How important is editing to a shot?

[shutterbud]

You can use your own definition of the word if you like Fred. I have given you the meaning I intended.

 

Virginia, do you really think I'd see 'Jellyfish' as a photograph?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen, you're right. Sorry. Your definition also has an approbative ring to me and hinges on "naturalism" which I find overly restrictive, since historically photos have always been made in unnatural manners, from the time of their inception. That being said, I am mindful that historical precedence has proved wrong before and new precedents can always be set.</p>

<p>John, as a peer, I would critique and comment on your photo insofar as it strikes me visually and emotionally. I might include whether I like it or not. Were I a curator or art historian, I might want or need to classify or categorize it. I would generally tend toward inclusivity rather than exclusivity but that's not an absolute. I do know that many curators, and PN as a site, would include it in exhibitions of photos. I know that because I've regularly seen heavily processed photos in photo exhibits and galleries all all over the place and PN includes a "digital alterations" category and is considered by most a photo site. Again, I'm not really sure where the debate aspect of all this gets us. And, again, Stephen and Virgina and Sarah, I appreciate your posting photos and discussing them in other than debate or categorical terms, and Stephen P. thanks for talking candidly about your own photos and motivations.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen C., one further thought about word usage. I'm not sure we can use common words and then try to restrict them just to our own definitions. Words are richer than that. They have connotations which they get from the way they are used by common language users. If I didn't want any of the approbative or moral connotations associated with the word "purity," I'd probably pick a different word. You picked "purity" and that tells me something. Even the folks at at Proctor and Gamble who chose to advertise Ivory Soap as 99 and 44/100 percent pure, and had in mind science and the soap's ingredients, were trading on other connotations of purity (which you can see visualized in their TV commercials) to appeal to consumers. You could have said "processed naturally" or just "unprocessed" but you didn't. I actually applaud you for picking a word as rich and descriptive as "purity." But then I'm not sure about backing away from the rich connotations of the word. It is a word that has a certain sort of emphasis and artfulness to it. I don't think that gets stripped away simply by providing a personal definition of it. The word is laden with subtle meaning and that's why it's a descriptive choice.</p>

<p>__________________________________________</p>

<p>It's possible I'm being a little unfair. I can imagine scientists, for example, as opposed to advertisers, using the term purity without all the excess connotations, just to refer to a kind of adulteration that doesn't have moralizing associated with it. And it's only fair to take you at your word in how you intend the use of the word. I guess I, myself, would just be mindful that I can't control how others will interpret or respond to words I choose. I often consider using other words to describe things if I find enough people reacting to a word's other connotations or if enough misunderstanding arises.</p>

<p>__________________________________________</p>

<p>In any case, my objection would be much more to your exclusionary tone to Sarah's and John's work than to the words you use to express it.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Stephen, I suppose all I can say is that you weren't there. The little white flowers were brilliant and speckled the foreground just as I've shown. So if your complaint is that my little flowers look too speckled to your eye, my only recommendation would be not to travel to Sedona. Same thing if your complaint is about the vivid colors. (Yes, the red mountains and red soil are really that red in the red light of the sunset. I tend not to get particularly wild with my photos.)</p>

<p>Fred, regarding "purity:"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It often has a quasi-religious and moralistic tone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's funny that I was thinking the same thing as I was cooking dinner last night. This whole thread sounds a bit like a discussion of cooking between a more adventurous cook and someone who is much less adventurous. I had a conversation going through my head that was something like this:</p>

<p>Me: OK, I add the slivered chicken breasts to the skillet and sprinkle with paprika, cayenne pepper, garlic, thyme, fresh oregano, a few sprigs of fresh rosemary, some fresh-ground black pepper, and a healthy dash of sea salt.</p>

<p>Other person: STOP! You've put so much stuff on the chicken breast that I can barely see the breast anymore!</p>

