An example of "extreme" post-processing...???

[regnaD kciN]

Since we've all been talking about limiting post-processing, and decrying "extreme" examples of it, I thought I'd like some reactions to what -- in the eyes of the particular beholder -- might qualify as "reasonable" or "extreme" post-processing.

People here will probably recall this image from my Woodburn tulip shoot of last month:



A nice shot, but I was bothered by the almost-blown-out sky above the sun, which even five stops of GNDs weren't enough to tame. It certainly wasn't what I saw in the viewfinder, but it was what the sensor, with its much-more-limited dynamic range, did. To my mind, it was the biggest flaw in the image.

Now, it just so happens that I took a second image eight seconds later, with the exact same framing from the exact same tripod position, but with the exposure compensation turned down a stop. The sky came out a lot better, but the foreground was very dark, and no Lightroom processing was sufficient to bring it up to a decent level. A few days ago, I decided to see if the images could be combined. I set the exposure parameters on the second image so the sky looked good, loaded both photos together as layers in a single Photoshop file, and used layer masks to blend in the sky from the second image over the sky in the first one. In short, a "manual exposure blend" HDR. Here is the result:



This is, to my mind, a much better image, and also closer to what I (with my greater-dynamic-range human vision) saw as I was photographing. But is it a legitimate use of post-processing, or is it an "extreme" Photoshop job? Is it HDR that should be shunned, or simply a manner of adjusting exposure to more-closely reflect the subject? If you were the host, and such an image were submitted, would you refuse to accept it as an entry? If you saw it appearing in a contest poll, and knew the technique I was using, would you say that I was "cheating" by entering it? I can imagine some people saying one thing, and some another. What should the limits be for this group?

[Celebration]

1. I would probably disallow

Any combining of pictures in the contest. Others might allow it. But so far I haven't had the privilege of hosting a contest.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Then, by that standard...

...would you also disallow panoramas as entries? After all, they're created by "combining of pictures" just as much as exposure blends.

[Celebration]

4. Not sure

I see them as a bit different though. They are an extension of a picture more than using a second picture to improve the first one.

[Stevenmarc]

2. I don't have a problem with it, actually...

I'd encourage it since it's ultimately the difference between taking a snapshot and making a photograph, you had a vision of what you wanted and worked with the technical limitations of the equipment to create your vision and if that requires two shots to do it then so be it.

[alfredo]

35. Cropping is another form of post processing. It creates a completely different

image from the original.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I would probably do this myself if I knew how,

but layers scare the bejeezus out of me. My eyes glaze over and roll back into my head when I try to read the tutorials on how to do it, so I'd rather just play with the sliders and so on in Paintshop (since I can't afford Photoshop either) and take what I get. This is probably why I will never be a great photographer.

But if you've got the skills and your final image matches what you saw, then it's okay with me. I do have a problem though with people replacing cloudy skies with blue ones and stuff like that. Your image should reflect what you saw, or a reasonable facsimile.

[Schema Thing]

6. If your picture were disallowed,

then every B&W image ever printed in a darkroom should be disallowed. Ansel Adams certainly wouldn't make the cut.



Let's at least adhere to the standards of porn for "extreme processing", iow, the contest host will "know it when I see it".



And let's remember that Photoshop is as integral to modern photography as enlargers were in the past. And if that means some amateur sometimes has an advantage over a seasoned pro, then maybe this seasoned pro ought to get on his ass and learn more photoshop skills(speaking to my own ass here, btw :))

[Mz Pip]

7. I have no problem with this

You are using your skills and your vision to create a very pleasing image.

I'm not even subtle. This is just 2 original photos combined. Used layers. I adjusted the hue and saturation and had a blast with blending modes. In the grand scheme of things, your work was probably more complicated than mine. I would not enter something like this in a contest unless the theme was "Weird things rattling around in your head." But I guess the point is that processing is part of the artistic vision. You used two photos. I used two photos. We both used layers. :shrug: Mine looks "extreme" because that is what I was going for. Yours looks like a natural photo because that's what you were going for.

I think yours was probably technically more difficult than mine.

