How far to push it? - DPChallenge Forums

09/18/2006 08:44:45 AM · #1

Originally my thought was this is a digital editing question, but in reality it may be a photography, in general thought, as I'm sure that photographer's in the pre-digital era struggled with this as well.

The camera rarely captures a scene as the photographer has seen it with their own eyes. Questions to consider...

1) Do you edit the image to emulate what you saw when capturing the image?
2) Do you edit the image and go beyond your personal visual experience to create something more dramatic?
3) When is it pushed too far? Or is it ever pushed too far in the pursuit of creating art?
4) Outside of photojournalism, are there any ethical issues to this subject?

I'll use my entry for 'A Single Tree' as an example. It was early morning, dark, heavily clouded/foggy, very greyish with some mist in the air. I wanted to stay fairly true to what I remembered the scene to be in post-processing and may have gone a notch beyond in adding a little drama to the sky. I did want a decent score. ;^) Certainly could have gone farther... BTW, this is NOT about scores or how the image did, etc...I'm very happy with results and comments. Nor am I asking for further image critique/feedback.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on where you stop in editing an image (questions 1 thru 4 above).

- challenge entry

- original

Thanks!
Barry

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/18/2006 08:51:41 AM · #2

Meant to mention, please feel free to post your own images that help to demonstrate any points made regarding the question/topic. :D

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

09/18/2006 08:57:58 AM · #3

I think for me it depends on how interesting the photo is to begin with.

with my single tree entry

i pushed it a bit probably too far with the masking to make it look like there was more dramatic lighting than the flat cloudiness the original had.

but for this shot.

I didnt have to do anything really because it looked this cool in real life.

HTH

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/18/2006 09:01:46 AM · #4

I make it look like I want it to. Sometimes that is faithfull, sometimes it is a long way from it. I am an artist although not a very good one:)

Rules are for contests and photojournalists. Sometimes for challenges I go for score and don't edit a photo like I want to. Only you can say what is too far for you.

This ended up being pretty rambly sorry.

Message edited by author 2006-09-18 09:04:35.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/18/2006 09:06:00 AM · #5

Originally posted by Elvis_L:

...This ended up being pretty rambly sorry.

No problem, please - ramble on! ;^)

Tycho

Nikon D70

09/18/2006 09:18:03 AM · #6

1) Depends on what you mean by "what you see with your own eyes". For example, I'm pretty sure Picasso emulated in "El Guernica" exactly what he saw with his own eyes in the town of Guernica. Fine art photographers, I believe, also "emulate" what they see with their own eyes (their visual experience) only through a different medium.
2) See 1
3) When the editing causes artifacts, such as posterization, halos and what not
4) Outside of photojournalism/documentary/forensic photography, how can there be any ethical issues when all one does is express how one sees, hears, feels and experiences the world?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/18/2006 09:23:31 AM · #7

OK, here is my entry with lots of pp

here is the original

So did I do too much? I did it the way I liked it. My score suffered for it. But, the people who commented really liked it as well. I've just come to the conclusion that my photography usually only appeals to a small amount of people here. Scores don't really matter all that much. But I touched at least one person enough for them to make it a favorite. That matters!

Here is the proper perspective of the tree.

It is a man made tree at the Philadelphia Zoo, that a child's playhouse was designed around. It has built in slides and steps inside to climb it.

09/18/2006 09:29:29 AM · #8

Originally posted by Tycho:

Great feedback and all valid points. As to "what you see..." - in the image example I posted I mentioned it was grey/gloomy, etc... I burned in the sky a little to add some "drama" that was actually a little beyond the scene that was in front of me at the time of taking the photo. Some may go substantially further in burning/dodging to enhance this scene. Personally I didn't want to go farther because I felt it would be going too far and changing it from a photo to more of an artwork.

That's just my personal opinion. Thought this would be an interesting topic to explore. Thanks for adding to the convesation.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/18/2006 10:59:31 AM · #9

Originally posted by kdsprog:

OK, here is my entry with lots of pp

here is the original

So did I do too much? I did it the way I liked it. ...

Getting an end result that you like is most important. If you (the photographer) don't like it - why bother? ;^)

As for doing too much in pp on your entry? I think the object/subject was unrecognizable in an abstract type of way. Abstract in and of itself leans high on the artistic scale, so in this case, taking it to an extreme that doesn't resemble the "real" view as observered by the photographer at the time of image capture, could be considered more of a "normal/acceptable" approach?

Cool "tree" BTW. :D

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

09/18/2006 12:10:45 PM · #10

Thanks for the comments Barry!

