Cloning

magicbastarder

Whammy! wrote: »

There are plenty of other photographers that don't adhere to a documentary or "true" style of photography. They will clone and alter the photo in other ways.
Does this make their photos less real?
I think the more important question should be does it matter if it is "real"?

in a very trivial sense, the answer to the first question is 'of course'; everything someone processing a photo does which alters the image to look less like what was seen through the viewfinder serves to make the image less 'real'.
second, it's up to the photographer or viewer to decide that for themselves.

Whammy!

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a very trivial sense, the answer to the first question is 'of course'; everything someone processing a photo does which alters the image to look less like what was seen through the viewfinder serves to make the image less 'real'.

The issue with this statement is that the viewfinder DOES NOT show how the camera will capture the image unless you are using live-view mode.
A viewfinder can't show extreme shallow depth of field, f2 and faster.
It will not show the colors accurate to how the camera will capture it.
In dark conditions the viewfinder will not show the extra light that high ISOs will bring.
It will not show the effects of a long of fast shutter speed.
Therefore by your statement of staying true to the viewfinder the camera is altering the image that you see through the viewfinder. So from the very moment you press the shutter release the image that you saw through the viewfinder has been altered, thus less "real" by this standard.
And what about rangefinders? Where the viewfinder doesn't even look through the lens? The camera is capturing an image very different from the one through the viewfinder.

The answer you provided may be trivial, but it is also not logical.

magicbastarder

let's rephrase my statement to say 'anything that alters the image from what was captured' then; the 'what was seen through the viewfinder' was not the salient point, it was the alteration to the image to improve it in the eye of whomever was processing it.

re rangefinders, the comment about the viewfinder being 'very different' from the captured image does not stack up at all. if it did, a viewfinder would be obsolete as it would be useless. but again, that's an irrelevant detail in the argument.

the main issue is that there is an argument made that because the act of capturing an image, be it on film or on sensor, does not produce a 100% accurate representation of reality, that this has a bearing on cloning things in or out of the image. i don't see the logic behind this argument. if a camera slightly favours the red channel in a photo, this is not a basis on which to base an argument on the merits of cloning things in or out of an image.

i see merit in trying to take photos which i am happy with without having to process them any more than colour balance/exposure etc.
other people enjoy the process of processing; that's fair enough. the world is big enough for both points of view.

mikka631

Talk about cloning and plastic bags:eek:

http://www.slrlounge.com/how-photoshopping-disqualified-a-winning-entry-in-national-geographic-contest/

The enhancements were within the rules but removing items was clearly not allowed.

DaireQuinlan

mikka631 wrote: »

Talk about cloning and plastic bags:eek:

http://www.slrlounge.com/how-photoshopping-disqualified-a-winning-entry-in-national-geographic-contest/

The enhancements were within the rules but removing items was clearly not allowed.

Also
http://petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/
and
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photographer-loses-10k-crown-claims-editing-not-major-11228

Though none of these cases are making a value judgement it's important to point out. All three were disqualified because they broke very clearly defined rules. Of the three the world press photo one was the most serious IMO, given that it's supposed to be press/editorial work.

magicbastarder

the case from the press photo awards is an interesting one; i can understand someone using something like delta 3200 when conditions dictate, but to take a photo which is a well exposed, digital colour photo with minimal grain and add golfball sized grain and horse the contrast up to make it look gritty would strike me as being fine in an artistic context, but a touch false in a journalistic context.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the case from the press photo awards is an interesting one; i can understand someone using something like delta 3200 when conditions dictate, but to take a photo which is a well exposed, digital colour photo with minimal grain and add golfball sized grain and horse the contrast up to make it look gritty would strike me as being fine in an artistic context, but a touch false in a journalistic context.

