Post processing - artistry vs. reality, from a n00b
Grainbelt
Registered Users Posts: 478 Major grins
I have always held up photography as a relatively pure art, an effort to share a time and space with people who weren't there, or to show that space from an angle or perspective not shared by the audience.
I am also a photography and DGrin n00b. I don't have much for software, and can hardly use what I have. I limit processing to fixing my errors in exposure and white balance, and to do some cropping or light sharpening. The goal is always to convey the scene as it looked through my eyes.
I have seen many critiques on this board that recommend altering certain areas of the photo to accentuate the subject, or altering the subject itself. Examples would be 'clone the carved names out of the park bench' and 'darken the rocks in that corner, they are too bright and detract from the rest of the photo'.
I can't put a finger on it, but I have an odd disdain for the prevalence of blatant modifications, and the ease with which they can be hidden from the viewer. In a way, I feel a bit cheated, as silly as it may sound.
I'm curious what the DGrin membership has to say on the topic. I thought about a poll, but couldn't find a way to create a range of responses. What say ye?
I am also a photography and DGrin n00b. I don't have much for software, and can hardly use what I have. I limit processing to fixing my errors in exposure and white balance, and to do some cropping or light sharpening. The goal is always to convey the scene as it looked through my eyes.
I have seen many critiques on this board that recommend altering certain areas of the photo to accentuate the subject, or altering the subject itself. Examples would be 'clone the carved names out of the park bench' and 'darken the rocks in that corner, they are too bright and detract from the rest of the photo'.
I can't put a finger on it, but I have an odd disdain for the prevalence of blatant modifications, and the ease with which they can be hidden from the viewer. In a way, I feel a bit cheated, as silly as it may sound.
I'm curious what the DGrin membership has to say on the topic. I thought about a poll, but couldn't find a way to create a range of responses. What say ye?
0
Comments
It sounds like your mindset is more that of a journalist - trying to capture "what was there" and portray it as accurately as possible. That's just not the goal of all photographers.
I have no problem, personally, using photoshop extensively to get the images the way I like them. The "snap" of the camera is just the beginning.
As time passed maybe it wasn't a literal (like a documentary or forensic) image I wanted to create, but an image that displayed my view of the situation. And from there I am now working on my vision of what I saw.
I told my wife years ago that I would use Photoshop, but only to 'tweak' - no flying pigs for me! But what also helped me get "comfortable" with this was reading about photography, including this and other forums. Learn about Margaret Bourke White and the history behind some of those Life Magazine photos. Ansel Adams and his "the negative is the score, the print is the performance" quote - and just how many hours he spent in the darkroom, dodging & burning, to get the print just right.
Is bracketing, layering & combining exposures "cheating"?
Or is it way to compensate for the fact a mechanical instrument like a camera just can not capture what the human eye can?
My last trip out west to Zion & the Grand Canyon was literally planned as a way for me to work on scene bracketing and image development. Sunrise at 4:00am at the North Rim simply can not be captured with one shot and give you the shadows, colors and proper exposure across the entire scene.
Note: I'm sure someone out there has done it, is pissed I said that, and will prove me wrong. And I hope they post that image here ->->
I don't do composite images. Yet. I'm just not there artistically, nor technically. (OK, I don't post them yet). But I buy them, because the good ones are really cool!
And I now know just how hard they are to do.
I think you should do whatever you are comfortable with doing. But don't close yourself off by saying "NO, I'll never do that." You may just find out that to achieve your vision you will have to break a few rules. Self-imposed rules.
Oh, and get a book on photojournalism. While there may not be a lot of post production, believe me, they are framing and shooting those shots so you see the event as they saw it. And you rarely see the ones they don't want you to see.
Good Luck, Welcome to dgrin, and post often
-Fleetwood Mac
I do agree with you to a certain point.
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
Representation.
We present these images as 'photographs'.
Scratch that. In my mind, these images are photographs. To others, these photographs are merely the starting point of an image.
