A little rant #2

[Loupey]

Obviously it is what gives people their biggest satisfaction which drives what they do and how they do it.

For me, post processing is a necessary evil (just not as evil as a traditional darkroom ). For others, working the images with their computer is their love. I enjoy spending my time out with the subjects. Others may equally enjoy working the image on the computer.

A friend of mine creates stunning graphic images of nudes which are beyond my level of creativity or even imagination. He starts with a simple image from a PS camera. Then manipulates it beyond recognition. His love is the manipulation side and expresses his ideas through it. To him, the actual "photography" is the necessary evil

He and I are opposites in just about every respect. The world would be a boring place if it were not for differences we all bring.

[Ronnoco]

Mirroring the fast paced society, I see photographers who seem always in a hurry to shoot. Some shots take me hours to do as I wait for a scene to develop in order to get precisely what I want. In the meantime, other photographers are coming and going - just snapshooting really. Images to be altered later. Who is right and who is wrong? Only I can say what is right for me.

Well, from a strictly practical and professional point of view, you probably are, perhaps because you recognize that taking the photo is better use of your time than spending hours altering it, although some postprocessing is still necessay.

The reality is that although all digital work requires some postprocessing, it requires both technical and skilled expertise, a great eye and even a bit of artistry to push it beyond a certain basic to medium level. Most photographers do not have that level of skill, expertise, and art in Photoshop usage, so they are probably not using their time profitably trying to considerably alter a less than well shot original.

To mention some of the examples here. Cropping can be done down to a certain level with minimum noticeable loss in quality even by an experienced photographer but that assumes a technically excellent original preferably shot from a tripod. It also requires some work and time. As to adding, unless you are talking about something pretty small, a considerable amount of perfect matching is required from focus, resolution, hue, contrast, colour, etc. all the way to lighting and printing. Most photographers do not have that amount of time and skill necessary to do it at a necessary high level of professionalism.

Ronnoco

[another view]

Who is right and who is wrong? Only I can say what is right for me.

Well put. I think it's odd that a judge told you to clone something out - clearly not a "shooter" I'd say... Personally, I wouldn't want a critique from that "judge" again.

Five trees vs. six probably in a line isn't going to make much of any difference compositionally. What might matter more than this is that if you moved closer or farther back that the foreground and sky would sit differently in the image. The shot with six trees might look a lot better than one with five or seven.

[Old Timer]

Obviously it is what gives people their biggest satisfaction which drives what they do and how they do it.

The world would be a boring place if it were not for differences we all bring.

Amen!!! Each photographer or PS technician (or whatever you may call them) decides what their personal likes and dislikes are. The end product is what matters. Am I as the photographer/creator of this image satisfied with the result. Now if you have created the image with a certain audience or purpose in mind than you must take into consideration their preferences or requirements as well. (For example photojournalism prohibits any manipulation of the image.) Then many of the ideas expressed by other in this thread come into play. But for me and I dare say for the largest percentage of contributors on this site their images are created purely for their own enjoyment. Therefore how they take them or manipulate them is totally a decision based on what their own personal likes and dislikes are. When they share them here and with their friends they are merely trying to determine if their taste is appreciated by others.

[Didache]

another view - yes, we were all rather taken aback by it. It seemed bizarre at the time and it seems bizarre now. I can agree that three is often a stronger number than four, compositionally speaking (eg 3 apples will almost always look "better" than 4 apples). But this seemed to be pushing the principle too far!

Cheers
Mike

[Sushigaijin]

Erik says "photography has little to do with the process, only the result" - I think it is that which bothers me. Surely the process and the result should go hand in hand, without one over-riding the other? That would mean integrity in both the final image AND the process by which the photographer gained his result.

Mike, you are bothered by that statement because you assume that heavy post processing LACKS integrity - which it does not - it is simply part of the creative process.

The process doesn't really matter because in the end, the viewer or buyer is not going to know exactly what you did to the shot after the frame was exposed - the same way they don't know how the song that a band recorded was mixed and manipulated, or how exactly I cooked that duck confit; they have some idea that something was done to the raw material, but they have no idea what. Big step, little step, it's all greek to them.

