Post Processing

[dtufino]

How authentic are images when they are post processed?

with photoshop you can take an image that is SO-SO and make it oustanding, but... the question is how authentic is that image after editing, sure it looks good, but it's FAKE.....

Discuss....

[Dermit]

All photos are fake. All photos are representations of the real thing. All images are post processed. Some are just done internally to the camera, some by people in programs like Photoshop... unless we are talking film, then the manipulation is done while developing/printing.

[dtufino]

True....

But what i meant is altering an image taken to make it looks GREAT often more takes away from the image! Don't u think.

I'd say that 98% of my images are straight out of the camera.... (no sharpening, nothing) that's how i like my images..... but i'm not the best photographer either... all i do is add my water mark and resizing for internet posting....

[bacchanal]

All images to an extent have the potential to misrepresent reality. Reality occurs over time, and to capture a moment in time can potentially be to take reality out of context. Also, cameras don't necessarily capture reality as our eyes see it...does this make any photograph a manipulation of reality? Exposure tricks, filters, lighting and post processing take that a step further. Authenticity is relative and depends on the purpose of the image and the way in which it is presented.

[cdifoto]

I'd say that 98% of my images are straight out of the camera.... (no sharpening, nothing) that's how i like my images.....
But that's not how I like mine. And that's ok!

[tdodd]

The fakery starts before you even release the shutter.....

- when you use an ultra wide angle or telephoto lens the camera does not capture what the eye sees;
- when you choose a shutter speed you are influencing the capture of time/motion, if there is any;
- when you choose an aperture you are influencing DOF;
- when you choose a film stock or white balance setting, or use correction filters, you are making choices that change the colour of the light;
- when you add light - flash, hotlights, or use reflectors then you're completely altering the apparent reality.

Then, even without any manual post processing, there are different results from different raw converters, and different results from different sensors and different manufacturers and different in-camera jpeg processors. They can't all be right.

Then there are technical limitations in terms of dynamic range, lens sharpness, focus accuracy and diffraction effects. Colour spaces put further constraints on reality, as do bit limits on colour depth. Monitors can be uncalibrated and unprofiled, as can printers.

So what is real and what is fake, when it comes to photography? Where do you draw the line and who is to say which is which? Does any photograph actually look that much like the original scene?

FWIW I like to try to create/retain a natural look to my photographs, without any fakery, but they sometimes need a little helping hand to make up for my own shortcomings or those of the equipment or available light.

[binliner]

But what i meant is altering an image taken to make it looks GREAT often more takes away from the image! Don't u think.

PP can make a good image better but it can't make a bad image great if the image is out of focus, blurry or badly composed photoshop isn't going to help ;)

Imo tweaking things is all part of the fun but (I should imagine) it's even more satisfying if the image is so good out of the camera you can't make it better!!

[dtufino]

All images to an extent have the potential to misrepresent reality. Reality occurs over time, and to capture a moment in time can potentially be to take reality out of context. Also, cameras don't necessarily capture reality as our eyes see it...does this make any photograph a manipulation of reality? Exposure tricks, filters, lighting and post processing take that a step further. Authenticity is relative and depends on the purpose of the image and the way in which it is presented.

Great Point.....

[dtufino]

i'm in no way saying that Post Processing is terrible, just starting a little convo....

i'd need a bigger unstanding on how color correction/levels/contrasts work before i can do that....

this is my first ever attempt @ HDR

http://tufinophotos.smugmug.com/photos/329027498_hdhDt-O.jpg

[Dermit]

True....

But what i meant is altering an image taken to make it looks GREAT often more takes away from the image! Don't u think.

I'd say that 98% of my images are straight out of the camera.... (no sharpening, nothing) that's how i like my images..... but i'm not the best photographer either... all i do is add my water mark and resizing for internet posting....

But you must realize that the camera itself is doing manipulation and doing it in a general sense. It does it generally because every image can benefit differently from different enhancements.

