DSLRUsers.com

There seems to be an increasing trend to produce images that are more enhanced than authentic. Its something that I’m not too sure I like but its creeping in at break-neck speed and I am very interested in what other people think.

What we see with the human eye seems to now not always be replicated in digital images. Powerful software makes it possible to produce images that are a vast exaggeration of what is actually there.

I don’t want to enter into an argument about what is “authentic” to some as opposed to others because photography is also an art in itself and thus knows no boundaries. However, I do think its a fair general comment to say few images these days are verbatim of what nature is letting us actually see.

To illustrate my point pop over to: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/273226

The poster, "meejahor", supplies two images. The top is his finished image which in my opinion is utterly stunning; the second is the actual captured image which you will have to double take on to really see it's the same photo.

If the first image was printed with the phosphorous enhanced process it would produce something you could stare at all day. However, when looking at the authentic non-altered image below you will conclude the top image is more a measure of his abilities in creating special effects using software to alter and modify the image rather than an example of skills in capturing a breathtaking true image of nature.

I am finally making the move from film to digital myself and have been lucky enough to be enjoying time testing a number of different DSLR’s. This is why I am now interested in this very important part of the digital imaging process and in particular what others think about it.

I would tend to establish a digital workflow that results in images being more “natural” than not but I wonder if that’s just because I have had little option to previously do otherwise.

“What’s best for you” doesn’t wash with me, we are all influenced by others, this is how we improve and so it is a pretty natural thing to want to aspire to a level that is considered of a higher quality in the areas that interest us. And I can see from the many images posted in this forum there are some very talented photographers as well as quite accomplished Photoshop users.

How far do you push your images?

Jumbuck

I've radically altered my position on this in recent months. I used to be a die hard "what the camera saw is what you get" person. Albeit with a few minor tweaks in PS - saturation, levels, etc.

But then I started playing with the shots in a new way after seeing pictures like the ones you linked to. I couldn't get the images I saw out of my camera......i treid and tried, but couldn't come close. In the end I started taking the base image from my camera and manipulating them until I was happy with what I saw. Now they arent as extreme as the ones on that site but I PP until I am happy with the shot.

I think you push it as far as you want to. If you aren't comfortable doing it then don't. I would say that the digital manipulation that goes on today isn't that far removed from what happened in the traditional darkrooms. If I could a pic like that Last Light on the Barricade then I would be a very happy man, no matter how far is was pushed.

Whether an image is produced in the camera or in the computer, what does it matter? What counts is the final result. It still takes creativity and a degree of skill to produce really good images.

Just my two cents worth.

I'm certainly no purist nor a digital revolutionary, but i do believe that nearly all images captured digitally could do with a little bit of 'enhancement.' A digital RAW image may be a little soft due to the way it is captured and filtered on the CCD or it may be because of a loss of tonality due to bad/poor selection of settings.

Film does still have some benefits over digital such as better tonal range and no moire effects, but even film can do with some enhancing to improve an image.

I guess what you are getting at is how far do you go, but surely that is only determined in the mind of the photographer who can survey a landscape and decide what he needs to do 'in camera' to achieve a workable image. Or the photographer who can see some potential for darkroom or digital processing when he takes the photo, knowing that he will be doing some major 'enhancement' to the image at a later date.

What we do in Photoshop is not much different to the processes that could be obtained in the darkroom. The main difference is that post processing is now more accessible to amatuers and pros alike. There are members on this boad who are much more qualified to compare conventional darkroom techniques with those computer based than me.

But where do you draw the line? Hard to say but at some point the image being enhanced will no longer be a photo, but could be more akin to a work of art.

Same as most paintings i see hanging in a gallery are the painters interpretation of a scene and do not entirely resemble the actual landscape they painted.

As for me, when i take a photo i see the potential it has as an image, and not just as a photo. I already have an idea on how it will look and what i am going to get out of it before i press the shutter. What i do in Photoshop is just a natural progression of that process.

But that's just me...

I think it also comes down to what intended purpose the photos taken. Are they just art, are they happy snaps from a holdiay, portraits of family members etc..

I certainly wouldn't go overboard with family portraits or even holiday snaps, as these (to me) are taken to reflect upon and look at in the years ahead. You want to be able to seewhat things looked like IRL. However, taking photos of landscapes (as done in your reference) and tweaking them to look unrealistic perhaps does have it's merits, from an artistic point of view. Photographically, I think the original of your example looks far better that the Photoshopped version, but maybe that's because the original looks more real to me ?!?

As Matt stated, you tweak to what you like. This amount will always vary depending on the taste of the artist.

Perhaps that is also the beauty of digital photography. People can change their photos dramatically for a different look (without having to dive head-on into the world of darkroom trickery)

It will be interesting to read everyone's comments on this...

I think massive PP is absolutely fine, but with one condition.

The image taker/post-procesor should state that this is a modified image.
if you were to try to pass off a heavily post processed image as one taken directly from the camera that is just plain dishonest.

but PP to your hearts content so long as you are open about it.

Orlac,

if you were to try to pass off a heavily post processed image as one taken directly from the camera that is just plain dishonest.

In this case you should never look into traveling brochures, marketing publications, 'rich and famous' magazines and anything else that has connection with money

Regards,

K.Polak

That is too true,

But it is much easier to just assume that all of those images are just that images not photo's

I don't understand why you would think that a PP image is dishonest unless it is disclosed What you present is an image plain and simple. No more no less.

Olrac,

So there is a point. You can accept heavy image manipulation when you expect that, but you could feel be cheated if you dont and think that is 'real'photo. Is that correct?