There are two sides to fine photography, the craft and the art. If a viewer is distracted by a sixth tree, you've failed him as a craftsman. If the viewer isn't moved, or doesn't relate to the photo, you've failed him as an artist. The two rely upon each other to be great - why let a stupid thing like a soda can distract attention from the part of the image that is important? As a third concept, if a person is not shooting for other people a person is not creating art; art by definition is not only a personal journey, it is a method of expressing to other people. Other people's opinions are extremely important to photographic and artistic success (as a piece by piece evaluation, not success as in truckloads of money, which we obviously all make here)

Every single shot I take that might make it into the keeper bin, I look at and consider - what is necessary, and what is not necessary. Since I shoot mostly nature/wildlife, I often don't have a choice whether or not to include that branch, but if it is unnecessary, why include it? Does a photograph benefit from unnecessary clutter? Why then, don't we all shoot at f/22 all the time?

I promote post processing pretty heavily in this thread, but I do have to say that a lot of times it is more work than it is worth - I very rarely spend more time on an image than global adjustments and sharpening - but I'm definately not afraid to make a good photo GREAT by cloning out unnecessary aspects. Some photos are just better off binned and reshot. And you know what the best part is? no stinky chemicals

[darkman]

IMO, your first mistake is entering a contest. If you enter contests you NEED to expect this kind of BS. The main reason I quit the local photo club was because everything was about the contest. Therefore, you got a lot of boring-arse photos that people would enter to get scored well. If it scored well they would crop it one way or another so they could enter it again and get maximum points towards their yearly total. Ultimately the club ended up with many rule of thirds photos because most judges can point this out easier than than the somewhat more (not much more) complicated golden mean or just about anything else they may like but can't articulate a specific reason why they like it. Just like 6 trees instead of five. The person who designed this garden must have been out of his freakin' mind; 6 TREES!!!

While I do plenty of post processing, I do feel we have gotten anal retentive with our need to have to post process. More often than not I can't say if the 5 or 6 tree version is really better. I would probably go as it was in real because it appealed enough to me that I took the picture...

Shoot to satisfy yourself and don't worry about formulas.

Mike

PS: In the couple of years I was with the club I could only remember one real good judge.

[trog100]

okay.. u all know i sit well and truely in the anti fake witch camp..

but there does seem only one kind of critue forum or type of competition i could post or enter my images in..

the "no fake witch kind".. the "anything goes for the sake of art" kind is gonna leave me with one arm tied behind my back so to speak..

short of having a "straight out of the camera no fake witch critique forum" or an "anything goes for the sake of art critique forum" i see problems..

lets call me the purist.. one criteria i have with any image is will it print A3 size.. does it have the image quality.. i simply downsize to post because i have to..

two arms tide behind my back now.. i cant crop an interesting piece out of a larger image and and rely on the small webcam size presented image to hide the lack of quality..

i cant pretend that purple fringing is an after affect.. i know it isnt..

one leg up behind my back as well..

sooo where does that leave me as regards taking part in the critique forum.. it is called a "photo" critique forum as opposed to a "graphics imagining" critique forum..

i accept the argument that some get their kicks from computer manipulating images and some get their kicks from camera manipulating images..

but the two disciplines are not the same and cannot all be lumped in together.. or judged by the same standards..

any thoughts..

trog

ps.. and 1 determined kid is well wrong to think the fake cropped lions jaws cant be faked well enough for an expert not to notice.. when presented small size in the photo critique forum it most certainly can.. including the fake bokeh if needed..

[Erik Stiegler]

the "no fake witch kind".. the "anything goes for the sake of art" kind is gonna leave me with one arm tide behind my back so to speak..

Not really. A good photograph will stand on its own merits. Is "Photo Critique" a contest?

If you're going to impose limits on yourself by refusing to use photographic tools available to you, then you've voluntarily tied your own hands. I don't see any point in complaining about it. Photography has never been limited by what can be done with the camera alone.

