How much is too much? (Fajitas welcome)

Trev M

Rather than spoil another thread I thought Id start one of my own.

As a very amatuer photpgrapher I am very interested in the capacity to edit and manipulate images so they look their best.

Personally I dislike images that look too perfect,too airbrushed and are manipulated in such a way that they remove the very essence of the subject matter. Pop princesses, obviously manipulated lanscapes and wildlife etc kinda irritate me. That said I kinda like some of the HDR stuff some of the guys on here have done.

Sure you need, commercial and promotional stuff pristine and suitable for application but Im wondering where the line gets drawn between the photgraph and the graphic.

Paulw

I think the line bends, depending on the requirements.

For editorial (press), then it's a very straight line - just colour, brightness, crop.

For art, fashion, magazines, well ... you've a lot more scope. Just look at most of the high end fashion magazines. Most would probably have the vast majority of images retouched. They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal.

It depends on the client, what they want, what they'll accept, and what you're prepared to allow.

elven

As paul said, depends on the purpose, and what the client wants if it's commercial.

If it's for your own fun, you have to make that decision for yourself, it's a purely personal thing. And over time, your ideas will probably change too.

Trev M

Paulw wrote: »

I think the line bends, depending on the requirements.

For editorial (press), then it's a very straight line - just colour, brightness, crop.

For art, fashion, magazines, well ... you've a lot more scope. Just look at most of the high end fashion magazines. Most would probably have the vast majority of images retouched. They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal.

It depends on the client, what they want, what they'll accept, and what you're prepared to allow.

Great way of explaining it "They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal" makes a lot of sense.

Trev M

elven wrote: »

As paul said, depends on the purpose, and what the client wants if it's commercial.

If it's for your own fun, you have to make that decision for yourself, it's a purely personal thing. And over time, your ideas will probably change too.

Heh I hear ya , my HDR stuff is rubbish , I dont have an eye for it at all, still though I mangled a lot of stuff to figure that much out:D

Paulw

Trev M wrote: »

Great way of explaining it "They're not selling reality, they're selling the ideal" makes a lot of sense.

These are good to watch -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP31r70_QNM (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovpd5O6M8tQ (part 2)

Trev M

Cheers for that will have a gander at these when I get home .

DaireQuinlan

Bah ! People here are being far too accommodating.

Cropping. Colour correction*. Dust spotting. Some global colour or contrast adjustments. That's all that's acceptable. Anything else transforms it into a piece of illustration, not a photograph. Sure there are grey areas here but they certainly don't include gross adjustments to the structure of the image itself, cloning out a telephone pole for example, or a wire.

*I'd include the transformation here from a scanned negative to a positive, including adjusting for the orange mask of the emulsion in the case of colour.

Ghost Train

this is too much

K_user

My wife would have me arrested if I did something like that to one of our kids!

dazftw

When it comes to using film I would go with what Daire said with some sharpening and a tiny bit of contrast as well..

When it comes to digital I don't see a problem with more editing at all.. Some stuff I like some stuff I dont..

Two things that drive me nuts though are people who use fake film borders on digital photos or people who turn color film photos to black and white.. oh jesus :mad:

Trev M

Heheh nice work Ghost Train :D just a little too much alright:D:D

Ghost Train

I think contrast adjustment is a tough one, because of the limits of film and digital sensors it is needed to correct an image, but you're using a curve to vary the balance in light and dark regions and its something that can make a huge difference, where do you draw the line at too much, should you vary the contrast for different light levels like an equalizer on a stereo. Sharpness is another thing which is hard to quantify, resizing a digital photo will effect sharpness... so sharpening is needed... is an unsharpen mask a fair method to use since its altering stuff at a pixel level?

DaireQuinlan

Ghost Train wrote: »

I think contrast adjustment is a tough one, because of the limits of film and digital sensors it is needed to correct an image, but you're using a curve to vary the balance in light and dark regions and its something that can make a huge difference, where do you draw the line at too much, should you vary the contrast for different light levels like an equalizer on a stereo.

I think 'reasonable' contrast adjustments are ok. Of course thats for some arbitary value of 'reasonable'

Sharpness is another thing which is hard to quantify, resizing a digital photo will effect sharpness... so sharpening is needed... is an unsharpen mask a fair method to use since its altering stuff at a pixel level?

