To digitally alter a photo or not?

[SWriverstone]

This thread was inspired by the "The Goal of Your Photography" thread, which is a great read. Unfortunately I don't have any of my own examples at the moment, but will try to post a few tonight when I'm back home.

For many years, I was of the mindset that the purpose of photography was to capture—in optical/physical terms—exactly what was in front of the camera. I believed that any post-processing (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) should be minimal, and limited to basic exposure correction, maybe a little contrast adjustment.

Then a few years ago, I read something in an online eBook on photography that was pretty simple, but had a major impact on my attitude toward post-processing. I can't remember who the author was, but what he said really resonated and stuck with me: he said that the purpose of photography wasn't to capture a scene exactly as it was, but to capture the emotions you (the photographer) felt when you witnessed that scene.

For this photographer, making emotion (not "physically accurate reproduction") the goal completely justified a lot more post-processing—for example, pumping up saturation, increasing clarity and contrast, etc.

I began doing a lot more of this (not to extremes, but far more than I'd ever done before), and for me personally, it not only made the whole process of photography more enjoyable, but I enjoyed the photos much more.

---
I should add the obvious caveat that the amount of post-processing I do still varies dramatically according to the scene and image I shot—as well as whether I shot it on my iPhone or with a DSLR. Scenes that (due to serendipity or careful planning) were shot in perfect light often require nothing.

But there are many times, for example, when I'll shoot high-contrast scenes, backlit scenes, or cloudy-day shots...and I'll tweak the hell out of them—because they basically look bland without a lot of pumping up.

Of course there are always those shots that no amount of post-processing can salvage. But for some shots, a lot of "pumping up" in Lightroom can make a bland photo really great!

---
In the end, what I've found is that for all the innovations in technology that have happened recently, no camera (not even the latest-generation Canon D5 MkIII or MkIV or whatever they're up to now, with the most expensive prime lens on earth) comes close to our human eyes in fully "seeing" the dynamic range and colors in a scene.

So I've come to the conclusion that almost every image warrants a fair amount of post-processing just to push the image a little closer to what our eyes actually saw—as well as to achieve the emotions I was feeling at the time.

Scott

EDITED to add: After re-reading my post, I wanted to add that I still aim for some degree of "realism" in my processed photos. I haven't ventured yet into the "deep end" of creative post-processing by replacing colors, working with duotone/tritone/quadtone images, adding lens flares, halos, etc—or generally doing any of the things many photographers do who are basically "painting with light" in any way they choose. While I appreciate all this, i'm still somewhat grounded in reality.

[sprengers4jc]

Great post! I am of the same mindset you are, which is that I want the picture to look the way it did when my eyes saw it. Color replacement, etc. ruins that, IMO. I will occasionally remove things from the scene such as a swarm of moving bugs in the sky or whatnot. But keeping it as close to the original image as possible is important to me. And some of my favorite pictures ever required no editing at all. Sure, there are things 'wrong' with them but if they match how I remember the scene, they stay as they are

[jdemott]

For me, photography is simply communication with a camera. Sometimes we are trying to communicate an emotion or an experience, or perhaps a hoped-for feeling or experience. Other times we are trying to communicate something about how things "really" are. Perhaps we want to say that the moment we experienced was perfect just as is. Or perhaps we are trying to communicate something factual (e.g., this is what the trail junction looks like, or this is the hazardous washout along the way).

It follows that the "rules" for photography aren't any different than for any successful communication. It's okay to embellish the truth in aid of a good story, or even to create a work of complete fiction as long as it is clear that it is fiction. What is not okay is to intentionally mislead people by representing a photo as being an accurate, unaltered reproduction if in fact it is altered. Most news organizations and other similar publications have very strict rules about not altering images, because the public has an expectation that news photos can be relied upon for objectivity. On the other hand, photos presented as art are generally understood to be interpretive, not merely representational.

The rest of it just comes down to questions of style. Some people prefer very understated photos; some people like photos with high contrast and super saturated colors; and some like photos with fantastic color alterations, or perhaps simple monochrome interpretations. For myself, I find that there are some photos in many different styles that I like where the photographer has achieved a good match of style and message, and other photos in the same styles that just don't work for me. And like music or painting or any other artistic medium, people have different tastes and some people like photos that I find unappealing.

