Is post processing photographs ethical?

[anupmathur]

Jay, would I be right in assuming that no post processing has been done on any of the photos?
I love them, because they seem real!

[jay_gujarat]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Jay, would I be right in assuming that no post processing has been done on any of the photos?
I love them, because they seem real!

Sir, you are right, I dont like too much post processing, If photos are perfectly exposed then they dont need to process, If you dont expose perfectly then they are under or over exposed so processing will be compulsory. Post processing is a solution for mistakes !!

[KonfuSed]

Originally Posted by jay_gujarat

Sir, you are right, I dont like too much post processing, If photos are perfectly exposed then they dont need to process, If you dont expose perfectly then they are under or over exposed so processing will be compulsory. Post processing is a solution for mistakes !!

I would strongly disagree here. It's never the case that one do post processing to cover-up the mistake. But it's the photographer's ( and I would like to call photography as Art) interpretation how he wants to portray something. It's not about showing some reality or something but about expressing your emotions. And one can't make his/her photograph stand out if the photo itself is crap, no amount post processing gonna help.

And if you think that the camera doesn't do any processing on your photograph before writing to your jpeg format or even to RAW then you are making a big mistake. The camera does post processing and then it saves the photographs to the memory card. Each and every photograph needs some amount of processing even to reach the reality levels if you want to say it so. Anyway let's keep this debate for another time as I'm tired of this debate anyway. Everyone to his/her own.

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Originally Posted by jay_gujarat

Sir, you are right, I dont like too much post processing, If photos are perfectly exposed then they dont need to process, If you dont expose perfectly then they are under or over exposed so processing will be compulsory. Post processing is a solution for mistakes !!

I agree with what Kaushik has said and like David duChemin said, “We are artists and not photojournalists or documentarians, we do not show what was there, we show things the way we saw them. If you wish to see what is actually there, then you should go there personally.”

Btw didn't expected this sort of comments from you, after seeing your bird photographs

[jay_gujarat]

Originally Posted by Yogesh Sarkar

I agree with what Kaushik has said and like David duChemin said, “We are artists and not photojournalists or documentarians, we do not show what was there, we show things the way we saw them. If you wish to see what is actually there, then you should go there personally.”

Btw didn't expected this sort of comments from you, after seeing your bird photographs

I agreed with kaushik and yogi. But my meaning is other, There is lots of difference in creativity (creative photography) ,art photography vs post processing, making creative and art photographs are not in category of post processing, The term post-processing is used for quality-improvement (Digital Darkroom)(taking out picture in its original look).The thing you are talking about is called editing, and the thing I am talking about is post processing. The thing all you told is possible after post processing.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Yogesh Sarkar

... and like David duChemin said, “We are artists and not photojournalists or documentarians, we do not show what was there, we show things the way we saw them. If you wish to see what is actually there, then you should go there personally.”

This is a good way of putting it.
I think digital photography has spawned something which was not readily available earlier: the ability to convert a captured pic into a work of art.
The old adage about 'the camera never lies' has become just that: old.

For photo journalism or documentary purposes there probably is an attempt to retain objective 'realism', but it has become equally possible to do post processing/editing and create something that was seen by a particular person's mind's eye! The above quote from David duChemin needs to be modified to : "...the way we saw them, through the mind's eye"!

Indeed, To Each His Own!

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Originally Posted by jay_gujarat

I agreed with kaushik and yogi. But my meaning is other, There is lots of difference in creativity (creative photography), art photography vs post processing, making creative and art photographs are not in category of post processing, The term post-processing is used for quality-improvement (Digital Darkroom)(taking out picture in its original look).The thing you are talking about is called editing, and the thing I am talking about is post processing. The thing all you told is possible after post processing.

It is basically the same thing and involves the same types of tools to get the job done.

Originally Posted by anupmathur

This is a good way of putting it.
I think digital photography has spawned something which was not readily available earlier: the ability to convert a captured pic into a work of art.
The old adage about 'the camera never lies' has become just that: old.