Are the connotations I have for 'image' and 'photograph' shared with the general public? This is a forum, please tell me.
To the photojournalists, with whom it appears I identify, a photograph is a bit of an idealistic entity, an image devoid of retouching while, admittedly, showing only that which the artist chose to reveal. That said, this image is literally a reflection of a scene - the colours, shapes, and figures are what they are. What a portrait artist dismisses as a 'blemish' may tell a story, and that story may be relevant to the viewer.
To the artist, a photographic image is the capture of light at a specific time. This light may be inadequate, the subject may be misrepresented, the desired outcome may not be reflected. For the artist, modification may be necessary to convey the desired image. Not the image that existed when the shutter was depressed, but the image that one wishes to impart on the viewer.
I made horrendous generalizations in the above commentary. They were intentional. Whether you identify more with the photojournalist or the artist, I'm sure that the technical aspects of digital photography allow for a delicate blend of my arbitrarily defined positions.
I remain curious. Is one better than the other? Is one a photograph, while the other is an image? Is on a journalist and the other an artist?
These are fine lines, drawn only in sand. But they speak to intent.
What is your intent?
Are you sharing a moment in time, and telling the story of your subect? Or do you write pictorial fiction, telling a story with the use of an image.
your humble n00b, Mike.
I will clone out stuff like telephone wires, trash on the ground, bird poop on a railing, stuff like that, that I feel detracts from the scene I'm trying to share. I know that digital can't do it all, so I'll use shadow/highlight, contrast masking, curves, levels, and color correction to get the best photo I can.
I like HDR -- but find that a lot of photographers go overboard, making the image look wrong, I just try to even out the highlights and shadows to reflect what I remember seeing. I often am aware of a "fog" in digital photos and I endeavor to get rid of that by various means.
If I'm photographing a person, I'll clone out skin blemishes, but I'm not at the point yet where I do what I call the "plastic skin" technique of skin smoothing. I don't enlarge the eyes and paste them back in, but I do "whiten" teeth and sometimes the whites of the eyes a little. I'll clone out hot spots.
I'll also clone out stuff that I didn't see when I made the exposure... I tend to be one sighted when it comes to that. Then when I see the image, I say to myself, "darn, I've got to be more careful and "look" more before I shoot." But that never seems to work for me.
So for me it comes down to am I making a photograph, or am I making art based on a photograph?
Slow shutter of moving water is a big thing, but do we ever see that with our eyes? No... but again, people love it.
I think you have to decide for yourself, but don't put yourself in a rut either. Sometimes it's really fun to play around with post processing.
There are a lot of things you can do in camera, like long exposure, zooming in (or out) during a long exposure, moving the camera during a long exposure, putting the camera on manual focus, and deliberately mis-focusing to get big soft blobs of shapes and colors...
I think if digital had a wider dynamic range, there "might" be less over processing.
It's been my experience that the over processed images posted get the most attention, and also I think perhaps people just get tired of seeing perfectly exposed and composed images so that post processing lets them create something different than the other photographers are posting, soft blurry effects, lens baby effects, lomo effects, etc.
To me, when that is done, it's no longer a photograph, but digital art. I guess I tend to be more journalistic than I think I am after all.
If you are shooting for clients, then you need to be aware of the latest trends and styles, processing filters available, and make sure you know what your client is expecting or desires.
I think the photographer who can use his/her post processing skills to make an image look fantastic, without making it look fake, is the true artist.
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
Spot on. This is my philosophy as well. The "being different" that it seems some strive for miss the mark as they haven't developed their "eye" using the camera properly. There are some remarkable composite imagers here...great vision and execution. The flip side is those who don't have a command of what makes a great photo, use over abundant processing to achieve the "illusion" that its art, when in fact, its simply a bad photo changed to something else.
As a photographer, personally my goal is to achieve perfection in camera before it ever hits Lightroom or CS3.....a lofty goal for sure...but that is what makes photography challenging and rewarding....learn the camera, learn about light, composition....coolness. Then all the post processing skills will make that wonderful photograph a superior wall hanger.
NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
www.daveswartz.com
Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
This, to me, is photography. Your goal is lofty, indeed, but isn't it the goal of every film photographer that has depressed a shutter? Why are we, with our digital darkroom, exempt from the necessity of obtaining this skill?
I am tempted to move this thread tangentially into a discussion that was started a few weeks ago regarding a stock photographer. That thread devolved into a few rants about point&shoot wedding photographers, and the leveling of the playing field that has occured with the advent of cheap, readily available editing software.
On the other hand, I really have zero interest in the commercial side of photography. I enjoy this site, and my newfound hobby, because photography is a living art that I can relate to and understand. I came, naiively, into this hobby under the assumption that the beautiful images I have seen were captured, and not manufactured.
I'll get over it, but every time I see a striking photo I will wonder how much pp was done to create the image.
Everything else done to an image in post I lump into the category of graphic arts.
That's just me!
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I don't think there is a photograph that exists that isn't art. A photographer must choose the camera, camera settings, camera equipment, shooting angle, background, subject, what to include and not include, the time of the photo, etc. Every photograph includes a part of the photographer.
On this same note, there is not a photograph that exist that represents reality. Photos are captured moments (or segments) of time that represent that moment only visually. They are memories of a period of time and that it is. (ending this paragraph to avoid philosophical rantings...I'm just not smart enough
In my opinion, people are generally not completely happy with the way they are perceived in reality. Think about how you pose that bride or control the light off the senior's face to make them look the best they can. That is not reality. That is a false scene manufactured to make the subject look better than they normally appear or perceive themselves to be. Even journalists (who have strict guidelines on manipulating images) produce photographs that do not represent reality. The wide angle lens used to include the mob of people gives the photo a sense of drama that may not exist. The smug look on a president's face made by mouthing words during a speech will portray a grumpy man when in reality he is simply in between phrases.
And what about those rocks? A cardinal rule of photography is to include only necessary, non-distracting elements in the photograph. If it is distracting to the overall subject or idea, then remove it. Is this not the same as recomposing a shot in the field? Would it have been wrong to reposition yourself to alter the background when taking the shot? Then why is it wrong to do so in post-processing? Different roads to the same location. And consider Ansel Adams. His work had more post processing done than any other work I have ever seen. Dodge here, burn this. Even with Ansel Adams, reality was not "good enough" for his photography that is known for being so life-like and true.
I guess my point is you cannot represent reality with photography. You can try, but will fail. You may say you capture what you see through the camera. But I say you capture what the camera sees through your perception and imagination. If this is true, then it doesn't really matter at what point in the process you implement your perception into the photograph: whether it be while taking the photograph or afterward.
We all ought to aspire to producing the work that we enjoy and appreciate. That may be doing our best to match the photo with our perception of reality or it may be trying to make the photo more appealing for its purpose. Either way, we have fun and hopefully make some money, eh?:D
Great conversation! Whether we're right or wrong, it will be fun to see others ideas and responses! "Better to be criticized by a wise person than to be praised by a fool."
Kevin Helton Photography
www.kevinhelton.com
I took this shot in Vancouver a couple years ago, and while I was there taking the shot, I didn't notice the poop, nor the sign protruding out of my subjects shoulder. My gosh, I was downtown Vancouver, and the sensory perceptors were swollen.
I wanted to assure my family got the gist of what I felt, and after review, I felt the poop, and sign, took away. Sure, I have an Uncle who would have focused on the discrepancies, and he would would have appreciated the view because of them, but I still made a choice to make the changes, and have never looked back.
If I took a shot of an olden barn, and didn't like how a particular board leaned, too bad, I absolutely wouldn't change it.
Is it historical, aesthetic, for family, FA, commercial... journalistic? Those are all the questions I ask before I manipulate. And then make a personal choice. But never to intentionally mislead.
