# REALISM VS POSTPROCESSING



## skieur (Jun 12, 2007)

There seem to be a few here that are under the illusion that photography should be documenting reality. So here is the question. The subject and everyone else want the arm taken out of the following photo but others would interpret it as a necessary part of the reality of the shot. You see, the arm is holding up and supporting his head. What is your view? Please explain.







skieur


----------



## Garbz (Jun 13, 2007)

You're asking the wrong question. It has nothing to do with what others are thinking, it's about what you want this picture to be. If you want to document the reality then leave it as is, if you want to make it look like he had his haircut on mars then crop him out of the frame and place him on a computer generated background.

It's your picture, your art, and ultimately your decision of how you want to portray it.

Also those who believe that pictures should not be processed and think photoshop is evil clearly have little understanding that photograph is an art, and people have been post processing since the art started. I even have a book here documenting how to use a pen to touchup a plate during development.


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Garbz said:


> You're asking the wrong question. It has nothing to do with what others are thinking, it's about what you want this picture to be. If you want to document the reality then leave it as is, if you want to make it look like he had his haircut on mars then crop him out of the frame and place him on a computer generated background.
> 
> It's your picture, your art, and ultimately your decision of how you want to portray it.
> 
> Also those who believe that pictures should not be processed and think photoshop is evil clearly have little understanding that photograph is an art, and people have been post processing since the art started. I even have a book here documenting how to use a pen to touchup a plate during development.


 
Very good point and I think you are also implying that if it was your photo you would take the arm out.

I certainly agree.

skieur


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

Simple answer: If this shot is meant to document the scene, then leave everything in there. 

If it is supposed to serve some other purpose (advertising, illustrating, ...), then do what serves this purpose.

If it is to become a piece of artwork, do whatever you want with it. (Just do not claim it still depicts the real scene then, but this is not what art is necessarily about anyway)


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> There seem to be a few here that are under the illusion that photography should be documenting reality.



This cannot be called an _illusion_, since the term _illusion _refers to perception of reality ... hence this should be called _opinion_.

Anyway, photography with the purpose of documenting something, is documentary, and as such should not tamper with reality and the scene depicted.

That does not mean, documentary photography cannot be art ... composition may still play an important role, and so will light, exposure and everything.

[BTW, to me documentary applies to wedding photography, travel photography, event photography, journalistic photography .. everything which serves the purpose of keeping memories or showing past reality to people who where not at the scene personally.]


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jun 13, 2007)

For what it is worth, I wouldn't have known that that was necessarily an arm or that it was holding/supporting the individuals head had you not told me. I think it is just blurred enough not to make it too clear that that is what it is. 

With that said, perhaps blurring the background just a bit more if they demand the arm be removed. This may satisfy them; however, I am guessing that there is a lot of emotion attached to the shot given what little you have said about the subject/subject matter.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 13, 2007)

I think that distinctions should be made - and finer ones even than just saying: photography shall either be art, and in being that is very free to any artistic approach, or a representation of a (past) reality with should possibly serve some historical purposes later, even if "historical" only means reactions such as "Oh, you still had THOSE sofas back then?" 

Its use is way too diversified to put itself into only either one or the other of two categories.

And the photographer as such is too much the personality who creates the image to have himself (herself, too!) pushed into the either/or-corner.

Some feel that photos should only represent a momentary slice of history. Which I think they should if DOCUMENTATION is the given assignment (as in photojournalism, for example). The photographers who work in the refinery where also my husband works must NEVER EVER change anything about their photos, since their photography (lots of it macro-photography of details of the plants) is to show EXACTLY the present state of a piece of refinery equipment. To become "artistic" on that would be criminal! (An example which is self-evident, isn't it?).

