To tell or not to tell?

[Bollygum]

I often get into conversations about whether you should tell people that an image has been changed or that it shouldn't matter. I'll exclude Nature and Doco as it think it is accepted that these should not be "photoshopped", but should we tell people if things have been changed with say Landscape or Travel or portrait? Should the viewer be made aware of the way the photographer manipulates their subject?

What is you view on this?

 

[TLR-330]

What is Nature and Doco?

Other than that call the object you show photoshopography and problem solved.

 

[Bollygum]

What is Nature and Doco?

Other than that call the object you show photoshopography and problem solved.

There are categories on this site called Nature and many other sites have a category called Documentary. Maybe that would be Travel and Street Photography here. Generally in competitions Photoshopography (I don't think that will catch on) is banned from Nature and Doco, but comps aren't really the point.
I guess you say - do what you like?

 

[TLR-330]

Thanks for the explanation. I am not quite saying "Do what you like" but if you display a photograph I don't see how you can tell what you have modified, and then what is an acceptable modification so no point in telling and what isn't.

 

[Bollygum]

Thanks for the explanation. I am not quite saying "Do what you like" but if you display a photograph I don't see how you can tell what you have modified, and then what is an acceptable modification so no point in telling and what isn't.

It's really a philosophical question. I don't think there is any need for people to say exactly what has been done, but where do people think/feel that the line is? I think that the categories of Nature and Doco fall into the "don't photoshop" basket and creative clearly falls into the "anything goes" basket, but what about Nude and Glamour or Landscape or Sports? I'm not asking what rules people think there should be, just what you would do yourself. For me it is the intent that is most important. I generally take nature and I generally won't change things in post processing, but I may set things up beforehand. Even this can be suspect at times ( eg the tame wolf photographed jumping a gate that temporarily won a wildlife comp), and pp changes may be trivial and not change anything significant. I was tempted to use the line "To thine own self be true" until I read that it probably meant do whatever you feel comfortable with. ie a huge cop out, like self regulation for the Mafia.

 

[TLR-330]

OK. For one, I would not modify and would not paint my cats in tiger colours for example and present them as something else

 

[Bollygum]

Never thought of that. Oddly enough, if I could do it well, which I probably can't, I would do that. But I would say that I had done it and that is the point for me. Do what you like with your photographs (aside from the breaking the law type of things), but admit that you have moved reality. The times that I am uncomfortable is where someone puts up (say) a landscape which is a composite of several pictures and refuses to admit what it is. To me that is a form of lying. But, the line is unclear and what is not ok for me maybe ok for someone else, or what I think is ok someone else may think is too far.

 

[Phil V]

I expect that most images I see to have been 'finished' in some form of software, but that's 'finished' not 'created'

My most frequent criticism of others images is that the processing is done badly. I mostly concentrate on portraiture, and the 'overdone' eyes are a point of frustration, along with oversmoothed skin. There's nothing wrong with a bit of photoshoppery, but the end result should look like an actual human being.

In landscape there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with changing a sky, but it has to be done subtly, if you add a dramatic sky to an image shot on an overcast day, it'll look 'wrong' because 'photographers' understand that the land is lit by the sky.

My biggest issue with newer photographers is that they stupidly believe software is what makes images 'great' and this is apparent both in their idiotic belief that other people's great images are due more to Photoshop than photography skills, or that they can learn how to make their average or worse images into works of art whilst sat drinking their cocoa.they can't, great images come out of cameras (unless we're talking about extreme compositing - which is more digital art than photography)

 

[Brazo]

What has a screen, input controls, storage, ram, a cpu a gpu, operating system and editing software?

That’s right...

 

[DG Phototraining]

The only real chance of a SOOC image is with slide film, everything else is processed to a degree; most of those competitions you're referring to state that you can't add or remove things, not that you can't enhance them

I usually have a good idea of what I'll do in PP to any image I take, and that's part of my photography process. That said, I've never added anything to an image, like a better sky for example, as I like my photos to be a pretty true representation of what was actually there, but I have removed the odd wire or annoying bit of 'crap' from an image

Shoot a good shot, process it nicely (whatever that is, its your shot, your vision) and don't worry about it

Unless you're being paid by a client, then worry about it

Dave

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

The only real chance of a SOOC image is with slide film, everything else is processed to a degree;

And even then, some of the effects people now achieve in 'post' could be obtained by choosing the 'make and model' of slide film to give different colour rendition and saturation. Keen film photographers would match their choice of film to the subject to obtain the 'look' they wanted; these days digital users can largely do this (and to a much greater extent) by using image processing/editing software.

The same with black and white film; selecting a smooth, sharp film for detailed shots, or a high ISO film for a gritty and 'golf ball grained' look to suit the subject. Additional effects could also be obtained during the developing and printing stages. These days it can all be done on a computer after the shutter has been pressed, but one thing remains constant, you can't turn a total sow's ear into a silk purse... but people still seem to try!

 

[DG Phototraining]

but one thing remains constant, you can't turn a total sow's ear into a silk purse... but people still seem to try!

Hear hear

Dave

 

[Ed Sutton]

Doco

I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list for intorducing me to such a vile abbreviation.

It's even worse than Togger and it's variations.

 

[john.margetts]

Why does nobody ask watercolourists this question? It is normal for artists to be selective as what they include in their pictures and to be less than faithful in their interpretations of the key elements.

Lowery painted a landscape of Lincoln some years ago - there is nowhere in Lincoln where you can stand and see those elements of the picture at the same time. Dies that make Lowery a poor painter or an imaginative painter?

 

[rob-nikon]

So many different aspects are cover here from processing to setting up a situation.

Should the viewer be made aware of the way the photographer manipulates their subject?

This can be an interesting one and probably depends where your photos are going to end up or used. Take the current example of models and celebrities being 'photoshopped' that's gives young girls an unrealistic idea of how they should look. If you are just taking photos of a family member or a client for personal use/display it totally changes could could or couldnt be acceptable. Honestly if you want to say if you made any modifications why not, it's a personal thing, just don't expect everyone else to tell you if they did.

I think there is a point where some people want to know the processing settings just like they want to know the camera settings. None of that data is much use when you don't know why the photographer used those settings and what they were trying to protray. Just knowing that data won't let you replicate that image as the time of day/year, weather and light would have to be exactly the same.

Even this can be suspect at times ( eg the tame wolf photographed jumping a gate that temporarily won a wildlife comp), and pp changes may be trivial and not change anything significant.

The wolf jumping situation is far removed from processing/editing an image. It was a situation completely setup and portrayed as wild entered into a competition that was wildlife photographer of the year (it's interesting to note that BWPA allows captive subjects as long as you tell them they are captive). There is also the argument about the acceptibility of baiting wild animals for wildlife photography, everyone has differing opinions on that (and not one we probably could or should cover in this thread). With wildlife photography if you stick by the rule 'the animals welfare is far more important than a photo' you can't go far wrong.

Personally I usually add the tag 'captive' on Flickr if it is. I also blog about places I go to for wildlife and landscapes

I expect that most images I see to have been 'finished' in some form of software, but that's 'finished' not 'created'

My most frequent criticism of others images is that the processing is done badly. I mostly concentrate on portraiture, and the 'overdone' eyes are a point of frustration, along with oversmoothed skin. There's nothing wrong with a bit of photoshoppery, but the end result should look like an actual human being.

In landscape there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with changing a sky, but it has to be done subtly, if you add a dramatic sky to an image shot on an overcast day, it'll look 'wrong' because 'photographers' understand that the land is lit by the sky.

