Is post-processing trickery the norm?

<p>I guess you could say I'm pretty new to creative photography. I've always done my best to capture "postcard" shots, but only recently have I really started to get into composing shots, thinking about light, etc. As I delve deeper one realization that has surprised me is how much alteration happens during processing. It seems like the commonplace norm is for photographers to significantly alter their photographs before presenting them to their audience. I'm not talking about exposure corrections, adjustments, cropping, or other minor fixes of that sort. I'm talking about using multiple shots to create a scene that never actually happened, photoshopping out undesirables, adding false effects, etc - presenting a photograph that is not an accurate representation of the real-life scene. For instance, I saw a picture of a dog sitting in the outdoors looking at a squirrel. It turns out the dog was actually sitting in a chair in a studio and the scene was faked. While I do appreciate the work this took and thank the photographer for being up front about the alteration, I was still a bit put off to find out that there never really was a dog/squirrel staredown as the picture suggests. Another example would be perhaps a pudgy, blemished girl's portrait being retouched to appear thin with a smooth complexion. To me this kind of trickery feels deceitful and cheating. Now, don't get me wrong - I have no problem with images that are intended to be obviously faked/altered for artistic freedom. It is the images that are not real but have been made to look so that don't sit well with me. How does everyone else feel about these practices? How do "purists", if that's what I am, compete against photographers who spend more time doctoring their photos on the computer than they do setting up the shot? Curious to hear your insights on this topic.</p>

<p>If the photo is reportage, the standards for strait recording are much tighter. Ask yourself, is this photo part of a report of newsworthy events? If not, then how critical is direct and full truthfulness? Whose truth? Even a choice of lens, shutter speed, aperture, film speed, camera position, when to make the picture, how to focus, and so on: all are examples of basic in-camera editing. Outright lying to people about editing is generally unacceptable; but every photographer edits.</p>

<p>Everyone goes through this phase about figuring out what to expect from editing. It's worth considering, so you can make intelligent choices about what you want to do with your photos; but, don't let it drag you down forever. Don't make images that you don't like. We all have to live with ourselves. For most of us, there are no mission critical, very important choices to be made. This is supposed to be a fun activity. Making a good picture is work, but be sure to make the picture. Then you can discard or change it as you like. </p>

<p>You're in charge of your camera. We have limited influence over the other guy's camera. Stay on task with your rig.</p>

<p>If you made it, you can edit it. If you didn't make it yet, then it's not available for editing. Make more pictures.</p>

<p>Since you say you're new, it's better to spend your time working on things that you do rather than worrying about what anyone else is doing. </p>

<p>When you say the 'norm,' I ask merely 'whose norm?' On this site just about five years ago I use to read the phrase, " That looks like it has been <strong>photoshopped to death.</strong>" Not so much anymore,you notice. <br>

Here and now case. Adobe wants me to upgrade to version CS 5 so I can move that cute doggie in and out of the photo. Is that deceitful? Or an evolving norm of what is intellectually honest. Who gets to make these moral quasi philosopical if you will judgments. Who gets to make even the artistic judgments.( I do on my own dime only..) <br>

On a higher plane even then, is freedom of expression via digital slight of hand not as profound a 'right' as 'freedom of the press.' Philosophic arguments, not technical ones.<br>

As I see it noone bends anyone arms behind their back, James. Or I miss you point, James. Aloha and good tidings, gerry</p>