When you do portrait or wedding photography and work for clients, it may be their wish to get extra glamorous, extra soft, extra high-key, extra low-key, extra contrasty photos taken (produced) when "reality" was a normal day only, maybe made exceptional by the way the person dressed for the occasion (weddings are yet another very self-evident example for being kind of "extra" and going through a situation that is "special" and not the everyday reality). When out of artistic approach or upon request the photographer makes use of the filters he has in his case and softens the photo, or applies star-filters or whatever else there is, and set up lights and hair lights and one more here, arranges the bride's dress in a way I would never have fallen had she only just stopped and stayed, puts the person around her in a way they would never have been placed had he played "stop-action" with them, then he is already changing realities - in-camera this time. So wedding photography more often than not DOES change reality, produces something that goes BEYOND the exceptionality of the day as such. 

And there may be other occasions in people's lives where photography cannot or should not be the either/or-thing. An anniversary where the old person wants to look their very, very best, although at 80 they might no longer do in reality, or the fact that before any film team could ever come into my house I would need to do a MAJOR cleaning and tidying job -that, too, would take me beyond my everyday reality  (too much time spent on too lengthy commentaries on TPF, that is why!!!). 

So that said: if you do not want to show that this person (who I assume is in hospital and had been in hospital for quite long so he needed to get his hair cut in his hospital bed) is still so weak he cannot hold up his own head for long enough for his photo to be taken, but if you want to give both this person and the viewers the feeling that "he`s back here with us, he may still be in hospital but he will be back to being his old self" and the arm is disturbing, then take out the arm. 

I personally find it disturbing because it does not REALLY look like an arm but like something that I see and think "Huh? What is THAT?"

I shall stop rambling abruptly now ... this has become too long, anyway.

(But, Alex, my own wedding photos ALL and exclusively are "captured reality", not one extra glamorous among them, for the extra glamorous wedding photography seems to be much more widely practised in the States).


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

[Edit: removed my post not to stir further diskussions]


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 13, 2007)

Please, don't *YOU* add it!


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

I don't see that photography ever documents reality. The basic decisions that a photographer makes in technique and composition distort reality. By selecting and framing a small piece of reality one is changing the importance of the total picture. All lenses flatten or distort. All camera processors limit and adjust colour etc.

I photographed a death scene of a student for an inquest into an accident as a court photographer. I knew that through choice of lens and angle, I could have strongly influenced the case for or against the negligence of the school. (The size of a snowbank.)

Looking at the hospital shot, what is being "documented" is the haircut and the simple fact that he is in the hospital. (A quick shot by the way, since hospitals generally don't approve of cameras.) Everything else is unnecessary.

The objectives of weddings and portraits are often to both "glamourize" the event and flatter the subject or subjects. As to reality...it depends whether it coincides with these main objectives and that is as it should be.

Come to think of it, postprocessing is always necessary in digital photography anyway, to get closer to the real colour of the scene in the image.

Digital cameras are not good enough to document reality and neither are photographers.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> This cannot be called an _illusion_, since the term _illusion _refers to perception of reality ... hence this should be called _opinion_.


 
'illusion' means "false impression" according to the Britannica World Dictionary and goes beyond any strictly visual definition or perception.

skieur


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> 'illusion' means "false impression" according to the Britannica World Dictionary and goes beyond any strictly visual definition or perception.
> 
> skieur



ok, then excuse this babbling of mine, ... maybe I was too biased towards the "visual" meaning since this is a forum about photography where most things are about visual perception.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> Digital cameras are not good enough to document reality and neither are photographers.



in terms of colours that is true, but there it is also true for film! this is not a digital only problem. With digital the decision is done in the whitebalance and postprocessing, with film it is the choice of film and filters.

colour perception is highly subjective anyway, and does not correspond to purely wavelengths which can be measured technically.

but in terms of geometry, photography does document reality. if person A is standing in a particular spot, holding his hand upright, then he is standing there holding his hand up. and if there is a toothbrush on the table, it is there in the image and it was there on the table when the shot was made.

and if from a certain point of view with a certain angle of view i can see that nasty building, then i will see it in the image. that is reality ... but if i clone it out, then i leave the documentary path. or if i enhance the smile of the bride with photoshop, i leave the documentary path as well.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jun 13, 2007)

lol .. I love all these discussions.  Photography is a form of communications.  Just as abstract art communicates at a certain level  ... so to photography ... just as a fiction novel communicates at a certain level ... so does photography ... and journalism, et cetera.

