Cloning

sdevine89

Sherlock Behind Bars by StephenDevine, on Flickr

dnme wrote: »

sdevine89

This is a beautiful photo. Love that dog, great sparkle in the eye contrasted with vibrant blue in the gate. There's also a great story in the photo. Would you consider cloning out the gob around his eyes ? My dog does exactly the same and it is shall we say, less than visually appealing on her It distracts when viewing the photo. Hope you don't take any offense, its a fantastic photo. Wish I'd taken it.

I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the random thread, I also think there might be some other posters who might have a view on this. Firstly, thanks for your kind words about the photo I really appreciate it. With regards to the dirt around his eye, I did toy with the idea of photoshopping it out but only briefly, however since I've read your comment I took a long hard think about it. I like my photos to reflect what I have seen be that people animals or landscapes. I don't whiten people's teeth or get rid of blemishes if i shoot candid portraits so I see no reason to change for the dog. I fully understand that it is distracting and takes away from the intended focal point which was the eye but that's the way I found him and that's the way it came out in the camera.

If I was shooting this for a client (If I had clients!) I probably would get rid of it if that's the type of shot they wanted, but for myself I want more documentary than beauty pageant. If I did touch up the photo it would no doubt garner more likes etc but if that was my aim I'd spend my days photographing kittens

I didn't take any offense from the suggestion and more importantly takes for taking the time to make it. I hope this somewhat clears up my thought process.

I'd be interested if anyone else has views on this.

b318isp

It's your photo - your choice. Personally, I'd remove it as it distracts.

Tiriel

I would have removed it too - but like you said, it's personal preference. It's a minor tweak - not substantially altering the subject etc. but it does distract from the photo content and that's why I would remove it

A great shot though, lovely dog!

Splinters

I never understood that argument about wanting the shot to accurately represent what you seen. Its usually used in regards to post production or altering the image after the fact.

Yet nobody seems to apply that same thinking to shooting shallow dept of field, wide angle lenses or all manner of other in camera settings/techniques that far remove the image taken from what the human eyes can see.

Its a nice shot as it, and of course entirely your decision what adjustments to make. However if you've shot the image with a wide aperture lens you've already enhanced the shot beyond what you could have seen with your own eyes, so why stop there?

Silva360

I like my photos to reflect what I have seen be that people animals or landscapes.

Did you actually see it though? If the same opportunity arose again and you noticed it would you clean it away? Personally I would remove it, along with the crud that crosses the left ear, the crud on the lower left of the blue gate, and the bit of rust on the lower right. I would have no ethical dilemma with this unless it meant lying about it if asked.

I have taken many photos where I have not noticed something when pressing the shutter. The camera saw something I did not see. If I clone it out I can still argue that the photo reflects what I saw

sdevine89

Silva360 wrote: »

Did you actually see it though? If the same opportunity arose again and you noticed it would you clean it away? Personally I would remove it, along with the crud that crosses the left ear, the crud on the lower left of the blue gate, and the bit of rust on the lower right. I would have no ethical dilemma with this unless it meant lying about it if asked.

I have taken many photos where I have not noticed something when pressing the shutter. The camera saw something I did not see. If I clone it out I can still argue that the photo reflects what I saw

Yeah I did see it but the subject isn't a human who I can ask to stand and wait while I take it away and then get back in the same pose. As for correcting flaws to rust on the gate etc that's way to far for me.

Silva360

sdevine89 wrote: »

Yeah I did see it but the subject isn't a human who I can ask to stand and wait while I take it away and then get back in the same pose. As for correcting flaws to rust on the gate etc that's way to far for me.

Yes, of course, I was speaking hypothetically. If you could freeze time and space and would have removed it by hand then I see no issue with doing so later.

I hope I didn't offend, I thought you wanted to open the issue up for discussion. The key is to do what makes you happy with your photographs, of course.

sdevine89

Silva360 wrote: »

Yes, of course, I was speaking hypothetically. If you could freeze time and space and would have removed it by hand then I see no issue with doing so later.

I hope I didn't offend, I thought you wanted to open the issue up for discussion. The key is to do what makes you happy with your photographs, of course.

No offense whatsoever. In a perfect world if I could have stopped motion I would have, but to do it after would in my opinion have changed how the photo was shot. The dog lives on a farm so the rust and dirt reflect that in my opinion.

magicbastarder

i'm in the 'leave it in' camp. it's a dog, not a fashion shoot.

CabanSail

This is always a choice for the photographer and seems to have always been an issue since Photography began.

We use Photography to express ourselves and how we treat, process and present our images is a personal choice. The light we record and the way we perceive the world can vary dramatically. As humans we tend to believe that what we see is reality but if you investigate the issue you soon find out that it is often not the case. Then the equipment and recording medium also vary the outcome. So when we attempt to record and present an image as reality there will always be different versions of that offering.

Generally what I try to do with my images is to show how I perceived what I saw at the time. This allows things to be altered to represent how I perceived the subject and the emotional impact it had at the time, or later as a memory. It is why I often like to process in monochrome, even though I saw it in colour. It also allows for items to be moved, altered or deleted if required. End of the day it's personal choice.

tl/dr If it were my image I may well have removed the distraction, unless I wanted it there to make a point, but it's not my choice.

Zillah

I'd take it out. It's something that just happened to be there at that instant, he spends 99% of his time without snot smeared across his fur.

One would hope.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

he spends 99% of his time without snot smeared across his fur.

unless you personally know this dog, i would strongly suspect your figure of 99% is somewhat optimistic...

Myksyk

Obviously down to personal preference. But if you say you would have taken it out if you had time beforehand, I'd be inclined to say what does it matter if you find that time 'after'. It certainly wouldn't lessen the picture in any way to remove it. Generally, its a type of photo I wouldn't be doing very much with.

On the broader topic, photo-realism obviously has its place in photography and may be very important in certain shots and may be central to certain approaches (photo-journalism, documentary photography). It is certainly not important in every shot or in every approach. When it comes to 'artistic' photography (I'm sure there are better terms to describe what I'm talking about), I subscribe to 'do whatever you feel like, and whatever your imagination can come up with'. It doesn't matter if everyone doesn't like what you do and it is utterly irrelevant if what you produce wasn't what you could see at the time ... we'd shrivel up and die living within those "flowers-are-red-and-green-leaves-are-green" boundaries of correctness. Of course that's likely a straw man argument as I'm not sure that any one would subscribe to the notion that all photography should be 'photo-realistic'. Anyway, I say belt away, desaturate to an other-worldy black and white, saturate to wild vibrant imaginings, filter, edit, process to your heart's content, use long exposure, multiple exposures, or just leave it as simple and untouched as you care to ... whatever. It might be sh*te but it might be brilliant. If it results in an image that is evocative in some shape or form then it has fulfilled its artistic or emotional purpose for you at least and possibly for some others as well.

DaireQuinlan

If you want a portrait of a dog without eyeball gunk on its hair, wipe off the crap. If you take a picture of a dog with gunk on its hair, then you have a shot of a dog with gunk on its hair. That's the way it lies. You want to start cloning out gunk ? work away. At that point though you don't have a shot of a dog with gunk on its hair, you've got a re-imagined intrepretation of a shot of a dog. It's your shot though. You get to decide how you want it.

bernard0368

I dont know if its me, but I find the bit of grass on tbe bar to be more distracting than the eye.
Nice dog by the way

Wabbit Ears

I wouldn't give that image to a client or print it, but that's just me.

We don't give clients raw or unedited images. All images presented to a client is post processed. Small flecks of food off clothes are removed as well as other small stuff but the images produced are very true to life.

The question is, is removing something taking away from the subject or not? Cleaning snots off kids or eye gunk from dogs or stray grass/hay is not taking away from the picture, its cleaning it up. Removing a rust spot is changing the picture as the bars are rusty.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Cleaning snots off kids or eye gunk from dogs or stray grass/hay is not taking away from the picture, its cleaning it up. Removing a rust spot is changing the picture as the bars are rusty.

