Photography - Reality of what we see or Edited to what we don't see?

Stitch-Up

Stitch-Up

Suspended / Banned
Messages
129
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!

Some pictures posted on many forums are so unreal, edited so heavily to enhance colours and other aspects to a point that looks hideous (in my opinion) bearing no relation to what the eye sees. Is this photography?

I expect to be criticised for my comments but wonder if others agree?
 
I have always had a very light touch with post-processing but everything goes as far as aiming the camera goes and ditto for details of the exposure. I really like abstract photography but that is found abstraction, not digital art.
 
datasafe said:
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!

Some pictures posted on many forums are so unreal, edited so heavily to enhance colours and other aspects to a point that looks hideous (in my opinion) bearing no relation to what the eye sees. Is this photography?

I expect to be criticised for my comments but wonder if others agree?
Click to expand...
I find photoshop/lightroom or other editing software skills are essential to make colours, tones and contrast match the way I see them. Which I find extremely difficult.

Coming from the days of film, I feel that in terms of technical skills, darkroom (or photoshop etc) skills are just as important to being a photographer as the taking skills are: both aspects of of equal importance in a "photographers" skill set. I like viewing photographs that have been well taken AND well processed. Being "well" processed might mean very little processing or it might mean extensive processing. This will vary with the subject matter and the intent of the photographer.

I suspect, the images you refer to are showing skill and intent deficits in both the taking and the processing.

Personally, I see no reason why photographs "need" to have any relation to what the eye sees (if you mean being realistic), it's a creative medium and photographers can use it how they like, but I get no pleasure from looking at the assaults on the eyes you describe. However, I'm not sure you can argue it isn't photography, even if you might argue it isn't particularly "good" photography.

There is also the issue that we don't actually "see" realistic colour, indeed technically "correct" colours in photographs are seen as unrealistic by the majority. We remember colours warmer, more saturated and contrastier than they are in real life. This is called memory or remembered colour and everyone remembers colours differently.

The camera manufacturers (and the film manufacturers, and software manufacturers) use research into this "memory" or "remembered" colour when designing colour profiles for their cameras and film. Fuji for example have some of the same colour scientists developing "memory colour" profiles for their cameras as worked for the company developing "memory colour" profiles for their films.
 
Haha +1 for it’s art ;)

no criticism of your comment, it’s a perfectly valid observation.

There are many things about taking a picture that make the image different to what we see. For example long focal length, shallow depth of field, long exposure. Post processing is another tool in the box, no?

@myotis fascinating input about remembered color I never knew that. Personally, I don’t think I can remember color.
 
Let me add something a little more substantial to the thread.

I take pictures of a lot of things and for a number of reasons. Sometimes I want to record nature, the things I see in front of me. Sometimes I *see* a scene in my mind and want to create that - it may not be real, but rather imagined - I consider all monochrome photography by all photographers falls into the unreal category. Sometimes I want to make an image that will appeal to people who are not photographers. Sometimes I may feel an emotional connection to my images, but seldom and never to anyone else's.

A part of the process is capturing the initial image. This is often the quicker, easy bit.

A part of the process involves taking the raw file - the digital negative - and making it into a picture that I might show the world.

Or just leave on a hard drive. This is the same as all those film negatives that I have in folders tucked away in a wardrobe.

When I want to present a picture as natural, it may require some quite hefty processing to force it into the kind of shape that looks like a scene does to a naked eye. Sometimes the 'real' scene looks a bit boring but has potential. Sometimes I want the scene to look surreal, and that often requires less processing than something that looks natural.

If I want a picture to appeal to non-photographers then generally I can just apply a large bucket of contrast and saturation (Fuji colours) to make the image bright and colourful.

Why mention this?

There's an image posted here recently of a classic scene, waterfall foreground, mountain backdrop, that was magnificent in its style and would hit target market spot on, yet was criticised for being gaudy (I *think* that was the word used). Reality would be much more disappointing, but it was a lovely shot and was bang on the money. It's important to understand who, when viewing an image, it has been intended for. At the same time there are some super, extremely natural shots of birds, often a bit dull, but very very natural and absolutely on the money for the target market.

It doesn't really matter if you like or don't like an image. But a key thing is to understand why it was made to look the way it does, and then to decide whether it achieves what the original intention was for it. Or not.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
It doesn't really matter if you like or don't like an image.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether the purpose is to inform or to entertain.

If the former, you're quite correct. If the latter, then you've failed with all the viewers who didn't like it.
ancient_mariner said:
But a key thing is to understand why it was made to look the way it does, and then to decide whether it achieves what the original intention was for it.
Click to expand...
In general, how and why an image was made is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of those who will view it, unless you specifically made it to be assessed, of course, and show it only to the intended assessors.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If the former, you're quite correct. If the latter, then you've failed with all the viewers who didn't like it.
Click to expand...

