[fgaudet]

After reading some of the comments regarding the finalist of the K3 contest (and similar threads after every photo contest I participated) I think it is pretty clear how polarized and opinionated people are regarding post processing.

For a start, I'll make my position clear, I am pro post processing to any extent. I for one, sometimes due to laziness, sometimes due to lack of time, often aim for "good enough, I'll fix it later" instead of spending an unreal amount of time trying to get the perfect shot in camera. My ultimate goal is to have a good looking picture which represents how I saw the moment I captured; if I need to spend an hour to fix it later, so be it, as long as the result is what I want.

But always I wondered where the line between acceptable and non-acceptable should be drawn? Changing WB is ok but adjusting curves is wrong? Tweaking exposure is tolerated but pushing the shadows is a no-no? Cropping is OK but focus stacking is too much? Adding a vignette is fine but applying a color filter is heresy? Softening is normal but increasing details and sharpness is a bad thing? Discarding colors (B&W) is not a problem but saturating the colors is? What about the use of lens mounted filters (ND, Grad, color)? And what about artificial lighting and light modifiers? What about in camera processing (filters and correction)? And how about old fashioned double exposures?

It was suggested that straight out of camera RAW files be submitted... But RAW is the equivalent of unprocessed film. I'm sure that most NatGeo award winning pictures if developed improperly wouldn't be so great. Film processing is an art, not too far off from digital processing. Most software filters and processing tools are simply mimicking dark room tricks. Even compositing comes from the good'ol days. I remember when I was still young, cutting out pieces of photograph, gluing them to another photo and then snapping a picture of it. Sure, using Photoshop made all those things so much easier but no matter how good you are, you cannot make a bad photo look good; the subject has to be interesting, the composition has to be right and the picture has to trigger interest.

It was mentioned that those who know photoshop have an edge over those who don't making it unfair. But aren't those who have better cameras and lenses also have an advantage? And those with more experience? Or those with more free time allowing them to shoot more?

I know it's a very tricky subject but what are your thoughts regarding this?

[SpecialK]

The final product is the objective. Don't care how you get there. The End.

[wildman]

what are your thoughts regarding this?

Simple for me: Process is nothing the final image everything (ideally) .
In other words process is a means to an end and nothing more.
"Good" processing is anything that gets you to the final image you wish and bad processing does not.
There is no ethics or morality involved only technically proper choices to allow you to realize the final image you want.

[Tako Kichi]

In any contest/competition you are always going to get naysayers after the event (especially if they've failed to make the cut), it's an unfortunate fact of life.

As to post-processing I personally see no problems. I've seen many photos (and nominated several recently) where the PP made the shot what it was. Before PP it was probably an OK shot, after PP it became a stunning shot.

Let's not forget that photography is all about imagery, it's the final image that is important regardless of how many steps it took to get there.

I started out using film and manual cameras and even though I am now all digital I still try and compose in-camera and try to get the very best base I can before moving on to digital PP. In fact I'm only just getting comfortable with shooting multiple shots of a subject using different settings as my mind-set is still stuck in the 'each shot costs money so get it right the first time' mode despite using digital cameras for over 10 years!

Twenty-plus years ago I taught professional sound recording courses at a college in the UK and I always stressed to students the importance of getting the best sound you can through the entire signal chain from the microphone to the recording media (multi-track tape in those days). The old adage of 'garbage in, garbage out' applies to photography just as much as it does to sound recording.

Just my 2c.

[OregonJim]

Photography as art is one thing. There are no rules for art.

Photography as journalism is quite another.

As far as contests go, the rules (if there are any) need to be stated up front. It's up to you if you want to participate or not.

[6BQ5]

I'm beginning to believe that there shouldn't be as much of a distinction between pre and post processing as there is. The end goal is an image. It takes processing to get there. Use what you need to create what you want. Just be sure to call the end result what it is : digital art, photojournalism, portraiture, etc.

[savoche]

The final product is the objective. Don't care how you get there. The End.

First response got it right.

[tuco]

Perhaps some judges don't like excessive post processing and in that case it's a disadvantage for someone mindlessly plug-n-chugging their way through HDR software. And perhaps some judges can see through the fact good composition and subject matter trumps saturation, sharpness and the vividness of a photograph. But then again perhaps some judges don't.

[Mistlefoot]

The final product is the objective. Don't care how you get there. The End.

And just like with Lance Armstrong, this opinion will be controversial.

[chimpwithagun]

This is a debate that should only be happening in the journalistic fields. Has any commercial or full-time portrait photographer ever pondered this question? I try to get my pictures right in camera as much as possible, but that's for me. It helps me learn, understand, and create with my long-time favorite tool, the camera.


However:
Post processing is nothing new, as has been said a million times. Photoshop is new as a software, but not as a concept. What about the oil paints used on negatives from the film days? William Mortensen did everything from painting realistic looking backdrops (akin to green screen or other background replacements in photoshop) to painting the background and details directly on his film. Abe Lincoln commonly had photographs of his head placed on other peoples' bodies to make himself look taller in photos. There was no photoshop then.


You might not like the look of digitally processed images (I don't) but that's part of digital photography. If you think post-processing tips are unique to digital, you are simply wrong.
Is it right? That depends on what you are trying to do. If your objective is to produce a stunning image, then there are no rules for how you get there. You could create the whole thing in photoshop and not use a camera. If your objective is to accurately show a piece of history, then you should probably stick to the basic bar in lightroom.


