Enhancing or Defiling: Post-Processing & 'Reality'

[Manfred M]

Manfred:

I apologize - I did read your post, and meant to agree with you and restate your comments - but I mis-worded my comment, and it sounded like I wasn't paying attention to what you said (I did pay attention and totally agree with you).

This is one of the most annoying things on public forums - people don't have good reading comprehension and repeat the same thing all over again - something I surely didn't mean to do - as I said it's damn annoying.

Unfortunately it happens quite often on CiC.

Glenn

No problem Glenn. My fingers and my brain don't always connect when posting something either...

That being said, I don't think people have ever really understood that there never is and never was something called "SOOC". They just repeat the garbage that they have heard elsewhere without any serious analysis or thought. I remember having a discussion with some people going nowhere when I dialed in the "Vivid" setting on my camera, and cranked up the saturation and contrast on that setting, threw on an ultrawide and did a closeup. Needless to say, the shot had a lot in common with a "selfie" coming out of an iPhone...

The consensus was that this was "okay" because the camera did it; the fact that I dialed in the settings didn't seem to make any difference. Go figure....

[William W]

In brackets, my insert:

. . . I don't think (many) people have ever really understood that there never is and never was something called "SOOC". They just repeat the garbage that they have heard elsewhere without any serious analysis or thought.

Sage.

WW

[DanK]

That being said, I don't think people have ever really understood that there never is and never was something called "SOOC".

I'd put this a bit differently: there is something called SOOC, but many people have no idea what it is. They think it means "true to life and not changed by human hands." A more accurate description would be "changed by the hands of a human who never saw the image and wrote a general-purpose algorithm for modifying the data instead."

Some years ago I displayed some prints at an event where another photographer had images cycling on screen. He had a good eye and had gotten some good captures, but many of the images were drab--e.g., too little contrast, limited tonal range, not sharp enough, whatever. Walking by, I heard him say, with evident pride, "All of my images are straight out of the camera!" They looked it.

[Mike Buckley]

I now suspect every super moon shot that I see

If an artist using oil paint, watercolor, pastels, chaulk, crayon or whatever painted the super moon completely out of scale would you feel different about that than a photographer making a photo with it similarly out of scale? If so, what makes a photograph different?

I'm not addressing the fact that the photographer was asked how she made the shot and deceptively failed to explain how she made it out of scale. That was a deception that took place in a conversation that is separate in my mind from a choice of creativity when making the photo.

[Colin Southern]

That being said, I don't think people have ever really understood that there never is and never was something called "SOOC". They just repeat the garbage that they have heard elsewhere without any serious analysis or thought.

A lot of photographers repeat things they hear elsewhere; unfortunately, it's not just regarding SOOC. The list is a long one.

[William W]

I think that a lot of photographers repeat things they hear elsewhere; unfortunately, it's not just regarding SOOC. The list is a long one.

WW

[Colin Southern]

If an artist using oil paint, watercolor, pastels, chaulk, crayon or whatever painted the super moon completely out of scale would you feel different about that than a photographer making a photo with out similarly out of scale? If so, what makes a photograph different?

Possibly the (out-dated?) rationale may be that when the former creates something there's few expectations that things may be to scale because observers implicitly acknowledge that that artist is/was free to re-interpret the scene as the saw fit. In contrast - the expectation of a camera is that it records what it sees without any re-interpretation (doing "blind justice" to the scene) (after all, it's just a machine). Therefore when photographic artists manipulate their captures there's "outrage" from some quarters because they're now looking at something that's "no longer a faithful reproduction" (ie they feel "lied to") - from a machine that "cannot tell a lie" - and they don't like that. It's probably even worse in their eyes when the photographic reinterpretation is presented in such a way as to give the impression that it's photorealistic.

I understand why they feel that way; it doesn't make any sense - but I do understand how they reach that conclusion.

[Colin Southern]

I think that a lot of photographers repeat things they hear elsewhere; unfortunately, it's not just regarding SOOC. The list is a long one.

WW

I think there's an echo in the room. echo in the room. echo in the room.

[Mike Buckley]

As I read the thread, several styles of photography come immediately to mind:

• pictorialism that thrived around the turn of the 20th century
• portrait photography by Julia Margaret Cameron, a 19th century photographer whose blurred images had a very different look than other photograpers who were able to make relatively sharp portraits
• use of panning
• use of a slow shutter speed to blur anything in motion
• rapidly changing the focal length of a zoom lens while the exposure is being made
• use of a LensBaby to alter depth of field in ways that a standard lens can't

There are probably other styles that didn't immediately come to mind. Why is it that those styles are accepted in photography when other alterations of reality aren't?

[Thlayle]

Bill (William W): yes, it is a lame feature article. I thought they were pretty shabby to bring this issue up without really having anything to really hold up as a real life example of how altered images connect to altered expectations. They discuss the super cell storm shots and even have the display image with the before/after PP roll over in the graphic. They did not however, describe any examples of how this kind of image has altered expectations about storms. My guess is it would have been too 'hot' of a topic for them to get into: media experiences influencing public debate on something like climate change (something they probably know less about than photography).