That's not a particularly logical argument :-D

sdevine89

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I wouldn't give that image to a client or print it, but that's just me.

We don't give clients raw or unedited images. All images presented to a client is post processed. Small flecks of food off clothes are removed as well as other small stuff but the images produced are very true to life.

The question is, is removing something taking away from the subject or not? Cleaning snots off kids or eye gunk from dogs or stray grass/hay is not taking away from the picture, its cleaning it up. Removing a rust spot is changing the picture as the bars are rusty.

Completely agree if this was a shoot I was doing for a client my views would be dictated by the client's wishes to a large extent, but this was a personal shoot of a personal subject.

Wabbit Ears

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's not a particularly logical argument :-D

Its is subjective., even if not entirely logical

amdgilmore

I'm pretty reluctant to photoshop anything, but I'd get rid of that eye-goop without a second thought. I find it a bit gross.

Which I suppose doesn't really do anything but emphasise the 'personal choice' argument expounded by most posters in this thread.

thebaz

I'd leave it in - i assume part of the appeal of the photo is that its a natural setting , not staged - so if the dog has puss on his eye , so be it - he's hardly a dolled up poodle - the whole idea of cloning , i find pretty unappealing, photography should be about capturing reality , not designing the make-believe.

Silva360

thebaz wrote: »

- the whole idea of cloning , i find pretty unappealing, photography should be about capturing reality , not designing the make-believe.

I find this to be a pretty interesting point and I wonder how far you and others would go to maintain such a stance. I'm asking in a general sense, not to you specifically

Say for example you wanted a particular landscape photo for your wall. The scene is set, a river flowing into the distance. Low lying mist lit up by a rising sun. A silhouette of a church spire in the distance. It's what you've been waiting to photograph for a long time and the conditions are rare. Out comes the wide angle lens. You carefully scan the scene and grab your photo. The excitement builds as you upload it. Then it hits, some gimp has thrown a plastic bag into the river and it has snagged on a branch. The bag is in the distance so it's small in the frame, but the white stands out. You didn't notice it at the time but now it's as obvious as a giant pimple on the end of your nose. Would you hang it like that citing the capturing of reality?

What about black and white photographs as reality? Shallow depth of field? What about extreme dynamic range where the camera cannot possibly capture what the eye can see (and even what the eye cannot look at?

I am firmly of the opinion that the photographer should take and process any photograph exactly as they wish, so I'm not challenging that view. I'm simply wondering why people hold a view that minor adjustments are an issue for them on a personal level.

As for the lovely dog, who cannot comprehend how much loving attention he/she is getting right now , I still think it takes nothing away by making a few simple amendments. Place your finger over the hay that crosses the ear and already it becomes a much more pleasing photo (to me).

Cheers.

magicbastarder

my opinions would largely be formed by the fact that i find post-processing a drudgery, so i hate the 'fix it in post' mentality; i much prefer to get it right in camera, i find it much more rewarding.
having to fix something in post implies i didn't take as good a photo as i'd hoped.

Myksyk

Whose reality exactly? What particular factors in an image indicate that reality has been captured? ... colour? shape? light? time? structure?

This argument would pretty much rule out vast swathes of photography as photography at all ... black and white, long exposure, HDR, capturing movement etc etc.

While capturing reality is a noble and important endeavour it only, imho, forms a small part of photography.

Evoke emotion and memory, even visceral recollection ... your eyes are not the only part of you which experienced a place or event. The photo, if you let it, can also capture the heart and mood of the experience.

I'm with Mr Hansard ... make art, make art.

DaireQuinlan

Silva360 wrote: »

I am firmly of the opinion that the photographer should take and process any photograph exactly as they wish, so I'm not challenging that view. I'm simply wondering why people hold a view that minor adjustments are an issue for them on a personal level.