Some artists get a lot of satisfaction from working within specific rules or constraints. For example, some musicians devote a great deal of effort to learning to perform baroque music using only period instruments. Likewise, some photographers prefer to work with rules about what type of processing they will allow. For example, some photographers insist on using the entire frame of the photo as shot without any cropping. Why? Because it is part of how they like to work. Personally, I admire their discipline but I have no qualms about cropping as much as I feel like. So if someone wants to practice photography by using only unaltered jpegs right out of the camera...great. If someone else wants to adjust only brightness and contrast...fine. And if someone wants to use a lot of filters and adjustments...also fine (with the proviso that one should not misrepresent the work).

A final thought. Personally I find it somewhat ironic when I hear photographers talking about photos as presenting the way things "really" are. The real world out there is a three dimensional space with light (and other wavelengths of radiation) bouncing around like crazy. A photo is a two dimensional object created by an arbitrary process of reacting to some of that light (and radiation) that has been bent (distorted) by an optical device and recorded by some sort of sensor that embodies the interpretations of various engineers about how light and color should be represented. It may conform to our commonly held notions of what is a fair representation...but it is not reality.

[5th]

IMO there are really only two rules:

1. Don't mislead people regarding the authenticity of your images.
2. Do what you want. It's your art.

[jdemott]

As a thought experiment, which of the following would qualify as "altering" a photograph??

While taking the photograph:

Using a gold reflector to provide a warm glow to the scene.
Using a polarizing filter to eliminate reflections and increase color saturation.
Using a graduated neutral density filter (darkens part of the scene) to get correct exposure of both sky and foreground.
Using flash to highlight one area of the scene.
Putting a little vaseline on a filter to create a hazy romantic effect.
Removing dead leaves and twigs from around a clump of wildflowers to get a clean shot.
Putting a brightly colored autumn leaf in the scene for dramatic effect.

In the chemical darkroom:

Using a high contrast printing paper to give a higher contrast image.
Using a high acutance developer for a sharp image of fine detail.
Using a contrast mask to create greater definition.
Dodging and burning (using more or less light on particular areas of a print) to emphasize points of interest.
Making a cibachrome print from a Velvia slide to get highly saturated colors.
Using various dyes to create toned monochrome prints, such as sepia.
Changing exposure to create a high key or low key image

In the digital darkroom:
Using Photoshop and/or various digital filters to mimic any of the above?

[texasbb]

I think the purpose of photography can be anything you want. The only absolute is that not everybody will like your purpose.

For many years, I was of the mindset that the purpose of photography was to capture—in optical/physical terms—exactly what was in front of the camera. ...but... he said that the purpose of photography wasn't to capture a scene exactly as it was, but to capture the emotions you (the photographer) felt when you witnessed that scene.

Either mindset is fine with me, though I do have to say that I don't believe a lot of people who claim the latter. I see lots of "photos" of places I've been many times and have a hard time believing the photographer really felt what the final picture conveys. Not to derail things in this thread, but an easy example is blurry-water pictures of enormous, close, loud, dangerous, intimidating waterfalls---when the picture ends up feeling quiet and contemplative, I have a hard time believing that's what the photographer felt. But maybe s/he's just weird. Maybe I am.

[SWriverstone]

Good responses. And I agree that the only thing that really matters is not misrepresenting a photo.

One aspect that fascinates me is the actual difference between what we see and what the camera captures. I've found that many photographers accept an unaltered image as the "actual scene" (e.g. it's what they actually saw).

But the human eye is far more powerful than any camera in many ways—in field of view, in color perception, in dynamic range. So it sees to me that if the goal is to "capture what you saw," then you must alter the photo—because no camera can capture what we perceive through our eyes and minds.

Granted, knowing exactly what this difference is enormously difficult. For starters, because we don't see in still images. There is motion in every scene we view—and the light is constantly shifting, even if only at the level of tiny reflections on the blades of grass.

Just thoughts.
Scott

[5th]

I'm a poor photographer. I don't really understand the intricacies of manual settings. I've tried, but I just don't retain enough to make use of it. I suspect that at some level I just don't care. But then when I go out hiking I want good pictures that convey either what I see or what I feel. Of course, I only get that outcome by taking lots of pictures and getting lucky. Like I said, I'm a poor photographer.

