I have spent many hours over the last two or three days editing images and learned a great deal, though there is a great deal more to learn. I can now see that photo editing software in the wrong hands could be a weapon. Just kidding! But now I ask my question knowing a bit more of what I'm talking about.
I see that you could improve an image a great deal using photo editing software. I'm not talking about things like putting something from one image into another image. I'm talking about things like cloning and manual sharpening.
I'm pretty well aware now that some of you think manipulation of images is distasteful. Some of you think it is cheating. Some of you think it's fine if other people want to do it, but you don't. Some of you think it's fine for everybody, including you. And some of you think that sometimes it is necessary in order to present the best image possible of the subject.
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do. I don't do this to show what I can do. I do it to show the beauty and reality of the subject. This is only about my ability as a photographer as it applies to showing the beauty and reality of nature. For me it's not about anything else.
So, now that I see what can be done, if I do it, is this something that needs to be stated like whether I used a tripod? If not always, is there a point beyond which it needs to be stated? And, again, I'm talking about cloning and manual sharpening, not about putting different subjects in different backgrounds and other things that are done commercially in non-nature photography.
Thank you for any second-round input on this.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 3, 2010 at 7:23 PM
First Barbara, I would say that cloning and sharpening will likely be looked at very differently by most people.
Sharpening of any type is usually looked at as just fine because you're just improving what's there, you're not changing what's actually being shown. Plus, it's something that pretty much has to be done to show a digital image, since most sensors introduce a bit of blur intentionally.
Cloning, on the other hand, can have just as big an effect and putting something from one image into another. It can completely change an image, and take things from "real" to "fake" depending on how you define those. For that reason, I'd guess most people would like cloning disclosed.
In general, anything that subtlety changes the tones, colors, sharpness, or noise of an image is pretty acceptable, as is slight cropping. Anything beyond that really should be disclosed, but there's a lot of gray area.
Posted by John Mumaw on October 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM
The photographers I most admire don't say a word about their postprocessing techniques (or whether they used a tripod, which is pretty much a given), instead letting their work do the speaking. That's just fine with me.
Having said that, I always appreciate hearing when someone discloses that a blending technique was used to tame excessive dynamic range. Other than that, I really don't care.
Your 4th paragraph was stated perfectly!
You may be surprised at the amount of darkroom editing that was used in the past to complete the photographer's vision.
Posted by Richard Ditch on October 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM
I can only speak for myself.
As my signature tag line sometimes says: “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” - Thomas Jefferson. I believe that a nature image should first be natural, and that means not adding content or cloning out content. It also means not baiting a subject or using an artificial setup.
All digital images require some amount of post processing if the original is shot as a raw file. But I try to limit that post processing to the minimum required to bring the image to what my memory of the situation tells me is natural. That can involve adjusting exposure, color balance, saturation, and contrast. I do some amount of cropping on almost every image I post - this is essentially unavoidable when working "loose" with a wild subject in an uncontrolled encounter.
I use the clone tool (or the healing brush) as needed for dust bunnies on my camera sensor. I will rarely use the clone tool or healing brush on flotsam to clean up the water surface in a shorebird image, or even more rarely to remove a remnant of a twig or leaf that intrudes on the edge of the frame. I try to remember to list such alterations in the notes I post with each image.
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do. I don't do this to show what I can do. I do it to show the beauty and reality of the subject. This is only about my ability as a photographer as it applies to showing the beauty and reality of nature.
I think that when you clone out part of an image you have moved beyond the "reality" of nature.
NPN is a critique site, and to me that implies a place of learning. We can all learn more by being honest about what we do to achieve our image goals, and by being honest in the critiques we post on other people's images.
So, now that I see what can be done, if I do it, is this something that needs to be stated like whether I used a tripod? If not always, is there a point beyond which it needs to be stated?
That's totally up to you, although I'd hope you'd disclose such modifications. Each photographer has unique goals for the image and for the NPN experience, and each photographer sets personal rules for what can/should be done to an image and what should be disclosed.
John, I agree with you about the tripod, but it seems to be meaningful (tripod or hand-held) to other members.
To clarify one paragraph, what I mean in that paragraph is this:
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do. I am not learning nature photography to show what I can do. I am learning nature photography in order to show the beauty and reality of the subject. This is only about my ability as a photographer as it applies to showing the beauty and reality of nature. For me it's not about anything else.
Richard, NPN being a critique site is what makes it so valuable to me and is the only reason I would have ever had the nerve to join and post here. I am continually thankful for that.
As far as being honest in the critiques we post on other people's images, I agree with that, though because of people's different points of view on this one subject and others it makes it difficult, especially when one doesn't know the person or his/her point of view. It's very easy to make a mistake in that instance.
I have no problem disclosing anything I do. I just tend to go too far in any direction before realizing where I should land.
Thank you again.
