How much post processing/digital manipulation do you think is acceptable and why?

[Don Lacy]

Why is processing beyond the basics approved by contests an "essential part of digital photography?" It is certainly not essential to win international contests, be published on the covers of national magazines or sell prints to discerning buyers who appreciate a good photo regardless of how clean the bird's beak looks of if there is a tree limb nearby. Perhaps advanced processing skills are only essential to the outspoken handful of people at BPN who find it so necessary to "sterilize" their photos, as Mr. Glatzer describes.

Danny Brown

Advance processing does not have to include any of those things in fact some of the techniques are so subtle the viewer is never aware of them. They include but are not limited localize tonal correction and contrast enhancement along with selective color and density adjustments. You can also ad advance sharpening and noise reduction and a few more.

The fact that so many digital photographers neglect to learn the true power of PS to improve their images then try to justify that ignorance as being true to the image is beyond me. The Raw file is the first step in creating the image the true work is done in post processing thats were you make a good image sing and a great image fly.

[Ofer Levy]

(add feathers, repair a wing, clean a beak), we are altering the story to tell one which we wish we captured. .

How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

[Ofer Levy]

Advance processing does not have to include any of those things in fact some of the techniques are so subtle the viewer is never aware of them. They include but are not limited localize tonal correction and contrast enhancement along with selective color and density adjustments. You can also ad advance sharpening and noise reduction and a few more.

The fact that so many digital photographers neglect to learn the true power of PS to improve their images then try to justify that ignorance as being true to the image is beyond me. The Raw file is the first step in creating the image the true work is done in post processing thats were you make a good image sing and a great image fly.

Well said Don!!

[Danny J Brown]

Danny, have I missed the news that you were nominated as a moderator lately...?

No, but somebody needs to chime in when the insults start to fly, implied or otherwise.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey guys......will read through in a minute.....don't make me delete threads and keep it on topic. We were discussing "rules".

[june skywell]

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...erb+fairy+wren

Wonderful photos everyone. I think there's a contest for Ofer somewhere. :)

[Mike Tracy]

I believe Ofer's initial post dealt with his consternation relating to certain contests rigid standards regarding the exclusion of images that have been manipulated. There is a distinct difference between utilizing the available tools at hand to post process a raw image and digital manipulation. Post processing in todays digital medium is no different then it was back when i spent countless hours in a dark room. The means to the end is the only difference. Manipulation on the other hand is what the name implies. Changing the scene either by removing or adding elements to change composition.

The contests which restrict all but the most basic of editing processes have to do so. A line has to be drawn in the sand so to speak. Human nature dictates that what is minor to one is major to another. By accepting only images that have been minimally processed it eliminates the wiggle room and ambiguity.

As Chas originally said ( to paraphrase) and how I view it is I would rather see a image that tells a story warts and all then view a sterile one that depicts what the photographer wishes he had seen.

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK all,
Yep......moderator is here and I have read all the posts. Let's keep it on topic and leave the insults as this is an interesting thread. The topic was for contests.......not other venues. Please read carefully before making accusations or comments.....or I will close it down or remove threads.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Very well said Mike....and 100% on topic!

[Ofer Levy]

How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

[Harshad Barve]

My thoughts

If you are not happy or you don't find rules SUITABLE for you , Just save $$ and don't enter

[Don Lacy]

OK all,
Yep......moderator is here and I have read all the posts. Let's keep it on topic and leave the insults as this is an interesting thread. The topic was for contests.......not other venues. Please read carefully before making accusations or comments.....or I will close it down or remove threads.

Roman, Threads often evolve from the original topic and while Ofer's original comment related to contest rules the tittle of the post is a broader subject and at the heart the thread is about post processing and manipulation in general and something we never seem to tire of discussing. so I hope you allow the discussion to evolve naturally. Now I am all for the keeping it civil and if we do step out of line thats a different story.

[Mike Fuhr]

How about adding a part of the wing that was clipped but is showing in the next frame in a sequence?
Is this alterning the story?

