argument is wanted and taken to the end and then applied to ALL Digital Photography - even he himself can never ever be "honest"

No one can . . .

Because EVERY file that is viewed as an image has Post Production applied to it in some manner.

It is simply impossible to view any digital photograph without some PP involved: and that’s where the logic fails.

And failed logic = NO logic.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

And failed logic = NO logic.

That bit of logic won't work with my wife.

[FootLoose]

It is simply impossible to view any digital photograph without some PP involved...

WW

I may be wrong but I can't recall any film photographers ever displaying an undeveloped negative and claiming it was SOOC, so I guess the same can be said for film.

[AB26]

Andre, God help us if you are right.

For those that use His name in vain know not what they say neither know they Him whose name they use in vain.

You never ever use my name in the same sentence as the name of the One you know not.

[Manfred M]

I may be wrong but I can't recall any film photographers ever displaying an undeveloped negative and claiming it was SOOC, so I guess the same can be said for film.

Every hear of slide film? That's probably the closest one could ever get to SOOC. but then of course, one would select the film based on its characteristics...

[AB26]

There is something like SOOC.
It is a fact that you can, when you know how to, get an image SOOC looking like whatever the “purists” want an image to look like. However, the term SOOC is used out of context by many whom fail to master in camera settings to get an image SOOC looking like what they envisaged.
SOOC does not necessarily imply “reality in that moment in time”. An image of reality can be attained in that moment in time, depending on the skill of the camera operator to set up the camera to get out of it whatever is desired to get out of it.

Learn to master camera settings, learn to understand light, and you will be able to produce SOOC shots.

There is no reason at all for a skilled Photographer not to shoot either Jpeg or RAW and get SOOC shots looking as good as anything an unskilled camera user will “produce” in Photoshop.

I would like to believe that most of us are using post camera software on a computer to enhance an image. Enhancing would mean minor tweaks and twiddles to change WB, sharpness, saturation and everything else that would be possible to do in camera. It is mostly lack of camera skills and in some cases, lack of features in camera and quality of images produced by some cameras, that would force the user to enhance images in PP. The better the camera the less the Photographer should need to enhance images in PP.

Manipulation does have a place for those whom wish to get artsy using photographic equipment to express their own vision of whatever they wish the viewer to see. It is no more “wrong” to use photographic equipment to get artistically creative than it is to be a “purist” Photographer.

The debate, about “manipulation of images” and “purists”, is drawn out of context by those whom fail to master the tools of the trade and have to resort to post camera software to “produce” photographs. If for any reason you cannot “produce” images in camera, feel free to “produce” it in PP. Whenever you need to resort to manipulating images to “produce photographs” you are cheating yourself, no one else. If you fail to “produce“ good images with a $2000 camera you might as well have stayed with the bottom of the range “cheap” DSLR. Rather spend your $ on computers and software!

Whenever an image is manipulated to purposefully mislead the viewer it should be considered deceitful. It is damaging to Photography as a whole and it gives Photographers a bad name.

For most reasonably intelligent people it is not difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction. However, most people tend to believe everything that is published and everything that is spread on digital media to be “truth”. People tend to trust that the news channels and publications will be truthful in what is shown to the world. This however, is fiction. The media spreads, mostly, whatever it or its owners and those controlling it wishes the world to believe.

The debate about manipulating or not manipulating is not aimed at the average camera user, it is aimed at images that can be damaging to humanity as a whole. There are many deceitful images produced by photographers that do not care about what the truth is as long as they can sell their images and it can mislead people into believing false media reports.

SOOC, enhanced or manipulated images has little consequence for the world if it comes from the average “happy snapper”.

It is the prerogative of any user of Photographic equipment to do with it whatever is desired to do with it!
Am I right in saying that?
I guess so, until someone decides to turn a D4s into a suicide bomb, what then? Does anybody still have the prerogative to do with Photographic equipment whatever they wish to do with it?

[Colin Southern]

most people tend to believe everything that is published and everything that is spread on digital media to be “truth”.

I'm not sure if I can believe this or not

[Mike Buckley]

Every hear of slide film? That's probably the closest one could ever get to SOOC.

Add to slide film the Daguerreotype, Ambrotype, Crystolatype and Tintype. The common characteristic of those technologies is that they produce either a direct positive image or, in the case of the Ambrotype and Tintype, a direct negative image that looks like a positive image because of how it is displayed.

[LocalHero1953]

There have been some attempts to say that manipulation in nature photography is unacceptable, and to define what "manipulation" is:
http://www.rps.org/news/2014/may/nat...inition-agreed

And in photojournalism, the furore in the World Press Awards last year included intense discussion about how much manipulation is acceptable:
http://www.bjp-online.com/2013/05/wo...rch-for-truth/

I broadly agree with the first attempt at definition, while remaining uncomfortable about how much manipulation to enhance the drama in a scene seems to remain acceptable in photojournalism. IMHO both issues share a common basis in the need to present some form of "truth", but I think the outcome in the latter (and the link I give above is not a final summary of the outcome) gives more scope for manipulation of the emotions of the viewer than is acceptable to me.

