I just saw yet another in the unending string of exclamations, posts, articles, blatherings, and so forth concerning the false and bizarre question of whether or not it is right to “post process” or “manipulate” photographs. It is really way, way past time to let this go and to treat it as the irrelevant distraction that it is. For now I won’t go into all of the well-known reasons why this is the case, but I will share a version of what I wrote in a reply:
It is time to stop being defensive about so-called “processing” of photographs in post. It is simply a bizarre and unsupportable myth that great photographs reflect reality – fact, every photograph lies! – or are produced simply by making brilliant decisions about what to point that camera at and when. With all due respect to farmers, to suggest that great photography comes only from careful and skillful capture is akin to suggesting that great cooking is purely the result of great farming.
© Copyright 2013 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
I absolutely agree. When I work on an image it is what I wanted to show. I’m purposely framing it, arriving at a certain time to capture a certain light (then fixing it because somehow it’s not what I had in mind), and cloning out the tumbleweed-like plastic bags that always show up.
Certainly monochrome photos aren’t what we really see, and I’m not sure anybody makes a fuss about that.
… but then i think my own comment adds to the distraction :)
I’ve often noted the irony that some of the “don’t-mess-with-it-in-post” folks point to a number of the classic (and quite wonderful) black and white masters as examples of how photography should be done. First, as you point out, the world is not black and white, so by definition black and white photography diverges radically (and often quite successfully!) from the objectively real. Second, just a bit of knowledge about how black and white photography has been done – or a bit of experience actually doing it – reveals the significant role that post-processing played and continues to play in the best monochrome work.
Dan
Jerry, the point of my post was, indeed, that this is nothing new at all. As I wrote: “It is really way, way past time to let this go and to treat it as the irrelevant distraction that it is.”
Take care,
Dan
Dan, My intent was to echo that sentiment. Sorry if there was confusion. I sometimes tend to ramble…
Jerry
To problem Jerry – that makes two of us! ;-)
Dan
All photography is artifact – in camera or in software, it is an artifact (the root being “art”) and so it remains. That is exactly the fountain from which springs its appeal. To denigrate a work of art for lack of perceived realism is ludicrous.
Post is nothing new. The past-masters of film manipulated their negatives to produce art. Adams described the negative as the “score” and the photo as the conductor’s interpretation and performance of said “score”.