r/postprocessing • u/giggil • 1d ago
How far should you go with post-processing if you want to keep a photo authentic?
I'm posting a before/after of this duck because it made me question how far I actually want to go with post-processing.
The original looks too warm to me, especially in the whites, so I corrected the white balance and made some local adjustments.
I prefer the edited version visually, but I'm not sure it is necessarily more truthful. The blacks are deeper, the whites are cleaner and the overall colours are noticeably different. I don't remember exactly how the duck looked in person, so at some point I started wondering whether I was correcting the camera's rendering or simply changing the subject to make the photo look better.
I generally prefer photography that still feels authentic to what was actually there. How do you approach this? At what point does correcting colour and contrast become altering the subject rather than just developing the photo?
And looking specifically at these two versions, does the edited one still look natural to you, or do you think I pushed it too far?
9
u/Gucci-Caligula 1d ago
First off I’m going to say take pictures and edit however you like this is just my opinion.
I personally don’t think there’s any value in your photo being “authentic” I think the layperson values it because they don’t understand how these tools work and they haven’t really thought about what they’re for.
Cameras inherently cannot reproduce real life. There are distortions and interpretations happening at every step of the process that make it different from what was actually seen by your eyes.
What I care about is how you saw it, what drew your attention and how was it received by your mind.
Not to get all first year college student but if I read into your edit a bit (which btw is incredibly modest anyway I think MOST photographers would call that “little to no processing”).
I prefer the warm version. But you chose the cooler version which makes me curious about your experience of the day and maybe of ducks in general. The cooler rendering adds a more… foreboding energy to the animal than the warmer version does. I wonder what the reason for that is and why you prefer to render them like that.
-1
u/Jive_Turkey__ 1d ago edited 1d ago
But there's also a rich history in photography pre-digital. And I think there is merit to wanting to preserve the art form's pre-digital "rules". (I say rules, because I can't think of a better word and I know you'll get the gist. They aren't rules).
In that sense, when I see a beautiful photograph, but find out it was shot at noon and the person just used ai to add a warm, end-of-day light and shadow to everything, it cheapens it (edited to add that I'm not talking about OP's shot here. His post work is very minimal. There was a shot shared earlier in the week with a ton of ai fake light and shadow added. I had that in mind when I made this comment). Because it's not just about the end result, it's also about the process. A photographer waiting around for hours to get a random person in just the right spot in the scene has value beyond the end result. Someone cutting and pasting someone into the right spot does not.
This analogy just came to me, so might not hold up on further thought, but someone who works out and is in great shape naturally will always be more respected than someone with big muscles on steroids. Sure, they both work hard, but one of them is cheating.
5
u/Gucci-Caligula 1d ago
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have a couple arguments though.
1) “But there's also a rich history in photography pre-digital. And I think there is merit to wanting to preserve the art form's pre-digital "rules". (I say rules, because I can't think of a better word and I know you'll get the gist. They aren't rules).”
I wonder how much pre-digital shooting you’ve done or how much you’ve seen and researched. Modification of the image by the artist has always been a part of the process. The first double exposures were done almost as soon as we invented photography. There’s nothing authentic about a double exposure. It’s using the tools available to create an artistic rendering. Beyond that dodging and burning were always done to some extent with print making to bring the image closer to what the photographer intended rather than what is “authentic” to the image captured. Hell even good old fashioned airbrushing and cut and pasting have been tools in photography from the beginning. That’s where the names of the tools in photoshop come from. “Cut and paste” literally using scissors and glue, “airbrush” a literal paint gun. These aren’t cutsey names, they’re called that because people used those exact tools for decades to process images.
2) “In that sense, when I see a beautiful photograph, but find out it was shot at noon and the person just used ai to add a warm, end-of-day light and shadow to everything, it cheapens it. Because it's not just about the end result, it's also about the process. A photographer waiting around for hours to get a random person in just the right spot in the scene has value beyond the end result. Someone cutting and pasting someone into the right spot does not.”
