Digital editing - good or bad thing?
Discussion
Within the confines of this forum we have very much embraced the fantastic benefits of digital photography, so much so that I think anyone who still shoots purely on film will need a lot of guts to attempt to "fit in" here.
I'm a digital sucker myself; specifically not having to shell out on film, having instant feedback and being able to take as many shots as I damn well please.
But lately something has been troubling me slightly. Specifically, the unabashed use of Photoshop's Clone Tool and its ilk. All of a sudden the odd white line on a pic of an F1 car is made non-existent by a movement of a mouse. A couple of people distracting from what would otherwise be a classically perfect picture are dispatched with the same ease as wiping one's arse.
To me, the real attraction of photography is in the right-place-right-time factor. A photograph only really appeals to me when it is visually undoctored, and is captured because the photographer found the right place to take the photo from, at the right exposure, at the exact right time. He was there, he saw what he perfectly captured, and what he produced on film (or indeed CCD) is an exact replica of not only the scene, but of the emotion, beauty, action and the general message he wishes to convey.
The usage of the Clone Tool to me completely detracts from this - it gives a "photographer" a digital tapestry in which he can paint whatever he wishes. It moves things from the realms of capturing a piece of reality to projecting an imagination, like a painter would on canvas. I call it fantasy photography.
Now I've got no problems with art in any form, but the term "photograph" has always meant to me the capturing of an actual moment as seen by the person taking the photo. Adding or removing visual elements from photographs, though perfectly capable of creating interesting images, to me kills any fundamental credibility the image has. There’s been a number of times now where I’ve been stunned by photos only to be severely disappointed when I learn that all is not as it seems.
When I take a photo which would be perfect save for a really bad object in it which distracts, I discard it. Do you?
Just curious on your thoughts on this.
Rudi
I'm a digital sucker myself; specifically not having to shell out on film, having instant feedback and being able to take as many shots as I damn well please.
But lately something has been troubling me slightly. Specifically, the unabashed use of Photoshop's Clone Tool and its ilk. All of a sudden the odd white line on a pic of an F1 car is made non-existent by a movement of a mouse. A couple of people distracting from what would otherwise be a classically perfect picture are dispatched with the same ease as wiping one's arse.
To me, the real attraction of photography is in the right-place-right-time factor. A photograph only really appeals to me when it is visually undoctored, and is captured because the photographer found the right place to take the photo from, at the right exposure, at the exact right time. He was there, he saw what he perfectly captured, and what he produced on film (or indeed CCD) is an exact replica of not only the scene, but of the emotion, beauty, action and the general message he wishes to convey.
The usage of the Clone Tool to me completely detracts from this - it gives a "photographer" a digital tapestry in which he can paint whatever he wishes. It moves things from the realms of capturing a piece of reality to projecting an imagination, like a painter would on canvas. I call it fantasy photography.
Now I've got no problems with art in any form, but the term "photograph" has always meant to me the capturing of an actual moment as seen by the person taking the photo. Adding or removing visual elements from photographs, though perfectly capable of creating interesting images, to me kills any fundamental credibility the image has. There’s been a number of times now where I’ve been stunned by photos only to be severely disappointed when I learn that all is not as it seems.
When I take a photo which would be perfect save for a really bad object in it which distracts, I discard it. Do you?
Just curious on your thoughts on this.
Rudi
The question is though, how far do you take the purist standpoint? I mean, would you say that colour correcting a slight cast on a photo is wrong because it's changing the colours that were there? What if that were done at the time by way of a filter on the end of the lens?
I'm also pretty sure that darkroom techniques have been used to do many of these same things in the past, it was just a darn site more difficult.
Personally I think that the tools are there to be used and if they can help you (me) make something special out of something mediocre I'm all for it.
I'm also pretty sure that darkroom techniques have been used to do many of these same things in the past, it was just a darn site more difficult.
Personally I think that the tools are there to be used and if they can help you (me) make something special out of something mediocre I'm all for it.
It is a very good point, imagine you took a fantastic photo (obviously theortical then in my case 
) but it could be bettered still by some basic doctoring in Photoshop. Would you do it? Or leave it original despite the fact that no-one may ever know?
It can kind of relate to cars in terms of modify the suspension/tyres/engine to make it faster or keep it original. Personally i'd make it quicker every time!
) but it could be bettered still by some basic doctoring in Photoshop. Would you do it? Or leave it original despite the fact that no-one may ever know? It can kind of relate to cars in terms of modify the suspension/tyres/engine to make it faster or keep it original. Personally i'd make it quicker every time!