[Greg McCary]

hehehe!

Well the only thing i would add then in this case is, that there is nothing wrong with adding as long as you specify that you did it.... do not claim to have taken the real thing if you haven't!

that's all....

And you should take it as a compliment!

Marc

Well I am not sure so much about this one. Sometimes I place things in the critique forums just to see if the eagle eye experts can notice the PS work, if not I have done my job well. Sometimes I don't want to draw attention to what I have done, but if you notice the work I will admit to the deed, so to speak. And I must say they are some expert eyes here at PR, and this is why I am here.

Greg

[Ronnoco]

My work goes from the as shot type photo to this one which Trog would probably call "as faked", since it is a VIRTUAL "photograph" of an iceberg. No real camera used at all.

Ronnoco

[trog100]

"Not really. A good photograph will stand on its own merits. Is "Photo Critique" a contest?"

###

in some ways it is.. we all like praise as opposed to negative comment.. and a skillfully manipulated photoshop image will always (or at least as a general rule) look better than one with no out of camera image manipulation..

###

If you're going to impose limits on yourself by refusing to use photographic tools available to you, then you've voluntarily tied your own hands. I don't see any point in complaining about it. Photography has never been limited by what can be done with the camera alone.

###

no but some things have imposed limits.. today the power of image editing software has pretty much removed all limits..

u sit in the "anything goes camp".. its quite clear from reading this thread that what exactly should and should not be permitted isnt clear..

some think cloning out the odd small distraction is okay but not pasting in the odd gondoler..

the bottom line is simple.. those in the "anything goes camp" assuming they have the skill are going to raise the bar as to whats good and whats not good..

those who present more faithful to reality photographs will get more and more negative comment.. it will reach the point that without the out of camera manipulation.. fake skies.. fake moons.. fake items of interest.. fake whatever.. no image will be considered good enough..

also if as said by some the "photo" critique forum is about teaching people how to take better photographs.. should we be forcing everyone who wants to get some positive comment into the "anything goes camp"

or should we be teaching them how to take proper photorgaphs in the first place and not rely on pasting in fake items of interest afterwards in photoshop..

the rules really do need clarifying.. people are becoming confused as to what should be done and what shouldnt..

trog

ps.. if the image is presented as a piece of graphics artistry ron i would not call fake.. if its passed of as vaguely resembling something that came out a camera i would call fake..

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=trog100trog

ps.. if the image is presented as a piece of graphics artistry ron i would not call fake.. if its passed of as vaguely resembling something that came out a camera i would call fake..[/QUOTE]

Well, what complicates things is that my image is a virtual photo of a scene that I created. With the virtual on screen camera I was able to chose filters, f stop, shutter speed, lens, and of course create a lighting set-up for the shot as well. I actually placed a virtual light in the scene where the sun would be. So one might say that the image came out of a virtual on-screen cyber camera.

Ronnoco

[Erik Stiegler]

in some ways it is.. we all like praise as opposed to negative comment.. and a skillfully manipulated photoshop image will always (or at least as a general rule) look better than one with no out of camera image manipulation..

I think that Henri Cartier Bresson fellow did okay without resorting to a darkroom.

I also think Ansel Adams did alright planning his photographs out from exposure through printing.

I'm not going to give HCB bonus points for purity of process, but his photos don't really need bonus points, do they?

u sit in the "anything goes camp".. its quite clear from reading this thread that what exactly should and should not be permitted isnt clear..

I believe in using the tools available to you. I also don't believe a photograph has to be technically perfect and defect free to be great (Robert Capa's D-Day photos, for example).

If someone doesn't want to make use of postprocessing, cool for them. Just deal with the fact that you might not get the same results as those who do.

