At what point does a photo become 'doctored'.

[MacNut]

This question goes back to the AP pulling the Princess Kate photo for being altered. What counts as altering a photo. Is it color correction or true photoshopping. If a photo is not direct from the camera is it considered doctored or altered.

With AI software changing the sky entirely I can see how this will become a bigger issue in the future.

 

[mollyc]

AP Code of Ethics

Minor adjustments in Photoshop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into gray- scale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging previously used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.

So, yes, you can do some very minor adjustments.

If Kate had released that photo on her own personal channels (if she has any - I don't follow her), there would have been no issues with it, even with photoshopping. However, the palace released the image to the news via AP/wire service for distribution. As such, the image needs to conform to the AP standards, which of course it did not.

Those of us who engage in photography as a hobby, and not as a paid journalists, have much different, and lower, standards as to what constitutes "doctoring." As someone who shoots exclusively in raw, my images must be edited beyond what the AP allows because they look like crap with no editing. Most journalists shoot in jpeg so they can quickly send the photos to the newsrooms, so they don't really need any editing, as they've been "edited" in camera for color/contrast.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

In the case of Kate's Photo her image was PhotoShopped in, using a two year old image that had previously been released to the press. A definite no-go at least in my books, and trying to lay the blame on Kate was also crossing a line.

 

[Clix Pix]

This question goes back to the AP pulling the Princess Kate photo for being altered. What counts as altering a photo. Is it color correction or true photoshopping. If a photo is not direct from the camera is it considered doctored or altered.

With AI software changing the sky entirely I can see how this will become a bigger issue in the future.

I think AI has already become a bigger issue as more and more image editing programs seem to be adopting at least some elements of it.... AND people are using them.

As for "what counts as altering a photo?" I think for each of us it's going to be something defined differently. Some people are purists, who do the absolute basics in simply converting their RAW images to a format which can be shared online or printed. Others choose to edit their images to the extent of removing stray items such as that trash bin that was in the scene but the photographer couldn't move and reposition the camera in a way to easily leave it out of the image, or perhaps a modification was made by simply erasing a stray wispy hair or an adjustment made by gently working with the skin tones or texture when editing portraits.

Still others, when dealing with subjects who are not particularly cooperative and who present themselves just as they are, such as birds and other wildlife, more drastic image altering may be required, including judicious cropping and perhaps removing extraneous bits which don't contribute to the overall impact of the photo. I draw the line, though, at tinkering with an image if the bird has his eye shut. OK, no problem, I'll move on to an image where he has his eye(s) open and everything else, including feather detail, positioning, etc., looks fine.

In some situations, removing unwanted bits in the scene, judicious cropping or adjusting the colors/texture etc., are enough, but there may be situations when an additional touch of sharpening or some other tweaking may be needed or when working with an image to come to a result which satisfies the artist's vision......

IMO removing something from an image is OK, but actually playing the game of exchanging skies, faces or other elements of a scene is really going just too far. That, and the garish look of HDR is too, too much and OTT as far as I am concerned.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Monitors can make a huge difference. Mine is called a 'ProArt' which basically means it gives a fairly accurate rendition of what I will get when I send something out to be printed. An image that looks good on my monitor may appear a bit garish on Retina or other monitors that feature exaggerated saturation. Conversely images that look perfect there may seem a bit lifeless at my end.

Typically my post camera goal is often to recreate the mood that inspired me to record the image. I try not mess with saturation controls but will typically go for a slightly underexposed look for exactly the same reason that slide photographers underexposed. It just looks better on a projected medium.

Working with old colour negs is an entirely different world. Lacking an original print for comparison, I typically just let an image go where it wants to go which may, or more likely may not, be a true representation of the original scene.

 

[Apple fanboy]

For me swapping out the sky or background is too extreme. Most other things are fine for a hobbyist like me.

As for the photo in question I really don’t care one way or the other. Not a royalist at all. But the press coverage made it sound more like she had been caught burying kittens or something!

 

[mollyc]

For me swapping out the sky or background is too extreme. Most other things are fine for a hobbyist like me.

As for the photo in question I really don’t care one way or the other. Not a royalist at all. But the press coverage made it sound more like she had been caught burying kittens or something!

I think it's difficult with Kate, too, because she is known to be a photographer, so it's not suprising that she'd head swap her own family photo, or do something else to it that doesn't match AP standards. It's hard to get three kids to look at the camera at once!

 

[mtbdudex]

IMO no “alteration” of any physical objects at all for photojournalism, basic exposure correction and cropping is fair game.

Now, non photojournalism..
Then photography = art right?
It’s up to each artist on their vision, their intent.

If it’s a photo contest, then whatever the rules state.

Just one example:
Most astrophotography you see can’t be done without some stacking of images, etc.
Is that … cheating? Deep sky stacker, etc. artificially enhancing bands of frequencies with a color.

