Reading mode: Light Dark

Are most images "enhanced" (photo shopped, maniupilated,adjusted)?

Go to last post
D

David B McLaughlin

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
San Francisco, US
Thank you for looking at my question.

I receiived a note from my sister in law--who had looked at images in an article-she said:

"These should give any shutter bug wanderlust.......................We've been to 11 of the 29 so I know these photos aren't enhanced!"

The article was

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/surreal-places-in-america-you-need-to-visit-before-you-die

I took it from her comment that she thought to" enhance" was a negative thing--and she knew from seeing the scene and the image that enhancement was not a part of the image.

So my question is---are most images presented in this type of context---"enhanced" or not?---Are most photos contributed to "Shutterstock" enhanced or not?

I believe they are---and thatthis is not a negative practice but a positive practice to make a scene look it's best without going overboard.

Much like a woman in front of her make up mirror...
 
David B McLaughlin said:
Thank you for looking at my question.

I receiived a note from my sister in law--who had looked at images in an article-she said:

"These should give any shutter bug wanderlust.......................We've been to 11 of the 29 so I know these photos aren't enhanced!"

The article was

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/surreal-places-in-america-you-need-to-visit-before-you-die
Click to expand...
Link wouldn't work for me.
David B McLaughlin said:
I took it from her comment that she thought to" enhance" was a negative thing--and she knew from seeing the scene and the image that enhancement was not a part of the image.

So my question is---are most images presented in this type of context---"enhanced" or not?---Are most photos contributed to "Shutterstock" enhanced or not?

I believe they are---and thatthis is not a negative practice but a positive practice to make a scene look it's best without going overboard.

Much like a woman in front of her make up mirror...
Click to expand...
Depending on your definition of "enhanced," I may enhance every single one of my photos. I shoot raw (only) and during development I try my best to recreate the image as I remembered it. I adjust white balance, color, saturation, sharpness, and correct for distortion. If I take a shoot of a scene, and there's an element I don't like, such as a random person, I touch that out. But I don't radically alter the scene itself.
 
This link does not display. But I'll spout off, anyway. (I did my master's degree on ethics in photojournalism, so I tend to go off on this subject.)

All photos, almost without exception, need to be tweaked for optimum results. I'm a 30-year veteran photojournalist and even in the film days you adjusted the contrast, crop, dodge and burn, and later color correct and perhaps correct perspective. And that is hard-core, bare-bones photojournalistic style where you get fired instantly for "messing" with a photograph.

If you watch your exposure and color balance and the light is just right, you can get very nice jpegs right out of the camera (though even the camera is making automatic adjustments!) But if you really want to go the extra step by shooting raw, you can open up shadows, bring down highlights, sharpen and color correct even under miserable light. I've never seen an image that cannot/should not be improved a bit with judicious editing.

Of course, maybe she is talking about cloning elements in or out of a photo or enhancing color so far that the image no longer reflects reality.
 
David B McLaughlin said:
Thank you for looking at my question.

I receiived a note from my sister in law--who had looked at images in an article-she said:

"These should give any shutter bug wanderlust.......................We've been to 11 of the 29 so I know these photos aren't enhanced!"

The article was

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/surreal-places-in-america-you-need-to-visit-before-you-die

I took it from her comment that she thought to" enhance" was a negative thing--and she knew from seeing the scene and the image that enhancement was not a part of the image.

So my question is---are most images presented in this type of context---"enhanced" or not?---Are most photos contributed to "Shutterstock" enhanced or not?

I believe they are---and thatthis is not a negative practice but a positive practice to make a scene look it's best without going overboard.

Much like a woman in front of her make up mirror...
Click to expand...
 
This was a big debate in the 1990s.

All of the creativity, hard work, and technical know-how that Ansel Adams employed to produce a print showing the image he intended constitutes a lot of "manipulation." There were self-serving photographers in the 90s who argued that Adams' manipulations were equal in every way to the person who digitally inserts images of an elephant and zebra into a photo of 5th Avenue in New York. That argument equated an intent to portray as much of a scene as completely as the photographic materials could allow with an effort to create a scene that never did and possibly never could exist.

