He didn't think so; "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."

Beside the point though, yes it depends on the intentions of the artist. A photographer may chose to PP because she intends her photos be faithful to the reality seen and she can do that in post much better than the limited software in the camera.

Well, since we did not see the photo we do not know what was accomplished by the post processing. Doubt that it was removing a branch as I seem to recall at some point the op indicating that it was a tri colored heron in flight.

Post processing could have been used for any number of things from increasing contrast, to darkening the color of the sky, to sharpening the bird, to cropping, or any number of other things including increasing the saturation or luminousity.

That's the thing. You set your camera to natural, but a camera set to vivid will do at least most of what the op described, but that's in jpeg only. Maybe the photographer shot in raw and needed to post process to bring out colors that would have already been there on a jpeg image. We don't know. We don't know if the post processing was overkill or not, but it is unlikely it was done that badly since the op liked the photo until he found out it was post processed. It was done well enough that he never questioned it until he was told.

That's why it's so important to recognize that just because it's straight out of camera versus post processed does not mean that the sooc is more realistic than the post processed image.

Well, since we did not see the photo we do not know what was accomplished by the post processing. Doubt that it was removing a branch as I seem to recall at some point the op indicating that it was a tri colored heron in flight.

Post processing could have been used for any number of things from increasing contrast, to darkening the color of the sky, to sharpening the bird, to cropping, or any number of other things including increasing the saturation or luminousity.

That's the thing. You set your camera to natural, but a camera set to vivid will do at least most of what the op described, but that's in jpeg only. Maybe the photographer shot in raw and needed to post process to bring out colors that would have already been there on a jpeg image. We don't know. We don't know if the post processing was overkill or not, but it is unlikely it was done that badly since the op liked the photo until he found out it was post processed. It was done well enough that he never questioned it until he was told.

That's why it's so important to recognize that just because it's straight out of camera versus post processed does not mean that the sooc is more realistic than the post processed image.

I also shoot reality. That's my job. However, reality does not mean straight out of camera. That is the point that Cannon and Rehess are arguing about. Straight out of camera does not reflect reality.

How many times have you seen a straight out of camera print from the old film days where the sky is completely white? Was the sky white when the photo was taken? Of course not. Just the film was unable to record the entire tonal range. How often do you see photos of architecture that shows a building such as a church with a tall steeple slanting in from both sides? Did the building really slant like that? Of course not. So, once again the straight out of camera photo did not show reality.

The reality is that a camera does not see light or shape the same way a person does and is unable to accurately record exactly what the human who was there actually saw. For journalism the rules are clear that we can only do minimal post processing, but that post processing is absolutely necessary in order to reflect reality on many occasions. We may need to straighten a horizon on a news photo that was shot so hurriedly that we failed to get the horizon straight. We may need to open up the shadows so that the detail still shows, or lower the highlights so that there is still color in the sky. We may need to adjust tone because the white balance did not show the colors that were really there.

I work hard to show reality, but that means that I also work hard on my post processing to make sure that what shows up in print reflects what I actually saw. To give you part of the technical reason that is so important is the press that our newspaper is printed on requires that photos be CMYK in order to print well. Most cameras by default shoot in RGB. That means that each time a photo is prepared for print it must be converted to a CMYK Tiff. IF you open photoshop and convert an RGB photo with blue in it to a CMYK you will note an immediate and sometimes severe color shift, particularly in blues and purples. That must be corrected as well as possible in order for the photo to show reality.

I do agree with you that composites and AI enhanced photos should be labeled as such rather than passed off as reality, but that isn't what actually happens. I also agree that ethically a photojournalist should try to reflect the scene accurately. That also isn't what actually happens. As Cannon has noted by the artistic choices a photojournalist makes a crowd may look larger than it really was, or may look smaller than reality just by how the photographer framed the scene. That may have been done simply because the photographer was trying to take a more interesting photo, or it may have been done to manipulate the viewer.

Can that be a problem? Absolutely it can. However, that has been happening since the beginning of photojournalism. The only real difference is that with the modern tools at our disposal it is easier to manipulate an image, but it has always happened.

What you and Rehess need to understand is that although there is nothing wrong with straight out of camera in no way is that an accurate depiction of what was actually in the scene. The choices you make as to what you include in an image and what you exclude alter the viewers perception the same way removing a wire or trash digitally will alter the viewers perception.

Failure to correct for the distortion of a specific lens, or the convergence of lines in a building because you choose not to post process does not make your photo more realistic. It merely makes it straight out of the camera. Because the choices you make in composition, the limits on the range of light to dark that your camera is able to record, the limitations of the lens you use, or even changes in focal length and f stop all alter reality.

Example, most wildlife photographers often shoot wide open, which blurs the background and removes distractions. Does that reflect the reality of what they saw? Absolutely not. How many times have you seen a photo posted here with silky smooth water on a waterfall? That is done in camera. Does that mean that the waterfall really looked like that? Of course not. It's just a fact that whether you choose to do all your work straight out of the camera, or you choose to post process neither guarantees that what you see in the photo is what you actually saw when you were there. In fact, I would argue that post processing is necessary in many cases in order for the photo to reflect what was actually there.

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?

I'm not sure what good it will do to express my opinion here, as after 8 pages probably most aren't reading. And those who are proponents of "do anything you want" simply poo-poo my attitude anyway. But here goes.

I shoot reality. I want my pictures to reflect as closely as possible what actually was there. I want people who go to the spot where I shot that scene to see as closely as possible what they saw in my picture. I realize there are problems with that attitude. There's trash on the scene. There's a cable or a wire that interrupts the view. No, I'm not opposed to cleaning up the trash. And I do take out an occasional wire or cable. But I won't change the colour of a bird or oversaturate it to make it "more beautiful." I won't add anything to the scene that wasn't there. I did move an element some years back, but when I posted it I noted that it had been moved. And I did not call the resulting image a photograph. These are my ethics, not necessarily the same as those of anyone else. When things are manipulated beyond reality (changing colours, moving elements, adding elements, etc.) I think it might be a really nice image. But I can no longer call it a photograph. It now becomes digital art, which is fine - just not what I do.

And it's OK for me to be that way. Contrary to what those who PP to death their images might say, it's OK to deal in reality. And I think they should state that they have changed reality so that I, when looking at their image, don't think that it is reality. If it's a composite, let me know that.

Since I'm on my soapbox right now, I'll talk about something else. So many people point to Ansel Adams claiming he manipulated his pictures. So what? I really don't care what he did. He's not a god that made up all the rules of photography. He was a man that did pretty well within his own sense of right. The fact that I disagree with it doesn't make me wrong - just different.

OK, now you can laugh and deride me all you want. I'll stay true to me and what I believe is correct.

This conversation continues to expand way beyond anything I envisioned or can understand.

My original question, many pages ago, was essentially, “should a photographer, who posts or publishes a terrific photo of a very blue tri-color heron in flight, note that it was pp to make it more blue?”

When I first saw it, it did not cross my mind that it was pp. I thought what an excellent and unique capture it was.


Maybe I should just assume that all posted photos have been pp by the photographer. (I am not taking about what camera pre and post processing.)

I have not had the pleasure of seeing Niagara, but i would love to see you freeze the action of Niagara at night when it is under lights. Sometimes there is just no choice other than to use a slow shutter speed, while sometimes it is an artistic choice.

I could care less if you believe in sooc or not. I could care less if someone post processes or not, but to try to argue that sooc reflects reality while post processed does not is a ridiculous argument as I previously pointed out.

It is very easy to manipulate an image in camera, while it takes skill to manipulate it in post processing. That's the only difference.