This should not be a debate or question. If you disagree with post processing an image then logically you must also disagree with lighting modifiers and backdrops, there is no difference in changing the scene you are looking at with tools than changing the image you are looking at with a program, except the program is usually cheaper.


Complainers in contests are worthless. I didn't win, you don't hear me crying. Those who try to justify why they lost a contest have learned nothing, that's sad for them. The only helpful criticism is destructive criticism.

[DeadJohn]

I think there are different rules for 3 types of photography. Starting with the strictest rules and ending with fewest rules:

Photojournalism: Minor processing is permissible to bring the final image output closer to the way things actually looked. I think it's okay to correct WB to recreate the original colors, boosting saturation a little to offset atmospheric effects on a distant object, adjusting highlights or shadows to offset poor lighting conditions, limited sharpness and noise adjustments to compensate for sensor limitations. Care needs to be taken with cropping. I'll use the example of a photo of a child with parent standing nearby; cropping is okay if the article is about the child but that photo can't be used in an article about orphans. (that's all my opinion and news editors might use stricter rules to eliminate the appearance of impropriety)

Art photography: Additional processing beyond the above is at the photographer's discretion. Play with all of the sliders in Lightroom as much as you want. I generally dislike oversaturation, selective color, and too much HDR but it's not breaking some unwritten law of photography. If photos are being submitted for competition, then whatever additional rules are specified by the sponsors must be followed.

Painting: If you photoshop objects from multiple photos into one new composition or start drawing objects freehand, it becomes a "painting" with photographic elements rather than a "photo". Anything goes for this style of art.

[Imageman]

This is simple to answer.


Look at film.


Pre processing getting it right in camera consisted of composition lighting and focus.


The result was a latent image on a strip of film, totally useless.


So if you want totally useless images don't post process.


If you say that pre processing includes developing, than you finish up with a strip of negatives that look like rubbish, again totally useless.


If however you want to see an image that's looks any good, you must post process, that means at the very least, retouching, enlarging, adjusting contrast, adjusting brightness, cropping, dodging, burning, and a host of other techniques that yield a print that is a pleasure to view.


I remember in film days there were photographers, and there were printing specialists. The top photographers when preparing work for a show went to print specialists to print and post process their work These were top men in their field, their expertise was enlarging and printing. Only then would you have a print worthy of showing in a gallery.


With digital whats the difference, you take your raw, you enlarge, adjusting contrast, adjusting brightness, crop, dodge, burn, and use a host of other techniques that yield an image that is a pleasure to view.


Without post processing you kill the very thing you want to create, a good image.

[song_hm]

Let's say I am a very talented sketch artist, I sketch up an image so realistic most people think it is a photograph. Would you let me enter it in your photography contest knowing it's a sketch?

Let's say I am a very accomplished photoshop artist, I worked on a straight out of camera jpeg, apply a charcoal sketch filter to it, erase all but just essential lines. It now ressemble one of Michael Angelo's sketches. Would you let me enter in your photo contest?

There is a line where a photograph crosses into graphics art. Cross this line and photo contest judges will throw your submission out. Different judges have different tolerance for it. And It varys according to which technique used. But it boils down to a perception that the end result is no longer photography.

[Imageman]

This is an honesty issue.


A photograph is expected in a photographic contest. As long as it is a photograph that has been the source and then if its changed graphically its still a photograph and eligible to be considered as a photograph. Its simply been enhanced whats wrong with that.


If its any good or not will determine if it wins or not. If it didnt start out as a photograph then its not eligible in a photographic competition.


The judges must trust the honesty of the photographer submitting it.


I have seen judges mistakenly throw out quite legitimate photographs simply because they think they were fake, they weren't fake. How embarrassing. Its not embarrassing to be deceived by a good fake. But to just imaging something is fake when it looks stunning and then to penalise the artist for being that talented. That is shameful


If a photograph is taken and then the photographer produces something that has only one per cent or less of the original image in it usually produces digital crap. and that wont win anything so why are we worried by this issue.


Let the graphic artists enter photo competitions why should we be scared of this. A brilliant photograph tastefully and sympathetically processed so that its a stunning image will win against any mocked up clap trap image knocked up in photoshop. Unless the judge is a fool and they usually aren't fools.


Im not scared of people monkeying around in photoshop to try to make a fake image, what does worry me is a judge looking at my image produced with talent, and pronouncing it a fake because it looks too good. And then throwing it out and some mediocre image then wins because it doesn't look good enough to have been photoshopped.


Surely a good photographer is capable of making a decent image good enough to win against some mocked up digital rubbish.

[fgaudet]

I have seen judges mistakenly throw out quite legitimate photographs simply because they think they were fake

You bring out an interesting point here. It never happened to me for a contest but I do often have people comment on some of my photographs as "it's been photoshopped, that's why it's so good"... this happens often with extremely colourful sunsets or long exposure shots of waterfalls. Granted they are not judges but I find it a bit sad that they don't enjoy a beautiful picture simply because they think it was retouched beyond belief, even if it was not. In my case it is even worse since in some cases, I do play around quite a bit with photoshop.

It's too bad. Take my avatar picture, it took me more than an hour to setup to take the shots needed to make it, I probably took 30 pictures in order to get it right, tweaking this and that and making sure I had all the material needed for the composite. But it only took about 10 minutes in photoshop to create it. I'm not saying it's an award winning photograph, I'm just saying that it was more work to take the photos than to process it