Image processing

I

inquisitive_chap

Messages
161
Edit My Images
No
Someone on Reddit was noting his friends criticised his photos as not looking like the real thing. This got me thinking. My (updated) response is below but I'd be interested in other views

-----

I think there is a spectrum between a) photography depicting what we see (IE. The lighting / colours seen at time of shot etc) and b) digital art where a photo is an initial input to an artistic process. And we are now seeing c) which is AI generating an image which is then refined by a human as part of an artistic process.

I used to want to be right at the a) end of the spectrum as I thought it was 'purer' in some way. But I've changed a bit. I now think about what I want to make the focus of the photo by desaturating other colours etc. This isn't always precisely how I saw it but is what I want to show (IE. I desaturate some grass when my subject is wearing green so they become the clearer focus) So I've moved a bit towards the b) end of the spectrum now (albeit I think still closer to a) end)

For me c) is something different entirely as there is no relationship with the subject
 
inquisitive_chap said:
Someone on Reddit was noting his friends criticised his photos as not looking like the real thing. This got me thinking. My (updated) response is below but I'd be interested in other views

-----

I think there is a spectrum between a) photography depicting what we see (IE. The lighting / colours seen at time of shot etc) and b) digital art where a photo is an initial input to an artistic process. And we are now seeing c) which is AI generating an image which is then refined by a human as part of an artistic process.

I used to want to be right at the a) end of the spectrum as I thought it was 'purer' in some way. But I've changed a bit. I now think about what I want to make the focus of the photo by desaturating other colours etc. This isn't always precisely how I saw it but is what I want to show (IE. I desaturate some grass when my subject is wearing green so they become the clearer focus) So I've moved a bit towards the b) end of the spectrum now (albeit I think still closer to a) end)

For me c) is something different entirely as there is no relationship with the subject
Click to expand...
I see all photographs as sitting somewhere on a sliding scale that starts with descriptive" at one end and "expressive" at the other. With "documentary" in the middle.

Descriptive photographs show you what the subject "looks" like.
Documentary photographs tell you "something about the subject" and go beyond just recording what it looks like.
Expressive photographs tell you "something about the photographer" and how the subject affects them.

Most photographs are a mix of all three categories.

I am very broad-minded about what can be called a photograph. But for me, the essential criteria are that they involve an interaction between a subject and a photographer, and that they use light and some sort of light-sensitive material to record that interaction.

Images generated by AI, may well have the potential to be "art", but they will never be photographs and can never be photography.
 
Realism was a big thing in American art in the early twentieth century.

Grant Woods's "American Gothic" (1930) and Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" (1942) are possibly the best known examples of such paintings. For me, the point of photography is to respond to their challenge by recording reality in a way that informs but above all interests a viewer.
 
myotis said:
Descriptive photographs show you what the subject "looks" like.
Documentary photographs tell you "something about the subject" and go beyond just recording what it looks like.
Expressive photographs tell you "something about the photographer" and how the subject affects them.
Click to expand...

A good example of what you call descriptive is a mugshot

Walker Evans said that pure documentary would be a bore, and I think he introduced the term lyric documentary. A way for the photographer to introduce their viewpoint / voice into the work while also recording real situations - think Frank's Americans and his use of visual language.
 
As Ansel Adams said ""You don't take a photograph, you make it" is probably a good starting point.

IMO he, and possibly more importantly his printer(?) wanted to (re)create Ansel's interpretation of the scene.

Latterly, with Photoshop 'reality' was stretched and no more so perhaps by the modelling industry with the scandal of changing the models body shape.

However, with the advent of AI we are now seeing it from being used as an aid in the post processing at the lightest touch end of the spectrum to complete fabrication of an image that, though based on actual photographs, the creator of the image did not press the shutter nor contribute any image data!

It is not wonder that (some of) the general public are crying foul!
 
Last edited:
inquisitive_chap said:
Someone on Reddit was noting his friends criticised his photos as not looking like the real thing. This got me thinking. My (updated) response is below but I'd be interested in other views

-----

I think there is a spectrum between a) photography depicting what we see (IE. The lighting / colours seen at time of shot etc) and b) digital art where a photo is an initial input to an artistic process. And we are now seeing c) which is AI generating an image which is then refined by a human as part of an artistic process.

I used to want to be right at the a) end of the spectrum as I thought it was 'purer' in some way. But I've changed a bit. I now think about what I want to make the focus of the photo by desaturating other colours etc. This isn't always precisely how I saw it but is what I want to show (IE. I desaturate some grass when my subject is wearing green so they become the clearer focus) So I've moved a bit towards the b) end of the spectrum now (albeit I think still closer to a) end)

For me c) is something different entirely as there is no relationship with the subject
Click to expand...
The ability to de saturate the background layer to make the subject “ pop” is already available in PS and works extremely well
 
One aspect of comparing an unedited photograph with what someone “sees” is that the latter is significantly affected by brain processing. White balance, the predominance of the fovea, 2D vs 3D and so on. A photograph unedited is telling it like it actually is, and needs editing (or taking!) to emphasise aspects that a brain would emphasise.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to a golfing friend earlier this week; for years he used to be at every BSB superbike meeting as a professional photographer. Last-year was his last full-time season. So besides golf we have shared interests in photography and superbike racing, me as an occasional long-time amateur and him as a regular long-time pro.

I always try to get the right image in-camera, but typically also use Lightroom Classic to tweak and process my images to look how I want them to be. Sometimes cropping for composition or adjusting levels etc. to give best clarity and so on.

He on the other hand told me that he does no post processing at all. He 'gets it right in camera', selects those that fit the brief and sends them straight to the client. However, and I didn't ask him at the time, my guess is that the client is then likely to carry out some post processing of the images in order to more closely match their final needs. I mean after all, if the images are going to print or onto the web, they will end up in an edit suite at some point.

Photography has long included post-exposure decisions made whilst developing the film and in the darkroom when printing, with a view to optimising the final result. Even choosing to do nothing except standard processing and printing is a creative decision.

For me it simply comes down to the final image. which either stands up or not. How it got there is not usually something I get too worked up about. That said AI is blurring* the distinction between genuine creativity and soulless image generation.

*pun intended
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Realism was a big thing in American art in the early twentieth century.

Grant Woods's "American Gothic" (1930) and Edward Hopper's "Nighthawks" (1942) are possibly the best known examples of such paintings. For me, the point of photography is to respond to their challenge by recording reality in a way that informs but above all interests a viewer.
Click to expand...
You mention "Nighthawks"...I can't see this advert without thinking of that painting, something in the colours and contrasty lighting.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzHuxAxNz3U
 
benc98 said:
Walker Evans said that pure documentary would be a bore, and I think he introduced the term lyric documentary.
Click to expand...
One man's "boring" is another woman's "fascinating".

To mangle an old saying: "the photographer proposes but the viewer disposes".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top