# Does anyone do "as shot" photos any more?



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 19, 2018)

I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?

It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot.

I am not talking about the age old exposer, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture and image closer what the eye sees. But rather the creation of an image, based on a real object, but only existing in the camera pixels, never to be seen in real life.

There is absolutely no doubt that these photos were fine pieces of art that the maker can be justly proud of. But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'


----------



## Derrel (Dec 19, 2018)

The answer to both your questions is, "Yes."


----------



## limr (Dec 19, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 19, 2018)

All the time.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Dec 19, 2018)

Absolutely!


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 19, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?



That depends on your definition of what the eye sees. An artist paints on canvas what the eye sees, but it's far removed from an exact replica.  It would be a dull read if the author of a biography only strives to portray in exacting detail the life of someone, without his/her addition of insight into the person.  When I was carving it was all about what my eye saw, not reality. Is the photographer somehow bound by some age old code to only render something in excruciatingly exacting detail? Man has always struggled to portray the real side of what the eye sees, and not the humdrum boredom of reality.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 19, 2018)

Yup, I'm too lazy to put that much effort into PP.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 19, 2018)

Capturing a moment in time is special.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 19, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?
> 
> It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot.
> 
> ...



I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" photo?

Thirty years ago I used to shoot color transparency film and that was pretty much the photo as it was shot.

Thirty years ago I used to also shoot negative film and I never took my negatives and framed them. So what was "as they were shot" when I used negative film? I took the negative film into the darkroom and made a print. You say you're "not talking about the age old exposure, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture an image closer what the eye sees."  I always used those darkroom methods to get an image that was better than what the eye sees. Nobody told me I was supposed to be trying to get closer to what the eye sees -- I must have missed that lecture.

Were the slides "as shot" but the prints from negatives weren't? And how do I get an "as they were shot" photo from a digital camera?

Joe


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 19, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?
> ...


Back when, even my negative film shots were pretty much out of the camera.  Since I sent them out for developing and printing, the lab gave me back prints that were pretty much printed by a machine.  The only thing that changed was the format.  35mm (3"2) had to be cropped to print 4x6", 5x7" or whatever.  But that was left up to the processor.

Of course my chromes were put in slide holders for projection with no changes at all.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 20, 2018)

It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorisms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees.

As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.

I am sure that almost any photograph I have taken could be "improved" and I do enjoy the ease at which my digital exposure can be corrected. I will also admit I find endless diddling with a photo to be a bit tedious. Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is. It appears many still do.

I nice thing about photography is it is a big big tent, full of all sort of ideas.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 20, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is. It appears many still do.



While it's true most digital cameras today have different shooting modes, you have the option of turning off the extras, and there's usually a mode that allows rendering a non altered image, but you're missing an important part. The camera is a machine it has no soul, or sense of awareness it completes a mechanical function. What the camera "sees" and what the photographer's eye "sees" can be entirely different.

Back in the 60's I shot both slides and film. Other then changing film there was little you could do to alter the final image from what was recorded when the shutter clicked. For me it was mostly the same with color film as I sent it out, but with B&W, my darkroom was like the computer of today. It was where the magic happened. I see digital and post processing of today as an expansion of my darkroom of old. 

To limit the image to only the mechanical reproduction of, to me is like putting a patch over one eye of the photographer. You only see part of the image. That's not to say you shouldn't strive for the best possible SOOC image, because computers can only do so much. Like the old saying "Garbage in, garbage out".


----------



## snowbear (Dec 20, 2018)

Another thing to consider . . . it may well be that some photographers wanted to do these kind of things but the difficulty and time involved for doing them in the darkroom were prohibitive.  I never merged shots together for a panorama in a darkroom but I suspect it would have been a challenge.

Like publishing a book or even writing a program, the personal computer age has made it easier to a lot of things.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 20, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorisms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees.
> 
> As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.
> 
> I am sure that almost any photograph I have taken could be "improved" and I do enjoy the ease at which my digital exposure can be corrected. I will also admit I find endless diddling with a photo to be a bit tedious. Still, the magazine spread made me wonder if todays photography had become the domain of the "Photoshop wizard", or if folks still enjoyed catching the moment as is.



You're setting up a false dichotomy. I reject it. You've placed "Photoshop wizard" on one side of "*or*" and catching the moment as is on the other side. You may see it as a choice between exclusive options that you have to make; you may even see it as a choice that you're happy you've fabricated, but I don't buy it. I'm not stuck looking at an "*or*" I have an "*and*."

My "and" allows me to do things that depart in the extreme from "what the eye sees" -- like this:




 

or even like this:



 

"and" still enjoy catching the moment as is.

Joe



Grandpa Ron said:


> It appears many still do.
> 
> I nice thing about photography is it is a big big tent, full of all sort of ideas.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 20, 2018)

A camera lens is not a human eye, therefore, a photo is never going to what the eye saw.  In addition to what Joe ( @Ysarex  ) has said above I will add this:  Often, significant manipulation is required to render an even somewhat accurate representation of what the eye saw, Vis:  I have covered several Christmas parades for the local paper in the last few weeks.  These all occurred well after sunset, my "as shot" files were a series of [nearly] blown highilights and deep [blocked or almost blocked] shadows.  In order to produce an image that even came close to what the eye saw, with its many more stops of dynamic range, I had to do a lot of highlight & shadow work (and yes, I know that doesn't meet AP/UPI photojournalism standards, but it's a Christmas parade in a town of 24,000   )


----------



## markjwyatt (Dec 20, 2018)

I think there is a consideration for how much manipulation and what type of manipulation. When people start replacing elements or adding elements, then in my mind at least , this can lead to issues. For instance someone shoots a scene on a sunny day with no clouds. They go into PS and add dramatic storm clouds. But the lighting in the scene is not consistent with dramatic storm clouds. An artist may want to do this specifically to add tension or inconsistency to a picture (and some people may not explicitly or consciously pick up on the inconsistency, but possibly subconsciously something may not feel right), but often it is done just to add drama or excitement to the scene. I am not going to judge whether manipulations of this degree are "right" or "wrong", but personally, I may think less of a work if it were done.


----------



## markjwyatt (Dec 20, 2018)

tirediron said:


> A camera lens is not a human eye, therefore, a photo is never going to what the eye saw.  In addition to what Joe ( @Ysarex  ) has said above I will add this:  Often, significant manipulation is required to render an even somewhat accurate representation of what the eye saw, Vis: I have covered several Christmas parades for the local paper ...



Agreed here. The intent of the manipulation in this case is to restore the balance (in this case make the latitude more like what the eye saw), plus you probably did not add a beautiful girl to a float that was not there (did you  ?), nor likley did you double the size of the float and add a flying saucer hovering above it.