[trog100]

"If someone doesn't want to make use of postprocessing, cool for them. Just deal with the fact that you might not get the same results as those who do."

my way of dealing with such a fact erik is to claify the rules as to what a photograph actually is at least as regards the photo critique forum.. and even ronnoco know his "virtual" iceberg isnt real a photograph and no one would even think it was..

if the common consensus is anything goes as long as it looks vaguely okay presented at a two by three inch size as u seem to advocate i will then have the choice of either following the rules or moving on..

its pretty obvious i cant participate when i dont even have the same idea as to what constitutes a good photograph or even good photographic practice as the rest of the community..

what we have in this thread is uncertainty and some people feeling unease.. the majority does seem happy with the anything goes approach and very loose definitions of what the word "photo" means..

the minory feel the unease..

trog

[livin4lax09]

ps.. and 1 determined kid is well wrong to think the fake cropped lions jaws cant be faked well enough for an expert not to notice.. when presented small size in the photo critique forum it most certainly can.. including the fake bokeh if needed..

first off, my name isn't 1 determined kid. Secondly, most expert pros are not visiting the critique forum here. Third off, not many images are judged realistically until printed. At least I don't. An image isn't completely done until it's printed out, in my opinion. Sure small it can look fine, but if it's really an astonishing image, then why keep it small?

[livin4lax09]

Well, what complicates things is that my image is a virtual photo of a scene that I created. With the virtual on screen camera I was able to chose filters, f stop, shutter speed, lens, and of course create a lighting set-up for the shot as well. I actually placed a virtual light in the scene where the sun would be. So one might say that the image came out of a virtual on-screen cyber camera.

Ronnoco

and ron, you bring up a very good point. Is this photography? It's really up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to classify it as photography. It's not capturing the actual photons, but still is captuing some type of virtual photonos with the selection of shutter, aperture, and the combo.

anyone else get the feeling this is turning into a naturalistic vs. photoshopped thread?

[MarcusK]

Greg, the point i was trying to make is the following:

If you take a shot of the moon, and then realize that a "witch" (for the example) would make it a whole lot better and then add it, and claim, that wow i am glad i caught that witch as she passed by, when in fact you did not! then that is called deception.... Since you are cheating the moment!

Adding elements for an image for balance, or scale, is not about the moment, but about extra expression! And although i wouldn't go about shouting and explaining that it was in post....if someone commented on that element, i would specify what i did, and get critiqued or commented on the quality of my post work!

Trog, there is no need to get things confused or seperated in the Photo Critique forum, it is simply a matter clarification, as to what type of photo is being judged... I would also agree with you on the learning process, where , as was stated earlier we need to get rid of the "anal retentive" attitude we got, in saying its ok, we fix it later when you could have simply fixed while you were there..... In the learning process, i agree, we should promote learning the basics of photography before moving on and developing your own style, pretty much like breaking the guidelines (AKA rules) of photography....

No one is mistaken really here, it is just a matter of phrasing....the issue, is "trying to pass a graphical image as a photograph taken with a camera" that is downright deceitful....or fake!....just say what you did...livin4lax09 posted his Devil's Hands without saying "check this freak out he has eyes on his palms"....everyone commented on the post work as well as the picture of the model seperately and then as an image whole...If you disagree with this type of image, then, keep doing what you already are doing...and say what you think! There's nothing wrong with that!

One more thing trog, like i was advised to do, in the "About Photo Critique" thread, ask for how you want your photo to be seen....

And i dont recall anyone really saying your comments are without merits or forcing you into any situation! All opinions are accepted in this forum, which i believe is what makes it one of the best, and most comfortable places to be!

That is all i have to really say about that topic.....for now!

Marc

[Didache]

I think I created a monster when I started this thread! It just shows that this subject strikes a chord with many people.

I suppose that from the dawn of photography people have always pushed the boundaries as each wave of new technology came along. Pushing the boundaries was the way that photographers discovered the limits of what was possible. In the end it settles down, some techniques are discarded and some are incorporated into what is regarded as "photography". I think we are seeing exactly this. Digital technology is a huge jump in technology and I don't think there is any clear answer yet as to where the limits might lie, if anywhere. It is a journey of exploration. Five years down the line we might have some kind of consensus, but not yet.