Posted by Ron Dudley on October 4, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Barbara,
Tripod use is certainly not a "given" in wildlife photography. Many bird photographers shoot hand held often and some of them do so almost exclusively for flight shots. I very much like to see in the techs if the image was taken hand held or not.
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do.
Me too Barbara. But for me "best possible" cannot, by my personal definition as an avian photographer, involve heavy manipulation - especially significant cloning or saturation to the point that colors don't look natural.
Regarding honesty in disclosure of processing and techs - I prefer to disclose full techs (including tripod use or not) and all processing steps I have made and appreciate it when others do the same. I do so because many want to see that information and learn from it. I also do it to hopefully deflect questions, even insinuations, about what I may have done to the image and not disclosed. After stating what I have done I even go so far as to state that "no additional processing or adjustments" have been made.
I have certain ethical standards that work for me and my own photography. Others have their own different standards and feel just as strongly about them as I do of mine. If the photographer has disclosed information about his/her post that conflicts with my standards I typically don't hesitate to comment honestly about the image. However, when it's obvious that such things have been done and it hasn't been disclosed I will very often refrain from commenting at all.
I couldn't agree more with what Richard said - "NPN is a critique site, and to me that implies a place of learning." Full disclosure is an educational tool for the person who posts, those who comment and those who only read the comments and view the image IMO.
Posted by Peter Conway on October 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM
Hi Barbara,
Each of us sets his/her own standards and we could all endlessly debate the ethical merits of the position we take. Is it more ethical to burn down a highlight in the BG that is distracting than it is to remove a distracting twig? Each is changing what was actually there. My own standard is that my final image should look natural and that the changes I make do not effect the essential nature of what I was photographing. For me if a protruding twig could just as easily have not been there and removing it does not change the subject of my photo then I have no issue cloning it out.
If I am showing my work to a friend or the general public I would not disclose all the processing I have done. This site is different, and I think disclosure is essential to the nature of the discussion and our ability to comment thoughtfully on each others posts.
Thank you again, everyone. It all helps a great deal. Your last paragraph and especially your last sentence, Peter, really boils it down for me. Thank you!
Posted by Kurt Bowman on October 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM
OK...I seem to have to say something about this because as some of you know...I normally don't voice my opinion (for people that know me, that is a huge JOKE, I am very opinionated!).
Barb, for me, you have to look at two things: Your own personal preference and what is acceptable. My personal preference, is I am close to Richard and Ron. I do very little cloning (it's a pain anyway) and mostly just sharpen, make a few tonal adjustments to make sure things look accurate to me and run some noise reduction when needed. I am usually trying to display a natural scene....but I am trying to display it the way I interpret it. That doesn't always mean they way it looked to someone else. After all, MY perception, is MY reality and that holds true for each of us. Once in a great while, I do more in the digital darkroom if I am going for an art piece. What I am saying, is it depends on what I am trying to accomplish.
Now, for the second thing; "what is acceptable?" can be debated for centuries, but here is my opinion: It is up to the artist to interpret their work the best way they see fit and people should let each person do what they feel is right for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy it! BTW...Ansel Adams was a great photographer, but he was a genius in the darkroom!
Discussion
8 repliesI see that you could improve an image a great deal using photo editing software. I'm not talking about things like putting something from one image into another image. I'm talking about things like cloning and manual sharpening.
I'm pretty well aware now that some of you think manipulation of images is distasteful. Some of you think it is cheating. Some of you think it's fine if other people want to do it, but you don't. Some of you think it's fine for everybody, including you. And some of you think that sometimes it is necessary in order to present the best image possible of the subject.
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do. I don't do this to show what I can do. I do it to show the beauty and reality of the subject. This is only about my ability as a photographer as it applies to showing the beauty and reality of nature. For me it's not about anything else.
So, now that I see what can be done, if I do it, is this something that needs to be stated like whether I used a tripod? If not always, is there a point beyond which it needs to be stated? And, again, I'm talking about cloning and manual sharpening, not about putting different subjects in different backgrounds and other things that are done commercially in non-nature photography.
Thank you for any second-round input on this.
Sharpening of any type is usually looked at as just fine because you're just improving what's there, you're not changing what's actually being shown. Plus, it's something that pretty much has to be done to show a digital image, since most sensors introduce a bit of blur intentionally.
Cloning, on the other hand, can have just as big an effect and putting something from one image into another. It can completely change an image, and take things from "real" to "fake" depending on how you define those. For that reason, I'd guess most people would like cloning disclosed.
In general, anything that subtlety changes the tones, colors, sharpness, or noise of an image is pretty acceptable, as is slight cropping. Anything beyond that really should be disclosed, but there's a lot of gray area.
Having said that, I always appreciate hearing when someone discloses that a blending technique was used to tame excessive dynamic range. Other than that, I really don't care.
Your 4th paragraph was stated perfectly!
You may be surprised at the amount of darkroom editing that was used in the past to complete the photographer's vision.