No, you missed the opportunity to capture that shot. How many times have we all saw something and wished we had our camera? Should we be able to piece together other photos we have to recreate that missed moment? Where do we draw the line? Captureing the special moment (right exposure, in focus, etc.) is what makes a special photo special, not that you artificially created the special moment from fragments.

[Ofer Levy]

No, you missed the opportunity to capture that shot. How many times have we all saw something and wished we had our camera? Should we be able to piece together other photos we have to recreate that missed moment? Where do we draw the line?

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing..... BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...)

[John Chardine]

........ if we could get back to the topic at hand.

I think a lot of the disagreement here comes from the differing motives each of us has when we make images of nature. Some, like Mike F. are "capturing a moment in time"; essentially they are nature photo-journalists who record an event with little post-processing. This is a perfectly reasonable motive, however, it is no more or less noble a pursuit than nature photographers who create art and add wingtips or remove seeds from the bill. Maybe the best nature images are both art and photo-journalism and this overlap is what the contests are trying to identify. Regardless of your motives, I think we would all agree that we are thrilled when we produce an outstanding nature image that needs no post-processing other than the perhaps a bit of sharpening.

So we all agree then!

[Greg Basco]

John, I definitely think you've hit the nail on the head in that the top contests seem to look for a mix of art and photojournalism. I think it's entirely possible to capture a moment in nature that is artistic and to do so in-camera -- as shown by the winning images in the big international contests with clearly defined processing guidelines enforced.

I think the major contests would view things this way -- If art and story didn't come together in the field, the photo simply isn't one of those instances where photographic skill, preparation, and yes, a healthy dose of luck all combined in one instant to produce one of those special images these contests are seeking.

Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Roman Kurywczak]

Roman, Threads often evolve from the original topic and while Ofer's original comment related to contest rules the tittle of the post is a broader subject and at the heart the thread is about post processing and manipulation in general and something we never seem to tire of discussing. so I hope you allow the discussion to evolve naturally. Now I am all for the keeping it civil and if we do step out of line thats a different story.

No problem with evolution......just need to keep it civil as things were getting a bit out of hand for some.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

I think there are two issues here. One is how much cloning etc. is right/wrong? Whenever the topic comes up, good valid arguments are always made on both sides. But one thing that is certain is that it is not a black & white scenario.

That brings us to the other issue....how the contests deal with it. Since there is so much grey area, the contests draw a strong line....I think that is pragmatic because otherwise, the officials will be on a very slippery slope.

If they were to accept images with "certain amount of cloning" and then go through RAW files, compare with JPGs to find out how much cloning was done...whether it fits within guidelines....that would be a huge can or worms and a lot of work.

[John Chardine]

Agree KD and reflected in my post above (pane 37).

[Charles Glatzer]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing..... BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...)

It is simple ...you missed your so called perfect image. Frankly, if all those other factors above are included I doubt the lack of a wingtip would be of such concern to the judges of the contests you are referencing.

I do not call up Monopoly and tell them to change the rules to fit what I think the game should be.

Just be truthful in disclosure and hope for the best.

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

It is simple ...you missed your so called perfect image. Frankly, if all those other factors above are included I doubt the lack of a wingtip would be of such concern to the judges of the contests you are referencing.

I do not call up Monopoly and tell them to change the rules to fit what I think the game should be.

Just be truthful in disclosure and hope for the best.

Chas

Right on !!! Spoken straight to the heart of this thread, IMO.

[Mike Fuhr]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing..... BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...)

I mean you missed capturing the whole image as it happens. Is it perfect if you missed the tip of the wing??? We've all been there.

I think Gregg summed it up quite nicely - thank you.

[Jay Gould]

What do you mean I missed the opportunity?!!:eek::eek::eek:
Here it is in front of me - the best image I have ever taken - a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon in mid-air, full frame, perfect light, colours, eye contacs, blood splashing - it is all here!!!
Oh NO!!!!! The tip of the right wing is missing..... BUT, it is all there in the next frame which was taken 0.1 seconds later....
This image has to be able to enter any competition as it is the best image ever taken in human history of a peregrine falcon catching a pigeon.....
(Haven't captured this image yet...)

Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?

[Dan Brown]

Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?

HERE, HERE JAY! Well said!

[Roman Kurywczak]

Well said Chas and Jay and very good points made!

[George Wilson]

This is a hot topic for me and after reading the post for a bit felt like puting my opinion out there. I started a similar thread a couple of months ago and it had some good discussion. No matter what side of the fence your are on, the key to post processing manipulation is disclosure to your audience and let them decide what and how they feel.

I come from the editorial school of thought, which is my primary type of photography. Birds and wildlife are secondary. This being said, post processing beyond sharpening to compensate for the low pass sensor and some dodging/burning and color/contrast correction is strictly taboo.

There are degrees of changes that can be done electronically to a photograph. There are technical changes that deal only with the aspects of photography that make the photo more readable, such as a little dodging and burning, global color correction and contrast control. These are all part of the grammar of photography, just as there is a grammar associated with words (sentence structure, capital letters, paragraphs) that make it possible to read a story, so there is a grammar of photography that allows us to read a photograph. These changes (like their darkroom counterparts) are neither ethical nor unethical - they are merely technical.
Changes to content can be accidental or essential (this is an old Aristotelian distinction)- Essential changes change the meaning of the photograph and accidental changes change useless details but do not change the real meaning. Some changes are obviously more important than others. Accidental changes are not as important as essential changes, but both kinds are still changes.
If you had a photograph of a bride and groom and removed the groom, this would constitute an essential change because it would change the meaning of the photograph. (In fact, there are companies that will provide this service if you get a divorce. I guess the wedding book would end up looking like the bride got all dressed up and married herself.)
As in wildlife work, removing a branch takes only a few seconds with the cloning tool in PhotoShop or similar program. Removing the odd branch in the top left corner for example is an accidental change, a change of meaningless details. If we had changed the animal to another species or removed one all together, this would have changed the meaning of the photo and it would have been an essential change. But if we just remove the small details, branches, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.
I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, natural history or wildlife, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. Not disclosing it and being found out only further damages credibility.
The reason I get so adamant when I discuss this issue is that the documentary photograph is a very powerful thing and its power is based on the fact that it is real. The real photograph gives us a window on history and wildlife behavior; it allows us to be present at the great events of our times and the past. It gets its power from the fact that it represents exactly what the photographer saw through the medium of photography. The raw reality it depicts, the verisimilitude makes the documentary photo come alive. Look at the photo of Robert Kennedy dying on the floor of the hotel in California; look at the works of David Douglas Duncan or the other great war photographers; look at the photo of Martin Luther King martyred on the balcony of a motel in Memphis. The power of these photographs comes from the fact they are real moments in time captured as they happened, unchanged. To change any detail in any of these photographs diminishes their power and turns them into lies. They would no longer be what the photographer saw but what someone else wanted the scene to be. The integrity of the Moment would be destroyed in favor of the editorial, historical or documentary concept being foisted.
The clients I work for understand my views and conservative nature with regard to photography and appreciate the results. The best tactic is open disclosure, whether for a client, a contest or an art show. An example would be the black and white images on my website in the landscape gallery. They are listed as infrared on the gallery title, so you know what they are going in. I have made a disclosure of the images, but they are not post processing created - I had a camera modified to shoot this way, so that I can still maintain my conservative position.
For contests, it levels the playing field for all participants that way images can be judged with like images with no one person possibly having what could be construd as an unfair advantage.

[Daniel Cadieux]

George, you've put some strict restrictions on yourself...but if that's what keeps you going well good on ya!

But if we just remove the small details, branches, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.

