Post editing - why the hate?

[rich888]

GravelBen said:

rich888 said:

Care to post the offending photo

Here you are, found it again - but you can't say I didn't warn you!

Cheers GravelBen, yup, you are quite right, must admit it does kind of look like one of those posters for an upcoming 'the world is doomed' movies

Satan you may be right about the 50mm lens, but was that on full frame?

I think Derek has summed it up quite eloquently, and far better than I could, and I quote his quote 'There’s no such thing as a true image. It is all trickery, no matter how much you kid yourself.'

[300bhp/ton]

Derek Smith said:

There’s no such thing as a true image. It is all trickery, no matter how much you kid yourself.

Tweaking levels, colours or even sharpening isn't trickery. As you aren't fundamentally changing the photo. And in reality none of these will ever be 100% accurate to reality, no matter what you do or don't do.

Adding in objects or removing objects from a picture is a completely different ballgame. Nothing wrong with this IMO, but as I tried to illustrate above with the Kryptonian ship. If the image didn't exist in reality, then it probably should be called digital art. Because you simply couldn't have captured it with a camera.

[Derek Smith]

300bhp/ton said:

Tweaking levels, colours or even sharpening isn't trickery. As you aren't fundamentally changing the photo. And in reality none of these will ever be 100% accurate to reality, no matter what you do or don't do.

Adding in objects or removing objects from a picture is a completely different ballgame. Nothing wrong with this IMO, but as I tried to illustrate above with the Kryptonian ship. If the image didn't exist in reality, then it probably should be called digital art. Because you simply couldn't have captured it with a camera.

So it is a matter of degree for you?

What if I added clouds, just a few to break up an expanse of bland colour. It takes nothing away from any factual representation of the subject of the image. In fact, if I'd had a graduated filter I could have slapped that over the lens and produced an identical image. Should the fact that my memory is fading preclude me from producing an image that concentrates the eyes of the viewer?

Or something I've done recently; I took two images, one without flash and then one with to remove the shadows. I could have completed it by using RAW and the result would have been nearly as good.

I took a series of images by panning, using a process built into the camera. It then stitched them together. It was nothing like reality as I’d wanted the vehicles to appear curved. Nothing was added, nothing was removed. It was about as real as one could get, but nothing like reality.

In any case, I think reality is overrated. I want an image to be worth looking at.

Reportage, to me, isn’t photography; it’s journalism.

I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs and opinions. Nothing is better than variation. However, I don't think classifying images is of any use, apart for club photographic competitions, and I don't think they are much use.

[300bhp/ton]

Derek Smith said:

So it is a matter of degree for you?

What if I added clouds, just a few to break up an expanse of bland colour. It takes nothing away from any factual representation of the subject of the image. In fact, if I'd had a graduated filter I could have slapped that over the lens and produced an identical image. Should the fact that my memory is fading preclude me from producing an image that concentrates the eyes of the viewer?

Or something I've done recently; I took two images, one without flash and then one with to remove the shadows. I could have completed it by using RAW and the result would have been nearly as good.

I took a series of images by panning, using a process built into the camera. It then stitched them together. It was nothing like reality as I’d wanted the vehicles to appear curved. Nothing was added, nothing was removed. It was about as real as one could get, but nothing like reality.

In any case, I think reality is overrated. I want an image to be worth looking at.

Reportage, to me, isn’t photography; it’s journalism.

I don't mean to disrespect your beliefs and opinions. Nothing is better than variation. However, I don't think classifying images is of any use, apart for club photographic competitions, and I don't think they are much use.

Not sure all your comments are aimed at me, although you quoted me.


I really don't see a problem with calling it digital art (or similar). Fisheye lenses exist, you can look through them, and see the image. You still aren't adding or removing something that isn't there.

I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp. e.g. the image I posted, there is no way on this Earth you could take a photograph of a city with a giant alien spaceship floating above it. It just doesn't exist, the end result, a special effect is awesome. But it simply can't be called a photograph.

Just like photoshoping in people to locations or situations that they weren't present at. All very cool in their own right, but they are an effect, a special effect and not a photograph.

e.g.

just a random image via Google. But clearly this is not a photograph, if it were, it would be proof of either X-Men style mutants or aliens. As it is, it is a special effect, very well done and a great piece of digital art.