<p>Most of my work in photography was in the touch up part for portraits family senior photos those kinds of thing,s and yes some people did want things fixed in there photos pimples ,cuts and black eyes are not a part of you forever so if you can fix them fix them. as far as putting in objects or things like that i don't see the harm i like to play in photoshop its fun to see what you can make it do.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>When I was going to school for Photography, one of my teachers separated the class into Haptic and Visual student photographers. According to her, Haptic photographers were Expressionist who liked to create or stage scenes rather than record them. Haptic photographers usually feel more confortable in a studio environment, behind an artist easel, in the darkroom, or working in Photoshop. Some fields where Haptic photographers might gravitate to are: fine art, advertising, special effects, stock, gallery, editing.<br /><br />Visual photographers OTOH, prefer recording scenes as they really are and use only what is in the actual scene to relay a message. Visual photographers are more comfortable in the commercial side of photography where image manipulation is not required or is very minimal. Some commercial fields where Visual photographers might gravitate to are jounalism, wedding, product, portraits, sports, forensic, fashion, nature, stock.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Visual photographers are more comfortable in the commercial side of photography where image manipulation is not required or is very minimal. Some commercial fields where Visual photographers might gravitate to are jounalism, wedding, product, portraits, sports, forensic, fashion, nature, stock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Manipulation is minimal in fashion? In portraits? Sounds like the teacher was out to lunch when the photographers were doing their thing.</p>

<p>James, it is rather normal if you are shooting raw. It also brings it conveniences. You need to think of it as if you are processing your own film. The pushing, pulling, adjusting all of that could be done in photoshop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> To me this kind of trickery feels deceitful and cheating.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ya know what ? It <strong>is</strong> deceitful and a cheat and mostly I don't like it. But I can't be a hypocrite and say I never and will never do such things.</p>

<p>More importantly if they are not your photos and no one has appointed you the kingdom's Lord High Executioner of What Is Acceptable In Photography, your opinion, and for that matter my opinion, of another's work doesn't really matter. All you do is be true to your own sense and sensibility in the work you do and the work you seek out.</p>

<p>Photography, all the way back to its very earliest days, has been a process pushed and prodded by individual photographers altering the image as initially recorded to make the final result fit their vision. Some people have more refined visions and some people have coarser visions. But photography like all of the other is a plastic medium bendable to the will and whim of a photograph's creator. </p>

<p>Do I think those over manipulated photos have lasting value? For the most part, no. I think they mostly are artifacts of short lived gimmickry and even shorter lived tastes and are destined to be forgotten. All we can do is be true to ourselves.. </p>

<p>Manipulation is minimal in fashion? In portraits? Sounds like the teacher was out to lunch when the photographers were doing their thing."<br />============================================================<br>

yeah you're right maybe she was out to lunch that day...<br>

　<br>

　<br>

Photographer / Educator at Barbara Southworth Photography<br>

Past<br>

Consulting Studio Manager at Old Town Editions<br>

Education<br>

The Johns Hopkins University<br>

Rochester Institute of Technology<br>

Page 2 Artists at the Fisher Art Gallery in 2006</p>

<strong>

<p>June 12 - July 22 Barbara Southworth Photography</p>

</strong>

<p>Barbara Southworth’s exhibition entitled<br>

<br /><em>Woods and Waters </em>

<p>is representative of new images she has been<br>

working on from the Blue Hill and Mount Desert peninsulas in Maine and other preserved lands around the<br />Potomac River and in West Virginia. Ms. Southworth is an adjunct instructor in Photography at the Alexandria<br />Campus of Northern Virginia Community College. She also instructs privately and at the Smithsonian Institute.<br />Ms. Southworth is a printmaking photographer and a professional Iris printer working with Old Town Editions in<br />Alexandria, Virginia. She has exhibited widely all over the East Coast.</p>

</p>

<p>If you look at a painting, is it exactly as the scene appears, whether a portrait or a landscape? No, it's usually the artist's interpretation...no one looks at Starry Night and thinks that it is what the view was when Van Gogh painted it. Even Bob Ross' paintings, with his happy little trees, are created purely from his imagination, but don't look "real", although they are somewhat realistic. Photography is just another medium for creative expression. The fact that it can reproduce a scene more or less as it appears to the eye doesn't mean it has to, or that anything else is trickery. It's about the final image and what the photographer wants it to be.</p>

