How much is too much?

Recently, there was a lot of discussion across the Internet regarding several photos that were disqualified from a Danish photo contest based on excessive post-processing of RAW image files. Since that question of how much post-capture processing is too much regarding the fidelity of a nature / natural scene has also been a hot topic in some areas of late, I've posted a commentary / article about this on my weblog, at:
http://www.enlightphoto.com/views/2009/04/22/too-much-processing.htm I've received some great comments on the subject, and welcome anyone who might be interested in this subject to stop by for a visit. Comments are welcome here, there, or both.

Cheers & Thanks,

Gary.

There really is no good answer here.

A lot of it really depends on why the image exists. I have one photo in my show stock that I cloned out a sign. It is intended as a wall art print. The same photo, including the sign, exists as a stock photo. In the latter case, I want to preserve the integrity of the scene (whatever that might mean especially since it was shot on Velvia, which will get into a long, long debate) since I don't know how it will be used.

My personal attitude comes from a very practical attitude. I am Photoshop lazy. If it takes more than about 7 minutes to get the scene looking about 93% good, it gets deleted. That other 7% is reserved for my show prints, where I'll spend the 1-4 hours to bump it up to 97-98% good. But for my show prints, I want something that a person will hang on their wall, not necessarily a perfect rendition of the scene. I don't think I have any images I can no more work on and are "perfect", even those I thought were perfect at the time I originally worked them.

Except for the rare show print, I don't want to be bothered with doing a lot of color correction, WB correction and especially cloning. It is work and this is supposed to be a hobby. Granted, it is a hobby that has run amok and became a business, but it is not my day job. It is far easier to get it right in camera than to get it right in Photoshop.

Ive responded to your blog, but i do have a comment on Dan's comment. Even assuming the WB, exposure is perfect etc, a RAW image as shot is not going to give you a shot looking "good" in all but a very small number of cases. What i have found since upgrading to CS4/LR2 a few months back is that a good initial image (exposure etc) will give me a better starting point and save me a lot of work in PS, so it's certainly an advantage to get it as good as you can 'in camera' even if that's often a starting point. As for the debate, the market will take care of the 'answer' and there's not a heck of a lot we can do about it other than educate (as i frequently have to do every time someone asks me "So, is that real?" etc). Incidentally, i dont think that Dutch example you posted was that heinous compared to what ive seen elsewhere.

Not sure if I necessarily agree that Photoshop is required to make images look good. If the light is good, it should also look good in a straight RAW conversion. Especially w/ the grad filter the light still looks very saturated straight out of the camera IMO.

it should also look good in a straight RAW conversion

You have to be careful using phrases like this Richard. And I noticed you said you were showing "a straight RAW file" in your article Gary. I think maybe that can be confusing to people, because I think what you mean is a RAW file converted with a tool's default settings. It just so happens that the defaults are pretty bland and don't do much to increase contrast or saturation, etc. They are pretty arbitrary though, and don't need to make some minor changes. If the defaults were cranked up, you could certainly get something much more dramatic and you'd (incorrectly) still call it a "straight RAW". Maybe we should use "default RAW conversion" instead? (Of course, then what if Adobe decided it could sell more copies of Lightroom by steepening the "default" curve?)

Anyway, nice write up, and a tough question. I personally think that the Danish photographer did go too far because the changes were so drastic and to not even attempt to show the scene as you actually would have seen it. Not that "what it would actually look like" gets rid of all grey area or anything, but it at least gives you some boundaries.

I'm photoshop lazy too!!!!!!!!!!

I think it really depends on the specific image.

Sometimes you get an image that just says PHOTOSHOP instantly before the word photoshop even leaves the tip of your tongue.

Sometimes you can spend hours on an image and it still has more of a natural look to it. Possibly even to where it does not look photoshopped at all.

In the end if it has purposeful use than who cares.

I have asked a few long term working pros this question but not sure they want to be quoted.

Of course I got some mixed opinions from them so their opinions cancel each other's out anyway.

You're perfect person to ask this. Galen's book Mountain Light has images that are noticeably different than the same shots on his website. Could there be too much photoshop there?

There's also the issue of how much "processing" you do in camera. I have all settings (contrast, saturation, sharpening etc.) set to zero because I'd rather take control of all that in post-processing. So the RAW images are very bland and some post procesing is necessary. That said, I generally do my post processing to end up with a scene that reflects what I saw with my eyes -- unless I'm trying to be "artistic."