Chipping in again.
My last post re: music was intended to point out that almost NO music you hear these days is 'photoshop free'. In fact, I can create Chinese nose flutes that would fool the Chinese, right here on my humble computer.
Trying not to get too arty here, but when you are running live - on location, in a studio, at a gig... that's really where the only true 'image' is. From then on it's in the hands of 'ones and zeros' and those that can manipulate them.
A mate turned up and played this horn solo for me, first take, no rehersal... (no edits)
to my point: ... digital can never modify what's not there, but to really get it, you had to be there at the time - second hand will always be second hand, and can be screwed with in any shape or form.
horn solo - 220k www.stevecarter.com/smooth4.mp3
Steve
>> Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 4th June 15:51
My last post re: music was intended to point out that almost NO music you hear these days is 'photoshop free'. In fact, I can create Chinese nose flutes that would fool the Chinese, right here on my humble computer.
Trying not to get too arty here, but when you are running live - on location, in a studio, at a gig... that's really where the only true 'image' is. From then on it's in the hands of 'ones and zeros' and those that can manipulate them.
A mate turned up and played this horn solo for me, first take, no rehersal... (no edits)
to my point: ... digital can never modify what's not there, but to really get it, you had to be there at the time - second hand will always be second hand, and can be screwed with in any shape or form.
horn solo - 220k www.stevecarter.com/smooth4.mp3
Steve
>> Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 4th June 15:51
Fair play on the music point. I guess with music I accept that it is doctored tremendously and I maintain no purist views on the music I listen to. I do however have a penchant for live recordings, but even those released on CD, unless bootlegged, are as you rightly pointed out also doctored.
I think that with photography I've always maintained a purist's point of view, and I feel challenged by a lot of modern techniques and how they've become so acceptable.
I guess the question is when will highly renowned international photography competitions start accepting "doctored" photographs? I'm sure the odd tiny corrected blemish would be fine, as would your typical saturation/contrast corrections. But outright compositing? There has to be a line somewhere I guess.
I think that with photography I've always maintained a purist's point of view, and I feel challenged by a lot of modern techniques and how they've become so acceptable.
I guess the question is when will highly renowned international photography competitions start accepting "doctored" photographs? I'm sure the odd tiny corrected blemish would be fine, as would your typical saturation/contrast corrections. But outright compositing? There has to be a line somewhere I guess.
Sorry to get philosophical but there's not very much truth out there ! As a lecturer in digital manipulation put it in one of his lectures: as soon as you make a decision to use a particular grade of paper to expose your monochrome negative on to in the traditional wet darkroom you've already made the decision to tamper with the image. When you burn in a border or dodge someone's eyes under the enlarger then you're corrupting the original. If you spot in the print or wash it with Farmer's reducer you've changed reality.
If you use slide film which one do you use ? Velvia or Kodachrome ? What speed rating ? These are just a couple of factors that will change the original image.
As far as I'm concerned digital editing is a very good thing as it helps me express myself in an artistic manner that I could never hope to in the days of analogue. This is because I simply don't have the physical control/motor skills in my hands necessary for that kind of craftmanship. Digital manipulation helps me put on to a physical medium what my mind visualises and its a tremendous thrill when it works.
Having run competitions where I have been the arbiter on whether an image has been manipulated or not I can assure you that it can be very difficult - impossible even - to tell whether you are looking at a true original or a carefully manipulated version. It can really screw with your mind sometimes working out what is reality or not. When you challenge a photography as to the integrity of their images some will confess to mucking about, but others can get very angry - yep, they're usually guilty ! After 3 years I've given up on the 'unmanipulated' ideal as impractical and decided to just be a bit more relaxed about it and enjoy the final image as that's what the author intended to show.
Of course the whole digital concept is a real problem to people such as forensic photographers who have to produce legally acceptable evidence...
If you use slide film which one do you use ? Velvia or Kodachrome ? What speed rating ? These are just a couple of factors that will change the original image.
As far as I'm concerned digital editing is a very good thing as it helps me express myself in an artistic manner that I could never hope to in the days of analogue. This is because I simply don't have the physical control/motor skills in my hands necessary for that kind of craftmanship. Digital manipulation helps me put on to a physical medium what my mind visualises and its a tremendous thrill when it works.