For photo journalism or documentary purposes there probably is an attempt to retain objective 'realism', but it has become equally possible to do post processing/editing and create something that was seen by a particular person's mind's eye! The above quote from David duChemin needs to be modified to : "...the way we saw them, through the mind's eye"!

Indeed, To Each His Own!

Sir to quote another photographer, Matt Brandon, “I am not doing anything that I did not do while shooting films and slides, even at that time we used to tweak color and clean the blemishes etc. while processing them in the dark room and this is what we are currently doing through tools like Photoshop. Even the famous photograph of the Afghan Girl on the cover of National Geographic Magazine was enhanced by removing blemishes on the face of the girl, and this was over 20 years ago!”

Add to that, even the great photographers from “film era” used to “enhance images” using pens/brushes and what not! Just go through Ansel Adams interview and things would become a lot clearer.

Also it is a myth that a photo is never post processed! If it is a film based photograph you are getting printed, then its saturation/contrast would depend on the sort and composition of chemicals used to process the negatives and that is largely dependent on photo lab technician. This is one of the reasons why professional and amateur photographers who shoot films, prefer to process them themselves or why photos from few labs look better.

In case of a digital camera, the photo gets processed according to what camera’s algorithms think and what saturation, sharpening, white balance etc. settings you had chosen and this is what you basically do in digital post processing tools like Photoshop.

The only difference between yesteryears and today is that the techniques are more widely and easily available, but the techniques/tools for most parts are the same.

[KonfuSed]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

This is a good way of putting it.
I think digital photography has spawned something which was not readily available earlier: the ability to convert a captured pic into a work of art.
The old adage about 'the camera never lies' has become just that: old.

Well again you've taken a wrong assumption that only during digital era the post processing of photos came out or that photography was not an Art form before. Before photoshop there was something called Dark-room which probably everyone have heard of. Look at the work of renowned photographers like Ansel Adams and see the amount processing he used to do on the photograph so that it can be printed as he would imagine the final outcome to be. Post processing was always there and always will be.

Originally Posted by anupmathur

For photo journalism or documentary purposes there probably is an attempt to retain objective 'realism', but it has become equally possible to do post processing/editing and create something that was seen by a particular person's mind's eye! The above quote from David duChemin needs to be modified to : "...the way we saw them, through the mind's eye"!

Indeed, To Each His Own!

And there is a fine line between Digital Manipulation and post processing. Digital manipulation is not something I advocate but post processing steps such as sharpening/color saturation/changing to Monochrome will always be there. By digital manipulation I meant that changing the subjects and backgrounds totally, say adding a photo of a Elephant in an Ladakh landscape or putting a marmot on the banks of Tso-moriri by using photoshop. That's digital manipulation and it's unacceptable to many. But just changing the sharpness of the photo is something I'll always welcome.

And about reality of an unprocessed photograph, let me give you an example, take two different cameras, say a Nikon D80 and a Canon 450D. Click two photos of the same scene with same settings at same focal length. And now check the photo that directly come out from the camera. Both will be very very different. Now tell me which one you'll say as a real representation of the scene? Both photos will be quite different from each other due to difference in camera, hence you can't just say at un processed photo is something called reality.
Same thing applies for film also, Kodak Ektachrome photograph will be very different then a photo from Fuji Velvia and likes..
Regards,

EDIT : Just seen Yogesh's post and we are talking exactly the same thing and even the examples he he...

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by KonfuSed

Both will be very very different. Now tell me which one you'll say as a real representation of the scene? Both photos will be quite different from each other due to difference in camera, hence you can't just say at un processed photo is something called reality.

Having seen such differences, I do not find them to be 'momentous'!
They still broadly fall within what the lay person perceives as 'real'.
The very many heavily tweaked ones today very often evoke just one response from us as a family (none of us are photography enthusiasts): Totally unreal!!

So in the end, I'd say it is best left to each one to decide where his/her own preferences lie.

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Sir in that scenario, what would you call this photograph?



Or for that matter, this one?