Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-29-2021, 12:39 AM - 1 Like   #16
Closed Account




Join Date: Feb 2019
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 819
The moment you choose a lens, aperture, shutter speed, viewpoint or when you press the shutter, you're choosing to represent the scene a particular way, the rest is just degree. Most photographers develop a style and a way of doing things whether they realize it or not, the great ones particularly so.

03-29-2021, 01:28 AM - 2 Likes   #17
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
Prior to loading film, I considered 'pre-processing' decisions such as film type (brand, ASA/ISO, grain, type of lighting, shots per cassette, etc) and what I'll call the 'Photographer's Intent' for that particular film and equipment use. Intended results may have required changing film types mid-roll for which I often hand-loaded economical 'short rolls' of 8-12 frames.

During actual shooting, a form of 'processing' involved the selection of lenses, optical filters, and lighting (remember flash bulbs?) and shooting position. The choice of aperture and shutter speed used was a form of 'processing' with direct, irreversible effect on each image.

After the shoot, the 'post-processing' began. What film developing fluids to use, at what temperature and duration. What paper to print on with similar decisions. What enlarging and cropping was desired? Was the guest bedroom closet wet-darkroom gonna be needed for the in-laws' visit next week?

Those are all valid points, particularly for B&W negative film and to a lesser extent for colour negatives (since colour couldn't handle quite as much manipulation as B&W at the printing stage without looking un-natural).

But of course, most "serious" colour film photographers shot slides and with slides you really did have to get it right at the moment you pressed the shutter. I usually shot with Kodachrome, so home processing simply wasn't an option, and the only sort of image manipulation I could do was "pre-processing" with filters and lighting at the time of shooting.

With wonderful irony though, nowadays I can DSLR "scan" some of my old Kodachromes that didn't come out quite right at the time and turn them into what I'd always wanted them to be. There's one particular roll of Kodachrome 64 that I accidentally shot at ASA 400, resulting in massive underexposure, but with DSLR scanning I've managed to restore those photos to pretty much what they would have looked like with the proper exposure.

Which brings me to my own personal rules about how much post-processing I'm willing to do. I've got no problem with processing my own shots to overcome the limitations of the gear I was using, so I'm fine with colour correction, and with adjusting tone curves to get the right dynamic range and contrast, and with stitching multiple frames to get a wider angle of view. But I'd draw the line at cloning in a fake sky, or processing a photo shot at noon to look like it was at sunset, because I'd always know that it was a fraud and my self-respect wouldn't allow it.

How much post-processing other photographers feel willing to do without losing their own self-respect is their own business.
03-29-2021, 01:42 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
K(s)evin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 476
[quote=afterpentax mark ii;5240498]i think that post-processing is plain forgery. I do not mind adjusting the over- or underexposure. You could do that in the film era as well. You could even adjust the colour if necessary (remember the time that my photoshop told me that they had to send the pictures back, they showed me that the colour adjustment was not right). But extensive post-processing is forgery, it is not that they are shy to admit that they do not know how to work a computer (if they work at all), but that it does not feel right to do so.[/quot

Wrong! Last I checked, photography is still classified as a form of art.
03-29-2021, 01:45 AM - 1 Like   #19
Closed Account




Join Date: Feb 2019
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 819
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Which brings me to my own personal rules about how much post-processing I'm willing to do. I've got no problem with processing my own shots to overcome the limitations of the gear I was using, so I'm fine with colour correction, and with adjusting tone curves to get the right dynamic range and contrast, and with stitching multiple frames to get a wider angle of view. But I'd draw the line at cloning in a fake sky, or processing a photo shot at noon to look like it was at sunset, because I'd always know that it was a fraud and my self-respect wouldn't allow it.
I think you're right everyone chooses what they are comfortable doing, what they enjoy doing. You could argue there's little difference between replacing a sky and sticking an ND filter on and using a long exposure, neither represent the scene as it was, how you'd see it, each is an interpretation, the only question mark then is one of trust and integrity of the representation, once you start meddling with a scene and people realise it you lose your viewers trust and it moves from an interpretation to a falsification. The latter is fine if it's made obvious, I've followed a few people on Flickr who do that and sometimes the creation can be quite interesting. I think it also has it's uses in commercial photography. If you've lined up 200 employees and all their milkfloats on the dullest day of the year, your client might legitimately say, can you make it look sunny? Doing that well is an art in itself.

