How far is too far in editing?

[Tom]

Wade Laube Blog Archive When a picture seems too good to be true

Obviously, this only really applies to photojournalism ethics, but figured others would be interested in it as well.

[CaptainTom]

I think it revolves around the expectations of the viewer.
If it's a photojournalistic venue then the viewer expects an accurate and unmanipulated image.
If it's for a client who wants to have a print to put on their wall then it can be manipulated to create an artful piece.
Actors need something that is "realistically believable".
My boudoir clients are OK with liquify and skin smoothing.

If you subscribe to being strictly PJ style then you don't even need Lightroom or PS on your machine and submit images SOOC ( which of course can be adjusted to enhance contrast, saturation, clarity, etc.). So, are ANY images truly not manipulated ?

[jonnydonut]

How far is too far in editing?

As soon as you can tell it's been edited and that applies to every genera of photography.

Although I'm not opposed to make money off those who think otherwise...
TX Aerial Photography - Texas Services

ps. that picture is way over the top, I like the original better.

[Carl Stone]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

If you subscribe to being strictly PJ style then you don't even need Lightroom or PS on your machine and submit images SOOC ( which of course can be adjusted to enhance contrast, saturation, clarity, etc.). So, are ANY images truly not manipulated ?

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no! When you set the aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc, you are manipulating. Adding a polarizer is REALLY manipulating!

Plus, most scenes like this volcano are constantly changing, so it would not look like the photo by the time the photo is printed/posted/etc, anyway.

The entire idea was to show a pic of the erupting volcano to support the story of the havoc that is was creating. We are never going to find an end to this argument about how much image manipulation is too much.

Reuters should worry as much about their editorial manipulating...........

[dmora]

HDR is the line that has been cut into the face of photography with a chainsaw. It drives me nuts. In the context of Photo Journalism, it no business being there. As a work of art, specifically, photo illustration, then its completely understandable.
However, this debate has been going on since the advent of photography and will more than likely never find closure.

In regards to the article... That photo is a fraud. Thats not what it looked like. That is an artistic and expressionistic interpretation of the actual image that was seen thru the viewfinder.

It makes a lovely photo. But it was not the factual appearance of the event.
----------




edit:

I went back over and read what i just typed... And then looked at the photos again. And the only thing that came to mind to succinctly describe my feelings was, "god i hate HDR."

[CaptainTom]

[QUOTE=dmora;1116681]HDR is the line that has been cut into the face of photography with a chainsaw. It drives me nuts. In the context of Photo Journalism, it no business being there. As a work of art, specifically, photo illustration, then its completely understandable.
However, this debate has been going on since the advent of photography and will more than likely never find closure.

In regards to the article... That photo is a fraud. Thats not what it looked like. That is an artistic and expressionistic interpretation of the actual image that was seen thru the viewfinder.

It makes a lovely photo. But it was not the factual appearance of the event.
----------

I disagree somewhat.
What you camera captures is not exactly what you see is it ?
The camera has monocular vision and you have bifocal vision. YOu see in 3D but the camera doesn't.
You see more dynamic range than your camera can capture ( this gap is closing but not there yet).
Your "lens" (eyes) is attached to a processor that has exponentially more capability than the processor in your camera (brain).

If you think what your camera "sees" is an absolute record of what you see, you are completely mistaken.

HDR ? Isn't that how we actually see things ? It's not what we are used to, and quite often the processing goes over the top. Would you buy a camera that was advertised as " has a very low dynamic range " ?

[jeffkohn]

Looking at the before/after examples in the linked article, I don't think either one of them is very realistic to how the scene would have appeared in person. A straight raw conversion from a digital capture of a scene like this is going to look very flat. While the edit is over the top (too much local contrast), I think using a grad filter with the correct exposure and appropriate tonal controls would have given a much better result straight out of camera. Heck, film also would have given a more dramatic result than the "before" picture.

[sldi]

On a newspaper print I would think that the printing process would flatten out the manipulated print to the point that it would look closer to the original and if the original had been printed it would have been way to flat?

[Atfulldraw]

the more we discuss this, the more people I believe should have to go back to a pinhole camera......

[dmora]

Originally Posted by Atfulldraw

the more we discuss this, the more people I believe should have to go back to a pinhole camera......

Camera Obscura!

[ldelacruz]

Did Yahoo use a processed photo on their homepage this morning? At a quick glance it had very blue skies and vibrant colors.

[Dobick]

if this image was in black and white -- how much contrast would be allowed?

I am not sure that I see the problem with this particular image (problem meaning the ethical line that was crossed)

The editor has every right not to run a photo for whatever reason, but I am not sure that these edits go to far at all.

[CaptainG]

Captain Tom
I disagree somewhat.
What you camera captures is not exactly what you see is it ?
The camera has monocular vision and you have bifocal vision. YOu see in 3D but the camera doesn't.
You see more dynamic range than your camera can capture ( this gap is closing but not there yet).
Your "lens" (eyes) is attached to a processor that has exponentially more capability than the processor in your camera (brain).

I agree with you Tom except for the binocular vision part. That all goes away at about 1500'. Your brain expects 3D, so it interprets a scene in 3D at greater distances due to relative size to known objects. (I just got back from seeing "Alice in Wonderland", so I may be a bit 3D'ed out).

Personally, an HDR, done with restraint, which comes close to human dynamic range appeals to me.

[heard03]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

I think it revolves around the expectations of the viewer.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks just aren't that educated as to how much manipulation goes on. Until I got into photography, I didn't really notice manipulation myself. You see an actress on The Tonight Show and she has freckles all over her shoulders, wrinkles, etc. Then you see her on the cover of a magazine and she doesn't have a wrinkle or blemish to be found. The unrealistic expectations it places on women(especially teenage girls) is one of the biggest consequences of so much processing. I'm not saying there should be no PP'ing, people just need to to be educated so as to not skew their concept of reality. Now a lot of the women on those magazine covers look like their body is prosthetic to me.


You've probably already seen this. If not, check it out:

YouTube - The Evolution Of Beauty