The issue (if there is one) is not about manipulaiton, as there often is some, but the degree and type(s) of manipulation. I would say the intent matters also, but from a strictly objective sense intent may not matter.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 20, 2018)

markjwyatt said:


> ... add a flying saucer hovering above it..


Busted!


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 20, 2018)

My beagle was abducted.

Joe


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 20, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" photo?
> 
> Joe


Simple you make the decisions on WB, sharpening ... before taking the shot, and shoot JPG.
With digital cameras many of those aspects are the equivalent of selecting which film to use.

The fact you can change so many options when post processing RAW files doesn't mean you have to.
I generally do very little processing, tweaking contrast & brightness in global fashion, cloning out the worst dust spots & resizing if for the web.  IR shots often have color changed as well but I rarely do that for visible shots.
My results aren't quite SSOC ('straight out of camera' = 'as shot') but are pretty close. 

I've always preferred the results the camera gets in JPG to what I can mange from the RAW.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Dec 20, 2018)

I edit all of my pictures for the basics like exposure, contrast, etc. 

And then any photo I plan to use on my website or social media, or share with a client, I take the extra step in Photoshop to remove distracting elements, smooth skin, etc. 

With nature/wildlife I don't do _as _much, but I still do selective sharpening, dodging and burning to make things "pop" and will remove elements if they are distracting, like a twig blocking my view of the mountain. 

I have no qualms about editing a photo to make a more appealing piece of art. The only issue I have is when people edit their photos and claim to not edit them, acting as if their sooc shots are that good. That, and when things are edited with an intentionally harmful agenda.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Dec 20, 2018)

DGMPhotography said:


> With nature/wildlife I don't do _as _much, but I still do selective sharpening, dodging and burning to make things "pop" and will remove elements if they are distracting, like a twig blocking my view of the mountain.



Oh come now! Who doesn't appreciate a nice twig photo? It's that annoying big bird in the background that I should have PS'ed out!


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 20, 2018)

petrochemist said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" photo?
> ...



NOTE: Petrochemist, I'm responding in this post of yours but I'm responding more for the benefit of the OP, thanks.

When I used to shoot film I had maybe two dozen different color slide films to chose from and I did of course have some filters I could use that effected the result but that's orders of magnitude different than now.

I put "as they were shot" in quotes because I was quoting the OP. In response the OP also said, "_It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorithms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees._" The OP is making the connection between "as they were shot" and "what the eye sees" and also seems to be suggesting the SOOC camera JPEG as a vehicle.

Here's my problem with that: *How do I know which one is "as shot" "what the eye sees"?* My camera is capable of approx. 1.9 million different setting combinations that will all produce different SOOC JPEG output. And that's just my camera. What happens if we add in Nikon, Canon and (OMG!) Sony?

Yeah 1.9 million is crazy and arguably the differences are very subtle so we can assume in fact there's less real variation than that number suggests. Still the output differences can be quite substantial. I took a raw file of a normal sunny day scene and put it back in my camera. My camera (like many modern cameras) can re-process a raw file to any JPEG setting combination. Here's just three of them:



 
Purple sky



 
Cyan sky



 
Toxic green sky that's about eradicate life on earth.

*"What the eye saw"* when I took the photo was a blue sky. You may want to bring up WB and in the above I did just set AWB but from spending time with my camera I'm pretty sure it's Velvia film simulation can't record a blue sky without turning it purple and I'm fully convinced the CC simulation is only capable of simulations of a future apocalypse.

I exclusively shoot and process raw files and I admit I often take considerable liberty with the processing to get the image I want. I'll remove items from the scene if they're a distraction and with a heavy hand manipulate the tone and color of the image beyond what was possible years ago in the darkroom.

And yet with that said I can't imagine I've ever mangled an image so severely as the EXR processor in my camera did to that third image above. When there's a blue sky in my photo at least I render it as blue -- you know, "what the eye saw." So that leaves me still asking my original question from back in post #9: I use a digital camera now. How do I get an "as they were shot" (meaning "what the eye sees") photo?

Joe 



petrochemist said:


> The fact you can change so many options when post processing RAW files doesn't mean you have to.
> I generally do very little processing, tweaking contrast & brightness in global fashion, cloning out the worst dust spots & resizing if for the web.  IR shots often have color changed as well but I rarely do that for visible shots.
> My results aren't quite SSOC ('straight out of camera' = 'as shot') but are pretty close.
> 
> I've always preferred the results the camera gets in JPG to what I can mange from the RAW.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 20, 2018)

Ok folks you are reading far to deep a meaning into my simple question. 

As already pointed out, just as an artist can take brush to canvas and move the location of a tree for a better rendering of the scene. Photographers can now cut and paste with relative ease. From the artistic stand point this is a good thing, we can eliminate the clutter and enhance the subject. Still, in our effort to improved on an image have we, like the painter, have we created an entirely new an non-existent scene?

None of this is new. It used to be called "trick photography". Is increasing the amount of Aurora in the sky or deepening the blue color of an iceberg not the same as adding a dog's head to a man playing poker? Both create a photo not likely to be encountered in real life.

The simple fact is digital technology has created a quantum leap in the definition of photography. It puts incredible editing and creative power at our disposal.  Marvelous technology to say the least. But are we compelled to embellish our photos.

This is what lead to my simple question, "Does anyone do "as shot" photos any more?"  Warts and all as they used to say.


----------



## limr (Dec 20, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Ok folks you are reading far to deep a meaning into my simple question.
> 
> As already pointed out, just as an artist can take brush to canvas and move the location of a tree for a better rendering of the scene. Photographers can now cut and paste with relative ease. From the artistic stand point this is a good thing, we can eliminate the clutter and enhance the subject. Still, in our effort to improved on an image have we, like the painter, have we created an entirely new an non-existent scene?
> 
> ...



I agree - folks are reading far too much into the question.

And I repeat my answer: yes. There are still people who use their camera, rather than the editing software, as their main tool.

Of course, I can only speak for myself as to why. Sometimes what catches my eye is something purely visual, graphical. For those pictures, if I don't get it 'right' with exposure and composition, I might edit the parts that need to be highlighted or reduced in order to recreate the visual impact of the scene that I noticed and shot.

However, very often, what I am after is more about a mood, a moment. If I don't capture that essence with camera and film (yes, I mean film), then I am not likely to be able to recreate that mood by significantly altering the image during the editing process. It will always ring false to me, and it would also take much more time in front of the computer than I am willing to put in. As for warts? Depends on the wart. Sometimes an unintended element that would normally be a flaw in the photo ends up highlighting the mood or moment that I am trying to capture. In those cases, I will absolutely leave in the streak or light flare.

For me, the feeling of an image is more important than flawless, highly-manipulated visuals.

