Ethics of postprocessing
Sep 21, 2021 20:15:09 #
KindaSpikey wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that their camera does not perform some amount of "post processing" before you even look at the screen?
Its amazing how many people on this site still do not realize that and think that the jpeg portrays the actual scene.
Sep 21, 2021 22:14:49 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The intent was to generate discussion. The thread ... (show quote)
I really DO mean it when when I thank you for entertainment, and there’s no anger in my pointing out that you can’t express any dismay about all “right vs wrong” postings when you (carelessly ?) used the word “ethics” in the thread title. Ethics is about questions of right and wrong. Just how it goes. Great thread.
Sep 21, 2021 22:23:38 #
fantom wrote:
Its amazing how many people on this site still do not realize that and think that the jpeg portrays the actual scene.
“Amazing” ?!? While I do share your sentiment, I’m no longer amazed.
Great personal pride in a stubborn ignorance is the coin of the realm :-(
.
Sep 21, 2021 22:57:57 #
Has anyone else here spotted the "troll", or is it just me?
Sep 22, 2021 00:31:30 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I don't shoot what it looks like. I process it until it looks like I want.
My position completely. The funny thing is I rarely hear people berating the work of Ansel Adams which was heavily "Post Processed", in the darkroom.
Sep 22, 2021 00:38:39 #
User ID wrote:
“Amazing” ?!? While I do share your sentiment, I’m no longer amazed.
Great personal pride in a stubborn ignorance is the coin of the realm :-(
.
Great personal pride in a stubborn ignorance is the coin of the realm :-(
.
And some people are incredibly wealthy.
Sep 22, 2021 00:42:42 #
Was Ansel Adams actually a diety, or just a pretty good photographer for his time? (watch this one take off)!
Sep 22, 2021 08:17:48 #
Delderby wrote:
That may be so with YOUR camera. Mine is adjusted to produce something very close to reality.
So you adjust your camera to take a different picture than the camera would take on Auto mode?
That's no different than continuing to make adjustments in post.
The second you take your camera off auto mode, you're changing the "reality" of what your "camera" is seeing.
One method uses the camera computer to make things better (or worse), one method uses the desktop computer to make things better (or worse.) Both are ethical and both are used by most everyone that knows how make adjustments past setting the camera on auto.
Further, if I take a pic of my girlfriend and she has a hunk of spinach on her teeth, I can have it removed before taking the picture, or I can remove it after taking the picture. Either way, "reality" is being altered, and my world will be the better for it...
Sep 22, 2021 08:21:44 #
fantom wrote:
Its amazing how many people on this site still do not realize that and think that the jpeg portrays the actual scene.
Both the JPG and the RAW DO portray the actual scene - WB, Tone, DOF and Focus are secondary considerations and are subject to adjustment. SOOC is about non-manipulation, which is so easily possible with both JPG and RAW.
So please do not confuse SOOC with JPG or RAW.
I used to be so sure about the merits of SOOC - but no longer - I have been taking on board what others feel, and am now sitting on the fence.
Sep 22, 2021 09:24:57 #
Delderby wrote:
Both the JPG and the RAW DO portray the actual scene - WB, Tone, DOF and Focus are secondary considerations and are subject to adjustment. SOOC is about non-manipulation, which is so easily possible with both JPG and RAW.
So please do not confuse SOOC with JPG or RAW.
I used to be so sure about the merits of SOOC - but no longer - I have been taking on board what others feel, and am now sitting on the fence.
So please do not confuse SOOC with JPG or RAW.
I used to be so sure about the merits of SOOC - but no longer - I have been taking on board what others feel, and am now sitting on the fence.
That sounds like a different interpretation of SOOC than I have been led to understand. You seem to be saying that adjustments are OK in SOOC but manipulation is not. I'm assuming that by manipulation you mean adding or subtracting major elements of the image (maybe not spinach in teeth). I have been led to believe that most people view SOOC as no post processing at all (after the shutter release or maybe after download from the card).
Also, DOF and Focus are major considerations. It's really tough to improve focus in post. DOF can be reduced, but otherwise has the same limitations as Focus.
Sep 22, 2021 09:43:28 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
That sounds like a different interpretation of SOO... (show quote)
I think that there have been quite a few different interpretations of SOOC. I guess that with continued development of both hardware and software there can no longer be hard and fast rules. Perhaps the subject should be put to bed.
Sep 22, 2021 10:14:30 #
Sixteen pages and still going. I didn't read all sixteen pages of comments but did anyone happen to mention that post-processing is half the fun of photography. You do have to take the time to learn a few things. For some, that may be the sticking point.
Sep 22, 2021 10:24:55 #
Lucian
Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio
quixdraw wrote:
Reality is what happened and to an extent, what the lens captured. Wish fulfillment was your repair of what you subjectively evaluated as a flawed scene.
Reality is most definitely NOT what the lens captured, how could you say that? Reality is what is was like there at that point in time. If you had a crap point and shoot camera and I had the latest thing on the market that cost $50,000 and mine was great at sharpness and low noise and colour saturation and the balancing of light and dark, ver close to what the eye can do (because no one has a camera yet, that is as good as the human eye) and your camera produced a darker, somewhat blurred image with a lot of noise.
Whose camera produced the closest to reality then, between yours and mine?
Sep 22, 2021 10:27:43 #
Lucian
Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio
Post processing was always done in the old days. That's what people did in the dark room, from push or pull in the processing of the film to lightening or darkening a print or dodging and burning areas of a print. There was also retouching of the negative and add to that the colouring of old B&W prints, before colour was invented. Today we just have many more options.
Sep 22, 2021 10:44:18 #
Lucian wrote:
Reality is most definitely NOT what the lens captu... (show quote)
Straw man! Reality is always a moment, in this case, captured by a device, a camera that doesn't have a bias or "viewpoint". Your concentration on cost of the camera suggests an overemphasis on equipment. Whichever camera a photo enthusiast is using, enthusiasts don't have and use junk, given skill, will get as good a picture as is needed for most things. No camera as good as the human eye? Silly. During WWII they were already using spy cameras to gather intelligence from planes, things people couldn't see. During the cold war they were reading messages written on dusty car roofs. Check out Google Earth.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.