# The beauty of a photograph- raw or edited?



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

Hello guys

The beauty of a photograph could be a very subjective topic especially if the shot was edited or unedited, hence, I just want to know your opinion regarding this topic. 


I for one like the rawness of a photograph. Without edit, the simplicity and reality shows the real picture. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against edited photos. That's just my opinion. What's yours?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 14, 2012)

Every photograph is "edited" in some sense. The question is where you stop, not whether you do it or not.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2012)

If you shoot in raw it HAS to be processed at the very least. Processing is subjective. 
If you shoot in jpeg the camera edits-and you can somewhat control that also. 
If you shoot film it must be developed, the way that it is developed has a major impact upon how you see the image. It's also subjective to the developer.

So, would you like to start over? Because there is no such thing.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 14, 2012)

I think what they mean is- make a pinhole camera out of shoebox.  Load it up with a small piece of film paper in the dark room.  Bring it out, take a picture and develop- now that is some rawness.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 14, 2012)

You still have to develop it, and thus are taking control of its outcome.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 14, 2012)

Yup, every photo is editied in some way, whether it is by your camera or by a human.  Maybe you mean you like photo's that aren't enhanced?  That could be a whole different story..


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> I think what they mean is- make a pinhole camera out of shoebox.  Load it up with a small piece of film paper in the dark room.  Bring it out, take a picture and _*develop*_- now that is some rawness.



Nope. Not really. You have to DEVELOP and that controls the outcome.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 14, 2012)

Beginners often have such high regard for raw "untouched" images. As they progress, they know better.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

You have _no idea_ how much your raw processor mucks with your image. Think about white balance - it has to start from somewhere.


----------



## Zazen (Nov 14, 2012)

I do my best to keep it to a very minimal photoshop. I like to see things as close to raw form as I can.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 14, 2012)

Raw form is not even technically an image yet.  Do your pictures come out looking like data files?


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2012)

Zazen said:


> I do my best to keep it to a very minimal photoshop. I like to see things as close to raw form as I can.


I am also not an "edit-er." I only raw process and apply a curve and sharpen. I rarely get into the creative editing and adding or removing anything. That I much prefer, although I find I do really like a WELL done HDR image and I can't stand the poorly done or cartoon looking ones. Not my style, but I definitely appreciate them.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Zazen said:


> I like to see things as close to raw form as I can.



I don't think you do, otherwise they'd look something like this:




This is what an image looks like without any white balance or gamma correction. All you're doing is agreeing with the engineers about how the image should be rendered - and that's fine. But to think it's "more true", you're absolutely incorrect.


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 14, 2012)

YaY!, another mentally challenged thread about unedited images....I'm off to see Santa to give him my list!


----------



## Overread (Nov 14, 2012)

Unpopular has already shown that RAW processors need to apply some form of correction to the image, if at least to set the white balance for the photo. Indeed once you leave that aspect there is the fact that different RAW processors will process and display the same RAW image differently from each other (even within the same processor family new versions can render very differently to older versions). 

As a result even a processed RAW photo can look different when only the white balance is set when you use different software approaches. An interesting point to also consider is when it is best to edit in your workflow. Many workflows aim to use the RAW processing stage to set most of the values to get the photo looking "good" and then maybe tweak things a little more in Photoshop. However there are some processing approaches which can benefit from using minimal to no default values in the RAW processor, save to set the white balance - to then bring it all into photoshop itself and then adjust based upon that data. 

(1 of 17) Photoshop CS3 Workflow for Photographers - YouTube

Another thought to consider is that if you order a "print" of a film negative from a printing or processing lab then the negative itself is edited, generally by the default values and methods set by the lab itself (with better quality labs having more options). This is similar to if you set your camera to JPEG mode or if you process RAW photos using the default suggested values in editing. It's not "bad" and indeed can be very advantageous to use this method (many sports and news photographers shoot in JPEG mode so that they have print ready files right out of the camera to be fast sent to the papers for print and publishing), however it means that the final rendition isn't necessarily using the captured photo in the best possible way for the photographers end use. 



Trever1t said:


> YaY!, another mentally challenged thread about unedited images....I'm off to see Santa to give him my list!



Get used to the repeat questions - thanks to reproduction there will be an endless number of beginners asking the same questions over and over for eternity (well least until the site/internet dies). If you don't want to meaningfully contribute just move along and find another thread to post in.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> YaY!, another mentally challenged thread about unedited images....I'm off to see Santa to give him my list!



Can I send mine with you?????


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Overread said:


> As a result even a processed RAW photo can look different when only the white balance is set when you use different software approaches.