Are you arguing that you should only accept a shot how you got it with your specific gear and settings and anything above and beyond is 'cheating'? Because that is rediculous. Do you have any idea all the software and hardware it take to take visual light and convert it to data for display on a monitor and then to a print? It's all software and hardware that has been designed to do the same types of things you can do in photoshop or the like. So what's the big deal if I just fine tune what the camera/computer is already doing automatically? Do you shoot in RAW or Jpg? Do you realize that when you view a RAW image in something like Lightroom or ACR that what you are seeing is not really the RAW data as captured because that data would almost be unrecognizable. What you see is some adjustments already made automatically just to get something you can reasonably see. If you shoot in jpg, well the camera captures in raw anyway and then decides and automatically converts it to jpg, throwing out data it does not think you need and making the very adjustments you are arguing against, but just automatically with no input from you, the supposed artist here.

Do you ever use a filter like polarizer, UV, ND, GND? If you do then how is this different that making software adjustments? You are altering the scene as the human eye sees it. Even if you don't think you use a filter, you do because with all the optics in the lenses there is alteration, as well as an IR filter over the sensor in the camera.

Photoshop, and the like, is simply an extension of the tools already in place and working to capture a digital image in the first place. This type of discussion has been hammered over many times. There are mainly two schools of thought here. One is photography should be a means to accurately represent a place/event/time and any photoshop work should only be applied to make the image more accurately represent what was actual seen to the best of the recollection of the photographer. The other school of thought is to manipulate to your hearts content to make it the best possible looking image for what you have in mind regardless of accuracy of the actual scene. My take is that if you take an image 'beyond' reality then as long as you never intentionally misrepresent that image then who cares? Photographers are artists. And as an artist you have an artistic license to create art that is pleasing to you and maybe a specific audience/client. So who really cares how much an image is manipulated as long as you are honest in what it represents.

Are you the type that would be against me cloning out a beer can in an otherwise perfect mountain lake landscape, but it would be perfectly fine if I had removed the real can from the scene before I shot it?

[dtufino]

Dermit, no saying it's "cheating" at all.... :-)

This is just an Open conversation. Thoughts, opinions etc. i sometimes see fit to use photoshop to edit the levels and curves.

But i realized that RAW images look alot better than Jpeg. so i been shooting RAW as of late.

[airfrogusmc]

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
Ansel Adams

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
Ansel Adams

"The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance."
Ansel Adams

[Dermit]

Dermit, no saying it's "cheating" at all.... :-)

This is just an Open conversation. Thoughts, opinions etc. i sometimes see fit to use photoshop to edit the levels and curves.

But i realized that RAW images look alot better than Jpeg. so i been shooting RAW as of late.

I got ya and I think i know where you are coming from. But you will never be able to get very many people to agree on how much is too much or how much will start to take away from the image. i also know a lot of people who really restrain themselves from using 'too much' pp work at all just in the name of trying to keep it like they captured it. Which is rediculous since most cameras fall short in many places of capturing data such as sharpness, color, etc. I admit i often see people pp images to the point beyond where i would do it, but that is my opinion and some people like the extra pp. I also see a lot of people doing things to images because they can, and not because they should.

[Colorblinded]

It is in fact very difficult to make a so-so image outstanding in photoshop without it being noticeable to a skilled photographer. I've seen many attempts, there are usually some tells.

Photoshop though does allow the average joe an easier time to trying many traditional darkroom techniques, although there are some that still don't feel as natural as the real thing (dodging & burning in particular still don't feel right to me in the digital darkroom).

It's all about moderation though, artists like Jerry Uelsmann did some amazing manipulations in a traditional wet darkroom.

Many good photographs rely on the right post processing to make them work. You can't always control everything when you shoot, as best you try. I tend to shoot for a certain purpose. If I want to shoot a pano, an HDR, or a crop other than 3:2 I usually know before hand. I have habit though of shooting compositions that I'd like better in 4:5 or square without even thinking about it though, but I find I like those aspect ratios better than 3:2 most of the time. I just don't generally crop my images to those dimensions until it's time for print, I usually do everything but the crop before I upload the images online somewhere.

