How Much post-processing is Acceptible?

Discussions
1

These recent veryfine images from Dave Douglaas raised some interesting points of view:
“Rough-legged Final Landing” and “Kestrel Breakfast” (it’s really a merlin"
(I don’t know how to make a link directly to them - maybe someone can help? )

I suggested running them through DxO Pure Raw.

response from Chris Calohan :

15h
My response to this last post by Sandy is: When the editing program becomes the photographer, what are you? I’m getting to the point where I don’t trust much of what I see on line as “real,” or even accurate. When do we stop relying on AI and go back to the basics of good photography skills, where the photographer determines everything in the shot? Now, do I use PS, ACR, TK? I do, but never to deceive, only to clean up digital artifacts. I realize every aspect of digital photography is based on 1/0 algorithms and to glean what we can from a series we have to use some sort of non analog process, but for me, it’s gotten ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Hey, I’m an old toot; it’s to be expected :wink:

from Sandy:

Chris, I appreciate your point of view but I disagree on several of your points. Firstly, imo, a camera will never “see” and "capture " the scene in front of us as accurately as our God-given vision, so the image from the camera needs some help sometimes. An example is some of my images from under the very dark canopy of Costa Rica. I could see the bird perfectly well with my eyes, but the camera needed an ISO of > 12,000 which rendered the noise almost impossible. Running it through DxO Pure Raw - which I think a great many of us use - salvaged it. To me, this is no different than using the manual NR and sharpening of the older programs, like Topaz.

Also, the sensor could not correctly determine the bright reds, so they had to be de-saturated. I have no problem with manually matching the saturation to the image my eyes saw, irrespective of what the camera’s sensor produced. I see no problem with utilizing both the new and continually-improving cameras, as well as the upgraded software.
I respect that you might have just pitched all those images.

As far as Dave’s 2 images on which I suggested using DxO Pure Raw , both the merlin and the hawk were very fine images. Excellent poses, nice perches, perfect head turn, clean BG. The ONLY problem was the processing, for reasons not entirely known. I suggested using the latest AI software to define the feathers and perch, rather than the Topaz Dave used. One program instead of another. I don’t see this as a horrible thing. DAVE is the photographer who got these exceptional images. The processing did not become the photo.
You state that you’re afraid to “trust” any image on the web, fearing they are all manipulated to a huge degree. Just look at any of the major photo award sites then, National or International. You can “trust” any of them; All accept absolutely NO additions or deletions, and they carefully examine all RAW files of submitted images. before any awards are made.

I think this all comes down to personal taste and choices, as long as any major alterations are disclosed.

I think I’ll move this to the “Discussions”, as I’m very interested in learning the perspective of others.

2

This has been a football kicking around photography since it was invented and, for me at least, it comes down to two things - individual taste and preference and intended use of the photo. Restrictions and rules on the latter side are one thing and probably will get more specific as computer-generated elements become more common. The former is my own business as a photographer and has (and probably will continue to) morph and change as my approach shifts and software expands.

I also think that many people get judgy when it comes to what others do to their own images. We quickly form ideas about what is “right” and “wrong” and apply them to others when we should really be applying them to our personal work.

4 Likes
3

This is certainly a dead horse but I love to kick it from time to time probably more than most folks.

I’ve written loads of essays on the subject.

I think there’s lots of angles here, and based on what you presented, I personally think using processing to overcome technical limitations of camera gear is totally acceptable and people that question that approach are really in the ultra purist camp. So be it.

Hell, I created an entire competition because of this debate.

I think the intent of the photographer is important, and despite what a lot of people say, I do think that disclosure is important if you’ve taken some serious liberties to make a scene non-representational in nature as the end result but then are presenting it to the public as representing an experience, moment, or actual place. I am pretty tired of the “it’s art, so whatever goes is ok” response to that, as I find it lazy and lacking in intellectual discourse. I digress.

I live by my ethics and I personally can’t present photography as representing something I actually witnessed when I didn’t actually “witness” that thing. I do enhance things that were there though, and that to me is art too.

I think folks should look inward for answers. Why are you doing what you’re doing? Is it really for an artistic vision, or is it for likes, fame, money? If the former, what is the vision you had and why is what you are doing needed to achieve it?

I also think there’s certain genres of photography where disclosure is not needed and folks should not care. Black and white, abstract, etc. But when it comes to nature photography and telling the viewer - “Here’s what I captured!” but it wasn’t actually… to me that feels disingenuous, unethical, and borderline anti-social - with motives based in personal gain and ego.

I’ll hop off my soapbox.

Cheers.

2 Likes
4

I can’t say it better than @Kris_Smith and @Matt_Payne, so I’ll just say “Ditto.”

5

Agreed to the sentiments above. My opinion is that it is all about individual vision and goals. I used to hold a more stern stance against advaned photo manipulation but I no longer have that mindset as I have imbibed more art and had conversations about it over the years. Journalists and the nature photographers in the camp that Matt mentions above should look to their ethics and disclose advanced editing used on the final photograph. But this is also true of something that can happen within the camera - camera angle and what is included or excluded from the frame can also fall into this conversation on ethics.

I tend to be a minimalist processor myself by personal preference, vision, and I’ll admit, some laziness. That is not to say that I dislike or judge others’ works that do not follow my same ethos. I truly have enjoyed creative imagery of artists using advanced digital and darkroom techniques, not to mention mixed media. But if they are dishonest about misrepresentation then I am just no longer interested and guide my eyes elsewhere (unless it is actually harmful to a person, being, or place. In those cases I think we have a duty to speak up).

This conversation hasn’t changed much from when I first learned photography in the darkroom. But it is good to continue to have these conversations as technology changes and the audience changes. Quite honestly, the audience is what I have personally seen as the biggest change in the past 30 years; social media plays a huge role here. Photography is just so much more accessible on both sides, creators and viewers, and we have lost many journalism schools where these ethics were discussed in the past. Good topic to bring up even if we don’t come to a resolution.