When 'photographers' post processing goes too far
Jul 21, 2014 13:43:26 #
TheDman wrote:
Should people who use wide angle lenses have to put "WA" in the corner of their photos?
Only if it's a fish eye :-D
Jul 21, 2014 13:55:08 #
wingclui44 wrote:
I don't mind how did they do them on PP, as soon as they put their work to the right category of art, such as Altered Reality. that's fine for me. As a matter of fact, I do altered reality too.
A photographic image taken with a camera is already "altered reality" and that is because a single exposure, unmanipulated photographic image is not nearly as accurate as the human eye captured it and the brain "saw" it. The eye is much more capable, in terms of dynamic range, than ANY single exposure.
Jul 21, 2014 13:56:02 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Delderby wrote:
Only if it's a fish eye :-D
But if our eyes are around 50mm, then anything above or below that isn't representing reality.
Jul 21, 2014 14:10:18 #
Jul 21, 2014 14:30:30 #
Rongnongno wrote:
No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)
I don't feel offering the service as an option if it is desired is wrong If it is not requested, doing it automatically would be wrong.
Jul 21, 2014 14:31:39 #
Photography is about providing interesting and/or novel experiences to viewers. Sometimes pictures tell stories or celebrate beauty. The same is true of oil painting. Neither are about giving "testimony," unless we're talking about crime scene or newspaper photos.
Jul 21, 2014 15:04:32 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Would that be for ANY amount of post processing, or would there be rules for the threshold of the amount of post processing that should be disclosed? Who would decide that? I want my photography to be judged on the final result, and not how it was done.
I think I am persuaded - what I would like to see is not possible. So I'd better get back to to PhotoFiltre, or perhaps PhotoPlus, or Photoscape. All are good for cloning etc.
Jul 21, 2014 15:27:20 #
I think that it is OK to do very minor adjustments such as brightening teeth and smoothing out some wrinkles and skin defects, or in landscape getting rid of unsightly poles or cars in parking lots instead of cropping the photo, I think that folks need to state what they did in post processing as much of the photos out there are overcooked, a good post processed shot should look normal and not be able to tell it was worked on.
Rongnongno wrote:
No, this is not about distortion of really, well, ... (show quote)
Jul 21, 2014 15:33:46 #
terry44 wrote:
What irritates me is not the PP but the idea that some 'photographer' would even consider SELLING what is essentially a snap shot unless the client pays more for generic PP that should be part of a professional production.I think that it is OK to do very minor adjustments such as brightening teeth and smoothing out some wrinkles and skin defects, or in landscape getting rid of unsightly poles or cars in parking lots instead of cropping the photo, I think that folks need to state what they did in post processing as much of the photos out there are overcooked, a good post processed shot should look normal and not be able to tell it was worked on.
What really got me going is to offer 'slimming down' in open contracts in order to look... well 'different'. This is always possible and I have no problem with folks asking for it. I have a problem - A repeat - with basically creating a situation that pushes folks to do it just because some other person next door did it.
Jul 21, 2014 15:39:41 #
oldgeezer3
Loc: SoCal
Rongnongno wrote:
What irritates me is not the PP but the idea that ... (show quote)
I agree! The rub comes from trying to sell somthing additional just to make more money.
Jul 21, 2014 15:46:15 #
This smacks of unnecessary esthetic surgery to 'conform'. This is where I start to balk.[/quote]
And how different is that than people who pay big bucks for ACTUAL esthetic surgery?
If they want it, can pay for it and you can do it I'd say go for it.
And how different is that than people who pay big bucks for ACTUAL esthetic surgery?
If they want it, can pay for it and you can do it I'd say go for it.
Jul 21, 2014 15:58:31 #
Old Redeye wrote:
And how different is that than people who pay big bucks for ACTUAL esthetic surgery?
If they want it, can pay for it and you can do it I'd say go for it.
If they want it, can pay for it and you can do it I'd say go for it.
As stated I have no problem with folks doing whatever to themselves and paying for it, rich or poor.
I have a problem of trying to make it a 'standard'. Tell me how many peoples - mainly kids - are ruining their lives because of self esteem when they compare themselves to false 'canon of beauty'?
Not only are those photographer reinforcing it (Jones effect) but they also create an image of what one should look like transforming the person as an 'ideal self'. A double whammy if you ask me.
Not only is the image produced false but it also creates a "I am looking bad" when looking in every mirror and comparing to the picture.
If one asks for it, no big deal. If one asks because another has done it? Big deal. This is about ethics and in this day and age this word has become a swear word as to the concept? Ftt... The dodo's way.
Jul 21, 2014 16:54:42 #
HowardPepper wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.
IMHO there should be limits to what is reality and to how much post processing can be done. For example; a photo of Yosemite National Park but then the waterfall has been changed or the tree colors made more saturated or a bear has been inserted somewhere in the background, etc., etc. So then, the photographer wants to sell the photo as: "Yosemite in Moonlight". I personally don't like all these " fake" photos. Just look at the Popular Photography mag. So much artificiality ( is this a word)! It's not journalism. Is it photography? And then to add insult, these "photos are winning the competitions.
I'm sorry for the rant but maybe I should go back to film and the chem lab.
Jul 21, 2014 17:13:42 #
BobbyT wrote:
IMHO there should be limits to what is reality and... (show quote)
So are you talking about photojournalism, or just photography in general? It is well established that such things are unethical for photojournalism. If it's photography, who should decide on and enforce these "limits" you are calling for? You don't have to like what anyone else does, but I am disturbed when people call for limits on other people's creativity.
Jul 21, 2014 17:23:02 #
HowardPepper wrote:
I know that I'm in the minority on this forum, but my personal feelings are that if the finished image doesn't look like the real life image, it isn't photography, it's digital artistry. Just my opinion. Everybody has their own.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.