Thats one of those grey areas The way I view it, the softness of a digital capture (either from a sensor or scanner) is an artifact of the process you're using to capture the image. Any sharpening you're doing to correct this artifact is acceptable. Any more is not. It's the same way I'd regard dust spotting or scratch removal on film. They're not intrinsic to the image, just to the process, and therefore can be removed. Of course how you DO it is another thing altogether.

dazftw wrote: »

Two things that drive me nuts though are people who use fake film borders on digital photos

Yeah I've never really understood that either.

sineadw

Its all subjective anyway, but I think even the purist can agree on sharpness, contrast and a bit of curves and colour temp - you make those decisions when you choose film types or adjust the lens on your enlarger.

Eirebear

Do not listen to anyone.
Do what looks good to YOU. or in the case of fulfilling a brief for a client, do what looks good to your client. Its all about audience.

If you feel that adding effects, maybe a filter or a texture to your shot in photoshop will help it. Then go ahead and do it!

Its all subjective, its all down to taste. So if you want to try it i see absolutely no harm in trying it.

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

Trev M

Eirebear wrote: »

Do not listen to anyone.
Do what looks good to YOU. or in the case of fulfilling a brief for a client, do what looks good to your client. Its all about audience.

If you feel that adding effects, maybe a filter or a texture to your shot in photoshop will help it. Then go ahead and do it!

Its all subjective, its all down to taste. So if you want to try it i see absolutely no harm in trying it.

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

I hear what your saying about things being down to taste and I try to respect other people in this regard. As I said my preference is for things to look more natural than synthetic for the most part ... admittedly I nearly always sharpen, adjust contrast, temp adjust most of my stuff as I see these as kinda bread and butter:p, Ive never had to deal with film just to put it in context, so my experience is just within teh digital photographt context i.e I think its surely easier to get a good shot nowadays.

It interesting as a new comer to the board and photography how difficult it is to find a level of consistency in general terms as to whats accpetable & deemed "good photgraphy practice" - take the art debate that happened here some time ago, hugely diverging opinions from people on here who I think have some amazing stuff but had hugely contrasting(har har) opinions

I guess in the dgital age its all becoming very blurry:D:D - one mans art is another mans **** sandwich I spose...interesting as always to see the varying view points.

Eirebear

Trev M wrote: »

I hear what your saying about things being down to taste and I try to respect other people in this regard. As I said my preference is for things to look more natural than synthetic for the most part ... admittedly I nearly always sharpen, adjust contrast, temp adjust most of my stuff as I see these as kinda bread and butter:p, Ive never had to deal with film just to put it in context, so my experience is just within teh digital photographt context i.e I think its surely easier to get a good shot nowadays.

It interesting as a new comer to the board and photography how difficult it is to find a level of consistency in general terms as to whats accpetable & deemed "good photgraphy practice" - take the art debate that happened here some time ago, hugely diverging opinions from people on here who I think have some amazing stuff but had hugely contrasting(har har) opinions

I guess in the dgital age its all becoming very blurry:D:D - one mans art is another mans **** sandwich I spose...interesting as always to see the varying view points.

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

However that is simply because once you take it any further, you are changing the photograph into an image that wasnt what you shot.
And generall we go out with an idea in our heads and aim to capture that idea.

However sometimes we want to do something a little different with it, and if you set out to do that then i personally see absolutely no problem with that.

its still photography if your taking the photograph. You still need to get the shot that suits the particular process or manipulation that you are going to put it through.

I suppose a lot of it comes down to the thought process that takes you to where you end up with your image?

Chorcai

Eirebear wrote: »

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

However that is simply because once you take it any further, you are changing the photograph into an image that wasnt what you shot.
And generall we go out with an idea in our heads and aim to capture that idea.

However sometimes we want to do something a little different with it, and if you set out to do that then i personally see absolutely no problem with that.

its still photography if your taking the photograph. You still need to get the shot that suits the particular process or manipulation that you are going to put it through.

I suppose a lot of it comes down to the thought process that takes you to where you end up with your image?

ohh did this a few days ago,

Before



and after, the after is what I was aiming for, Im happy enough with it.