Some may agree with me in terms of valuing the feeling of the image as paramount, but believes that the manipulation is necessary to convey the feeling they want. And that's fine. I really have no problem with that. It's just not how I work.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 20, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> This is what lead to my simple question, "Does anyone do "as shot" photos any more?"  Warts and all as they used to say.



OK, simple then: I use a digital camera and I still need you to tell me what "as shot" means. Does it mean the SOOC JPEG image that comes from the camera? If so then no -- never. I'm too concerned that my photos depict "what the eye  saw" and so the camera JPEGs are unacceptable. They're just too far removed from reality for me.

Joe


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 20, 2018)

To me "as shot" means the object, scene or location you captured in a photo would be recognized by anyone viewing the same scene with you.

True they might crop it differently or perhaps tweak the exposure, but if they stood by that waterfall, or canyon or tree or flower etc. they would recognize it from the photo.

Jpeg, Raw or Film, the camera can never see what the mind sees but it can capture what you are looking at; and often that is pretty good photo.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 21, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> To me "as shot" means the object, scene or location you captured in a photo would be recognized by anyone viewing the same scene with you.



That would describe 100% of my photos over the past 40 years. All of which, since I switched to using a digital camera, are typically pretty heavily processed since I'm a "Photoshop wizard" and expect my photos to look like "what the eye saw."

Maybe an example could help. Let's start with the JPEG that came from my camera:





Retired now I spend a lot of time walking around the neighborhood. This is me walking to the grocery. The grocery is right behind that distant bldg sticking out from behind the long bldg covered with graffiti. I live right behind the trees on the other side of the tracks opposite that bldg. To get to the grocery I have to cross the bridge over the tracks. I took this photo from the bridge. I see this scene a lot and I like it so I snapped a photo. I carry a camera with me every where I go and because it's a digital camera and I know how to use it I photograph whatever I want -- like this scene.

That photo really sucks doesn't it. It's SOOC. The reason it's all green is because I keep the camera WB set to unity. It's a little trick that's handy if your camera has a live histogram and my G7 compact does. Setting the WB to unity forces the live histogram to better reflect what a raw file will capture and that's all I care about. Here's the photo with the WB set to auto:





It still really sucks. It sucks because of the lighting. The sky is nuked to hell and that's because the scene is backlit. Now you can take any camera you want (digital or film) and use any combination of settings on that camera you can possibly conceive of and you will at very best be able to get that photo from sucks to still sucks. So there you have it -- warts and all as you say it's "as shot" and nothing at all like what the eye saw at the time. That's not what I saw. Our eyes have no trouble handling that dynamic range but film does and all digital camera JPEG processors do. If I reduced the exposure to darken the sky the foreground will get too dark. I can do that with a copy of DPP (Canon raw processor). If you check the EXIF data for the camera you'll see I set a +1 exposure comp to take the photo. Here's the photo with that 1 stop removed:





It still sucks. The foreground is too dark now and the sky looks flat and still blown. Very simply if you want to "as shot" this photo in the way that most people will understand that term then you're going to have to be happy with sucks because that's the best that film or any digital camera JPEG processor is going to give you in that lighting condition.

BUT you could resort to some manipulation. Let's say it's 35 years ago and you're a Zone System photographer. Well then an N-2 neg and proper darkroom technique could pull it off. But any attempt to photograph that lighting with transparency film will just major suck -- money in the waste basket.

So if you walk with me to the grocery some afternoon and see this scene crossing over the tracks it's going to be backlit and if you have a film camera or digital camera that can save a SOOC JPEG you can take a sucky photo warts and all.

I prefer that my photos don't suck and that they look believable when people see them -- what the eye saw. And as I said above I carry a camera with me all the time and I photograph whatever I want regardless of the lighting condition. I can do that because I'm not restricted by some camera's sucky JPEG processing or 5 stop DR slide film. There is no JPEG processor in any digital camera that can SOOC produce the photo you see below -- they can only do sucks.

Joe



 

Oh yeah and notice that the sky is blue -- because, the sky is blue.



Grandpa Ron said:


> True they might crop it differently or perhaps tweak the exposure, but if they stood by that waterfall, or canyon or tree or flower etc. they would recognize it from the photo.
> 
> Jpeg, Raw or Film, the camera can never see what the mind sees but it can capture what you are looking at; and often that is pretty good photo.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 21, 2018)

I can't help  but find it slightly amusing that most people assume that an SOOC digital image is without processing. The truth is every camera manufacture applies some propietory "enhancing" to the image during the conversion to present their version of what the camera saw.

@Ysarex I can't wait to try your WB trick out! I've been playing with gelled flash and WB settings in camera to cancel out ambient light color.  Finding a whole new world to explore.


----------



## limr (Dec 21, 2018)

For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever.  He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 21, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> It is true that with digital some cameras use different jpg algorisms for Landscape, Portrait, Macro etc. to enhance colors or smooth skin texture but the camera still basically taking a picture of what the eye sees.
> 
> As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.
> 
> ...



You may be assuming that there is a mode where the camera takes and shows and exports the image exactly as your eyes see it.  We know that with a RAW image, we have to process it.  With a jpg there is no such thing as straight from the camera.  If you attach no profile, it doesn't mean that the creation of the jpg by the camera is exactly as the eyes see it.  I don't think I would want that version.  it would be like giving a person that enjoys driving a car that drives itself.

As far as moving elements within a scene, I would agree with you - for me (and other people's mileage may vary) moving elements within a scene isn't photography.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 21, 2018)

limr said:


> For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever.  He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.



OK, so yes it would seem from first reading the opening post the comment involves constructed and composited photos. But then I'm reacting to the way the question is presented I guess. How about an analogy:

I'm in the waiting room and pick up a fashion magazine. Looking through it I see things like this:
http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2012-04-07/images/10.jpg
https://www.modelmanagement.com/blog/library/uploads/oddfashionblog2.jpg
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/70/67/41/14907515/3/920x920.jpg
and this:
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/730195/84521578.jpg

And I ask the question, "Wow! Does anyone wear normal clothes anymore?" That's kind of an off response to seeing those images.

Joe


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 21, 2018)

limr said:


> For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever.  He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.



Sorry but when an OP phrases a question in a certain way, why are posters at fault when they take that question at face value?  Surely posters should be clearer about their intention with their title in the first place.  Having a go at posters because the OP could be clearer is a tad unfair.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 21, 2018)

I do enjoy constructing images from composite components too, but when I do it's obvious that I'm not presenting photographic reality. Here's a recent favorite of mine.

Joe


----------



## limr (Dec 21, 2018)

thereyougo! said:


> Sorry but when an OP phrases a question in a certain way, why are posters at fault when they take that question at face value?  Surely posters should be clearer about their intention with their title in the first place.  Having a go at posters because the OP could be clearer is a tad unfair.