[cdifoto]

The minute you use flash it all goes out the window too. That light wasn't there before you tripped the shutter and it won't be there after either. :D

[dtufino]

The minute you use flash it all goes out the window too. That light wasn't there before you tripped the shutter and it won't be there after either. :D



:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Hermeto]

Poor B/W photographers of the past, they were shooting fake images all the time, without even realizing that!

For authentic images people use surveillance cameras.
For artistic photography, people 'cheat'.

[riyazi]

The fakery starts before you even release the shutter.....

- when you use an ultra wide angle or telephoto lens the camera does not capture what the eye sees;
- when you choose a shutter speed you are influencing the capture of time/motion, if there is any;
- when you choose an aperture you are influencing DOF;
- when you choose a film stock or white balance setting, or use correction filters, you are making choices that change the colour of the light;
- when you add light - flash, hotlights, or use reflectors then you're completely altering the apparent reality.


Well said - great point. I am not a fan of over processing either but with regards to fakery it DOES start even before you load a picture into a PP program

[cdifoto]

For authentic images people use surveillance cameras.
I wouldn't even call those authentic. It's not like the robbers look garbled to snozz in real life...

[Bruce_B]

PP is a part of photography. If you didn't do it then someone/something else did.

[Alexajlex]

It all depends on the purpose.

For PJ stuff any respectable outlet would not take an HDR picture and run it as a "photo". Even though with an HDR we are talking color and exposure the mere fact that you are combining multiple files is a risk too great for people to question everything about that photo.

For shots that are composites they will run as a "Photo Illustration" or something to that effect.

If it's a auto mag they seem to do quite a bit of touching up (and I'm not talking about the fake composites).

Even with the PL filters, shooting in the magic hour, etc. it seems like there is quite a bit of PWL (Paint With Light) work done in PS on the cars to get that wet deep impression of color depth and shine.

[WaltA]

I wouldn't even call those authentic. It's not like the robbers look garbled to snozz in real life...

Yeah, but in CSI they have an advanced version of PhotoShop that can make that security camera shot tack sharp. ;)

[cjcastan]

i'll use whatever tools are available to me, to make my images sing. A camera is a tool, as a lens is a tool, as software is a tool.

[Pruddock]

PP can make a good image better but it can't make a bad image great if the image is out of focus, blurry or badly composed photoshop isn't going to help ;)

Imo tweaking things is all part of the fun but (I should imagine) it's even more satisfying if the image is so good out of the camera you can't make it better!!

I love that feeling too. When you take your workflow to lightroom or PS and look at a picture and just say to yourself, "well done, move along..."

I don't think its bad or fake to post process, its all part of the fun and creativity of digital photography. Now, the "Dave Hill" craze that's going on right now is a little over the top for me, but its all a matter of opinion really...

[EMarkM]

Yeah, but in CSI they have an advanced version of PhotoShop that can make that security camera shot tack sharp. ;)


Heh heh heh

[LuckyStar08]

I love PP. It's like art. I love being able to take one photo and create so many versions of it; all of them so different than the original. Especially glamour photos and nudes. Women love to see themselves glamourized! When a woman looks at a photo I took of her and says, "OMG I look beautiful!" It makes my heart sing. She doesn't care how much PP was done, she only cares that she looks like a movie star in that photo. There are different types of PP of course. If you're wanting to keep a natural looking photo with out any obvious PP then you can do that and most people probably won't notice the slight changes that made a great photo even better. Then there are times I want to take a photo and take it in a whole different direction. I guess for me the joy in photography comes not from the technical side, but from the creative side which is where I find my true passion.

