Ok, as always I feel compelled to point out at the git-go here that these are just my own personal opinions and should only be taken as such.
First and foremost, I too have to take some degree of offense towards how this thread began. In short, it insinuates that those who chose to process their own images are somehow less than "real" photographers. More over, it insinuates that images created by using software such as Photoshop are somehow a "cheat". The comment seems to totally ignore concepts such as "content" and "context"...and this is where I at least have a problem.
As I've said elsewhere in these forums (and certainly other places as well), once one moves beyond the "snapshot" and starts taking one's photography more seriously, I believe photography as a whole falls into one of two categories; photojournalism and art. To me, this is a VERY important distinction to make...the images of a photojournalist can be artistic (and many of the best often are),
however not all photography is photojournalism...nor should it be. The job of a photojournalist is to represent the truth...their work is (or at least
should be) a factual representation of an event. That's not to say that some post processing can't or shouldn't occur (give or take the issues with Reuters)...after all, EVERY digital image has some processing done to it, even if it's by automatic algorithms in the camera...however such processing should never alter the
content of the image. My father worked for a major Cleveland newspaper for most of my life, so I do in fact have a very great respect for photojournalism. I grew up with it. That said however, it's
NOT what I do. Whether one chooses to call me a photographer or a graphics designer, I am an
artist and photography is one of my chosen mediums. With my own work, I'm not trying to factually represent anything (in most cases at least), I try to
create images that I enjoy and that hopefully others will too. For me, it's not exclusively about what I do with the camera...the camera is only PART of the process...the final print, be it physical prints or jpegs to post on the internet, is my ultimate goal. To suggest however that I'm any less of a photographer simply because I may choose to alter the content of my work is, quite frankly, VERY insulting....anything in my images, whether those images are composites or not, was captured by me. I simply use all the tools I have available to create the best final product I can.
Case in point - let's consider this image I shot this past summer...
Context - what was the intended use of this image? Obviously this is the infamous Budweiser Clydesdale team...and for the sake of reference, it was taken at a 4th of July parade in Ashland, Ohio. Look at this image carefully and before you scroll down, consider how this image might have been used.....
The image, in case you didn't notice or haven't guessed, has in fact been manipulated to a rather significant degree in post processing (in this case, yes, Photoshop). As the person taking this image, I found myself to be in the right place, at the right time...the team had in fact turned from the main parade route, which allowed me to capture an image that wasn't cluttered by "people". In this case however, as I was processing the image, I didn't like the way it was composed...I was on the correct side of the street for the light, however for a "composition", I felt the horses and cart were going in the wrong direction (I tend to "read" images from left to right)....so that was the FIRST adjustment, which also included some cropping to give the image more of a panoramic feel. Of course, after having flipped the image, the lettering on the cart was backwards, so that too had to be adjusted....you get the idea...I put A LOT of work into this image.
So...what was this to be used for? Was it for the local newspaper to go with the header "Clydesdales Invade Ashland"? Was it for use in Budweiser advertising literature? No. My singular intent with this image is to do a large print for my music studio! As such, ANY changes or adjustments I made to this image are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. In context to how I intend to use this image, any/all such alterations are completely acceptable...it's -MY- image, it will be displayed in MY home (along with a few select websites) and it was shot at a public event...why, EXACTLY, should it matter what I did to the image after the fact? What's more is that even had I of intended to use the image for any specific journalistic purpose, the integrity of
the content remains fully intact. This image would still be suitable for use in say, Budweiser literature (copyrights and such not withstanding), despite alterations to the image as it was shot.
Again - context and content...both are very important distinctions to consider when discussing this topic.
As I've also said elsewhere, the idea of post-processing one's own image has been around for a VERY long time...long before this whole digital thing crept into our world. A great many photographers used to setup their own darkrooms to help create prints that where something OTHER than what was captured with their cameras. You even had people who were experts at "re-touching"...people who would print an image, airbrush over the flaws, then re-shoot the image...such things were a common practice even 30 to 40 years ago and few people ever questioned it. Today however, people see the word "Photoshop" and many seem to assume it's something other than what it is...many ignorant people seem to think it's some sort of magic button that takes a poor image and miraculously transforms it into something wonderful...and anyone with ANY degree of experience in Photoshop KNOWS
it's just not that simple at all. I did in fact put a few hours worth of work into that Clydesdales shot...I have a few images where I've put as much as 8 hours or more into a single image....which
for me and
for my use, is perfectly acceptable. Here's another example...