<p>If your goal is to take snapshots to remember a vacation, sure, you want it to look like you remember (or maybe better). But creative expression doesn't have to be a close representation of reality. If your vision is to reproduce a scene as close to your eye's vision as possible, that's perfectly fine. But the key is to remember that your vision of your photography isn't the same as someone else's. If they have two components from two different shots, and they want them to be together, why can't the final result be judged by the merits of the image, regardless how it was made? The final image is what it's all about, not the process of how the artist got there. Misrepresenting an image as unmanipulated for a competition or judging would be inappropriate, but if no claims are made, why not just appreciate the image as it appears, as the creative expression of an artist?</p>

<p>If you read any of Ansel Adams' books, you'll see how heavily his images were manipulated, despite their "realistic" appearance. He even says about a number of them that if you had been there with him when he made the shot, the scene wouldn't have looked anything like the image he saw in his mind and produced in a print. Aside, of course, from the fact that the real world isn't black and white, and the majority of his images were.</p>

<p>Ellis saved me the trouble. Please read his post again.</p>

<p>That haptic/visual categorisation is spurious, regardless of source. </p>

<p>Sounds like Barbara had personal definitions that made her feel comfortable with her view of photography. I don't agree with her definitions, and I too, graduated from RIT with a degree in photography and from the University of Michigan, and University of New Mexico. Along the way, I've met and studied with a number of people who are far more well known than Barbara, and none of them ever attempted to divide up photographers so simplistically.</p>

<p>To the OP, I'd suggest you learn about the history of photography prior to forming fixed opinions about manipulation in photography. As always, I would point you at HP Robinson, Rejlander, Uelsmann, Witkin, John Paul Caponigro, etc. </p>

<p>Doesn't look like Barbara is a fashion photographer either. </p>

<p>In addition to Steve's recommendations, check out William Mortensen.</p>

<p>I think Jeff actually said it best in his first post, don't worry about it, just do your thing.</p>

<p>The top photographers do just that, they do what they do and the other do what they do. People like Gursky and Wall, maybe a couple at the top (Gursky having the highest priced images ever) who everyone knows that most of their images are composites. People like Misrach, Soth, Kenna and such, well, for the most part there work is pretty much as shot (most people clean up their images a bit these days, although with film and analog printing it is a bit more tricky, but I know of may who have spotted out fairly large light objects.).</p>

<p>Anyway, anyone who lies about what they do will have a short lived career, so don't worry about it--what are you competing for anyway?</p>

<p>Jeff I think I pushed your Manipulation non-conventional Button again. Steve what is the point of contradicting what I wrote with such Zeal, is it because I'm Black ? I know Blacks are not supposed to know anything about photography. Next think you will tell me is they don't know anything about art and can't draw either. Give me a break with that nonsence !<br />Listen I pay my lousy $25 a year to post my opinions and my pictures on PN and nothing else. I am not a paid consultant, or am I here to score points, or to dazzle and get pats on the back from rookies with my superior knowledge. I consider myself a rookie, because I'm still learning thank god.<br /><br />Barbara was my Color Photography professor back in 2005. One day she discussed the differences between photographers who love to<strong> stage </strong>their images and those who don't. I took her word for it because it made sence to me plus it was mentioned in the text book we used in class: "Exploring Color Photography written by Robert Hirsch"<br />If you look at this woman's work you would take her word for it too. She was printing with Irsis printers before inkjets ever came out. Her Gallerie size photos average around 40X60. Here is an article about her: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030611.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030611.htm</a><br />As far as fashion photography, i would get fired in a minute if I went into photoshop and started changing the colors of a dress or shortening the heels on some shoes. Fashion photography requires make up but not allot of photoshop. The manufacturers want to see their designs exactly as they are, not as the photographer wants them to be.</p>

