Post Processing: How much is too much?

Monday, 1st June 2009

Written by: vernons

I was reading a magazine today and I came across this news item about a photojournalist being disqualified from the Danish Press Photo Awards for excessive manipulation of photographs using Photoshop. He was asked to submit the original RAW files for some of his pictures and there was an unbelievable difference in the original and the post processed version. The comparison of both pictures gave two very clear messages – 1. RAW is raw power. 2. You can be a photographer without a camera (almost) if you know Photoshop well.

I mean, there really is a limit to things. There was a time when I used to spend a lot of time thinking about this very issue… whether the extent of digital photo manipulation that exists today is ethical. My mentor convinced me that Photoshop is what can be called the Digital Darkroom, with RAW being the digital negative. It is very important in the field today, and not post processing your images using Photoshop (or other programs like GIMP for example) is absolute stupidity. Fine, agreed. Post processing is needed, and ethical. But to what extent?

With the kind of capability that Photoshop puts into the hands of anyone who knows how to use a computer, is the art of Photography turning into the art of post processing? I’m sure all of us have at one time or the other taken a picture with the thought in mind that this or that flaw can easily be corrected in PS, so why bother trying to correct it now. But what when that thought stays for every picture you take? What when you frame pictures keeping in mind the extent of adjustments you can make later, and so don’t bother with them while clicking?

Photography is an art… an art that has the power to bring people face to face with the raw realities of life. And at the crux of every art is a creative thinking process. When we become dependent on PS to such an extent that the creativity that goes into taking the picture starts getting overshadowed by the effort put in PS, that is when the line is crossed. Of course there are some concepts that require extensive use of PS, but those are clearly not being talked about here. I am simply referring to correction of pictures.

I myself often had the same thought process as stated above, of taking pictures keeping in mind the adjustments that would need to be done later. There isn’t anything wrong with that unless you do it all the time. And I used to wonder why some people are always ranting about getting the photo as perfect as possible while clicking it. But today, I somehow feel a lot more respect for all those wonderful photographers who have the spirit of practicing the art as it is meant to be practiced.

My thoughts at the moment are mixed, as might be apparent from the construction of this post. And I really don’t know if Photoshop is a blessing or a curse. It may be a blessing for those who can use it to overcome their lack of talent in the actual process of taking a picture, hence being a curse for ones who are brilliantly talented in making beautiful pictures without needing PS.

To conclude, I will say that most of us rely on PS to a significant extent. And most of us have defined our own limits to the extent of post processing permissible. But somehow, I still sit here wondering, hoping for a satisfactory answer (or maybe just an intelligent heated discussion) to the question… How much IS too much?

Tags: ethics in photography, post processing

Stephen

I think taking the right shot and post processing is the same as comparing work hard and work smart respectively.

With all due respect for the first kind of photographer who tried to make everything perfect in the shot, I feel that using photoshop should not be considered an unfair advantage because it's a technology that is available for all to use. If some purist insist not to use it, then it's their problem.

Many of us who do this for living sometimes find that the customer who happen to be the model do not have sufficient time nor patience to retake many shots just because the lighting is not right or stuffs like that.

Besides, photoshop still can't turn trash into wonder. It still can't deal with too noisy picture (without compensating the detail), and it definitely can't correct the wrong composition. What it does is providing assistance and make photography to be more widely available.

And who says learning photoshop requires no brain? To do things right in photoshop you will need time to learn and practice almost as much as the time you need to learn getting things right in-camera. For me, photoshop is as much an art as photography itself. And combined they will create wonder.

Jason

I don't think there is any limit to post processing. If the artist's vision and/or style is best served by pushing today's tools as far as they will take him or her then I see no reason why anyone should frown upon this. It is all just an evolution of the medium. Be a purist capturing the truth of a moment, or push the boundaries visually - it's all valid expression.

Dale

I'm new to digital, but as I have been reading up on digital and enhancing photos I found myself wondering what was happening to the ability to see and take a good shot and be recognized for the ability to seize the shot. I have photo shop and GIM and have played around with some of my photos for fun. But if I wanted to judge an artist by his/her work, I would like to see the raw shot.

richard

There would be no need for post-processing if the pictures came out of the camera as I remember taking them, but, ususally they don't. But we don't live in a perfect world and cameras aren't perfect either.

I try to set my camera default settings to give me what I want, but sometimes, I still find it necessary to do minor tweaks - cropping, straightening, white balance adjustment, saturation, and, sometimes, erasing imperfections, but rarely for sharpening - either the image is already sharp or not.

I agree that image manipulation programs like PS or GIMP are digital darkrooms. As Matt Needham says, either we do the processing, or we let the software in teh camera do the processing for us.

Matt Needham

There is no raw vs. jpeg. All digital cameras start out with the raw data from an exposure. The data has to be processed into some sort of image file, such as a jpeg, to be seen. When people say "jpeg vs. raw" what they are really saying is "in-camera camera manufacturer provided processing software vs. out-of-camera aftermarket processing software".

Saying the photos aren't valid because they didn't look like the unprocessed raw files is like saying positive prints aren't valid because they don't look like the film negatives that came out of the camera.

The professional journalism organizations need to come up with a clear list of what is and isn't allowed in processing. Right now we still sort of think of digital cameras like film cameras, and the in-camera software choices reflect that. Not much variation is possible. But we aren't far from cameras where the internal software will be much more sophisticated. There will be cameras that do HDR in-camera. There will be cameras that can be programmed or hacked to do things we've never seen. We've got to get over this idea that where the processing physically occurs matters, because it doesn't. All that matters is how the processing makes the finished image.

