Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

This relates back to a previous thread and also to my way of thinking. I have always thought of PP as fine tuning a photograph, but now I am beginning to question that definition.

Should a distinction be made between photographic creativity and PP software creativity?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Only for nit pickers.
How many pieces can we divide the process into?

(lightly, moderately, heavy PP.......)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Go ahead and make that distinction if you want. Personally I don't care how others choose to define post processing. True creativity usually operates best without restrictions (or labels).

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not really. Other than paid commercial work, when you fine tune an image you are using your creative intent to do so, along with the tools available in software. The creative process starts when you previsualize the image and ends when you hand over a print or post it somewhere. Then there can be, and often are, versions that explore creative alternatives. As far as the question of how much post processing - no one cares about the process (other than photographers) - buyers, clients etc only care about the result. They are not concerned with whether the image was a jpeg out of camera or one that took 3 hours of post processing. If it looks good, they'll be happy and you will get paid. In common practice there are very very few images that are absolutely without fault - aka - PERFECT - straight out of the camera. This has been true since the days of wet plates and daguerreotypes. Photographers have always been self-critical and constantly looking for ways to improve images - for themselves or their clients/patrons. Those that are absolutely convinced that a perfect image can be reliably obtained out of a camera are probably not earning a living or even using photography as a side hustle.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I view <resultant> images solely on their own merit, regardless of how they were taken or processed.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Funny, but my first thought was "pixel peeping."

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Good point Longshadow.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It's good that you're questioning that definition. It all comes down to decisions (which some would argue makes it a creative process).

What you consider to be enhancements is a matter of choice, where your choices are influenced by your intentions. Going deeper into it, your intentions are influenced by your vision of what you want to achieve.

How far you want to depart from a realistic look is also a matter of choice. How well you can achieve your intentions (and therefore your vision) is a matter of skill.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I wasn’t talking about definition, but use.

I agree with what you say about restrictions and labels.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Thank you Gene, you given me a lot to consider.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I don’t even know exactly what pixel peeping is or how to do it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Yes. Thank you R.G.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...In common practice there are very very few images that are absolutely without fault - aka - PERFECT - straight out of the camera..." Gene the MRI scans of my Lumbar and Cervical Spine where PERFECT on the initial capture. Why? Because I was absolutely too terrified to move for fear of being stuck in that catastrophic tube for another 45 minute retake... lol

So I guess here much depends on the technology involved, the skill of the Radiology Technician and the Ultimate end user of the imagery (here my Neurologist) in this scenario.

That said you've probably not done much "Testing" with agency "New Faces" Gene...
Here if you retouch anything you'll likely never be allowed to "Test" for that agency ever again...
Or "Test" with any other agency in your market. It's a very small tight community, word travels quickly.

What's an agency looking for in "Testing" with New Faces?
https://www.dnamodels.com/div/women-development/
Here DNA calls New Faces it's "Development" Board

And yes there may be a "Token" VOGUE Cover or two latent within. But virtually ZERO retouching...
Those images are also pretty much devoid of hair and makeup styling.

Below is a Client Deliverable verses the same model one year later as an "Agency" Test.
Hope this makes sense, or is at least food for thought Gene.

"Client Deliverable" with Hair Styling; Makeup Artistry and Retouching

(Download)

Agency "Test" with same Talent one year later a.k.a. sans Hair Styling; Makeup artistry and no retouching

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I didn't do agency work - I avoided it - so I haven't done any "Testing" or radiology - but I was mostly speaking to creative/artistic stuff that many on this forum do.

And then there is this from 2012:

https://fashionista.com/2012/07/anonymous-retoucher-says-100-percent-of-fashion-images-have-been-altered-calls-beauty-ads-the-biggest-lie-of-all

And this from 2017:

https://stellar.ie/trending/awks-vogue-made-a-massive-gigi-hadid-photoshop-fail-on-its-new-cover/43503

So maybe vogue has had a bit of controversy in the past with stars and important people being photoshopped in a less than flattering way, and the creative directors were inexperienced and let bad stuff happen. My experience was that everything was photoshopped. But I never worked for vogue.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States