Perhaps though there are some things we hold in common:

a) I assume we would all agree that, no matter what post production work might be done, as much quality as possible should be achieved within the camera. In other words, no matter what the computer can do, the camera is still the primary tool. It is this which defines the difference between photography and graphic design imo.

b) I think we would agree too that while PS can make a decent photograph better, it can never make a good image out of a bad one. In the end, the quality of the initial image still counts. We have all seen poor images which have been photoshopped to death in an attempt to make something out of them - and they fool nobody who knows anything about the medium.

c) Finally, I think we can agree that, purity issues aside, digital photography isn't going to go away. It undoubtedly provides a hugely useful set of tools for image making that has enabled millions of people to play a part in the creative process where once they were limited to a point and shoot film camera and their local lab. That has been overwhelmingly positive in the development of our hobby/profession.

I imagine that some folk will even disagree with the above - but such is life

Cheers
Mike

[Sushigaijin]

Mike:

your last post really illuminates the crux of the post processing arguements, I'm sure most of us will agree with you. It would be great if every time I took a good shot, it was really a great shot...but unfortunately I am not so lucky.

I think what the "purists" are looking for is a line to draw in the sand - this is OK and pure, while that is not OK and not pure. I'm not so sure that anyone can draw that line.

Are there degrees of purity? a global adjustment is ok, and cloning out is ok, but cloning in is not? Are global adjustments cheating, since the walgreens photolab wouldn't do that to your film? Is sharpening, a fundamental aspect of digital photography, really just cheating an image that isn't all that sharp to begin with? And then what about JPG compression - running sophisticated algorithms on the raw data in the name of space conservation - is that cheating as well, since it alters the shot AFTER the shutter is pressed? How can anyone possibly draw any lines there?

In the end, it is just something that will hang on a wall, and make people happy, sad, or whatever the intended effect is - it isn't really about the photographer's ego, or purity, or integrity, it's about the photograph. And I think that's probably about all I have to say on the matter too.

[MarcusK]

Well...it seems i do have one more thing to add, in light of the last 2 posts:

What i truly believe the problem to be is the fact that the medium has been taken out of the hands of the few and thrown out to the world....Hearing any person claim to be a photographer does get annoying, and is getting people wondering why? why do i need a photographer? or simply instilling doubt in the minds of people as to what is a photographer's job!

That is why the argument of the jump of technology nowadays is much critical and worse than before...It is no longer a matter of forward thinking artists v/s traditional, but rather artist v/s people....

It is an issue of ego... and we will never admit it! we will never say this is the problem...I am guilty of this just as much as everyone else is (for the most part)... taking the xmas photos and having the family tell you to crop something out, or clone it out or in....or this and that, because they know what the software does is annoying to say the least! and it has become the same thing with each and every sector of the field....

The public is declaring itself Photographer Extraordinaire...and it is annoying!

A new tool has been discovered and made public....so now you either use it or you dont...add to that the factor of time, and how people have lost patience, and everyone wants everything now....what do you get??? Almost a zero chance for a reshoot! (not to mention studio rent) Therefore, you take the shot, fix it in post...and deliver....you aint got much time...

THAT is all i have to say....for real!
Marc

[Greg McCary]

I agree totaly with you on this Marc. Trying to pass off a fake rainbow as the real thing is wrong. A lie is a lie. But there has been times that I have replaced skies or removed items from my pictures without stating so to see if my PS skills were good enough to pull it off. I have seen some pictures here a PR that are times that I thought were almost to amazing to be true, but the photographer insists that it is real. I would never PS a piece of work and claim it as he real thing if it was not, no matter how good at PS I get.
Everyone has their definition of what photography is. or what it should be. I feel Trog makes valid points, adding elements to an image and then trying to pass them off as the real thing is just wrong.
Greg

[readingr]

I agree totaly with you on this Marc. Trying to pass off a fake rainbow as the real thing is wrong. A lie is a lie. But there has been times that I have replaced skies or removed items from my pictures without stating so to see if my PS skills were good enough to pull it off. I have seen some pictures here a PR that are times that I thought were almost to amazing to be true, but the photographer insists that it is real. I would never PS a piece of work and claim it as he real thing if it was not, no matter how good at PS I get.
Everyone has their definition of what photography is. or what it should be. I feel Trog makes valid points, adding elements to an image and then trying to pass them off as the real thing is just wrong.
Greg

So where do you draw the line?