For communication to happen ... some rules must be followed.  i.e. for poetry to be poetry you gotta follow poetry rules.  For photography to be of a certain nature ... then, again, certain rules must be followed.

The type of rules you follow or don't follow will dictate the type of communications you are/have attained.   

What gets confusing are image which are called or reflect a certain type of communications and these images do not follow all the rules for that type of communications.


----------



## Seefutlung (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> I don't see that photography ever documents reality. ...
> Digital cameras are not good enough to document reality and neither are photographers.
> 
> skieur


 
Then what form of communications is documentary?

Gary


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> ok, then excuse this babbling of mine, ... maybe I was too biased towards the "visual" meaning since this is a forum about photography where most things are about visual perception.


 
Yes, but don't try arguing definitions with someone who has one of their degrees in languages. 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> Then what form of communications is documentary?
> 
> Gary


 
Documentary is normally used with reference to film and video since these media when not edited are less selective and closer to reality than stills. Although I must admit to having changed reality through careful, invisible video editing.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> in terms of colours that is true, but there it is also true for film! this is not a digital only problem. With digital the decision is done in the whitebalance and postprocessing, with film it is the choice of film and filters..


 
No, not quite as true for film. Digital is 8 or 12 bit. Film is about 42bit. That represents considerable more colours and gradations and tones between shades. In digital it is really accomplished through selectively brightening certain areas, changing the hue, and the selective use of software filters. In film, it is the choice of film and filters as you indicated.



Alex_B said:


> colour perception is highly subjective anyway, and does not correspond to purely wavelengths which can be measured technically...


 
Well, just as a highly talented and experienced musician has a greater sensitivity to variations in sound and music because of a highly "trained ear" so too someone with either talent and/or considerable experience in photography is likely to have a better "eye" for visual and photographic elements than the average viewer. I might also add (to be a little provocative) that colour blindness in varying degrees hits more males than females, which perhaps has an influence on the interest in de-saturation or black and white from some quarters. 



Alex_B said:


> but in terms of geometry, photography does document reality. if person A is standing in a particular spot, holding his hand upright, then he is standing there holding his hand up. and if there is a toothbrush on the table, it is there in the image and it was there on the table when the shot was made....


 
You are obviously not familiar with postprocessing. It is not difficult at all to create these sample shots without either the person, the tootbrush or the table even being in the particular scene. I created a shot 15 years ago that not even professionals realized was NOT a photo and it had absolutely NO photo segments or elements in it whatsoever.



Alex_B said:


> and if from a certain point of view with a certain angle of view i can see that nasty building, then i will see it in the image. that is reality ... but if i clone it out, then i leave the documentary path. or if i enhance the smile of the bride with photoshop, i leave the documentary path as well.


 
You were never on the documentary path in the first place and there was no "need" to be either. Wedding photography is NOT photojournalism or documentation and NEVER has been.

skieur


----------



## Seefutlung (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> Documentary is normally used with reference to film and video since these media when not edited are less selective and closer to reality than stills. Although I must admit to having changed reality through careful, invisible video editing.
> 
> skieur



I am sorry but that is pure BS.  You are reaching to cover yourself.  Documentary is a spin off of journalism ... and journalistic imagery started with stills.  The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.

All forms of human communications reflect the source from which they are generated.  This does not make them false or not valid.  Documentary image recording people, (whether they be movie/video/still/written word), generally, are trained to tell the story objectively ... or as objectively as the circumstances permit.