<p>Me: Yeah, I guess that's just the way I cook...</p>

<p>Other person: And you use so many herbs and spices! I only use a light sprinkling of salt and pepper. Isn't that a bit prideful?</p>

<p>Me: Prideful? Dunno, I guess I just like the way it tastes?... OK, now I flip the breasts and do the same thing to the other side.</p>

<p>Other person: My god! As though the seasonings on the other side aren't much to much already?</p>

<p>Me: Yup! OK, now I'm going to add a bit of white wine to deglaze the skillet, and then I'm going to reduce the wine to a nice glaze.</p>

<p>Other person: WINE! Good lord, that's... ALCOHOL! "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5-18).</p>

<p>Me: Oh, don't worry. The alcohol boils off. I'm only interested in washing the tasty glaze off the skillet and then caramelizing the sugars in the wine. The sugars help the spices to adhere to the meat.</p>

<p>Other person: Sugars! Oh good lord, this doesn't sound like dinner. It sounds more like a bizarre dessert to me -- a sinful dessert, because wine is still a sinful beverage!</p>

<p>Me: Trust me, the chicken won't be sweet! There's hardly enough sugar for that.</p>

<p>Me again: I suppose I shouldn't even mention I intend to serve wine with the meal.</p>

<p>Other person: GASP!</p>

<p>Me: Oh, but I also have some nice sparkling mineral water if you'd like.</p>

<p>Other person, indignantly: I'll take tap water, without ice, if you please!</p>

<p>But back on topic, I can only say that most of my photos are pretty much straight-up, which you might consider heavily manipulated, like the B&W you posted. But on occasion I enjoy getting drunk, so to speak:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phqueenanneslacesm.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></p>

<p>... because I really don't give a flying fig about purity.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Bottoms up.</p>

<p>Thank you, Sarah.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[shutterbud]

As I said I am both playing Devil's Advocate and very aware that at the moment I am not good enough to keep my exposures 'pure'.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Or maybe I need the courage of my convictions?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I am particularly addicted to Altalux, which I do try to use very sparingly but my ultimate goal is to not have to do any PP and from my own point of view, the less I have to do to a shot, the better the capture was.

As to the cooking analogy, I love to cook and sometimes use about as many ingredients in a dish as are in the cupboard- although I would say my favourite dishes tend to be very simple- sushi, pasta with no sauce; just olive oil, smoked salmon and little parmesan, Dongpo Pork.

I feel a particular connection to the Japanese aesthetic, especially that of Wabi-Sabi; the perfectly imperfect. I like to feel that I am looking at a moment caught in time, not an exercise in computer graphics. Those pictures of Venice I commented on previously; there's nothing at all wrong with them, but I can't help sensing a great deal of "imperfect perfection" about them.

 

Maybe "Artifice" is a better word than "Purity".

Maye that's why im a streetshooter more than anything, though I am trying to expand my repertoire.<div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Artifice is my life blood. I wouldn't be doing photography if it weren't for the artifice I find in it as a creative outlet as well as in the people I shoot and the places I go. It's kind of an "All the world's a stage" sort of thing for me. When I want nature, I go for a hike in the woods or the mountains. When I want artifice, I grab my camera. That's not to say I'm not cognizant of more and less natural uses of it, but it is to say even the very natural uses of cameras and processing have artifice built into them by definition. Holding a camera in front of one's face is not natural. It is the epitome of an artifice.</p>

<p>art . . . artifice . . . connect the dots.</p>

<p>True, not all photos are art and not all photographers want to have anything to do with. I appreciate that and relish it. But an artistic approach to photography is not non-photographic. </p>