Here is a godo example of this. Below are two renderings of the same raw file. The first is processed with Photoline's built in and rather lousy RAW processor, the other is processed using RPP. As you can see, processing in this case made an huge difference in resolution and sharpness. Furthermore, straight out of the processor, the shadows are also rendered differently. One would think that if the data a processor is fed is the same, the results will always be the same. But in reality, this is far from the truth.






Noise is rendered even more dramatically different.


----------



## Overread (Nov 14, 2012)

On theory I have for the differences in the differences of view (as Unpopular is showing) is that 0 isn't really the same 0 on different RAw processors. 0 contrast on one program might be at a different point to 0 contrast on another. As a result even when a user sets the numbers to the same values, the actual view adjusts. 

It should be noted that, with adjusting the values, most RAW processors will give the same resulting image - differences between them after editing are often so marginal as to be impossible to notice. Furthermore it should be noted that most of the differences tend to be only present on very specific types of photo (the nature of which are such that you can't "shoot" this type of photo with intent in any situation). 

As a result most users are pretty free to choose whatever RAW processing software suits your needs.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> If you shoot in raw it HAS to be processed at the very least. Processing is subjective.
> If you shoot in jpeg the camera edits-and you can somewhat control that also.
> If you shoot film it must be developed, the way that it is developed has a major impact upon how you see the image. It's also subjective to the developer.
> 
> So, would you like to start over? Because there is no such thing.



Quoted for emphasis.

But I _assume_ OP means "heavily edited", though that's sort of a slippery slope.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Overread said:


> On theory I have for the differences in the differences of view (as Unpopular is showing) is that 0 isn't really the same 0 on different RAw processors. 0 contrast on one program might be at a different point to 0 contrast on another. As a result even when a user sets the numbers to the same values, the actual view adjusts.
> 
> It should be noted that, with adjusting the values, most RAW processors will give the same resulting image - differences between them after editing are often so marginal as to be impossible to notice. Furthermore it should be noted that most of the differences tend to be only present on very specific types of photo (the nature of which are such that you can't "shoot" this type of photo with intent in any situation).
> 
> As a result most users are pretty free to choose whatever RAW processing software suits your needs.



Yes and no. The other problem is that of masking and interpolation. I will never be able to get the resolution from RPP in PL, because it uses very precise math to accomplish this (at the expense of real-time feedback). Because color and tonality is intrinsic RGB values, and that is determined by how the mask is re-assembled, variation will exist from one algorithm to another.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2012)

It seems our hipster OP has abandoned us. They always do... Sad. No fun around here anymore!


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 14, 2012)

Perhaps my comment was flippant but a simple search here or anywhere would pony up all the same information....


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> variation will exist from one algorithm to another.



But what I don't understand is why noise is rendered so dramatically different from one processor to another. Again, the first is PL's mushy mess, the second is RPP, tight, peppery and almost (dare I say it) rodinal-esque:







(be sure to click for full size and accurate color)


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Every photograph is "edited" in some sense. The question is where you stop, not whether you do it or not.



Agreed. I'm sorry for my wrong terminology. Perhaps stopping to edit at an early photo developmental stage I would consider it to be raw in this thread. Thank you so much.


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> If you shoot in raw it HAS to be processed at the very least. Processing is subjective.
> If you shoot in jpeg the camera edits-and you can somewhat control that also.
> If you shoot film it must be developed, the way that it is developed has a major impact upon how you see the image. It's also subjective to the developer.
> 
> So, would you like to start over? Because there is no such thing.




Yes you are very correct. I'm sorry for my wrong terminology.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 14, 2012)

In the end, I only care about the process that led to the image from a photographic knowledge standpoint.  ie I care because I am a photographer and like to learn about the process so that I can improve as a photographer.

HOWEVER, I don't think the process that led to an image should be taken into account at all when evaluating the strength of a visual image.  If you don't like a certain 'look' sure, that's fine, but you shouldn't not like it because of how it got there, but only because you don't like the look on its own aesthetic merits.  

The image is the thing, not the process.


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> Yup, every photo is editied in some way, whether it is by your camera or by a human.  Maybe you mean you like photo's that aren't enhanced?  That could be a whole different story..



Yes, enhanced would be the most appropriate term instead. So let me rephrase- I for one like the rawness of a photograph by not enhancing it too much- the simplicity and reality shows the real picture.


Thank you so much, I stand corrected. ​


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Beginners often have such high regard for raw "untouched" images. As they progress, they know better.




Well noted


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 14, 2012)

some of the most heavily edited photographs you will ever see can look extremely natural.  In fact, a lot of the most natural looking photos you see in fact must be edited heavily, because our eyes work differently than cameras do.  

Light HDR for instance makes an image look more realistic, not less, because the HVPS (human visual processing system) uses something sort of like HDR to construct our visual images through our saccades.


