Hypothetical question - How much is too much?

[Liney]

Just musing over discussions and comments over a period of time, which I have thought about before, and the question is around post processing.

My personal opinion is that I would process an image until it looks as I saw it when I took it, an alternative opinion would be described as "I'll just tweak this a little more to make it better"

So where does everyone else stop? As a photographer do you feel it is better to accurately reproduce the real world, or as an artist does producing the perfect image justify tweaking reality?

I'm interested to get opinions

[Tannin]

I'm with you on this, Liney. But no two photographers entirely agree on this.

The way I look at it, photography is like literature. There are many subdivisions and genres, but the great divide from which all the smaller divisions follow is the one between fiction and non-fiction. You and I shoot non-fiction, we document what is. Yes, we select our scenes and shoot them to their best advantage, maybe sneak in a little tweak here and there, but fundamentally, we want to stick to the facts.

Fiction photographers, in contrast, want to make nice things, attract the eye, tell great stories. Some are entirely abstract, but most use a mixture of fact and fiction - exactly as (say) a historical novelist might go to a good deal of trouble with her background facts but invent her plot and characters.

The one thing I dislike in all of this is photographic fiction masquerading as fact.

[ameerat42]

...the question is around post processing.

...

So where does everyone else stop? As a photographer do you feel it is better to accurately reproduce the real world, or as an artist does producing the perfect image justify tweaking reality?

...

A to the first bit: Do what you need for the picture.

A to the 2nd part: There is no answer apart from "Do what you want for the picture you want."

(Or, that's me ;) )

[John King]

IMO, less is more, Liney.

If anyone can tell that I've edited the file, I've gone too far. I try pretty hard to capture what I ultimately want when the camera is at my eye.

As Tony said, this is all intensely personal.

[swifty]

How do we know what another photographer sees though?
Does that mean BW shots are almost always too much?
What about results that can’t really be seen with the naked eye? Take long exposures as an example.

[Tannin]

Swifty, good points.

1: we don't know, but we have a pretty good idea most of the time.

2: no, B&W is a different medium. All pictures extract portions of the visible world and leave other portions out. A colour print, for example, leaves out depth and motion (though it may suggest both). A B&W movie leaves out depth and colour, but includes line, form and motion. An etching has only line, no form or colour. And so on.

3: It all depends on the intent and the individual case. Some such pictures show what the eye could have seen if it had only been in the right place, or had enough magnification (most bird photographs, macro). Others just distort for the sake of aesthetic appeal (slow-mo waterfalls, most HDR stuff). Others again use PP to more accurately show what one really does see with the naked eye (subtle HDR to show a sunset and foreground scene, which the eye can see but the camera lacks the dynamic range to reproduce in a single exposure).

[John King]

Swifty, when I switch my Olympus E-M1 cameras into monochrome mode, that's what's displayed in the viewfinder. One of many benefits of electronic VFs. Of course, the raw file is full colour, but the JPEG will be monochrome.

[Jaded62]

IMHO..............

Are you doing art or history?

If you are recording history then it should be accurate as to what the scene was although this may require a lot of post processing to ensure everything that can be seen by the eye is seen.

If its art you have a licence to do what you want. I would say that most photographers are creating art so the amount of post processing is a personal choice.

[swifty]

Tannin:
1. I do agree for the majority of folks. But what I have come to realise is certain individuals, eg. photographers see the world a little differently concentrating on various aspects that eludes the average viewer. And from that perspective I can see how some photographers create a vision that they see which I may not.
2. Fair points. A different medium? Not sure but I have a feeling it comes down to semantics. All I can say is I don’t disagree with your points but I was throwing it out there as a point of discussion.
3. Again I agree and I feel it all comes down to intent. I think a point needs to be raised about whether one’s intent it to be factual or artistic. The artistic part has no bounds. The factual part is the more difficult one to define. Is HDR factual? Are deliberate blurring of motion factual?

John: that would be what the camera sensor sees, or at least a subset of it. To play devil’s advocate, this can be done on virtually any camera these days and we can even create profiles that most would consider over processed that we can see live before actuation. So does seeing it live before the exposure make it any more real?

- - - Updated - - -


IMHO..............

Are you doing art or history?

If you are recording history then it should be accurate as to what the scene was although this may require a lot of post processing to ensure everything that can be seen by the eye is seen.

If its art you have a licence to do what you want. I would say that most photographers are creating art so the amount of post processing is a personal choice.

If it’s history, are we bound by the biological limitations of the human eye/brain? Eg. There’s a range of motion that our eye/brain can process. Faster or much slower than this is beyond our ability to visualise. But is it still factual?
Our ability to improve signals by increasing exposures and eeking out what little signals are present but still being able to present a recognisable final image. Is that history or art?
Combining the various factors, let’s take star trails from hours long exposures as an example. This is obvious well beyond our human abilities to perceive but is it still factual and historical vs art?

[ameerat42]

...If anyone can tell that I've edited the file, I've gone too far...