On the whole 'can of worms' with rules for photo contests with restrictions on post-processing: that strikes a personal note of interest for me. I recently entered a statewide contest at a local gallery. My image was deemed worthy of an honorable mention. Two of the three winning photos ahead of me were done with considerable alterations. The first place winner was extensively done with Photoshop, adding a completely different background behind a model and using additional images as something of a 'collage' of images mocked up as framed pictures on a wall. Next was an image done with film and altered with painting on the negative. They were beautiful images & no doubt fulfilled the vision of the artists involved. I was just happy to be mentioned at all. There were many very skillful photographers participating in the show. (Obviously, no rules about PP involved.)

I think it was Ansel Adams who said, "You don't take a photograph, you make it."

I completely agree with ideas that a photograph is always an honest representation in that it is meant to fulfill a vision AND that
"...if it's my image then I'll bloomin well do what I like with it."

It is a matter of education, more so now in the digital age than ever but it has always been relevant I am sure. It is also a matter for me personally to come to grips with as I work to develop my vision & my skills.

Thanks everyone.

[Manfred M]

Why is it that those styles are accepted in photography when other alterations of reality aren't?

Mike - my read on that is that people easily recognize that these manipulations occured in-camera and the scene is different that how they see it, so they feel that they are not being "fooled" by the photographer. Let's face it, people don't want to feel that they've "been had" by the photographer.

Similarly, people seem to have no issues with astronomical images that are clearly enhanced through post-processing (i.e. what's the right white balance setting to shoot a nebular??); and here I suspect that this has more to do with ignorance (nicely said, people don't know that they are being fooled). Ignorance is bliss, in this case.

I remember many years ago, a film-maker friend did a series of before and after B&W still shots of some actresses (these were not well-known Hollywood stars); i.e. prior to going through makeup for the filming and after they were made up. The results were quite stunning; they looked like normal people you wouldn't look at twice, walking down the street, to something that would stop you dead in your tracks, if they walked by. So again, here we have a situation were we the public have no problem in putting reality aside and looking at these two completely different people.

[flashback]

With very few exceptions, and other than a live venue (and even this will have production issues) music is post processed equivalently as most digital images are. Reverb, echo, wahwah, voice enhancements, digital as opposed to analog instruments, all used in the production and PP of music. Even vinyl recordings were post processed so, while it may be claimed that vinyl more closely reflects the actual real life listening experience, the fact is if voices or certain instruments weren't boosted, or balanced, they would be overpowered by other instruments. In other words the music one listens to is a result of songwriters, musicians and producers efforts, vision and skills.
(While I'm on it, for those people that use some variant of vision or hearing enhancement, is what they perceive as real as what I perceive, or are they experiencing some Post Processing of their own?)

[Loose Canon]

I lied.

I deceived.

I cheated.

I had no intention of confessing.

I feel no remorse.

I enjoyed it more than I should have.

I now realize that I am sick and need professional help in order to change my Evil Ways.

It may be too late for me.

I hope my story helps someone else before it’s too late for them.

[Mike Buckley]

the scene is different that how they see it, so they feel that they are not being "fooled" by the photographer. Let's face it, people don't want to feel that they've "been had" by the photographer.

Yet when the moon or sun is made twice as large or larger in a photo than we know it can possibly have been in reality, a lot of people object. It's a concept that I don't understand.

[Mike Buckley]

It may be too late for me.

You and I passed that benchmark long ago. Seriously though, you made excellent points (and I'm not referring to the point on the knife).

[William W]

Great picture!
Bravo!

Alternatively . . . he could have thrown that knife and that lemon the air at least one hundred thousand times in an attempt to get that shot and still be trying.

WW

[Donald]

I hope my story helps someone else before it’s too late for them.

... or they could end up making spectacular photographic images just like the one above .... which shouldn't be allowed!

[John 2]

I wonder how many of those people that object to image manipulation and claim SOOC as the high ground do so in order to mask their own inadequacy because they don't have the talent or vision to produce something beyond a straight forward shot?? Do I need to duck?

[AB26]

Sage. (sardonic)

What is a “debate” if not a “contest of arguments”?

WW

William,

Debate is for rational people whom know better, to find a rational solution. Arguments is for boys whom think their daddy is the strongest man on earth.

I don’t care if you call my point of view garbage or whatever pleases you to call it. It is my opinion that THE ART of painting with light is the ultimate goal to strive for in Photography. Seeing the light and mastering the tools of the trade, to capture the essence of the mood in that moment in time, is and will always be an obsession for me.

I don’t care what others do with their images or what they do with very costly Photographic equipment. I don’t care if you want to “fix” images from a $5000 camera in Photoshop. I simply do not care if you waste money on a very expensive camera and use it like a P&S.

I will not join you and others whom promote the manipulation of images in PP. PP is for enhancing my image not manipulating it.

I wish those image manipulators would be honest enough to call their work "photographic images" instead of photographs.

[Manfred M]

I wonder how many of those people that object to image manipulation and claim SOOC as the high ground do so in order to mask their own inadequacy because they don't have the talent or vision to produce something beyond a straight forward shot?? Do I need to duck?

I see the eggs and rotten tomatos hurtling your way already. Should we use white shelled eggs so that we can easily Photoshop them into the brown-shelled variety. Should we make the yolks look like free-range eggs or should we stick to the standard grocery store variety. Do we need to enhance the red on the tomatos or are some green tinges of the unripened variety acceptable?

As to the impact zone, and showing the results of the splatter; we can look at that after these first design decisions have been vetted and the original SOOC images cleaned up and enhanced....