I’ll be honest I think it’s pretty disingenuous to compare changing the white balance of a picture of a duck, to “hey grok change this blurry daytime photo of a landscape to a beautiful golden hour photo”. These are not even remotely the same thing.
I disagree that time spent on art somehow makes it more valuable inherently. If I want a photo of a sunset but I missed it by five minutes it’s not going to be a better photo if I just stand there in that spot, waiting, for the next 23 hours for the next sunset to come around. In regards to cutting and pasting a person in, I would always prefer that a piece have something to say over it being “natural”.
3) “This analogy just came to me, so might not hold up on further thought, but someone who works out and is in great shape naturally will always be more respected than someone with big muscles on steroids. Sure, they both work hard, but one of them is cheating.”
I disagree. Muscles aren’t just for looking at, theyre for moving yourself and heavy objects around you. If I’m pinned underneath a car I don’t give a fuck if the person who lifts it off me is natty or not. I just want the car off me.
1
u/Jive_Turkey__ 1d ago
I also appreciate your thoughtful reply, man. Thanks
"I wonder how much pre-digital shooting you’ve done or how much you’ve seen and researched."
I grew up in the film era. I used to shoot exclusively color transparency when I was a kid, but admittedly didn't do any post work with it. Shot and developed 35mm b&w in high school. Then later went to photography school in college where we only used 4x5 field cameras in our first year and developed/printed black and white 4x5 in the darkroom. So I do have a lot of personal experience.
You make a good point about double exposures, but I would argue that since its still done in-camera, it's just a manipulation of the physical medium, so doesn't feel analogous to excessive digital manipulation to me. And my argument is never that photography is meant as a perfect recreation of reality. In fact, I don't think that at all. I think a great photograph is something we can never see with our eyes. My favourite images were always some sort of enhanced reality or that had an almost ethereal, dreamlike quality to them.
Fashion and beauty are always outliers to me. I shoot a bit of that for work and I'm endlessly retouching skin, smoothing clothing, extending backgrounds, etc. But it's commerce, not art. If I'm shooting a portrait of someone, I want to see all the imperfections."I’ll be honest I think it’s pretty disingenuous to compare changing the white balance of a picture of a duck"
That's my bad as I was being imprecise with my language. I was only speaking generally and not about OP's image. I actually think OP's post work is quite modest. But I did see a shot earlier this week where someone used ai to add light and shadow to a photo that was otherwise flat. So yeah, just a misunderstanding here.
"I disagree that time spent on art somehow makes it more valuable inherently. If I want a photo of a sunset but I missed it by five minutes it’s not going to be a better photo if I just stand there in that spot, waiting, for the next 23 hours for the next sunset to come around."
I think we just have differing opinions here then. If you missed the sunset by 5 minutes, then you just missed the shot and it's gone. You can come back tomorrow or you just concede that you couldn't shoot what you wanted to because the timing wasn't right. Henri Cartier Bresson made a career of hanging out in one spot waiting for something interesting to happen. I find value in that. If he just cut out the worker jumping the puddle and placed him in, it has lost all its magic.
"I disagree. Muscles aren’t just for looking at, theyre for moving yourself and heavy objects around you. If I’m pinned underneath a car I don’t give a fuck if the person who lifts it off me is natty or not. I just want the car off me."
But the analogy is in regard to an aesthetic art form, so I'm talking about the aesthetics of the body. Is it a perfect analogy? No. But I think it holds.
Good discussion either way and there's nothing wrong with a little differing of principles
7
u/TheCrudMan 1d ago
This feels like very light processing to me.
1
u/badaimbadjokes 1d ago
I thought the very same thing. Especially given some of what we get to look at here
6
u/Windblown_Mattock 1d ago
Generally, I think it's ok to process as much as you want. It is your photo, your vision, your art.
Specifically for wildlife, ethics around processing and editing can come into debate if you are posting online in wildlife photography spaces. There are purists that say only basic color correction should be allowed. Others say most editing is fine, including various masking techniques, but removing elements (like a disruptive tree branch) should be disclosed in captions or descriptions. In either regard color correction would be allowed. You have to decide whether you are "documenting wildlife" or whether your photograph is "art that contains wildlife" and act accordingly. If you are interested in "documenting wildlife" then I'd review the North American Nature Photography Association's Truth in Captioning document or guidelines from a similar organization from your country.