However, when viewing an image it's impossible to judge the intent of the photographer, and that has led to problems. National Geographic found themselves in an embarrassing situation over a decade ago when a photo of a polar bear lying stomach-down facing the camera on a floating chunk of ice proved to so popular with readers that they offered it for sale as a poster, and later found out the photo was a fake - the ice was photographed in the Arctic, but the bear was photographed in a zoo. Even though a lot of Nat Geo's readers were outraged, the image that the photographer produced was excellent - very engaging. But it was allowed to be represented as something it wasn't.

My answer to people I know who ask about this is that the adjustments I do in Photoshop today do for the original digital image are equal to what I would do in a darkroom if the image was on film - no more, no less, and for the same reasons.

The 1990s debate seemed to produce a general agreement among most people that the kinds of adjustments in digital imaging that are analogous to normal darkroom adjustments are acceptable and do not represent any attempt to deceive the viewer, and people agreed that images that have been altered well beyond what the photographer saw at the moment the original image was captured can have artistic and commercial value and have as valid a place as film photographs, but ideally should be identified as "digitally altered." (That's my phrase.) However, no consensus ever developed for a threshold for classifying an image as "digitally altered." I suspect it would be no easier today.
 
All good replies, and my comments are in line with them...

From previous discussions I find there are a few factors make this a tricky question. First, to non-photographers 'enhancing' or 'photoshopping' is synonymous with altering a photo to intentionally misrepresent the scene or subject. To make matters worse, they assume that if you point a camera at a given scene, the camera will capture it perfectly. We, of course, know this is not the case, but it can be hard to educate the general public who are bombarded with 'elephants on 5th avenue' type of shots.

The second tricky bit is that, even among photographers, the amount of enhancement that is 'allowable' is very subjective. Things like adding a tree or animal should be clearly disclosed and classified more as photo-art. For general photography, color adjustments (not changes), contrast, correcting exposure issues, etc. are usually accepted as normal enhancements intended to make the finished product come closer to the original scene. Most contests even allow this type of adjustment and, as other posters pointed out, they were around long before digital.
 
David B McLaughlin said:
Thank you for looking at my question.

I receiived a note from my sister in law--who had looked at images in an article-she said:

"These should give any shutter bug wanderlust.......................We've been to 11 of the 29 so I know these photos aren't enhanced!"

The article was

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/surreal-places-in-america-you-need-to-visit-before-you-die

I took it from her comment that she thought to" enhance" was a negative thing--and she knew from seeing the scene and the image that enhancement was not a part of the image.

So my question is---are most images presented in this type of context---"enhanced" or not?---Are most photos contributed to "Shutterstock" enhanced or not?

I believe they are---and thatthis is not a negative practice but a positive practice to make a scene look it's best without going overboard.

Much like a woman in front of her make up mirror...
Click to expand...
 
Well thought out responses so far...I will just add one additional viewpoint not as a counter but an addendum to some of the previous thoughts.

I do agree that most images you see have been at least lightly processed, whether they were converted from RAW or shot in JPG - tonal curve adjustments, color enhancements, saturation, sharpness, noise reduction, white balance correction are all typical and normal processing decisions most people make before displaying an image. As others have mentioned, they aren't changing the scenery or faking the scene, but presenting the scenery in the best possible way via post processing to either enhance what the camera captured or to compensate for what nature might not have been cooperating with that day.

However, I want to also add that there are some folks who don't really want to or enjoy POST processing with photos - and will display images taken directly from the camera. I do this myself - I can post-process, have photoshop and other enhancement software, and do occasionally use them, but I thoroughly enjoy working with the camera's controls and being out there in the scenery, and that process is far more fun for me than spending time in front of a computer - so I choose to spend more of my time doing what I enjoy most, and post-processing is something I generally avoid or do as little of as possible. That doesn't make what I do any more or less 'natural' than what someone who post-processes their results on a computer does...the main difference is that I'm doing my 'processing' before and during the shot, rather than after. I'm still setting the camera's JPG parameters to output the color, tone curve, contrast, saturation, and sharpness I like, I'm still setting or manipulating the white balance for the mood and feel I want, I'm still deciding how to expose the shot for the feel I'm going for, I'm still deciding the focus point, the framing and composition, and so on. This is processing too - just doing it with the camera, rather than the computer.

