Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I was pretty confident that he would.

Mike

User ID

I can see your point but in another way find
it pointless. I can see your wanting to know,
but one can usually see for oneself if really
"extensive" PP is involved.

It's a question of what's "extensive". Image
files are like film negatives, in that they are
initial output. Like negatives, digital initial
output may be unready for viewing/display.

In the examples below, 1st image is SOOC
lit by a mix of neon signs and sodium street
lamps. Given the difficult contrast level of a
night scene it was intentionally shot at very
low contrast, to record as much tonal scale
as possible. The SOOC is clearly NOT ready
for viewing/display.

2nd image was a whole lotta work ... really
fits that word "extensive" ... but all of the
work is just routine to get a normal looking
finished image from a challenging mess of
contrast and WB in the live subject scene.

So, would you prefer I tag the final result
as having "extensive PP" ? What iF I'd used
a future camera, a 2025 model, that could
manage all that work in-camera ? Should I
tag that SOOC image as "Sony a9 Mark VII
enabled" cuz the camera did what no other
camera can do ?

IMNSHO tagging the 2nd pic as "extensively
PP'ed" would just be a form of bragging my
ability to make silk purses from sows' ears.
The work involved is simply normal ... until
2025, when I can use a "Sony a9 Mark VII".


IMNSHO if the finished image "looks normal"
then any PP involved is not "extensive" even
if it was a whole lotta work. If the finished
image looks abnormal, then PP is above and
beyond normal ... yet it may have been very
quick and easy to accomplish. So, if it's that
easy, is it "extensive" ? Even tho the image
looks quite "worked over" ? Check out the
3rd and 4th images below. 3rd pic is SOOC.
4th pic is an extreeeemely quick and easy
bit of fun, but the appearance really reeks
of "extensive" PP. If it's that easy, is it still
"extensive" ? And if the rendering is so very
obviously abnormal, do YOU really NEED for
ME to tag it as extensively manipulated ?

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

I don’t “need” you to do anything differently. Nor can I provide an operational definition of “extensive.” I could have used other terms, e.g., major, significant, substantial, critical. But here are some examples of what I would like to know when I view another’s images: Does this image include any elements transported from another photograph? Was that wildlife photographed in the wild or in a captive situation, i.e., were images of fencing or barriers removed? Was the sky totally clear and blue as shown or were clouds removed from the original? Could you see in the scene everything that is viewable in your image, or vice versa? These are only illustrative. I am only speaking for myself, and I do not go around asking demanding questions of photographers about their images. But I do appreciate photographers who provide information about any important post manipulation involved in creating their image. Frank

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I’ve gotta tell you Frank, in my mind, this is a bit over the top. 🙂 I mean, I certainly wouldn’t refuse to answer questions you might have about one of my images (at least up to the point where it became so annoying I considered you were a complete horse’s patoot), but expecting (or even desiring) photographers to reveal this amount of information up front is unrealistic. I can see it in a case where we are sitting down over coffee and discussing a particular image and you are interested in knowing more about how it was created, but in other contexts (art festivals, gallery shows, etc.) providing the public with that type of detail unsolicited is pretty much impossible. Heck, I have images that would require a few pages of notes to explain how the image was manipulated! I would never be intentionally deceptive, but I also feel no obligation to present my images with explanations of whether I cloned out a cloud, or beer can, etc. etc. etc. 😁

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

Jim, you have the right to practice photography as you do. My intent was not to judge, but simply to express what
I like to know about an image. Frank

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

If the image looked normal (not surreal) I wouldn't ask nor care. The image would stand on its own merit.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I have to agree with this. There was a film made not long ago with some of the most incredible footage of rare and endangered animals, presumably wild and seemingly in natural surroundings behaving as they would in the wild. I wonder how many viewers realized that those animals were bred and trained for the film, and that all of the footage was carefully staged? I have a big problem with that.

Mike

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

I think we are on the same page on this.
Frank

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Understood. I didn’t take your comments as being judgmental. 👍

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I agree. That seems intentionally deceptive.

User ID

Now I hear you and it makes good sense.

Summarizing all those things you'd like
revealed if they are involved, you are just
asking if the scene shows reality :-)

No question of how much processing may
have been needed to deliver the image to
our eye, but just whether the image is of
reality as it existed at the time the scene
was originally recorded.

Again, I'd agree thaz very reasonable, not
it will see 100% compliance, but it seems
a fairly reasonable courtesy to ask for.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Sorry - i will rephrase.
You mention "extensive PP". Could you please explain what you consider to be extensive PP?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you have to tell a story on why it's a keeper, it's likely not a keeper ...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

A keeper is a keeper before it gets to PP. It might not be afterwards. That's why "non-destructive " has importance.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

"What a terrible picture!"

"Well, it's the only photo I have of my dear departed mother."