[AggieDad]

There are always debates about what is appropriate post-processing for a photograph. Should a color be enhanced? Is it okay to remove an object? Is it okay change the sky? And heck, some "purists" don't even think cropping should be allowed. Sometimes I think there are some photographers that won't even straighten a horizon.

Of course, we all stand at a slightly different place on the spectrum of post-processing – from strict "out of the camera" literalists to those folks who think photography didn't exist before Photoshop.

But I was recently thinking (100º days in Houston tend to keep one inside and idle) about the verisimilitude of photographs that are the result of the photographic technique rather than the post-processing. What piqued my little brain cells was yet one more article on long-exposure photos of water.

Consider the following photo techniques:

• Long Exposure - Many folks like long-exposure shots of moving water, a technique which gives the water a "silky smooth" appearance.
• Strong Bokeh - With a wide-open lens put the background so far out of focus it is but a mottled wall of color.
• Panorama - Panos are fun and give us a much broader perspective than our eyes naturally do.
• Bracketing - Bracketing lets us get rid of unwanted shadows and potentially blown-out highlights.
• Focus Stacking - Get all parts of the image as sharp as possible by taking 3 or 4 shots at different focus points.

Each of these photographic techniques changes what the eye sees. In reality, babbling brooks are not almost milky white and silky smooth. Our eyes do not naturally put the background into a creamy texture. Light is what it is, and our sight doesn't adjust to even out the light and shadows when we look at things. Nor do we see everything in focus or in wide panoramic scope.

One could argue that only the first two, Long Exposure and Strong Bokeh, are "out-of-camera" techniques and the others are the result of post-processing. But to my mind the initial images were taken with the purpose and intent of being manipulated and thus should be considered as out-of-camera processes.

So is manipulation in the camera any more legitimate than post-camera? Which is more authentic: a) the smooth waterfall with a telephone pole, or b) the non-smooth waterfall with no telephone pole.

I make no judgments here, I simply pose the question.

[biz-engineer]

It's very simple. If your photographs are labelled as fine art, you can process/modify/add/remove elements as much as you wish. If not fine art, means reproduction of real world, then modification is unethical. Just say you do fine art photography and you'll be fine.

[Wheatfield]

I just do what I like and I don't really give much thought to whether someone else thinks I'm committing some sort of photographic heresy.
I don't consider photography to be a religion, I consider it to be a pastime.

[UncleVanya]

Consider the following photo techniques:

• Long Exposure - Many folks like long-exposure shots of moving water, a technique which gives the water a "silky smooth" appearance.
• Strong Bokeh - With a wide-open lens put the background so far out of focus it is but a mottled wall of color.
• Panorama - Panos are fun and give us a much broader perspective than our eyes naturally do.
• Bracketing - Bracketing lets us get rid of unwanted shadows and potentially blown-out highlights.
• Focus Stacking - Get all parts of the image as sharp as possible by taking 3 or 4 shots at different focus points.

Each of these photographic techniques changes what the eye sees. In reality, babbling brooks are not almost milky white and silky smooth. Our eyes do not naturally put the background into a creamy texture. Light is what it is, and our sight doesn't adjust to even out the light and shadows when we look at things. Nor do we see everything in focus or in wide panoramic scope.

One could argue that only the first two, Long Exposure and Strong Bokeh, are "out-of-camera" techniques and the others are the result of post-processing. But to my mind the initial images were taken with the purpose and intent of being manipulated and thus should be considered as out-of-camera processes.

Some cameras do focus stacking in camera. So even this technique can be in camera.

I’m in the camp of light post processing but I occasionally go farther.

[jatrax]

I think I'm with @Wheatfield on this one.