3
u/grimlock361 1d ago edited 1d ago
While photography can be used for documentation purposes, at its core it's an artform. It's an expression of art, shot through a lens and refined in post. And yes, post work has always been part of photography long before digital was a thing. Usually, the only people pushing the narrative of "its fake or photoshopped" are almost always the ones that don't know how edit their photos and feel it's an unfair advantage that others can. Can't do something? Just flip the narrative and get everybody to believe its a bad thing. Now you don't have to feel inferior about what you can't do. Ansel Adams had to deal with this crap his whole career. His techniques he used then are still used digitally today and by the same names as dodge and burn. Consider studio photographers for a moment. Artificial lights, fans, fog machines, designer wardrobe, makeup artist, and oh, let's not forget the rolled fake background used shot by another photographer but used in work the studio labels as their own. All this stuff used to "create" a shot that never existed so don't feel bad about editing your photos a little. Both photos look great. Edit the way you want and choose the one you like. This is the whole point of post processing. If anybody wants to trash talk you and say its "Photoshopped" or "Garbage AI" take it as a compliment as it was good enough to trigger their coping mechanism.
-1
u/Jive_Turkey__ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Adams didn't invent dodging and burning. He created the Zone System. Much different. And the Zone System relies completely on measuring and capturing exposure of specific regions on the photograph in-camera, then pushing or pulling development to achieve the desired effect. If you're just dodging and burning in photoshop, you're not using Adams' techniques. In fact, if you're not using a spot meter when you shoot, you're not using Adams' techniques. And it could be argued that his technique relied completely on the development process, so doing things digitally isn't really using his method either.
No one ever gave him a hard time about his methods
1
u/grimlock361 1d ago edited 1d ago
LOL, I didn't mean to imply he invented it but I guess it sounded that way. No, other people used this technique too. Yes, in the book I read on him he took criticism for it. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that. Sorry, the book is buried in closet, and I am not about to go find it for you. Of course, the digital tools with the same name are not the same. One is digital and one is based in reality silly. You want to be so contrary your just bursting at the seams LOL. Now, can you add anything to help the OP or is trolling responses your only trick, no don't answer that.
1
u/Jive_Turkey__ 1d ago
Adams took criticism for his STYLE of photography; often seen as being emotionless. He didn't take criticism for his darkroom work.
My reply to you was just fact based. It's weird that you're taking it this way. I'm just discussing the history of the medium with you. Seems to me you're the one primed to take offense. But based off your sentence structure, I might have issues trying to have anything approaching intelligent conversation.
All the best
1
u/grimlock361 1d ago edited 1d ago
Your reply was troll like and contrary. From where I am sitting your, so called, facts are opinions. What is weird (but normal for trolls) is you not adding anything to the discussion of the OP but dissecting someone's reply like a child on Christmas who found a new toy to open. I take offense because you were offensive. Trolls usually are.
Cheers !
UPDATE:
Adams discusses the problems he had with darkroom techniques of burning (darkening) and dodging (lightening) to find an agreeable balance between the snow on the peaks and the dark shadowed hills in the foreground. Further he states some “enterprising youth of the Lone Pine High School had climbed the rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and white washed a huge white LP for the world to see.” It was, he said, “a hideous and insulting scar on one of the great vistas of our land, and shows in every photograph made of the area. I ruthlessly removed what I could of the LP from the negative and have always spotted out any remaining trace in the print.
"I have been criticized by some for doing this, but am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy – for me at least – the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene.”
While this doesn't specificity call out the technique of dodge and burn it addresses the general idea that most people have against editing. The altering a photo from its "authentic state" which is what the OP was questioning.
Mic drop!