Tell me which part was unclear, or where he said that he is talking about unprocessed SOOC shots.



Grandpa Ron said:


> I am not talking about the age old exposer, contrast, color balance and filtering methods that have been around since the days of black and white film to capture and image closer what the eye sees. But rather the creation of an image, based on a real object, but only existing in the camera pixels, never to be seen in real life.





Grandpa Ron said:


> As I mentioned while reading the details of the magazine photos, I am thinking ISO, Shutter speed, and Aperture, while they are describing highly artistic image manipulation resulting in some very nice pictures. A good picture made better perhaps.





Grandpa Ron said:


> Ok folks you are reading far to deep a meaning into my simple question.
> 
> As already pointed out, just as an artist can take brush to canvas and move the location of a tree for a better rendering of the scene. Photographers can now cut and paste with relative ease. From the artistic stand point this is a good thing, we can eliminate the clutter and enhance the subject. Still, in our effort to improved on an image have we, like the painter, have we created an entirely new an non-existent scene?





Grandpa Ron said:


> To me "as shot" means the object, scene or location you captured in a photo would be recognized by anyone viewing the same scene with you.
> 
> True they might crop it differently or perhaps tweak the exposure, but if they stood by that waterfall, or canyon or tree or flower etc. they would recognize it from the photo.



No, I'm not having a go at anyone, but I am also seeing a conversation that is devolving into the "SOOC vs processed" dead horse when that wasn't even the original question. Just interested in keeping things on topic.


----------



## limr (Dec 21, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > For pete's sake, the OP has said repeatedly that he is NOT talking about images with no processing whatsoever.  He is talking about manipulating the actual scene - changing the placement of objects, adding elements like shadows that weren't there in the first place, altering the size and proportions of objects to each other.
> ...



Fair enough


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 21, 2018)

As I said, photography is a big tent full of marvelous ideas and techniques. Fortunately we live at a time where technology allows us manipulate those ideas. As Ysarex has shown you can do a lot to "improve" a photo to your liking without changing the scene.

His final photo is perfect, there is little argument there. But personally, I would have added a bit of contrast to his second photo and called it a day. I spend a lot of time out of doors and I see a lot of great scenes, but I very very rarely see perfect.

It is not a right or wrong issue, it is simply marching to a different drum. I would be a dull world if we all had the same like and dislikes.


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 21, 2018)

thereyougo! said:


> With a jpg there is no such thing as straight from the camera.


Nonsense. It's not straight from the sensor but if all the processing is done in camera, it's straight from the camera!
Most of the time this would be using the settings when the shot was taken, but even if one of the camera's digital filters is selected afterwards it still SOOC. This won't be as the eye see's it but photography practically never is.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 21, 2018)

petrochemist said:


> . This won't be as the eye see's it but photograph



So  to clarify your answer to the OP's question " "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?" Is no as it isn't possible?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 21, 2018)

Again a bit of overthinking the question.

How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 21, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Again a bit of overthinking the question.
> 
> How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."



The vast majority of people take snapshots of course. But this is a photography dedicated forum. It doesn't take any obsessing for me to get a photo the way I want it. I've had forty years of doing this full-time to become pretty fluent at it.

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Dec 21, 2018)

This highly loaded question begs for overthinking.



Grandpa Ron said:


> How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."



Why isn't adjusting location, camera settings, and framing the shot being called obsessive? You forgot scouting the location, waiting for the right weather or light, maybe some test shots, too. That's not obsessive, but bringing up the shadows or removing a power line in post is?

For me, it is all obsessive at times. Other times not so much. But, it is all great fun!


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 21, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Again a bit of overthinking the question.
> 
> How many folks adjust their location, camera settings and frame their shot, then the take a picture and enjoy what the fruits of their labor vs. how many feel they have to obsess over manipulating the photo until it is "just right."



In your original post you say "It made me wonder if anyone posts picture as they were shot", then you further clarified the question to "But it made me wonder, "Is there any interest in photos that depict what the eye sees?'".  Now you seem to be leaning away from the original question posed to somehow suggest that editing post is "obsessive". If I've misread that then please accept my apology. 

Joe brings up a valid point that your "post is in a photography forum", how can it help but stir up strong opinions because there are strong feelings either way? To suggest that those dedicated to producing the very best image that can come from a bucket of data, or a strip of film by post editing are obsessive is somewhat like me saying that those "purist" who believe they can only show what came out of the camera are obsessive (the pot calling the kettle black?).  I think most everyone on here, is only desirous of increasing their skill in the manner/method they feel will make them most productive and fulfill their expectations. As a result there will be some strong feelings either way on editing or SOOC, that's only natural.  If a photographic rendering in it's purest form is your aim, then you'd be better served going back to a completely manual film camera. I've viewed some fabulous work over the years by those who produce a beautiful images in it's simplest form with only a pinhole camera. I don't condemn their decision to work that way, to the contrary I applaud them, and the skills they've mastered to be able to do it.  Likewise I've seen some mind blowing digital artists who can create an image from nothing more then bits and pieces, something that doesn't exist in the real world. I applaud them and their skill set as well.

Back up the line in this thread I suggested that the answer to your OP was "That depends on your definition of what the eye sees". As noted from the variety of comments herein, the definition remains elusive, because it means different things to different people at different points in their life, We are constantly evolving in our tastes, our skill set, and advancements in technology. Look at cell phones - some of the most popular ones on the market are those which feature the ability to modify, and enhance the image beyond the actual scene. I personally say enjoy what you do, keep an open mind to new ideas, strive to improve, enjoy the beauty created by others, and don't fret the process.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 22, 2018)

I think Zulu42 pretty much presented the case. Is obsessing before the shot any different than obsessing after the shot.

Obsessing before the shot you can adjust the view to enhance your subject, perhaps even add a filter or select a film to enhance certain colors or contrast. On some digital cameras, you can even do a some of the post processing changes. So yes, in that respect Pre and post processing is about the same.

However your camera cannot remove the trigs and brush, widen or reposition the cloud cover, clean up the dirt smug on and iceberg, or as I saw in a tutorial, change the color of an athlete's lipstick to enhance her facial features as; she is returning the serve.

That is what I mean when I say "as shot" or what your cameras "sees".  I like those pesky distraction because they seem more natural to me. They look like the woods look when I am running my dog. Others I am sure, dislike those distractions and choose to remove them.