It is, as you point out, a personal choice some people make. I take an editorial approach to my shots. Cropping, colour correct, and dust spotting. Nothing that will fundamentally alter the scene as captured in the image. So no cloning/compositing, no extreme contrast adjustments or local contrast changes etc etc. I take my scenes as I find them, or I don't.

thebaz

Myksyk wrote: »

While capturing reality is a noble and important endeavour it only, imho, forms a small part of photography.

I'd say it forms a rather big part , if i wanted to distort reality I'd paint - anyway MagicB pretty much sums up my take it -

magicbastarder

Myksyk wrote: »

This argument would pretty much rule out vast swathes of photography as photography at all ... black and white, long exposure, HDR, capturing movement etc etc.

i'd agree partly with HDR not reflecting reality, but i don't see the argument stacking up in regards to b&w; it is an 'honest' (word used advisedly) record of the intensity of the light captured on film, but without wavelength recorded. there's no 'distortion' of what's recorded.

speaking of which, NASA have recaptured the famous eagle nebula photo (the 'pillars of creation' one); and that truly is a false colour image as the green channel in the image actually corresponds to a red emission line in reality. it has merit as regards identifying the emission spectrum of a particular element, but many people don't realise that the colours have been shifted around.

Silva360

magicbastarder wrote: »

... but i don't see the argument stacking up in regards to b&w; it is an 'honest' (word used advisedly) record of the intensity of the light captured on film, but without wavelength recorded. there's no 'distortion' of what's recorded.

I would say, in my experience, that the majority of B&W photographers enhance global and local contrast more than most? Does that remain honest? But I do appreciate that the 'getting it right' in camera should be the ultimate goal...

Silva360

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I take my scenes as I find them, or I don't.

That's very admirable. I suppose if I really want to capture something the way 'I' see it then I'll make some adjustments in a limited way. The lines between 'fine art' photography and 'true' photography blur in many places apart from the extremes.

CabanSail

magicbastarder wrote: »

my opinions would largely be formed by the fact that i find post-processing a drudgery, so i hate the 'fix it in post' mentality; i much prefer to get it right in camera, i find it much more rewarding.
having to fix something in post implies i didn't take as good a photo as i'd hoped.

Back before digital I used to shoot mainly transparencies and you really had to get it right in the camera. I used that same philosophy in the early days of digital too, when all that was affordable were very expensive point and shoot cameras and you just got a JPEG file. When moving to my first DSLR I soon found that way of shooting was no longer valid. I now accept that all my output is going to go through a workflow and the result is not what comes out of the camera, rather what appears after the processing. My aim now is to capture the best data set in camera to present to my workflow. "Getting it right in Camera" now has a different meaning. The emphasis is more on the composition, content, focus, depth of field and sharpness. As long as those are captured it does not matter what the image looks like on the back of the camera.

Streamlining the workflow means that Post Processing is fairly quick. A straight forward job will take less than a minute. If it's complex then it could take as much as 10 or 15 minutes.

Whammy!

I don't get this divide between different photography methods.
To clone or not to clone?
With so many different photography styles and so many different reasons and motivations to hit the shutter release, one must realise that there is no all encompassing answer.

I would imagine that most photographers who decide not to remove or add parts to the scene are choosing to truthfully keep intact the scene, along with it the actions and moments of the photo. They however may choose to alter other elements of the photo. Elements that don't deceive the viewer.
An example would be a man holding a gun. Regardless of the depth of field, the colour/black & white or even the focus point. It doesn't change the fact the man is holding a gun. Therefore it documents the scene/the actions. However depending on the photographers choice of settings he/she can artistically display the man with a gun in various ways.
Does it truthfully depict what colour his clothes are, or the actual lighting conditions? Not necessarily. But then again these elements are not important and may add or subtract from the image of the man and the gun. What is important is the man and his actions.
Documenting that element and not altering it keeps the photo true.

Of course some people's idea of what "true" is may differ and some may deem to not alter anything under the pretense of keeping the photo as accurate to life as possible. However having this stance is somewhat unrealistic as how we perceive reality is completely different to how a camera captures light. Because not only do you see things, but you see things with emotion running around in your head changing how you perceive what you see.
A camera does not.