03-29-2021, 01:45 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by K(s)evin Quote
wrong
Care to extrapolate, or do we just take that as a semi-divine decree?
03-29-2021, 02:10 AM   #21
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
How much post-processing other photographers feel willing to do without losing their own self-respect is their own business.
That pretty well sums it up for me.
Most of the time when I am seeking my own personal boundary I think in terms of the image belonging to the subject. And it is my job to record it to the best of my ability yet remaining true to the subject.
My boundary sits somewhere between removing an annoying car or power pole as acceptable but replacing the sky is well into BS territory.
Of course there is a historical aspect too and that may mean removing cars and poles is inappropriate.
03-29-2021, 08:08 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pacerr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Paris, TN
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,349
Original Poster
May I suggest we agree to assign a specific definition to 'forgery' (and its synonyms) with regard to this discussion about photography?

Forgery = manipulation (choice or processing of any kind) with the intent to deceive for personal or monetary benefit.

To the extent that photography is 'art' it must include manipulation to satisfy the 'Photographer's Intent', whatever that intent may be. That it MAY capture an imperfect image of an instant of truth, interpreted within the physical limits of the equipment and sensor, is just one possibility.

If an artist chooses to portray a composite sky to best represent just one day in a century is that a forgery or a higher truth? Does the viewer's knowing it's a composite make it a more, or less, valid representation of 'truth'? If I change the color of one sunset to better represent a thousand sunsets does that make the image deceitful if I don't misrepresent it?

I have an *istDS that has lived exclusively in Manual Mode with an M42 adapter and my original Tac 55/1.8 and 135/3.5 lenses since I acquired a KS 200. I shoot with it in B&W only and use a digital 'darkroom' to attempt to replicate the results with my original H1a body. A lot of challenging fun by the way!

Is that 'Forgery? Deception? Under what conditions? Transparency?

It's been a pleasure 'listening' to the many thoughtful minds in this thread. Dartmoor Dave's comparison of slides and print options over time is particularly thought provoking.

03-29-2021, 09:27 AM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
AggieDad's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,440
QuoteOriginally posted by pacerr Quote
If an artist chooses to portray a composite sky to best represent just one day in a century is that a forgery or a higher truth? Does the viewer's knowing it's a composite make it a more, or less, valid representation of 'truth'? If I change the color of one sunset to better represent a thousand sunsets does that make the image deceitful if I don't misrepresent it?.
Your comment caused me to reflect upon the painter.

She paints from multiple experiences, looking at today’s landscape while remembering the fiery colors of the previous fall and recalling a magnificent sky of long ago. Perhaps an extra tree is added for compositional balance and an unnecessary old house is omitted. It’s all in her mind’s eye.

The painter has created with oils or watercolors what she has “seen.” It is an artistic creation. I submit that my photos, humble as they may be, are just as much my art as the painting is the painter’s art.
03-29-2021, 10:07 AM - 2 Likes   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,304
These PP discussions prematurely turn philosophical and absolutist getting stuck on the truth, false etc.

The problem is that many people produce very, very ugly images by over processing. It's arguably more common that beginners that don't know how to use software get lost in pulling the sliders and using effects with terrible consequences. More experienced photographers and pp masters tend to be more subtle and cringe when looking back at their early attempts.

I think part of the mistake is the emphasis on the image as a purely visual surface. Most great photography depicts something interesting or manage to pull in references or cultural connotations. Pure visual effects type photography is arguably the lowest kind of photography. Some combine visual effects with content to great effect but it's quite difficult.
03-29-2021, 10:53 AM   #25
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,046
I'd actually be fine with the OOC jpegs if the camera had a decent jpeg engine.

I have my cameras set to work with RawTherapee & have a bunch of presets that load automatically for the RAW files depending on the ISO range. With a few mouse clicks, I can batch a few, tens, hundreds, or thousands of RAW files & get some nice looking jpegs that look better than the camera's OOC jpegs. All I want are jpegs that pretty much look the same as the OOC jpegs as far as color, brightness, & contrast goes, but with better retention of fine detail & better NR as the ISO gets higher. I don't like to sit around & work on each one individually. Too much time wasting for me & gets annoying after a while. I got better things to do. Hahaha!

The KP has a pretty decent OOC jpeg engine, but I still prefer the jpegs from RawTherapee when converting the RAW file. Maybe the K-3III will finally have a decent OOC jpeg engine & will let me skip the RAW conversion process.
03-29-2021, 11:31 AM   #26
Pentaxian
AfterPentax Mark II's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,452
"Wrong! Last I checked, photography is still classified as a form of art." Photography is, post-processing is not!
03-29-2021, 11:54 AM - 1 Like   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,172
QuoteOriginally posted by house Quote
The problem is that many people produce very, very ugly images by over processing.
Therein lies the debate, in my opinion. The perception of ugliness or beauty is subjective. What one person perceives as 'ugly' may be beautiful to another.