[conkeroo]

i'll use whatever tools are available to me, to make my images sing. A camera is a tool, as a lens is a tool, as software is a tool.
I think thats the point. Some people use post processing not just to make their images sing but go so far as to make them wail, warble or even scream. Not very pleasant but gets your attention. You need to know that boundary of when too much is too much. But, that is a completely subjective matter for each individual.

[BottomBracket]

But i realized that RAW images look alot better than Jpeg. so i been shooting RAW as of late.

If you shoot with RAW, then you definitely need to PP.

[nicksan]

When did did the Empire State Building fall over?!?;):lol:

I think all this depends on the purpose of the photograph. If you are required to be as faithful as possible to the scene at hand, obviously over processing can be considered "fakery".

Otherwise, who cares? Really...

[sjones]

But you must realize that the camera itself is doing manipulation and doing it in a general sense. It does it generally because every image can benefit differently from different enhancements...

...If you shoot in jpg, well the camera captures in raw anyway and then decides and automatically converts it to jpg, throwing out data it does not think you need and making the very adjustments you are arguing against, but just automatically with no input from you, the supposed artist here....



This point cannot be stressed enough. If you shoot JPEG, and you set the parameters in camera, such as sharpening, contrast, and saturation, you are invariably engaged in the practice of post processing. Just because the process occurred within the camera does not make it anymore 'sincere' than if done afterwards.

As a general statement, not one directed at the OP, assumptions that JPEG offers some sort of puristic sanctuary from the manipulative threat of Photoshop is highly misguided.

Obviously, a person using JPEG can set the parameters within the camera to attain the perfect picture that they need. Yet, this does not mean that they automatically "got it right in camera" more so than someone shooting RAW, who will typically need to make further enhancements on the computer. Ansel Adams 'got it right in camera' using a technical approach many of us cannot even comprehend, but he still did a lot of work in the darkroom, and that work required its own set of admirable skills. In this sense, bragging rights to "getting right in the camera" are, as far as I am concerned, largely limited to focus, composition, exposure, and an interesting subject matter, including the use of light, shadows, shapes, and movement.

[JWright]

Yeah, but in CSI they have an advanced version of PhotoShop that can make that security camera shot tack sharp. ;)

Yeah, and their cameras had Live View three years before the rest of us...

[Glenn NK]

How authentic are images when they are post processed?

with photoshop you can take an image that is SO-SO and make it oustanding, but... the question is how authentic is that image after editing, sure it looks good, but it's FAKE.....

Discuss....

With tongue in cheek, let me ask, "how authentic are the buildings of NYC when tilted 30 degrees counter-clockwise?";)

But seriously, this is a question that will never be answered definitively unless one person and one person only provides the answer and everybody believes it to be the single truth.

In life as in photography, there are no answers - only opinions.

"One man's poison is another man's elixir".

[Krapo]

Photography is a kind of art. The image you see is merely the interpretation of the reality by the photographer. Post-processing is just one step in the process.

[neilwood32]

Photography is art. Art is very subjective and as such, it is up to the artist (photographer) to decide how his art will be prepared for viewing.

I tend to go for natural looking images with as little PP as possible but i will use Curves, clone brush etc if the image suggests it.

[Nathan]

Photography is an interpretation of reality; reality is perception. Post processing can reveal visually one person's perception of reality in a way in which you might not otherwise have seen. The talent of the photographer is not in how he takes the photo or in how he processes his image. The talent of the photographer is seeing the art where others do not.

I'm rambling without a linear argument... I'm basically saying that if I show you a photo, I want you to see what I see.

[toneyw]

art is made to resemble life. . .carpe diem!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Here is last months version of this thread for those interested, it also links to many other previous discussions.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5061201#post5061201

[queenbee288]

I am not out to capture "reality". Who says reality is all that great anyway.

[airfrogusmc]

Photoshop is a completion of your vision. If your not using some form of it you are cheating your vision. Its a digital darkroom and only you know how the finished photograph is suppose to look.