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > As a result even a processed RAW photo can look different when only the white balance is set when you use different software approaches.
> ...




Yes, there is a huge difference between the two considering that it was processed under photoline and RPP. New lesson learned, thank you very much.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 14, 2012)

Aren't the RAW algorithms and data from various manufacturers kind of kept under lock and key?

So the software manufacturers have to reverse engineer the ability to read and process such data?

I have to wonder if, for example, Canon's or Nokon's proprietary RAW processors give the most authentic view of RAW files coming from their respective cameras. I'm not even sure how you would test that since every processor yields a different image lol


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

No. You can interpolate the data using any algorithm that will get the job done. In RPP I can select from three different algorithms  and apply the same algorithm to a Sony file, a Nikon file or a Canon file. The data is processed through the same algorithm regardless who made the camera. What is proprietary is the file format, where and how the data is stored ... but that's not terribly difficult to get through.

What the processor is doing is determining how four pixels each in different locations will represent one pixel, while maximizing resolution. It gets a little twilight-zoney here, actually, because even though the four pixels become one pixel, they are combined in a way that still provides more resolution than if you just stacked them up. This is why some processors are sharper than others.

As for "more authentic". No. Unlike film, the spectral sensitivity of sensors don't represent anything we're used to. I think they are designed to be as flexible as possible, so they don't represent any given real-world scenario, they are designed to be in the middle of the visible spectrum: green. In my opinion, they're just the worst of all worlds, requiring heavy handed post processing regardless of the lighting conditions.


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> No. You can interpolate the data using any algorithm that will get the job done. In RPP I can select from three different algorithms  and apply the same algorithm to a Sony file, a Nikon file or a Canon file. The data is processed through the same algorithm regardless who made the camera. What is proprietary is the file format, where and how the data is stored ... but that's not terribly difficult to get through.
> 
> What the processor is doing is determining how four pixels each in different locations will represent one pixel, while maximizing resolution.



I know that you can use any process that can get the job done. But since camera manufacturers don't give away their file secrets each processor gets the job done in different ways. Or at least that's what it seems.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

I think though once you have the data, it's there for the processing. It's just a matter of getting it available - make sense?

I suppose there are calibration issues, but that's just a matter of profiling, I'd imagine.


----------



## Overread (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > variation will exist from one algorithm to another.
> ...



Noise is very strange area of rendition indeed. I've noticed and I think also MLeek also noticed that when changing to Lightroom 4 the display of noise itself shifted from the older versions of Adobe Camera RAW viewer (in my case moving from Elements 6). Thing is noise is also something that, unless very significant, will often vanish with web-resizes or in the printing process.


----------



## KmH (Nov 14, 2012)

Adobe changed most of the algorithms (note the differences in the sliders) used in ACR 7 compared to previous versions. So ACR 7 uses Process Version 2012.

ACR 6 (CS5 Camera Raw/Lightoom 3) used Process Version 2010. PV 2010 had updated sharpening and noise-reduction.

ACR 4 & 5 (CS3, CS4 Camera Raw/Lightoom 1 & 2) used Process Version 2003
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 * Process versions


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You still have to develop it, and thus are taking control of its outcome.



I shot Kodachrome slide film for years, as well as various E-6 process slide films...there really is not much "developing"...slides are developed to a standard development. That's it. What you shoot is what you get. Unless you pay extra for push-processing, or in rarer instances "pull". For the most part, people who grew up shooting color transparency film understand that there is indeed, very much, *an un-altered image*...a what I shot is what I got type of ideal...

I have thousands and thousands of such images...they're called "chromes", or "slides", or "transparencies". These were, for the most part, seen pretty much "as-shot". Projected, or rejected. Selected, and made into color separations, or not selected. Very minimal control over contrast.

Some people seem to be confused about some of the very basics...not everything is or was shot on color negative film. Polaroid and other instant film processes were also one-of-a-kind images...images that were unique, individual pictures, whatever their state of development or manipulation...excepting the positive/negative Polaroid stocks like type 55, for the most part, people who work(ed) with instant films shoot and develop UNIQUE, individual images. Each image truly unique, fixed, and "as made".