If that anyone cannot see it then it's OK. - Hmm!

[Liney]

Well that is a very interesting set of responses, and some very good points made.

As far as sight is concerned, I look at something and it moves and the moment is gone. A photographic image takes that moment in time and immortalises it. If I take a longer exposure am I recording one moment or superimposing several moments on top of each other?

If I take a colour image and convert it to black and white, it could be classed as art. If I left it in colour it would be history.

Keep the opinions coming

[Brian500au]

I have to agree with Tanin on this. Every photo has some post processing - whether this is by the algorithm in the camera or manually externally afterwards.

My gripe is when fiction is presented as fact. I really don't mind removing clutter from a photograph, to me this is not always changing the fact. Not everybody sees everything in a scene / situation, and to emphasise the subject of the photograph is fair play. What I object to is the addition in a photograph - completely replacing the background, adding props, any addition that changes and "tricks" the audience. To me this is not a skilled photographer, this is a skilled graphic artist.

[jamesmartin]

There's no set rules, people can do what they like with there photography as long as they enjoy what there doing & there happy with the results then each to there own. Personally I like to get it roughly what it was like as I saw at the time I took it. I clone out things like road signs, power lines etc. I don't like to clone out anything major but a small twig/branch I will. Slow shutter speed with waterfalls etc but anyone viewing it will already know that the settings have been adjusted to gain it. Are mine perfect representations of what I saw probably not but I like to think there close to it. What I like to see is if people do any altering or major altering is when they post it online or display it somewhere is for them to explain/tell the people viewing it that it has been altered in whatever way. That way the person viewing it can either admire it or move one to the next one. There's no need to regard someone's work as wrong or any less skillfull just because there technique/result isn't to your liking (not that I'm saying anyone on here has!!). We all do it because we enjoy it & as long as everyone is honest with how they got there results then all's good

[bobt]

One of the joys of photography lies in the huge range of options it gives us, and we choose which path to tread. The only restriction lies in the rules surrounding your chosen genre. If it's in a competition, then you abide by those rules - but otherwise, the sky is the limit (preferably not blown out).

It is whatever you want it to be, and as with any creative outlet, you choose the extent to which it reflects reality. In that sense it differs little from any other form of artistic expression - if it feels good, do it!

[jim]

I tend to stop when I lose hope of getting it how I remember seeing it.

[Brian500au]

Unlike other forms of artistry where the outcome is an interpretation from the artists point of view, a photograph is a preplanned capture of a moment in time.

If three painters lined up on a bank next to each other and painted a scene, each one of them would be slightly different. Different interpretation of the same scene. If one had the sun at midday, the other had the moon, and one had a canoe in the lake then we would put this down to the artists skill - afterall it is a painting and never meant to represent a moment in time.

If three photographers lined up on a bank next to each other and took the same photograph at the same time of day, and when processed one had the sun, one had the moon and the other had a canoe - to me in this situation the photographer contributed a very minor part in this process (and yet of course he / she would get the credit as the photographer).

Take a few moments to look through instagram - there is a huge difference between a well thought out photograph and a graphic artists impression of a photograph. To me it is like comparing a crystal wine glass with a paper cup - yes they both hold water but only one was built by a craftsman.

[Gazza]

One of the joys of photography lies in the huge range of options it gives us, and we choose which path to tread. The only restriction lies in the rules surrounding your chosen genre. If it's in a competition, then you abide by those rules - but otherwise, the sky is the limit (preferably not blown out).

It is whatever you want it to be, and as with any creative outlet, you choose the extent to which it reflects reality. In that sense it differs little from any other form of artistic expression - if it feels good, do it!
Thanks very much, Bob.
You've managed to put many of my thoughts into words and far more eloquently and politely than I ever could.

[farmmax]

For me, it totally depends on the end use for the photo. Some photos I simply want as a record of a moment in time. Those photos just get basics in the processing - mainly sharpening. If the photo is for an entry in a Creative competition, then I'll go for it! It's much more fun photoshopping than taking photos :)

I do get upset when repairing old photos, if someone asks me to remove a bush, house, or alter a person's appearance. These old photos are a record of our history, and it seems like desecrating our past to manipulate them. You have to feel sorry for our future generations. They'll never know if a particular photo is a true record or not.

[Saph]

I maybe just starting out but i wont touch a photo with post processing i want to capture the moment in time as i see it and not through a altered version. As farmmax posted when repairing old photos and having someone edit something out, what photos we take is a record of that moment in time.

As a train person and having seen so far the resurfacing of 3 steam trains (norfolk and western j class 611, just 2 weeks ago union pacific brought back big boy 4014 for the first time in over 60 years and the mary valley rattler while not a big thing but special for me) i would not like those photo's taken tweaked to have them seem faked they should remain raw to preserve the occasions they showed at that time and date taken.