 

[deep diver]

I am also a minimalist when it comes to editing. I try to bring out or remove barriers to what I want to show rather than creating it. The exception, however, is when I am trying to do something artistic/interpretive rather than photo-realistic. In those case, however, there is no mistaking my intent.

 

[mollyc]

For photojournalism and news related photography, I absolutely understand why minimal editing is necessary - the photo should convey the scene as our eyes would see as much as possible (although even here there is a lot of subjectivity - focal length, DOF, color/bw all alter the scene before the image is even taken).

But beyond that news-related strictness, there is no real need for "minimal" editing unless the photographer really hates editing. Photographers and printmakers have been shaping images for years and years and years in the darkroom before we had digital editing. I really think that a lot of people think that because they picked up prints from a lab that were "done" that no editing is necessary for film, but labs just have computer algorithms figure out the best color/contrast for a given image (or the photo processor in the days of yore made their own personal decisions). High end labs now have dedicated lab operators who will work with you to figure out a signature style and keep notes of how you want your photo scans done (light and airy/moody, saturated vs desaturated, etc.)

I scan my own film and I can change the look of any negative I have. If I had my local lab scan my film, it would look different than I do it. And most labs send back flat scans anyway so that photographers can edit the film for color and contrast at home, so even those scans need work.

There is really no such thing as a truly unedited photo, with the possible exception of positive slide film; but even then, camera/lens choices and filmstock also play a huge role in the end result.

Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum

petapixel.com

This is not to say that people "need" to do a lot of editing, but I wouldn't consider a fashion portrait for a magazine inherently "doctored." Yes, it is highly edited, but it is conforming to set of specific standards needed for that industry. AP news images do not fall into this category. But assuming the original photo of Kate and her kids was set up by herself and then she did some (admittedly poor) editing on it to make it fit her vision, I personally don't consider that "doctoring." It's just normal editing for family portraiture and what you would expect from anyone you hire to do family photos (although pay someone with more PS experience next time 😉 ).

 

[mollyc]

Also, I've linked this before, but the vast majority of Photoshop's tools (excluding the newer AI styled tools) are all based on darkroom techniques. This is an interesting watch. But it just underscores that photographers have been editing all along, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

These Are the Darkroom Techniques Photoshop's Tools Are Based On

As a tribute to Photoshop for its recent 25th birthday, Lynda created this "before there was Photoshop" video that shows the darkroom tools and techniques

petapixel.com

 

[jazz1]

Also, I've linked this before, but the vast majority of Photoshop's tools (excluding the newer AI styled tools) are all based on darkroom techniques. This is an interesting watch. But it just underscores that photographers have been editing all along, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.

These Are the Darkroom Techniques Photoshop's Tools Are Based On

As a tribute to Photoshop for its recent 25th birthday, Lynda created this "before there was Photoshop" video that shows the darkroom tools and techniques

petapixel.com

Ha, next we will have some argue that using a wide angle or telephoto lens is "mechanical" AI!

 

[mtbdudex]

Did Life magazine doctor their photos?
Did national graphic magazine doctor their photos?

Why are we having this conversation…

 

[deep diver]

Why are we having this conversation…

Sometimes it's fun to have what might be a mostly philosophical discussion about our craft. I think most of us, at some point or another, have done that here.

 

[mollyc]

also the question as to why kate’s specific photo was pulled is a good discussion on photojournalism.

 

[Clix Pix]

I am also a minimalist when it comes to editing. I try to bring out or remove barriers to what I want to show rather than creating it. The exception, however, is when I am trying to do something artistic/interpretive rather than photo-realistic. In those case, however, there is no mistaking my intent.

It has been only in the past two or three years that I've finally ventured beyond what I had always perceived as my limitations when it has come to post-processing and editing. Several years ago I would have (and did!) definitely declare(d) that I heartily disliked editing. It was a necessary evil. I did the minimum, hoped the image looked reasonably acceptable, and moved on.

At some point, and I don't even recall just when, where or why, I started slowly exploring what I guess is a step further in touching upon whatever innate creativity lies within me beyond simply what perhaps I had already expressed when initially noticing, seeing, framing and composing, and then shooting and capturing a scene, a subject, with a camera body and lens. I've always been more interested in what could be approached in some sort of different (creative?) way rather than if I was 100% mindful of getting everything (all the settings, etc.) just right when it comes to technique when shooting, and/or at times, I've simply been in a hurry to get the shot, regardless of technique, because that mattered more to me: just capturing on that memory card what I was seeing......

Somewhere along the line while dealing with the resulting images in the post-processing/culling/editing phase of things, I gradually found myself moving into new territory: tinkering around, experimenting, while actually this time, rather than shooting with the camera, now at the computer working with editing images.