If you are going to go so far, I'd say that the camera itself lies too. I'd need to shoot at very small apertures to record what my eyes actually see. Would you need to disclose wide apertures to get the unnaturally blured backgrounds, or disclose the use of flash for the added catchlight or illuminated backlit subject? How about "well lit" images with techs such as ISO 1600, f/4, 1s. where we know in reality the scene was very dark but appears to have been recored in much stronger light? The settings we choose serve to voluntarily present the image as we wish, not as we normally see them. When I post-process an image and clone out a tiny twig coming in the frame I still feel it is a real moment in time captured as it happened. Had I pruned the twig in the field would I need to disclose it as the truth would be that a branch was trimmed in order to get the image I wanted?

As an artist I give myself the option of tweaking things in post processing to make them as I want them (without changing the history of the scene...a singing warbler on a spruce branch remains a singing warbler on a spruce branch even if I eliminated a small unwanted element that found its way into the frame). I'm sure a portrait painter does not need to disclose that he ommited a bad pimple from his subject's face...maybe in a classroom full of apprentice painters yes, but not otherwise. So why do I have to disclose the removal of a stray feather, except for educational purposes?

I agree with full disclosure in a forum such as this one (again for for educational purposes), and in following contest rules to a T.

[John Chardine]

With respect George, a dead horse is being flogged in your post. No matter how hard you try, here or in the thread you started a while back, you cannot make all nature photographers into photo-journalists. I just don't understand why you feel this should be so just because you yourself come from this school. It's like saying "I collect red stamps, and I think everyone else who collects stamps should collect red stamps too". You must see how daft this is. The reasons are obvious and I have outlined them in previous posts- to do so now would be flogging a dead horse as well, so I won't.

OK I will- people make nature images for a myriad of reasons, all of which are completely valid. We need to just live and let live and not pass sanctimonious judgments on particular motives that don't match our own.

[Desmond Chan]

Had I pruned the twig in the field would I need to disclose it as the truth would be that a branch was trimmed in order to get the image I wanted?

Errr...Daniel, I would suggest you not to do that. I think two photographers have been prosecuted and found quity doing something similar (perhaps in a larger scale ...you could google it). I also think it's stated in the Wildlife Act or something that you should not destroy the environment for getting your photographs, or something along that line.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Desmond, I'm pretty sure I'm OK on my own property...

[Desmond Chan]

Desmond, I'm pretty sure I'm OK on my own property...

Well, I suppose

[Ofer Levy]

Here is an example to one of my images which was digitally processed and digitally manipulated in a way that I think is 100% acceptable.
I decided to take this image in two parts - first framing just the bird and not worrying about the perch and the second is an image of the perch.
Since this is a setup I could easily place my hide a bit further from the bird, take a shot of the bird with the whole perch and just crop, however, I didn't go this route because of two major reasons:
1. I don't like cropping much.
2. I didn't want to worry about composition as the bird was displaying and he kept changing his posture.

I then had to add some canvas to the top, clone the bright areas in the BG (dead leaves) and so on.

I feel that doing things this way I am just using the available technology in order to get a more pleasing final image which truely represents the behaviour of the bird and the scene when the image was taken.
Your thoughts please...

[Ofer Levy]

Here are two original shots:

[Desmond Chan]

This should be a sticky:

Ofer, it seems to me you want to combine two distinctly different issues/discussions into one to suit your purposes.

Issue One: Should the sponsors of a contest be able to set their own rules?

Issue Two: How much PP is acceptable?


Answers:

#1: 100% of the time and if you don't like the rules start your own contest!

#2: 100% of the time the artist/photographer has total control to PP as much as they want to create the image they want; only caveat, disclosure!


Why is this so difficult?

[Ofer Levy]

This should be a sticky:

Hi Desmond, please send me a link to where I can see some of your wildlife images as I have tried to view them here but they are gone. It is interesting to see where you are coming from.
Cheers

[Desmond Chan]

Hi Desmond, please send me a link to where I can see some of your wildlife images as I have tried to view them here but they are gone. It is interesting to see where you are coming from.
Cheers

LOL !!