[regnaD kciN]

10. Love it!

I don't know where that falls on the scale of photography versus post-processing, but that's a great artistic image regardless! :applause:

[BrightKnight]

8. Nice work! - Anybody that has a problem with it doesn't know anything about photography.

Most of the Photoshop tools come from traditional printing techniques dating back to the beginning of photography.

dodging and burning
over developing to increase color saturation
creating exposure masks with high contrast film and using a bracketed version of a fried sky
Choosing die transfer process over a C print.
Choosing Kodachrome over the pastel colors of Fuji film.

There are a lot more choices in photography than what you put in the viewfinder.

[ConsAreLiars]

9. Definitely not "extreme."

It is simply doing the sort of things that skilled darkroom operators have been doing forever to make the reproduction image that was created more closely resemble what was seen, or by using a split ND filter in the field, to accommodate the limitations of the film and paper or sensor and display.

I think it would be useful to have more how-to discussions in this forum, regarding both shooting and processing. Not the whole seminars, but before and after or good try/better try. "Doing this using this made this image better; brief how-to and link to a fuller tutorial."

Edit to fix typo)

[Celebration]

11. I agree with that

I love the photo and think it is really cool. My issue with allowing this in a contest is that people would start using this technique to add something to a picture that wasn't in the first one. There could be a better reflection in one of them but a fox in the other. Should that be combination be allowed? How about a third picture? I would find this a little problematic if allowed in all contests.

[regnaD kciN]

12. That was why I suggested...

...that the passage in the rules allowed post-processing that helped "capture the image in front of the photographer, not create a new scene that was never there" (or a similar sentiment -- I don't remember exactly how I phrased it). Typically, exposure blends are of photos taken, at most, a few seconds apart. The goal is to make sure that as little about the image has changed as possible!

BTW, when it comes to adding elements to images, although I'm not in favor of it for most contests, I should note that it is scarcely a new phenomenon of the "digital darkroom." Performing in-camera double-exposures, or sandwiching two transparency images in one slide mount, is as old as the hills -- most often to add a moon to the sky, but sometimes to add backgrounds. Noted nature photographer and photo author Tim Fitzharris has an example of adding a canyon landscape behind a close-up shot of a silhouetted mountain lion in one of his earliest books, back in the mid-'80s, and I seem to recall him also adding flying birds to the sky in an image from another one of his pre-digital books. Whether one approves of such techniques, they certainly aren't newfangled Photoshop manipulations never used by photographers in the "good old days."

[Celebration]

13. The only issue I had with your wording

Was that I thought it should specifically give the power to determine if an entry fit the spirit of the rule and the power to disallow an entry to the host.
That could mean slightly different techniques would be allowed in different contests. I feel that would be a good thing, not
a bad thing.

[regnaD kciN]

14. IMHO, it would only be a "good thing" until...

...the first time a host invoked it to "ban" an entry that the majority of group members thought should be allowed. Then you'd see all hell break loose, IMHO.

[Celebration]

15. I doubt it

I feel strongly that a host should have wide latitude in setting rules and arbitrating the contest. There is no way we are all going to agree on everything that could come up. And many issues are not anticipated. It is impractical for the group to vote on every single issue that can come up in contests.

I would be okay with someone disqualifying either my entry or someone elses entry that I liked. We could just submit a different one. If most people thought my entry was fine I would find a way to submit it another month.

[Celebration]

16. I have a question

Suppose someone decided to enter a photo with texture overlay on it. Would that be okay? If not who would have the authority to disqualify it? If we don't give the host the authority to disqualify entries, we would have to take most anything, as long as it didn't have a frame, lol. It could be heavily photoshopped, because your proposed rule comes across as a suggestion only, and open to individual interpretation.

I honestly don't even care that much about frames, whether entries that are essentially digital art should be allowed, or whatever everyone agrees on here. The only issue that I care about is that the host have ultimate power of enforcement. I don't want what happened last month to ever be repeated, where a polite request from a host is completely ignored by a very rude entrant. And this could easily happen again if we don't give the host the necessary power to avoid this.

[GoneOffShore]

17. Not extreme post processing - You made a picture.

It's what we, as photographic artists, do.

I've stopped trying to "take" pictures - now I make pictures.