Having run competitions where I have been the arbiter on whether an image has been manipulated or not I can assure you that it can be very difficult - impossible even - to tell whether you are looking at a true original or a carefully manipulated version. It can really screw with your mind sometimes working out what is reality or not. When you challenge a photography as to the integrity of their images some will confess to mucking about, but others can get very angry - yep, they're usually guilty ! After 3 years I've given up on the 'unmanipulated' ideal as impractical and decided to just be a bit more relaxed about it and enjoy the final image as that's what the author intended to show.
Of course the whole digital concept is a real problem to people such as forensic photographers who have to produce legally acceptable evidence...
Martin sums it up for me - you can't make a crap photo good in photoshop - but you can make a great photo better.
For me it's a huge part of my photography, and perhaps the biggest reason I enjoy it. Getting out there and taking the image is only have the fun for me - firing up my brute of a PC and turning on both monitors and doctoring away gives me just as much enjoyment.
I think even if I took a fabulous, perfectly composed wonderful image, it could always be improved upon and I wouldn't hesitate.
For me it's a huge part of my photography, and perhaps the biggest reason I enjoy it. Getting out there and taking the image is only have the fun for me - firing up my brute of a PC and turning on both monitors and doctoring away gives me just as much enjoyment.
I think even if I took a fabulous, perfectly composed wonderful image, it could always be improved upon and I wouldn't hesitate.
For me, I always get a greater sense of achievement if I can produce a decent image straight from the camera. It always feels better if I can say 'wow, I took a decent photo' rather than 'I took an OK photo but made it look decent in photoshop'.
I think an analogy would be comparing a Nissan Skyline to a Caterham - if you did a decent lap of a track in a Skyline with all its driving aids would it feel as good as if you did a decent lap in a Caterham where it's just you and the machine? I would prefer to think it was my skill that led to the good lap, not driving aids.
I think an analogy would be comparing a Nissan Skyline to a Caterham - if you did a decent lap of a track in a Skyline with all its driving aids would it feel as good as if you did a decent lap in a Caterham where it's just you and the machine? I would prefer to think it was my skill that led to the good lap, not driving aids.
v6gto said:
Here's a challenge for the purists....post up the best picture(undoctered) you've ever taken, and I bet you a pair of airline tickets to my place and a free weeks digs and food it can be improved. 
Martin.
Martin
300 metres underground with all the lights off
Shall I get me passport out?
v6gto said:
Here's a challenge for the purists....post up the best picture(undoctered) you've ever taken, and I bet you a pair of airline tickets to my place and a free weeks digs and food it can be improved.
Martin.
Probably not seen as all that great by those of you with more experience & better gear, but I really can`t see how this could be improved. Would love to be proved wrong! Incidently, it was taken with a point & click which suffers from horrendous delay when trying to focus on a moving object.
Steve
GetCarter said:Needs straightening
Here's a challenge for the purists....post up the best picture(undoctered) you've ever taken, and I bet you a pair of airline tickets to my place and a free weeks digs and food it can be improved.
Martin.
Martin
300 metres underground with all the lights off
Shall I get me passport out?
Mrs Fish said:
The beauty of photoshop is that you can crop a picture to make a shot go from mediocre to quite cool.
Cropping is different. You can do that when you get your pics back from the chemists with a pair of scissors!
See below.
My lad is very self concious when it comes to having his picture taken. I have to "turn and click" before he realises what is going on. I`d rather have this pic with a stray arm than a carefully composed shot in which he oes not appear natural.
towman said:
Probably not seen as all that great by those of you with more experience & better gear, but I really can`t see how this could be improved. Would love to be proved wrong! Incidently, it was taken with a point & click which suffers from horrendous delay when trying to focus on a moving object.
Steve
As far as composition goes, whether it could be improved upon is a matter of opinion - but as you say it's a great shot.
In my opinion though, it can be improved upon... Cropping so there is less space behind the car would give the impression that the car is travelling into the frame - then a bit more saturation and maybe contrast for a start, and also the sky is a little flat - selecting just the sky in photoshop and having a fiddle with the levels would bring it right out.
But this still highlights what Martin originally pointed out - you are much better off starting out with a good shot. You can't polish a turd as they say.
edit to bring this back to the context of Rudi's original post
Would doing all this to the shot change it so much that it no longer captures the moment? I don't think so. Would cloning out (for example) the other car behind detract from it? Not for me. You have captured a great moment of your son driving your car - that's the essence of the photo, and short of putting someone else's face over the top of his, you aren't going to change that. I think it's a totally valid part of photography, so I would place myself firmly in the non purist camp!
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Sunday 5th June 15:36
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff