Why are photos doctored so much after they are taken?

[joxby]

No-one is saying a good shot has to be pretty, in fact Capa's work was in war zones where he eventually died - he took some great shots, but many of them would have needed some pretty extensive dark room rescuing given the conditions they were taken under.

That is actually a great story, the pictures were ruined by some poor assistant, in his haste to rush developement wangs them in the drying cabinet and melts the emulsion off 3 rolls, only 11 shots off the last roll contain anything, and only 6 were viewable after working a few miracles in the darkroom.

It can also be argued that a very photoshopped picture becomes an art form in itself.

Certainly we should never deny an image has been manipulated when it has.... e.g. denying a background change or something equally major.

i love editing pictures, it allows you to put even more personal touch to an image, and in the digital world there seems to be no limits of how far you can go.

Soo, sounds like everyone agree's then, that all digital photographs need some form of alteration to at least represent the scene with any kind of accuracy, as the photo taker saw it.
Everybodys different, peeps see things differently, so that line is kinda blurry to a certain extent, but acceptably so.
What this thread stops short of (probably because its not quite the op's point, but is a natural progression) is, at what point during processing does an image leave the realms of photography and enter another form of visual art ?
Forget about commercial photography, this is a personal line to draw for yourself, outside of any financial and client led influences.
For instance, you change the background of say a family member portrait from white to black in photoshop, imagine the background forms 60% of the image, is this image still a photograph since 60% of it has been replaced with something that didn't exist in the scene ?

 

[mole2k]

Personally I generally just work with what was there, I would do minor cloning of things which i cant get rid of in real life like if I was taking a picture of a castle and there was a small sign which i couldnt block out with some element of the photo.

Aside from that it is generally just playing with the information thats already there for me as opposed to adding anything extra.

 

[KenCo]

For instance, you change the background of say a family member portrait from white to black in photoshop, imagine the background forms 60% of the image, is this image still a photograph since 60% of it has been replaced with something that didn't exist in the scene ?

Of course it's still a photograph....it's an edited photograph OR computer aided/enhanced whatever....As has been said throughout this post it's gone on for years, Fairies, Loch ness monsters, yeti's, ufo's You name it....it was done on film first.

 

[joxby]

ok, so not only do you change the background black but you also replace the portrait figure with a plant pot, its now 0% of the captured image, its a manufactured background and plant pot.
is it still a photograph

whats a computer aided enhanced whatever

 

[antonroland]

I believe the original poster already conceded that tweaks are necessary. The question was, as I interpret it, how much digital modification should it take to get a great shot? And I find myself agreeing, which may make me unpopular here.

Contrast, color, dodging and burning are all fairly standard tweaks. I do, however, get a bit cynical when I see head swaps, massive cloning out of backgrounds, digitally added fill flash and the like. I find it incredibly refreshing to see shots done well out of camera (processing tweaks allowed) that work without major photoshop rescuing.

That said, I agree that photoshopping (of the major sort) is an art form unto itself, and I have a lot of respect for those who do it well. it is a great artistic tool, but I'm disappointed when I see it regularly employed as a rescue. I think the craft of photography is getting a bit lost in the range of post processing options.

CJ

Agree, CJ.

I used to do tons of B&W darkroom work and I sorely miss it, but more to the/your point...

Even I can remember a time when you had to plan a shot because 1) film in the bag was limited and 2) there was obviously not the luxury of instant review and it is this very "luxury" which is robbing photography of it's most necessary skill: the thinking photographer (IMHO:razz:)

Of course it's still a photograph....it's an edited photograph OR computer aided/enhanced whatever....As has been said throughout this post it's gone on for years, Fairies, Loch ness monsters, yeti's, ufo's You name it....it was done on film first.

I think Ken nails it down neatly here:

The moment you do stuff in Photoshop which can't be done in the REAL darkroom it is simply not photography any more.

Some will say move with the times I suppose and even this will have some merit to it:shrug:

 

[Gary]

I think i'm in the minority here...
I very rarely even crop a photo.
It saves a lot of time in your work flow if the photos dont need PP.

Also, i prefer not to clone things out as i (romantically maybe) still like to see a frozen moment from time.

 

[KenCo]

ok, so not only do you change the background black but you also replace the portrait figure with a plant pot, its now 0% of the captured image, its a manufactured background and plant pot.
is it still a photograph

Well now your just being silly. I or anyone else wouldn't take a shot of a family member then replace the background and then the subject.....But if you did that with film and got it processed, received your prints from the lab held it in your hand....what would it be A photograph!

 

[joxby]

Well you cant do that with film can you, but you can with digital, my comments aren't plucked out of the sky to be silly.
peeps regularly alter photos to such extremes that virtually nothing is left of the original photo, yet they are still posted all over the internetzz under the banner photography.
So your saying the qualification is, use a photograph as the raw material for an image, whatever changes you make are irrelivant in defining what it is ?

...just what is a computer aided/enhanced whatever, because I'm suggesting it cant be both.

 

[KenCo]

0% of the captured image,

It is impossible to do that with digital

just what is a computer aided/enhanced whatever, because I'm suggesting it cant be both.

I meant computer aided, enhanced or whatever you want to call it.

 

[joxby]

My Friday effort tank has run out/end

 

[Davec223]

Hmmmmmmmm, thought I made that point earlier??

I mentioned it as well. Maybe he didn't read page 1

Opps, I did read the first page a bit quick, and did miss your posts, sorry if I upset you by posting the same point of view, I was only replying to the OP's original question , If someone can not post the same view, most posts would only have very few replies.

 

[Snugglepuss]

Why are photos doctored so much after they are taken?

To a newbie like me, who knows jack, I find it amazing that everyone spends so much time playing in photo shop to get the image just right.

I would have thought that you lot would compose the image, and adjust the settings, get everything just right, then take some shots.

But it doesn't seem to work like that, huh? I'm not talking about simple tweaking for curiosity, like ooh I wonder how that would look in b/w, it's a lot of fault fixing. And surely, to some extent anyway, you can't improve upon what is already there.

Is this because everyone here is always learning?

I think this thread has been really interesting - I had also wondered the above and as such, as a newbie, didn't realise that enhancing photos had taken place in the dark room to such an extent! Now it has been pointed out to me and I have taken my blond head off I can see why it was/is carried out.

What I also realise now, is that you have to have more skill and knowledge than just for example the thirds rule or making sure your horizon is level, but also that you do need to have good skills in photo editing software such as photo shop!

Perhaps I will start to be brave and post more pictures and ensure the edit button is checked so that you professionals can enhance my photos

 

[..MD..]

Perhaps I will start to be brave and post more pictures and ensure the edit button is checked so that you professionals can enhance my photos

post away and let even us non pro's have a go...


md

by the way good thread..

 

[Charlie C]

I personaly wish my shots looked good enough without tweaking, and occasionally they do.

When they do i am far more please with the outcome.

Also i have found that you can rel less on the light being just right, u can turn pictures that are a bit dull and grey into high contrast interesting images. The problem is i enjoy PS a bit to much too.

If only all my shots didn't need tweeaking...one day!

 

[rickj]

I thought the same as the OP when I first got started the same about shotting in raw, the reason I do now is

1, I aint that good yet not to have to play
2, I fined the light is so poor this time of year a little twicking does help.
3, its fun

 

[soupdragon]

For all the above reasons. It also adds to the creativity and artistry of photography. You need to remember film photographers used/use a lot of the techniques in the darkroom, which are available now in digital PP. It's always been done to a certain extent.

Far aboot in the toon are ye fae like?

Pretty much what I was thinking!

I used to have my own darkroom til about four years back and used many of the techniques replicated by Photoshop and the likes.
Another thing not so popular today is filters in front of the lens, most all filter effects can be created digitally.

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

[..]

The moment you do stuff in Photoshop which can't be done in the REAL darkroom it is simply not photography any more.

[..]

QUOTE]

I don't see how what can or cannot be done in a traditional darkroom is in any way a criteria of what a photograph is. Imaging software is only another stage along a continuum from the earliest days of photography.

Some artists have strived for realism in their work such as the Dutch painters whilst others have wanted to convey a feeling, particularly the quality of light (sounds familiar?) such as the Impressionists. Taking this on a bit, non-representative art such as cubism is obviously an attempt to speak to the viewer in a particular way through the use of an image.

Surely, photography suffers (or enjoys, depending on your view) the same desires to inform and communicate in different ways through the medium?

War photographers have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread and although their pictures would, I suspect, be held up as the ultimate realism, step back a pace and many war images could actually be described as impressionistic (still incredible though). Ansel Adams, in my view was very akin to the Dutch artists inasmuch as his apparent realism was carefully constructed through his workflow to produce a specific result.

I would submit that the minute we use any tool; brush or camera, to record what is in front of us, the process of manipulation begins: through selection of view, exposure, inclusion, exclusion and so on.

Anthony.

 

[dod]

I think i'm in the minority here...
I very rarely even crop a photo.

Me too, if you're dealing with 2-3000 shots in a weekend you just don't have time. You've also got to be constantly tweaking exposure through the day to make sure you don't have too much photoshopping to do.

Might be indicative of the requirements of different types of photography

 

[Sir Run Run Shaw]

The question was, as I interpret it, how much digital modification should it take to get a great shot? And I find myself agreeing, which may make me unpopular here.

Mmm, somewhat. When I told my old man I fancied getting a camera and taking up a new hobby, that was when the post-editing question came up. He was an 'avid shutterbug' as a newspaper called him way back in 19oatcake. He also said that to some extent he despised having to keep going back to the dark room to develop his images and everything else. He spent a lot of time getting everything just right before pressing the button.

I know nothing about photography and as someone said earlier (joxby?), you need to draw a line personally. I'm just looking to take some pictures and maybe learn what makes a good 'un. As a novice the field seems daunting enough, without getting overwhelmed by the software packages. Also for the time being, I'm only prepared to devote a limited amount of time to this hobby. I'm not looking to get in it to create technically accurate pictures - just ones that look good

 

[Sir Run Run Shaw]

Brash,

I'm bang in the city centre. You must get some goods shots of the old harbour area?

 

[Wookie]

Agree, CJ.

I used to do tons of B&W darkroom work and I sorely miss it, but more to the/your point...

Even I can remember a time when you had to plan a shot because 1) film in the bag was limited and 2) there was obviously not the luxury of instant review and it is this very "luxury" which is robbing photography of it's most necessary skill: the thinking photographer (IMHO:razz:)

interesting viewpoint

it was always possible to snap away on film without knowing what you were doing wave, it was just expensive and frustrating

the ability to snap away on digital and review almost instantly with access to the settings used is a fantastically powerful tool for improvement of basic photography shooting skills.

digital manipulation of the image can make great improvements after the event, but what is achievable is still limited by the quality of the input and the artistic vision & skill of the photographer.

 

[KIPAX]

Opps, I did read the first page a bit quick, and did miss your posts, sorry if I upset you by posting the same point of view, I was only replying to the OP's original question , If someone can not post the same view, most posts would only have very few replies.

You stated that no one had mentioned the point.... We pointed out we had and now your saying we are getting upset because you posted the same point of view.. that clearly wasnt the case. . I dont mind being chastised when I ahve done summat wrong (happens all the time) but dont go making things up mate .

Lets leave it at that eh?

 

[petemc]

I basically shoot 2 things. People and places. People do not need photoshopping. They look great in good light. Its up to the photographer to do their job and use that light to best capture that person. I convert to B&W and thats it. Places I do enhance, but I never add to the shot. I only work with the light I get and then enhance that so it looks like what I saw when I was there.

 

[BRASH]

Brash,

I'm bang in the city centre. You must get some goods shots of the old harbour area?

Yeh, was doon there the day (Sat 5th). The sea is mental. Gonna post some shots later once I've sorted them.

 

[dizzledazzle]

When i started out, i wasnt keen on doing PP, i wanted to focus on getting it right in camera but as i soon realised not only is it not easy to get perfect shots each time, using photoshop not only improved the images but gave me another creative option in general.

I now find myself doing a little bit here, some more there on pretty much all the keepers!

:bonk:

 

[petemc]

I should add that having B&W settings on my 30D has been so helpful for getting things right in camera. When I do portraits or gigs its so incredibly handy to be able to see that I have the shot right. Composition, lighting, shadows, etc. I can see all that on the screen. Its so much better than shooting in colour and processing at home. It really does mean I can get it right in camera.

 

[mole2k]

Yeah id agree with you pete, i've no idea if the 30d does it differently than the parameters on the 20d but I find that being able to shoot in b&w with different coloured filters is great for being able to expose the shots you're planning to have in b&w properly in camera.

 

[Beardedmonkey]

As a newbie I have to admit that I found a lot of the post-processing and associated jargon a bit daunting at first.

After spending time on these forums I've picked up lots of useful little tips and find Photoshop a lot less terrifying. As others have said all photos taken with a DSLR benefit from slight tweaking.

However, I'm still very wary about over-using it. I'm very conscious that I don't want it to become a crutch. I want to take the best photos that I can 'in-camera' and keep the post-processing to a minimum.

Same thing with being able to review and delete photos the moment you've taken them. Its very useful, but I don't want to get to the stage where I'll fire off a whole heap of photos in the hope of catching something.

I guess my point is that, used properly, the technology is great. I certainly don't think that anyone should feel bad for using it. How much you want to use it is up to the individual and what they want to get out of their photography.

 

[dizzledazzle]

I was having a chat with my G/friends dad about film/digital.

He is a film man and i was discussing the advantages of digital, the fact that he will go out and not take that many shots or wait for the perfect shot with the perfect light etc and then has to wait for the films to be developed before he gets to see his results, whereas i was shooting away, chimping and deleting as requried, we got back, uploaded them to his laptop and were enjoying the images there and then. He could see the advantage but will still remain a film man.

I can also see the main benefits with using film, especially experience wise, i think it is beneficial using film as it forces you to think about each shot alot more as not to waste any, i would love to invest in a cheap Film SLR so i can train myself to get more "Keepers" first time.

Anyway, straying from the Original post here, Developing film is kind of the same as using photoshop, its just the "modern" way of doing it i guess!

 

[blinkerz]

Some people rely on photoshop for there work and can really make creative images, its just another tool to use and aid in your creative ability and is only limited by your imagination and skills.

Check out the websites below of a couple of popular photographers.

Jim Fiscus Dave Hill Jill Greenberg

 

[mole2k]

I was having a chat with my G/friends dad about film/digital.

He is a film man and i was discussing the advantages of digital, the fact that he will go out and not take that many shots or wait for the perfect shot with the perfect light etc and then has to wait for the films to be developed before he gets to see his results, whereas i was shooting away, chimping and deleting as requried, we got back, uploaded them to his laptop and were enjoying the images there and then. He could see the advantage but will still remain a film man.

I can also see the main benefits with using film, especially experience wise, i think it is beneficial using film as it forces you to think about each shot alot more as not to waste any, i would love to invest in a cheap Film SLR so i can train myself to get more "Keepers" first time.

Anyway, straying from the Original post here, Developing film is kind of the same as using photoshop, its just the "modern" way of doing it i guess!

Its very easy to shoot digital like film, just turn off the review feature and dont use the rear lcd and limit yourself to take x number of shots. A good way to do that is to have the mem card nearly full anyway so it will only allow a certain number of shots to be taken before it fills up

 

[Anima Templi]

We may need to accept that here that film and digital are simply not the same. I have just converted to Digital (18 months) following 20 years using 5x4. The sheer cost of running large format is the single biggest separating actor. Adam's zone system was born out of a desire to avoid financial/photographic waste at a time when exposures were typically felt rather than measured (See Westons Daybooks). Digital can never replicate the need to care in the way a £5 cost per sheet of film (purchase and process) does (Imagine what Adams 10x8 cost to run!). Bracketing didn't exist and with DD slides for only 20 sheets you were selective out of neccesity not choice.
It was once suggested to me that the most important factors were care and precision. I still apply both to digital.