Maintaining reality

[jamiebonline]

Hi everyone,

There seems to be an awful lot of badly done HDR around these days and that God awful fake sun flare. I am a portrait photographer and do post processing on my pictures but as regards models, little more than removing the odd blemish. No skin smoothing, for example. The rest is colour and contrast related to the whole image. I suppose I try to maintain a natural or realistic look. Only gently ''boosting'' the image.

To what extent do you feel your picture needs to represent the true reality of what you have seen?

Or do you think of it another way, do you see the picture as only a starting point, a blueprint to creating something very unique to the point of fantasy with painted skies and so on which takes many days of work on Photoshop. There seem to be perhaps two different creative approaches. (I understand the need for working pros to deliver a certain level in post processing also.) I think it must sometimes be the case, that the more time you spend altering the image in great detail, the less possible it becomes to let stuff alone.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•
Interesting thread you start there Jamie!

There are many aspects to the trade, passion, technique, etc …and the beauty of
it all is that one may embrace a single, a combination, or all of them to be used at
once and at will!

• My photo work wants to record, report, represent a subject using all the technical
means at my disposal to render it in full reality but with a twist.

• My imagery work wants to illustrate and ultimately seduce through my approach
and artistic intent an eventual viewer towards which the communication is directed.
For this, everything is allowed…
the quintessential expression of digital artistic intent and rendition.

– I hate HDR in natural settings… Mother Nature needs no make up!
– I'm little tolerant toward mixing up the purposes of photography and imagery.

I'm grateful to you to have created a platform to express such ideas and emotions.

 

[RichardTaylor]

It all depends on the end use.
For my own stuff almost anything goes other times a, mostly straight record. I may make some technical adjustments (like noise reduction) and no sharpening (perhapes a little skin softening) rfor aother subjects. .

(1) Like how for is this from reality, a vacation shot.

Mystic by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

Or

(2) when shooting for other people This is almost a styraight record shot. I do shoot classical music events for "clients".

The soloist. by Richard Taylor, on Flickr

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't know why people agonise over this. If any kind of image manipulation is required to achieve the desired result, then do it. The problem isn't whether it's somehow morally right or wrong, it is working out when it should be used or not in the first place. I've always worked like this. Even back in the film days. The problem now is that it's all about digital processing. People will just reduce photography to a data gathering exercise and not think about how they can achieve what they want using photography - they go straight to the computer now and lose objectivity. It's too easy now, and too tempting.

None of this is new. Even before computers, people used to manipulate imagery - it just took infinitely more skill and patience, so not everyone could do it.. Now.. everyone can do it, and my god don't they just!

It also depends what you're shooting, and why you're shooting it.

Just get on with it... people will tell you if you're being an idiot with your processing or not... well, maybe not in here... or Facebook... far too polite... but go to a few folio reviews or something... they'll straighten you out in no time if you're going over board.

 

[The23rdman]

Stop worrying about what other photographers are doing; learn from it instead.

PP is just a step in the process to communicate whatever you're attempting to communicate.

 

[ianp5a]

The critical point is what result the photographer chooses to show.
It's a mixture of skill and taste. I'll never show all my duffers. They get binned. Some people think their OTT HDR is OK. So they show it. It tells you something about them. Exactly what I'm not sure.

I have a different question. You know, when you see a really badly done OTT HDR, that is so yuk! you react in some way. And I mean a really awful one. Is it possible to get that same reaction without using a PP technique? And if so, what needs to be in a straight photograph, that evokes the same negative reaction? Or does PP have it beat?

 

[swanseamale47]

Some pictures I see as they are taken, other I have an idea for before I press the button, they may end up with little in common with the scene I took.
We are all different, I like things you probably hate, I'm sure you'll like things I hate, at the end of the day you take what you like. Photography would be terribly boring if we all took exactly the same picture in the same way.

 

[Phil V]

Doesn't your complaint boil down to 'badly done PP is wrong' though, which is a bit obvious.

Badly done anything is to be avoided. Whether that's at capture, lighting or PP.

People who see the problem as being gear or technique are missing the point. People who see too much bad photography or PP should change their habits to learn from people who are doing things well rather than focussing on people doing it badly.

 

[ianp5a]

Doesn't your complaint boil down to 'badly done PP is wrong' though, which is a bit obvious.

Badly done anything is to be avoided. Whether that's at capture, lighting or PP.

What we think is badly done, is clearly okay to some people, and thus not wrong.

It may sound odd but it's an interesting place to explore. Doing something, you consider, badly. It's worth trying, to help you question what you might be doing automatically. Without thought. And so "change your habits and learn from people who do things badly".

 

[Phil V]

What we think is badly done, is clearly okay to some people, and thus not wrong.

It's also an interesting place to explore. Doing something, what you consider, badly.

Whatever floats someone's boat. I was responding to the OP's point(s) where he's constantly finding things he doesn't like then opening discussions about them.

I don't think we need to learn to add fake lens flare badly to understand why we wouldn't want to do it. I've also largely learned not to comment when I find some for critique