Not everybody sits at the computer and pushes pixels around...that's digital imaging. 
*
Shooting color transparency film* is all about getting the image to be the exact,fricking way you WANT IT to be, in-camera, by lighting, composing, and shooting a specific way, and then having the film processed with basically one, fixed, "standard" degree of processing. One degree of development per 1) roll or 2) sheet of film. Entire rolls of film, developed to one specific, standard development level...that's the basis for color transparency shooting. What you shoot is what you get. The pictures are permanently "fixed" and preserved on the film stock. They can be seen and used in this permanent, fixed form. Those are *photographs.*

In this type of  traditional photography, the "control" is in the SHOOTING...the development process is almost a non-factor. Images are made in the studio, in the field, on the street, and in the camera...not at the computer, and not in the lab. This is the fundamental difference between analog *photography*,and *digital imaging*; the goal of traditional analog photography is to create an image that exists in a fixed, tangible form, preserved on a piece of film; in digital imaging, there really *is no* tangible "image"...it's all just 1's and 0's, and it takes a computer at some point in a process to make the image visible....with a slide, you can hold it up to a light and see the image,with your own two eyes.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > You still have to develop it, and thus are taking control of its outcome.
> ...



Yeah, I think people sometimes confuse the level of processing that was sometimes done with old school B&W film by a FEW very specialist houses with it being that way for ALL film/transparencies, all the time.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> with a slide, you can hold it up to a light and see the image,with your own two eyes.



Then why is it that Velvia looks different from Astia, and Kodachrome looks different from Ektachrome? I mean, if it's all so pure, then why can't formula agree? You can go in and muck around with E6 or Kodachrome process, it won't look like the ENGINEERS expect it to, but you *can* and unless you REALLY start mucking around, you'll always get something out on the other end.

Humans don't perceive electron orbitals any more than we understand stored electrical currents. This isn't how we see the world. All images must be processed into data which we can interpret.



fjrabon said:


> Yeah, I think people sometimes confuse the level of processing that was sometimes done with old school B&W film by a FEW very specialist houses with it being that way for ALL film/transparencies, all the time.



Zone system processing is hardly anything exotic, and was once taught in every upper-division photo program. It's hardly reserved to "very few specialists".


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2012)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think people sometimes confuse the level of processing that was sometimes done with old school B&W film by a FEW very specialist houses with it being that way for ALL film, all the time.



Yes; that was the reason I wrote the post above. I have literally THOUSANDS and thousands of beautiful photographs, carefully made on color slide film, that are basically, almost perfect, right out of the camera, all having been shot right, and developed to a rigorous, almost "Standard" development time. It seems that many people are forgetting about the way analog photography was actually done by hundreds of thousands of serious photographers, over many decades. Not everybody needs to tweak the chit out of every image to make good, or even truly excellent images. There is more than one means to an end. Let me give a quick example: artists who sculpt out of stone or marble...they can not make "mistakes". Those who sculpt out of clay can make a bunch of mistakes, and can simply do things "again", over and over, until they get it right.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > with a slide, you can hold it up to a light and see the image,with your own two eyes.
> ...



I'm not talking about zone processing.  I'm talking about more exotic types of B&W processing than that.  I wasn't really referring to you, or anybody else in this thread.  But sometimes when people are talking about this issue they bring up the amount of creative developing done to HCB's images, for example, as if most every image in the film days was laboriously manipulated.  Most film wasn't messed with that much.  Most film had a very standard process.  Sure, in some sense you can call that 'processing' but most photographers of the time viewed a standard process as a 'straight out of the camera' type shot in today's terminology.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Then why is it that Velvia looks different from Astia, and Kodachrome looks different from Ektachrome? I mean, if it's all so pure, then why can't formula agree? You can go in and muck around with E6 or Kodachrome process, it won't look like the ENGINEERS expect it to, but you *can* and unless you REALLY start mucking around, you'll always get something out on the other end.



Your question is rather facile. I cannot tell if you're serious,or just being an ass.

Why does an oil painting look different than a pencil drawing of the same scene? 

The *medium* the images are made on is different. An image shot on Ektachrome will be, and is "*an Ektachrome*". An image shot on Astia will be shot on Astia. Jeebus...are you just trying to be obstinate? Think a bit, and stop asking knee-jerk,idiotic,reflexive questions. Why the f&C9 does oil painting look different than pencil, or watecolor? What kind of point are you attempting to make?

Why does milk taste differerntly than wine? They are both *"liquids"*. You piss both out on the other end, without the aid of engineers. See what I did there?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

The problem is though that the latent image is not an image at all. What is "appropriate development"? Sure, the engineers at kodak had their densitometers, but someone has to set the standard, someone has to determine what an acceptable characteristic curve looks like. I know, I know. There are metrics involved here. But anyone who has spent any time with film knows, it's not all about the science. Eventually someone has to make the call.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this is EXACTLY my point. the image has to be processed, and you're relying on engineers to determine how the image will look. THATS OK - but it's no different than digital, engineers at Kodak and Fuji say "red looks like this when developed like that" Engineers at Canon say "red looks like this when processed like that". The only difference is that if you muck about and it looks like ****, there's no going back.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are they perfect because they are "perfect" or are they perfect because they are predicted? Perfect? WTF is that, anyway?