I agree that the intended use is also a factor. For example, if you're doing a picture for editorial use in a magazine or newspaper, I think you have to be more faithful to the original elements -- especially in terms of what is cloned in or out -- than pictures that are intended for stock or artwork. As for contests, I think this issue should be addressed in the rules. I've seen many contests that indicate how much post-processing is allowed, including whether cloning elements in or out is permitted (usually it's not). Still, it is a matter of judgment and different photographers will interpret the rules in different ways.

Lydia Dotto, ImageInnovation Photography
http://www.imageinnovationphotography.com

I do not see anything different with the photos in question than i see on the vast majority of postings on this site. Nothing has been removed or added to the photo, only the expected "tweeks". One added thought on the subject. Is producing a more appealing image by post processing in PS any different than using various filters while shooting the image. In both cases the scene has been enhanced to make it more appealing to the eye, yet it can be claimed as unaltered in PS.

I just took a look at the picture that was disqualified in the Danish contest. I feel the saturation was overdone. I'm not sure I'd have disqualified it from the contest, but I don't think I'd have chosen it as a contender if I were a judge.

The RAW image is better than the processed picture, but it is on the bland side, so I would have done a bit more with the colors. About mid-way between the two might be just about right, in my view.

Lydia Dotto, ImageInnovation Photography
http://www.imageinnovationphotography.com

There is no such thing as a "straight RAW" image that you can look at. Unprocessed RAW files are nothing but 1s and 0s in a digital file, not unlike the latent image on film before processing. You cannot see a RAW file anymore than you can see an undeveloped slide or negative. As with film, how the RAW file is processed determines how the resulting image will look, even whether or not it has color. Sensors only see relative intensity of light not hue. Color is added via the processing algorithm.

If you shoot JPG in camera then the processing is determined by the algorithm that some software engineer working for the camera manufacturer determined was appropriate for the average photo of the type that you set the mode for (portrait, landscape, etc.). If you are shooting RAW and converting in Lightroom, ACR or whatever (and don't alter the default settings) then your image is being processed by the algorithm determined by the engineer(s) who wrote that software. Basically someone else whom you never met is determining how your images should look if you accept the default conversion. Sort of like having all your photos printed by the automatic machine in the drug store in pre-digital days.

By taking control of RAW processing via Lightroom, ACR, Photoshop, etc. you determine the interpretation of the invisible electrons that constitute the RAW file into a visible image. It isn't a question of "truth". No 2D visual representation cut from a 360º, 3D, five senses environment is truth with a capital T. It is an image that for one reason or another the photographer was sufficiently impressed by to make a photo. The role of processing is to emphasize the aspect(s) of the image that caused you to snap the shutter in order to make your reasons for doing so clear to the viewer. The challenge is to avoid getting so enthralled with the level of control that your manipulation becomes the subject in place of the actual content. To hark back to film days when I was taught retouching, I was taught that when you do it right the viewer shouldn't be able to tell that you've done anything.

IMO it is blatantly obvious that the Danish photos were doctored with a heavy hand. The first thing I see is surrealistically high contrast and saturation. The effect is so strong it overpowers the subject. I don't care for most of the HDR work I see online for the same reason. Instead of showing me what the photographer saw, it screams "LOOK WHAT I KNOW HOW TO DO WITH PHOTOSHOP!"

I do not see anything different with the photos in question than i see on the vast majority of postings on this site.

The RAW image is better than the processed picture, but it is on the bland side, so I would have done a bit more with the colors.

Galen's book Mountain Light has images that are noticeably different than the same shots on his website. Could there be too much photoshop there?

Greg/Lydia/Steve - The difference is that the pics in question here are photo-journalism images, which are held to a completely different standard than anything on this site (except maybe the PJ gallery). There is a much more rigorous standard of not altering the photos in any meaningful way. What that actually means and how far you can push things is where the debate comes in, and in general, you aren't supposed to alter the scene from what could actually be seen.

How much Photoshop is too much in a more artistic sense, like on this site, is a very very different question.

...set to zero because I'd rather take control of all that in post-processing. So the RAW images are very bland and some post procesing is necessary.

Lydia - Those settings in your camera have no effect on the RAW file. It's the same file no matter what you set them too. As Jim pointed out, every RAW file always needs to be post-processed no matter what. That's why I suggested referring to them as RAW files processed with default settings.

Gary,

If it is photojournalism and/or editorial in nature then for me it is simple, no altering the scene by cloning in or out objects. If the photographer wants to boost contrast and saturation in an editorial image and does that with a heavy hand they run the chance of introducing skepticism about the image itself and must accept the consequences of that decision.