Yes I'd agree, though apparently the judging panel had no problem with it.

dnme

Wow, what have I started


In my opinion . . . . Every photograph is an interpretation of reality. Even our eye has a lens which interprets reality. That reality is derived form the reflection of light. What I see is different to a very good friend of mine who has impaired vision. So absolute reality does not even exist, it's far more abstract and relative when you stop to think about it.

Every photo ever taken is an interpretation. Variables include lens, angle, aperture, exposure, angle, digital or film, type of film. The lab where the film was processed, The technician who processed it. If digital jpeg, then the camera jpeg algorithm. If digital raw, then the person who processed the raw file. The pp software/version. List goes on and on. And when we finally get an image, and lets say we print it, it's still open to interpretation depending on where we hang it, the lighting in the room at time of observation etc

Personally, I like to control as many of these input variables as I can. So I shoot manual modes. I process my own files. I am very sympathetic to PP and I try getting it acceptable in camera as much as I can. But every raw file is flat as a pan cake. Its merely a recipe for an image. It needs a certain amount of processing.

So photo-realistic is not a term that I worry too much about. There's almost no such thing. Make it good, avoid the cliches, dont over do it.

As such, I have no problem cloning out minor distractions as long as I do not interfere with the story, the emotion, the appeal. In this case, the image has strong emotion, strong appeal and a strong story. The eye "makeup" however distracts and takes form it substantially . . . in my opinion.

magicbastarder

dnme wrote: »

What I see is different to a very good friend of mine who has impaired vision. So absolute reality does not even exist, it's far more abstract and relative when you stop to think about it.

I'm genuinely puzzled how you can go from 'because my sight is better than my friend's sight, I'm going to question the very nature of reality'.

The absolute reality is that the dog had gunk on its face. Debating whether to remove it is not calling that into question.

CabanSail

I think this thread started out with a specific example but was more about the general attitude to altering an image. I for one am enjoying the discussion and the various points raised. Sometimes it is valuable to examine our practices and motivation and to reflect on the opinions of others.

You are a very talented group of people and it's to be expected that attitudes will vary widely. Thanks for all who have contributed to this in a polite and respectful manner.

magicbastarder

it's discussions like these i find most interesting on these forums. nothing like having to justify your own opinions to make you examine them.

Silva360

In terms of the competition disqualification, I can certainly understand that. The rules in competitions with regard to processing are usually very clear. If you breach, tough! It's not like it's simply a case not reading the rules correctly because big comps usually have a few stages in their shortlist process and there are a lot of declarations to be made about the photograph at each stage. The fiascos in recent years with regard to Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Landscape Photographer of the Year should have thought people the lesson, but clearly there are always people who will try to cheat their way to a prize!

There are a few who have highlighted their preferences for 'true' photography, 'getting it right in camera', reflecting what was there etc....

I was just wondering what those people think of 'blending'. Say, for example, you have a beautiful scene with a dynamic range of about 20 stops, but the camera can only cope with around 10 stops. You don't want to underexpose or overexpose any part of the scene and filters won't cut it. So you take two or three photos from a tripod. All three photos are prescisely the same apart from the exposure of different parts (say land and sky). You then gently blend those photos together.

To me, this is an absolute true representation of the scene (ie, your eyes can see what the camera cannot cope with). Do you find that to be a reimagining of the scene, or over the top processing? Or would you be of the opinion that this type of processing is acceptable ?

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

There are a few who have highlighted their preferences for 'true' photography, 'getting it right in camera', reflecting what was there etc....

I was just wondering what those people think of 'blending'. Say, for example, you have a beautiful scene with a dynamic range of about 20 stops, but the camera can only cope with around 10 stops. You don't want to underexpose or overexpose any part of the scene and filters won't cut it. So you take two or three photos from a tripod. All three photos are prescisely the same apart from the exposure of different parts (say land and sky). You then gently blend those photos together.

To me, this is an absolute true representation of the scene (ie, your eyes can see what the camera cannot cope with). Do you find that to be a reimagining of the scene, or over the top processing? Or would you be of the opinion that this type of processing is acceptable ?