There are plenty of other photographers that don't adhere to a documentary or "true" style of photography. They will clone and alter the photo in other ways.
Does this make their photos less real?
I think the more important question should be does it matter if it is "real"?
For photojournalism: Yes it matters. The viewer needs to know what they are looking at (regardless of how artistic it may be) is what happened in the moment.
For fashion photography: No it doesn't matter. The message being sent is completely different.

Does this make fashion photography any less of a valid form of photography compared to photojournalism? I'd imagine some may say yes. But to have such an attitude could lead to an elitist stance on photography, looking down on the other style for the methods used.

Let's not forget that altering photos dates back to the 1800's.
Painting of black and white photos from the mid 1800's was done to enhance the realistic nature of the photo.

magicbastarder

Whammy! wrote: »

There are plenty of other photographers that don't adhere to a documentary or "true" style of photography. They will clone and alter the photo in other ways.
Does this make their photos less real?
I think the more important question should be does it matter if it is "real"?

in a very trivial sense, the answer to the first question is 'of course'; everything someone processing a photo does which alters the image to look less like what was seen through the viewfinder serves to make the image less 'real'.
second, it's up to the photographer or viewer to decide that for themselves.

Whammy!

magicbastarder wrote: »

in a very trivial sense, the answer to the first question is 'of course'; everything someone processing a photo does which alters the image to look less like what was seen through the viewfinder serves to make the image less 'real'.

The issue with this statement is that the viewfinder DOES NOT show how the camera will capture the image unless you are using live-view mode.
A viewfinder can't show extreme shallow depth of field, f2 and faster.
It will not show the colors accurate to how the camera will capture it.
In dark conditions the viewfinder will not show the extra light that high ISOs will bring.
It will not show the effects of a long of fast shutter speed.
Therefore by your statement of staying true to the viewfinder the camera is altering the image that you see through the viewfinder. So from the very moment you press the shutter release the image that you saw through the viewfinder has been altered, thus less "real" by this standard.
And what about rangefinders? Where the viewfinder doesn't even look through the lens? The camera is capturing an image very different from the one through the viewfinder.

The answer you provided may be trivial, but it is also not logical.

magicbastarder

let's rephrase my statement to say 'anything that alters the image from what was captured' then; the 'what was seen through the viewfinder' was not the salient point, it was the alteration to the image to improve it in the eye of whomever was processing it.

re rangefinders, the comment about the viewfinder being 'very different' from the captured image does not stack up at all. if it did, a viewfinder would be obsolete as it would be useless. but again, that's an irrelevant detail in the argument.

the main issue is that there is an argument made that because the act of capturing an image, be it on film or on sensor, does not produce a 100% accurate representation of reality, that this has a bearing on cloning things in or out of the image. i don't see the logic behind this argument. if a camera slightly favours the red channel in a photo, this is not a basis on which to base an argument on the merits of cloning things in or out of an image.

i see merit in trying to take photos which i am happy with without having to process them any more than colour balance/exposure etc.
other people enjoy the process of processing; that's fair enough. the world is big enough for both points of view.

mikka631

Talk about cloning and plastic bags:eek:

http://www.slrlounge.com/how-photoshopping-disqualified-a-winning-entry-in-national-geographic-contest/

The enhancements were within the rules but removing items was clearly not allowed.

DaireQuinlan

mikka631 wrote: »

Talk about cloning and plastic bags:eek:

http://www.slrlounge.com/how-photoshopping-disqualified-a-winning-entry-in-national-geographic-contest/

The enhancements were within the rules but removing items was clearly not allowed.

