4 ms·

Photography has always been more artistry than reality. From film selection, lens choice, framing and cropping, color correction, "dodging" and "burning" detail

Photography has always been more artistry than reality. From film selection, lens choice, framing and cropping, color correction, "dodging" and "burning" details in our out it's always been a compromise between what the camera sees (which itself may not be reality if you're using physical in-front-of-the-lens filters or other distortive techniques) and what the photographer want to convey. That's one of the reasons that Photographic Journalism often holds itself to ethical limitations with regards to how a photo can be manipulated after it's been taken. I'm almost certain that this kind of thing would at least walk that fine line if not fall right on over it.

falcrist 6y ago
On one hand as Ansel Adams said "You don't take a photograph, you make it.", and that still holds true today. You're influencing the picture when you choose your camera, your lens, your sensitivity (ISO), your color mode, your white balance, your raw software, your editor, etc etc all the way from the camera to the print. On the other hand, there certainly is a difference between working with the information (pixels) you've captured, and inventing information by either drawing on the image or creating new data. This methodology falls squarely into the gray area between those two.
diarrhea 6y ago
Exactly. That is also why claiming to only do "SOOC JPG" is ill-informed. People claiming it don't understand the process: to even produce a JPG, there has to be a process of interpretation already taking place. When I volunteered for a small newspaper I did my usual, sometimes significant, editing (Lightroom-level, not PS) and didn't see anything wrong with it (neither did they; of course edits look better than plain JPGs). But I can appreciate how this becomes much more important with increasing range. Imagine if Pete Souza spoiled 8 years' worth of Obama presidency imagery just because he edited them in some obscure way.
mikepurvis 6y ago
Never mind the manipulations which can occur even before the shutter is ever pressed— I'm having troubling finding links now, but I know there was controversy a few years ago about a picture of bombing rubble with an object (a dress form or something, maybe?) standing up in the middle of it, apparently by chance which created a very artistic contrast, but there were later questions about whether the photographer had in fact arranged the object in that way rather than discovering and capturing a preexisting scene. EDIT: Still can't find it, but here's a list which includes a number of other wartime photos which are proven or suspected to have been staged in various ways: https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/09/25/famous-fakes-10-celebrated-wartime-photos-that-were-staged-edited-or-fabricated/ https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/09/25/famous-fakes-10-ce...

falcrist 6y ago

On one hand as Ansel Adams said "You don't take a photograph, you make it.", and that still holds true today. You're influencing the picture when you choose your camera, your lens, your sensitivity (ISO), your color mode, your white balance, your raw software, your editor, etc etc all the way from the camera to the print. On the other hand, there certainly is a difference between working with the information (pixels) you've captured, and inventing information by either drawing on the image or creating new data. This methodology falls squarely into the gray area between those two.

diarrhea 6y ago

Exactly. That is also why claiming to only do "SOOC JPG" is ill-informed. People claiming it don't understand the process: to even produce a JPG, there has to be a process of interpretation already taking place. When I volunteered for a small newspaper I did my usual, sometimes significant, editing (Lightroom-level, not PS) and didn't see anything wrong with it (neither did they; of course edits look better than plain JPGs). But I can appreciate how this becomes much more important with increasing range. Imagine if Pete Souza spoiled 8 years' worth of Obama presidency imagery just because he edited them in some obscure way.

mikepurvis 6y ago

Never mind the manipulations which can occur even before the shutter is ever pressed— I'm having troubling finding links now, but I know there was controversy a few years ago about a picture of bombing rubble with an object (a dress form or something, maybe?) standing up in the middle of it, apparently by chance which created a very artistic contrast, but there were later questions about whether the photographer had in fact arranged the object in that way rather than discovering and capturing a preexisting scene. EDIT: Still can't find it, but here's a list which includes a number of other wartime photos which are proven or suspected to have been staged in various ways: https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/09/25/famous-fakes-10-celebrated-wartime-photos-that-were-staged-edited-or-fabricated/ https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/09/25/famous-fakes-10-ce...