Already covered that in the other part quoted.

AndrewFlannigan said:
In general, how and why an image was made is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of those who will view it, unless you specifically made it to be assessed, of course, and show it only to the intended assessors.
Click to expand...

I'm writing to photographers looking critically at an image here, so we ought to be able to step back a little and 'look under the hood' as the phrase might have it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm writing to photographers looking critically at an image here, so we ought to be able to step back a little and 'look under the hood' as the phrase might have it.
Click to expand...
Which is fair enough but then we come back to the great big hairy mammoth in the corner of the room: what exactly are you evaluating?

Every time this comes up I look for some objective criteria that can be pointed to and every time I get answers that all turn out to be "I like it". Now, I have no problem with "I like it". In fact, I believe that "I like it" is the only true measure of any form of art.

The problem I have is with all the twaddle that gets used to pretend that this entirely subjective judgement is in some magical manner objective. I would be delighted to see just one objective criterion of picture goodness but I've been looking for five decades without success.
 
datasafe said:
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!

Some pictures posted on many forums are so unreal, edited so heavily to enhance colours and other aspects to a point that looks hideous (in my opinion) bearing no relation to what the eye sees. Is this photography?

I expect to be criticised for my comments but wonder if others agree?
Click to expand...

I agree 100%
 
datasafe said:
bearing no relation to what the eye sees
Click to expand...
What about editing to what the experience imparted; feelings, impression of color, etc.?
In truth, what we experience and actually/mentally see typically differs significantly from the stark reality a straight photo will replicate... that's part of why so many "pretty pictures" fail.
 
Last edited:
Your brain is what creates an image in your head. In many cases you even see what you want or expect as opposed to hard reality.

Besides it is art.

I am rather tired of comments suggesting we can be only allowed raw digital pixel data presumably with authenticity verification by some fact checker organisation. Login to ap or Reuters fake news if that's what you like
 
ancient_mariner said:
It doesn't really matter if you like or don't like an image. But a key thing is to understand why it was made to look the way it does, and then to decide whether it achieves what the original intention was for it. Or not.
Click to expand...
There is a reason why we are taught Art "appreciation" and not Art you should like or dislike.

For the casual viewer or listener it may well boil down to only liking or disliking something, which is fine, and we all have our likes and dislikes, but these need to be guarded against when trying to make a serious and informed assessment of photographs.

I'm currently reading Charlotte Cotton's "The Photography as Contemporary Art" 2020, and while I can't say I "like" very many of the photographs, I am certainly developing a much greater appreciation of their social and cultural value to the meaning and history of photography, and for the photographers who made them.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I would be delighted to see just one objective criterion of picture goodness but I've been looking for five decades without success
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll ever find a standard curve to estimate the grading of a picture, but as myotis points out, we can offer a bit more insight than just whether we like it or not. Otherwise I feel Facebook has won and my views will be 10 feet wide and 1inch thick.
 
HDR is processing but surely the final result if something like stained glass is closer to the original than just one photo.
 
Shoot to edit :D

I do enjoy looking at film style shots with minimal editing, but at the same time love the over the top moody edits. Personally I will shoot to edit, and enjoy the editing process as much as I enjoy the walk and shoot. The editing style can highly define someones work too, and most likely they are picturing that look when they take the photo.
 
myotis said:
There is a reason why we are taught Art "appreciation" and not Art you should like or dislike.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately most of us are not taught art appreciation.

Which is why we get into the realm of 'everyone's opinion is valid', 'my six year old could have done that' and 'Emperor's New Clothes' whenever art is mentioned. :(
 
datasafe said:
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!

Some pictures posted on many forums are so unreal, edited so heavily to enhance colours and other aspects to a point that looks hideous (in my opinion) bearing no relation to what the eye sees. Is this photography?

I expect to be criticised for my comments but wonder if others agree?
Click to expand...

There's room for all sorts.

A couple of years ago or so someone commented that a picture I posted was the best he'd seen from me. I didn't reply that it was the most heavily processed shot I'd ever posted. I mostly go for what I see as a more natural and accurate capture when taking pictures of scenes or people.

I've seen lots of pictures which I'd consider to be overprocessed to the point that they don't represent any accurate capture of reality anymore and yet they seem popular. Others have clearly been heavily processed yet still manage to look sort of natural if not typical of the often rather drab light reality of life in the UK as lets be honest often an accurate representation of a scene can be rather flat and dull and maybe rather uninteresting and uninspiring.

