Editing Photos

[tombomb_27]

Hey everyone,
I wasn't sure where to post this topic but I think this is ok.
I'm fairly new to photography, but already I have learned the importance or copyright and ownership, and with that comes honesty. My question is, does a real photographer have to use the auto/preset setting on his/her camera or have to edit their photos in programs such as photoshop? I believe its ok to add copyright/watermark to your images, or even a nice boarder to make it look better, but is it ok to add colour filters or change the brightness/contrast, or anything like this in photoshop to enhance your photo? To me, that makes a photograph into a picture. Probably 80% of the time, I use full manual settings on my camera, and the only thing photoshop does is resize and add a watermark.

I'm wondering what most of the photographers on here believe is right or honest.

Is it you taking the photo, or is it the technology?

[halesr]

I am not sure whether RIGHT or HONEST have anything to do with it.

Film photohgraphers used the darkroom to aesthetic advantage. Would you also ban burning and dodging? Ah, no filters on the lens? What about special lenses like the Lensbaby? Those are all technical ways to manipulate a photo. I guess no split toning, no sepia toning, no NOTHING? How pure do these images have to be to be REAL photographs?

I think how you achieve your art and what tools you use is not as important as your results. Is it art? no matter how you got there. Lots of individuals on pbase even share whatever manipulations, or programs, or lenses they use so I don't think they are trying to hide anything.

Also what about photographers such as Jerry Uelsmann (manipulates in the dark room http://www.uelsmann.net/) and his wife, Maggie Taylor (manipulates in the computer http://www.maggietaylor.com/). They are very reconized in the art/photography world and I don't think anyone is accusing them of being WRONG or DISHONEST.

Just my opinion.--Rene

[ernst]

I second Rene,
What was done in the darkroom or by using filters or a special kind of film, I do now in Photoshop. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

I shoot in raw mode and have my camera settings to neutral, so I have full control in post-processing.

Only in photojournalism there is no option in retouching. Adjusting contrast and/or sharpness shoud be ok...

My 2c

[jellophoto]

I also agree with Rene and Ernst. You seem to be suggesting that pre and post image capture processing is a bad thing? It has always been done and I would suggest that most, if not all, of the greats of the past have used it in some measure to get the best out of their images. I would also suggest that there is no such thing as a "real photograph, or a real photographer". An image can be captured in many different ways and there is no absolutley right way. It all depends on what you as a photographer want to achieve. If you think that it is wrong to use filters, or digital processing then you are severly limiting your own possiblities. It does not make you better/worse, real/unreal, right or wrong, honest or dishonest. it's just your choice.

John

[alangrant]

is it ok to add colour filters or change the brightness/contrast, or anything like this in photoshop to enhance your photo?

Is it OK to use a polarising filter or any other kind of filter that you stick on the front of the camera? I think that if you are claiming that post-processing modifications make a photo less "real", the same would have to apply to a physical filter.

I'm not sure how using full manual setting makes a difference. Suppose I am standing beside you with my camera in program mode, while you are shooting in manual. Let's say it's a simple landscape shot on a sunny day. It's quite possible that my camera will choose the same exposure, white balance, and focus distance as you choose. The resulting photos may be indistinguishable to the outside observer. Are you arguing that one would somehow be more "real" than the other?

[blachly]

I think it is great that you are utilizing the manual feature of your camera. There are many people who live in auto mode and don't truly understand the fundamentals of photography.

My personal belief on photoshop is to try to take as good of a photo as you can while in the field and then do whatever you like in photoshop (whether it is adjusting contrast, saturation, or removing dust from the photo). The key is to take a good photo up front; otherwise you will spend your whole day working on a photo that should have taken a few minutes.

Mike

[rileypm]

I know from experience that no amount of photo shop manipulation can make a really bad photo good. It only makes the bad ones different. On the other hand, photo shop is a great tool in the right hands and should not be neglected to add the extra tweaks necessary to create a fine photo or fine art.

[michaelsv]

Agree with Rene and others. The result is what counts. If the resulting image speaks and tells the story, makes an impact and this is what the artist intended , then it does not matter to me what tools he or she used to achieve this.
This is an ongoing discussion for quite some time now between photographers and I do not really understand people who claiming to be "purists".
Look at this also from technical perspective. How pure 2-D interpretation of what is captured and displayed/printed with limited abilities devices of a 3-D full color natural scene can be? Saying that your image is "what you've seen with your eyes" is absolutely misleading and technically incorrect.