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

I don't think this has anything to do with digital versus 'analogue' (by which I presume you mean film ?). I scan my film, and once I've done that I'm as free to do as much to it as any shot from a DSLR. There's a sort of inherent plasticity to a digital capture though which doesn't exist in film, the physical negative always exists as a point of reference.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I don't think this has anything to do with digital versus 'analogue' (by which I presume you mean film ?). I scan my film, and once I've done that I'm as free to do as much to it as any shot from a DSLR. There's a sort of inherent plasticity to a digital capture though which doesn't exist in film, the physical negative always exists as a point of reference.

Its not about what you can and cant do with a negative.

Its about the initial question, "how much is too much", and in my personal opinion the idea of there being a "too much" is a hangover from the pre-digital era.

That is not to say that i am dismissing those values, as everyone needs a grounding.

sineadw

Eirebear I think you're missing a huge point about film - you can do just about as much with a negative in the dark room as you can with a raw file. Its just more difficult.

Morrisseeee

So........can we break it down to 2 definitions:

1. The 'original' (with minor adjustments) is called "A Photograph" (either digital or film) and.....

2. Anything else (ie. that has had major 'work' done (but this 'boundary' is hard to define)) is called "A xxxxx".

Q. What do we call the xxxxx ?!?

DaireQuinlan

Morrisseeee wrote: »

So........can we break it down to 2 definitions:

1. The 'original' (with minor adjustments) is called "A Photograph" (either digital or film) and.....

2. Anything else (ie. that has had major 'work' done (but this 'boundary' is hard to define)) is called "A xxxxx".

Q. What do we call the xxxxx ?!?

Anything you want ? Why get hung up on labels ?

Eirebear

sineadw wrote: »

Eirebear I think you're missing a huge point about film - you can do just about as much with a negative in the dark room as you can with a raw file. Its just more difficult.

No i completely get that Sinead. But we talk about "purists" and in my experience purists fall into two categories.

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

No i completely get that Sinead. But we talk about "purists" and in my experience purists fall into two categories.

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion, you're the only person making this distinction. This is solely about the image and the range of acceptable modifications to an image.
A good basis are the reuters guidelines:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Morrisseeee

Anything you want ? Why get hung up on labels ?

Ah now don't be flippin flippant
No, lets nail it down, lets bang heads together and come up with a 'label' (that I've no hang-ups about:eek:) that describes the option 2 above, ie. a (majorly) manipulated image (MI), ie. not what the camera saw, again to re-iterate: where do we draw the line between the two, which is (kinda) the OP's Q.
I know what Eirebear is saying, as in I've listened to film friends of mine who have not used a D_SLR or photoshop, and they think this photoshop thingy is 'cheating' or where an image is 'too manipulated'. Personally I've an open mind as I've seen both processes and experimented with both, but for me there's a big difference between a 'photograph' and a 'manipulated image', and I think its VERY wrong to try and pass off a MI as a photograph, so what do we call it (this MI) ? as they both are 'works of art' and both are a fine example of the photographer's talent.
Damn, I really need a secretary to interpret my explanations and write them down coherently :pac:

Just reading that post above Daire, they're 1st rule is : No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
I guess if this is done then its an MI.

K_user

Eirebear wrote: »

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

Personally I do a tweak on curves, a little dodging and burning, a small crop and localised sharpening if required.

My wife however always laughs and says I'm cheating. I have tried to explain that all of the above are done daily in photolabs on "normal" photographs. And that a "point and shoot" camera is set up to do the same automatically. But I think that most people see programs like photoshop as a cheat because of the serious retouching work done in the glossy mag's.

Eirebear wrote:

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating".

90% of the time, the latter of the two become more adapted to photoshop (or other programmes) and what you can/cant do than the film shooters do and begin to find uses for adapting the so called rules to their own way.

I completely agree. I think that there is more to it though.

People who use film, due to the higher costs and time that it takes, tend to be more careful "in camera". Understandably this leads to better, sharper, well metered and composed images.

The curse of the digital age is how disposable images are. You can take 100 pictures and only choose one to show off. But had you taken the time you might have walked away with 5 good pictures out of 10. And I think we are all guilty of this!

