Disclosure of editing when posting pictures (Page 12): Besides processing slides when duplicating they can be printed, and you can burn and dodge just like with B&W (except you burn to...

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

burkphoto wrote:

"Straight out of the camera," in digital photography, means a JPEG processed using the camera's current menu settings, OR it means an unprocessed raw file with a camera-processed JPEG preview. The JPEG is somewhat equivalent to a processed slide, while the raw file is somewhat equivalent to an *unprocessed* sheet of film with the camera's processing instructions embedded in the EXIF and sampled in the preview. But you can process and reprocess the raw file to some sort of bitmap (TIFF, JPEG, etc.), as many times as you like, without ever changing the original raw file itself.

A post-processed image is one that has been adjusted OR developed outside the camera, in a software application. JPEGs can be adjusted, but raw files are developed. Raw file development allows adjustment after development with an order of magnitude more adjustment range than you would have with a JPEG.

SOOC sort of meant something when we used slide films. What you saw was a piece of film that came from the camera, got processed in a standard set of chemicals like E6 or K14, and then mounted in a cardboard (or plastic, or glass and plastic, or metal and glass) mount. There was processing, but no POST processing in most cases. (Those of us with slide duplicators could do some post processing, however! I did LOTS of it in the 1980s.)

In reality, photography is one long process that starts well before the moment of exposure and includes everything that happens up to the point of displaying the image as a print or as a view of a monitor or projection screen.

Setting up false narratives about whether or not something was processed is silly. IT IS ALL PROCESSED. It's sensible to talk about how it was processed, but using "SOOC" as some sort of measure of "image purity" or "image virginity" or "photographic worthiness" is total BS. My "SOOC JPEG" will be quite different from what comes from your camera, and vice-versa. And that's okay! The point is to get our points across.

Did I move you? Evoke a feeling? Remind you of the past? Jog a memory? Teach you something? Document history? Prove a point? Tell a story? Decorate a wall with a nice scene? THAT's what matters.

"Straight out of the camera," in digital... (show quote)

Besides processing slides when duplicating they can be printed, and you can burn and dodge just like with B&W (except you burn to lighten and dodge to darken).

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I personally always disclose if I have modified the image, because a photograph is generally presumed (in my world) to be an accurate representation of reality unless stated otherwise, in which case I look at it differently. We are mostly all on board about disclosing if an image is AI generated, so why not disclose if major modifications are made to an image that appears to be a photograph? Otherwise, I consider it "cheating".

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

When I was an undergraduate college student {a long, long time ago}, when a person showed slides of trains {the only way to show them to a group back then}, he was asked to use only original slides - the only way the organizers had of ‘guaranteeing’ that they were ‘for real’. We had one when I was a sophomore, and the guy showed a steam locomotive put to work because of Mississippi flooding {the engines in a diesel would have failed because of the water}.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

sippyjug104 wrote:

Does a woman disclose when she applies makeup to enhance how she looks? Does her applying makeup provide her with a good feeling? Does a person that cheats on their tax form disclose that they did so?

A women doesn't have to disclose how she's enhanced her looks but I'm sure there is many a guy who woke up the morning after and wondered "what the hell did I do?"

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

burkphoto wrote:

"Straight out of the camera," in digital photography, means a JPEG processed using the camera's current menu settings, OR it means an unprocessed raw file with a camera-processed JPEG preview. The JPEG is somewhat equivalent to a processed slide, while the raw file is somewhat equivalent to an *unprocessed* sheet of film with the camera's processing instructions embedded in the EXIF and sampled in the preview. But you can process and reprocess the raw file to some sort of bitmap (TIFF, JPEG, etc.), as many times as you like, without ever changing the original raw file itself.

A post-processed image is one that has been adjusted OR developed outside the camera, in a software application. JPEGs can be adjusted, but raw files are developed. Raw file development allows adjustment after development with an order of magnitude more adjustment range than you would have with a JPEG.

SOOC sort of meant something when we used slide films. What you saw was a piece of film that came from the camera, got processed in a standard set of chemicals like E6 or K14, and then mounted in a cardboard (or plastic, or glass and plastic, or metal and glass) mount. There was processing, but no POST processing in most cases. (Those of us with slide duplicators could do some post processing, however! I did LOTS of it in the 1980s.)

In reality, photography is one long process that starts well before the moment of exposure and includes everything that happens up to the point of displaying the image as a print or as a view of a monitor or projection screen.

Setting up false narratives about whether or not something was processed is silly. IT IS ALL PROCESSED. It's sensible to talk about how it was processed, but using "SOOC" as some sort of measure of "image purity" or "image virginity" or "photographic worthiness" is total BS. My "SOOC JPEG" will be quite different from what comes from your camera, and vice-versa. And that's okay! The point is to get our points across.