Capa did it, Cartier-Bresson did it, Doisneau, Brassai, Adams, Halsmann all "made pictures".

There's no "cheating" in the image you made.

[JeffR]

19. Way off topic, but thank you for mentioning Doisneau.

One of my favorites, and a name too often missing from discussion about the giants of the art form.

And on-topic, you've really summarized this whole issue concisely, and I believe very accurately.

[GoneOffShore]

29. Love Doisneau - Saw an exhibit of his work in Paris

a couple of years ago at the Hotel de Ville - it was a huge show and completely free.

And a great Willy Ronis show as well.

[JeffR]

38. Would love to have seen those

[MattSh]

21. Very well said.

Agree with that 100%.

On edit: Maybe what we need to do is rotate the contests.

Odd number months. Minimal processing. Mostly straight out of the camera. Cropping, brightening, sharpness, etc

Even number months. Advanced photography techniques. Not everything goes, but a whole hell of a lot is fine.

[Celebration]

24. Not anything goes?

As the photos are entered, who has the authority to determine what crosses the line? To me, that is the main issue. But I do like the idea of different contests having different rules. If someone crafted a rule of any sort giving the host the final determination, it would be okay with me.

[GoneOffShore]

28. Sounds like a good idea - That way those who don't use

Photoshop or the like get a "shot". (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Celebration]

30. Personally I feel that the host should set the criteria for each contest

Other than that I would hope allowances would be made for poor near vision. There is no way I could edit in my viewfinder because I can't see it well enough.

[GoneOffShore]

31. I agree with that as well.

I'll no longer enter straight shots right out of the camera without doing some processing.

And I've stopped shooting in JPEG.

Of course, that could open up a whole new series of contests.

Pin hole cameras, Holgas,

Low res, jpeg only, manual focus, manual exposure.

Or

50mm or equivalent only.

Lots of criteria that might make for interesting contests and interesting shot assignments.

[Celebration]

32. It would force us to learn new things

I would not mind a contest that called for merging two pictures. That would be intersting as well.

Hopefully we would have a couple of weeks notice on some of these because I certainly don't have the archives.

[JeffR]

18. Thank you for posting this. This is a great contribution to the debate.

When I included post-processing as one of the issues for revisiting the rules, it was more as an in-for-a-penny, on-for-a-pound thing. Probably we're better off just dropping it.

As you've demonstrated, the question really hinges on the word "extreme" and how it's defined. And no two people are going to define it the same way, meaning there is no operative definition to be had.

[Celebration]

25. Yup, that's how I feel

Whatever the rule is, or non rule, either the host has the authority to make a determination.......or they don't. If they do, that risks a heavy hand (but for one month only), and if they don't, then no matter what the stated rule is, anything goes.

[Tindalos]

20. I don't think that's extreme

As pointed out, photographers have been doing this sort of thing forever. Art isn't just about recording what you saw, but also about what you didn't see, could have seen, wanted to see, etc. I think the amount of post-processing should be at the discretion of the photographer. Anyway, it would be impossible to reach a consensus on how much post-processing is too much. I'm not sure there's a need to define limits.

[MattSh]

22. Adding something else to this debate, I think....

I tend to agree highly with this philosophy and am moving much more in this direction. Not so much the heavy duty HDR, but selectively highlighting and processing parts of the photo to focus attention or fix obvious flaws.

NOTE: This is from probably the most successful HDR guy there is.

I can talk a little bit more about the philosophy behind the photography style here for a quick moment. You might consider that the way the human brain keeps track of imagery is not the same way your computer keeps track of picture files. There is not one aperture, shutter speed, etc. In fact, sometimes when you are in a beautiful place or with special people and you take photos — have you ever noticed when you get back and show them to people you have to say, “Well, you really had to be there.” Even great photographers with amazing cameras can only very rarely grab the scene exactly as they saw it. Cameras, by their basic-machine-nature, are very good at capturing “images”, lines, shadows, shapes — but they are not good at capturing a scene the way the mind remembers and maps it. When you are actually there on the scene, your eye travels back and forth, letting in more light in some areas, less light in others, and you create a “patchwork-quilt” of the scene. Furthermore, you will tie in many emotions and feelings into the imagery as well, and those get associated right there beside the scene. Now, you will find that as you explore the HDR process, that photos can start to evoke those deep memories and emotions in a more tangible way. It’s really a wonderful way of “tricking” your brain into experiencing much more than a normal photograph.

http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-photoshop/

[Celebration]

23. It's fine with me if the group wants this

The quesion is who is the judge of what does or does not comply with whatever stated rule we decide upon. If we don't give the host that authority, then anything goes.