For some photoshop is were the real work begins. Trying to make an Ansel Adams out of a snap shot of their local woods. Then they get frustrated and call cheat when they see other peoples work.

For myself, the more I've learned about photoshop the more I've depended on getting things right when I shoot.

K_user

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion

When I hear the term "purist" I tend to think "anti".

Film or digital are just different ways to capture an image.

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

When I hear the term "purist" I tend to think "anti".

Film or digital are just different ways to capture an image.

I agree. This isn't a film versus digital debate.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's nothing 'purist' or 'film' or 'digital' about the discussion, you're the only person making this distinction. This is solely about the image and the range of acceptable modifications to an image.
A good basis are the reuters guidelines:
http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop/

Ok, im not making myself clear here obviously.

The original question is "How much is too much".

Taking into account the fact that Trev has arleady described himself as an "Amateur photographer", then it implies that his audience isnt the same as that of a newspaper photographer.
The Reuters link you posted is all fine and well, if he was a journalist. But he isnt. So its kind of a moot point in terms of the question.

Now as an amateur, i can only assume from my own experience and others i know personally. That the aim of the game is to take photographs that i like personally, maybe something that my friends and family would like to hang on their wall etc.

So with that in mind, why should he limit himself to what other photographers determine as "too much". The only limits on that, in my opinion, should be his own sense of taste and creativity.

As i said earlier. If Trev goes out and shoots an image, to the best of his ability an image that he feels he can put through a certain process or manipulation in photoshop, then where is the problem?

Trev finishes his OP with the distinction between Photograph and Graphic.
Now, no matter what trev does to his image in photoshop, the process and manipulation is going to work better if he has taken the best photograph he can to start things out with.
So photography is still the major factor.
You can be as good as you want with photoshop and graphic capabilities. As an amateur there is very little chance you are going to be able to get a photographer to donate their work for you to work on. So the skill is still needed.

So we come to my mentions of "Purists" and "film" etc.

I can only answer the guys questions through experience, and in my experience the people who put down the use of photoshop etc, are commonly taking the "purist" route and see photoshop as cheating.
And as i said, most of them come from a film background one way or another.

Photoshop is a massivley powerful tool, which we as photographers are lucky to have in our arsenal.
My initial advice to Trev stands.
Push the boundaries, and dont let anyone hold you back, youll find your lines of acceptability before too long.
A very large percentage of us generally come back to curves, levels, colour temp adjustments!

Fajitas!

Thanks for the welcome :pac:

Trev M wrote: »

Personally I dislike images that look too perfect,too airbrushed and are manipulated in such a way that they remove the very essence of the subject matter. Pop princesses, obviously manipulated lanscapes and wildlife etc kinda irritate me. That said I kinda like some of the HDR stuff some of the guys on here have done.

Well, the initial reasoning for that is having a relationship with the 'real' image, the unaltered form. Where 'good' processing comes into it, it's difficult to point it out a lot of the time. It's subtle, but incredibly effective. Oversaturated HDR's, they are not. Never mind being able to process an image, being able to keep it subtle, realistic and avoid the bells and whistles associated with a lot of photography (ZOMG TEXTURES!!!) is incredibly important.

Sure you need, commercial and promotional stuff pristine and suitable for application but Im wondering where the line gets drawn between the photgraph and the graphic.

There isn't a line, unless you need a line, then there's a line.

It's as complicatedly simple as that. For commercial work, photographs are presented in a certain way - And for all the people out there saying "oh, photoshopped images are lies" they're not realising the other 2,342,399 images that have flown past them in the past 72 hours which have had as much if not more processing of some kind. Post processing gets a bad rap, because it's easy to talk about in a derogatory fashion.

Paulw wrote: »

These are good to watch -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP31r70_QNM (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovpd5O6M8tQ (part 2)

I really don't think so, they're biased from the start in my opinion.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Bah ! People here are being far too accommodating.

Cropping. Colour correction*. Dust spotting. Some global colour or contrast adjustments. That's all that's acceptable. Anything else transforms it into a piece of illustration, not a photograph. Sure there are grey areas here but they certainly don't include gross adjustments to the structure of the image itself, cloning out a telephone pole for example, or a wire.

