Enhancing or Defiling: Post-Processing & 'Reality'

[nimitzbenedicto]

When I shoot for clients they don't care if anything is SOOC or not.

They're paying for the final product;

how it got there is irrelevant (this does not apply to photojournalism).
.

Absolutely!

I've seen fotogs who shoot sports/concerts/fashion shows in jpg. Their clients don't really care if it's post-processed, edited, SOOC, RAW or JPG. They want that photo in fast. They've got deadlines to meet.

Except when they're shooting products for mags/catalogs/sales & marketing presentations.
Or hobbyists/enthusiasts who just love to tinker with the latest editing software.

So the "reality" is what's the goal/objective of the fotog.

[Wayland]

No-one has mentioned the Polaroid instant camera. Now that was SOOC!

Not if you knew what you were doing.

There were also different film types for different applications so there was a choice of rendition available there as well.

[IzzieK]

I've just turned off the tv and watching this post episode punch by punch...anyone want to share my popcorn? I can throwin a few big boxes of Jack-in-the-box too...

[dabhand]

Don't know if this will help but the Royal Photographic Society has made changes in their Visual Arts category which are designed to meet the aspirations of it's members and photographers, such that Visual Art will split into two categories:

1. Pictorial – “intended to recognise the creative use of the camera, in producing images which are not fundamentally altered either in post-production processing or in-camera manipulation.” – the emphasis is on the creative use of the camera.

2. Creative - “is intended to recognise digital creativity, either in camera or in post processing”. It will be a requirement in this category that it is photographically based and that all content must be produced by the applicant.

Seems to me that if a conservative society can move on, so should others.

steve

[AB26]

I've just turned off the tv and watching this post episode punch by punch...anyone want to share my popcorn? I can throwin a few big boxes of Jack-in-the-box too...

Better than watching “Game Of Thrones”. Hope it draws the same number of viewers.
OOPS, no. It might be offending to some viewers.

[ajohnw]

Don't know if this will help but the Royal Photographic Society has made changes in their Visual Arts category which are designed to meet the aspirations of it's members and photographers, such that Visual Art will split into two categories:

1. Pictorial – “intended to recognise the creative use of the camera, in producing images which are not fundamentally altered either in post-production processing or in-camera manipulation.” – the emphasis is on the creative use of the camera.

2. Creative - “is intended to recognise digital creativity, either in camera or in post processing”. It will be a requirement in this category that it is photographically based and that all content must be produced by the applicant.

Seems to me that if a conservative society can move on, so should others.

steve

No 1 is a bit weird Steve. For SOOC most cameras need settings changed so I'm surprised they don't quantify that a little more. Perhaps the answer is to submit raw plus the processing steps. They would then also see how proficient the photographer was.

Doesn't surprise me that they have made a changes as there have been noises in this area for some time. Particularly judges being wooed with PP rather than photography. It can be interesting to view the CinC competition results accounting for this. Dismiss the PP in a sense and concentrate on the photography. Interest etc.

John
-

[Manfred M]

“intended to recognise the creative use of the camera, in producing images which are not fundamentally altered either in post-production processing or in-camera manipulation.”

I find the choice of words quite refreshing; as it certainly lives up to the brutal truth. SOOC is fundamentally a flawed concept, and there should be no NO DISTINCTION as to where the processing occurs; in the camera or in the computer.

That being said; I think they have left themselves a lot of wriggle room; the definition of "fundamentally altered" is the driver here. Does shooting through a GND = "fundamentally altered"; what about coloured filters or starbursts? Can I do a night shot with gelled studio flashes; what about adding those effects in post?. Am I allowed to sharpen in post? What about cranking up the saturation; okay or not; if so how much is okay before we hit the "too much" point?

Do I have to declare my hands as post-procesing weapons as I used to used them to burn and dodge in the wet darkroom? I was even known to tilt the easel from time to time to reduced keystone distortion. Legal; yes or no?

Let the debate roll on...

[Bobobird]

Today is a wet day and my birds are not co-operating. With time in hand I read through all 6 pages. Guess it must be the same with you guys - too much time and nothing much to do.

Btw, I learned nothing from these 6 pages.

[Mike Buckley]

Btw, I learned nothing from these 6 pages.

I can easily understand that you learned nothing that is meaningfully helpful to you. On the other hand, I'm in disbelief that anyone could read every post so far and learn absolutely nothing.

[Mark von Kanel]

just started a 3 day cruise to turkey and got bored... have avoided this thread thus far and just trolled through all 6 pages.... all i can say is:

Izzie chuck us some popcorn will ya?

Do jack in the box have chocolate on them?