If I made a living with photography, I would do whatever the market demands at the time to sell my photos. It is a business not a hobby and staying in tune with what sells is a prime concern.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 22, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> I think Zulu42 pretty much presented the case. Is obsessing before the shot any different than obsessing after the shot.
> 
> Obsessing before the shot you can adjust the view to enhance your subject, perhaps even add a filter or select a film to enhance certain colors or contrast. On some digital cameras, you can even do a some of the post processing changes. So yes, in that respect Pre and post processing is about the same.
> 
> ...



So this has to beg the question: What you don't know doesn't matter, right? In other words if you can't tell..... Say I show you three photos:



 



 



 

And I don't tell you anything about them and you can't see that they're not just SOOC images other than cropped. Does it matter if you later find out they are all pretty radically altered from the physical reality that the camera saw?

Joe


----------



## pez (Dec 23, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished reading a Photography magazine I picked up at the airport. Gorgeous photos of landscapes, people, flowers etc. Yet, as I read the discussions of the photo I found the Aurora was enhanced to appear larger, the mountain was moved to balance the scene, the shadow effect was added to make the flower petal close ups "pop"?
> ...



Exactly right!


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 23, 2018)

Yserex, yup you sort of nailed it, what does not show, does not count in todays photography. When you see the perfect photo, you have to ask if the person was extremely luck or were they compelled to improve on what nature gave them?

Which is why I asked my original question, "Does anyone do "as shot" photos anymore"

There is nothing wrong with trying to show the photo the way you think it ought to be and modern technology makes that easier.  However, when it begins to look like a model train set or museum diorama I begin to get suspicious.

My personal preference is to frame the shot as best I can and shoot it. I have no issue with weeds growing where weeds grow, cloud forming where they form or bird landing where they land.  I like it when the object appears front a center, that is a definite plus but appearing within its natural elements is not necessarily a minus. Unless the elements obscure the object.

Gosh, after four pages of response to a simple question, we can assume folks are not hesitant to express their photographic preferences.  

May your photos be many.


----------



## RickyMidnight (Dec 23, 2018)

some of mine are


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Dec 23, 2018)

I think it depends whether the photographer wishes to add their own ideas or simply to document the scene. Should the image be poetic or prosaic?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Yserex, yup you sort of nailed it, what does not show, does not count in todays photography. When you see the perfect photo, you have to ask if the person was extremely luck or were they compelled to improve on what nature gave them?
> 
> Which is why I asked my original question, "Does anyone do "as shot" photos anymore"
> 
> ...



Your suspicion leaves me suspicious. You say there's nothing wrong with trying to show the photo the way you think it ought to be but you follow that with a "However" and get suspicious. People mostly use the word suspicious when they think something is amiss. Earlier in the thread you said; "From the artistic stand point this is a good thing, we can eliminate the clutter and enhance the subject." But again you immediately follow with a qualification; "Still, in our effort to improved on an image have we, like the painter, have we created an entirely new an non-existent scene?" You leave the question unanswered but say it used to be called "trick photography."

Your second sentence above fleshes out more your suspicion. "When you see the perfect photo, you have to ask if the person was extremely lucky or were they compelled to improve on what nature gave them." I'm putting it together and reading it all as when you see a photo that's too good you suspect trick photography and regardless of your protestations otherwise you don't approve. That perfect photo you note in the 2nd sentence above required "extreme luck" -- yeah right -- probably trick photography.

There's nothing in the three photos I posted above that should raise your suspicion. They're not that good are they? Does it bother you to know that they're all to a degree manufactured? I think it does. If you had encountered them in a different setting and later discovered that they weren't entirely "real" you'd disapprove of being tricked. I suspect you're expressing some disapproval of "trick photography."

The Issaquena is a pretty boat. I encountered her on the Mississippi. She was headed down river and I was headed up. I snapped the photo when I was off her port bow. In the photo above you see that it's taken off her starboard bow. The photo composition just works better if the boat is moving left to right in the frame. Of course you can still read Issaquena on the side of the boat.

The old shed door just didn't have the same feel with a newer bright metal clasp and shinny Master padlock attached. I removed them and while I was at it some of that euonymous growing up side of the shed. Oh, and I also flipped the image left/right as it works better with the light fixture on the right side.

The tree in the park -- I saw musical notes in the foreground leaves that are in focus. But I had to move them around to get the tune I wanted. That actually took some work.

Joe


----------



## limr (Dec 23, 2018)

So here's a question: where is the line between acceptable modifications and too much?

This line is different for everyone, of course, and it seems that many people in this thread are essentially saying the same thing, but it's just that their lines may be in different places.

For me, when the image has been changed to the point that it is completely unrecognizable to the original scene that was first photographed, that image is now in the realm of graphic art rather than "pure" photography." It's a hard line to define - similar to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography - but the line exists for me. Do I care if other people engage in that level of editing and alteration? Not one iota. Will I modify my own work to that extent? No chance.

*shrug* To each their own.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2018)

limr said:


> So here's a question: where is the line between acceptable modifications and too much?
> 
> This line is different for everyone, of course, and it seems that many people in this thread are essentially saying the same thing, but it's just that their lines may be in different places.
> 
> ...



To draw that line we probably have to start with a definition of "pure photography." "Pure" is one of those superlative words; doesn't leave much room to wiggle. How about an image created using a lens for starters? Does the image have to be exclusively created by a lens? The fun can start right there. I've never done anything so extreme to an image with Photoshop as what a wedding photographer can do with a matte box and filters in front of a lens.

Joe


----------



## pez (Dec 24, 2018)

Lines? We don't need no stinkin' lines!


----------



## limr (Dec 24, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So here's a question: where is the line between acceptable modifications and too much?
> ...



Which is why I put the word in quotation marks. 

Yes, drawing lines involves definitions. However, I don't believe that for fuctional purposes, there is any urgency in delving so deeply into definitions. If I see an image that feels "too much" to me, do I really need to back it up with a precise definition of what a photograph is? I have no official capacity as a judge or curator of photography. I'm just someone who likes to snap some pictures. I am evaluating images for my own personal reasons - to decide if I want it on my wall, to decide if an image would influence my own work, or simply to decide if I like it or not.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 24, 2018)

I just thought of travel magazines and sales brochures of cruise lines and airlines and countries.  The photography is done well but not overblown.  They present scenes as a vacationer might see it, more natural and believable.  I've always allowed those photos to "take me away" even as a kid.  Exactly what travel photos are suppose to do in my opinion even though many consider them just "postcard" photos.  I don;t know what travel magazines and brochures do today.  

Any travel photography pros in the audience that sells their work who can comment on this?


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 24, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> To draw that line we probably have to start with a definition of "pure photography." "Pure" is one of those superlative words; doesn't leave much room to wiggle.



Five pages in this thread and it's coming back to the same thing I said on page one, "That depends on your definition of what the eye sees". Hmmm.