That said I personally have several 'rules' for photographs:
- An image that is being used to depict an actual person, place or thing should be as accurate as possible and should not be altered to add / remove parts that would change a person's opinion of that person, place or thing. Adjusting exposure or color balance to be accurate is OK. I use that rule when shooting for stock images that might be included in news, magazines or books

- An image that is going to be used for stock but not depict any particular person, place or thing can be manipulated however I want as long as it accurately shows the subject or purpose of the image. This would mostly be generic stock images

- An image that is going to be in my art portfolio is just that: art. I feel free to manipulate it in any way I want and I don't really care what anyone thinks of it. It's my personal impression of whatever I am trying to say.

[biz-engineer]

I just do what I like and I don't really give much thought to whether someone else thinks

I manipulate a photo so that it look so good but not unrealistic. People look at the prints displayed on the wall and say "wow, you are so talented, how did you do it?"
I adopt a posture of relaxed confidence yet totally humble, the smile on my face, pull out my Pentax K1 and say in with bold voice "It's not me, it's the camera"

[othar]

If not fine art, means reproduction of real world, then modification is unethical.

Hey, I don't consider all of my b&w images as fine art (not even most if I think about it ), nevertheless I don't think processing them is unethical either

[swanlefitte]

My favorite manipulation is focusing the lens.
How about this thread for more clever ideas.Stupid Camera Tricks (and Stupid Lens Tricks) - PentaxForums.com

[Simon K]

If cropping is no option at all no photo should be taken in the first place, because by doing so a part of the entire scenery is being cropped by taking the picture. Anyway, if I don't have to crop I'm pleased I could manage the composition on the spot, if not so I do crop to be pleased.

[photoptimist]

All of these techniques are intended to compensate for the vast discrepancies between the operation of the human eye and the photographic camera. What seems like photographic artifice is more about overcoming the differences between camera and eye in order to try to replicate what the photographer was actually seeing.

The fact that the human eye can easily handle interior scenes with windows out to sunny exterior but the camera either blows the sunny part or under-exposes the interior proves that bracketing and HDR may be required.

The fact that so many novice photographers make images with trees, signposts, and other clutter adorning the heads of the subjects proves how the human eye mentally separates foreground and background while the camera merges them. Thus, shallow-DoF methods may be required.

The fact that the human eye can dance through the scene to see the bees in the nearby flowers and the houses on the distant mountains means focus stacking may be required.

The fact that the human eye (and head) can easily move to take all the vast array of details in a broad vista means that panoramic tiling with a sharp lens may be required.

The fact that the human eye does not see every water droplet or transient ripple of a babbling brook (just a sensation of a field of motion) means that long-duration images may convey the dynamism of water better than artificially frozen mid-air droplets. (OK, the creamy stream effect is a little overdone, but a droplet-streaking shutter time of 1/4-2 seconds might be good).

Perhaps all these artificial techniques actually increase the verisimilitude of the photograph by overcoming the lack of similarity in the natural eye versus the photographic camera.

[Simon K]

My favorite manipulation is focusing the lens.

That's bad ass, will consider adopting that move.

[Roadboat24]

It's My Image, I'll Do whatever the heck I want with it.

[normhead]

I take s many images using different techniques. I pick out the one that I think have potential. I work on them until I've realized their potential, even potentials I didn't know were there in the original scene or image. I great number of my images are documentary, in that I'm documenting trip. I see that as no reason for not not processing. I just don't expect as much from the result. The difference for me fine art or documentary... in fine art, you look for artistic qualities, in documentary you document what you came to document. It's the original capture that is less interesting artistically. I often do the same amount of wrk on the image, it just can't turn out as nice because of what you started with.

[moggi1964]

Well this is the funniest thread in ages

[AgentL]

Framing is manipulation. So I don't think it really hinges on whether the photo is "truthful" because it's always subjective... But I tend to think, in situations like removing the telephone pole, that, for me, it is a sign that I failed to compose the ideal way that I could have, or that I am naively pretending that the scene was some idealized representation of itself. I prefer the challenge of using what is real, and making an interesting composition with it, not trying to make something that doesn't exist in the real world. That might come down to what I want my photography to "say" -- for some, idealized non-reality may be part of what they are trying to say. I am more into the gritty, everyday, unexpected, new way of viewing the visually "old" etc.