[jim]

I maybe just starting out but i wont touch a photo with post processing i want to capture the moment in time as i see it and not through a altered version. As farmmax posted when repairing old photos and having someone edit something out, what photos we take is a record of that moment in time.

As a train person and having seen so far the resurfacing of 3 steam trains (norfolk and western j class 611, just 2 weeks ago union pacific brought back big boy 4014 for the first time in over 60 years and the mary valley rattler while not a big thing but special for me) i would not like those photo's taken tweaked to have them seem faked they should remain raw to preserve the occasions they showed at that time and date taken.

Oh, now you've done it...

[Saph]

Oh, now you've done it...

Done what? given my way of seeing things how i feel they should be and followed the 30/50 rule because i didnt complain about services,people,organisations,products or businesses?

or the fact i dont personaly like post processing moments of history?

Edit: Remeber im here to learn not to be told off for something i didnt know about.

[jim]

I'm not telling you off, and hopefully nobody will.

[Saph]

I'm not telling you off, and hopefully nobody will.

Sorry just the way it came off over a screen seemed a bit like being told off for not knowing something.

[aussirose]

I do both. If I have taken a great photo just out of the camera then obviously I may only tweek it a bit. But sometimes I like to get creative. I was never a good artist but now I can say that I am because of my art creations of my photos. So too I am drawn to photos that are put up here that are heavily HDRd or grunged or made arty somehow.
And I love abstract photos produced by deliberately moving the camera or using lenses like lensbaby.
There's no limit to photography produced in an art form.
But then that's what makes us all different. We all have favourite photo genres we are attracted to.

[Geoff79]

Lots of variations in a reply to a question like this.

In a nutshell, I like to have my photos looking as close to what I saw, and all PP I do is in the quest to achieve this outcome, ironic as that may seem at times.

The problem with this is, because of my poor PP capabilities, the shots I process a lot often look like they’ve been processed a lot. If I had better PP skills, I’d only ever use them to get the photo closer to how I saw it.

As has been mentioned, though, there are just some photos you take with a camera that cannot capture what you and the camera are pointed at, as you see it. I have a personal love for land and seascape shots in beautiful light, around sunrise and those early hours. As we all know, you can’t point the camera at the rising sun, or the bright morning sky, and capture the moment as you see it. There is (very sadly) no getting around the need to process the photo/s you take, often quite significantly, for it to resemble what you saw.

I spend hours and hours and hours on PP and genuinely hate it, and constantly think how much actual time it takes up, lol. Nothing in the world I’d love more than being able to leave every photo I took completely untouched because I knew my skills and camera had captured the moment exactly as I saw it. That would be a dream come true. Sadly, whether it be the significant limitations of my skill set, or be it the limitations of my equipment, this barely ever happens.

For the most part I’ll leave the photos I take of my kids mostly untouched, and just general photos too, but most landscape shots I take in or around sunrise, generally require some work.

As for silky water, for me that’s just a personal preference that I saw one day long ago and thought it looked pretty cool, to me anyway. I know it’s not for everyone and I try not to do it too often, but like someone else mentioned, that’s an obvious personal artistic choice by the photographer that’s never going to be used to try and trick someone into wondering if the photo is a 100% accurate depiction of the presented scene.

All that said, even the most simple photos of my kids might need some PP to get them as I saw them. Often, those photos are just a matter of pointing the camera at them to capture a great moment, without always having time to have the camera set up in a way that the photo is captured to perfection. As a recurring example, an issue I get constantly is shadows. Many photos of my kids taken in bright light often feature deep dark shadows, which my naked eye was certainly not seeing. So even these simple photos of a child standing in the sunlight might need work to get it close to what I saw... if I didn’t have everything set up perfectly with a fill flash etc.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on for months! End result is that for me personally, PP is a tool I use to get the photo as close to how I saw/remembered it as possible. The further away I get from this end result is a direct reflection of my terrible PP skills, and nothing else. Certainly never meant as a means to trick someone into questioning the authenticity of a shot I take.

... except when I think that silky water will suit the photo. ;)

And similar to what I think Bob said perfectly... I think... I love that everyone does whatever they do and what feels good to them. It’s always interesting seeing everyone’s interpretations of what they see. It would be as exciting if everyone did the exact same thing. :)

[jim]

Sorry just the way it came off over a screen seemed a bit like being told off for not knowing something.

No problem, sorry if I came over as critical.

it' a fact, I think, that all digital photos need some post processing to bring out the best in them, and there is really no such thing as an accurate record of what you saw straight out of the camera. Even your camera does quite a bit of processing. Some members feel quite strongly about all this. Not me though, I try to keep post processing to a minimum for reasons similar to yours. Plus I don't really enjoy it, Id rather be taking more photos.

[Lance B]

There are no hard and fast "rules" it's just up to the viewer to decide whether a photo is over processed or whether it is not. Unless the photo has been entered into a competition which limits the amount of post processing, then it's up to the individual viewer as to whether it is acceptable to them or not. You either like the photo for what it is or you don't. It's that simple.