Extreme Photoshopping

[Mike Peregrine]

Yes you are correct. Choosing not to do something does not imply a lack of knowledge. [/b]

Fortunately no one made this implication about anyone posting to this thread.

I see the point totally, however, and agree with it ... that many (note the word "MANY") choose to disregard PS, not for some unspoken rule among the pros or ethical reasons, but rather because they do not wish to be bothered with learning that aspect of the process - or maybe they know that aspect of the process, but they don't want to be bothered with trudging through the work. Or maybe they don't mind trudging through the work, but they would like for their work to become known for pressing buttons on a camera more than on a computer. Maybe they just want to take pictures ... whatever ... it's all fine. To each his own ...

You know what I'm REALLY glad about, though? That we don't have to settle for looking at 20 different photographers' work who simply go out there and apply all of the "rules" taught to them about photography. I totally see this and gladly do my own song and dance in full support of the shopper crew out there, even though personally I'm just STARTING to really make an effort to learn this side of the fun ... if anything, I also see more of an issue among photographers with the lack of processing rather than overprocessing.

 

[nickgrillo]

I will go out on a limb and say that the MAJORITY of people who find "photoshopping" photos bad DON'T understand post-processing, and perhaps don't even want to learn period (like others have already noted above). So, when someone does try to make a photo look better (i.e. playing with curves and masking out foregrounds to work with the sky seperately) -- they hate to see it happen. I will say as much as this: I find not post-processing your image some -- to the degree of what it looked like in real life -- lying to everybody, no? That lovely sky sure didn't have a pitch-dark foreground, no?

This subject irritates the hell out of me... We put work into what we do. All of my photos and storms came from HARD work. So.. If someone would like to take their RAW files, and convert them to JPEG without any post-processing in PS and upload them right away, then that is fine with me. Just please don't ever tell me that I can't lighten a forground up, or increase saturation or sharpen the sky to make it look like it did in real life -- because YOU didn't want to.

I have yet to see a terrible amount of images that "went too far"... And most of the people who assume this haven't even chased a storm and seen what a supercell really looks like.

"You don't take a photograph, you make it" --Ansel Adams (likely the most famous photographer known to man).

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

I think many are missing the boat... this has nothing to do with adding dynamic range to photos (at least in my opinion). It's about adding so much contrast that many features almost start breathing.

or increase saturation or sharpen the sky to make it look like it did in real life -- because YOU didn't want to[/b]

Actually it's about doing these well past what they looked like in real life. Once again I'll say there is nothing wrong with this (and some of the results are great art), but I've had to explain a couple times that some scenes were modified to enhance cloud details. If this is what it looked like to one person's eye in real life, then my eyes must be messed up Good gravy some people get up-tight about things.

I think the argument has been well laid out from an ethics point of view for photojournalism. Those on both sides of the issue have stated why they do what they do, and I'm not sure where on earth your post came from Nick. Wrong limb buddy!

Aaron

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I think many are missing the boat... this has nothing to do with adding dynamic range to photos (at least in my opinion). It's about adding so much contrast that many features almost start breathing. [/b]

This is definitely what we should be sticking to here ... no doubt. If I get a chance later I'll post some of my own sorry attempts that result in over-contrasting the image. I'll be able to easily locate lots for everyone to enjoy. And maybe we can make this a constructive activity by talking about ways to perform this within limits reasonable to the eyes of others ... I'll gladly put my garbage on the curb if it will help (goodness knows there's enough to choose from). It might actually be fun ---

 

[Darin Brunin]

I think Mike P. nailed it on the head with "To each his own" I once had a conversation with a good friend of mine that said if you had 100 people who took the same photo that you would get 100 different representations of it after it is processed. Photography is a form of art whether the photo is processed or not and it's the artist's ultimate decision of how or if to process the photo.

Nick, you should probably leave the beat to death blog arguments out of this.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I think many are missing the boat... this has nothing to do with adding dynamic range to photos (at least in my opinion).
[/b]

What boat??? There's a boat??? Did someone photoshop this boat into the picture? Sorry. You do have to admit, extreme photoshoping to many does include adding dynamic range, adding curves adjustments, using new layers, etc.

 

[Joe Zemek]

Being a general Luddite (how am I typing this? It's magic!), I see this less in terms of the specifics of technical applications and more an issue of Art-Journalism Crossover. This is referenced several times above and it deserves emphasis. No two people can ever agree on What Is Correct in terms of image alteration if they do not share the initial premise.

Just look at the recent debate about the author who fictionalized his life details in his autobiography. In the middle of the Journalistic Premise, he decided to create Art about his life and not inform Oprah. Down he went, a Liar.

Photography is of course not writing; it is simultaneously creative yet strongly based in what we take as objective reality. Its overlap is large and complex. Why is the work of photojournalists displayed in galleries and museums in addition to Newsweek and the Web? Because of that Image = 1000 Words idea. Funny how data storage bears that out. Photographic images bear special import because they are not jsut light but also time captures. People will be sensitive about them because of the preciousness of that moment of history. People don't like for others to mess with history. Making it more accurate is a good thing, but then there's trust to consider. The counter to trust in this case is profitability. Why should we trust photographer/historians who may have a personal profit driven motive to alter history?

Do we have a choice? Do we just look harder at images for sale than those intended for general enjoyment?
Do we consider the enterprise of for-profit journalism?

