Ethics of postprocessing (Page 3): Dam', they've got you convinced! I will live till I die, life isn't and has never been safe. Heck of a lot better to have fun. Every time someone...

Quixdraw Loc: x

Thomas902 wrote:

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

Dam', they've got you convinced! I will live till I die, life isn't and has never been safe. Heck of a lot better to have fun. Every time someone says Stay Safe, I just want to barf.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Every successful photographer is driven by an inner voice telling them everyone else is using PhotoShop.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

Paul, not so. I have never used a post processing program and don't intend to. I see no reason for it. If me and the camera can't do what we are supposed, so be it and try again. I admire yuor work and location , but I do not need or want Post Processing. It takes the reality from the the photograph.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

If you're happy with what you do and others are happy with what they do, then isn't it a great place to be in?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The camera is just a sketchbook, to be finished later in PhotoShop.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

mwsilvers wrote:

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.

You nailed it!!!!!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

mwsilvers wrote:

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.

Also - and this has been done many times - the professor with a class of 50 students has arranged for someone to break into his classroom and hold him up at gunpoint. After the "robber" has left, the students are asked for his description; this results in at least 51 different descriptions - red hair, black hair, brown hair; T-shirt, blue sweater; etc. - where, especially in a stressful situation, what is "seen" by each individual is a result of the filter in their head (the result of prior stressful experiences).

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

alphonso49uk

Ive had enough reality over the past 18 months to last a lifetime

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

What are the 10 groups? You only described 2.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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)

I am in the Ansel Adams group, what happens in the darkroom STAYS in the darkroom.

jburlinson Loc: Austin, TX

quixdraw wrote:

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

What about when a person takes two photos of a waterfall into a stream. Lots of flowing water. The first shot is with a 1/2000 shutter speed, the next one is with a 1/2 shutter speed. Which is the reality?

Nddave01 Loc: Bismarck, ND

CHG_CANON wrote:

A camera sees the world differently than the human eye, so who cares what the camera saw?

Not only does the human eye see differently than the camera the human brain does its own processing of the information to make it useful.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jburlinson wrote:

What about when a person takes two photos of a waterfall into a stream. Lots of flowing water. The first shot is with a 1/2000 shutter speed, the next one is with a 1/2 shutter speed. Which is the reality?

BOTH why?

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

My eyes have a better representation on reality than a camera lens.

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

I agree. My sister is a professional photographer, mainly portraits, weddings, engagements, high school year books etc. She spends a lot of time post processing and I honestly don't think the majority of her customers realize or mind that she did. They are pretty much always thrilled with the results, and that's what really matters. On those special occasions who wants to see themselves with "bad hair", stained clothing, an unfortunate "zit", or as pointed out, less than perfect lighting? Sometimes staying true to the original has its place, but in this day and age, post processing software is as much of a tool as the camera itself. Have a great day and keep shooting.