Of course, photography is also all about the light - and the light can enhance the very same scene as much as, or more than, any amount of processing pre or post - a shot of a landscape taken at noon that might look flat and cool can look like an entirely different scene at 6pm, setting sun, long shadows, warm light. Photographers tend to look for those moments when the light is best, to present a scene in its best possible moment. So a scene taken by a photography enthusiast who really pays attention to the light and timing and composition will usually look better than the every-day snapshots from non-enthusiasts...this is also why many non-photography people think that photographers must be 'enhancing' or even 'faking' their shots. Whether the photographer pre-processes by setting up their camera then processes by manipulating and controlling the exposure during the shot, or manipulates and controls the exposure during the shot and post processes to fine tune on a computer later, they're still using their photography eye and sense and skill to capture the shot most dramatically.
 
zackiedawg said:
However, I want to also add that there are some folks who don't really want to or enjoy POST processing with photos - and will display images taken directly from the camera.
Click to expand...
I love post processing. People say "sitting in front of the computer" as if they were chained down against their will. I love spending time on my laptop, music going, coffee brewing, replying to DPR, lusting after new gear, learning new processing technique....... I equate shooting like going to the grocery store to gather ingredients. The cooking is where the magic happens.

I actually should spend more time in the field. I find myself rushing through the process just to get it done. My photography would be better technically and artistically if I did. I've gotten good at PP that it covers (some) of my mistakes behind the camera. Now that I'm reasonably fluent in LR5, I need to slow down the thought process before firing the shutter.
 
zackiedawg said:
but I thoroughly enjoy working with the camera's controls and being out there in the scenery, and that process is far more fun for me than spending time in front of a computer
Click to expand...
The idea the idea that post processing takes away from shooting time is a common one, but a total myth. There's never a time when I'm sitting at my computer thinking, "Should I go out and shoot or adjust the levels on this photo?"
 
It's not a myth - it just doesn't apply to YOU. Everyone's different. It does apply to me - I find plenty of times where I think precisely that - do I sit here and adjust levels on this photo, or pick up the camera and head outside and find something else enjoyable to shoot. It's just all in what one enjoys.

Me - I work long hours, and have chores and other things to do when I get home - free time to just do whatever I want is fairly rare - so when I have that free time, I need to split it between friends, family, photography, movies, entertainment, restaurants, and so on - each weekend I might have 6 hours of time at most that I can carve out for myself for photography. I prefer to go out and shoot for 2-3 hours a day for two consecutive days, and spend the last 30 minutes or so just loading my photos, doing a few fast crops, and be done with it - post my photos online and share. Other photographer friends of mine prefer to go out and shoot for a few hours, then come home and spend 2-4 hours a day, for two consecutive days, just post processing their photos. That's where they really enjoy spending their time. Neither is wrong or right...it's a hobby, and meant to be enjoyed however YOU most enjoy it.
 
First almost everyone uses digital these days - you have "enhancement" settings somewhere, even if it's the way that you set the jpeg engine up in the camera.

The skill is doing what those photos did to the viewer - enhancing them to look like the real scene did when you were there!

My father is a landscape photographer and a lot of his images were captured on Fujifilm Velvia. He has some amazing looking shots and people think that he's enhanced the colours and contrasts in the digital images... Looking at the original 5 x 4 transparencies he's actually done the opposite!

But then is using Velvia in the first place (and the filters in front of the lens) an enhancement? I am pretty sure that his choice to use Velvia gave much more striking results on those scenes than using Portra or Reala (or Kodak Gold ;) ).

So that's why I say it's impossible to answer - once you ask it's working out where do you draw the line
 
zackiedawg said:
It's not a myth - it just doesn't apply to YOU. Everyone's different. It does apply to me - I find plenty of times where I think precisely that - do I sit here and adjust levels on this photo, or pick up the camera and head outside and find something else enjoyable to shoot. It's just all in what one enjoys.