It's not about me or anybody else, or photographs of mine or anybody else's, in case you have not figured it out yet. It's you who had the problem, you who were puzzled by some contest rules and not happy about them, and you who didn't seem to be able to decide when and how much to post-process your photos. And I thought you should have your answers by now and know what to do from now on. It's just the use of facts and objective reasoning...

How about you answer Jay's question? Shouldn't be that difficult, should it, I mean to answer Jay's question?

[Ofer Levy]

LOL !!

It's not about me or anybody else, or photographs of mine or anybody else's, in case you have not figured it out yet. It's you who had the problem, you who were puzzled by some contest rules and not happy about them, and you who didn't seem to be able to decide when and how much to post-process your photos. And I thought you should have your answers by now and know what to do from now on. It's just the use of facts and objective reasoning...

How about you answer Jay's question? Shouldn't be that difficult, should it, I mean to answer Jay's question?

I actually do think that seeing someone's level of photography is relevant in here as this is a forum for photographers not philosophers....
Link please....

[Jonathan Ashton]

Hey guys this is very interesting but let's lighten up!:eek: Don't we do photography for fun? I appreciate many of the views expressed and can see both side of the argument - this doesn't mean I am sitting on the fence.
All photography is an artefact, we all see the subject and we all capture the subject in differing ways using different cameras metering modes and lenses etc. Beauty it was once said is in the eye of the beholder. We may capture a first class image or do we create a first class image? All images are processed however minimally this may be.
I think a very clear point has been made however that if the image presented was as close to the actual scene captured and there had been practically no processing other than conversion to a jpeg (or say PSD.TIFF for a print) and of course that the image was outstanding in terms of content then I think we could all agree it is a case of congratulations.
Lets consider a technically great shot that just needed an OOF object removing - nothing wrong here remove it if you intend to present your image for one to be appreciated for what it is. There is a case here of course for the photographer to be congratulated upon photographic and processing skills - so again no problem.
The point in debate appears to be can the more manipulated image ever be regarded to be as good as the non manipulated image - well of course if you want them to be they can, we just don't have to pretend that one is the other. Competitions have to have rules, if we don't like them the choice is ours - we can enter or not but we always have to be honest about what is being presented.
I appreciate I have not really added to the great debate in terms of content but I hope I have helped to smooth out a few wrinkles here and there - we are all submitting our images because we enjoy it and I think the vast majority of people are looking for ways to improve. We all present the scene as a created image and we just need to be honest about how it was created.

[Greg Basco]

Ofer, this is an interesting example. In my honest opinion, while I understand well the challenges in bird setup photography and can appreciate the difficulty in getting what you wanted here, I would be much more impressed with the image if you had been able to tweak the set up to get what you wanted in camera.

The final result is quite pleasing, but if I saw it and then saw the originals, the value of the final image would drop on my scorecard. This is simply my frank opinion and how I would evaluate things if I were a contest judge.


Cheers,
Greg Basco

[Dan Brown]

Here is an example to one of my images which was digitally processed and digitally manipulated in a way that I think is 100% acceptable.
I decided to take this image in two parts - first framing just the bird and not worrying about the perch and the second is an image of the perch.
Since this is a setup I could easily place my hide a bit further from the bird, take a shot of the bird with the whole perch and just crop, however, I didn't go this route because of two major reasons:
1. I don't like cropping much.
2. I didn't want to worry about composition as the bird was displaying and he kept changing his posture.

I then had to add some canvas to the top, clone the bright areas in the BG (dead leaves) and so on.

I feel that doing things this way I am just using the available technology in order to get a more pleasing final image which truely represents the behaviour of the bird and the scene when the image was taken.
Your thoughts please...

Ofer, I really like what you have done here! Very smart prep with the setup. I agree with Greg to a degree but I also like your thinking in trying to create an uncropped final product for more resolution! Nice work man!

And, if this isn't art, then slap my face!!!!

[Chris Ober]

Locking thread because this is going nowhere, it seems not everyone can keep things civil and polite here and because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk