REALISM VS POSTPROCESSING

[skieur]

ok, then excuse this babbling of mine, ... maybe I was too biased towards the "visual" meaning since this is a forum about photography where most things are about visual perception.

Yes, but don't try arguing definitions with someone who has one of their degrees in languages.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Then what form of communications is documentary?

Gary

Documentary is normally used with reference to film and video since these media when not edited are less selective and closer to reality than stills. Although I must admit to having changed reality through careful, invisible video editing.

skieur

 

[skieur]

in terms of colours that is true, but there it is also true for film! this is not a digital only problem. With digital the decision is done in the whitebalance and postprocessing, with film it is the choice of film and filters..

No, not quite as true for film. Digital is 8 or 12 bit. Film is about 42bit. That represents considerable more colours and gradations and tones between shades. In digital it is really accomplished through selectively brightening certain areas, changing the hue, and the selective use of software filters. In film, it is the choice of film and filters as you indicated.

colour perception is highly subjective anyway, and does not correspond to purely wavelengths which can be measured technically...

Well, just as a highly talented and experienced musician has a greater sensitivity to variations in sound and music because of a highly "trained ear" so too someone with either talent and/or considerable experience in photography is likely to have a better "eye" for visual and photographic elements than the average viewer. I might also add (to be a little provocative) that colour blindness in varying degrees hits more males than females, which perhaps has an influence on the interest in de-saturation or black and white from some quarters.

but in terms of geometry, photography does document reality. if person A is standing in a particular spot, holding his hand upright, then he is standing there holding his hand up. and if there is a toothbrush on the table, it is there in the image and it was there on the table when the shot was made....

You are obviously not familiar with postprocessing. It is not difficult at all to create these sample shots without either the person, the tootbrush or the table even being in the particular scene. I created a shot 15 years ago that not even professionals realized was NOT a photo and it had absolutely NO photo segments or elements in it whatsoever.

and if from a certain point of view with a certain angle of view i can see that nasty building, then i will see it in the image. that is reality ... but if i clone it out, then i leave the documentary path. or if i enhance the smile of the bride with photoshop, i leave the documentary path as well.

You were never on the documentary path in the first place and there was no "need" to be either. Wedding photography is NOT photojournalism or documentation and NEVER has been.

skieur

 

[Seefutlung]

Documentary is normally used with reference to film and video since these media when not edited are less selective and closer to reality than stills. Although I must admit to having changed reality through careful, invisible video editing.

skieur

I am sorry but that is pure BS. You are reaching to cover yourself. Documentary is a spin off of journalism ... and journalistic imagery started with stills. The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.

All forms of human communications reflect the source from which they are generated. This does not make them false or not valid. Documentary image recording people, (whether they be movie/video/still/written word), generally, are trained to tell the story objectively ... or as objectively as the circumstances permit.

Albeit, a wide angle image may reflect a different viewpoint than a telephoto image, but both document a scene truthfully. This is why major market news organizations won't hire a photographer that doesn't have a degree in communications/journalism ... because documentary photography isn't about good photography ... it's about telling the story through imagery. And telling the story is all about accuracy.

Additionally, because all documentaries reflect, to some degree, the person who is generating the report ... it is always prudent to gather information from a number of sources when formulating an opinion on an important matter/subject.

Gary

 

[skieur]

I am sorry but that is pure BS. You are reaching to cover yourself. Documentary is a spin off of journalism ... and journalistic imagery started with stills. The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.

All forms of human communications reflect the source from which they are generated. This does not make them false or not valid. Documentary image recording people, (whether they be movie/video/still/written word), generally, are trained to tell the story objectively ... or as objectively as the circumstances permit.

Albeit, a wide angle image may reflect a different viewpoint than a telephoto image, but both document a scene truthfully. This is why major market news organizations won't hire a photographer that doesn't have a degree in communications/journalism ... because documentary photography isn't about good photography ... it's about telling the story through imagery. And telling the story is all about accuracy.

Additionally, because all documentaries reflect, to some degree, the person who is generating the report ... it is always prudent to gather information from a number of sources when formulating an opinion on an important matter/subject.

Gary

A documentary as the term is currently used refers to film or video. When was the last time anyone heard someone on television refer to a still shot as a documentary?

 

[Seefutlung]

A documentary as the term is currently used refers to film or video. When was the last time anyone heard someone on television refer to a still shot as a documentary?

That is like going into an Italian restaurant and after not seeing any Swedish food items on the menu declaring that restaurants no longer serve Swedish food.

Try a library or a bookstore ... you will see nearly every other book in the Historical section with a subtitle of "A Vietnam Documentary" or "A Documentary of English Colonialism" et al. Still stretching ...

You totally ignored the point that a movie/video has the equal amount of distortion opportunity as a still image.

Alas ... I haven't a need to beat a dead horse ... I believe our points have been made ... so we should both move on and not bore others.

Gary

 

[Alex_B]

No, not quite as true for film. Digital is 8 or 12 bit. Film is about 42bit. That represents considerable more colours and gradations and tones between shades. In digital it is really accomplished through selectively brightening certain areas, changing the hue, and the selective use of software filters. In film, it is the choice of film and filters as you indicated.

I did not say that film had the same limited number of colours as digital. I said that the colour calibration problem is there in both worlds since we were talking about depicting reality.

As for dynamic range, slide film is very similar to sensors

You are obviously not familiar with postprocessing. It is not difficult at all to create these sample shots without either the person, the tootbrush or the table even being in the particular scene. I created a shot 15 years ago that not even professionals realized was NOT a photo and it had absolutely NO photo segments or elements in it whatsoever.

I did not say it was impossible to do this manipulations. I said it was possible to be documentary and depict reality.

