[Macario]

When is a photo not a photo? Are you simply trying to replicating exactly what you see, or are you producing "art." Most people want to replicate what they want to see, as opposed to what they really see. That's why there is PhotoShop and LightRoom.

The thing is, you cannot replicate excactly what you see. It is virtually impossible. The closest to that would be, take the photo and edit right away on the spot. Otherwise it will a product of you memory of what you saw. And that is influenced by many factors. What was your mood when you took the shot, what is your mood when you edit the shot etc etc. Even just adding bit more vibrancy or contrast, because your camera did not capture what you saw, is because what you remember, not what you really saw. And then the pciture is only "true" to you. As no set of eyes are the same, so people will see the same reality different (and then i am not even talking about people that are color blind.

Therefore every claim that a photograph is what you saw is false. Every photograph is what you remember what you saw, and your memory is easily fooled.

I do remember flying to the Cook islands, very excited about it, to catch waves on a tropical island, clear water, warm water. When we were aproching I remembered seeing all these different shades of blue in the water, it being more aqua than blue actually. So I take a few photo's off it. When I get home weeks later, and the slides were developed, I was dissapointed, as the blue in the picture was just plain dull blue. So which is the truth? The slide, or what I remember?

[mikeSF]

didnt we just have this discussion last month?

Actually, I've changed my position since then...


...oh wait, no i havent.

:P

[Macario]

didnt we just have this discussion last month?

Actually, I've changed my position since then...


...oh wait, no i havent.

:P

yes we did, and the month before, and the month before and.................

[Clavius]

Lets compare it to painting, just for fun. I don't think only the painters that make photorealistic copies of what they see are the only ones that should be considered 'real' painters. Then only a very select handfull of extremely patient Japanese painters would qualify. But wait, reality isn't 2D, is it? It's 3D. So, statue sculptors are going to trump those extremely patient Japanese painters. You can apply the same to photography. For some people, even monochrome pictures should not be considered real photography! It's a discussion that gives me autism. I decided, all I'm ever going to care about is if a picture is impressive or not.

[Rondec]

Every photo gets some processing. Whether it is the jpeg settings in the camera or a completely neutral setting in Lightroom or your photo program of choice. I just find that gentle bumping of shadows and sharpening helps the photo, but it often isn't a dramatic change.

This is a waterfall photo with completely neutral settings in Lightroom:



And this is the same photo with some sharpening and shadows brought up a little (processed in Color Efex Pro).



I happen to like the second image a little better, but it certainly isn't a dramatic difference. Much of post processing is that way. Tweaks here and there to to try to maximize the impact of the photo. I think the problem is that whatever technique you use, it is easier to push it harder and harder till the halos come out and the sharpening artifacts appear, etc. To me, that's probably the biggest thing to avoid. Well, and I wouldn't tack a component from a completely separate image. I'm not a big fan of a large, detailed, telephoto-shot moon sitting over a wide angle shot of a city skyline. It just doesn't look right.

[mikeSF]

. But wait, reality isn't 2D, is it? It's 3D. ... For some people, even monochrome pictures should not be considered real photography! It...

and rectangular frames? why? who sees in rectangles anyway? probably more of a rounded oblong image, i'd think...
Photography as we know is a complete distortion of reality, IMO

[TheLens]

IMO, a photo is no longer a photo when post processing has caused it to look like something not achievable with a film camera.

[BrianR]

IMO, a photo is no longer a photo when post processing has caused it to look like something not achievable with a film camera.

How much darkroom processing is allowed on the film for this comparison?

[arnold]

There are two skill areas involved. One is the ability to take a well exposed and framed picture, the other is processing that basic information. With the availability of modern processing, many images are manufactured more in PP than by the original exposure. The only objective standard of PP was Kodachrome I believe. If you wanted to separate the men from the boys as far as their straight photographic skills went, then Kodachrome would do that for you, since it's processing was standard. Your framing and exposure would be frozen for all to see, and I have seen slides that needed no further work they were so good.
The reason this subject comes up so often is because there is a feeling that many image making results are more like art than photography, to the point one wonders if the original played much of a role anyway. My own tastes are satisfied if the PP is not obvious, and I have used it minimally to fix poor scans or issues with the original photo.
As always, artistic results assessed in the eye of the beholder.

[Dr. Zee]

and rectangular frames? why? who sees in rectangles anyway? probably more of a rounded oblong image, i'd think...
Photography as we know is a complete distortion of reality, IMO

Huge oversimplification. Of course photos aren't reality, but they are the light reflected off of reality stored on a recording medium.

[mikeSF]

Huge oversimplification. Of course photos aren't reality, but they are the light reflected off of reality stored on a recording medium.

just pointing out the absurdity of quibbling over a dodge and burn in post when our eyes don't see 2D, rectangular shaped images, nor low dynamic range...and especially not in black in white(unless fully color blind). The camera at best is a somewhat limited sensing device compared to our eyes & brain.

[aleonx3]

IMO, a photo is no longer a photo when post processing has caused it to look like something not achievable with a film camera.

What makes a filmed photograph realer than a digitally corrected photograph? I personally don't think that film has better production capability of reality than Digital sensor.

[arnold]

Huge oversimplification. Of course photos aren't reality, but they are the light reflected off of reality stored on a recording medium.

Right, and the skill of the photographer lies in getting the reflected light onto the film in the best possible way. He selects the time of day, the position, the angle, the exposure settings etc, but when the shutter clicks, it is locked either on film or memory. This first stage is the photograph basic. The next stage is the processing of the data recorded, not to replicate reality, but to show a record it. The frame only limits the area recorded, not reality itself.
I have seen PP so change the shadows and lighting in the name of artistic drama, that the resultant picture is no longer an accurate record, even if it is more "dramatic." I'm not speaking of lifting shadow areas due to recording limitations, but putting light and shadow where they never were. It depends what you most value of course, the accuracy of what hit the film, or the drama.

[audiobomber]

This argument is totally off point. Processing is not what matters. Do you like the image? That's what really matters.

Subject is king, no question. Technique and gear is irrelevant when an image rocks your world. People who would not in a million years enter a darkroom or even learn to process an image can outshoot you and me. These threads that claim "we didn't process in the old days" are wrong. Do you really think that the shop you dropped your film with didn't adjust exposure? if you had your own darkroom, you definitely did your best to improve the image quality. The difference now is that anyone can take a technically impeccable image, and anyone with an interest can improve the image with post-processing. Is that really a bad thing? I guess it is if you want photography to be elitist.

[philbaum]

1. With a few exceptions - painters aren't particularly obsessed with reality - so why should photographers be held to that standard. Pandora's box has been opened and digital processing is out there in the world. There's no putting it back. For me, the camera is just a fancy form of paintbrush.

2. Photography is no novelty anymore. There has never been more graphical images being displayed than there are at this moment. If you expect someone to actually pay out money for your pictures, you'd better have a really good story to tell, and excellent pp skills.

3. Having said that, i tend to use less HDR and over the top treatments than when i started out. But its the image to me that matters. If its compelling than i've done something worthwhile. One has to love the art, otherwise they will never stick to it, IMO.