Me - I work long hours, and have chores and other things to do when I get home - free time to just do whatever I want is fairly rare - so when I have that free time, I need to split it between friends, family, photography, movies, entertainment, restaurants, and so on - each weekend I might have 6 hours of time at most that I can carve out for myself for photography. I prefer to go out and shoot for 2-3 hours a day for two consecutive days, and spend the last 30 minutes or so just loading my photos, doing a few fast crops, and be done with it - post my photos online and share.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow you find time to both eat AND sleep, every single day, without ever saying such things as "eating takes away valuable sleeping time". There is plenty of time to do everything you need to do. I shoot first and PP later, when there is no shooting. Simple. Heck, you're here typing in an internet forum when you could be out shooting!

zackiedawg said:
Other photographer friends of mine prefer to go out and shoot for a few hours, then come home and spend 2-4 hours a day, for two consecutive days, just post processing their photos.
Click to expand...
Hoo boy, 8 hours of processing. I've spent that much time on one single shot. And still have time to work long hours, do chores, visit family and friends, play tennis, eat, sleep, etc, and still have never sacrificed shooting for editing.

I think what this comes down to is how much effort you want to put into each shot. Some are more anal about every detail of their image being perfect and others are not, and use the "I could be out shooting" story as an excuse to not work at improving their PP.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, those people that think "enhancing" a photo is cheating or whatever along those lines, really doesn't get it about creating, say, "art". Look at photographers of yesteryear (film days), and try to find examples of original vs the finished print. Nothing different with digital. Now, photojournalism is something different, but we're not talking about that.
 
The camera does not see like the human experience. Editing is needed to bring the file to that level of beauty.

Unless your recording something for court...or medical documentation.

To the purists that say that any modification should not be done....more power to them...just don't try to impose your values on everyone else.

Each person has their way of doing things.

Over processed...that's not my cup of tea either...and if asked will give my opinion, but will keep my mouth shut unless asked.

That's how we respect one another as photographers. :)

Roman
 
David B McLaughlin said:
Thank you for looking at my question.

I receiived a note from my sister in law--who had looked at images in an article-she said:

"These should give any shutter bug wanderlust.......................We've been to 11 of the 29 so I know these photos aren't enhanced!"

The article was

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ariellecalderon/surreal-places-in-america-you-need-to-visit-before-you-die

I took it from her comment that she thought to" enhance" was a negative thing--and she knew from seeing the scene and the image that enhancement was not a part of the image.

So my question is---are most images presented in this type of context---"enhanced" or not?---Are most photos contributed to "Shutterstock" enhanced or not?

I believe they are---and thatthis is not a negative practice but a positive practice to make a scene look it's best without going overboard.

Much like a woman in front of her make up mirror...
Click to expand...
 
TheDman said:
TheDman said:
Yet somehow you find time to both eat AND sleep, every single day, without ever saying such things as "eating takes away valuable sleeping time". There is plenty of time to do everything you need to do. I shoot first and PP later, when there is no shooting. Simple. Heck, you're here typing in an internet forum when you could be out shooting!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I appreciate the analysis of my free time, but I've worked it out pretty well myself and know what time I have to do whatever I want and need to in a day...and PP just isn't one of those things I feel like doing. I like many other things - photography is one - but when I have additional free time, there are hundreds of things I'd rather spend it doing than spending it in front of a computer. That's just me. I don't judge anyone else's free time pursuits.

TheDman said:
TheDman said:
Hoo boy, 8 hours of processing. I've spent that much time on one single shot. And still have time to work long hours, do chores, visit family and friends, play tennis, eat, sleep, etc, and still have never sacrificed shooting for editing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yet 8 hours spent on a single shot post processing is YOUR choice for that time - I don't care how much time I have to fit in other things in my day, I simply do not want to spend 8 hours in front of a computer working on post processing - having nothing to do with how much free time I have to do other things in my day. It's about what you enjoy. You enjoy post processing and sitting with a computer, I don't. So I'd rather take that 8 hours and spend it doing something else...heck, even doing nothing - take a nap, read a book, vegetate in my pool. People should all do what they enjoy.