I myself already removed tourists from shots since I wanted to show an archeological site in that photo and not how tourists flood it. But I would never call this shot documentary or claim it depicts a real scene.

However, the unmanipulated originals are documentary.

You were never on the documentary path in the first place and there was no "need" to be either. Wedding photography is NOT photojournalism or documentation and NEVER has been.

This might vary from country to country and from person to person. And what I consider documentary was my personal opinion.

 

[deanimator]

Returning (ever so slightly) to the original question...should the arm be left in or taken out? And does this alter reality and meaning?

Well...I agree with LaFoto, and I think it looks silly as it is. "What´s that?" was my first reaction. The arm does not convey anything. I had to read the text to understand it was an arm and that it was supporting his head. He doesn´t look particularly weak to me either, so how should I know anything from this picture. It´s a guy in a hospital bed who has just had a haircut. I don´t see the story. Maybe if there were other pictures which all together told a story then maybe it has value and therefore a place.

If I was the editor of a magazine and had commissioned a story about this man, guess what...? I would not look twice at this picture, and hope the photographer had better pictures. If not, he or she wouldn´t get another job with me.

Other view? Yeah...clone some fingers so that I can figure out there is a hand there and it´s doing something useful. JUST KIDDING

 

[skieur]

I did not say that film had the same limited number of colours as digital. I said that the colour calibration problem is there in both worlds since we were talking about depicting reality.

As for dynamic range, slide film is very similar to sensors.

No, but you implied that the colour problem was the same for film. Well, as I indicated there is quite a difference between the "colour problem" for film and the colour problem for digital.

Having used slide film for several decades, the dynamic range is still better than digital.

I did not say it was impossible to do this manipulations. I said it was possible to be documentary and depict reality..

You certainly did, indirectly. You said that if he is standing there holding up his hand or that a tootbrush is on the table then that is reality. I pointed out accurately that what you see in the image may not be reality at all.

I myself already removed tourists from shots since I wanted to show an archeological site in that photo and not how tourists flood it. But I would never call this shot documentary or claim it depicts a real scene.

However, the unmanipulated originals are documentary..

Oh! What do you mean by '"real scene"? To me the scene is the archeological site...pyramids or whatever. Nothing unreal about that.

How are the unmanipulated originals documentary? They are certainly not documenting reality. The camera itself manipulates originals according to menus and so does the processor even without the menus. Digital technology "represents" reality it certainly doesn't document it because accuracy is not present.

This might vary from country to country and from person to person. And what I consider documentary was my personal opinion.

Photography "represents" reality in a very limited and distorted manner. It certainly does not document it because despite any rancour toward Photoshop, photography is never an accurate duplication of a scene.
The objective of photographers is through technique and composition to add something of their unique view to the scene and the image. It is not objective and never has been and it is certainly not the duplication or documentation of reality. That is not just my view. If you do the research you will find it is the view of the majority of professionals in this field.

skieur

 

[ksmattfish]

Photography, even so called straight photography distorts reality in many ways. But before Photoshop the masses believed that photographs told the absolute truth. Many of the distortions are right in front of the viewers nose, but completely ignored or accepted as allowed distortions.

With the exception of Polaroids, my film cameras produce opaque strips of brown and gray plastic that are permanently destroyed when I try to view them using visible light. Post processing is necessary with most photographic materials.

 

[danalec99]

You're asking the wrong question. It has nothing to do with what others are thinking, it's about what you want this picture to be. If you want to document the reality then leave it as is, if you want to make it look like he had his haircut on mars then crop him out of the frame and place him on a computer generated background.

It's your picture, your art, and ultimately your decision of how you want to portray it.

Also those who believe that pictures should not be processed and think photoshop is evil clearly have little understanding that photograph is an art, and people have been post processing since the art started. I even have a book here documenting how to use a pen to touchup a plate during development.

Ditto on what he said - and I wouldn't remove the arm.

 

[Alex_B]

No, but you implied that the colour problem was the same for film. Well, as I indicated there is quite a difference between the "colour problem" for film and the colour problem for digital.

Having used slide film for several decades, the dynamic range is still better than digital.



You certainly did, indirectly. You said that if he is standing there holding up his hand or that a tootbrush is on the table then that is reality. I pointed out accurately that what you see in the image may not be reality at all.



Oh! What do you mean by '"real scene"? To me the scene is the archeological site...pyramids or whatever. Nothing unreal about that.

How are the unmanipulated originals documentary? They are certainly not documenting reality. The camera itself manipulates originals according to menus and so does the processor even without the menus. Digital technology "represents" reality it certainly doesn't document it because accuracy is not present.



Photography "represents" reality in a very limited and distorted manner. It certainly does not document it because despite any rancour toward Photoshop, photography is never an accurate duplication of a scene.
The objective of photographers is through technique and composition to add something of their unique view to the scene and the image. It is not objective and never has been and it is certainly not the duplication or documentation of reality. That is not just my view. If you do the research you will find it is the view of the majority of professionals in this field.

skieur

Hmm, I have not been understood at all

I give up.

Maybe it is my English.

 

[danalec99]

The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.

:thumbup:

 

[SommarShade]

in a nutshell, there are truths in the world. There are facts, how we apply these facts to our views or visa versa is how we see the world through our eyes. some things may seem more true to some people based on expirience, but there are absolute truths.

Its all in the perspective.

Thats how we relate to each other, thats why we have and NEED friends and families. Thats how we discuss things, all rooted in our perspective.

This directly relates to how we do everything, Art, Feelings, Work, thinking, etc.... We may percieve things one way, our job is to make a case for that way through our work if we choose to. If we feel the juice is worth the squeeze.

But truth is truth, no way around that.