In my opinion the photojournalist merely jazzed up his photos, and I think that's been going on somewhat since the beginning. Some PJs just shot and contact printed, but some photographers and some printers worked to make the photo look it's best whatever the process. Why is a bunch of extra contrast and warm, over-saturated colors okay if I load my camera with Velvia, and not okay if done in Photoshop?

I recently noticed that it looks like my adjustment brush, graduated filter, etc... adjustments are noted in the exif data. I can't really translate it, but I can see that it was done. I think that what we need is an easy to read processing history that anyone looking at a journalistic photo can access. Then you'll be able to tell exactly where journalism ended and art began. Everyone can have their own opinion as to where that line is drawn.

Marvyl

The first sentence said it all...a "photo journalist" was disqualified. A photo journalist is a reporter in my mind, not an artist who can take artistic license with his prints or art. A photo journalist must be true to the shot and not embellish it or edit except possiibly to sharpen it for clarity. A reporter should report the news not change, not embellish it. I do agree any photographer should try to get the shot right in the viewfinder so the editing is minimal.

Prajneet

A big thank you to everyone for their wonderful comments. It really does make BM feel like home.

@Matt - The first line of your detailed response did the trick. I totally agree, photojournalism has rules, art does not.

I really did get carried away I think. Thanks for getting me back to your senses.

@Michael - The last line of your comment answered my question.

I think I will relax and take a deep breath and get my hands on Ansel Adam's biography, and of course go out and shoot some. And how could I forget, my daily Photoshop practice ;)

Michael

Adjusting photos, manipulating images, whatever you care to call it - is part of the process. Just because we don't use red lightbulbs and chemicals anymore merely means we've improved the technology - and it is no more and no les than a digital darkroom.

Even Ansel Adams made adjustments to his photos, sometimes replacing entire skies or playing with the chemical mix, cropping, cutting, etc., to fit the mood he was attempting to achieve.

So, relax and take a deep breath because it doesn't matter what your skills are with photoshop or how expensive your camera equipment is...the bottom line is...do you have the necessary vision and talent to create an image that inspires or affects the viewer?

SW

How much is too much? When you start asking this sort of actual reality vs altered/enhanced reality question, that is when you know it's too much :-)

I feel (and I could be wrong) that when photography is truthful and equals the reality captured, that is when it is most powerful form of art (especially when it is related to photojournalism).

Len

Since I only took up photography as a hobby a year or so ago, I want to see "warts and all" and all I know is that Picasa cleans up some contrast over basic MS memory card processing.
Maybe some of my pictures could be really great! And some of them are, at least to me, right out of the camera.
When I get that consistantly where I want it, I'll go to the next step.

Matt Needham

To answer the original question "How much is too much?" If it makes the photo worse it's too much. If it makes the photo better it's just right.

Matt Needham

Photojournalism has rules. Art does not. Photography is realism, not truth or reality.

Photoshop has only changed one thing: the general public's awareness as to what is possible. Photo manipulation has always been going on; it's just that it was hidden in the dark, and few people were familiar with what was going on in there. Fine art photographers have always taken control of their processing. Read in Ansel Adams' biography about the darkroom work that had to go into his most famous print "Moonrise". Then look up H.P. Robinson, and the rest of the pictorialists. Heavily manipulated photography is actually an older tradition among art photographers than straight photography.

Before film all photographers did their own processing. Creating a photograph required not only skill with the camera, but also skill in processing and printing. When film was introduced mail out/drop off processing came with it; processing costs were even included in the film/camera price. For 100 years 99+% of film photographers never did their own processing or printing, and the myth of "in the camera" was born.

There are no photographs without processing: no wet plate, no dry plate, no film, no Polaroid, no digital. The photographer can take control of their own processing, or have someone else do it. Sometimes the someone else is a machine or software.

The advantages and creative options of doing my own processing have always been obvious to me. Few photo labs offered the techniques, chemicals, and materials I was able to use in my own traditional darkroom, and those that did charged a hefty fee for those services. Most photo labs then and now only offer automated, uniform, machine processing. The darkroom offers many more choices and precise control.

Now we have Photoshop. Is it easier than the darkroom? Yep. No more need to mix chem and clean up. No more creating visual art with the lights out (what a bad idea!). And instead of processing by prediction, and living with the results if I predicted wrong, I now process by inspection, and can start over from any point in the processing. Is that cheating? Well, I guess that depends what the contest is. Is the winner the one that works the hardest? Or the one who creates the most interesting photo? Most folks only care about the finished photo, and not how it got there (once again there are different purposes and expectations for photojournalism and art).

There is an excellent essay discussing photography, art, and the new technology at Huntington Witherill's website called "Farewell To The Revolution". I can't post a direct link, but if you go to http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/ and look in the articles section you'll find. Well worth the read, and while you are there check out his awesome BW landscape photography made with both traditional film processes and DSLRs and Photoshop.

SW

Hmmm kinda difficult to answer... but let's think for a moment..

What is Photoshop (the software) without any photo to tweak? If photography doesnt exist in any form, what is Photoshop then?

IMO photos can exist without the existence of the software, hence (to me) Photoshop is mere complementary tool to enhance photos and yes you can do many, many great things with it if you know how.

When it comes to photo contest like the one mentioned in your article, it would be much better if they only allow submission of original shots without any modification, because that would fair and equal.

Brian

"How much is too much?"

Any more than absolutely necessary.

corina

I do not have photoshop (yet!) but I still think that most of the photos I take are good quality/composition. I do use Picasa for cropping and using some of the effects tools, which do enhance my photos, without seeming too "processed".

Recent Photos

Categories

Newsletter

More Links

Post Processing: How much is too much?

Recent Posts

Resources

Recent Comments

Polls