<p>Remember the fuss in music recording. Purity vs manipulation. Original instruments vs valved instruments. Small orchestra vs super size. Pseudo stereo derived from original single track tapes. Noise reduction. Echo. Overdubbing.. It all boiled down to me to idea that music is an aural illusion, accepted that as fact. Whether the way the illusion is presented to my ears becomes a matter then of musical taste. We have gotten kind of used to the digital trickery as time goes by. Some I look at and say it pushes a boundary for me that I know but can't define in words so much. Not all of it satisfies, for sure. Like makeup on the portrait subject, it can enhance what is there. Or camouflage.</p>

<p>Gerry I bought CD's that were manipulated and after a while your ears hurt so much you have turn the volume down.</p>

<p>Harry, nearly every recording ever made has been manipulated. Certainly every one that has ever been mastered has been as the act of mastering is precisely setting levels of the different tracks in order to create the overall desired effect the engineer envisions.</p>

<p>And anything that involves any electronic effect is manipulated sound. Or do you think the vibrating string on a guitar really sounds like what came out of, say, Hendrix' amp.</p>

<p>I don't know David, before I ever got into photography I was a Hi-Fi freak. HI-FI is short for High Fidelity. Fidelity means closer to the truth. I know most music is manipulated, but not the point where it sounds artificial, then there would not be any sense getting into Hi-Fi. It took me years to get my system together. I have some old Yamaha NS1000 Monitor(closer to truth) speakers from the 1970's that still rock.</p>

 

<p ><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.inner-magazines.com/news/82/72/Yamaha-NS1000/" target="_blank">http://www.inner-magazines.com/news/82/72/Yamaha-NS1000/</a></p>

<p >The reason I got these speakers a long time ago is because they are not colored in any way, bass is bass, treble is treble and mid range is midrange. Of course I keep up with the times and combined them with some accousic enhancers from Behringer and some special customized Scirroco back-up speakers from Audio Technica. I power all that with a Yamaha tube Amp & tuner and a Marantz SACD player. The object of all of this is not too show off but to replay recordings as <strong>natural</strong> sounding as they came out of the recording studio, or live on stage.</p>

<p >I bought a CD made by Celine Dion about a year ago, all the instruments were made by a computer, drums, treble, bonga drums, piano, trumpets all were synthesized. After about 1/2 hour I had to turn that stuff off. Even my cat which loves music walked out the room. </p>

 

<i>Fashion photography requires make up but not allot of photoshop. The manufacturers want to see their designs exactly as they are, not as the photographer wants them to be.</i><P>

 

Peter Lindbergh laments the amount of retouching in fashion: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/03/peter_lindbergh_to_shoot_for_v.html<P>

 

Article about Pascal Dangin, one of the top retouchers for fashion: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins?currentPage=1;<P>

 

Some examples from <i>Vogue</i> and other magazines: http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dfashion%2Bphotography%2Bvogue%2Bretouching%26fr%3Dyfp-t-701-s&w=640&h=434&imgurl=trendland.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F12%2Fkiller-vogue-steven-meisel3.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftrendland.net%2F%3Fs%3Dkaren%2Belson%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26%3DGo&size=204KB&name=Karen+Elson+|+Tr...&p=fashion+photography+vogue+retouching&oid=af97afa5f0fad2805a4eac1260061118&fr2=&no=1&tt=419&sigr=11fcis59q&sigi=128ap65ko&sigb=13jae32o7&.crumb=9DKSGV6V1kS<P>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I bought a CD made by Celine Dion about a year ago, all the instruments were made by a computer, drums, treble, bonga drums, piano, trumpets all were synthesized. After about 1/2 hour I had to turn that stuff off. Even my cat which loves music walked out the room."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, like photography, there is good and bad synthesized/sampled audio. Have a listen to this - composed, arranged, performed, mastered in the author's basement - all done by one person on a computer and a Yamaha keyboard:<br>

[<a href="http://www.guybacos.com/audio/song1-1.mp3">Link</a>] - Of course the original uncompressed would be much higher fidelity. </p>

 

<p>Ok Mike so why not just hire the fat lady from down the block, it would be allot cheaper, why hire expensive models ? </p>