As my signature tag line sometimes says: “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” - Thomas Jefferson. I believe that a nature image should first be natural, and that means not adding content or cloning out content. It also means not baiting a subject or using an artificial setup.
All digital images require some amount of post processing if the original is shot as a raw file. But I try to limit that post processing to the minimum required to bring the image to what my memory of the situation tells me is natural. That can involve adjusting exposure, color balance, saturation, and contrast. I do some amount of cropping on almost every image I post - this is essentially unavoidable when working "loose" with a wild subject in an uncontrolled encounter.
I use the clone tool (or the healing brush) as needed for dust bunnies on my camera sensor. I will rarely use the clone tool or healing brush on flotsam to clean up the water surface in a shorebird image, or even more rarely to remove a remnant of a twig or leaf that intrudes on the edge of the frame. I try to remember to list such alterations in the notes I post with each image.
I think that when you clone out part of an image you have moved beyond the "reality" of nature.
NPN is a critique site, and to me that implies a place of learning. We can all learn more by being honest about what we do to achieve our image goals, and by being honest in the critiques we post on other people's images.
That's totally up to you, although I'd hope you'd disclose such modifications. Each photographer has unique goals for the image and for the NPN experience, and each photographer sets personal rules for what can/should be done to an image and what should be disclosed.
John, I agree with you about the tripod, but it seems to be meaningful (tripod or hand-held) to other members.
To clarify one paragraph, what I mean in that paragraph is this:
Presenting the best image possible of the subject is what I want to do. I am not learning nature photography to show what I can do. I am learning nature photography in order to show the beauty and reality of the subject. This is only about my ability as a photographer as it applies to showing the beauty and reality of nature. For me it's not about anything else.
Richard, NPN being a critique site is what makes it so valuable to me and is the only reason I would have ever had the nerve to join and post here. I am continually thankful for that.
As far as being honest in the critiques we post on other people's images, I agree with that, though because of people's different points of view on this one subject and others it makes it difficult, especially when one doesn't know the person or his/her point of view. It's very easy to make a mistake in that instance.
I have no problem disclosing anything I do. I just tend to go too far in any direction before realizing where I should land.
Thank you again.
Tripod use is certainly not a "given" in wildlife photography. Many bird photographers shoot hand held often and some of them do so almost exclusively for flight shots. I very much like to see in the techs if the image was taken hand held or not.
Me too Barbara. But for me "best possible" cannot, by my personal definition as an avian photographer, involve heavy manipulation - especially significant cloning or saturation to the point that colors don't look natural.
Regarding honesty in disclosure of processing and techs - I prefer to disclose full techs (including tripod use or not) and all processing steps I have made and appreciate it when others do the same. I do so because many want to see that information and learn from it. I also do it to hopefully deflect questions, even insinuations, about what I may have done to the image and not disclosed. After stating what I have done I even go so far as to state that "no additional processing or adjustments" have been made.
I have certain ethical standards that work for me and my own photography. Others have their own different standards and feel just as strongly about them as I do of mine. If the photographer has disclosed information about his/her post that conflicts with my standards I typically don't hesitate to comment honestly about the image. However, when it's obvious that such things have been done and it hasn't been disclosed I will very often refrain from commenting at all.
I couldn't agree more with what Richard said - "NPN is a critique site, and to me that implies a place of learning." Full disclosure is an educational tool for the person who posts, those who comment and those who only read the comments and view the image IMO.
Each of us sets his/her own standards and we could all endlessly debate the ethical merits of the position we take. Is it more ethical to burn down a highlight in the BG that is distracting than it is to remove a distracting twig? Each is changing what was actually there. My own standard is that my final image should look natural and that the changes I make do not effect the essential nature of what I was photographing. For me if a protruding twig could just as easily have not been there and removing it does not change the subject of my photo then I have no issue cloning it out.
If I am showing my work to a friend or the general public I would not disclose all the processing I have done. This site is different, and I think disclosure is essential to the nature of the discussion and our ability to comment thoughtfully on each others posts.
I hope that helps,
Peter
OK...I seem to have to say something about this because as some of you know...I normally don't voice my opinion (for people that know me, that is a huge JOKE, I am very opinionated!).
Barb, for me, you have to look at two things: Your own personal preference and what is acceptable. My personal preference, is I am close to Richard and Ron. I do very little cloning (it's a pain anyway) and mostly just sharpen, make a few tonal adjustments to make sure things look accurate to me and run some noise reduction when needed. I am usually trying to display a natural scene....but I am trying to display it the way I interpret it. That doesn't always mean they way it looked to someone else. After all, MY perception, is MY reality and that holds true for each of us. Once in a great while, I do more in the digital darkroom if I am going for an art piece. What I am saying, is it depends on what I am trying to accomplish.
Now, for the second thing; "what is acceptable?" can be debated for centuries, but here is my opinion: It is up to the artist to interpret their work the best way they see fit and people should let each person do what they feel is right for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy it! BTW...Ansel Adams was a great photographer, but he was a genius in the darkroom!