Also
http://petapixel.com/2010/03/03/world-press-photo-disqualifies-winner/
and
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photographer-loses-10k-crown-claims-editing-not-major-11228

Though none of these cases are making a value judgement it's important to point out. All three were disqualified because they broke very clearly defined rules. Of the three the world press photo one was the most serious IMO, given that it's supposed to be press/editorial work.

magicbastarder

the case from the press photo awards is an interesting one; i can understand someone using something like delta 3200 when conditions dictate, but to take a photo which is a well exposed, digital colour photo with minimal grain and add golfball sized grain and horse the contrast up to make it look gritty would strike me as being fine in an artistic context, but a touch false in a journalistic context.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the case from the press photo awards is an interesting one; i can understand someone using something like delta 3200 when conditions dictate, but to take a photo which is a well exposed, digital colour photo with minimal grain and add golfball sized grain and horse the contrast up to make it look gritty would strike me as being fine in an artistic context, but a touch false in a journalistic context.

Yes I'd agree, though apparently the judging panel had no problem with it.

dnme

Wow, what have I started


In my opinion . . . . Every photograph is an interpretation of reality. Even our eye has a lens which interprets reality. That reality is derived form the reflection of light. What I see is different to a very good friend of mine who has impaired vision. So absolute reality does not even exist, it's far more abstract and relative when you stop to think about it.

Every photo ever taken is an interpretation. Variables include lens, angle, aperture, exposure, angle, digital or film, type of film. The lab where the film was processed, The technician who processed it. If digital jpeg, then the camera jpeg algorithm. If digital raw, then the person who processed the raw file. The pp software/version. List goes on and on. And when we finally get an image, and lets say we print it, it's still open to interpretation depending on where we hang it, the lighting in the room at time of observation etc

Personally, I like to control as many of these input variables as I can. So I shoot manual modes. I process my own files. I am very sympathetic to PP and I try getting it acceptable in camera as much as I can. But every raw file is flat as a pan cake. Its merely a recipe for an image. It needs a certain amount of processing.

So photo-realistic is not a term that I worry too much about. There's almost no such thing. Make it good, avoid the cliches, dont over do it.

As such, I have no problem cloning out minor distractions as long as I do not interfere with the story, the emotion, the appeal. In this case, the image has strong emotion, strong appeal and a strong story. The eye "makeup" however distracts and takes form it substantially . . . in my opinion.

magicbastarder

dnme wrote: »

What I see is different to a very good friend of mine who has impaired vision. So absolute reality does not even exist, it's far more abstract and relative when you stop to think about it.

I'm genuinely puzzled how you can go from 'because my sight is better than my friend's sight, I'm going to question the very nature of reality'.

The absolute reality is that the dog had gunk on its face. Debating whether to remove it is not calling that into question.

CabanSail

I think this thread started out with a specific example but was more about the general attitude to altering an image. I for one am enjoying the discussion and the various points raised. Sometimes it is valuable to examine our practices and motivation and to reflect on the opinions of others.

You are a very talented group of people and it's to be expected that attitudes will vary widely. Thanks for all who have contributed to this in a polite and respectful manner.

magicbastarder

it's discussions like these i find most interesting on these forums. nothing like having to justify your own opinions to make you examine them.

Silva360

In terms of the competition disqualification, I can certainly understand that. The rules in competitions with regard to processing are usually very clear. If you breach, tough! It's not like it's simply a case not reading the rules correctly because big comps usually have a few stages in their shortlist process and there are a lot of declarations to be made about the photograph at each stage. The fiascos in recent years with regard to Wildlife Photographer of the Year and Landscape Photographer of the Year should have thought people the lesson, but clearly there are always people who will try to cheat their way to a prize!

There are a few who have highlighted their preferences for 'true' photography, 'getting it right in camera', reflecting what was there etc....

I was just wondering what those people think of 'blending'. Say, for example, you have a beautiful scene with a dynamic range of about 20 stops, but the camera can only cope with around 10 stops. You don't want to underexpose or overexpose any part of the scene and filters won't cut it. So you take two or three photos from a tripod. All three photos are prescisely the same apart from the exposure of different parts (say land and sky). You then gently blend those photos together.

To me, this is an absolute true representation of the scene (ie, your eyes can see what the camera cannot cope with). Do you find that to be a reimagining of the scene, or over the top processing? Or would you be of the opinion that this type of processing is acceptable ?

amdgilmore

Silva360 wrote: »

There are a few who have highlighted their preferences for 'true' photography, 'getting it right in camera', reflecting what was there etc....