Digital photographers are not exempt from the requirement of good camera work. However, the same can be said for darkroom skills. The fact that we no longer use a wet lab or an enlarger doesn't mean we should leave all post work to some automated print server. As I see it, the attitude that you are done with an image the moment you press the shutter button is just as lazy as the attitude that you can fix everything in post.
I find this either/or attitude about the camera and Photoshop very odd and limiting. There seems to be a prevailing assumption here that someone is good with Photoshop is bad with a camera. Do you really believe that the only use for Photoshop is to fix mistakes in camera? If that is the case, I think you are really missing the point. As I see it, the best digital photography combines a good capture with good post.
My intent wasn't to disparage the work people do in photoshop. Post processing is clearly an art as much as it is a skill, and allows for some very dramatic results. I don't believe I've missed the point of post processing - it certainly allows for a greater range of results, and gives the photographer the ability to make creative decisions after the shutter is clicked.
The limiting factor in my post processing is the format, the software, and my lack of ability (and clearly, interest in becoming more proficient). Digital cameras make decisions as they process images. I understand that a knowledgeable photographer can change these decisions after the fact, and that it is necessary in some cases.
The question at hand, in my feeble mind, is what level of post processing turns a photo into a digital graphic? Is the general public, who make up many of the membership's customers, aware of the amount of work that goes into creating an image? Would they feel differently about the result if they understood the process?
I have the narrow and naiive perspective of someone just becoming familiar with the wide array of tools available to digital photographers. I never had a full understanding of the ability of a film photographer to alter images in post -- is it safe to say that nothing has changed? Or are digital images more easily, more commonly and more dramatically altered than film photos?
This is nothing more than a open discussion. I think we all agree that there isn't a right and a wrong, a true photo and an imposter. But there is certainly a difference in technique, in execution, and in results. And I am just now aware of it.:help
I've recently started shooting RAW and previous to that, I figured if I could get everything "right" in-camera then a RAW file would certainly not need any adjusting. Huh...I learned that RAW files can often be rather ugly and not really represent reality either. They must be dealt with! JPEG files go through some in-camera processing, so they aren't necessarily "real" either, but depend on the camera's settings and/or limitations. Really grainy high-ISO images aren't real because our eyes certainly didn't see all that grain in the sky before we clicked the shutter. And then there is the monitor on which you view your pictures...it can really skew reality!
Anyway, for those who consider themselves to be purists, I wonder if there are just certain post-processing actions that are considered OK and within the realm of pure photography and then a multitude of things which are not OK. And would anyone have the same OK list? I just think there have to be some things that are "acceptable" because like I said, those RAW files are not a finished product. For the record, I tend to think like Dee. I would much rather take my time with the shot and limit my time in post.
As much as I don't always get excited to see multiple composite images, I admire the vision the person had to pull it all together. And I respect the amount of work that many people put into their final product. I would probably rather use my time differently, but I am fascinated by others' PP skills and wish I had more of them myself!
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
We can look at written text for 10 seconds but when asked to write down that text afterwards very few will get it 100% correct, so how can we expect somebody to take a picture and then sometime several days later expect them to make adjustments that will reflect what they actually saw.
Many photographers take a picture and use it the same way as an artist would use and pencil drawn outline of a scene to paint a picture.
So I say there are three types, the snapper who is happy to take a picture of what he see's, the photographer who takes a pictue and correct minor imperfections and the digital photographic artist who produces a near perfect picture but which may not resemble what was actually taken on the day.
I don't be-little what these digital photographic artist produce, they produce their pictures with the skill of a master artist but a photograph was designed to capture a split second in time, not necessarily to produce a photographic master piece even though the finish picture is a master piece in it's own right.
Tim
Without going into a major history lesson about film photography, many of the tools in Photoshop mimic the tools of the darkroom. Not much of what you can do in Photoshop is actually new with digital. The difference is that I can do things in Photoshop in 5 minutes that used to take me 5 days in the photo lab. Aside from speed, the most noticable difference from using Photoshop is that lab work tends to suffer generational loss which you don't get when working digitally.
As for your goal to distinguish between "a true photo and an imposter," I think you are asking the wrong question. By the dictionary definition of photography, taping up a composite and throwing it in a photocopier counts as a photograph; trying to come up with narrower definition of the word is likely a fools errand. When I was creating composites in the lab, I used a standard 35mm SLR mounted on a variety of copy stands to do the work. There was a shutter press for those just like any other photograph I took. Trying to come up with a definition of photograph that doesn't include composites leads you into all kinds of horrible questions. If I take a picture of a photograph, is the result a photograph? What about taking a picture of a painting? What about taking a picture of a computer screen? In the days before I used Photoshop and ink jet printers, I used all of these techniques.
I think leaforte got at the heart of the real question: what kinds of manipulation are misleading? When is an edit a lie and when is an edit a different kind of truth? Take this for example:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html
Both images are clearly photgraphs, and yet one of them is a deliberate rewrite of history. Photographs can lie no matter how they were created. Arguing that using a limited set of techniques will create a "true" photograph is dangerously close to the idea that those "true" photographs tell the truth. It is up to people to be honset about the images they create; technology by itself does not create either truth or falshood.
I sell a few now and then (and a fair amount of event type stuff) but that's not my interest. I shoot to please myself and occassionally amuse my friends.
I spent hours in the darkroom in years gone by dodging this, burning that, and what not. I was proud of that work.
Now, I occassionally go wild in the digital darkroom and sometimes I like what comes out.
A small gallery.
http://mikesawyer.smugmug.com/gallery/3915829/1/227265615
Last week I got my first print on canvas and had it framed for my college swimming daughter. When I brought it home my little son asked, "who painted that? You?" I said, "yes on my computer."
This one is of my best friend. Because of the circumstances, this photo had to be harshly lighted. However, I saw an opportunity for something as I shot.
This is how it turned out:
I shoot for an audience of 1.
Not the goal. The opposite of the goal.
Sorry, misread what you wrote.
My instinctual response to this is that anything you view on your computer it is a digital graphic.
There is one transition I see that may be relevant to your question. If I take a photograph of, say, an apple there are going to be details in that photo which uniquely identify the particular apple I photographed as distinct from all other apples. If, through some form of either digital or analog processing I strip away all the identifying features, I do think I have fundamentally changed its meaning. The image ceases to be of a particular apple and becomes an icon for all apples. Now iconagraphy definitely plays a role in photograhpy, but the great works of photography have become icons despite or maybe because of their particular details. There is, I think, something unphotographic about using a post process which strips away the details which make a particular subject unique. One might argue that when all those details have been obliterated from a image the photographic nature of the source has been lost.
I find myself nodding in agreement with Kevin Helton and LiquidAir's comments. But don't think I am saying anyone else is wrong. I just agree with their perspective.
-Fleetwood Mac
In the AP citation, under 'Images' is this portion:
The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.
Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.
What I find most interesting is the authentic nature phrase. And the substantially alter phrase.
Comments? :poke
-Fleetwood Mac
i mostly do automotive stuff, but at the same time i shoot for my self basicly. over the years i have learned alot about how to take the photo right the first time. waiting for people to pass, moving to the side a little or up and down to change the reflections however sometimes that does not always work. while i always show the car as it was i think the viewer wants to see the best photo posable, even if that means photoshoping out people that would not get out of the way or clearing up the background.
but when i start doing photography that is not car related i think about the photo differently before i even take it. i want to show the photo the way i see it or think of it or just think looks the best. mostly this means play with the color balence and making it "off" to some, i also like adding in noise because it ads somthing else to the photo, an aged look, or more underground look maybe. to me that is every bit photography as anyone else using somthing to record an image.
from what i have read this is different then a fare amount of the people posting but im ok with. i use the tools i have to give something more, while still taking the best photo i can to start.
http://slinky0390.smugmug.com