----------



## johngpt (Dec 25, 2018)

I recall when shooting landscapes with colour transparency film and colour negative film, we needed to use filters on the front of the lens for the film to reduce the inherent "coldness" of how the films would interpret the colour of a scene. I seem to recall using a Skylight 1B filter for this.
My dad was an advertising artist. He utilized photographers to shoot products for the catalogues he was creating. Those photographers used precise colour temperature lights and associated films for that light. We "civilians" would load our cameras with the appropriate colour temperature film for the appropriate location we were shooting within. We would use indoor or outdoor film. Remember when we'd have the wrong film in camera?
I also recall when shooting black and white film, using red or orange or yellow filters when shooting landscapes as those would subtly enhance contrast between sky and cloud.

Now I shoot digitally and primarily in raw so that fewer editing decisions are made by the camera and more by me. The image files have more information with which to work. The raw image looks rather bland and nothing like what I saw in the scene. Even in raw the camera makes guesses as to colour temperature.

Just like shooting in the days of transparency and film, when choices were needing to be made regarding colour temperature of the light and film, those same choices need to be made today in the digital realm. Now those choices are made in post processing.

I'm not speaking of compositing elements into images or cloning out offending elements. I am speaking of basic choices.
As one poster had shown with examples, contemporary cameras may have a blue sky with excessive green or magenta, even in a raw file. I find I need to correct colour on quite a few images, attempting to find something in that photo I know to be neutral. Often as with colour transparency and film the digital image shot outdoors tends to create a cooler image.

There may never have been a time when a photographic image that "as shot" depicted what the eye sees. Cartier-Bresson as an example spoke of what the photographer chose "not" to include in frame as being perhaps more important to the final image than what was chosen to be "in" frame. It is enlightening to read his opinions about photography. It's also interesting to read the opinions of Dorothea Lange or Joel Meyerowitz.

Grandpa Ron, thank you for creating this thread. It has been fascinating reading the opinions of our TPF members as we attempt to respond to your question. Your original question may have been so broad in scope that we all have responded to different aspects of that.

There is probably no real "answer," but the value is that we have all had to think about what your question means to each of us. And if that helps inform our photography from here forward, that too is important.


----------



## freixas (Dec 25, 2018)

Do people still take photos with the intent of not manipulating them? All photos are manipulated, as people have pointed out.

Ok, do people still take photos with the intent of not moving pixels around (or removing pixels)? Well, if we allow for cropping, then I'm sure some do. Photojournalists in particular have some specific limits on what they can do to a photograph. If they violate these limits, people can justifiably get upset. 

For everyone else, some people are interested in "documenting" a scene, some are interested in photos that mimic the emotional reaction one had when viewing the original scene and some are just into having fun or creating a specific kind of artwork. There's nothing right or wrong about any of these approaches. Do whatever makes you happy.

The original question may have just been an out-of-curiosity question, but I'm not surprised that people feel there is an implied desire to validate a specific position. There are no totally unmanipulated images; the choice of how much you allow is an arbitrary choice (unless there are editorial constraints, of course). 

The problem is that, maybe not for the OP but definitely for others, people do draw their manipulation line and then declare that their line is the right one and all others are wrong. Just recently, I heard a photographer declare that a background removal tool  was "atrocious and totally against their aesthetic beliefs." Such a position seems absolutely ridiculous to me given that it's a totally artificial boundary.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 25, 2018)

johngpt said:


> I recall when shooting landscapes with colour transparency film and colour negative film, we needed to use filters on the front of the lens for the film to reduce the inherent "coldness" of how the films would interpret the colour of a scene. I seem to recall using a Skylight 1B filter for this.
> My dad was an advertising artist. He utilized photographers to shoot products for the catalogues he was creating. Those photographers used precise colour temperature lights and associated films for that light. We "civilians" would load our cameras with the appropriate colour temperature film for the appropriate location we were shooting within. We would use indoor or outdoor film. Remember when we'd have the wrong film in camera?
> I also recall when shooting black and white film, using red or orange or yellow filters when shooting landscapes as those would subtly enhance contrast between sky and cloud.
> 
> Now I shoot digitally and primarily in raw so that fewer editing decisions are made by the camera and more by me. The image files have more information with which to work. The raw image looks rather bland and nothing like what I saw in the scene. Even in raw the camera makes guesses as to colour temperature.



No color temp/WB information is incorporated in the raw data. The camera always creates it's JPEG even if you save raw only and a copy of that JPEG is literally embedded in the raw file for reference and to allow previewing the image. The WB data the camera used to create the JPEG is stored along with it but it has no effect on the raw data in any way. Neither does the raw data appear bland at first viewing. Your raw processing software is responsible for how the raw file first appears and the image you first see when you open a raw file is already heavily processed and no longer looks anything like the raw data.



johngpt said:


> Just like shooting in the days of transparency and film, when choices were needing to be made regarding colour temperature of the light and film, those same choices need to be made today in the digital realm. Now those choices are made in post processing.
> 
> I'm not speaking of compositing elements into images or cloning out offending elements. I am speaking of basic choices.
> As one poster had shown with examples, contemporary cameras may have a blue sky with excessive green or magenta, even in a raw file. I find I need to correct colour on quite a few images, attempting to find something in that photo I know to be neutral. Often as with colour transparency and film the digital image shot outdoors tends to create a cooler image.



That's typically the camera's auto WB algorithm doing that. Films had, as you noted, WB manufactured in when we loaded them in our cameras. We have a similar option with a digital camera and can disengage auto WB and set a fixed WB such as daylight or shade or fluorescent. But most people just leave the cameras set to auto WB and since the camera can't actually measure the color temp it makes an "educated guess" which is often pretty bad and often cooler. It's easy to just turn that off and either use one of the presets or set a custom WB in the field. None of which has any effect on raw data but is only an option to assist in getting a better camera JPEG.

Joe



johngpt said:


> There may never have been a time when a photographic image that "as shot" depicted what the eye sees. Cartier-Bresson as an example spoke of what the photographer chose "not" to include in frame as being perhaps more important to the final image than what was chosen to be "in" frame. It is enlightening to read his opinions about photography. It's also interesting to read the opinions of Dorothea Lange or Joel Meyerowitz.
> 
> Grandpa Ron, thank you for creating this thread. It has been fascinating reading the opinions of our TPF members as we attempt to respond to your question. Your original question may have been so broad in scope that we all have responded to different aspects of that.
> 
> There is probably no real "answer," but the value is that we have all had to think about what your question means to each of us. And if that helps inform our photography from here forward, that too is important.