I'm not in either camp, but this argument is demonstrably false. Your eye sees the scene in much the same way as the camera sensor (albeit a bit more efficiently in some cases).

You can quite easily test this by staring at a bright object - your eye adjusts and the surrounding, darker area becomes difficult to see. This is just like your camera reacts to the same scene. If you're staring at a bright sunrise or sunset, again your eye adjusts depending on what part of the scene it's looking at. When staring at the darker part of the scene, the area around the sun seems brighter and less detailed, and vice versa.

A 'snapshot' of how your eye sees a contrasty scene at any given moment would not look dissimilar to a photo of the same scene. The brain creates an illusion of more detail being visible by 'filling in the blanks' from memory and averaging across multiple scenes.

It's up to you whether you want to similarly 'fill in the blanks' by blending multiple exposures, but it should not be mistaken for replicating the human eye. It's actually far more detailed than what the eye can deal with at any given moment.

magicbastarder

i've done similar myself to the above method, but not for a while - maybe i'm justifying a lack of patience by claiming it's a principle!

to echo what amdgilmore mentions above, one of the things HDR tries to replicate is that a photograph does not have the same dynamic range as your eyes when looking at a scene - but the photograph has to capture it in one go, say one fiftieth of a second, whereas if you're standing looking at a landscape, your eyes move around the scene, adjusting as they go.

to go back to processing the photo; i see some arguments which would seem to support a 'quantitative' approach to all processing - i.e. since the 'raw' (not just talking about digital here) photo itself is an interpretation, it's following the same continuum, but going a bit further along it, to get the cloning brush out.
i'd argue for the quantitative approach when discussing tonemapping, exposure, colour balance (as used in the fairly normal senses), etc., but it's a *qualitative* difference if you turn it into a photograph which simply could not have been captured in camera.

as mentioned, your mileage may vary, and my bias is very informed by what i myself gain the most pleasure or reward from. or possibly the converse applies.

Silva360

amdgilmore wrote: »

but this argument is demonstrably false.

I cannot agree with that. Your camera sensor simply cannot capture the dynamic range of your eyes in many situations. If you expose for the sky, in certain high dynamic range situations, your foreground will be underexposed and vice versa. This is why filters are used to balance photographs. Blending is another method. You could always try to lift shadows or recover highlights, but this often results in noise or other artefacts.

Magicbastarder: I should have made clear that I am not referring to HDR processing (in the form that HDR often means). To me this is, in all but the most subtle situations, horrible. I accept that the real world has shadows I take your point on the 'quantitive' approach....

Wabbit Ears

Having thought a bit more about this, the dog image would be a nice point and click or Cameraphone image but a photographer should hold themselves to a higher standard when they present any image to any audience. Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.


I suppose in my mind the difference really is you capture an image but present a picture.

dnme

I think for this argument to be played out fully, we need to see both photos. Eye makeup and Sans Eye makeup. Would that be possible ?

magicbastarder

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.

i'm struggling to get my head around this argument. i don't think it bears up even under the mildest scrutiny.
the 'major difference' is post processing? wow.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.

eh wot

So I'm just an over achieving point and clicker then, on par with people who *gasp* use cameraphones. Good to know :rolleyes:

Wabbit Ears

Its not an argument, its a point of view.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Its not an argument, its a point of view.

Typically people put forward arguments to try and justify a particular point of view. I think you'll have difficulty justifying that one somehow.

Tiriel

If I could get it right in camera then I'd be doing a lot less post processing It doesn't mean I would be doing none - but less for sure.

Getting it right to the point where I'm happy with the shot and have to do nothing to it - is rare, except for street photography when I do nothing if at all if possible (bar a B/W conversion) - no cropping/editing because the scene is what it is. For other shots I'd clean them up more.

