Do you lighten or darken your images in post to meet some ideal overall illumination

[Jeff A]

While I do not myself like stripped in heads, skys, backgrounds or composite shots in general, most anything else is good with me. I find it interesting that some have said there are restrictions on doing those things for commercial clients, over my career I have found the opposite to be true. For a large assortment of reasons, since the widespread use of the digital darkroom, a huge number of images used by clients are composites. Even before digital, if the budget allowed a lot of images used in commercial, editorial and advertising were composite images. The only place I feel there is real push back on compositing, most of the time, is photo journalism. Here is just one example, I shot all of the different pieces for this image that was used to publicize the last season of LOST, shot in three locations over multiple days. It was done this way mainly due to actor availability and lack of studio space in Hawaii. There are somewhere between 16 and 30 different pieces to this image, I really have no idea the correct number since I only shot them and did not assemble it.


View attachment 31538

I'm proud of myself. I recognized that this photo was from "LOST". One helluva excellent series.

 

[Clix Pix]

All clients and organisations are not equal...it varies, but if what you are doing satisfies yours and your client needs "good on ya"

The other consideration which has not been raised in this theme string is at what point does the shot and processed image
become art rather than accurate photographic reproduction...????

The collision and integration between photographic post processing and AI alternate reality, it seems, is nearer than we thought........

IMHO an image presented to the world which represents the exact scene which was observed and photographed by the photographer is a photograph. An image in which the photographer or someone else has switched skies or heads, maybe added in elements which were not at all present in the actual scene or puts two entirely different images together to create one single presentation is no longer truly a photograph; it is digital art. That's fine, as long as it is accurately identified as being what it is and not misrepresented. There's plenty of room in the art world for everything and various expressions of creativity......

 

[Landshark99]

IMHO an image presented to the world which represents the exact scene which was observed and photographed by the photographer is a photograph. An image in which the photographer or someone else has switched skies or heads, maybe added in elements which were not at all present in the actual scene or puts two entirely different images together to create one single presentation is no longer truly a photograph; it is digital art. That's fine, as long as it is accurately identified as being what it is and not misrepresented. There's plenty of room in the art world for everything and various expressions of creativity......

So by this definition adding lights or a reflector to open up the shadows, or shooting wide open with very limited depth of field would be altering the scene as observed, therefore not a photograph but art.
It seems that we seem to have forgotten that back in the glory days of film, images were altered in the darkroom, with burning, dodging, different papers, developers, solarization, multiple printing, filters etc. I am not sure why we care about how the image was created unless one is in some competition which has some arbitrary rules, even then does it really matter. A photograph is nothing more than a two dimensional representation of any observed moment. We all see through different eyes, interpret that observation with unique brains, I may not be fond of over manipulated images, but we all express ourselves in our own way, so if the image was created with a camera in some way it is a photographic piece of art to me.

 

[Brownie]

The issue here, I believe, is one of the internet, photography forums, and integrity in general. No one likes being lied to, and since these forums are essentially the only place many users have to show off their works and view other's efforts, it becomes a question of honesty. In short, no one likes being lied to, and we all like to think that what we're seeing is fairly original without replaced skies, or that you really did visit the place shown in your photo.

When I want to know if an image was created in camera or in post, I just ask. Case in point, @GeffBourke's high-key shots. I asked, he answered. His photo is a combination of top-drawer talent both behind the camera and in front of the computer. What @Landshark99 is saying is spot on. I've said it many times, only the photographer knows what's right, it's their photo. Every photo posted is digitally altered, either by the camera's software or the computer. Jpeg purists need to stop and realize that the same image taken with two different cameras will look different, because the engineers at Canon prefer this, and the engineers at Sony prefer that. Even changing your settings in the camera is a manipulation of the image. Sharpen, vibrance, brightness. Just because your camera spit it out doesn't mean it's exactly what was observed.

Really, the only time I have an issue with image manipulation is when there is a direct effort to mislead viewers. I don't mean cropping, cloning out an unwanted element, dodge/burn, or any of that. I mean an image that has been dramatically altered with elements that weren't there, be it the Eiffel Tower, a beautiful sky, or your Aunt Hattie, and then presented as an unaltered shot. That doesn't make you clever or talented, it just makes you a liar.

 

[Clix Pix]

Photographer Admits That Viral Snow Leopard 'Photos' Are Fake

She's denied all wrongdoing.

petapixel.com

 

[Brownie]

Photographer Admits That Viral Snow Leopard 'Photos' Are Fake

She's denied all wrongdoing.

petapixel.com

SMH.

 

[Landshark99]

This is way over the top,not only did she lie about their creation, she stole the leopard images from somebody else. I think is a very different story than what we have been talking about, big difference from lies and theft to manipulating one's image honestly.
Side note: I shot some images of snow leopards years ago, just a few feet from my lens, only difference was mine were in Las Vegas at Siegfried and Roy's house, not Nepal.

 

[Brownie]

This is way over the top,not only did she lie about their creation, she stole the leopard images from somebody else. I think is a very different story than what we have been talking about, big difference from lies and theft to manipulating one's image honestly.
Side note: I shot some images of snow leopards years ago, just a few feet from my lens, only difference was mine were in Las Vegas at Siegfried and Roy's house, not Nepal.

Did I ever tell you about this time I did a photo shoot for the last season of Lost?