----------



## bosuzoku27 (Dec 25, 2018)

Everything I capture is "as shot" for various reasons:

- no skills/software on my part to change the images captured
- no time in my life to learn those skills (too busy with work and fun for that!!!)
- I want my photos to reflect true images from my life, not something that was altered/prettied


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 26, 2018)

When I see a great photo I like to think "Boy would I have liked to have seen that" or "The next time I am out west I am going to hunt down that spot. In short, I like to think that I could see that image for myself.

What I do not like to think is, "What a great shot, it is too bad the scene only exists in pixtals of some memory card.

How do you know which is which? Quite often you do not. Yet something tells you, that you have shot dozens of scenes like that and they were never quite that perfect. Maybe the photographer was having a super luck day.

In the photography magazines it is a lot easier. Many times the pictures displayed are accompanied by the photographer's comments, which  go to great length instructing others on how to "tidy up" the photo using this or that post processing program. 

My point was driven home this Christmas when I received an Ansel Adams calendar. My son in law saw the cover shot and said he was their last summer. Sorting through several dozen photos on his smart phone he shows me the same scene. Sure the clouds and snow cover were deferent but nobody had added a tree line or removed an errant mountaintop to clean up or balance the scene. He pretty much saw what Ansel saw some 60 plus years before.

I suspect that most folks do not give two hoots about how much post processing goes into the final picture and why anyone would care about my opinion on the subject is beyond me. I certainly have no significant impact on the photographic world or how it evolves with changing technology. I am just curious how many folk prefer to print their photos as shot.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 26, 2018)

So what if you add a mountain or two?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 26, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> When I see a great photo I like to think "Boy would I have liked to have seen that" or "The next time I am out west I am going to hunt down that spot. In short, I like to think that I could see that image for myself.
> 
> What I do not like to think is, "What a great shot, it is too bad the scene only exists in pixtals of some memory card.
> 
> ...



Wow. That's fascinating. Ansel was one of the heavier manipulators of his era. I mean there was a running joke about his stuck filter period when he couldn't get the deep red filter off his lens. You take my photo back a page or two of the yellow tree leaves in the park and even though I moved those leaves around some I would think that photo is much more faithful to reality than to what Adams often produced. I mean when's the last time you saw the sky turn black in the middle of the day? https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/u-g-F5KV590.jpg?w=550&h=550&p=0

Joe



Grandpa Ron said:


> I suspect that most folks do not give two hoots about how much post processing goes into the final picture and why anyone would care about my opinion on the subject is beyond me. I certainly have no significant impact on the photographic world or how it evolves with changing technology. I am just curious how many folk prefer to print their photos as shot.


----------



## limr (Dec 26, 2018)

I think the point was not that Adams altered contrast or use filters, etc, but that he did not move the major elements of the image to the point that you could not recognize the view if you were standing in front of it in the same spot where he originally shot it. It's not like El Capitan is suddenly 1,000 yards in a different direction.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 27, 2018)

limr said:


> I think the point was not that Adams altered contrast or use filters, etc, but that he did not move the major elements of the image to the point that you could not recognize the view if you were standing in front of it in the same spot where he originally shot it. It's not like El Capitan is suddenly 1,000 yards in a different direction.



Seems to me that moving El Capitan a 1,000 yards one way or another would be a much less extreme intervention than picking it up and transporting it to another planet in the galaxy where the sky is black in the middle of the day because that sure doesn't happen here on earth. Adams is a really poor choice for the guy who photographs it as shot. Funny too, if I moved El Capitan a 1,000 yards you'd probably never notice but how can anyone miss a black sky in the afternoon.

Joe


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 27, 2018)

Interesting discussion...

But I think it is a far more interesting question if we ask, "why do we expect photography to be an exact representation of reality?"

This goes right back to the roots of photographic history. When Roger Fenton shot the two plates of "The Valley of the Shadow of Death" there still continues today an argument regarding their authenticity of representing reality. But what reality? With wet plates having to be prepared  before and developed immediately after exposure in a horse drawn mobile darkroom there were limitations as to what and where you could shoot on the Crimean Battlefield. The first image, (and the one in Newhall's "History of Photography" because it's deemed more *authentic*), shows the cannonballs lying across the small valley after the battle. The second shot shows the same scene after the soldiers had run across the ridge and thrown the cannonballs towards the road running along the bottom of the valley so they were easier to collect for re-use, (the valley offers shelter from rifle fire) and the time between the two shots consistent with the time to develop the first plate and prepare the second.

Arguments about *staging* the shot and therefore it not representing reality still exist today, but whose reality? The arguments stem from the fact that there are two shots to compare and so we see that cannonballs have been moved. It also stems from our assumptions of what we *think* the scene represents when viewing the second shot rather than knowledge of what it actually does. It's us who read the shocking realities of war in the second image and make assumptions of what the battle was like, us who made the assumption that the cannonballs lay where they fell after the battle. And us who then decipher and make assumptions when we compare the two shots. To what purpose do we question? For one of the most shocking anti-war images of it's time what is the outcome of us dismissing it's authenticity? If you think of it the second is more revealing in the quantity and that they were collected at the risk of death so they could be fired again and so re-create the same rain of death...

This theme continues with Emerson's "The Old Order and the New". Emerson shot *his* romantic idyl of happy peasants who are content with their simple life close to nature. He didn't shoot the reality of being poor, having to live in small ramshackle tenancies working very long hours for little pay or the problems and misery that it creates. He shot the version that people preferred to believe and hang on their wall, the one that absolved the wealthy landowners from guilt, an honest and enviable existence that should be preserved? This is very much the same as the view Jackson and Curtis presented of the Native Americans when they published their photographic surveys of the tribes. A false and romantic idyl of a people in tune with nature, proud and detached, mystical and enlightened. It's a falsity that still exists today, our view of what we believe, or wish to believe their existence was and not one of reality and how it actually is.






Above is a family image of Sandra's Grandfather who lied about his age to join WW1 as a piper. It is typical of the portraits up to this time in that it is entirely staged. It's a family heirloom that lives in a draw and has become quite faded so I copied and restored it.

So where does this expectation that photographs should represent reality come from, the nature of photography or the nature of us the viewer?

To take a trip further into the realms of the abstract I have a recent image of the Callanish Standing Stones on my wall. Being B&W it doesn't represent the colour, they have moved more than 1000 yds as they are now hanging on my wall. a wall that supports their weigh as it is only paper thin and they are only now 10" high. It represents a view that though you can approximate doesn't correspond to the exact perspective and you would have problems duplicating the exact perspective if you were to try. It shows a light that remains constant whether viewed on a sunny day or at midnight under the picture lighting.





If you were to visit the stones where the light was different and less *atmospheric* would you be disappointed in the stones or the image upon which you based your assumptions, which wouldn't measure up to your expectations? It raises the question of whether this argument is about understanding what photography is or trying to define it into what we think it should be; an absolute, understandable and representational reality. For it to be the latter then photographs would have to contain within them an accurate representation without imagination. We would have to view them dispassionately without making an assumption of their meaning or allow them to resonate through the way they remind us of our own experience and memory.