My biggest issue with newer photographers is that they stupidly believe software is what makes images 'great' and this is apparent both in their idiotic belief that other people's great images are due more to Photoshop than photography skills, or that they can learn how to make their average or worse images into works of art whilst sat drinking their cocoa.they can't, great images come out of cameras (unless we're talking about extreme compositing - which is more digital art than photography)

Toattally agree with Phil here too.

The only real chance of a SOOC image is with slide film, everything else is processed to a degree; most of those competitions you're referring to state that you can't add or remove things, not that you can't enhance them

I usually have a good idea of what I'll do in PP to any image I take, and that's part of my photography process. That said, I've never added anything to an image, like a better sky for example, as I like my photos to be a pretty true representation of what was actually there, but I have removed the odd wire or annoying bit of 'crap' from an image

Shoot a good shot, process it nicely (whatever that is, its your shot, your vision) and don't worry about it

I personally do the same as Dave has said above. The images I take are for myself and are memories of that day/time. I don't take photos to create a composite image so I've never changed sky etc. To be honest my processing skills are limited to Lightroom so I wouldn't even know how to remove or add elements.

I don't get whole SOOC thing as the camera would have added processing choices (WB, picture controls, sharpening etc) to create that JPEG file. It's no different to processing an image on a computer later. Great landscapers like Ansel Adams would most likely have made processing choices in the dark room to get the images he wanted to produce.

Why does nobody ask watercolourists this question? It is normal for artists to be selective as what they include in their pictures and to be less than faithful in their interpretations of the key elements.

Lowery painted a landscape of Lincoln some years ago - there is nowhere in Lincoln where you can stand and see those elements of the picture at the same time. Dies that make Lowery a poor painter or an imaginative painter?

I guess the difference is people are more accepting a painting may not be totally true to life, whereas a photograph is seen as a snapshot in time of the scene as it was when the shutter button was pressed.

Wasn't there a thread a few months back where someone wanted to remove the scaffolding in a picture they had taken in somewhere like Rome. The edits did remove the scaffolding but did it then protray a photograph of that place at that time or does it protray an image like Lowery's of Lincoln?

 

[Phil V]

I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list for intorducing me to such a vile abbreviation.

It's even worse than Togger and it's variations.

Whilst I was tempted to do similar...

I've just had a look at some of @Bollygum 's work here.

And I'm in awe, not necessarily at the technical ability, but with his obvious love for the subjects, his posts are enlightening.

 

[rob-nikon]

I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list for intorducing me to such a vile abbreviation.

It's even worse than Togger and it's variations.

I can't stand the words 'tog' or 'togger' either. With some intrepidation I've recently started listening to the TogCast. Apart from the bloody awful name, I've enjoyed listening as it covers some good interviews that are about the photography (and rarely about gear) with some good landscape and travel photographers.

 

[TheBigYin]

I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list for intorducing me to such a vile abbreviation.

It's even worse than Togger and it's variations.

it's an Aussie thing.

same as calling Dustbinmen "Garbo's"...

 

[Bollygum]

Why does nobody ask watercolourists this question? It is normal for artists to be selective as what they include in their pictures and to be less than faithful in their interpretations of the key elements.

Lowery painted a landscape of Lincoln some years ago - there is nowhere in Lincoln where you can stand and see those elements of the picture at the same time. Dies that make Lowery a poor painter or an imaginative painter?

I expect that people did complain about what artists did back in the (good old) days before photographs. Reality was expected from artists then, even if the reality was a little warped. Now, you can paint anything, even a blank canvas with a little dot somewhere on it. I don't object to anything done with a camera, just as long as the photographer indicates in general what was done. Not even specifics, just what the intent was.

I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list for intorducing me to such a vile abbreviation.

It's even worse than Togger and it's variations.

Sorry, I get sore fingers typing.