On the other hand I still having hard time to accommodate and agree with adding to the image something that originally was not there... But may be this is my next step in the learning curve:-)

[dougj]

Digital sensors require image processing, it's only a question of where it is done. Shooting a P&S in JPG mode results in a lot of processing in the camera - the image that the camera produces is not what the sensor captured. DSLRs do this to varying degrees when they output a JPG. More and more DSLRs have user settings to automatically adjust contrast, colors, etc. when they produce the JPG.

RAW, on the other hand, is the virtually unadjusted output of the sensor and will require post processing. Chuck Westfall from Canon stated awhile ago that although RAW files were virtually untouched, they still had slight compression applied in the camera.

[tombomb_27]

Ok sorry I didn't make it clear, but I think it is fine to use different lens' and filters that are actually on the lens to produce whatever effect the photographer wants. What I was meant to ask is, is it ok to just go out, take a photo with just a normal lens, then add filters etc in photoshop?
Filters on the lens is fine, because what is hitting the sensor is what you have taken. If you achieve these filters in photoshop, I don't think its as...ok maybe honest or right aren't the words, but its maybe fake?

I'm not sure how using full manual setting makes a difference. Suppose I am standing beside you with my camera in program mode, while you are shooting in manual. Let's say it's a simple landscape shot on a sunny day. It's quite possible that my camera will choose the same exposure, white balance, and focus distance as you choose. The resulting photos may be indistinguishable to the outside observer. Are you arguing that one would somehow be more "real" than the other?

Its fine but the person using auto mode (not saying its you) as said may not know anything about it, and let the camera do their work. So the DSLR becomes a very expensive point and shoot camera. My point is, someone who puts thought and time into choosing the right settings or someone who uses full auto, who is more of a photographer? Now I know they're both photographers (they're both taking photos) but the auto guy could just be someone who picked up the camera a pressed the button, and the manual guy is someone who works on the image.


Sorry if I've confused anyone, or doesn't understand what I mean.

[andrys]

As mentioned, film photographers (well before Photoshop) used
dodging and burning to make the best possible final product. It doesn't
stop at the camera.

Also, the camera lens cannot 'see' the range of light the eye does,
as seen in pics where the sky is washed out (though we could
see the clouds very well) if we get a good exposure for the
landscape (in the most high contrast situations). Some work has to
be done to represent even what we felt we saw.

What you're talking about is getting the best possible exposure
to begin, emphasis on 'begin' ...

[sheila]

Filters on the lens is fine, because what is hitting the sensor is what you have taken. If you achieve these filters in photoshop, I don't think its as...ok maybe honest or right aren't the words, but its maybe fake?
.

I cannot see what the difference is ie filters on the lens or filters in PS. You are still changing the image and I certainly have no quarrel with that! Photography also involves some (may be a lot ) creativity, be it before the lens or after. One does not have to shoot manual to be a good photographer - sometimes you do have to shoot off the hip, as it were. Many do shoot manual and almost as many, if not more, shoot using aperture priority (Av) or Tv.

I have made a somewhat mediocre image by using a filter - Optikvervelabs springs to mind - into something more presentable and with more impact. I convert a lot of images to monochrome using filters and actions in Photoshop - http://www.pbase.com/sheila/bw - but I still consider myself a fairly good photographer

As Ernst said, the only time one should not change an image is in photojournalism - as one LA press photographer found to his chagrin (he was also fired) when he made a small change in an image in Iraq and it was picked up by a sub-editor.

Cheers
Sheila

[tombomb_27]

As Ernst said, the only time one should not change an image is in photojournalism

Would photojournalism include shooting racing cars or extreme sports? Like this?

[sheila]

This is from Wiki

Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism (i.e., the collecting, editing, and presenting of news material for publication or broadcast) that creates images in order to tell a news story. It is now usually understood to refer only to still images, and to refer largely to serious news stories. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photojournalism

As you are Australian, you would have heard of the 1920s photographer, Frank Hurley. Even in his day, he manipulated his images even down to adding skies to images to enhance them.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Reviews/F ... 36584.html

Cheers
Sheila

[andrys]

As Ernst said, the only time one should not change an image is in photojournalism - as one LA press photographer found to his chagrin (he was also fired) when he made a small change in an image in Iraq and it was picked up by a sub-editor.

I remember two, neither very small But I'm sure the photographers
probably thought so.

In the first, he cloned the explosion clouds to make more of them and to
make it look more dramatic (as if that weren't enough). Date of the
picture and locale were also changed.

In another one, an extra jet stream was cloned in. I just can't believe
they'd do this with war photography. Just as you point out, this is one
area, changes, especially CLONING, shouldn't be used

I'm pretty sure that in news photo publishing they do post-processing
for brightness, contrast, color though.

I think the original thread question re 'real' photographer is mixing up
technically driven choices with artistic, though obviously it's way best to
have both in action.