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

I cannot agree with that. Your camera sensor simply cannot capture the dynamic range of your eyes in many situations. If you expose for the sky, in certain high dynamic range situations, your foreground will be underexposed and vice versa.

This is a common misconception about how the eye works in terms of dynamic range - there's a distinction between total dynamic range and the static contrast ratio of a single scene.

The total dynamic range of your eye vastly exceeds the capabilities of digital sensors in terms of discernible detail at either end of the spectrum, but just like your camera it cannot simultaneously resolve details in light and dark parts of the same scene.

If the eye is static, and observing a single scene, it can only resolve detail across a range of about 6-8 stops. Not at all dissimilar to your camera.

The effect you're observing is the result of the eye moving and readjusting, and the brain averaging multiple scenes. It's sort of a natural version of the blending method you're talking about.

This isn't necessarily refuting your argument about post-processing, just making a distinction between the actual processes that are taking place.

Wabbit Ears

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Typically people put forward arguments to try and justify a particular point of view. I think you'll have difficulty justifying that one somehow.

Arguably I think you would have trouble explainging how the point of view is unjustified.

A snapshop from a phone or a point and click is usually printed or presented as-in. A photographer would take the images, even from the same devices and post process them in some manner. I don't think that's incorrect or unjustified a statement.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Arguably I think you would have trouble explainging how the point of view is unjustified.

A snapshop from a phone or a point and click is usually printed or presented as-in. A photographer would take the images, even from the same devices and post process them in some manner. I don't think that's incorrect or unjustified a statement.

I think you'll have to define what you mean by the word 'photographer', and not in a circular "someone how post processes their shots in some manner" sort of way. Without some special "wabbit ears" definition, what you're saying is complete nonsense. Millions of photographers all over the world have, for the better part of a century, presented their images 'as-is'. Some of the most famous artistic photographers and photojournalists had no truck with post processing as you've described it above. So your argument really doesn't hold any water.

Wabbit Ears

by your logic everyone with access to a camera is a photographer.

So how do you define what the difference is?

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

by your logic everyone with access to a camera is a photographer.

Well, strictly speaking everyone with access to a camera who actually takes pictures, that's an important bit :-D

magicbastarder

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

So how do you define what the difference is?

a photographer is someone who takes a photo.

one of the strengths of photography is its democracy; yet many photographers are keen to impose an arbitrary hierarchy upon it to distinguish themselves from 'mere' snappers. you can if you want, if it makes you feel better, but to use the extent to which you process your photos as the main yardstick for this is just bananas.

you have claimed there is more weight attached to processing than there is to the act of photography, so we can say you're primarily a processor, and secondarily a photographer?
if there are two posters here who consistently produce output of equivalent quality, one who uses extensive processing, and one who favours a 'straight from the camera' approach, are you arguing that the former is more of a 'photographer'?

Silva360

amdgilmore wrote: »

This isn't necessarily refuting your argument about post-processing, just making a distinction between the actual processes that are taking place.

It would certainly be arrogant for me to argue the science of 'seeing' because I know nothing of it. But when I am viewing a scene, or scanning a scene if that is the proper terminology in this sense, my camera just cannot capture/'see' the same dynamic range as my eyes (which makes sense if what you say is correct). But in a photographic sense, and as the camera cannot 'scan' a scene in the same way my eyes can, does that make it highly acceptable to blend to produce a true record? Or is it still a reimagining because there should only be partial correct exposure, depending on where my eyes have settled when i press the shutter???

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

But in a photographic sense, and as the camera cannot 'scan' a scene in the same way my eyes can, does that make it highly acceptable to blend to produce a true record? Or is it still a reimagining because there should only be partial correct exposure, depending on where my eyes have settled when i press the shutter???

There you go. Muddies the waters a little, doesn't it? :pac:

I personally think blending is the most natural of the post-processes, since it's a very basic version of what's actually happening when your brain interprets a scene.

(Obviously I am not including that radioactive brand of HDR that we all know and hate)