Ethics of postprocessing
Sep 21, 2021 07:23:54 #
Canisdirus wrote:
Let's just flip it a bit.
Photographers who don't PP...are just lazy.
Photographers who don't PP...are just lazy.
Self evidently obvious.
Sep 21, 2021 07:26:23 #
User ID wrote:
Clearly both.
If they're both "reality" why do they look so different?
Or are you saying that there are two (and maybe more) realities: one at 1/2000 sec. and another at 1/2 second?
And if that's the case, how about a third reality -- one where you shove the "vibrance" slider all the way to the right in Lightroom?
Sep 21, 2021 07:28:06 #
Meadwilliam wrote:
You mean consequence. Artifacts are not naturally occurring.
It would be both. There are no naturally occurring photographs.
Sep 21, 2021 07:29:24 #
Sep 21, 2021 07:33:31 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
I’m sticking with misguided. He stated that any post processing is a divergence from reality. That is misguided and shows that he knows very little about what goes on within the camera or in post processing. I’m fine with whatever he wants to do but to say that anything not SOOC is farther from reality than that camera generated JPEG is flat wrong.
Can’t be flat wrong, cuz it’s roundly erroneous :-)
Sep 21, 2021 08:36:08 #
When I started this thread my intent was to generate discussion on postprocessing, since there are two main camps: for and against (with a lot of sub-branches).
It was not my intent to label people in either camp as wrong. I don't believe that is warranted nor effective. I'm all for people stating their opinion on the subject but what I would like to see is reasons why you hold the opinion you do.
Many of the responses above are centered on reality. "Reality" is often presented as the reason for one view or the other on the subject. Reality is subjective. Everyone sees it differently. If our eyes and brain cannot fully grasp reality, what chance does the camera have? On the same basis, what chance does postprocessing have?
I am not a commercial photographer. I have only sold one set of photographs in my recollection (a real estate set for a friend). My main purposes for taking photographs are: (1) documentation; (2) enjoyment. Documentation covers a lot of things, like showing the condition or state of something at a given time, making a photographic copy of something that I want to preserve or distribute, recording scenes that I would like to remember in the future (scenery or family). Enjoyment includes taking photos of things I like the look of, or things that I can use as a challenge to process to meet my recollection of something, or things that I can transmogrify to make a joke. When I try to edit my photos, reality is what my memory says it is.
It was not my intent to label people in either camp as wrong. I don't believe that is warranted nor effective. I'm all for people stating their opinion on the subject but what I would like to see is reasons why you hold the opinion you do.
Many of the responses above are centered on reality. "Reality" is often presented as the reason for one view or the other on the subject. Reality is subjective. Everyone sees it differently. If our eyes and brain cannot fully grasp reality, what chance does the camera have? On the same basis, what chance does postprocessing have?
I am not a commercial photographer. I have only sold one set of photographs in my recollection (a real estate set for a friend). My main purposes for taking photographs are: (1) documentation; (2) enjoyment. Documentation covers a lot of things, like showing the condition or state of something at a given time, making a photographic copy of something that I want to preserve or distribute, recording scenes that I would like to remember in the future (scenery or family). Enjoyment includes taking photos of things I like the look of, or things that I can use as a challenge to process to meet my recollection of something, or things that I can transmogrify to make a joke. When I try to edit my photos, reality is what my memory says it is.
Sep 21, 2021 08:52:33 #
It's called Freedom of Choice! 
Until there is a Police Department of Photo Processing, we can do what we want. I wonder if Adobe is trying to find a way to claim ownership of our photos. It already owns the software we are renting, so shouldn't the resulting images belong to them?
Until there is a Police Department of Photo Processing, we can do what we want. I wonder if Adobe is trying to find a way to claim ownership of our photos. It already owns the software we are renting, so shouldn't the resulting images belong to them?
Sep 21, 2021 09:26:59 #
quixdraw wrote:
Whatever, they are your photos / ethos not mine, your reality (and memory!) as well. Have at it, but don't expect me to agree with your premise!
Why is this so important to you? Just curious.
Sep 21, 2021 09:50:30 #
Sep 21, 2021 09:51:36 #
DAN Phillips wrote:
And if B. S . was pennies we'd all be billionaires.
”Who’s *we*, white boy ?”
Sep 21, 2021 09:53:12 #
Sep 21, 2021 09:53:50 #
Dave MWC wrote:
I believe in minimalist post processing. I shoot mostly wildlife and would never doctor a photo to make it more outstanding, put the time in and produce "honest" results.
ROTFLMFAO
Sep 21, 2021 09:56:21 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/can-of-worms-vector-id165635287?k=6&m=165635287&s=612x612&w=0&h=fsyAVv2PLHcX9ZPe1EHrfFVT2t97nwcCven9ACsDOUY=
This photo could be greatly improved with just a simple Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer and setting the blend mode to say Hard Light!
Sep 21, 2021 10:01:44 #
StevenG
Loc: Long Island, NY
DirtFarmer wrote:
There are 10 groups of people in the world. Those ... (show quote)
In my opinion, photography is an art. Those who shoot RAW will always use some amount of post processing to enhance the RAW image. That’s expected. Some of us use more post processing to to create the image we envisioned when we took the photo. It’s still a photo and, in my opinion, still art. I do not view photos that are “straight out of the camera” as a badge of honor. What is important to me is having the photo appear as I want it to. The only exception would be photojournalism. And even in that case, if taken in RAW, some minor adjustments will be necessary.
Sep 21, 2021 10:09:37 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Although it is great that you can fix mistakes with processing, the best use of it is to enhance images which are as good as they could be from the camera.
No argument ! I compared it to fixing a leaky roof, simply cuz “schidt happens” so you fix whatever needs fixing.
Well crafted roofs can still suffer a “schidt happens” event. Skilled photographers are frequently faced with a shot that can’t be at its best without skilled PP. That is the photo version “schidt happens”. And it happens all the time.
Lacking the skills and tools to perform routine PP is the mark of a common low level snap shooter, not of a skilled and properly equipt practitioner.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.