Albeit, a wide angle image may reflect a different viewpoint than a telephoto image, but both document a scene truthfully.  This is why major market news organizations won't hire a photographer that doesn't have a degree in communications/journalism ... because documentary photography isn't about good photography ... it's about telling the story through imagery.  And telling the story is all about accuracy. 

Additionally, because all documentaries reflect, to some degree, the person who is generating the report ... it is always prudent to gather information from a number of sources when formulating an opinion on an important matter/subject. 

Gary


----------



## skieur (Jun 13, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> I am sorry but that is pure BS. You are reaching to cover yourself. Documentary is a spin off of journalism ... and journalistic imagery started with stills. The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.
> 
> All forms of human communications reflect the source from which they are generated. This does not make them false or not valid. Documentary image recording people, (whether they be movie/video/still/written word), generally, are trained to tell the story objectively ... or as objectively as the circumstances permit.
> 
> ...


 
A documentary as the term is currently used refers to film or video. When was the last time anyone heard someone on television refer to a still shot as a documentary?


----------



## Seefutlung (Jun 13, 2007)

skieur said:


> A documentary as the term is currently used refers to film or video. When was the last time anyone heard someone on television refer to a still shot as a documentary?



That is like going into an Italian restaurant and after not seeing any Swedish  food items on the menu declaring that restaurants no longer serve Swedish food.

Try a library or a bookstore ... you will see nearly every other book in the Historical section with a subtitle of "A Vietnam Documentary" or "A Documentary of English Colonialism" et al.  Still stretching ... 

You totally ignored the point that a movie/video has the equal amount of distortion opportunity as a still image.

Alas ... I haven't a need to beat a dead horse ... I believe our points have been made ... so we  should both move on and not bore others.

Gary


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 14, 2007)

skieur said:


> No, not quite as true for film. Digital is 8 or 12 bit. Film is about 42bit. That represents considerable more colours and gradations and tones between shades. In digital it is really accomplished through selectively brightening certain areas, changing the hue, and the selective use of software filters. In film, it is the choice of film and filters as you indicated.



I did *not *say that film had the same limited number of colours as digital. I said that the colour calibration problem is there in both worlds since we were talking about depicting reality.

As for dynamic range, slide film is very similar to sensors






> You are obviously not familiar with postprocessing. It is not difficult at all to create these sample shots without either the person, the tootbrush or the table even being in the particular scene. I created a shot 15 years ago that not even professionals realized was NOT a photo and it had absolutely NO photo segments or elements in it whatsoever.



I did *not *say it was impossible to do this manipulations. I said it was possible to be documentary and depict reality.

I myself already removed tourists from shots since I wanted to show an archeological site in that photo and not how tourists flood it. But I would never call this shot documentary or claim it depicts a real scene.

However, the unmanipulated originals *are *documentary.



> You were never on the documentary path in the first place and there was no "need" to be either. Wedding photography is NOT photojournalism or documentation and NEVER has been.



This might vary from country to country and from person to person. And what I consider documentary was my personal opinion.


----------



## deanimator (Jun 14, 2007)

Returning (ever so slightly) to the original question...should the arm be left in or taken out? And does this alter reality and meaning?

Well...I agree with LaFoto, and I think it looks silly as it is. "What´s that?" was my first reaction. The arm does not convey anything. I had to read the text to understand it was an arm and that it was supporting his head. He doesn´t look particularly weak to me either, so how should I know anything from this picture. It´s a guy in a hospital bed who has just had a haircut. I don´t see the story. Maybe if there were other pictures which all together told a story then maybe it has value and therefore a place. 

If I was the editor of a magazine and had commissioned a story about this man, guess what...? I would not look twice at this picture, and hope the photographer had better pictures. If not, he or she wouldn´t get another job with me.

Other view? Yeah...clone some fingers so that I can figure out there is a hand there and it´s doing something useful. JUST KIDDING


----------



## skieur (Jun 14, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> I did *not *say that film had the same limited number of colours as digital. I said that the colour calibration problem is there in both worlds since we were talking about depicting reality.
> 
> As for dynamic range, slide film is very similar to sensors.