But then restrictions on photo manipulation approval depend hugely on who is looking at

Regards,

K.Polak

Well In my mind there is a difference between and image and a photo

For instance my friend works for a printing company that prints large posters for advertizing ect and it is his sole job to retouch photos so that they are literally perfect, that in my mind is no longer a photo that becomes a manufactured image.

I have no issue with images, it is just that when people try to pass off a heavily PP'ed image as a photo then I dont think that is honest.

Olrac,

I have no issue with images, it is just that when people try to pass off a heavily PP'ed image as a photo then I dont think that is honest.

In this case to which category National Photographic guys fall? Are they sort of 'art and impression' guys and they are allowed to do manipulation or they are documentalists or at worst photo jurnalists and they should pass their photos as they are?

And if second option is correct, what doest it mean, should they provide and publish only a raw image?

Regards,

K.Polak

In print media there is not much point in going to that level of detail

I think there is allot of merit in both skill sets, but at what point does a photo cease to be a photo? That is a very subjective question that everyone would have a different opinion on.

I think that you can't even make a general rule on this. You almost have to decide image by image.

That being said I dont look at photos/images and try to disect how that came about I just enjoy it the way it is. Maybe that is why I am no good a critequeing images on this forum...

Orlac,

I think that you can't even make a general rule on this. You almost have to decide image by image

And this is what I am suggesting, image by image, person by person. BTW, the only close to pure photography nowadays is news photography. But not because those photographers are so pure about their job. It is only because they dont have too much time to do anything more then few basic corrections

We live in visual world and nobody will freely leave opportunity to play with that

Regards,

K.Polak

I agree with you olrac.

In fact in an example that seems to contradict my own initial post, Geoff's ability to re-visit his excellent image of South Curlie pool after he further post processed it resulted in an image, in my humble opinion, that is more accurate and true than his first posted image. See: http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=9436

I know South Curlie pool at night very well, (so does my old girlfriend!!) and the second image, after Geoff post processed it a little further is the pool to a tee.

So this is a case where some carefully executed talent not only captured an excellent image but also was able to further enhance it to bring it closer to what we actually see with the human eye. I reckon his second submission should have made it as picture of the week, not his first, even with the extra noise. But then again you would need to know the subject matter I guess.

Jumbuck

Jumbuck wrote:Why his second submission didn't make the picture of the week is beyond me. But then again you would need to know the subject matter.

Now that one is easy to answer. Geoff chose the POTW this week and I think he'd have been caned if he chose his own pic

And while I'm here. I too am with Olrac. I look at a pic to enjoy the beauty or story in the final image. I would only have a problem with PP if I was being tricked intentionally to believe what I was seeing was "real" when it wasn't (eg a digital composite done to insert something into a scene then being told the photo showed this was there when the photo was taken)

An interesting point is the header to this thread - Image Enhancing and not Photograph enhancing

Image encompasses many artforms from paintings thro to illustrations, and of course, photographs.

I have been asked by clients many times to change a photograph to emulate the product they are selling - whether it be to change a colour or verbage - to add to or remove from. The final result has always been an exact copy of their product before it exists in reality

I don't take photos for a living, I take photos for myself so I only need to satisfy myself.
If I happen to be somewhere scenic and a take a photo and when I get home I look at the result and wish that the sky wasn't so bland, I try to enhance it because that's what I wished the photo to look like. I really don't put any thought on wether someone else thinks I'm cheating, because I really don't care.
The fact that someone else took the same photo on a day when there was good cloud formation doesn't make him a better photographer just luckier.

phillipb wrote:I try to enhance it because that's what I wished the photo to look like. I really don't put any thought on wether someone else thinks I'm cheating, because I really don't care.

I concur.

You make a good piint phillipb which seems to strengthen my overall point, which is really only a question. "Will one of the effects of this rapidly advancing technology be a lost reality? and what can you see as being the consequences?"

Some years down the track a person perhaps could feel a scene he/she took looked pretty bland so adds clouds, maybe even a few people or a tree here and there because, as you put it, that's what he/she wished the photo would look like. Maybe Photoshop CS9 will have a cloud plugin for photos?!?!? who knows.

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm only suggesting that there are more people doing more "creative" work on their images because they can. And I guess this is what its all about, having fun and seeking personal satisfaction in what you do. Its only an observation, nothing more but a very interesting one at that.

Some have already commented about the need to distinguish between images that are natural and ones that have been "heavily" post processed. So already this issue exists to some degree. What is real as opposed to what is creatively interpreted as what "should" be real is now in the hands of you and I - whereas previously reality played the defining role.

Geez, I sound like I'm giving uni lecture. . . . sorry, just very interested in what others think on the issue.

Jumbuck

Take a look at embi's or manta's photos in the last comp. There's no Photoshopping at all done on those photos, but I've never looked up at the sky or down a freeway and seen those streeks of light. It's always been possible to manipulate reality but digital has made it a lot easier.
What I've noticed at the moment is a lot of over saturation (I'm probably the biggest culprit). I think in time when the novelty wears off we may see a return to more "natural" looking shots.

phillipb wrote:Take a look at embi's or manta's photos in the last comp. There's no Photoshopping at all done on those photos, but I've never looked up at the sky or down a freeway and seen those streeks of light. It's always been possible to manipulate reality but digital has made it a lot easier.
What I've noticed at the moment is a lot of over saturation (I'm probably the biggest culprit). I think in time when the novelty wears off we may see a return to more "natural" looking shots.

You make a very valid point. Bulb shots of course produce something which we don't see with the eye, but its still reality, so I've just contradicted myself I guess.

Jumbuck