No answers here, and it's dinnertime.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

You do have to admit, extreme photoshoping to many does include adding dynamic range, adding curves adjustments, using new layers, etc.[/b]

You are right... sounds like a good idea for a poll!

 

[Ericka B. Gray]

I must say that I'm enjoying this discussion because this is such a difficult issue to deal with. Each person's perception is different from every other person's perception as has been noted. (I sure hope that I didn't come across as defensive - I sure didn't mean to and wasn't feeling that way). To me, much of what I see posted on Stormtrack and elsewhere, including Ryan's final photo, is more processed than what I likely would have done if I was going for a realistic portrayal of the storm since I doubt that I would have seen the actual event in that way (perceptions do differ but I wasn't there, of course) The trend does seem to be to photoshop the *&#&(* out of storm photos and Susan's photos show that unprocessed photos can be and are extremely powerful. How dramatic should we make our photos to post here? To use for commercial purposes? To exhibit? I asked the original question in part because I do see the trend towards more processed photos and because I am curious about other chaser's opinions of post processing and what people perceive when they see the heavily contrasted skies or saturated colors, etc. It sure does grab one's attention - as did many photographers and artists by over or understating their subject. The digital darkroom has mostly replaced the film darkroom and mastery of it allows for greater latitude in artistic expression. I'll be processing furiously when I get home!

 

[Bob Schafer]

Wow, great thread. One thing I didn't see mentioned, though, is the varying ways in which a person will see an image after it has been published, whether that is on a computer monitor, newspaper page, photo paper, magazine page, poster paper, or some other media. That will affect the way the image appears to the viewer as well, especially different computer monitors. And I suspect more people view images such as storm images on a computer monitor than any other media these days. I've seen my own pics on my girlfriend's crappy computer monitor, and thought "eeeeewwww!"

And...even beyond that...what's the expression about "Eye of the beholder"?

Bob

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I must say that I'm enjoying this discussion because this is such a difficult issue to deal with. Each person's perception is different from every other person's perception as has been noted. (I sure hope that I didn't come across as defensive - I sure didn't mean to and wasn't feeling that way). To me, much of what I see posted on Stormtrack and elsewhere, including Ryan's final photo, is more processed than what I likely would have done if I was going for a realistic portrayal of the storm since I doubt that I would have seen the actual event in that way (perceptions do differ but I wasn't there, of course) The trend does seem to be to photoshop the *&#&(* out of storm photos and Susan's photos show that unprocessed photos can be and are extremely powerful.
[/b]

I totally agree with you on this -- it's definately possible to get great photos without post processing. (It's called "shooting slides and projecting it on a wall"... and to make it work, you need an armada of filters, i.e., preprocessing!. Even then, what kind of slide you choose has a big effect (preprocessing again) on final rendition -- Velvia and Provia are miles apart!) I guess what's important is that those who don't process their photos at all don't get too smug about it; if anything, they're skipping a step that, since the inception of photography, has been considered mandatory. Actually, they're usually not skipping it, so much as letting the local photo lab do it or letting their camera do it (unless, of course, you're shooting slides, though the moment you make a print of it or bring it into the digital realm and post it online... guess what? It's been processed.) I met a dude a couple years ago in Denver at an art fair who studied as a youth under Ansel Adams. This guy shot B&W large format landscapes and printed them 8 or 9 feet tall. It took him, on average, a MONTH to process ONE PRINT. He masked and dodged and burned and used the zone system, and he did it in quadrants with great precision. Could he take a good picture without post processing? Probably -- but that wasn't good enough for him. His big stuff was selling for $25,000 a print.

Folks, Photoshop is no different. I've got no problem with people who think that I or others process too violently (though I'd disagree with them when it comes to me.) The point that Darren & I & Mike & Mike have been trying to hammer home is that post-processing is very much a part of photography and has been for the last century. Unless you're shooting only slides and not printing them or scanning them to put them online, you too are post-processing. Most people don't realize it, because they don't understand what happens at their local Walgreens or Walmart or whereever they drop their film off at -- or, if they're shooting digital, they don't understand what goes on inside of their cameras when the RAW data is converted on the fly to JPEG.

Ultimately, I think it's a red herring to be concerned about the tools that people use to create their images. Tools will change. What's important is intent and how well the artist/journalist executes that intent. IMO.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Hey guys. I post-processed some pics... I tried not to go too "extreme", but I wanted to add some contrast and modified the curves a bit.

:lol:

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

You know if you were on acid at the time...

 

[Dan Robinson]

They found a camera in the damage path, and this is what they saw when they developed the film.

Seriously though, most video and still cameras have their own biases toward how the final image looks. You can usually correct for some or all of this while shooting, if you know your camera well enough to adjust the settings. Or, you can do the same types of adjustments in post. These corrections are almost always neccessary to get a final image that comes close to what you actually saw.

Photography is, in essence, trying to capture what your eyes are seeing. At least that's my purpose in shooting storms - to communicate to others what I saw as closely as possible. In some ways, it's no different than chasing with pencils or watercolors and painting/sketching the scene. Only the photographer knows what he/she saw, and the camera is a tool - just like a pencil or paintbrush - to accomplish the goal of recording the scene as it was observed.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Hey guys. I post-processed some pics... I tried not to go too "extreme", but I wanted to add some contrast and modified the curves a bit.[/b]

Hey - I think I was on this storm. You can tell it's in the southern plains from the angle of the sun. Nice foreground color, btw.