As I started drawing and painting before I picked up a camera I can see how and why photographs are taken and processed in different ways and to different extents for different reasons by different people but it's all personal opinion and choice and none of this means that I have to copy what others do so I'm happy enough :D
 
ancient_mariner said:
Sometimes I may feel an emotional connection to my images, but seldom and never to anyone else's.
Click to expand...
I find that extremely curious, Toni, and wonder if you might elaborate on the psychology involved.

Ed Sutton said:
Unfortunately most of us are not taught art appreciation.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it's necessary to be taught art appreciation, Dave - not that I'm necessarly against it! I feel that it's possible to practice art / photographic appreciation by the practice & development of your native faculties.

In the photographic realm as I see it, a 'good' image has an inbuilt integrity, and its look is inseparable from its purpose, whatever that may be. Craft has a strong place in this, but isn't itself the message. An image might even be poorly crafted, but have some vital documentary relevance ...

Many images are probably somewhat lacking in vital purpose, which isn't surprising since anyone can buy a camera and wave it about.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Sometimes I may feel an emotional connection to my images, but seldom and never to anyone else's.
Click to expand...
droj said:
I find that extremely curious, Toni, and wonder if you might elaborate on the psychology involved.
Click to expand...
That is interesting.

I can't say I feel any emotional connection to many pictures I see on this site too often but just sometimes, definitely so. Perhaps some documentary / street is the most evocative and more likely to produce an emotional response than a silky waterfall or a BIF. I think the first time I had a strong emotional reaction to photographs was at school when covering WW2 and when asked to comment on a series of B&W photographs from the 30's and 40's depicting what was pretty obviously harassment.
 
jerry12953 said:
Oh yes, I think someone must have done it while I was typing my comment...... ;)
Click to expand...

B&W is interesting but not something I do much. I was looking at some shots taken with an old Leica recently and they were mostly IMO quite a bit underexposed. I've seen quite a few B&W's like that and I do wonder why people do it.
 
woof woof said:
they were mostly IMO quite a bit underexposed. I've seen quite a few B&W's like that and I do wonder why people do it.
Click to expand...
It can be a form of abstraction / concentration, since a photograph can show too much information - so it can be a refining of purpose by elimination.
 
There can be different forms of emotional response to photographs. One is by association - as when the image is of someone or a place we know. This I might call an indirect type. Another is visceral and immediate, and I'd call this direct.
 
Some emotion can be trivial - such as in a liking for the pretty - and doesn't really grasp any kind of nettle.

Things can also be viewed cerebrally to an extent that they might be largely devoid of heart. I'd include here pictures of 'things' - 'ah yes, that's a such & such', so they get a tick of recognition. That doesn't deny any craftsmanship involved.
 
droj said:
I don't know that it's necessary to be taught art appreciation, Dave - not that I'm necessarly against it! I feel that it's possible to practice art / photographic appreciation by the practice & development of your native faculties.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but not many people practice art. And of those who do many don't look beyond the technical and superficial.
 
I think my point was that b&w is a massive abstraction from reality but that arguably it can put over a message ("communicate") more powerfully than full colour can. To bring this back to the original post, b&w bears very little relation to what the eye can actually see but that it can still have its place.

It doesn't really matter what equipment, film stock, developer etc was used. If the results appeared underexposed perhaps that was a personal choice of the photographer, and it might have been a mistake on their part.
 
Surely one can enjoy both straight and edited and even created images. I have never specialised and try all genres of photography. recently I have been mainly capturing wildlife so little or no editing but I also occasionally construct an image from several and apply filters to create the effect I want. Altering what the camera captures in hardly recent. A long deceased member of my own club gave a lecture on how to replace skies in 1928; Ansel Adams was into this approach at about this time as well. It all comes down to whether you accept that Photography is art. A couple of hundred years ago a painting had to be a religious work (as did most music). Fortunately, some artists broke away and impressionism became popular.

Dave
 
datasafe said:
I love viewing pictures especially those that exhibit the skill of the photographer as opposed the the skill of using Photoshop or lightroom!

Some pictures posted on many forums are so unreal, edited so heavily to enhance colours and other aspects to a point that looks hideous (in my opinion) bearing no relation to what the eye sees. Is this photography?

I expect to be criticised for my comments but wonder if others agree?
Click to expand...
Photography doesn't have to have any relation to what the eye sees.
I do a fair bit of infrared photography, shooting things that are there but in a way the eye can't detect, a similar field would be x-rays. In both cases the photographs are showing what is there just not being limited to what our feeble eye's can manage. :)

I have to agree that many over processed images look awful, and I'm sure many will find my false colour IR images hideous. My processing is nearly all using global controls, contrast, hue brightness etc. but I will also crop & clone out sensor muck.

The results some call photography involve compositing multiple images (swapping skies, adding in a moon etc) even when I like these I feel they are graphic art rather than photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top