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 14, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The problem is though that the latent image is not an image at all. What is "appropriate development"? Sure, the engineers at kodak had their densitometers, but someone has to set the standard, someone has to determine what an acceptable characteristic curve looks like. I know, I know. There are metrics involved here. But anyone who has spent any time with film knows, it's not all about the science. Eventually someone has to make the call.



well, right, but that's about choosing your film, not processing it.  Are we now going to equate merely choosing B&W film with 'processing'?  I mean sure, you could define processing that way, to include film choice as part of the process, but nobody I've ever seen defines the term that way.  That seems to me like stretching the term to the point of meaninglessness.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 14, 2012)

all I am saying is that to get an image out of any camera, you have to process it, and by processing you determine the quality of the image. whether you process it strictly according to the manufacturers specification or not is entirely beside the point.

processing is what makes a photograph - NOT the exposure.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> all I am saying is that to get an image out of any camera, you have to process it, and by processing you determine the quality of the image. whether you process it strictly according to the manufacturers specification or not is entirely beside the point.
> 
> processing is what makes a photograph - NOT the exposure.


But without exposure, what is there to process?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

totally irrelevant.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> totally irrelevant.


How so?


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> all I am saying is that to get an image out of any camera, you have to process it, and by processing you determine the quality of the image. whether you process it strictly according to the manufacturers specification or not is entirely beside the point.
> 
> processing is what makes a photograph - NOT the exposure.



yes, but now instead of making some point about 'more processing goes on than the OP realizes" we're having semantic arguments about the definition of process.  Maybe you disagree with the OP's definition of 'process' but you're also using it in a way that isn't the ordinary way in which most photographers use the term either.  Very clearly the OP meant an at least somewhat dramatically processed image, not just a straight processing.  I don't think anybody thought otherwise.  But instead it was then twisted into a sort of disingenuous presentation that because images have to be processed in a very literal sense to even become images, that his notion that he prefers images that haven't been [heavily] processed is silly.  You're turning an argument over semantics into an argument over aesthetic principles, and thereby making the issue more confused, not less.  

We can debate the semantics of the issue all day long, sure, but very clearly the OP wasn't setting out to create a debate about what it means to process an image.  He meant to create a debate about deviations from standard processing techniques, and his preference against them.  These are two very separate issues, and are better understood when you seek to disentangle them as much as possible, not equivocate them.


----------



## Overread (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> totally irrelevant.





tirediron said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > totally irrelevant.
> ...



I assume Unpopular's trying to make the point that a negative (digital or film) isn't a "photograph" and is only a "negative". Thus that it doesn't become a "Photograph" until its put into some medium/format where by it can be viewed. As such a negative becomes a photograph when its printed or scanned - and a digital negative becomes one when it enters a displayable file type such as JPEG or TFF.

The only problem being that a negative can be put through a projector and displayed (although that might be only one type of negative -- --)


----------



## thefreethinker31 (Nov 15, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > all I am saying is that to get an image out of any camera, you have to process it, and by processing you determine the quality of the image. whether you process it strictly according to the manufacturers specification or not is entirely beside the point.
> ...




Thank you so much for articulating and understanding what I meant. I'm just a beginner when it comes to photography, and through the previous comments on this thread have I realized how certain terminologies should be put to use. You explained very well what I truly meant, and I am great full for that.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 15, 2012)

thefreethinker31 said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



well, there is also another reason why I wanted to get the semantic argument out of the issue as well.  Because, in many ways, the semantic argument almost concedes the aesthetic argument.  When you make the semantic argument it almost seems like people are saying "well, no processing would be preferable, obviously, but everything must be processed, so it's a moot point."  I don't like that argument on two fronts 1) like I said above, I don't like confusing the semantic issue with the aesthetic issue, to begin with, just for clarity reasons.  But perhaps more importantly 2) I don't want to concede the aesthetic argument either.

We, as photographers, create visual imagery.  You can have aesthetic principles, and you can have modes by which you create your art.  However, as much as possible, the later should be no means of judging the former.  In the end, the image must stand.  It shouldn't matter how it got there.  It shouldn't matter if you used glass plates or a phase 180.  It shouldn't matter if you used perfectly straight processed slides or spent 19284 hours in photoshop.  What matters is the image presented, and how the viewer takes it in.

Now, it's perfectly fine to not like certain 'looks', ie to dislike images that look 'fake' so to speak, but they should be disliked for aesthetic reasons, not technical reasons.  We should make it an effort to separate our technical appreciation of a fellow photographer's craft from our artistic appreciation of the visual image.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

Overall though, at what point is a photograph "unprocessed"? I don't see this so much as semantics, not in the least. What we're saying here is that "processing is OK, so long as it's the engineer's processing that is being done". At what point is a photograph no longer "true"?

