rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I also can’t measure what I see to that degree.

Grey Ghost

I believe that it is whatever you want it to be or intended it to be. Why do you even care how it is perceived by anyone other than you?

btbg

I know. Kodachrome was slide film. Cibachrome did a great job of printing from either kodachrome or fuji velvia.

Only shot slides except when shooting weddings or something like that. Still had a darkroom and printed images.

btbg

Some waterfalls have no power. They are just a trickle of water but long exposures can enhance them or may be necessary because of light conditions. If I was shooting the grand canyon of the Yellowstone I would probably freeze the waterfall but if I'm shooting Upper Proxy Falls which is a very small stairstep waterfall that can only be viewed in small pieces silky smooth is probably the way to go.

That's my point. Image manipulation happens sooc or no and we all make artistic choices

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

and I never see a waterfall as spun glass.
Even a “small stair step waterfall” looks powerful to me.

I have seen photos where Niagara was captured with a slow shutter speed. I still remember how our daughter {she was about 8 at the time} danced because of the power she felt.

btbg

I have not had the pleasure of seeing Niagara, but i would love to see you freeze the action of Niagara at night when it is under lights. Sometimes there is just no choice other than to use a slow shutter speed, while sometimes it is an artistic choice.

I could care less if you believe in sooc or not. I could care less if someone post processes or not, but to try to argue that sooc reflects reality while post processed does not is a ridiculous argument as I previously pointed out.

It is very easy to manipulate an image in camera, while it takes skill to manipulate it in post processing. That's the only difference.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My argument is mostly with people who present colors/saturation never seeable in nature, or adding a rubber duckie to a scene. That is where this discussion began.

btbg

Actually it didn't. It began with a person asking if everyone who post processed should disclose that when they posted a photo.

My argument with the sooc crowd has nothing to do with how you choose to do your photography. It has to do with claiming post processed is manipulated while sooc is not. That is a falsehood. That was the only reason I got involved in the discussion at all.

rbstrategist Loc: Cupertino, CA

Unless you are entering a photo contest or submitting evidence in a legal case, a photo is what you make it at the time of the shot or in post processing. I do believe that one should not lie about how a shot is made, but that is just me. No duty to disclose anything as long as you are honest. A beautiful shot is beautiful whether as it comes or recreated. At least that is how I feel.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The second and third paragraphs of the beginning comment were



He specifically talks about colors/saturation not seen in nature.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You have to talk about the camera applied post processing.

All digital photos require post processing as an integral part of their creation. If you are seeing a photo from a digital camera it has been post processed.

The post processing done by the camera software IS NOT engineered to make the photograph appear a faithful depiction of reality. Before a photographer even sees the camera processed image, software in the camera has processed the image to make it unfaithful to the reality seen by the photographer. It is in fact a marketing feature of the cameras. They don't market them telling you how true to life the images will be. This from Canon: "DIGIC also conducts post-processing to improve the quality and visual appearance of the straight out of the camera image.... Image processing is complete when the image is converted to JPEG (8-bit) and/or HEIF (10-bit), compressed, and written to the memory card. Now you know why your straight-out-of-camera JPEG or HEIF files look so much better than RAW files!"

It's true that some photographers PP images to make them less faithful to the reality they saw.

It's true that some photographers PP images to make them more faithful to the reality they saw.

When a photographer post processes a photo is it fair to assume their intent is to enhance the photo beyond the reality that was seen? NO!!! The opposite may be true. They may be PP the image because they find the distortions to reality applied by the camera processing are unacceptable.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

It may depend on the intentions of the artist. From his description, the PP is garish.

btbg

Not so. From his description he thought the photo was beautiful until he was told that it was post processed. If it was really garish he would have known it was post processed without being told. It might have been oversaturated, but probably no more than had it been taken as a jpeg with the camera set on vivid and the white balance adjusted to highlight the blues in the image.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

PP was not needed to get that look.
Pentax cameras are set to ‘vivid’ by the factory; my first step is to set them to ‘natural’. What would be accomplished by the PP then? Removing an ‘extra’ branch and inventing what had been covered??

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

He didn't think so; "A few days ago, I commented glowingly on a particular photo of a bird because I was struck by the intense and unique color of the bird which I had never seen before. I thought to myself how lucky and talented the photographer was to capture this unique bird."

Beside the point though, yes it depends on the intentions of the artist. A photographer may chose to PP because she intends her photos be faithful to the reality seen and she can do that in post much better than the limited software in the camera.