[NV Whino]

26. I don't have a problem with this

It's nothing you wouldn't do in a darkroom.

[Celebration]

27. I've never been in a darkroom

Should that be the standard? Couldn't textures be done in a darkroom? Should those be allowed? If so we probably should explicitly state it. If no someone needs the authority to disqualify them. I feel that we need to be a bit cautious here or we are going to end up with a digital art contest. If that is what everyone wants I am okay with it. If not we need to either specifically state what is allowed and not allowed, or give the host the authority to disqualify entries that don't meet a certain criteria. And under any set of rules, someone should be able to enforce them or they are meaningless.

[NV Whino]

33. You could add textures in the darkroom

You could also do what MsPip does in the darkroom. It's just easier in photoShop.

I think here's how I would determine the cut off point: Host's choice – if it looks like a photograph, it's acceptable, unless we are running a more arty contest.

I can look at JeffR's and WannJumpMyScooter's photos and see a lot of work, but it doesn't make their photos any less a photograph. I wouldn't reject them. I think also that the host can, if he or she desires, specify no extra work. A "straight out of the camera" contest, if you will. That would put all of us on notice... and might be fun.

[Celebration]

34. Making it clear on the front end could avoid most issues

Maybe the host at the beginning of the contest could state his or her vision. It could be anything goes, nothing goes, or somewhere in between. I actually think it would be fun to learn Photoshop. I don't think most people here had any idea of what was allowed and not allowed.

If the criteria is that it has to look like a photo, then the host's judgment is going to have to come into play. Okay with that and would have absolutely no problem if my entry was rejected by the host. But I would probably be a bit more specific than that on the front end.

[GoneOffShore]

39. I don't know a photographer who doesn't manipulate images in some way or another

It's either done by cropping, lighting, darkroom techniques, photoshop or some other means.

From the time the first photographer exposed the first negative there has been manipulation.

Daguerre, Brady and the people who came before - http://www.neatorama.com/2006/08/29/the-wonderful-world-of-early-photography/

Dorothea Lange's "Sharecropper" photo was a selected image.

Capa's images were cropped.

The Russian flag over the Reichstag was totally manipulated.

Fashion photography is always worked over.

We all want to be artists and make photos - I know that I'd love to not have to do something to a photo before I printed it but in order to get there I'd have to be shooting many more images than my hard drive will hold. For every good shot I print, I've taken 20. When it was film I'd take 3.

The very nature of photography means that one is manipulating what falls on the film or the sensor. And to paraphrase Heisenberg - the very act of observing changes the thing observed.

[Celebration]

40. I can't imagine my photos without changes

Especially cropping, but also color corrections, etc.

As for changing the observed, I think I sometimes freak out the birds a bit, especially if they are nesting. I'm not so sure about the inanimate objects though. But just because I haven't observed a change doesn't mean it isn't there.

[BrightKnight]

41. The map is not the territory.

Photography frames and spins "reality." Perhaps more Lakoff than Heisenberg. In the end the image is its own reality. It is about seeing and not looking.

[Celebration]

42. I love symbols

And photography and images are symbols. This whole thread has made me want to go out and buy Photoshop. Need.to.join.costco.and.brave.the.interstate.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

36. no

not extreme if you have to explain it to someone

[BrightKnight]

37. I once manipulated negatives with a crayon and turpentine.

In some cases you could not tell. Painting, drawing and photography are not really different kinds of things. Google "Pictorialism." We would have to ban Alfred Stieglitz and all of his buddies. The pure f/64 thing died over a century ago.


I have also been known to manipulate Poliroids
http://polaroidmanipulation.pixelfuse.com/index.html