Art or reality? Duty to disclose pp? I’m not sure how to express my question or raise the issue. Maybe it begs the question of whether a photo of a living thing (like a bird, animal...

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

I’m not sure how to express my question or raise the issue. Maybe it begs the question of whether a photo of a living thing (like a bird, animal, or human) is subjective “art” or is a capture of objective reality?

A few days ago, I commented glowingly on a particular photo of a bird because I was struck by the intense and unique color of the bird which I had never seen before. I thought to myself how lucky and talented the photographer was to capture this unique bird. Then, in some later comments, the photographer referred to some pp.

Maybe this shows my naïveté. But I was surprised. Maybe we should assume that all published photos are pp.

Obviously I guess a photo can be both art and reality. But in this instance, I would have appreciated knowing that it really wasn’t “real” but an artistic version of realty.

What do you think?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

genocolo wrote:

I’m not sure how to express my question or raise t... (show quote)

All digital photos are PP by definition. PP is a requirement for the creation of all digital photos.
The same is true for nearly all film images with rare exception. You could argue that Polaroid prints are not PP.

Just because the PP is automated by your camera software doesn't mean it's not subjective interpretation -- it is.

genocolo wrote:

Obviously I guess a photo can be both art and reality. But in this instance, I would have appreciated knowing that it really wasn’t “real” but an artistic version of realty.

What do you think?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

There are realists and visionaries, with everything in between.
Staunch realists abhor any post processing while some visionaries may do a lot.
What's right or wrong is in the mind of the viewer.
(Unless one is doing news/documentary photography.)

I look at an image and will either like it or not.
The explicit method of how the image got that way is of little or no concern to me.
I feel no need to have post processing disclosed, especially since the camera does some before the photographer gets a chance to do any additional processing.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

I post-process all my images. Don't you? I would need to see the photo you are discussing to comment further.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex wrote:

All digital photos are PP by definition. PP is a requirement for the creation of all digital photos.
The same is true for nearly all film images with rare exception. You could argue that Polaroid prints are not PP.

Just because the PP is automated by your camera software doesn't mean it's not subjective interpretation -- it is.

And the camera does "pre-processing" based on the set parameters in the camera.

btbg

genocolo wrote:

I’m not sure how to express my question or raise t... (show quote)

Just because a photo has been post processed does not mean that it doesn't reflect reality. If you crop a photo that is post processing. If you straighten the horizon that is post processing. If you adjust exposure that is post processing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with post processing.

And, yes you should assume that all published photos are post processed. Even photojournalists are allowed, and expected, to adjust exposure, tone, contrast, and crop images. So, what are you really asking? Are you questioning composites? Are you questioning the use of AI such as generative fill in Photoshop?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Simply assume all photos are processed. Certainly, any real photographer -- outside of reporting / documentary work -- is capturing in RAW and processing those images before sharing. That's just a fundamental of digital photography, and a basic requirement of RAW.

Needing to 'say' what occurred along with sharing an image?? That's just loser talk. People creating false 'rules' to try to limit the success of others, aka real photographers ...

btbg

CHG_CANON wrote:

Simply assume all photos are processed. Certainly, any real photographer -- outside of reporting / documentary work -- is capturing in RAW and processing those images before sharing. That's just a fundamental of digital photography, and a basic requirement of RAW.

Needing to 'say' what occurred along with sharing an image?? That's just loser talk. People creating false 'rules' to try to limit the success of others, aka real photographers ...

I know some reporting work is now jpeg only but we are still shooting in raw and so are several other newspaper photographers I know.

Even shooting jpeg for reporting allows basic edits so even that is likely post processed.

FrankN Loc: Maryland, USA

genocolo wrote:

I’m not sure how to express my question or raise t... (show quote)

Ansel Adams post processed his photos extensively. Would you maintain that his prints are not "real"?
Even if you do not use a product like LightRoom or Photoshop, your camera makes adjustments based on the manufacturer's algorithms and your settings when it exports a JPG file.

All published photos are post processed.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Genocolo, a few years ago I felt let down from being "fooled" by a composite. The reason was what sounds similar to your experience: you put yourself in the photographer's place - probably because of your keen interest in the subject - and admired their luck and skill. Then I caught the pp bug

You will probably want to fast forward to today's reality of processing in order to continue admiring images online. In a forum setting I wouldn't hesitate to initiate a conversation, either in the thread or by private message, to satisfy my curiosity.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

We need to collectively wise up to the fact that images are a looooong way from being proof of objective reality. Most of us don't have the means or the ability to mess with raw files and that gives them a certain amount of credibility, but someone with sufficient knowhow would be able to alter them in an undetectable way, so even raw files don't offer undeniable proof of authenticity.

As for processing, it can be standard procedure and an honest attempt to improve the image or it can be deliberate deception, with artistic licence being a third common possibility. Add to that the fact that images can be created from scratch in various ways.

The moral of the story is that we should never make assumptions based on what an image is showing us. Ever.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

R.G. wrote:

We need to collectively wise up to the fact that i... (show quote)

You understand, right, that the 'image data payload' of a RAW file is read-only?

Yes, the EXIF 'tag data' is just text and can be edited with any EXIF editor in an undetectable way. Certain proprietary editors can 'edit' the RAW image data, but only by adding proprietary edit instructions into that EXIF header, not by actually altering the read-only 'image data payload'.

Personally, I'd be unworried about an 'undetectable' change to a RAW file. Well, at least as of October 2023.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Ysarex wrote:

Just because the PP is automated by your camera software doesn't mean it's not subjective interpretation -- it is.

The difference is in sentient control. I set the parameters when I set up the camera and use the same parameters for every shot; no intelligence looks at the shot and decides how to process it depending on how it appears. If one shot is “too dark”, then that is true of every shot. In that sense, it is not processed ‘subjectively’.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

CHG_CANON wrote:

You understand, right, that the 'image data payloa... (show quote)

You're assuming that raw data can't be tampered with. I'm not going to make any such assumption. Some people have enough knowhow to make their own editors and don't need proprietary editors. Skills like that won't be common but they won't be unheard of either.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

R.G. wrote:

You're assuming that raw data can't be tampered with. I'm not going to make any such assumption. Some people have enough knowhow to make their own editors and don't need proprietary editors. Skills like that won't be common but they won't be unheard of either.

Would the engineers inside the camera manufacture have the highest probability of knowing if the read-only data could be edited? And how to do it? It's not structured to be modified; not just a "protect" flag stopping editing.