I was just wondering what those people think of 'blending'. Say, for example, you have a beautiful scene with a dynamic range of about 20 stops, but the camera can only cope with around 10 stops. You don't want to underexpose or overexpose any part of the scene and filters won't cut it. So you take two or three photos from a tripod. All three photos are prescisely the same apart from the exposure of different parts (say land and sky). You then gently blend those photos together.

To me, this is an absolute true representation of the scene (ie, your eyes can see what the camera cannot cope with). Do you find that to be a reimagining of the scene, or over the top processing? Or would you be of the opinion that this type of processing is acceptable ?

I'm not in either camp, but this argument is demonstrably false. Your eye sees the scene in much the same way as the camera sensor (albeit a bit more efficiently in some cases).

You can quite easily test this by staring at a bright object - your eye adjusts and the surrounding, darker area becomes difficult to see. This is just like your camera reacts to the same scene. If you're staring at a bright sunrise or sunset, again your eye adjusts depending on what part of the scene it's looking at. When staring at the darker part of the scene, the area around the sun seems brighter and less detailed, and vice versa.

A 'snapshot' of how your eye sees a contrasty scene at any given moment would not look dissimilar to a photo of the same scene. The brain creates an illusion of more detail being visible by 'filling in the blanks' from memory and averaging across multiple scenes.

It's up to you whether you want to similarly 'fill in the blanks' by blending multiple exposures, but it should not be mistaken for replicating the human eye. It's actually far more detailed than what the eye can deal with at any given moment.

magicbastarder

i've done similar myself to the above method, but not for a while - maybe i'm justifying a lack of patience by claiming it's a principle!

to echo what amdgilmore mentions above, one of the things HDR tries to replicate is that a photograph does not have the same dynamic range as your eyes when looking at a scene - but the photograph has to capture it in one go, say one fiftieth of a second, whereas if you're standing looking at a landscape, your eyes move around the scene, adjusting as they go.

to go back to processing the photo; i see some arguments which would seem to support a 'quantitative' approach to all processing - i.e. since the 'raw' (not just talking about digital here) photo itself is an interpretation, it's following the same continuum, but going a bit further along it, to get the cloning brush out.
i'd argue for the quantitative approach when discussing tonemapping, exposure, colour balance (as used in the fairly normal senses), etc., but it's a *qualitative* difference if you turn it into a photograph which simply could not have been captured in camera.

as mentioned, your mileage may vary, and my bias is very informed by what i myself gain the most pleasure or reward from. or possibly the converse applies.

Silva360

amdgilmore wrote: »

but this argument is demonstrably false.

I cannot agree with that. Your camera sensor simply cannot capture the dynamic range of your eyes in many situations. If you expose for the sky, in certain high dynamic range situations, your foreground will be underexposed and vice versa. This is why filters are used to balance photographs. Blending is another method. You could always try to lift shadows or recover highlights, but this often results in noise or other artefacts.

Magicbastarder: I should have made clear that I am not referring to HDR processing (in the form that HDR often means). To me this is, in all but the most subtle situations, horrible. I accept that the real world has shadows I take your point on the 'quantitive' approach....

Wabbit Ears

Having thought a bit more about this, the dog image would be a nice point and click or Cameraphone image but a photographer should hold themselves to a higher standard when they present any image to any audience. Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.


I suppose in my mind the difference really is you capture an image but present a picture.

dnme

I think for this argument to be played out fully, we need to see both photos. Eye makeup and Sans Eye makeup. Would that be possible ?

magicbastarder

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.

i'm struggling to get my head around this argument. i don't think it bears up even under the mildest scrutiny.
the 'major difference' is post processing? wow.

DaireQuinlan

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Post processing is part of photography imho and forms the major difference between photography and just taking pictures.

eh wot

So I'm just an over achieving point and clicker then, on par with people who *gasp* use cameraphones. Good to know :rolleyes:

Wabbit Ears

Its not an argument, its a point of view.