TheDman said:
I think what this comes down to is how much effort you want to put into each shot. Some are more anal about every detail of their image being perfect and others are not, and use the "I could be out shooting" story as an excuse to not work at improving their PP.
Click to expand...
I think it all comes down to people judging how others spend their time, and not being open to the possibility that not everyone in the world thinks the way they do. Because YOU would feel that a person who doesn't like post processing is making an excuse, or has no PP skills, don't assume that's everyone else's situation. Note the difference: I never said anyone else should avoid processing, or that time spent post processing is futile, worthless, or a waste. I never judged anyone else for choosing to post process their photos. I simply stated that I don't like to do it as much, and therefore don't, simply because it's not that engaging to me. Remember this came up because the OP asked if EVERY shot, and EVERY photographer, post processes...and I simply replied that I am a photographer, and I often choose not to...just as others chimed in that they do. On the other hand, responses to me were much more judgmental: I am making excuses, I am incapable of post processing with skill or have inferior skill and avoid it, etc. Sounds quite judgmental and closed-minded to me. I know how to post process perfectly well - been doing it for 12 years. I shoot RAW+JPG when I'm hired for a shoot, and if I need to I can process a RAW shot to perfection if the JPG was not as good. I have 3 different post processing editors and 5 plugins. Simply put, my PP skills don't need any improvement. I simply don't enjoy doing it like you do. I do it if I NEED to, or HAVE to, but when shooting for only myself with my photography hobby, I don't have that craving need or desire to do it - I just want to enjoy the shot that comes out of the camera, that I took, using my settings and skill. When I'm shooting someone else's photos, for hire or for an event, then I need to consider THEIR needs and wants, and will keep the post processing option open as they are the ones that need to be pleased - a flubbed shot or dull shot won't go over well. When I'm shooting for myself, for pleasure, a flubbed shot is simply deleted - and I go try again...I have the luxury of time and no one else to answer to, so I can spend my time however I enjoy doing so. That's shooting, not post processing for me. If I'm done shooting and have time to do something else, I'll read a book, paint a painting, build a model, do some home renovation, work on my car, or do something else I enjoy. Why on earth would I do something I don't enjoy doing, no matter how much time I have on my hands? That would be like saying "hey, I have free time, so there's no reason I can't sit here and poke sewing needles in my eye!". I wouldn't enjoy that, so I wouldn't do that - even though I'm quite capable of sticking sewing needles in my eye, as well as the next man. Same goes for post processing.

If you enjoy post processing, wonderful. Accept that some don't enjoy it as much - not due to inability, but due to non-interest. I'm sure there's something out there in the world that you don't enjoy doing, yet have the capability and skill to do it. You don't do it, because you don't ENJOY doing it...it doesn't mean you are incapable of doing it.
 
You couldn't make a print without becoming somewhat involved. Professional digital prints are no different. Both involve many steps and some folks are just much better at this due to necessity and practice. One of the best in film days was Ansel Adams! Yes, his final prints were really elaborate productions using masterful techniques in exposure, development, and printing.

. . . as opposed to snapshots taken at 7 fps. :) Actually, maybe not even these.
 
zackiedawg said:
PP just isn't one of those things I feel like doing.
Click to expand...
There we go. It's not that you just can't possibly squeeze it in, it's that you don't feel like it. And that's fine, no one's making you. But don't sit there and say PP makes people sacrifice shooting, because it doesn't. You're just trying to justify skipping it.
 
TheDman said:
zackiedawg said:
PP just isn't one of those things I feel like doing.
Click to expand...
There we go. It's not that you just can't possibly squeeze it in, it's that you don't feel like it. And that's fine, no one's making you. But don't sit there and say PP makes people sacrifice shooting, because it doesn't. You're just trying to justify skipping it.
Click to expand...
I keep thinking this has to go back to a too-cursory reading of my original post, if you thought there was anywhere in that post where I commented on anyone else sacrificing anything. My post clearly stated from the outset that some people, myself included, don't enjoy spending time post processing, and that whether you do or don't like post processing, neither is right or wrong.

And because I'm only talking about myself, and others who don't enjoy post-processing, I don't need to justify anything. No more than you need to justify spending time post-processing your shots. Each person does with their time what they enjoy doing with their time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top