[Manfred M]

There have been some attempts to say that manipulation in nature photography is unacceptable, and to define what "manipulation" is:
http://www.rps.org/news/2014/may/nat...inition-agreed

Hi Paul - I read the document and at first glance the definition looks rather arbitrary and inconsistent. While I understand why someone would want to set out the rules, but this really is an impossible mission and in my mind this document clearly shows how difficult this task is and how badly they have failed. Focus stacking is okay, but image stitching is not. HDRI is okay, but IR photography is not.

Hogwash from the highest levels, and in a true bureaucratic fashion, they have failed to avoid putting square pegs in round holes...

[DanK]

Learn to master camera settings, learn to understand light, and you will be able to produce SOOC shots.

If PP was good enough for Ansel Adams, it's good enough for me.

[John 2]

There have been some attempts to say that manipulation in nature photography is unacceptable, and to define what "manipulation" is:
http://www.rps.org/news/2014/may/nat...inition-agreed

And in photojournalism, the furore in the World Press Awards last year included intense discussion about how much manipulation is acceptable:
http://www.bjp-online.com/2013/05/wo...rch-for-truth/

I broadly agree with the first attempt at definition, while remaining uncomfortable about how much manipulation to enhance the drama in a scene seems to remain acceptable in photojournalism. IMHO both issues share a common basis in the need to present some form of "truth", but I think the outcome in the latter (and the link I give above is not a final summary of the outcome) gives more scope for manipulation of the emotions of the viewer than is acceptable to me.

Having been active in the photo competition world for some years (PSA, FIAP and others), I am broadly in tune with what has been agreed for nature and Wildlife. Please accept that this is not an attempt to define "Nature" and "Wild Life" per se but to arrive at a common definition of acceptable images in a competition context. The object is more to produce a level playing field, a common understanding and to ensure pure record photography. So why HDR? The answer is in the statement "All allowed adjustments must appear natural." In other words if it is used to compensate for say a lack of dynamic range, it's acceptable but not if it's used in its extreme form as a creative tool. Those images belong in the Creative or General categories

Up to now, focus stacking has been excluded. However, it has long been argued by macro Photographers that this does not alter context but merely allows the whole subject to be presented in focus. It looks like this has now been accepted.

I am less sure about the reasons for excluding stitched images. I would guess that the thinking is that a stitched scape is better offered in the General or Landscape categories rather than Nature and I don't know where you would use it anyway in a Wildlife context - unless you were capturing a python side on - but I'll worry about that when I see a python that hasn't seen me.

[John 2]

Andre, I think every one that has posted has made the same point on deceitful images but that is a very narrow aspect of the world of manipulated images. Artistic expression also comes into it. As to the rest, I'm still at a loss. A camera is a tool. A computer is a tool. You seem to be saying using one to create an image is OK but somehow, using the other is not.

[Donald]

Learn to master camera settings, learn to understand light, and you will be able to produce SOOC shots.

I try to stay away from these type of threads because there can be no resolution. Many of those with varying views are on here not to be persuaded to change their mind, but to reinforce their particular view and to point out the 'errors' they see in the other argument.

However ............ If you put the camera on Auto and push the button, you'll get photos. Whether you get pictures is an entirely different matter.

I think it is vitally important that people starting out on a journey of learning are not misinformed. The insinuation in the quote above is that you will produce great pictures merely by mastering camera settings and understanding light. There is, unfortunately, a great deal more to creating great pictures.

It may not have been the intention of the author to suggest that you will make great pictures by only doing the above. But I think any such myth needs to be roundly dispelled and that people reading this thread in order to learn are not absorbing wrong information.

Mastering settings and understanding light are but two of the very basic requirements on the pathway to being a great photographer. Indeed they aer topics that should be part of any basic induction/introductory programme. What you have done once you have mastered settings and understand light, is equip yourself to capture good photos that you can then turn into great pictures.

[Manfred M]

Learn to master camera settings, learn to understand light, and you will be able to produce SOOC shots.

Andre – it’s hard to argue with that statement, BUT I would make the same statement for non-SOOC work as well. The expression “garbage in = garbage out” also needs to be considered, as it takes a lot of work to “rescue” a badly taken image and if the composition is poor, getting something great out may be virtually impossible; even for someone with a lot of PP skills. I would also venture, I find taking a good picture is far simpler and less time consuming that spending time fixing one in Photoshop. Most professional photographers that I know prefer shooting to sitting behind a computer screen; they prefer SOOC because in general, their customers want a great image and are not going to pay extra for the time spent in post production.

Let’s not fool ourselves, as one can be deceitful with a camera without incorporating any post-processing work. I remember seeing a picture taken at a resort and featured in their advertising literature; the little stream shown in the distance was really an open sewer and the line of beautiful trees did a wonderful job hiding the garbage dump. Careful choices of posing, lens selection and lighting can shed weight, remove a double chin and narrow a round face. People teach these techniques at portraiture courses, but of course, because these techniques done in camera, this is okay. Try doing this in Photoshop, and the pixel police will be on top of you for being deceitful. The double standards in photography are rather astounding…