<p>The implication is that one has to be "good enough" not to use post processing. It's a mistake to think that post processing is used to compensate for lack of skill or talent in handling a camera, or to make up for mistakes or bad usage of one. It's a common thought, yes, but a mistaken one for sure. It's based on a very limited understanding of what post processing is about.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>PS Mixed references in my post above. When I refer to "the B&W you posted," I'm talking about Stephen's not Fred's. Sorry for any confusion.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>BTW, I think what Stephen C. wants out of his photograph-making is perfectly fine and interesting and challenging. The idea is not at all without appeal. I have admiration for anyone who sets themselves a goal and sticks with it. I just wish in general and more specifically with regard to this thread photographic "purists," or whatever term we choose, would afford others the same latitude rather than being so intent on excluding them from the "photographer's" club.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree, Fred. There are certainly styles and processes I don't personally care for -- HDR, grunging techniques, etc. -- but I'm not willing to kick anyone out of the big tent for it. I wish others who don't like my photography (<em>and it's really OK not to like it</em>) didn't demand I go outside and stand in the rain.</p>

<p>Along those lines, I don't think John's question ever got answered:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is it no longer a photo when if becomes almost purely graphic, even though is started as a capture with a camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it ain't a finger painting! :-) As Lannie said, bottom's up, my Virginian friend!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Never mind whether John's photo is a photo or not, I'm still having gender confusion over thinking he was Virginia for so much of the time. He should be more worried about whether I think he's a boy or girl than whether I think he's a photographer or not! :-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, and on that note, and relating to a recent off-topic thread, I was fascinated as to the childhood portrait of Count Louis (not Louise) Vorow Zborrowski, the famous racer/engineer who built the series of "Chitty Bang Bangs" upon which the children's novel was based:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vorow_Zborrowski_by_Julian_Russell_Story_(1857-1919).jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vorow_Zborrowski_by_Julian_Russell_Story_(1857-1919).jpg</a></p>

<p>One wonders how pure and authentic that portrait was! Hmmmm...</p>

[GBarrington]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree, Fred. There are certainly styles and processes I don't personally care for -- HDR, grunging techniques, etc. -- but I'm not willing to kick anyone out of the big tent for it. I wish others who don't like my photography (<em>and it's really OK not to like it</em>) didn't demand I go outside and stand in the rain.<br>

Along those lines, I don't think John's question ever got answered:<br>

Is it no longer a photo when if becomes almost purely graphic, even though is started as a capture with a camera?<br>

Well, it ain't a finger painting! :-) As Lannie said, bottom's up, my Virginian friend!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, to my way of thinking, at what point does it start to matter? I've always taken the position that all art is a form of communication. Whether we know it or not, we are reaching out and trying to connect with people. Trying to convey how we see the world and how we want to interact with it.</p>

<p>I can laugh now, but I embarrassed myself once over this issue on this very site. I had posted a heavily edited image/photo, and someone had left the comment that it wasn't a photograph, that it was something else and that it didn't belong here but on a site called DeviantArt.com.</p>

<p>The thing was, I had never heard of DeviantArt.com and thought the poster was being sarcastic, so I sort of lit into him. Others pointed out my error, and I correctly felt mortified. But I still don't like the idea of people telling me what MY photography is. It's ok to think whatever they want about my stuff, but I don't think they have a right to tell me how *I* should think about it.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Sarah's original photo does not show the scene as seen by the human eye. The shadows are too dark, the camera did not have the dynamic range of the human eye/brain to record the scene as Sarah was seeing it. <P>

Here is a person at my porch front door on a sunny day: <P>

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/shadow.jpg"></center><P>

 

I have never had to take a flashlight when answering the door in the daytime to see who it was. The camera just did not capture the scene as I saw it. Careful adjustment of flash to match the background scene would have helped but Sarah did not have that option so the adjustments had to be made in post to present the scene accurately.

[q.g._de_bakker]

It appears that threads on this theme all end up on the topic whether 'editing' (or whatever name is used for it) it is a bad thing or not, or when it would not be a bad thing, or even when it would be a good thing.<br><br>The more important point however is to note that there is no other way.<br>There is no 'honest', or even 'more honest', procedure 'editing' would corrupt and debase. Even the notion, as it arises, that using a camera would be the way to produce something other people can take note of, instead of writing sonnets, composing symphonies, sculpt a bit of stone etc. <i>is</i> already an act of editing. Every single step from there involves decisions that influence the final result. We are editing all the way.<br>There is no 'pure', 'honest', 'objective' photography.<br><br>So is this about what still is, and what no longer (or not yet) is photography, and what is something else (graphics, for instance)? How important would knowing that be to someone who wants to create something for people to look at that looks how he/she wants it to look?