*I'd include the transformation here from a scanned negative to a positive, including adjusting for the orange mask of the emulsion in the case of colour.

+100

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah I've never really understood that either.

It's seeking an aesthetic, as opposed to the philosophy behind the aesthetic. A lot of folk that shoot film have self imposed rules of what they can and can't do with their photographs. Maybe because it's somewhat physical in nature, as opposed to the lack of just about anything tactile with digital. I think digital will strive to become tactile for a while yet. I'm sure there's a thesis there if one was interested.

Eirebear wrote: »

Do not listen to anyone.
Do what looks good to YOU. or in the case of fulfilling a brief for a client, do what looks good to your client. Its all about audience.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong

Listen to EVERYONE. They might be wrong, they might be talking about their collective holes, but listen. It'll progress you a lot further than listening to noone. You don't have to do what people are sh*teing on about, but there's very little harm in listening... because at the end of the day, they are your audience. And understanding what the audience wants/needs/receives is half the battle. Besides, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you won't learn from them

Its all subjective

On the contrary... well.. I hate this 'oh, it's all so subjective' thing. No, there's sh*te photographs, good photographs and excellent photographs. And there's a lot of sh*te photographs... if we're going to get into that argument :pac:

We live in a digital world, so analogue values really dont matter any more.
While its great to know, learn and respect those analogue values, dont let them rule your photography.

Again, on the contrary, analogue values do matter, and matter quite a lot. Photography is still quite a young form, compared with other 2D forms such as type, or painting or printing. It's values are still incredibly integrated with those of painting, for example.

Digital photography, as a medium, is even younger - and only has the world of film photography to rely on as a history. A mediums history is as important as it's contemporary 'users' - Now, this doesn't mean that one should only do what was possible in the darkroom 200 years ago - IMO, that's a load of bullsh*t, but it's important to know what you're doing, why you're doing it and how it compares to what was done before. Digital manipulation is far more accessible than the darkroom, and I think it's a fantastic aid to photography, but being able to appreciate have an overview of analogue photography is as essential as...well... anything.

Trev M wrote: »

I hear what your saying about things being down to taste and I try to respect other people in this regard. As I said my preference is for things to look more natural than synthetic for the most part ... admittedly I nearly always sharpen, adjust contrast, temp adjust most of my stuff as I see these as kinda bread and butter:p

But you don't have to any more than these if you feel it's unnecessary. At that stage, it's up to you

Ive never had to deal with film just to put it in context, so my experience is just within teh digital photographt context i.e I think its surely easier to get a good shot nowadays.

Ah you don't really need to have used film. Do do some research into it though. You might even like it... :pac:

As for the part I've highlighted in bold, naw, that's only what some old fogies will tell you, along with the hard ol'days of film. It's as hard to get a excellent photograph when you've 2 sheets of film loaded in the back of your 4x5 as when you've got a 16Gb card in your 5DmkII

Eirebear wrote: »

Most of the time i would say 99% of people on here do nothing other than the general curves, levels adhustments as you pointed out.

However that is simply because once you take it any further, you are changing the photograph into an image that wasnt what you shot.
And generall we go out with an idea in our heads and aim to capture that idea.

Jaysis, we really won't be seeing eye to eye after this

Again, I'd disagree - If you're going to say changing any more than that is changing what you've shot... well.. Shooting what you've shot has changed what you've shot - Even a general curves has changed what you've shot. And maybe what you've shot isn't what's after coming off your memory card or showing up on your contact sheet, and when this happens, can you alter the image to make it what you've shot?

sineadw wrote: »

Eirebear I think you're missing a huge point about film - you can do just about as much with a negative in the dark room as you can with a raw file. Its just more difficult.

Tell that to someone who's spend their whole life using a darkroom

Morrisseeee wrote: »

So........can we break it down to 2 definitions:

1. The 'original' (with minor adjustments) is called "A Photograph" (either digital or film) and.....

2. Anything else (ie. that has had major 'work' done (but this 'boundary' is hard to define)) is called "A xxxxx".

Q. What do we call the xxxxx ?!?

Argh! No!! It's a photograph. Why do you need to label it as something else? (Something that sounds nasty, or derogatory... like 'digitally altered image' or somesuch - because we know it's what people want to call it. It does nothing other than confine it further. And then what do we call our jobs!?! A Digitally Altered Imagagraphicer? Do we have Wedding Digitally Altered Imagagraphicers and Fashion Digitally Altered Imagagraphicer? Or maybe it should end in operator? Should we call cameras cameras anymore!?!?!?!?!) For all necessary purposes, it's a photograph until it actually isn't a photograph anymore.