In this case, the entire background of the image has been replaced. The dog in the shot was my parent's dog, "Lady"...I had wanted to give my folks a nice framed shot of Lady as a holiday gift, so after having shot some 30 - 40 images, this was the pose my parents liked the most. In the original image however, she had been sitting in front of my father's minivan and quite literally looked as though she had a bumper growing out of her ears! LOL! I have no doubt that I could have just framed the image as shot and that my parents would have been most happy with it, however as
the photographer who captured the picture, I wasn't happy with it at all. Since this was intended as a gift, I took the time...well over 8 hours....re-shot the background (in my own backyard) and did a composite image for them. Context - I ultimately
created an image through the use of my photography skills AND my post processing skills, that my parents were thrilled with, that I was very proud to present to them....and the framed print hung on their living room wall until the day my father passed away.
Does the fact that the image is a composite somehow change the quality of the image, let alone how much my parents enjoyed it? Should I not take GREAT offense to someone who insinuates or suggests that my skills as a photographer AND as an artist are somehow a cheat? As an artist, I could NOT create the images I do without the proper understanding of the concepts related to photography, including composition, exposure, etc...the very same principles and concepts that a good photojournalist must follow. The distinction however is NOT in how I create my images, it's their end purpose...
it's about how I use my images...and as the person who has created my images, I take great offense to those uneducated in such principles as to call my work "fake" or suggest that I'm somehow less than a real photographer...it's STILL my work, regardless of how I choose to process that work.
Think about it.
Now as far as the images on the website in question go, yes, I did find a few of them interesting and/or in few cases, well done...a few were very well planned, others appear to be little more than location or being at "the right place at the right time", however I feel equally compelled to point out that there's NO WAY you can really tell how much post processing went on with ANY of those images. A couple of those shots with the moon for example...having done some lunar photography, I'd bet a shiny penny those images were in fact altered. Perhaps this is another distinction that's been over-looked - does it really matter if an image has been altered in post processing (Photoshop or otherwise), if it's been done well?
Consider this; -if- we were to completely ignore "labels" and simply view those 100 images as that - 100 pictures posted on the internet,
WHY should it matter whether they've been altered or not? Does the perception of the image being altered somehow detract from the aesthetics of the image? Beyond the labels attached to the images, none of those images really claim to be "representative of the truth"...they're a collection of (mostly) pretty or interesting images. If anyone finds one of those images to be interesting, beautiful or in some way evocative, would the use of post processing
really detract from that at all? If we eliminate the issue of photojournalism from the equation and just accept those images as...wow...pretty pictures, would any of them be any less appealing if you were to find out they were in fact altered in some way??
Likewise, I also have to point out that having access to "extraordinary places" does NOT make an extraordinary photographer. Consider the shot of "Tianzi Mountain"...to me that shot is really all about the location. I don't wish to discredit the person who took that shot, however as I've often said with much of Ansel Adam's work, anyone with a decent camera could stand in that same location and likely get an equally incredible shot. In terms of this discussion however, seriously...would that somehow make a novice a "real" photographer? The same could in fact be said of many of those images...interesting location, interesting subject matter, etc...seems to have very little to do with if or how much those images were processed.
And btw...if we are going to be considering terms of authenticity regarding post processing, wow.....what about planned shots? In that post of 100, there certainly seems to be a few shots, "Forests Without End" for example, that seem rather premeditated. Should that too not be considered as some kind of cheat as well since it ultimately presents an image that is something other than the natural state of things?
Again, to me all of this is about drawing distinctions in their proper context. If an established photojournalist takes an image that is intended to represent the facts of a given event and alters that image to make the impact more (or less) than that of the given scene, clearly this should be viewed as being wrong. However, I'll say it again;
not all photographers are photojournalists and as such are NOT bound by the same moral code and ethics. I -choose- to be an artist, not because I'm unable to follow the confines of ethics regarding photojournalism, but because I prefer to follow my own sense of artistic expression. That should NOT however suggest that people who create such work are in ANY way, less than a "true photographer".
Again, just my own opinions however in this case, they are opinions regarding that which I do feel very passionate about.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/38/38265-4b75e7e05f8bf906800580ac7f7ddf60.jpg?1734172156)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42482-3d0e794a92737ca7ecbc8125874457aa.jpg?1734177007)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42481-e35ff0c514a554d7bd4381fb2ae79c5a.jpg?1734177006)