The only real chance of a SOOC image is with slide film, everything else is processed to a degree; most of those competitions you're referring to state that you can't add or remove things, not that you can't enhance them

I usually have a good idea of what I'll do in PP to any image I take, and that's part of my photography process. That said, I've never added anything to an image, like a better sky for example, as I like my photos to be a pretty true representation of what was actually there, but I have removed the odd wire or annoying bit of 'crap' from an image

Shoot a good shot, process it nicely (whatever that is, its your shot, your vision) and don't worry about it

Unless you're being paid by a client, then worry about it


Dave

There are only two types of people that I know who use the term SOOC. The first are those who don't know how to use processing software and they try to make it a virtue of not knowing. The second are people who almost always use photoshop very extensively and who post a crap photo with a SOOC as an excuse.
I'm rarely change anything, but not because I have a problem with it, but because, like you, I have more fun getting it right in the camera. I much prefer spending my time outside with a camera rather than behind a computer.

I expect that most images I see to have been 'finished' in some form of software, but that's 'finished' not 'created'

My most frequent criticism of others images is that the processing is done badly. I mostly concentrate on portraiture, and the 'overdone' eyes are a point of frustration, along with oversmoothed skin. There's nothing wrong with a bit of photoshoppery, but the end result should look like an actual human being.

In landscape there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with changing a sky, but it has to be done subtly, if you add a dramatic sky to an image shot on an overcast day, it'll look 'wrong' because 'photographers' understand that the land is lit by the sky.

My biggest issue with newer photographers is that they stupidly believe software is what makes images 'great' and this is apparent both in their idiotic belief that other people's great images are due more to Photoshop than photography skills, or that they can learn how to make their average or worse images into works of art whilst sat drinking their cocoa.they can't, great images come out of cameras (unless we're talking about extreme compositing - which is more digital art than photography)

Finished is a good way of putting it, though even that can vary a lot from from person to person.

 

[Bollygum]

Whilst I was tempted to do similar...

I've just had a look at some of @Bollygum 's work here.

And I'm in awe, not necessarily at the technical ability, but with his obvious love for the subjects, his posts are enlightening.

Thanks Phil. And I don't think I've posted a single mushroom here.

 

[Bollygum]

it's an Aussie thing.

same as calling Dustbinmen "Garbo's"...

I have to admit to some puzzlement at the dislike of Doco. We use it here a lot to refer to documentary films. Just laziness I suppose. Don't you Poms use abbreviations like - Brexit?

 

[Mr Badger]

Don't you Poms use abbreviations like - Brexit?

That's not an abbreviation, it's a portmanteau word.

 

[Bollygum]

That's not an abbreviation, it's a portmanteau word.

I'd never heard of that before! I'll file it for future reference.
Us from Oz are very basic. We call snakes that are black, Black Snakes, and those that are brown, Brown Snakes. Creeks are often call Sandy Creek or Rocky Creek or even Deep Creek, though I've never heard of a shallow Creek. We would probably shorten a portmanteau word to a Portman or just a port.

 

[Mr Badger]

No worries, mate.

PS I love the wildlife photos on your website, not sure I'd want to get anywhere near some of the snakes and spiders you have over there, let alone close enough to photograph them.

 

[Bollygum]

No worries, mate.

PS I love the wildlife photos on your website, not sure I'd want to get anywhere near some of the snakes and spiders you have over there, let alone close enough to photograph them.

I'll let you into a little secret. We exaggerate when it comes to snakes and spiders and a few other things. The reality is that not even 2 people each year die from snake bites, and none from spiders. In Sri Lanka, about 6,000 each year die from snake bites, and they have a slightly smaller population. I think I am fortunate because I get the chance ti live with our Snakes. Even if an Eastern Brown Snake should bite me, which is very unlikely unless I actually trod on one, I just need to apply a pressure bandage to the bite site and get to a hospital where they have antivenom. Australian Snakes have very small fangs which means the poison doesn't go deep, so a pressure bandage works well, which it doesn't in many countries. Also Australian Snakes are very shy around people and often don't envenom their people bites. Why waste perfectly good poison on something you can't eat?