post processing of photos

[moonshinegnomie]

I saw the post about processing a photo and had to throw in my 2 cents but wanted to start a different thread about it.

I do a lot of astrophotography where extreme processing is required...

this is an example.

this is the eagle nebula from my backyard
It required a huge amount of post processing as astrophotos do,using multiple pieces of software (pixinsight,photoshop and topaz denoise if your interested)




This is the same shot,straight from the camera,no processing applied


now whether post porcessing is allowd in a contest really depends on the spirit of the contest. If your editing it to make a major change then its my opinion thats a no no unless teh rules specifically allow it (example would be sky replacements,)

if its removing a distarcting element like a powerline i dont think its a problem,especially for a contest with no real prize

as to the winning photo its not my call. I have my opinion which is its over the line but it is strictly my opinion

[AndyS]

1. How does this fit?

Is this photo acceptable?


I ask because this bird was not sitting on that tree. It was sitting on this ugly bird feeder:
(I've long since lost the original image.)

I cut out the bird, found a tree lighted in the same way as the feeder, placed the bird on the tree and then added the leaf to balance the composition. In addition I created the bird's shadow out of whole cloth!

[moonshinegnomie]

2. in my view for a contest no. but thats just my personal opinion

i like the edit but not for a contest unless the contest specifically allowed major editing composition changes,
but like ive said that just my personal opinion

[AndyS]

3. Well then, how about this one?

The snail was not originally on the flower. I found him under a rock and placed him on the flower. Just like I placed the bird on a tree only one was done with software and the other with my hands. Neither image existed until I took something from one place and put it in another.

[moonshinegnomie]

4. thats fine

In mu view adding the snail isnt a major modification.

like it said its just my personal opinion. and its all a matter of degrees. no hard and fast rules and i certainly wont be one to complain about it.

[AndyS]

6. But it IS a major modification.

The bird would naturally be found on the tree trunk but the snail would not be found on the flower! One is totally un-natural the other routinely found in nature. The difference is that one was done with software and the other completely un-natural one was done with fingers.

I don't understand the aversion to one form of image manipulation but not the other.

[moonshinegnomie]

7. personal opinion,to each his own

logic doesnt have to apply when dealing with art

[JudyM]

5. That's a meaningful change to the composition.

Whoever might be lucky enough to capture a photo like that in nature should hands down win against someone who added the snail to the photo. Unless it’s disclosed in the title or another way… one is a combo of photographic skill and the delight of serendipity, which is perceived by the viewer and implicitly adds to the artistic value, the other is an image designed to artificially evoke serendipity.

[ManiacJoe]

8. An interesting dilemma for us who shot raw files.

Raw files are just sensor data. An interpreter is needed to convert the data into an image. The options and initial profile passed to the interpreter can greatly affect the starting point for the image.

When shooting in-camera JPG files, the same interpreter options and initial profile settings get applied by the camera to create the image from the sensor data. However, because of the 8-bit limitations on JPG files, the amount of edits that can be applied later is greatly limited before the edits become obvious.

[ManiacJoe]

9. The astrophotography example is a great example about assumptions.

The genre of astrophotography requires a goodly amount of post-processing just to get a basic image. This is not an attempt to fool the public. It is a requirement to get past the technology limitations of the camera to get an image that compares to what our brains are interpreting from our eyes.

Those folks who are familiar with astrophotography would assume this level of heavy editing always happens, since it actually does. Folks who are unfamiliar with the genre might be overly surprised with the needed level of editing.

[moonshinegnomie]

10. 3 hours of exposures takes my macbook an hour or longer just to stack and preprocess

using 3 minutes exposures plus calibration shots.