Assuming that the "nature/natural scenes" you ask about are not being shot in an editorial context then it is the sole responsibility/freedom of the photographer (dare I say artist) to decide what the finished product will look like. They own the image, it is their art, so the artist has every right to convey the image however they want.

When I looked at that the photos I could easily see why it was disqualified--way over saturated relative to the original IMO. I also think that David's earlier comments about default setting in PS and other programs is spot on. When you open a RAW image file it is "developed" by the software. You could easily set all the software defaults to "0" or off and get what might be considered a very basic RAW image but even that will depend on which program you are using. I guess the real question for the judges might have come if the image had been shot as a JPEG with "strong" in-camera processing and left untouched afterwards. Would the fact that no post-processing had been done still resulted in disqualification? Personally, having learned photography in the darkroom age I see little difference between what can be done in a darkroom and in the computer--it's just a lot faster and easier with the computer--Larry

Wow, lots of great comments!

@David: yes, I agree, and it's just like Jim says also. There is no straight raw file, because mere camera and converter defaults are all different. I point to many people asking if their RAW defaults are set at the factory to zero, where you can go no lower, or is the 'zero-point' actually more like a 50 on a 100 scale, where you can either go up or down in your settings, and are the camera and converter set to defaults using the same method? Guess how many of them know the answer to that?

@ Steve: Comparing Galen's ML book to prints in his gallery or online is like comparing apples to chili peppers to flank steak. All are food, but so vastly different. The book is a narrow gamut cmyk space, and afrer 10 or more printing, variances occur based on inks and dot gain settings and yada yada yada. Similar to prints, the book also relies on reflective light, which is color variant as well. Images on the web have been adapted in colorspace, and I can't speak to how they manage that work flow these days. When I left, I think photoshop v6 had just come out. But remember also that web images rely on transmissive light, and proper monitor calibration.

I often ask related to a nature scene, in part the determining factor as far as "how much' is obviously going to be based on the context of the image presentation, i.e. National Geographic, or on display at an Art Fair.

I wonder... If someone post-processes an image like a scenic with a strong FG element, yet the FG has been manipulated to the point where shadows have been substantially opened up beyond what would be a 'normal' rendition, either by HDR or blending, or some other method. How exactly is that different from someone who is using film in the field, but also uses a combination of off camera fill-flash, and maybe a PhotoFlex gold, silver, or white reflector to bounce in additional light? And if the photographer stuck an orange gel on top of their 5500k flash, is that nay different than sliding a color balance selector when post-processing digital?

Everywhere I look, gray lines mark these very fuzzy boundaries.

Exactly--there is no difference in result, it's just a different method. What matters is the result, whether you're effectively showing what you want to show. And, for better or worse, the methods are evolving so rapidly that people cant keep apace. So, even if you are totally transparent about the amount of post-capture work you do, you lay yourself open to criticism by people who don't understand that there is no difference. There is still an attitude among some (which eventually will become extinct) that relying on digital rather than physical methods somehow makes you a lesser artist. On the flip side, many have fallen prey to the ease that digital enables you to achieve these results. For example, I have a bunch of gnds in my pack that gather dust, because i very rarely see any use for them anymore. It's much easier and usually much more effective to acheive the result digitally. The problem arrises when people sacrifice the "effective" part in favor of the "ease". That leads to some legitimate criticism of the method. Im just starting to ramble incoherently so i think i'll quit now...

Gary asks:
"I wonder... If someone post-processes an image like a scenic with a strong FG element, yet the FG has been manipulated to the point where shadows have been substantially opened up beyond what would be a 'normal' rendition, either by HDR or blending, or some other method. How exactly is that different from someone who is using film in the field, but also uses a combination of off camera fill-flash, and maybe a PhotoFlex gold, silver, or white reflector to bounce in additional light? And if the photographer stuck an orange gel on top of their 5500k flash, is that nay different than sliding a color balance selector when post-processing digital?"

The answer is, it is not different. It is just technique. You use technique like a writer uses words, to express your view of the subject. If you are a photojournalist trying to show it as the average person who was there at the time would have seen it, one of those average conversions of the RAW file is the most honest interpretation. OTOH if you are an artist trying to show the viewer how your attention was drawn to the yellow chair in front of the blue wall you probably want to intensify those colors to drive home that aspect.

"Everywhere I look, gray lines mark these very fuzzy boundaries."

Gary, I'm more like "I can't tell you where the boundary is but my gut tells me when it's been crossed". It has to do with taste.