From my point of view, photography should be more than a cheap facsimile of reality. It should illustrate what we perceive, not be an objective representation of absolute accuracy. Sometimes the engineers get it right, but limiting your view to this lowest common denominator is only limiting your vision. A camera, no matter it's dynamic range and color depth will never see the way you and I do. A camera will never hold your memories, beliefs and feelings about what is important; as it turns out, even the image projected onto our retina is "processed".

So I don't think it's wise to build up this dichotomy between processing and exposure. They are one contiguous thing. Processing isn't just an inconvenience, it IS photography. you can't separate photography from exposure, and you can't separate photography from development (processing).


----------



## amolitor (Nov 15, 2012)

I do understand what the OP is getting at, and it's a fine thing. I don't agree with it 100 percent, but I get it.

There are, though, at least two problems when trying to express this point of view.

The first is that we're really talking about matters of degree, not of kind. The photographer begins to "edit" the moment he or she chooses where to stand, and continues editing through selection of focal length, framing, exposure and so on.

The second trouble is that what we're probably talking about is a natural "look" to the photograph. The idea is that we prefer a photo that looks real over one that looks processed. The inherent problem here is that what "looks real" is a moving target -- no photograph looks real in any literal sense. It's 2D, the colors are wrong or not present, etc etc. We think it looks real because we've seen a lot of images and have come to accept certain "looks" as "realistic" and anything outside that window looks faked. The looks we accept as "realistic" change over time, as individuals and as a culture.

So, while the OP is saying something that makes sense and can be agreed with, it's a kind of squishy thing that's surprisingly hard to state precisely.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 15, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I do understand what the OP is getting at, and it's a fine thing. I don't agree with it 100 percent, but I get it.
> 
> There are, though, at least two problems when trying to express this point of view.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I mostly completely agree with this, which is why I wanted to make such an effort to get the semantics part of the argument out of the way, so that this argument, which is more debatable, but also more interesting and important, could see light. 

My issue with first jumping to the argument of 'all photos are processed to some degree' is that it then avoids the deeper issue of if we should or shouldn't care how a photo or should only care about the final product. If you jump straight to the 'all photos are processed' argument, people like the OP just immediately conclude 'well, yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about' and never consider the deeper issue. 


Unpopular, I get what you're saying, but my point is simply that we all knew well and good that the OP wasn't talking about differences in processing that result from different raw converters. Sure, the difference may be in degree instead of kind from that, but it still sidetracks an aesthetic argument for a technical one over how raw processors and film development work. Your last post I think more squarely addresses the real issue here more so than a bluntly presented 'hey n00b all photos are processed, lol' argument.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't think you can fully appreciate one argument is without realizing the other. What I am trying to promote is the idea that processing is every bit as much a part of photography as exposure is. This debate for me isn't a matter of "over processing", it's the role of processing in general.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 15, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I don't think you can fully appreciate one argument is without realizing the other. What I am trying to promote is the idea that processing is every bit as much a part of photography as exposure is. This debate for me isn't a matter of "over processing", it's the role of processing in general.



I get that, but my point is that the way you started the argument comes from such an angle that it would seem to the OP like you're just arguing for a different definition of the word 'process'. And for some people who make this argument, not you, that in fact IS all they're doing. 

I think the only way you can really engage people like the OP is to ask him first why he SHOULD care about how a visual image was produced. Then moving to the processing is part of the art argument and then 'all photos are processed to some degree.'  Essentially here we went backwards, which allows people like the OP to simply dismiss what you're saying as not being really relevant to what they actually meant to express.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 16, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Every photograph is "edited" in some sense. The question is where you stop, not whether you do it or not.



Exactly.
The only raw "image" is the reality where you're standing, 360 degree viewpoint around the camera, the senses, the smell, the atmosphere.
The moment you click your photo, is the moment you frame your viewport by the focal length of your lens, you already cropped the 360 degree view into a small point of view made by the lens you're using. From the moment of click, you're editing the view.
Then we haven't yet spoken about depth of field, BW vs color, type camera, ...


----------



## rexbobcat (Nov 16, 2012)

No camera in the history of photography has the ability to capture reality as we see it.

I don't understand the point of this argument. It seems moot since you're limited to certain stylistic choices based on the actual technology your using. Cameras do not record reality.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 16, 2012)

You start with point "A", which equals no image.

You end at point "Z", a completed image. 

"B" through "Y" is just your medium of choice.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 16, 2012)

I haven't read all 50 pages.  I've seen this thread a million times, so I doubt I need to.

Art isn't about capturing.  Capturing is mechanical.  Art is about interpreting.  Interpreting is individual and the execution is mechanical.

Simply taking a picture is mechanical.  The choices we make in interpretation go beyond composition and into developing and post processing.

An artist may choose to have a light or heavy hand but the work is rarely done when an image is taken right ooc. 

In my experience new photographers feel that an image taken "raw" or without post processing is more "pure", but in reality that's just inexperience and not being able to either truly see or properly interpret the scene in a manner that is beyond mechanical and truly artistic.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> No camera in the history of photography has the ability to capture reality as we see it.
> 
> I don't understand the point of this argument.



What I meant was that if you see the full view, and you stand there taking a picture at focal length of 18mm or 55mm from the same full view... then both of the pictures are a cut-out of the full view. The 55mm photo is the smallest cut-out or crop, compared to the 18mm photo.
Same as you would take a crop of the image by postprocessing.
It all depends on how you lookt at it


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 16, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > No camera in the history of photography has the ability to capture reality as we see it.
> ...


I think you missed the bus on that one. No camera see the dynamic range of light as the human eye does.


----------



## Overread (Nov 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Dikkie said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



The other problem is that our eyes don't work like a camera. We don't see a whole scene all in one go, what we see is a select part of the whole, to see the rest our eyes move around very fast to take it all in. During this movement our eyes constantly refocus and adjust the amount of light they let in so that we can best see each different part of the scene before us. 
So not only do we have a greater dynamic range, but our eyes "exposure" (if we can crudely call it that to compare it to a photograph) is never fixed and is constantly varied.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I think you missed the bus on that one. No camera see the dynamic range of light as the human eye does.



Typical of their period, thew New Modernist movement were firm believers in the objective truth of photography. Yet, Adams discovered the most significant post-exposure processing technique in photographic history. Adams was well-aware of the limitations of film, and sought a way to compensate it. 

Now I am not a fan of New Moderism, but the realization that a camera cannot reproduce our perception out to be an argument in favor of post processing - to emphasize that which struck us - not a submission to the limitations of technology.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 17, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I think you missed the bus on that one. No camera see the dynamic range of light as the human eye does.


That was actually what I was talking about... but somewhere you missed the train.
What you capture with the camera is just a part of what you're seeing with your eye.
 From that point of view is the camera already an edit of the view from your eye.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 17, 2012)

In some sense, to even say that a photograph is 'an edit' of what your eye sees is a bit misleading.  We have binocular vision, thus our visual imagery is also bestowed with a crude sense of depth, which crude as it may be, cannot be recaptured with a 2 dimensional image.  Our photographs can give visual cues that restore a fraction of our sense of depth, but our primary sense of depth comes from our brain working out the calculations of the parallax between our two eyes. 

Furthermore, you'd be shocked to learn how much of an image perceived by the human visual system is simply made up.  Saccades have already been talked about, but it goes further than that.  Even as quickly as our eyes dart across the field of view, the human eye really only sees a TINY part in very good detail at any one time, and thus, it tends to scan only the important parts of the field of view.  There are times when you perceive that you are seeing details that simply aren't there at all, because your brain just made them up in an attempt to resolve the visual image in a coherent whole, without necessarily always diverting your eyes to a part of the image that it may deem to be less important.  

A kind of shocking experiment is to have items that change color, just outside of the center of your field of view.  If you're staring at a dot and then have an item that you can 'see', but is just outside of the area you are currently focusing on, you can't see it change color, however, until you diverted your gaze you didn't see it as a sort of grey or whatever else, you saw it as the color it was when you last focused on it.  This is because really about the only thing our eyes can see very well outside of the very center is movement.  Our brain just makes the rest up.  

So, basically, photographs aren't even 'edits' of what our eyes see.  In a real, physical, world it is _literally_ impossible to create an image 'as we saw it'.  Our brain doesn't see in flat 2 dimensionality.  It is much more complicated than that.  It also doesn't take snapshots, it takes a bunch of tiny pictures and creates a sort of collage, and it fills in the details of things it doesn't deem important enough to divert our gaze to gain full detail.  In some cases it just makes up details out of nothing but a pure guess.