Eirebear wrote: »

No i completely get that Sinead. But we talk about "purists" and in my experience purists fall into two categories.

Those who used to/still shoot film regularly (as their main medium), and those who are just starting out in photography and are under the impression that photoshop is "cheating"..

Well, yes and no :pac:

I shoot a lot of film for my personal projects, and alter it very little. Maybe a bit of curves. Maybe. I will crop it to suit my needs though. Except Polaroids, I don't crop those.

This is rather hypocritical, but it goes back to those self imposed rules I mentioned earlier. Sometimes a photographer just needs to implement them. It's not that I see it as cheating either, it's a personal thing. At the same time, if it's a job, I'll be shooting digital 99% of the time, and have no problem doing whatever needs to be done to do the job. To make it even more interesting, I sometimes strive for some of the aesthetic provided to me when shooting film, when I'm not 'able' to edit. Why? Because I like it.

Enjoy the contradictions!

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

As i said earlier. If Trev goes out and shoots an image, to the best of his ability an image that he feels he can put through a certain process or manipulation in photoshop, then where is the problem?

Trev finishes his OP with the distinction between Photograph and Graphic.
Now, no matter what trev does to his image in photoshop, the process and manipulation is going to work better if he has taken the best photograph he can to start things out with.
So photography is still the major factor.
You can be as good as you want with photoshop and graphic capabilities. As an amateur there is very little chance you are going to be able to get a photographer to donate their work for you to work on. So the skill is still needed.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is VERBOTEN to edit your shots. Go nuts ! The point I'm making (and others) is that at some point it ceases to be a photograph and becomes an xxxxx as Morrisseeee points out. A classic example here on the forum is that shot by CabanSail of the concentration camp gates with the bomber. That ceased to be a photograph. It became an illustration, an opinion piece as soon as he made a collage out of the image. That's an extreme and easily argued example, in real life of course it's more subtle. The reason why I bring up the reuters guidelines is that I think that's as good a place as any to draw the line.

jpb1974

I've found that the further I've delved into photography the more I've come around to appreciating that the best photos are typically those which require the least amount of after care.

When I started out I went for it all... the overcooked HDRs, the radical wow look... I even tried a fake sky once... yuk... I still cringe when I look back.

Post processing, where true photography is concerned, should only really be about minor refinements and very, very small enhancements.

I enjoy looking back at photos taken down through the decades, and when I look at photos from people like William Klein, William Eggleston & Robert Frank (to name just a few) I know that what I am looking at is a simple, honest & pure photograph... where post processing wasn't paramount to a photo being effective but the subject and contents of the photo were.

When I look at many photos on forums such as this, posted for critique, it's often the case that the photo is spoiled by too much post processing or simply bad post processing.

Instances where people take photos purely as feed for post processing irritate me. These overcooked HDRs aren't photos for me... it's digital art... and I use the word art very cautiously.

For what it's worth - I shoot both film and digital

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is VERBOTEN to edit your shots. Go nuts ! The point I'm making (and others) is that at some point it ceases to be a photograph and becomes an xxxxx as Morrisseeee points out. A classic example here on the forum is that shot by CabanSail of the concentration camp gates with the bomber. That ceased to be a photograph. It became an illustration, an opinion piece as soon as he made a collage out of the image. That's an extreme and easily argued example, in real life of course it's more subtle. The reason why I bring up the reuters guidelines is that I think that's as good a place as any to draw the line.

Yeah, i get where your coming from. And i suppose im being slightly mislead by the term "acceptable" used in the subject line.
I dont recall CabanSail's shot, however im assuming that Photography is still the base skill, without being able to take those photographs CabanSail wouldnt have been able to pull off the final effect.
So why should it not be called a photograph?