I think most people who end up with "blurry-water pictures of enormous, close, loud, dangerous, intimidating waterfalls" are people like me, who haven't the foggiest idea how to make it any better. We're just out there clicking away, hoping something good will come of it. I also think it is likely that most people like me don't even know if we are trying to capture the scene or the feeling. As for myself, I'm not sure there's much of a difference in most cases. Or maybe a better way of putting that is that I rarely mentally separate the scene from how it makes me feel. <shrug>

[Waffle Stomper]

I think this is an interesting article about Ansel Adams and photo manipulation.

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/20 ... photoshop/

[Steve20050]

I am always amused by the idea that a photograph enhanced by some technique makes it less "real" than any other photograph. I read somewhere that an early photo taken of Multnomah falls had a tree blocking some of the view. The photographer returned after having someone cut down the tree to produce a better view. Yep, early photo shopping.

I think about a photo I want before I even venture out the door before dawn. The minute I step out that door I am in the process of manipulation of an idea and the photo I want. Most of us realize that early morning and evening produce those gorgeous colors and contrast we like. Is this first step also manipulation of the image based on my preference of lighting? To me, all of the steps are just more an evolution of a process that is up to the individuals decisions as to it's end.

I believe that photography is a way of self expression and spiritual growth. I can't recall the name of a guru/ teacher of Indian thought that once said photography was a great way to bring Americans to spiritual awareness. That Americans could spend a great deal of money on expensive material possessions and produce something that helped them find inner strength and belief in themselves. I agree. I think anyone that has read books like the popular Artist's Way can appreciate the fact that creative endeavors make you feel more full filled as a part of something larger. More a spiritual feeling than religious. To that end, I don't care how someone gets that image, only that they produce it.

Even someone such as Ansel Adams used his zone system to try and find formulas that produced what he wanted. Thanks Waffle Stomper. I wasn't sure whether to bring up Adams or not. Lets face it, photography is a lot of math as most things are. Understanding the basic equations then learning how to manipulate those numbers is a key part of getting what you want. It could be that wide open aperture to flatten the field of view so the flower is in focus and the background blurred. Perhaps the smallest aperture for much more depth of field in a landscape. We are always manipulating what we see to suit our individual tastes. Waterfalls usually on cloudy days, with slow shutter. Or a fast shutter to freeze action at a race, etc.

I recall discussion of Adams having a special built enlarger that had several dozen small light sources for exposure control far beyond most of us at that time. I am only using Adams as an example cause people rightly think his work was extraordinary, but sometimes don't understand that it was his ability to manipulate those numbers to get what he wanted.

So what have I manipulated in my photos. Lots of stuff. I've posted most of these before, so bear with me if you've seen them.

Two photos from two locations

This photo wasn't possible to take from anywhere in the meadow without a drone camera. The cove and trees were taken from the extreme right. The Cascade Head and 3 rocks area was taken from the cliff on the left. Without photo shop I wouldn't have this photo.

Getting rid of unwanted detail

The popular Punchbowl falls was on my list of photos I wanted. Cloudy day not many folks. There was that fallen tree with limb blocking full view of the falls. Without photoshop it would be a different photo.

Pollution problems. Summer fires.

Summer fires are becoming a major problem for landscapes. This was 9 photos. 3 frames with 3 exposures each. +1,0,-1. Used HDR to bring up tones. Cut out sky and pulled it down to eliminate large band of smoke from Applegate fire.

So what is all the printed stuff . I have always liked to get more info about a photo I like. So I also include info on history, geology, flora & fauna, etc. I usually just cut it off for this site as the print is too small to read. These photos are 300mb to 1.5 g and made to print above 300dpi,(the human eye can differentiate about that). Below 300dpi is when you see the pixel effects. So yes these photos are BIG.

As above, my mention of timing. Makes an enormous difference. Here are two examples taken only minutes apart.

Up before dawn on a rare clear day. Guy behind me didn't get this photo

He got this instead.

Cerro Torre is VERY well known to technical climbers. It is an interesting read if you don't know the stories. My copy is my words based on what I've read. Only wish I had a mirror lake to photoshop in but considering the climate there I was happy to get what I did.