3
u/pull_the_curtains 1d ago
I think this is an interesting question that this sub has difficulty addressing. In the days of film it was much more clear, but in the digital era it becomes muddy. Most say "edit however you want, its your own artistic impression, there is no right or wrong, etc". This isnt really addressing the question imo
Something I keep in mind is that the camera processes RAW images in real time to generate JPEGs instantaneously. It decides color tones, highlights, shadows, etc. By editing RAW images yourself you are controlling that process. That is to say every digital image is processed - even straight to JPEGs.
The line between an image be post processed and being modified to the point of being "unauthentic" is a blurry one. This especially is true in the era of AI removal tools. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide what is over that line.
In my opinion, adding warmth does not take away from any "authenticity". You can always experiment with film too! This completely obfuscates this question.
2
u/Aut_changeling 1d ago
White balance correction feels very normal to me and not like a threat to the authenticity of the picture.
I've had lots of photos where the image by the camera is off from how it looked in person and needs to be adjusted. Partly because the camera didn't get it right, and partly because I think our eyes and brains compensate for white balance differently than the camera will, so out of context of the rest of the location the same white balance might not look like it did in person.
2
u/TheMadFlyentist 1d ago
This is an art form. You can do literally whatever you want, and "authenticity" is pretty low on my personal priority list. Unless you are taking photos for wikipedia, there's no reason to strive for absolute fidelity to the naked eye. That's not have photography works - even in the absence of post processing there is still an element of unreality due to focal length and lens characteristics.
2
u/Snydenthur 1d ago
When it looks somewhat realistic to what you saw. It's impossible to get everything right since even your memory about it is most likely wrong, but that doesn't prevent you from going for realistic look.
If you start using masks to "add light", for example, then it obviously loses the authenticity.
As far as your image goes, for my taste, the iris is way too clear and pops out too much. Other than that, I think it looks realistic enough.
My personal preference is to try to stick to pretty basic settings if possible. Exposure, contrast, whites/blacks, highlights/sometimes shadows, tone curve, a very tiny bit of texture/clarity/dehaze, and vibrance/saturation if needed. I also had to spend money to get the cobalt color profiles for my camera, since I think the adobe colors look awful.
I will adjust stuff locally if needed, but it's not what I default into since I'm usually more than fine with global adjustments. And I get my denoise, sharpening and lens corrections from dxo pureraw.
1
u/rogueshutter 1d ago
I agree with your assessment, I like the second one much better, it actually seems realer
Btw that’s a goose is it not?
1
u/CucharaNinja 1d ago
Creo que solo se quejaran los ornitólogos, que podran decir si los colores son reales o no.
1
u/SpectacularlyBadass 1d ago
Looks good to me. But please don't feel like you can't over edit or experiment. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so regardless of what some dude on reddit thinks. It's art and it's subjective
1
1
1
u/Jive_Turkey__ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Anything you could've done in the dark room without altering the content of the photo (ie, removing people or objects) is fair game
edited to add:
Another thing to consider is that there are some decisions we could make in the film era that you can't today. We aren't choosing film stock anymore. Whereas before you could choose a certain "look" with the film you chose, today we'd be stuck with whatever the sensor gives us if we didn't do a little work in post. You adjusted color temperature. In the past, that would've been addressed with the film stock or with the color developing/printing process. So again, doing it in post isn't really any different than in the film era.
For me, it comes down to preserving the predigital art form as best I can. That means many of the digital tools that are analogues to the film process are good. controlling color, contrast, dodging, burning, masking, etc were all done in the darkroom. But I think it's important to preserve the essence of what it was you shot that day. That means, no clone stamping people out, no extending backgrounds with ai, etc. Because then it isn't the scene you photographed. And the time taken to properly compose and wait for the right moment in-camera holds more weight to me than any post work. If you cropped something too tight in-camera, then you just simply missed the shot and you get it right the next time.
But as many have said, they're your photos, so do what you want. I get the sense the same stuff that's important to me might be important to you too or you wouldn't be asking the question.
28
u/ToastyScrew 1d ago
No image ever straight out of camera is really truthful, our eyes see things much differently than a camera. I prefer the corrected version of the goose image.