We recently filmed a video on the validity of Peter Lik's newest "photograph" of the moon, and it got us thinking: how far is too far when it comes to Photoshop?
I'm not going to transcribe the entire video as it's a pretty long discussion, but we all agreed that different genres of photography call for different levels of reality. Landscape photography is one of those strange genres where opinions differ greatly. Some photographers believe that slight color, clarity, and dodging and burning are the only things that should be done, while others, like Elia Locardi, have no problem focus-stacking, blending time, and replacing skies.
Moving into other genres like sports or photojournalism, post-processing becomes far less lenient, and most publications may only allow basic global adjustments and simple dodging and burning.
Retouching in the beauty and fashion world has always been a hot topic. Some say that photographers have created a false sense of reality about what women actually look like, while at the same time, beauty products and plastic surgery are also pushing the boundaries of what is real and natural.
Watch our discussions above and then let us know what you think. Do different genres of photography call for different levels of post-processing? Should we believe anything that we see anymore? Should we even call ourselves photographers at this point or are we all digital artists?
I'm glad you guys touched on Nat Geo, I think you guys should do a video on Nat Geo or other companies that do contest. I've entered some Nat Geo ones and stuck to my inturprritaion of the rules, which was to barely anything done to the image, but if I compare what the camera got vs what I saw its two different things. Now their rules state not to do heavy handed work but how far is to far, there is never a before and after example.
Here is an example of what I submitted to Nat geo vs what I felt I saw/what I edit and sell my image like.
On the left is my Nat Geo submission, I avoided bumping the contrast, I avoided punching the colour vibrance, I did no clone stamping. I did dodge and burn areas of the image to get it away from being so flat, this is what helped with the colour saturation.
On the right is what I feel like I saw, it felt more vibrant, it felt sharper, it felt more contrasty, obviously in my non submitted one I retouched the ground and pumped up the beam. But my outlook is that I don't like man made stuff in photos, like footprints, or trash. The beam got stronger and weaker at different points so I thought why not boots it up.
Anyways beyond the change to the beam and the stamping I wonder if my image would be considered to be edited to much for Nat Geo.
Especially since Ive seen other submissions and even winners that look rich and vibrant more so than my own.
I am really glad you guys brought up action sports.
As someone who shoots a lot of freestyle mountain biking I also compete professionally myself and I would say there is not allowance for photoshop. Looking at those wake board photos instantly just makes me think "who cares" because it wasn't real.
In the action sports world there's a mutual understanding and respect that goes towards each of our photos. At the end of the day you can't fool any of us. The general public for sure. But the respect you would lose if you put a photo of yourself that wasn't real, they would call you out.
I do feel like in landscape photos you can enlarge the mountains, or the moon, to an extent. If you want to better represent what you saw and felt, that's great.
Unfortunately with action shots, you just can't fool the action sports community, especially when we athletes take a lot of pride in what we can do. We don't want to lie about it. There's just such an awesome feeling about having a real genuine photo of yourself to display on a wall. (This is me in the photo, photographer is unknown, from an event in mammoth California in 2014)
Once a photograph ceases to be a captured moment in time and becomes digital art work, it is too much for me. Most of the shots I see don't look like something anyone could observe naturally. Most of the models look like porcelain dolls. Too much, too boring.