Makes sense that I eventually would get into trying this with editing, as I've long done that with seeing, composing and shooting images. Just as when I've had camera and lens in hand and have been spending time with a subject, thinking, "what happens if I do this? What would happen when I try that?" it does seem a natural progression to carry this right on into the editing phase of working with images.

I'm self-taught, just fumbling around and exploring what happens in editing when I do try this or try that..... The process and the results have definitely been interesting (even if only to me)!

 

[r.harris1]

Going back to the 19th century with the excellent Henry Peach Robinson or many others who ”took liberties” with their collection of negatives, there’s always been a question of documentary-vs-art. Digital art today vs optically produced. Digital-vs-film. What’s photography? It’s a perennial question that always needs revisiting based on current technology. AI amps the questions up quite a bit. There’s a lot of ML/AI in most modern cameras, more as convenience features (sharp focus on your cat’s eyes or something like that). To me, photography is optically-based on a light-recording medium like film or digital sensor. Happy with AF tech and whatever helps to get the photons onto the sensor. OK with “traditional“ techniques to post-process. But maybe I’m too limited . I love the generative AI fill capabilities in Photoshop. Others love the tools that select only those images with in-focus eyes. We probably all love tools that help us mask things more easily. Maybe it’s a slippery slope, who knows? It’s always good to have philosophical discussions.

 

[mollyc]

Going back to the 19th century with the excellent Henry Peach Robinson or many others who ”took liberties” with their collection of negatives, there’s always been a question of documentary-vs-art. Digital art today vs optically produced. Digital-vs-film. What’s photography? It’s a perennial question that always needs revisiting based on current technology. AI amps the questions up quite a bit. There’s a lot of ML/AI in most modern cameras, more as convenience features (sharp focus on your cat’s eyes or something like that). To me, photography is optically-based on a light-recording medium like film or digital sensor. Happy with AF tech and whatever helps to get the photons onto the sensor. OK with “traditional“ techniques to post-process. But maybe I’m too limited . I love the generative AI fill capabilities in Photoshop. Others love the tools that select only those images with in-focus eyes. We probably all love tools that help us mask things more easily. Maybe it’s a slippery slope, who knows? It’s always good to have philosophical discussions.

oh i’ve never heard of henry before! thanks for the introduction. 🙂

 

[mtbdudex]

If you’re using AI to do edits not yourself, not your brains cognitive ability .. it’s “doctored” .

There..

 

[mtbdudex]

Here’s tonight from my iPhone 14 Pro .
Crop, minor exposure edits that’s it

Here’s same camera.
I used portrait mode .. is this photo “doctored”?
If I had my R5 with me, with appropriate lens I could do same thing ..

 

[mollyc]

Here’s tonight from my iPhone 14 Pro .
Crop, minor exposure edits that’s it

Here’s same camera.
I used portrait mode .. is this photo “doctored”?
If I had my R5 with me, with appropriate lens I could do same thing ..

That's kind of the crux of this whole conversation.

 

[arkitect]

Here’s tonight from my iPhone 14 Pro .
Crop, minor exposure edits that’s it


Here’s same camera.
I used portrait mode .. is this photo “doctored”?
If I had my R5 with me, with appropriate lens I could do same thing ..

"Doctored" or no, I know which one looks better more appealing to me. Which one conveys the atmosphere of the time and place.

And that's the thing for me. I am an artist for a living. When I do a drawing or a painting, do I make the visually appealing one or just a bland… washed out "meh" version?
Of course not. I'd sell exactly zero.

Same thing applies for me (not a pro!) as a photographer.
Just be happy with the washed out so-so JPGs? Or shoot in RAW and boost it with PhotoLab/Lightroom?

🙂

Edit: Now, I do draw the line at those garish over HDR pics so harsh you could grate Parmesan on it. 🤮

 

[MacNut]

Certain photographers made a living on over produced HDR. I just don’t like the unnatural look of it.

I guess the same could be said when I pop the sky in landscape photos but that’s more accentuating the blues in the sky. I like to saturate certain parts of my photos but I like to think it’s in a natural looking way.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I have a routine I follow when inverting copies of negs. Usually it gets me quite close to where I want to be. This frame was an exception. It came out looking a bit muddy like so;

I did a soft light mask over the entire image except the deep shadows, then selectively applied a mild Gaussian blur to get rid of any jpeg artifacts in the sky.

 

[jazz1]

Well check this new version of the Ricoh GRIII. It makes your pictures “dreamy” in camera with a flip of a switch. While this does not appeal to me, I’m not offended by manipulations of photos. It is like any other photo I view, I like the end result or I don’t.

Ricoh's updated GR cameras are all about dreamy vibes

The Ricoh GR III HDF and GR IIIx HDF feature most of the same stats as the originals with an added filter to soften highlights for a vintage look.

www.pocket-lint.com