I think the OP has a point though, just that the old argument of the absolute authenticity of photography has never been a sound one. Modern digital has, across all media, tended more towards *WOW*, the instant attention grab and with each incarnation the reality is pushed further into fantasy to achieve the same visual effect, more saturated colour, more contrast, more detail, more abstraction from reality. It is a shallow view of the world and one that gets not so much removed from reality but our ability to connect to it through our experience and memory. As the world of images delves further into fantasy so it has less of a connection with how we see and experience real life, our human understanding, and so has less relevance and less meaning to us once we get past the initial visual *WOW* factor.

Everything has it's place, and we should explore the limits of visual believability, but we are in danger of creating a virtual world that has little relevance to our memories and experiences. Landscapes become more *look at me* shots whereas Ansel Adams always said *look at the landscape*.

Sorry for the essay...


----------



## paigew (Dec 27, 2018)

I very rarely manipulate an image.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 27, 2018)

So what difference does it make if you add a mountain or two?

From the photographic perspective, none. In fact it may improve the overall balance of the photo. Brush and canvas artists do it all the time, adding and changing the color of objects. 

From the photographer's perspective you have gone beyond the standard practices of  digital cropping, filtering, burning and dodging, which by itself can be overdone; and abandoned the photo. The photo now becomes the base upon which you build your artistic endeavor. 

To the brush and canvas artist, it is like their rough pencil sketch prior to painting. At that point, it make little difference what you do, the actual scene in the photograph becomes secondary to the artist's vision. Whether you use it as a backdrop for for forest critters playing jump rope, the underwater world of Atlantis or an improved Ansel Adams print, the scene can only be visited by eye, not in person.

Many photographer enjoy this newfound digital freedom. It certainly is promoted by the photo mags.  Obviously my preference is to stay closer to the original, sometimes going back for yet another angle. In short, I would rather wait for the perfect sunset, snow storm or cloud cover than create it on a monitor screen.

Contrary to some folks opinion, I do not feel this approach is, better than, truer than, more natural than, etc. any other; it is simply the way I like to do photography. Apparently, so do a few others.


----------



## markjwyatt (Dec 27, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> ... How about an image created using a lens for starters? Does the image have to be exclusively created by a lens?...
> 
> Joe



Excluding pinhole cameras?


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 28, 2018)

Markj

Interest question. As a pinholeholic myself, a lens, is a lens, is a lens. Even a fisheye or soft focus lens captures what it sees. The lens does not add or subtract from what it sees.

What is interesting is before the use of glass lenses, a pinhole lens was commonly use with the camera obscura to project a scene onto a piece of drawing paper so the artist could sketch the image. That image was then used a base for the artists painting.

So it seems my original question has very deep roots, did the artist embellish the scene projected by the camera obscura or was he or she so taken with the scene, they tried to do an exact replica.

If I may go off topic, my best pinhole effort (attached) with a 35 mm format was with an f 190 pinhole. It is a bend in the Tippecanoe River. I am going to try a 4x5 cut film image when I restore my old view camera.


----------



## markjwyatt (Dec 29, 2018)

Grandpa Ron- the reason I brought this up is because a pinhole camera is often thought of not having a lens (it has an aperture but no refracting, concentrating or dispersing elements). This may be a matter of definition.

As to your OP I just watched a lecture by John Szarkowsi on Ansel Adams, referring to Adam's thoughts on photography, he made the comment that you could see a scene, look away for a moment, and when you look again it is a different scene (the light shifts, clouds move, water flows birds fly by, etc.). This does not contradict the idea of catching a moment (or moments), but certainly underscores the fleetingness of a moment. A given scene can contain many scenes occurring on different time scales, such as the scene below. It contains the time scale of milliseconds (before the girl's feet hit the ground again (the girl running from the potentially falling sphere) to the 1-2 hour Segway tour, to the span of life of a disabled person cared for by a loved one to a century plus construction of the Sagadra Familia in the background (not to mention geological timescales present...).




Scene by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 29, 2018)

Mark, you are correct the street scene will change in mere minutes or even seconds.

So my question still remains, would you "Photoshop" the scene to remove the ball, the running girl, the crane in the back ground etc? Some might even add in a statue from an adjacent park. Or, would you use the photo "as shot."

I can think of several reasons for doing both.

However, I am not compelled to change it to the way, I want it to look. I am more inclined to use the photo the way it was taken.


----------



## markjwyatt (Dec 29, 2018)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Mark, you are correct the street scene will change in mere minutes or even seconds.
> 
> So my question still remains, would you "Photoshop" the scene to remove the ball, the running girl, the crane in the back ground etc? Some might even add in a statue from an adjacent park. Or, would you use the photo "as shot."
> 
> ...




I agree. I prefer to keep it as I shot it, but do not object to some manipulations to make it look as I saw it (contrast, dodging/burning, etc.). I do not add elements, but could see removing an element in special cases (though I generally do not).


----------



## n614cd (Dec 30, 2018)

This debate reminds me of the discussion of how many Angel's can dance on the head of a pin?

This premise and basis is so very subjective,  that even after a hundred years of photography we do not adequate definitions to even begin the discussion. 



Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## mickmoonie (Dec 30, 2018)

What I see through the viewfinder is what I take, it's real life!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 31, 2018)

Once again, it is really not a debate, It is more of a thought process about showing what you want to show. I like showing what I see, others see a frame work for additional artistic endeavor.

Cropping, exposer adjustments, dodging and burning are the standard old school corrections to photos. Creating a new scene from a negative could be done with double exposures, negative splicing and penciling in areas of the negative, etc. These use to required a considerable darkroom time commitment. Digital has greatly simplified that putting the once difficult within easy reach.   

With the advent of technology making photo manipulation so easy, even I am capable of playing with it. But for me it is a toy not a tool. Others find it a Godsend. Hence, I was just curious how many folk preferred to use the photo as shot.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Dec 31, 2018)

When I first got into photography beyond drug store color prints and slides, I used black and white and did my own enlarging.  My first pictures were enlarger cropped, which as far as I looked at it was "tinkered with".

Just lately I have posted pictures "here" that have only been resized, and quite a few of them I have been happy with.  Others that I have posted to illustrate issues, and sometimes those are less than wonderful pictures.  But the ones I actually like that are coming straight out of camera, I think are the result that I am getting used to what the various equipment is doing, so the pictures are turning out more the way I expect them to and wanted them to.  So at least for now, I am back to being satisfied with at least some of the out of camera JPEGs.  But then again, I will still keep RAW files when I can.


----------