[dan_south]

James, excellent illustration! Thanks!

[dan_south]

Stephen Conkie, thank you for the compliment. Absolute authenticity is not my objective, but I'm not a hyper manipulator,

either. Most of what you see on my website is reasonably close to what you would have perceived had you been standing

bride me when I exposed the image. To that end I might have employed graduated neutral density filters. An example is

the sunset at Zabriskie Point in Death Valley. Without 7 stops of ND grad to hold back the sky, the camera could not have

captured the image. I don't think HDR would have done the shot justice, by the way, but some people will argue he

technology's merits.

 

I didn't composite in clouds from some other sunset. To me, that's the definition of cheating, but if others want to do it,

that's ther business. I watched weather conditions closely, put myself in the right place at the right time, and executed the

shot as well as I knew how to. Granted, I was also extremely fortunate to have that great light with which to work, but the

camera coud not have produced that shot on its own. Afterward, I dd minor tweaks to contrast and white balance to

ensure that te colors were faithful to what I saw that evening. Is it "authentic"? I don't know the answer to that, but it

wasn't a fabrication of something that wasn't really there. It was a real event. The camera just needed some help in order

to capture it.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The use of a process is not cheating. Entering a contest that states you can't have cloned something into or out of your photo when you did clone something into or out of your photo is cheating. Claiming that you didn't clone in a cloud when you did so is cheating, or more accurately lying. But there seems nevertheless a willingness, and perhaps even a need, in this thread to make moral judgments for the mere use of a tool or process.</p>

<p>On the other hand, cheating is a really descriptive and insightful, maybe even poetic, way to characterize photography and a lot of other arts . . . or mediums. It's worth a thread in itself. Consider that films carry with them the deception of fluidity of motion when, in fact, they are a series of fast moving stills. Consider the amount of time painters spend on perspective and how to create the illusion of distance, three dimensionality, etc., a deception of sorts.</p>

<p><em>"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."</em> -- Pablo Picasso</p>

<p>Pablo Picasso, the ultimate cheater.</p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>For some there are photos and for others there are photo graphics.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I just do what it takes to make a shot successful either to a client, for commercial work, or for me, for personal work. Sometimes those intersect. One thing I don't worry about is what people on a web forum call them, I don't have that level of insecurity. And, interestingly enough, I've never had anyone in real life say anything about "inauthentic" or "photo graphics" about my shots. It comes down to the photographer being comfortable with what they do and really not giving a hoot about what the internet thinks.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Speaking personally, I've had some pretty heated discussions with Stephen C. in the past and hope he agrees that this has been one of our more productive discussions, even if we still disagree on some matters and on some terminology. At least we got to post some photos and discuss them, as have others, which is more than often occurs in these sorts of debate threads. The reason I care what someone else thinks or calls something is to gain a better understanding of their perspective, in this case mostly Stephen's, which is part of what I'm here for. I hope he's gained some insight into mine. I agree with Jeff and also think insecurity as a motivation didn't apply.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>It's a personal definition of cheating, Fred. Just something that I choose not to do. If someone else wants to composite sunset, I'm completely fine with it. After the barrage of hyper-saturated images that I see daily on social media sites, I have ceased to care what other photographers do and don't do.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>How does sharpening detract from the "purity" of the image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Did anyone address this? Sharpening (input sharpening, at least) is necessary to counteract the blurring effects of anti-aliasing filters on (most) digital sensors. If anything, the AA filter is impacting image purity. Sharpening is just trying to set things back to the image that came in through the lens, i.e. before it got blurred.<br>