Would anyone out there that give this a 1, 2 or 3 care to let me know why? Honest, I won't get mad! I have thick skin. I'm just curious why it puts some people so off, yet others like it so much. I've already gotten feedback from those who like it, so...

fotomann_forever

09/18/2006 12:29:12 PM · #11

1) Do you edit the image to emulate what you saw when capturing the image? or

2) Do you edit the image and go beyond your personal visual experience to create something more dramatic?

Questions 1 & 2 are too related to seperate. I think the goal of most fine art photographers is not only to represent what they saw, but represent the experience as a whole. Also, photographers, even in the pre-digital age, used many effects to add to the visual medium and to persue a deeper experience.

3) When is it pushed too far? Or is it ever pushed too far in the pursuit of creating art?

When it no longer works, period. If you are adding effects just to add effects, you probably have gone too far. Effets are like any other part of the image. They must have a purpose and must contribute to the whole.

4) Outside of photojournalism, are there any ethical issues to this subject?

Not at all. But even in photojournalism you have choices to make. In film, you had film choices, DoF, framing, cropping... all which could change the impact of the photo. Same goes with digital:

How far do you push your curves?

Can you blur the background, if your DoF is not deep enough? Before you say no to this, remember you had the same choice in-camera.

Do you crop in post? Fix blown highlights?

----
FWIW, a camera never catches reality, never. What is in frame is only a small window into what was real. A photo of a fire fighter fighting a fire may not show the victim in the house dying of smoke inhalation. Photos of Dale Earnhart's fatal crash don't show "how" he was killed.

The best we can hope for is to give the viewers enough detail to allow them to "read" the story the photo presents.

Message edited by author 2006-09-18 12:30:05.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/18/2006 12:33:17 PM · #12

from my siggy

you take a picture.
you look at it on your monitor.
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make this presentable?"
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make it WOW!!!
you do whatever, then you compare the original to the result.
if they hardly bear a resemblance to each other, you've probably done TOO MUCH

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/18/2006 01:00:21 PM · #13

Does what you have after editing align with your vision of the scene when you were there or are you just polishing a turd?

modgethanc

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D

09/18/2006 01:17:38 PM · #14

I generally don't worry about pushing things too far...I try to make the image represent how I see or feel things. Of course, most of my editting isn't really legal in basic or advanced, and probably wouldn't place too well, either, which is why I don't enter often :D

Olympus 50mm f/2.0 Macro ED Zuiko Digital

09/18/2006 01:22:54 PM · #15

Thanks Leroy (

fotomann_forever).
Thanks Skip (

skiprow).

Much appreciated.

As for...

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Does what you have after editing align with your vision of the scene when you were there or are you just polishing a turd?

...I've probably polished a few "turds". ;^) Are you trying to make the point that you need a decent image to start with?

For those just checking in, the conversation I was trying to initiate is about how far do you go in editing your photos. Do you try to get them to the point of what you experienced visually when you took the photo, or do you take it farther and try to enhance it? Are your enhancements taking it past the point of "reality" and turning it more into artwork rather than a photo?

Enhancements aren't a bad thing as there's room out there for everybody...just looking for an interesting point of discussion. :D

Thanks to you also Vincent (

modgethanc).

edit to add acknowledgement - slow typing this up.

Message edited by author 2006-09-18 13:26:15.

Tlemetry

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

09/18/2006 01:33:41 PM · #16

If people didn't push the envelope, we would never discover new things!

My concept:
Do what looks good to me.
Post it and marvel at the results.
sometimes you learn something, sometimes someone else does!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/18/2006 01:39:21 PM · #17

Originally posted by Tlemetry:

So basically, you're ok with editing your image past reality (what the scene looked like when you took the photo), into something that you like the looks of better?

This is just a neutral clarifying question to continue the conversation. ;^)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/18/2006 02:25:26 PM · #18

"Reality", "What the scene really looked like", these are such nebulous terms. Example; I sit in my living room reading at twilight, under tungsten lamps. The colors look "normal" to me. I raise my eyes and look out the window, see a lovely blue/magenta sky. I step outside to look up at it, it's really very pleasing.

I stay out there a few minutes throwing a stick for Karma, marveling at how fast the colors are fading. I turn and look into the house through the window, notice the interesting yellow glow of the inside of the house.

I go inside, settle down to reading again, and the "yellow" colors have become neutral for me. I glance back out the window, the striking twilight sky colors are back. I realize my brain has an exceptionally good "auto white balance" feature.

So what is the "real" color here? Over the years I've learned to "see" in enhanced colors. It's rare that I make an image that I don't have a previsualization of what I want the color to look like, and my job in PP is to make that happen. If I can do it simply by using hue/saturation to emphasize certain colors and their relationship to each other, then I consider that "real"; I don't see why the camera's version of auto WB is any more "accurate" than the mental palette I visualize, as long as the colors are present in some degree in the scene itself.

R.