Modern editing is really bad

[Dick Dastardly]

In them old days, we would be using basic cameras and software to correct some of the shortcomings those cameras had. Add a bit of contrast, correct WB when needed, stuff like that. Personally I was never a fan of heavy handed noise reduction or sharpening.

Nowadays, cameras do their own corrections while users at home can enjoy the benefits of having their images "enhanced" automatically by "AI software", which does things like heavily and noticeably increasing contrast or redrawing edges.

In practice, this means i get to see pictures of birds whose feathers have been clearly and artificially redrawn by a computer algorithm, which ends up making the bird look like it's CGI and a not real bird at all.

I do not consider this practice savory at all, i'd rather see a blurry image of a bird, animal or insect instead of this very aggressive editing done automatically, at this point it would be equally acceptable to just create a AI generated image of said subject and be done with it. Less wasted electricity.

If an image has been edited in such a fashion that the end result is obviously a manipulated image i wouldn't call that a "photograph", i'd call it a "poster" or "collage", anything but.

Equally bad is when a reviewer posts images taken with a camera that have been edited and i end up thinking "what is wrong with these images, is the camera really that bad?".

No. It's the editing. The editing is bad.

PS. I've stopped downloading or even looking at images with birds that have recreated feathers and edges, i see they have been altered from a mile away and i just don't care for it.

The thread has no related images because i'm not allowed to post other people's artwork and i don't own the software in question so i can't reproduce the results.


Just for contrast, here's a completely unedited image taken with an old, small sensor point and shoot camera from a a vehicle going 60 miles an hour.

 

[Horacecoker]

In them old days, we would be using basic cameras and software to correct some of the shortcomings those cameras had. Add a bit of contrast, correct WB when needed, stuff like that. Personally I was never a fan of heavy handed noise reduction or sharpening.

Nowadays, cameras do their own corrections while users at home can enjoy the benefits of having their images "enhanced" automatically by "AI software", which does things like heavily and noticeably increasing contrast or redrawing edges.

In practice, this means i get to see pictures of birds whose feathers have been clearly and artificially redrawn by a computer algorithm, which ends up making the bird look like it's CGI and a not real bird at all.

I do not consider this practice savory at all, i'd rather see a blurry image of a bird, animal or insect instead of this very aggressive editing done automatically, at this point it would be equally acceptable to just create a AI generated image of said subject and be done with it. Less wasted electricity.

If an image has been edited in such a fashion that the end result is obviously a manipulated image i wouldn't call that a "photograph", i'd call it a "poster" or "collage", anything but.

Equally bad is when a reviewer posts images taken with a camera that have been edited and i end up thinking "what is wrong with these images, is the camera really that bad?".

No. It's the editing. The editing is bad.

PS. I've stopped downloading or even looking at images with birds that have recreated feathers and edges, i see they have been altered from a mile away and i just don't care for it.

The thread has no related images because i'm not allowed to post other people's artwork and i don't own the software in question so i can't reproduce the results.


Just for contrast, here's a completely unedited image taken with an old, small sensor point and shoot camera from a a vehicle going 60 miles an hour.

Judging by your sample the image quality of photos taken with the Panasonic DMC-FZ72 with no editing are 'really bad' too!

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In them old days, we would be using basic cameras and software to correct some of the shortcomings those cameras had. Add a bit of contrast, correct WB when needed, stuff like that. Personally I was never a fan of heavy handed noise reduction or sharpening.

Yet your sample image below has very heavy noise reduction applied.

Nowadays, cameras do their own corrections while users at home can enjoy the benefits of having their images "enhanced" automatically by "AI software", which does things like heavily and noticeably increasing contrast or redrawing edges.

In practice, this means i get to see pictures of birds whose feathers have been clearly and artificially redrawn by a computer algorithm, which ends up making the bird look like it's CGI and a not real bird at all.

Are you sure they're 'redrawn'?

I do not consider this practice savory at all, i'd rather see a blurry image of a bird, animal or insect instead of this very aggressive editing done automatically, at this point it would be equally acceptable to just create a AI generated image of said subject and be done with it. Less wasted electricity.

If an image has been edited in such a fashion that the end result is obviously a manipulated image i wouldn't call that a "photograph", i'd call it a "poster" or "collage", anything but.

Your image below, again, shows a lot of noise reduction and posterisation.

Equally bad is when a reviewer posts images taken with a camera that have been edited and i end up thinking "what is wrong with these images, is the camera really that bad?".

Is it bad or is it actually very good and able to produce pretty clean high resolution images?

No. It's the editing. The editing is bad.

PS. I've stopped downloading or even looking at images with birds that have recreated feathers and edges, i see they have been altered from a mile away and i just don't care for it.

The thread has no related images because i'm not allowed to post other people's artwork and i don't own the software in question so i can't reproduce the results.

You're allowed to post links to the images you think are manipulated.

Just for contrast, here's a completely unedited image taken with an old, small sensor point and shoot camera from a a vehicle going 60 miles an hour.

--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

500px

500px.com

 

[Gordon W]

If an image has been edited in such a fashion that the end result is obviously a manipulated image i wouldn't call that a "photograph", i'd call it a "poster" or "collage", anything but.

I'd call it 'art', which is defined as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.

I personally find most out-of-camera images flat and boring, so I love all the processing capabilities we have now.

--
Regards, Gordon
_
Photography since 1950 • Digital since 1999
My online photo galleries

 

[Saint 112]

It's not editing as such that's bad it's the way it's applied by certain users. It's especially true when it's applied to a bad image quality photograph, trying to enhance it and making it look good whereas it's hopeless.

Many of the pics displayed in this forum were edited but the edition doesn't show because it was applied reasonably.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

Damn. And I thought photography was a subjective art and about letting people do what they wanted with images.

Since when are we judging people on what they do with their own personal images? That's not to your taste? Too bad that I don't care, buddy.

Apply your preferences to your own work and let other people enjoy what they want. Rule number one of any art work.

 

[ishwanu]

PS. I've stopped downloading or even looking at images with birds that have recreated feathers and edges, i see they have been altered from a mile away and i just don't care for it.

The thread has no related images because i'm not allowed to post other people's artwork and i don't own the software in question so i can't reproduce the results.

I want to see examples of bird photos with recreated feathers. Are just the feathers recreated, not the whole bird, as would be the case with a fully AI image? The OP doesn't want to show them, but does anyone else know where I can look?

 

[harri42]

I want to see examples of bird photos with recreated feathers. Are just the feathers recreated, not the whole bird, as would be the case with a fully AI image? The OP doesn't want to show them, but does anyone else know where I can look?

I think I know what the OP means. It's not the whole bird that is recreated but very fine detail in feathers, especially when there are details that cross each other and different layers of feathers are visible through each other.

There have been discussions at least on the Micro Four thirds forum regarding bird feathers looking unnatural with some software. The noise filters in DxO Photolab at least seem to have trouble with feathers. My experience has been that Photolab is really good with hair, not just human hair but even with dog hair. But feathers have a different structure. I don't shoot much birds, but the examples have been pretty convincing about what the feathers should look like, and how they are mangled with some noise filters.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Artificial Intelligence has been a part of digital photography since the very beginning. Early AI studies in machine vision, dating from the late 1950s, forms the foundation of digital photography today.



But the whole idea behind getting an authentic, organic photographic image has never went away either. Larger format cameras, quality lenses, and good technique have always been valued, as well as finding prime subjects and good light.

 

[plantdoc]

I keep the issue simple. If the image captures what most eyes see, I label it a photograph. If the image has been altered, yes I know a broad topic, then the image is art. Anything goes with art.

greg

 

[g7_chord]

There's a lot of merit in what you say, and you have given some examples of where editing crosses a line. However, by titling your little essay "Modern editing is bad," you make two errors that weaken your post:

1. What you're talking about isn't "modern editing." It's an error to take what happens some of the time as true all of the time. Modern editing tools can do a lot that's not even close to what you're talking about. For example, Lightroom can use AI to do selections. One can do the same selections without AI, but it's very time consuming. What's done to the selection, such as increasing contrast, is not across the line that you're drawing.

2. "Bad" implies a value judgement. Rather, the kind of editing you talk about is a valid approach. It's neither bad nor good. I think perhaps your point is that if AI is used in this way the image should be labeled as such. That makes sense to me.

 

[g7_chord]

Artificial Intelligence has been a part of digital photography since the very beginning. Early AI studies in machine vision, dating from the late 1950s, forms the foundation of digital photography today.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you can explain or give some references.

 

[Boris22]

Often times reality isn't that great and I feel obligated to give it a helping hand. In my opinion, allowing documentary purism stand in the way of creativity is uninteresting to the point that I would soon lose interest in photography. Do what you want though. It's your camera.

