Nick Masson
New member
In Galen Rowell's footsteps: the line b'twn "adjust" and "manipulate"
Hello all,
I am starting a thread to get some ideas on people's opinions concerning the use of post-editing tools in outdoor photography. I have for a long time been an admirer of Galen Rowell's work, and particularly his philosophy in what concerns approaching natural subjects. Unlike Galen, however, I have left behind slide film in favor of digital, but that brings up some interesting questions concerning the ethics or morals of post-editing digital images.
The field-guide for National Geographic photographers once started with the quotation "the image doesn't start with the camera, it ends with it". It think that is particularly true for those still shooting film where there is often minimal post-processing between slide and print. With digital, however, I feel the case is different.
The engineers of digital cameras strive to create devices that more accurately portray the world, whatever that means. In an optical sense this may be obvious, even trivial. Yet how we "see" the world isn't at all how the camera sees the world. We see details in shadows and can resolve images across a large dynamic range. In film photography, this is where graduated neutral density filters come in play, and in digital you also have the choice of applying a GND filter in Lightroom (if you have a large enough dynamic range that you don't loose too much in the shadows or high-lights). Similarly, where a warming filter once was necessary for warming images for film, we can now adjust the temperature scale in post-processing and get almost exactly the same results.
So in a sense, the film photographer uses filters and photography techniques to do all the processing before the image is taken, whereas now most of that can be taken care of post-processing (though you still tend to get better images with the filter... light is light). So where is too much post-processing something "wrong". Certainly it takes some of the challenge out. Chasing the light and shooting from the hip is far more difficult than slowly working a tone-curve until you get desired results. Yet at a certain point, I feel like the degree of post-processing possible with software does cross the line between adjustments and manipulation. It isn't "noble" anymore, however you chose to define it.
For instance, how about contrast/tone-curve/saturation adjustments. Those seem to take away, at least when pushed to their extreme, the natural essence of what is being photographed. The images shift from representations of nature to images that take on a painter-ly or artistic look (i.e high saturation, contrast, "pop"). Then again, such effects can be made through filter and film choice (i've seen plenty of velvia print that look like the saturation slider in Lightroom has been slid to MAX).
Anyway, i've often milled over these thoughts as I read chronicles by Rowell and the like, and I thought i'd throw it out there as food for thought. I am also not sure exactly what section this discussion belongs in, as it is of a more philosophical nature, so if someone believes it to be better suited for another forum group please don't hesitate to link or switch it over.
Cheers,
-NICK
Hello all,
I am starting a thread to get some ideas on people's opinions concerning the use of post-editing tools in outdoor photography. I have for a long time been an admirer of Galen Rowell's work, and particularly his philosophy in what concerns approaching natural subjects. Unlike Galen, however, I have left behind slide film in favor of digital, but that brings up some interesting questions concerning the ethics or morals of post-editing digital images.
The field-guide for National Geographic photographers once started with the quotation "the image doesn't start with the camera, it ends with it". It think that is particularly true for those still shooting film where there is often minimal post-processing between slide and print. With digital, however, I feel the case is different.
The engineers of digital cameras strive to create devices that more accurately portray the world, whatever that means. In an optical sense this may be obvious, even trivial. Yet how we "see" the world isn't at all how the camera sees the world. We see details in shadows and can resolve images across a large dynamic range. In film photography, this is where graduated neutral density filters come in play, and in digital you also have the choice of applying a GND filter in Lightroom (if you have a large enough dynamic range that you don't loose too much in the shadows or high-lights). Similarly, where a warming filter once was necessary for warming images for film, we can now adjust the temperature scale in post-processing and get almost exactly the same results.
So in a sense, the film photographer uses filters and photography techniques to do all the processing before the image is taken, whereas now most of that can be taken care of post-processing (though you still tend to get better images with the filter... light is light). So where is too much post-processing something "wrong". Certainly it takes some of the challenge out. Chasing the light and shooting from the hip is far more difficult than slowly working a tone-curve until you get desired results. Yet at a certain point, I feel like the degree of post-processing possible with software does cross the line between adjustments and manipulation. It isn't "noble" anymore, however you chose to define it.
For instance, how about contrast/tone-curve/saturation adjustments. Those seem to take away, at least when pushed to their extreme, the natural essence of what is being photographed. The images shift from representations of nature to images that take on a painter-ly or artistic look (i.e high saturation, contrast, "pop"). Then again, such effects can be made through filter and film choice (i've seen plenty of velvia print that look like the saturation slider in Lightroom has been slid to MAX).
Anyway, i've often milled over these thoughts as I read chronicles by Rowell and the like, and I thought i'd throw it out there as food for thought. I am also not sure exactly what section this discussion belongs in, as it is of a more philosophical nature, so if someone believes it to be better suited for another forum group please don't hesitate to link or switch it over.
Cheers,
-NICK