QuoteOriginally posted by house Quote
I think part of the mistake is the emphasis on the image as a purely visual surface. Most great photography depicts something interesting or manage to pull in references or cultural connotations. Pure visual effects type photography is arguably the lowest kind of photography. Some combine visual effects with content to great effect but it's quite difficult.
This is an interesting dimension of the discussion, I think. Isn't using photography to create a 'visual' palette just as valid as documenting a cultural reference?

QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Quote
"Wrong! Last I checked, photography is still classified as a form of art." Photography is, post-processing is not!
I wonder whether the definitions of photography and post-processing are subjective. Where does 'photography' end and 'post-processing' start? For instance, is photography still considered an artform if a digital image is processed in the camera? Or, does it depend on the degree or extent of processing, whether it's done in camera or in post? Certainly, an image would not exist for us to look at unless digital data is processed or a film negative is developed.

Processing is an essential element of photography.

Interesting discussion.

- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 03-29-2021 at 12:59 PM.
03-29-2021, 12:50 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
StiffLegged's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2018
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,560
QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Quote
"Wrong! Last I checked, photography is still classified as a form of art." Photography is, post-processing is not!
Have you looked at a raw file straight out of camera? I shoot mostly raw and have my software set to not do any sharpening, contrast & brightness adjustments etc before I ask it to and they're really dull images generally, nothing like what I saw when I pressed the shutter release: post processing is almost always needed. For that matter, ever look at a film negative, either colour or B&W? Making a positive print from those is another set of processing decisions and what is the "authentic", non-"forged" version of that?

Unless you shoot only transparency film you're always post-processing your images, whether film or digital. SOOC jpegs are also processed (by the camera) according to which settings you choose before shooting, so don't box yourself into a corner over this. A great photographer once said "the negative is the score, the print is the performance" – the same is true of digital images from raw file to finished print or Instagram post. There are great photographers who process their images with sensitivity and care to produce the image they intended, others pick presets at random or overdo the sliders until it looks cool to them, but does that invalidate the great photographers?


Would you recognise the difference between performances of "The Blue Danube" by the Vienna Philharmonic
and the Portsmouth Sinfonia?
Too true you would! But does the Sinfonia murdering it mean the Vienna Phil aren't artists?
03-29-2021, 01:58 PM   #29
Pentaxian
AfterPentax Mark II's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1,452
QuoteOriginally posted by StiffLegged Quote
Have you looked at a raw file straight out of camera? I shoot mostly raw and have my software set to not do any sharpening, contrast & brightness adjustments etc before I ask it to and they're really dull images generally, nothing like what I saw when I pressed the shutter release: post processing is almost always needed. For that matter, ever look at a film negative, either colour or B&W? Making a positive print from those is another set of processing decisions and what is the "authentic", non-"forged" version of that?

Unless you shoot only transparency film you're always post-processing your images, whether film or digital. SOOC jpegs are also processed (by the camera) according to which settings you choose before shooting, so don't box yourself into a corner over this. A great photographer once said "the negative is the score, the print is the performance" – the same is true of digital images from raw file to finished print or Instagram post. There are great photographers who process their images with sensitivity and care to produce the image they intended, others pick presets at random or overdo the sliders until it looks cool to them, but does that invalidate the great photographers?


Would you recognise the difference between performances of "The Blue Danube" by the Vienna PhilharmonicVienna Philharmonic and the Portsmouth Sinfonia? Portsmouth Sinfonia Too true you would! But does the Sinfonia murdering it mean the Vienna Phil aren't artists?
Well, both are played by musicians. I have never seen a raw file straight out of camera. I always see a jpeg representation. Photography is making a picture of what I see in a moment of time and which I want to share with others. But it has to be true. I should not make it more glamorous than it is. Photography should be honest, give a representation of what I saw and wanted to share. Post processing does not fit the bill for me as I am afraid it is done to enhance the scene, to make it more beautiful than it is. Some corrections I can live with. Might be best to say that my interpretation of photography as an art differs from how others see it. And making good forgeries is an art in itself.
03-29-2021, 02:06 PM   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
StiffLegged's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2018
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,560
QuoteOriginally posted by AfterPentax Mark II Quote
Well, both are played by musicians.
Ha ha ha ha ha!


Portsmouth Sinfonia
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
accuracy, camera, cameras, clouds, colour, colours, composition, eyes, film, forgery, format, frame, image, instant, photography, photoshop, picture, range, sensor, size, subject, technique, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thematic Post-Processing Post-Processing Challenge #277 tuggie76 Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 17 12-09-2018 08:54 AM
Thematic Post-Processing Post Processing Challenge #258 - Harvard tuggie76 Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 11 05-24-2018 12:39 PM
Post-processing for the Pre-noob Rich_S Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 01-04-2015 09:29 AM
Pre vs. post processing settings 2rb1 Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 4 02-17-2013 04:15 PM
Pre-processing software/viewer treue_photo Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 04-28-2011 08:12 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top