[Bobobird]

I can easily understand that you learned nothing that is meaningfully helpful to you. On the other hand, I'm in disbelief that anyone could read every post so far and learn absolutely nothing.

Come to think of it I did - dont read long threads.

[ajohnw]

It is a pretty pointless one Bobo. Ok if bored etc. It's really about one of those things that will happen eventually in some ways what ever some people might think about it. It already has in places.

John
-

[ajohnw]

just started a 3 day cruise to turkey and got bored... have avoided this thread thus far and just trolled through all 6 pages.... all i can say is:

Izzie chuck us some popcorn will ya?

Do jack in the box have chocolate on them?

It's not as bad as the PhotoShop one which as always has gone totally awol - even you - what the hell has changing packages got to do with it. Mind you if things are that bad where you are I wont blame you.

John
-

[Mark von Kanel]

It's not as bad as the PhotoShop one which as always has gone totally awol - even you - what the hell has changing packages got to do with it. Mind you if things are that bad where you are I wont blame you.

John
-

Yup both threads are pretty inane.... their are as many opinions as there are togs.... just wanted Izzie to share her popcorn. .. i think its quite amusing how people get so wound up about such subjective things... there is no correct answer just the one that suits you/me depending on perspective!

[rtbaum]

Can't eat popcorn..........Is chocolate pudding OK?

[William W]

. . .I learned nothing from these 6 pages.

I can easily understand that you learned nothing that is meaningfully helpful to you. On the other hand, I'm in disbelief that anyone could read every post so far and learn absolutely nothing.

I think that there is a lot to learn from this thread. And some bits are, or will be meaningful and relevant to the reader.
At first cast, we don’t necessarily know how knowledge may be relevant to us.

***

Don't know if this will help but the Royal Photographic Society has made changes in their Visual Arts category . . .
1. Pictorial – “intended to recognise the creative use of the camera, in producing images which are not fundamentally altered either in post-production processing or in-camera manipulation.” . . .
2. Creative - “is intended to recognise digital creativity, either in camera or in post processing”. . . .
Seems to me that if a conservative society can move on, so should others.

No 1 is a bit weird Steve. For SOOC most cameras need settings changed so I'm surprised they don't quantify that a little more. Perhaps the answer is to submit raw plus the processing steps. They would then also see how proficient the photographer was.

I find the choice of words quite refreshing; as it certainly lives up to the brutal truth. SOOC is fundamentally a flawed concept, and there should be no NO DISTINCTION as to where the processing occurs; in the camera or in the computer.
That being said; I think they have left themselves a lot of wriggle room; the definition of "fundamentally altered" is the driver here. . .

Curious to know when those changes were made?

**

It is common (at least here) for Judges to request the raw file.

With Film Competitions, Judges could request negatives, (or positives) but any in which I was involved was exclusively to assess the absence of negative stacking or negative collage.

Strange how there is such a big fuss now with digital post production –seems “anything goes” was the adage, even with the RPS, when there were physical darkrooms. And that point has been made by many in this thread.

**

I don’t find the concept refreshing in so far as the separation headers are silly and a very backwards step.

I think that it is an huge error to label the second “creative” thus denuding “creativity” from the first: but opinions like that sent my forebears out here on convict ships.

The headings “Pictorial” and “Creative” will only lead to a purist attitude for some (most?) of those who submit “pictorial”; similarly there will be an opposite elitist attitude for those submit “creative”.

I agree that there is an huge amount of wiggle room for the judges to catagoroize or refuse entry - and that’s the point I made in post # and that is a big PITA:

Question: How many images that conform to that rule can be submitted to the competition?
Answer: None.
So then those "rules" have to be long and tedious defining exactly what manipulations and also the degree of manipulation . . . it is just utter chaos even going there.

WW

[chauncey]

I wish...I wish that I had a picture of someone kicking a dead horse.

[Mike Buckley]

Is chocolate pudding OK?

Absolutely anything with chocolate is more than OK by me.

[Wayland]

The RPS have always been a bunch of elitist, stuck up snobs that most of us over here ignore anyway.

Nothing new there..

[Mike Buckley]

The headings “Pictorial” and “Creative” will only lead to a purist attitude for some (most?) of those who submit “pictorial”;

It's fascinating to me that RPS chose to use the term, "Pictorial," in this context. At the turn of the 20th century, the terms, "pictorial photography" and "pictorialism," described a look that was exactly the opposite of the purist attitude in that lighting techniques, soft focus, movement by the subject and various darkroom techniques were creatively used to produce a scene rather than simply document it. The purist aesthetics of the era of Modernism and the influence of Group f/64 that produced sharp photos and extensive depth of field evolved in direct retaliation to the aesthetics of Pictorialism.