Once more on Digital Photography (Page 3): In this matter of imagery, we maybe should stick to describing instead prescribing. As a rule, though, the field of photography offers plenty...

anotherview Loc: California

In this matter of imagery, we maybe should stick to describing instead prescribing. As a rule, though, the field of photography offers plenty of latitude for individuals to express their vision or intention.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Bridges wrote:

.....ethically there is a limit to what can be done in processing and still retain the truth which is to be preserved. That line should NOT be crossed in Photojournalism.....

I would say that's the most valid point being made.

However, most amateurs are practicing what may best be described as casual photography, which is another world entirely from photojournalism. To my mind it would be a mistake to think that the same morals and ethics that are valid in photojournalism should be applied universally. If an amateur (i.e. a casual photographer) wants to pass off some fake imagery (photoshopped and not reality) as real, the ethical and moral implications are not the same as when a photojournalist does the same thing.

While an amateur trying to fake something is open to justifiable criticism, it's not a reflection on the practice of post processing as a whole. Most people practicing post processing aren't doing it with the intention to deceive. The fact that PP can be used to deceive doesn't mean that all PP is morally questionable. But yet we get people holding to the belief that an SOOC image is somehow more ethical than a post processed image. Hopefully that kind of thinking will go the way of the dinosaur.

delder Loc: Maryland

I have posted here [UHH] before that I feel Photography is a CONTINUUM ranging from WISWIG Technical/Press photography to works of art.

My personal experience was shooting a lot of Tri-X for available light photography.
Even then, we had darkroom tools like dodging and spotting to help the finished work.
We could tilt the easel to reduce keystoneing.
There was an entire industry of colorizing B/W photos offered even at many Department Stores.

We now have Watercolor digital effects, which produce very interesting artwork even from problematic shots.

Photographers have ALWAYS had "Tools of the Trade", and the finished image will lie somewhere on the Continuum from an exact representation of the scene to a work of art.

leftj Loc: Texas

delder wrote:

I have posted here UHH before that I feel Photog... (show quote)

Wow! You all are so serious!

Bill_de Loc: US

larryepage wrote:

I'm a scientist with friends who are artists. We've had this discussion. We decided that what you've written is incorrect, but can be salvaged by turning the equality sign on its end. If instead of saying "science equals art" you instead say "science parallels art," we can agree with you.

Well, if you and your friends decided it, it must be true.

However, I was quoting somebody and I'm not sure if you included them in your discussion.

Wasn't there a game, "FUN WITH WORDS"?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/03/16/why-art-and-science-are-more-closely-related-than-you-think/?sh=7ac4dcb69f1f

---

nathanweddings

Your camera, your eye, your choice. If the image gives pleasure or wonder, mission accomplished.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Bill_de wrote:

Well, if you and your friends decided it, it must be true.

However, I was quoting somebody and I'm not sure if you included them in your discussion.

Wasn't there a game, "FUN WITH WORDS"?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/03/16/why-art-and-science-are-more-closely-related-than-you-think/?sh=7ac4dcb69f1f

---

I realize that you were offering a quote. Our discussion was actually several months ago. Science works to find one real truth (at least the one best understandable within the frame of knowledge available at the time). Art can take several different legitimate paths. So they cannot be equivalent or equal.

Nickaroo

CHG_CANON wrote:

A great photographer masters PhotoShop.

I'am actually starting to believe this statement. Everything else is computational so why not Photography?

franburst

If the photo needs more work than I can do in Lightroom, I don't use it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Nickaroo wrote:

I'am actually starting to believe this statement. Everything else is computational so why not Photography?

Anybody who wants to have something more than snapshots should try to master some sort of photo editor. Their main function is to optimise photos. It would be unrealistic, even for a highly experienced photographer, to expect every SOOC image to be as good as it could be.

Nickaroo

R.G. wrote:

Anybody who wants to have something more than snapshots should try to master some sort of photo editor. Their main function is to optimise photos. It would be unrealistic, even for a highly experienced photographer, to expect every SOOC image to be as good as it could be.

I truly agree with you as Post-Processing has always been a tool of a Creative. I have nothing against someone who uses the Adobe Creative Cloud, I use it also. The point that I tried to make is some people rely on PS-LRC as a crutch instead of being a way to take a RAW File and convert it to a Finished product. I do not expect a Photographer to take Portraits from Camera and not do some re-touching. I was merely pointing out that some go a little overboard and have settled for "I will just take care of it in Post". I know that if it was not for Adobe or some other editor, I would be in trouble. Please do not think that I do not believe in PP. I do appreciate your comments on UHH as you have generally been of a great asset here. Thank You and Keep Up the Great Work.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

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

User ID

franburst wrote:

If the photo needs more work than I can do in Lightroom, I don't use it.

For a photo shot with my phone I use only the built-in editing abilities of my phone. If that doesnt suffice, I delete it.

If it was shot with a camera, I edit with my PC. If that doesnt suffice, I delete it.

In either case its usually a "flawless" photo. But if I cant take it to the level I desire in PP, then its uselss to me.

User ID

CHG_CANON wrote:

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

SOOCers care. IOW, nobody that matters.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Nickaroo wrote:

...I do appreciate your comments on UHH....

Thanks. You are right that PP is used by some as a crutch (and it shouldn't be), but there are others who use that fact to justify their non-involvement in PP other than the most basic tweaking.