Ethics of postprocessing (Page 2): Processing is processing. It’s not medicine, finance, legislation, legal practice, sports, or anything else involving ethics. I never feel obliged to...

User ID

Processing is processing. It’s not medicine, finance, legislation, legal practice, sports, or anything else involving ethics.

I never feel obliged to “reveal” how a photograph came to be in its final state. It began as photography (an action) and the result is a photograph (an object or data file).

An “ethical” journalist’s sooc from a camera at factory defaults is already a falsehood, a non real representation. There is nowhere for ethics to hang its hat in imagemaking.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

So, just out of curiosity, what would you have done with such a wedding photo?
Would you take it as is, with the shadow people? Or would you have tried to split it into two separate photos (presumably taken at different times with different exposures)?

This was a moment in time. Probably a half second. The second option would not have captured the moment for one of the photos (unless you were much much quicker than I at adjusting settings).

Or do you have another option?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

PS:
The purpose of this thread is to engender discussion. Each of us is entitled to our opinion, but IMHO it never hurts to show two or more opinions.

User ID

quixdraw wrote:

Reality no. Subjective interpretation yes. Post processing is simply wish fulfillment.

A fulfilled wish *is* reality. It’s as real as any reality that you can imagine or can point to.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't take a photograph, you make an image in Photoshop.

User ID

DirtFarmer wrote:

So, just out of curiosity, what would you have done with such a wedding photo?
Would you take it as is, with the shadow people? Or would you have tried to split it into two separate photos (presumably taken at different times with different exposures)?

This was a moment in time. Probably a half second. The second option would not have captured the moment for one of the photos (unless you were much much quicker than I at adjusting settings).

Or do you have another option?

It’s as you put it. It’s two adjacent photos that happen to mesh well at their mutual boundary. Each photo surely ought to be rendered as well exposed if possible.

That simple concept holds for all of the many photos that may exist within any single “capture”. Each one of the many should be well rendered, or rendered according to the photographer’s own intentions. It’s no different than a multi frame hi rez panorama.

Quixdraw Loc: x

CHG_CANON wrote:

You don't take a photograph, you make an image in Photoshop.

No YOU do, I don't!

Quixdraw Loc: x

DirtFarmer wrote:

So, just out of curiosity, what would you have done with such a wedding photo?
Would you take it as is, with the shadow people? Or would you have tried to split it into two separate photos (presumably taken at different times with different exposures)?

This was a moment in time. Probably a half second. The second option would not have captured the moment for one of the photos (unless you were much much quicker than I at adjusting settings).

Or do you have another option?

I wouldn't have found that scene appealing. Truly, many Weddings are the ultimate fantasy trip. Hire a Pro. I photographed my son's wedding, used available light, and stayed out of the way of the hired hands. I got photos they didn't simply because I knew most of the players. Some processing was required, primarily due to some odd lighting and my lack of familiarity with a new camera despite considerable effort to learn it ahead of the event.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your first 10,000 images are your worst. That's when you should begin your PhotoShop subscription.

Quixdraw Loc: x

CHG_CANON wrote:

Your first 10,000 images are your worst. That's when you should begin your PhotoShop subscription.

The easy way out! Unless your avatar is an old photo, I've been a photographer longer than you have been alive. I'll match photo for photo anytime.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

quixdraw wrote:

The easy way out! Unless your avatar is an old photo, I've been a photographer longer than you have been alive. I'll match photo for photo anytime.

You're welcome to visit my work on Flickr, Instagram or here in the UHH Photo Gallery any time you please.

Quixdraw Loc: x

CHG_CANON wrote:

You're welcome to visit my work on Flickr, Instagram or here in the UHH Photo Gallery any time you please.

I see what you post here every time, and you can see mine here as well. I don't care for the other venues.

User ID

quixdraw wrote:

I see what you post here every time, and you can see mine here as well. I don't care for the other venues.

Likewise. This one is waaaay more entertaining. And ATM it’s an allstar booking, altho the script is rather dogeared and has sauce all over it.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"Beauty is in the eyes of the checkbook holder" Dean Collins
Nothing else matters... at least for commercial shooters.

Maybe post this in Wedding Photography Forum and see how much affirmation you get from seasoned wedding shooters... https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-118-1.html

Please stay safe all... Intubated, sedated, on paralytics and a ventilator is a horrific way too go...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

DirtFarmer wrote:

There are 10 groups of people in the world. Those who use binary notation and those who don't. In photography, there is a difference of opinion on postprocessing.

Recent threads (and lots of past threads) expose the dichotomy of opinion on postprocessing. "Photoshop is lying". "Photographs are art".

There are reasons for both opinions, but the reasons do not overlap much. I'm in the "art" group and I will let everyone know that my photos are processed, sometimes just a bit, sometimes a lot. It's the difference between a pleasing photo and photojournalism, which eschews changes to the "original" image, whatever that is.

I would like to support the "art" group with an example from a recent wedding I attended. I have a photo that was taken by someone else (since I was in the wedding party I did not take any photos of the ceremony). I am presenting the photo to illustrate a point: it is my opinion that wedding photos are NOT photojournalism (unless there's some unusual newsworthy aspect of the wedding, which does not apply here). Wedding photos are to please the family. I don't have permission of everyone in the photo to post this so I have blurred all the faces, but I think my point can be seen here.

The original photo was taken as the bride and groom (now husband and wife) walked down the aisle away from the officiant. The wedding was outdoors on a sunny day, late in the afternoon. The photo shows most of the family so it is of interest to the family. Since it was late in the afternoon, some trees behind the photographer shaded half of the group. So the original photo shows a bunch of bright faces on the right and dim faces on the left. In my opinion this detracts from the value of the photo to the family (particularly those on the left).

I ran the photo through Photoshop and brightened the faces on the left. I only had a jpg to work with so the dynamic range wasn't really great, but I got something that I believe is better than the original as far as the left group is concerned. The left group is not as bright as the right, but they are not heavily shaded as much as they were.

My version is not reality if you only consider the response of the camera sensor to the available illumination.

My version is reality if you consider that the human eye can adapt to differences in illumination much better than a print of a photo can realize.

My thesis is that Postprocessing, even relatively heavy processing that Photoshop can produce, is a way to approximate the reality of a photo.

There are 10 groups of people in the world. Those ... (show quote)

Since the human eye has a much greater dynamic range than any camera's sensor, using PP tools to brighten and bring more detail out of darker shadow areas results in images much closer to reality then the images as captured. This is one of the issues I have with people who suggest that the only valid images are those straight out of the camera. Straight out of the camera images rarely look even
close to what we actually saw with our own eyes.