I agree that it would be wrong for CabanSail to try and pass it off as a single shot, but imo its still a photograph (Ive stopped making sense again havnt i?! )

jpb1974 wrote: »

the photo is spoiled by too much post processing or simply bad post processing.

This is key for me. As i said, Photoshop is a very powerful too, which has made photography much more accesable to the average joe.
However the average Joe, doesnt have the skills to harness that power and they generally dont have the understanding that to me is baseline.
You cannot turn a poor photograph into a good one using photoshop, no matter what.

EDIT: OT i got Egglestone's "Guide" at Christmas...fantastic piece of work.

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

I dont recall CabanSail's shot, however im assuming that Photography is still the base skill, without being able to take those photographs CabanSail wouldnt have been able to pull off the final effect.
So why should it not be called a photograph?

A montage, or a collage maybe, not a photograph. Although by the looks of things Fajitas might disagree ...

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Although by the looks of things Fajitas might disagree ...

Depends... Film or digital?
























:pac:

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

A montage, or a collage maybe, not a photograph. Although by the looks of things Fajitas might disagree ...

Hmmm, Im on the fence here.

For me, Photographers or people knowledgeable about photography will call in a montage or a collage.
But wont the majority of people just see a photograph?

I suppose its similar to the use of CGI in films, if its done well and looks the part then its great, praiseworthy indeed. However if done badly it gets flak, and we all hark back to the good old days of Ray Harryhausen and the like complaining that CGI is ruining films for everyone!
But it never stops being a film does it?

As for Fajitas, going by his last post he doesnt agree with anyone!

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Depends... Film or digital?

:mad::mad:

:pac:

:rolleyes:

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

Hmmm, Im on the fence here.

For me, Photographers or people knowledgeable about photography will call in a montage or a collage.
But wont the majority of people just see a photograph?

Thats actually part of my problem with it, although i guess that's orthogonal to whether it be regarded as a photograph or not. Anyhow, since when did the opinion of 'the majority of people' actually dictate truth* ??





*disregarding, for the sake of argument, all those instances where this does in fact happen

sineadw

Al I meant that the terms of what is overly processed is subjective - in that each person has their own boundaries (as independent photographers I mean - obviously if you're working for reuters its a different story) as to how far they go and what they personally see as acceptable. I think that's fairly obvious from the thread. Now good processing and bad processing - that's a WHOLE different story! You can be light on PP and still make a good original look terrible. And vice versa.

I don't think there's any point trying to draw lines and pigeon hole TBH. Where exactly do the lines then stop? Filters? Lenses? I'd agree with Al in that it's far too easy to disparage PP. Personally (and this *is* a personal arguement) and getting back to the original intent of the OP, I find it hard to swallow the massive amount of airbrushing the beauty industry does. BUT: I do similar when I work on images, especially if the subject is female. And to be blatantly honest, its because I know it's what I'd want done if the roles were reversed. We can all bang on about how terrible it is (and it is..) but I'm as guilty as anyone of perpetuating the unattainable.

Or to put it another way - art is (sometimes - not always) about archetypes. And you can use that in the artistic, psychological and literal sense.

Eirebear

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Thats actually part of my problem with it, although i guess that's orthogonal to whether it be regarded as a photograph or not. Anyhow, since when did the opinion of 'the majority of people' actually dictate truth* ??





*disregarding, for the sake of argument, all those instances where this does in fact happen

lol, on the subject of subjective...we come to truth!

I suppose this is a problem that any artist (i use this term loosely since im involving myself and my own opinions in this conversation) comes up against.
Millions of people eat mcDonalds every day
Westlife are one of the most succesful bands in the world etc etc etc.

I have no answers to this one.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

orthogonal

I did however add a new word to my vocabulary! Thank you!:D

Morrisseeee

I agree that it would be wrong for CabanSail to try and pass it off as a single shot, but imo its still a photograph

Yes to the 1st part, it would be very wrong, and No to the 2nd part, its not a photograph ! its an xxxxx :eek:
.....and who welcomed Fajitas, all bow to Fajitas

Eirebear

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Yes to the 1st part, it would be very wrong, and No to the 2nd part, its not a photograph ! its an xxxxx :eek:
.....and who welcomed Fajitas, all bow to Fajitas

If we start calling it an XXXX its going to make internet searches a whole lot more of a minefield!