[Rogue86]

mikeveal said:

I have no problem with people who want to edit their images.

I do believe that you can create a great image either by composing and exposing perfectly in camera, or by post editing. However the skill required to do the former is far rarer and harder to learn than the latter.

So whilst I have no hate, or even dislike of the image editing brigade, I don't have the same respect for them that I do for someone who can achieve results without the need for, erm, "heavy" post processing.

I'd be interested if you could expand on that - why does it take more photographic skill to arrive on the scene at sunrise instead of comp'ing a sunrise sky in, for example? Are you suggesting that someone who is able to take an image in the middle of the day, one from the start of a different day and blend the two in photoshop is less likely to be able to capture a sunrise in-camera?

Lots of practical reasons to know your way around post-processing.

[mikeveal]

Rogue86 said:

I'd be interested if you could expand on that - why does it take more photographic skill to arrive on the scene at sunrise instead of comp'ing a sunrise sky in, for example? Are you suggesting that someone who is able to take an image in the middle of the day, one from the start of a different day and blend the two in photoshop is less likely to be able to capture a sunrise in-camera?

Lots of practical reasons to know your way around post-processing.

No, I'm not saying that the skills are exclusive. Perfectly possible to develop both.

I am saying that I believe it is far easier to drive Photoshop to post produce an image than it is to come close to the in camera skill of people like Vivian Maier or Ansell Adams.

It's not just about exposure, or being in the right place (read that as planning to be in the right place) at the right time. Its about seeing the interesting image rather than snapping at the tourist attraction. And it's about getting everything right when you release the shutter.

Damned if I'm very good at it, but I can drive Photoshop a bit.
Others disagree. Meh.

[jr502]

mikeveal said:

Ansell Adams.

Probably not the best example to use, given he is one of the early leaders in post processing

[singlecoil]

jr502 said:

mikeveal said:

Ansell Adams.

Probably not the best example to use, given he is one of the early leaders in post processing

Good point well made.

[Rogue86]

mikeveal said:

No, I'm not saying that the skills are exclusive. Perfectly possible to develop both.

I am saying that I believe it is far easier to drive Photoshop to post produce an image than it is to come close to the in camera skill of people like Vivian Maier or Ansell Adams.

It's not just about exposure, or being in the right place (read that as planning to be in the right place) at the right time. Its about seeing the interesting image rather than snapping at the tourist attraction. And it's about getting everything right when you release the shutter.

Damned if I'm very good at it, but I can drive Photoshop a bit.
Others disagree. Meh.

Yeah I get that they're not necessarily exclusive - don't worry, I'm not looking to polarise the debate. I'm simply discussing this from the perspective of someone who does both photography and retouching for a living.

I find it an interesting conversation to have. In my own experience, my initial foray into retouching helped me understand photography more, which in turn helped my retouching, which in turn advanced my photography etc. The two skillsets have developed together and I would consider them to be co-dependent in my current (commercial) environment. It's not about "cheating" or rescuing bad imagery, but simply an option in order to avoid logistical nightmares or reduce costs/escalation. Photoshop allows me to do things that a photographer couldn't provide in-camera, either because it's not physically possible or more conventionally because it's not physically practical. It doesn't diminish my photographic ability, but allows me to work smarter and more efficiently which allows me to provide a more competitive service.

It's probably worth noting that I cut my teeth in photography in the combat camera team where absolutely no Photoshop was allowed. We weren't even allowed to shoot in RAW. My most "famous" (for want of a better word) image was a matter of having the basic skill to match the opportunity and being in the right place, nothing more. People seem to cling to the fact that it was done in-camera but the reality is I could have very easily 'faked' it in post and nobody would have known. There was no unique photographic ability in happening to be there when the flames came out of the Spitfire exhaust.

I do agree with the above that no image is a true representation of what the eye sees. You're distorting all kinds of things to provide your own unique perspective of a subject. I might concede that there are levels of distortion, but I would argue that a lot of the anti-photoshop crowd are simply unable to use it effectively in the same way that you get "natural light only" photographers who are simply unable to use flash.

Edited by Rogue86 on Tuesday 13th November 18:41