 
No, but you implied that the colour problem was the same for film. Well, as I indicated there is quite a difference between the "colour problem" for film and the colour problem for digital.

Having used slide film for several decades, the dynamic range is still better than digital.



Alex_B said:


> I did *not *say it was impossible to do this manipulations. I said it was possible to be documentary and depict reality..


 
You certainly did, indirectly. You said that if he is standing there holding up his hand or that a tootbrush is on the table then that is reality. I pointed out accurately that what you see in the image may not be reality at all.



Alex_B said:


> I myself already removed tourists from shots since I wanted to show an archeological site in that photo and not how tourists flood it. But I would never call this shot documentary or claim it depicts a real scene.
> 
> However, the unmanipulated originals *are *documentary..


 
Oh! What do you mean by '"real scene"? To me the scene is the archeological site...pyramids or whatever. Nothing unreal about that.

How are the unmanipulated originals documentary? They are certainly not documenting reality. The camera itself manipulates originals according to menus and so does the processor even without the menus. Digital technology "represents" reality it certainly doesn't document it because accuracy is not present.



Alex_B said:


> This might vary from country to country and from person to person. And what I consider documentary was my personal opinion.


 
Photography "represents" reality in a very limited and distorted manner. It certainly does not document it because despite any rancour toward Photoshop, photography is never an accurate duplication of a scene.
The objective of photographers is through technique and composition to add something of their unique view to the scene and the image. It is not objective and never has been and it is certainly not the duplication or documentation of reality. That is not just my view. If you do the research you will find it is the view of the majority of professionals in this field.

skieur


----------



## ksmattfish (Jun 15, 2007)

Photography, even so called straight photography distorts reality in many ways.  But before Photoshop the masses believed that photographs told the absolute truth.  Many of the distortions are right in front of the viewers nose, but completely ignored or accepted as allowed distortions.

With the exception of Polaroids, my film cameras produce opaque strips of brown and gray plastic that are permanently destroyed when I try to view them using visible light.  Post processing is necessary with most photographic materials.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 15, 2007)

Garbz said:


> You're asking the wrong question. *It has nothing to do with what others are thinking, it's about what you want this picture to be. If you want to document the reality then leave it as is, if you want to make it look like he had his haircut on mars then crop him out of the frame and place him on a computer generated background.*
> 
> It's your picture, your art, and ultimately your decision of how you want to portray it.
> 
> Also those who believe that pictures should not be processed and think photoshop is evil clearly have little understanding that photograph is an art, and people have been post processing since the art started. I even have a book here documenting how to use a pen to touchup a plate during development.


Ditto on what he said - and  I wouldn't remove the arm.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 15, 2007)

skieur said:


> No, but you implied that the colour problem was the same for film. Well, as I indicated there is quite a difference between the "colour problem" for film and the colour problem for digital.
> 
> Having used slide film for several decades, the dynamic range is still better than digital.
> 
> ...



Hmm, I have not been understood at all 

I give up.

Maybe it is my English.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 15, 2007)

Seefutlung said:


> The same methodology you stated which distorts still photography into a non-documentary form also applies to movie and video ... the movie/video camera can record wide or tight ... from low to high angle ... et cetera.


:thumbup:


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jun 15, 2007)

in a nutshell, there are truths in the world. There are facts, how we apply these facts to our views or visa versa is how we see the world through our eyes. some things may seem more true to some people based on expirience, but there are absolute truths. 

 Its all in the perspective. 

Thats how we relate to each other, thats why we have and NEED friends and families. Thats how we discuss things, all rooted in our perspective. 

This directly relates to how we do everything, Art, Feelings, Work, thinking, etc.... We may percieve things one way, our job is to make a case for that way through our work if we choose to. If we feel the juice is worth the squeeze. 

But truth is truth, no way around that.


----------