Morrisseeee

make internet searches a whole lot more of a minefield!

......or more interesting :eek::o:D

elven

Pretty much everything of mine i shoot digitally has the same preset applied in lightroom, which changes the colour temperature, exposure, contrast, saturation, clarity, and adds a very subtle split toning (no, colourisation. No, hang on, split tone. No, duotone...). They end up looking fairly different from what the shot looks like with all the settings at 0, if that's what you want to call 'true' or 'pure'. But - the final version (without a fake border) looks very similar to what i get with a polaroid as soon as it's developed after being spat out of the camera. And that's about as non altered and pure and true as you can get, too. So which is 'purer'? And if i were to take another of my polaroids, the peel apart kind, and do an image transfer (google it if you don't know) - would i be expected to call that something other than a photograph, too?

All of those rules and values that people take from whatever source and apply to their own photography are generally something that they do to make themselves feel like they are improving their own game. Self constraint is an excercise in creativity - it's like a test, to see what you can do with the simplest/least fancy tools to hand, to prove that the photographer is what really counts. So it becomes a bit of a boasting point. It's a bit like someone going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind their back, to show off how hard they are. But someone who can create something beautiful(/insert another word for 'really good') with lots of fancy tools has also shown a skill in using those tools, however many of them there were. It doesn't make the final result any less good.

When it comes to the cloning and comping stuff together, it depends what arena you're presenting them in. Adding and removing large elements of the frame no longer represents what the camera saw, but it's still made up of photographs so technically, can you call it something else? Are you just scared that you're being 'true' to what was in front of you and other people are putting out pictures with has that kind of stuff done, and their final result looks more OMG WOW LIKE AMAYZING and they are stealing the limelight? Do you really care what people who like that sort of stuff think? I think they are different audiences.

Ghost Train

Thing is you mightn't be able to tell how much pp has gone on and its not like the photographer has to make it known, so looking at a photo you have to make your mind up rightly or wrongly if too much has been done to it. Lighting and method of photography can also be mistaken for some type of post processing so mistakes can be made either way

Thought this was interesting when I saw it a while back, just because I wouldn't be familiar with stuff like this or wouldn't have thought about the work that goes into some photos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3syVdV6XbY

sineadw

I have to see that film...

<coughs in Thonda's direction>....

K_user

Excellent video - goes along way to prove that photo editing wasn't invented by the digital age...

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

Excellent video - goes along way to prove that photo editing wasn't invented by the digital age...

not by a LONG shot ...

"Any dodge, trick and conjuration of any kind is open to the photographer's use.... It is his imperative duty to avoid the mean, the base and the ugly, and to aim to elevate his subject.... and to correct the unpicturesque....A great deal can be done and very beautiful pictures made, by a mixture of the real and the artificial in a picture."

1867, Henry Peach Robinson

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm

Promac

Whether you are shooting film or digital or just creating an image in software - the whole process is intended to produce images for presenting to people for different reasons. Depending on who those people are you have different restrictions. If you're presenting images as a journalist who is attempting to show what happened somewhere once, you have your Reuters rules. If you're presenting images of children to their parents - you show them some well taken pictures of their children. Maybe you fix a stray hair or an unfortunate blemish but nothing too strong, nothing noticeable – parents know what their kids look like and won’t appreciate manipulation.

What I’m getting at is that the only “rules” here are imposed by whoever the imagery is being presented to. Even if it’s yourself. There is no such thing as too much – only the wrong audience.

Whether I was using film or digital or software – the only times I’ve ever produced images that were “true to life” was when I was using cheap, compact film cameras. With everything else the equipment makes the subject look too good or too different – most of my film photography was black and white and I’d often dodge or burn as required in the darkroom – hardly true to life. My 450D with a nice prime lens and no manipulation produces images that look better than real life. The act of using a nice camera like that changes the image. Forget about curves and levels and cloning – if you manipulate the image in any way, it’s no longer an accurate account of what was in front of you when you hit the shutter. Doesn’t mean it’s not a photograph though – the “graph” part of the word means a representation, not a reproduction. You present it in whatever way you think it will best be received.