<br>

In terms of contrast curves, well, the camera was preprogrammed with a few of them. If you didn't guess correctly which one to select before you took the shot, then re-adjusting later only makes sense. It also makes sense if you want to avoid high contrast in camera in order to maximize the dynamic range of your capture. Using a high-contrast setting like Vivid or Landscape makes the histogram less accurate at describing the actual exposure peaks of the raw file. Who needs inaccuracy? Digital exposure is challenging enough already, i.e. so easy to clip the highlights.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."</em> -- Pablo Picasso<br /> Pablo Picasso, the ultimate cheater.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Fred. It's all "cheating," so defined. In a related vein, here is Ellis Vener on Facebook:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lots of photographers today work hard at using Photoshop and plug ins to make their photos look as unrealistic as possible while the top CGI artists work hard at using Photoshop and other tools to make their synthetic creations as realistic as possible. Have you noticed this irony too?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find myself even in regular photography using Photoshop trying to recapture what I actually saw. Where is truth in all this? Here, for example, is a "Moon Just After Sunset" sort of situation when I wanted to keep the detail in the moon and in the terrain, since that is what I saw--all in the same exposure (sort of a fetish of mine). I finally had to process using "Shadows and Highlights" filters in PS to pull the terrain back up after I had darkened it to bring back at least some of the detail which I had seen in the moon:<br /> <br /> <strong><a href="/photo/12320970">[ORIGINAL]</a></strong></p>

<p><strong><a href="/photo/16696132">[WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM "SHADOWS AND HIGHLIGHTS" IN PHOTOSHOP]</a></strong></p>

<p>Is the second one the "original exposure" anymore? Where is "Truth!" here?<br /> <br /> I find myself in similar situations all the time, it seems. The dynamic range of our cameras is just not up to the task of seeing what the eye sees/saw without a bit of help.<br /> <br /> --Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Who needs inaccuracy?"</em></p>

<p>Me. I'm generally more interested in theatricality than accuracy when I'm out with my camera. I approach my photos as much as fiction as non-fiction, though I do always keep in mind and am inspired by the documentary aspect of even the most imaginative or non-forensic photo making. When I was at that place and time with Ian in my photo above, what I wanted was not what was there but what you see in the photo. What we all would have seen at the time was not nearly as much on my mind, if at all, as what I was seeing in my mind's eye, which aided me in creating another piece of the puzzle I've been exploring through photography about people and their masks and personas, about our "shadow" selves and matters that are real but hidden. I was as much trying to show what's NOT there as what IS. I was happily being non-literal, metaphorical if you will.</p>

<p>Not suggesting anyone else should work this way. Just giving an alternate perspective and trying to offer an understandable answer to your question "Who needs inaccuracy?" Picasso had it all down a little better than I, but I sense he needed or at least wanted inaccuracy as well, otherwise I assume his women wouldn't have breasts coming out of their foreheads. But maybe he and I are both being accurate, in presenting to you what we see that you don't, what our mind's eye sees. That's what I often look for in photos. What another guy sees that I don't or haven't, or at least a way of seeing that I haven't. If I wanted to see Yosemite accurately, I'd go there, and I have and can at any time living so close. If I'm buying a house and don't have the time to go there, I would want accurate photos of the houses I might visit over the coming weekend. When I read about The Great Depression, I want at least a degree of accuracy in renditions claiming to be historical or photojournalistic. But, if I want to see how Ansel Adams or any number of other photographers see Yosemite, I look at their photos. I don't generally use photos as substitutes for being there. I understand that others do and there are times when I do. Again, just answering your question.</p>

<p>By the way, many photos I like aren't really representations of places or things. They are conceptual in nature. They are not about the things pictures. Rather the things pictured are there to express ideas, not representations of those things.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>Lannie, just read your post. Thanks. Photos have many uses and the possibilities of how we work with them are endless. Interesting to hear yours.</p>