 

[ishwanu]

I want to see examples of bird photos with recreated feathers. Are just the feathers recreated, not the whole bird, as would be the case with a fully AI image? The OP doesn't want to show them, but does anyone else know where I can look?

I think I know what the OP means. It's not the whole bird that is recreated but very fine detail in feathers, especially when there are details that cross each other and different layers of feathers are visible through each other.

There have been discussions at least on the Micro Four thirds forum regarding bird feathers looking unnatural with some software. The noise filters in DxO Photolab at least seem to have trouble with feathers. My experience has been that Photolab is really good with hair, not just human hair but even with dog hair. But feathers have a different structure. I don't shoot much birds, but the examples have been pretty convincing about what the feathers should look like, and how they are mangled with some noise filters.

I've seen pretty bad results from pushing noisy, unsharp feather detail too far, but not something I'd describe as recreated. I haven't seen anything new get added, just garish representations of what was there.

 

[yardcoyote]

There are always going to be popular trends and techniques in art that lead to results that you think are bad. Sometimes your tastes are going to conflict, often very strongly, with what is currently in style. Just ignore it and keep following your own nose. Trust your own artistic judgement and see with your own eyes. Choose and adjust your tools to support your ideas.

If other people don't like it, you know what they can do. Art is not for the fainthearted.

 

[TOTodd]

In them old days, we would be using basic cameras and software to correct some of the shortcomings those cameras had. Add a bit of contrast, correct WB when needed, stuff like that. Personally I was never a fan of heavy handed noise reduction or sharpening.

[…]

In them old days we had really bad editing too. A quick Google search for “bad HDR photography” would confirm that.

 

[mfinley]

So you're basically saying you like photo documentary images not art. Show you exactly what the eye sees in the world and no further interpretations.

The slippery slope only ends with photo manipulation by software, it doesn't start with it, in reality this should mean you reject long-exposures that blur a subject because you wouldn't see that with your eye such as soft flowing water, or super fast exposures that would stop a bullet or in your case a fast flying bird in flight, also things like under-exposures that create silhouettes, these are all created just by the unique nature of photography as a medium versus painting. The mechanics of shutter speeds and exposure triangles not software but in the end they aren't photo documentary images but are the first step in "art" images.

 

[Supisiche]

In them old days, we would be using basic cameras and software to correct some of the shortcomings those cameras had. Add a bit of contrast, correct WB when needed, stuff like that. Personally I was never a fan of heavy handed noise reduction or sharpening.

Nowadays, cameras do their own corrections while users at home can enjoy the benefits of having their images "enhanced" automatically by "AI software", which does things like heavily and noticeably increasing contrast or redrawing edges.

In practice, this means i get to see pictures of birds whose feathers have been clearly and artificially redrawn by a computer algorithm, which ends up making the bird look like it's CGI and a not real bird at all.

I do not consider this practice savory at all, i'd rather see a blurry image of a bird, animal or insect instead of this very aggressive editing done automatically, at this point it would be equally acceptable to just create a AI generated image of said subject and be done with it. Less wasted electricity.

If an image has been edited in such a fashion that the end result is obviously a manipulated image i wouldn't call that a "photograph", i'd call it a "poster" or "collage", anything but.

Equally bad is when a reviewer posts images taken with a camera that have been edited and i end up thinking "what is wrong with these images, is the camera really that bad?".

No. It's the editing. The editing is bad.

PS. I've stopped downloading or even looking at images with birds that have recreated feathers and edges, i see they have been altered from a mile away and i just don't care for it.

The thread has no related images because i'm not allowed to post other people's artwork and i don't own the software in question so i can't reproduce the results.


Just for contrast, here's a completely unedited image taken with an old, small sensor point and shoot camera from a a vehicle going 60 miles an hour.

Judging by your sample the image quality of photos taken with the Panasonic DMC-FZ72 with no editing are 'really bad' too!

That's heat haze

 

[Supisiche]

I only do basic editing (exposure, wb, contrast, etc) because I don't know and I don't care for anything else:

 

[gordonpritchard]

Beacuse bird photography was mentioned.

On the left SOOC and on the right edited (with some AI) Heavily cropped image.



My camera has limited dynamic range so blown highlights and plugged shadows are common. Which for me means shooting RAW and doing processing to recover as much detail as possible. And with bird photography it's not always possible to get proper focus or exposure and high ISOs are common (noise) so, extensive editing and AI does the trick for me.

--
———————————————————————------
"View their gallery before accepting their comments."
———————————————————————------
Some of my snaps can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gordon_pritchard/albums/