Does a double exposure count? The fact that you have a landscape without moon and then swap lens to change the size of the moon and retake the shot? What is the difference between photoshoping a moon in, because digital camera's don't tend to have double exposure features because its expected to do this in post processing.

Colouring prints which we used to do with chemicals in days gone by, is this verboten?

Where is this imaginary locus and how can you possibly define it?

It is up to the individual photographer to define when creating the final concept in the mind's eye. You don't ask an artist how the final painting or sculpture was arrived at. It could have been drawn using a projector to give the outline... All that is considered important in this instance is the final outcome, not the steps used to arrive there.

Photojournalism, as trog seems to define pure photography, is another form of photography, which I compare to an Archaeologist who draws sketches of where objects were found on a dig or a product sketch used to create a mould... This has to be accurate to what is viewed not what an artist has in mind. However, even in this instance, the photographer will not capture what is not required in the picture.

They are both valid process of the photographers toolkit and I am sure that we all use or don't use the tools as we see fit to get the final intention we have in mind.

As a photographer, both film and digital, will spend time composing in the viewfinder what I have in mind before pressing the button which is the start of the process. I will always think of how the picture will look after I have developed the film, either film or digital and look at the techniques available to me to get the intended photograph.

Roger

[Ronnoco]

I should add, based on my own experience, that anyone who thinks that a photojournalist is or can be totally accurate is being unrealistic. Photography is selective and the techniques of composition used to create a quality shot also come with the "view" of the photographer.

To use just a basic example, I have shot celebrities and politicians in auditoriums, stadiums, etc. Depending on the angle I shoot from, I can make the venue seem either full and crowded or half empty. Readers of course are curious about the turnout, but unless it is mentioned in the article, there will be even more attention on any shot that shows the audience in the background.

As a photojournalist, do you sacrifice a good shot because it may not be interpreted as accurate and as a photojournalist how do you judge "accuracy" ?

There is one famous shot of George Bush speaking to reporters on the white house lawn with the visual emphasis of the photo on his dog close by. It is quite humourous, but... I don't think that George Bush would appreciate the serious content of his speech being "side-swiped" by the humour in the photo. How do you "measure" the "accuracy" of that shot?

So photojournalists are still photographers and as such the skills that they use to compose and set up a shot are the same. They may not be faking anything but that does not necessarily mean that their shots are accurate either. Accuracy is in the eye of the viewer.

Ronnoco

[readingr]

I should add, based on my own experience, that anyone who thinks that a photojournalist is or can be totally accurate is being unrealistic. Photography is selective and the techniques of composition used to create a quality shot also come with the "view" of the photographer.

To use just a basic example, I have shot celebrities and politicians in auditoriums, stadiums, etc. Depending on the angle I shoot from, I can make the venue seem either full and crowded or half empty. Readers of course are curious about the turnout, but unless it is mentioned in the article, there will be even more attention on any shot that shows the audience in the background.

As a photojournalist, do you sacrifice a good shot because it may not be interpreted as accurate and as a photojournalist how do you judge "accuracy" ?

There is one famous shot of George Bush speaking to reporters on the white house lawn with the visual emphasis of the photo on his dog close by. It is quite humourous, but... I don't think that George Bush would appreciate the serious content of his speech being "side-swiped" by the humour in the photo. How do you "measure" the "accuracy" of that shot?

So photojournalists are still photographers and as such the skills that they use to compose and set up a shot are the same. They may not be faking anything but that does not necessarily mean that their shots are accurate either. Accuracy is in the eye of the viewer.

Ronnoco

Nicely put. It's what I was trying to say, but badly in my case.

Roger