Toby

Every few days someone posts comments about SOOC vs PP and the arguments begin. Today I ran across the following from popphoto.com (address below). It has a group of AI generated landscapes that are beautiful.

Landscapes generated by AI are literally not of this world | Popular Photography (popphoto.com)

This brought the answer home to me. In my humble opinion there are basically two types of photos. Those that are taken to record an exact record of something which should not be modified. Examples are copies that will be used as proof of something legally or record a memory and of course newspapers. I was going to say media but the cable systems news and social media have ruined that. Good newspapers still maintain some ethical standards, however.
The second is to capture a pleasing copy of something. This is distinctly different than the first. In this situation what is wrong with trying to improve it’s appeal? The “Captain”, who hasn’t posted here in several years used to specialize in portraits of retired military persons. He made some of the best portraits I have ever seen. He said he often takes several hours working on his pictures in PP. He said when you do portraits it is about flattery not accuracy. An expert is able to manage both. If you only sell photos SOOC you are missing a lot of opportunities, he said.
I wonder if those who downplay others who modify photos to enhance them might be a bit jealous because they don’t have the software or knowledge of how to use it.
There is also a constant argument about cheap cameras vs the expensive or pro camera. There is no question that a good quality (expensive) camera has the ability to capture extra things thru multiple settings. That is technical quality. Composition is the “art” part of a photo and that is in the creative mind of the person holding the camera not the metal/plastic device in his hand. If people would remember this, this old argument would disappear.
Lastly, consider a painter. Do you think they are interested in making an exact duplicate of what they are painting? Some even paint from memory!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

One thing the SOOC advocates don't seem to realize is that post processing can be used to make your photo look MORE like the scene the photographer saw - increasing shadow or highlight detail, tweaking color to make it more accurate, etc.

I think that "Art vs Realism" is a false dichotomy. Some photographers think that to make photographs into art they must alter the look of the photo from the scene photographed - increasing saturation or contrast, making the photo look like a painting, etc. I like doing that kind of photography myself, but I also recognize that very realistic photography can also raise to the level of art.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

"Purists" don't futz with editors,
they let the camera do the processing,
using pre-sets (pre-processing) in the camera.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

If they were really purists, they would shoot Raw and then just convert them to jpegs without using any of the in-camera settings for contrast, sharpening, color tone, etc. We would quickly see how unhappy they would be with their real SOOC results

The only thing those in-camera settings do is to post-process raw files to create SOOC jpegs. But, these settings gives the photographer far less control over the final image then true post processing programs.

If these so called "purists" prefer the look of their straight out of camera jpegs and are not interested in spending any time or effort to learn and use raw editors, that's their choice and it's fine with me. But please, let's not call them "purists", a term that reeks from an undeserved suggestion of superiority. In my opinion, they are most often either easily satisfied or they are shooting jpeg because of certain publishing or other submission requirements. There is nothing "pure" about it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, in-camera settings are for "starters". If they were real purists they would set all the in-camera settings to "0" and just use the JPEG from what the "adjustment settings off" provide.

Well, doesn't the shoe fit? Certainly seems to do so in some cases.

Much more of a challenge to get it "right" without any editing adjustment.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Between the number of flawed assumptions, a variety of glaring omissions, and the gaggle of red herrings you've unearthed, this much is certain: "Landscapes generated by AI are literally not of this world." Duh. Profoundly so. To the point of being not only obvious, but likewise a meta-duh as well. And 'Art -vs- Realism'? Oh, crikey! Where to even begin....

Beyond that, however, I'd submit the proposition that if and when those who bring up the SOOC -vs- PP argument on a daily basis finally learn to concern themselves with more useful, more practical matters, they might likewise realize there is indeed a way to make "this argument... disappear". While the analogy I'd offer could seem a little odd, it shouldn't take much imagination to realize it is at least somewhat apt. That would be, those arguers might notice that every time you pull the wooden stake out of a vampire's heart, the vampire rises again, there's screaming, a gnashing of teeth, and more blood gets let. And on, and on, and on.... Stake in... stake out... stake in... stake....

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

Good lord, here we go again ...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Real Photographers use Polaroid.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I actually used to know one years ago that did .
He would do the setup and a test shot with a Polaroid,
make any necessary adjustments, then do the exposure on, I think, a 4x5.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID

Amen on false dichotomy.

OTOH, false dichotomies and strawman arguments etc are all pillars of the UHH Sacred Traditions, as well as being our root sources of amusing entertainment.

User ID

SOOCers would not know "getting it right" if it bit them. They seem to espouse that "right" is when they compare their photo to their subject scene and find little to no differece.

Anybody who believes theyve seen a photo nearly identical to a real world scene is simply somebody lacking in visual skills. (This is NOT about art.)

Bill_de Loc: US

Using Polaroid was common. There were/are Polaroid backs for quite a few medium format cameras.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Polaroid-Camera-Backs/ci/3096/N/4294247152

--