The great Processing debate...
The amazing capabilities of post-processing software such as Photoshop mean that it is possible to create images which can differ wildly from the original scene, incorporating elements from different locations into the image, stretching mountains to make them more impressive and taking the colours into the realm of the fantastic. A great deal of skill and practice is needed before one can create compelling results with some of these techniques.
There are religious debates in the photography community (online) about what you "should" and "should not" do when processing an image. To me these debates are not very productive as they usually involve one set of people angrily trying to impose their arbitrary ideas on another set of people, a process which rarely results in any positive outcomes.
Every photographer processes their pictures to one degree or another. Even the jpeg images which come straight from the camera have had a huge number of processing decisions made for them automatically in relation to colour, contrast, noise reduction, sharpening and many other things. Every photographer has things they can do and things they can't, things they will do and things they won't. It is a personal choice.
In the realm of journalistic or documentary photography then it is an ethical matter to refrain from manipulation, but outside of that genre it is my belief that photography is an art and the photographer/artist should express their vision in the way that they see fit, with one caveat that I will mention later.
To me, when evaluating someone's image, the question is simply whether I like the result or not. It does not matter to me what the photographer has done to get there.
I find that my willingness to enjoy images that depart from "reality" varies considerably from genre to genre. In the case of wildlife photography I like things that look natural and real, with landscapes I allow more license to emphasise certain aspects of an image with colour or light, whereas with images of artificial things such as buildings I really feel like all bets are off... whatever works is fine. Once again, this is a personal preference, not an instruction for others.
My personal preference in landscape imagery, one which guides what I aim for (but do not always attain) in my own work, is that when I view the image I enjoy the result and cannot see evidence of the processing which has been done. If there is something which is incongruous or out of place then I tend not to like the resulting image as much as I would otherwise. Examples of this could include:
If I see these things then it takes me out of the image and prevents it from being one of my favourites. Whether such things are noticeable to people who don't spend a lot of time looking at and processing images, I can't really say. Possibly not to the same extent, but at the same time I expect there are others who have stricter tolerances for such things than me. This comes down to personal preferences rather than right and wrong in my opinion. There is a lot of popular imagery that I do not personally like very much, which perhaps means that my opinion is not a majority one. That is fine too.
There is one important exception to my "do whatever you like and let's see if I like it" approach, and that is in regard to truthfulness. I don't see any need for a photographer to tell exactly or even vaguely what they have done to create the end result, but I do find it a bit irritating when people tell outright lies (e.g. about impossible shots created in the computer - "I was shooting the Milky Way when this eagle flew past carrying a squirrel, this picture is unedited, what a moment") about their creations.
I find it a bit disappointing when I see that kind of description being given for a photo, but I can also say that genuine skill is needed to create such a scene in an otherwise visually believable way and the urge to lie about it's origin may come in part from the scorn which is poured upon such works by "pure photographers" in the great religious processing debate. An acceptance that different approaches are simply different rather than right/wrong might lead to a healthy general reduction in outrage, "I don't like this" is a more justifiable position than "this is bad" if a position needs to be expressed.
Every photographer has their own ideas of what they will and will not do at any given moment. Those ideas may change considerably over time in either direction as the photographer develops.
For me, at time of writing, the goal that I have for my own landscape photography is that my images are clean, meaning that they are free of any signs of processing (even though they may have been quite heavily processed), and that they are more realistic than they are fantastical, while still being interesting for the viewer. In my best moments I get close to what I am looking for, in other cases I fall short, it is and will continue to be an ongoing process.
Andy
6.8.2019
P.S. I reserve the right for "future me" to disagree with or laugh at the above statements.
There are religious debates in the photography community (online) about what you "should" and "should not" do when processing an image. To me these debates are not very productive as they usually involve one set of people angrily trying to impose their arbitrary ideas on another set of people, a process which rarely results in any positive outcomes.
Every photographer processes their pictures to one degree or another. Even the jpeg images which come straight from the camera have had a huge number of processing decisions made for them automatically in relation to colour, contrast, noise reduction, sharpening and many other things. Every photographer has things they can do and things they can't, things they will do and things they won't. It is a personal choice.
In the realm of journalistic or documentary photography then it is an ethical matter to refrain from manipulation, but outside of that genre it is my belief that photography is an art and the photographer/artist should express their vision in the way that they see fit, with one caveat that I will mention later.
To me, when evaluating someone's image, the question is simply whether I like the result or not. It does not matter to me what the photographer has done to get there.
I find that my willingness to enjoy images that depart from "reality" varies considerably from genre to genre. In the case of wildlife photography I like things that look natural and real, with landscapes I allow more license to emphasise certain aspects of an image with colour or light, whereas with images of artificial things such as buildings I really feel like all bets are off... whatever works is fine. Once again, this is a personal preference, not an instruction for others.
My personal preference in landscape imagery, one which guides what I aim for (but do not always attain) in my own work, is that when I view the image I enjoy the result and cannot see evidence of the processing which has been done. If there is something which is incongruous or out of place then I tend not to like the resulting image as much as I would otherwise. Examples of this could include:
- colours that seem overly radioactive or impossibly out of balance with each other
- scenery which I am familiar with but which has been warped out of all recognition
- impossibilities such as a flying bird (requiring a very fast shutter) passing the Milky Way (requiring an exposure of many seconds)
- the artefacts which can be seen when excessive contrast or sharpening have been added to a photo
- the visible evidence of imprecise editing
If I see these things then it takes me out of the image and prevents it from being one of my favourites. Whether such things are noticeable to people who don't spend a lot of time looking at and processing images, I can't really say. Possibly not to the same extent, but at the same time I expect there are others who have stricter tolerances for such things than me. This comes down to personal preferences rather than right and wrong in my opinion. There is a lot of popular imagery that I do not personally like very much, which perhaps means that my opinion is not a majority one. That is fine too.
There is one important exception to my "do whatever you like and let's see if I like it" approach, and that is in regard to truthfulness. I don't see any need for a photographer to tell exactly or even vaguely what they have done to create the end result, but I do find it a bit irritating when people tell outright lies (e.g. about impossible shots created in the computer - "I was shooting the Milky Way when this eagle flew past carrying a squirrel, this picture is unedited, what a moment") about their creations.
I find it a bit disappointing when I see that kind of description being given for a photo, but I can also say that genuine skill is needed to create such a scene in an otherwise visually believable way and the urge to lie about it's origin may come in part from the scorn which is poured upon such works by "pure photographers" in the great religious processing debate. An acceptance that different approaches are simply different rather than right/wrong might lead to a healthy general reduction in outrage, "I don't like this" is a more justifiable position than "this is bad" if a position needs to be expressed.
Every photographer has their own ideas of what they will and will not do at any given moment. Those ideas may change considerably over time in either direction as the photographer develops.
For me, at time of writing, the goal that I have for my own landscape photography is that my images are clean, meaning that they are free of any signs of processing (even though they may have been quite heavily processed), and that they are more realistic than they are fantastical, while still being interesting for the viewer. In my best moments I get close to what I am looking for, in other cases I fall short, it is and will continue to be an ongoing process.
Andy
6.8.2019
P.S. I reserve the right for "future me" to disagree with or laugh at the above statements.