Did I move you? Evoke a feeling? Remind you of the past? Jog a memory? Teach you something? Document history? Prove a point? Tell a story? Decorate a wall with a nice scene? THAT's what matters.

"Straight out of the camera," in digital... (show quote)

IMO SOOC is a pic shot in camera, regardless of adjustments made via the camera's menu. This rules out image manipulation such as cloning. What I can do in camera I would also happily do in PP and still feel honest.
However, I do clone on occasion, so I'm not holier than any other Hog - I just accept there are levels of truth.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

[quote=imagemeister]If you make serious modifications (sky ect) then it is no longer a photograph but photography enhanced art - and labeled as such.

Well stated!!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

So you can lie with a photograph, just as you can do other lies other ways.
You have to ask yourself 'What are the consequences of this lie?'
If the consequences could be significant, you should disclose the lie.
If the lie is expected by society, there is no need to disclose the lie.
If the consequences are negligible, there is no need to disclose the lie.

The key is deciding what the consequences COULD be.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

DirtFarmer wrote:

So you can lie with a photograph, just as you can do other lies other ways.
You have to ask yourself 'What are the consequences of this lie?'
If the consequences could be significant, you should disclose the lie.
If the lie is expected by society, there is no need to disclose the lie.
If the consequences are negligible, there is no need to disclose the lie.

The key is deciding what the consequences COULD be.

This is kind of like saying that shoplifting is not stealing as long as its less than a $1000.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JohnSwanda wrote:

Besides processing slides when duplicating they can be printed, and you can burn and dodge just like with B&W (except you burn to lighten and dodge to darken).

That was possible with Cibachrome, Ektaflex, internegative films, and similar materials, but they’re not around now.

Once digitized as TIFF or raw, a slide image can be post processed and printed digitally with far more finesse than we had with optical means.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I try to prepare an "Artist's Statement" to accompany any photograph that I will be showing or sharing. It may be written, or I may just tell it. The only time I will include technical or process information is if I did something noteworthy...long expisure, stitched panorama, or something like that. It may be something done at the time of exposure or during processing or mounting. If I am showing the image to students, I may either tell more or ask them what they think I might have done.

Massive changes to original exposures fall outside my "style window."

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

burkphoto wrote:

Once digitized as TIFF or raw, a slide image can be post processed and printed digitally with far more finesse than we had with optical means.

Many years ago, I was in Virginia City, Nevada, and saw a building where “Mark Twain” had edited a newspaper. All I had with me then was a camera loaded with slide film. The scene was ‘ruined’ by a bunch of power cables entering the building, so I regretfully passed on taking a picture. I have never been back there, and regret not photographing the scene. Today I could, of course, “clone” them out of the scene - but I don’t think I would. They provide an excellent view of how much our world has changed since then.

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

kymarto wrote:

I personally always disclose if I have modified the image, because a photograph is generally presumed (in my world) to be an accurate representation of reality unless stated otherwise, in which case I look at it differently. We are mostly all on board about disclosing if an image is AI generated, so why not disclose if major modifications are made to an image that appears to be a photograph? Otherwise, I consider it "cheating".

Hello,

Would you consider a wide angel lens which will modify the sense of space between objects (not reality) etc.etc...and the various issues one would incur using such a lens?

epd1947

kymarto wrote:

I personally always disclose if I have modified the image, because a photograph is generally presumed (in my world) to be an accurate representation of reality unless stated otherwise, in which case I look at it differently. We are mostly all on board about disclosing if an image is AI generated, so why not disclose if major modifications are made to an image that appears to be a photograph? Otherwise, I consider it "cheating".

If you consider it “cheating” then don’t modify any of your images without including a complete and detailed “mea culpa” - no reason why anyone else needs to accept such a narrow set of limits. If a painter is depicting a street scene - under your definition - he or she would need to disclose the fact that they chose not to paint into the scene the garbage cans sitting at the curb that particular day as well as any clouds they might have added into the otherwise cloudless sky.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

CHG_CANON wrote:

What you should disclose is you're using the wrong... (show quote)

Can you repeat that in English

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Peterfiore wrote:

Hello,

Would you consider a wide angel lens which will modify the sense of space between objects (not reality) etc.etc...and the various issues one would incur using such a lens?

Several years ago, a man posted here a photo of an English village and asked how he could improve the photo. Of course, some people talked of cropping it, and ‘cloning’ out the limb between the camera and the shoppes. My thought was that he should have considered all that before taking the picture. If he had stepped forward and then pivoted to the right, he would have been past the ugly limb and gotten a better view of the shoppes.

Wide angle is sort of like that. It allows the photographer to put ‘trash’ {such as limbs and fence} behind him, out of the picture. It is hard to say anything bad about getting closer to the subject.