Finally, another aspect to consider is that most images we have aren't seen, but remembered.  What I mean by that is the only image you are really seeing is the very one in front of you right this second (and even that is seen out of a sort of short term memory, but that distinction isn't really important here).  Anything that we remember has also undergone a sort of very rough perception.  Our brain doesn't actually remember but a very select number of visual images.  It remembers facial structure that is roughly akin to a pure visual image.  But outside of faces, our brain basically remembers a few things it deems important, and then it just completely makes up the details, that are completely forgotten.  The only way you can remember a visual image is to study it for so long that you have essentially forced your brain to remember every part as if they were all significant details.  And for anything but faces, this requires hours upon hours of close study, if not hundreds upon hundreds.  People who have so called 'photographic memories' tend to remember roughly 5% of a visual image instead of the 2-3% most of us remember.  The big take away point is that when we 'look at' our memories, ie recall a scene we viewed, what we are actually viewing is about 3% real memory and 97% made up by our brain to create a coherent picture.  Any detail that fits the narrative, is just filled in.  This idea is why we hate distracting elements so much.  Because our brain tends to edit unimportant distracting items out in our memories, we tend to perceive visual scenes as much 'cleaner' than they actually were.  Thus, when faced with a pure view of what went on, our brain sort of doesn't like it, because that's not how it saw the image.  

What's my point here, and how does it all relate?  Well, I guess my point is that how we see things is so different from how a camera sees them, and so radically different from how a real 2D printout could ever be reproduced, that it basically makes little sense to even call a photograph an 'edit' of what we see.  

A photograph is an image.  That in many ways is the beginning and the end of what a photograph is.  If that image pleases, or causes some other valued emotional response, then that photograph is a good thing.  How it corresponds to what we see in the 'real world' is of no consequence.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 17, 2012)

We're now discussing the difference in:
- what we see with our eyes
- the photograph

And the funny thing is that we see the photograph with our eyes, wether it's on screen or paper.
So if the photograph would be an edit of the reality, we see an edit of an edit.
And if you take a picture of a photograph, the picture is an edit of an edit of an edit, until we look at the picture, editediteditedit  and so on and so on.

Another funny thing is that what we see with our eye, is actually processed by our brains. We actually don't know whát extra stuff our eyes sees, that our brains don't process. And maybe our eyes can't even see everything there is. 
Think about unknown colours, undefined colours, invisible colours by our eyes or brains.
And not only the colours, maybe there is more stuff we don't see, we're talking about dimensional view, maybe there are 5 dimensions and we only see a few of them?
Range, depth of field, humidity-view, temperature, night-modus. Some products can do things our eyes can't.

I guess I'm going far too much off-topic here


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 17, 2012)

well, neuroscientists do have a pretty good idea of all the information that our eyes pass along.  As far as things our eyes see that our brain doesn't use, it depends on if you are simply refering to the optical eye, or also including the receptors in the back of our eye.  The optical eye has no choice but to re-produce all the light that comes through, including wavelengths we can't see.  We can't see those wavelengths because the 'sensor' in our eye doesn't recognize them.  However, our brain does use pretty much every piece of information that those sensors recognize.  It has to if you think about it, because the eye evolved after the brain, and thus it would only be an evolutionary benefit to create sensitivity to something if we could already process it.  The only way we might be able to see things without processing them is if they were vestigial, ie were things we could once see, but slowly lost the need for.  However, that either didn't happen, or they eye's ability to process that information eroded simultaneously with our brain's ability to process it.  

And 'unknown colors' isn't really a coherent idea.  We understand how the full visual range works, we understand fully how light waves work.  There are 'colors' we can't see, in some sense, but they can't have a visual representation, otherwise we would see them.  We perfectly understand infrared and ultraviolet light.  It doesn't 'look' like anything, because color is only a coherent concept when you can see it.  Color is literally just our brain's way of saying "hey, this is x wavelength at y frequency".  So, the idea of an 'unknown color' doesn't really mean anything.  That's like hypothesizing there are 'unknown numbers'.  It sort of sounds cool until you really think about it and realize it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 17, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> It sort of sounds cool until you really think about it and realize it doesn't make any sense.



GHAA ! Partypooper !  

Why can't you leave it like it sounds cool and let the illusion stay alive.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 17, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > It sort of sounds cool until you really think about it and realize it doesn't make any sense.
> ...



The beauty of actuality, well understood, is more beautiful than the beauty of a misunderstood myth, or so I find.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 17, 2012)

When I shot transparencies for silde shows, they were shot processed and mounted, that's it.  Was there any other work done to them, nope. So basically they were raw images.  If they were shot correctly all the work was done in camera, so even if they were printed, there was no work done to them, prints from raw images.  

With digital I don't shoot anything in raw, personal choice and unless I was doing fine art photos that were being printed as 16x20 or larger, especially with working from a 22mp file, what is gained by shooting raw is minor.  I don't really care one way or the other how people shoot or process their images, it doesn't affect what or how I shoot.


----------



## sleist (Nov 17, 2012)

My photos say no, but I know they want it.  So I give it to them - over and over.
In the end they thank me for making them feel beautiful.

Dirty little raw photos ...


----------

