How much post processing is too much?

matty · 04-18-2008, 10:38 AM

Post processing of pictures can be a great thing. However, it can be taken way, way too far.

At what point do you feel that too much altering has been done?

My limit is when more than the original picture is used, and it is still considered by the creator as a 'photograph'. Any color mods, blurring, fades, etc are great, and can make a picture that much better. But when people photoshop additional objects into a picture, is when I no longer consider it a photograph, and it then turns into a graphic design. Even if someone captured all of the said content with a camera, it is still altering a photograph and turning it into a graphic at that point.

Not to say that a set of pictures can't be compiled as a set next to each other, that can look great and should still be considered photography. But when someone adds something within the image, it doesn't deserve the title any longer.

Some of you may be thinking about this for the first time, some may be thinking "that's a no brainer." I have been on many photograph contest websites, and people will photoshop pictures (terribly at times, I might add) and submit the in photo contests. It really pisses me off sometimes. Especially when others post comments and say that the "picture" is great. Come on...

What's your take?

(I have nothing against graphic design, I love it, but a graphic design is NOT a photograph)

voyagernavy2004 · 04-18-2008, 02:04 PM

Wow. I never thought of that...

I do totally agree with you. I think pictures can be compiled, in a sense...but when you add something was not originally there in the photo, it would/should be considered graphic design.

Very interestingly put. I agree.

04-18-2008, 10:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
matty Member Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 87 From: B-ham, WA	How much post processing is too much? Post processing of pictures can be a great thing. However, it can be taken way, way too far. At what point do you feel that too much altering has been done? My limit is when more than the original picture is used, and it is still considered by the creator as a 'photograph'. Any color mods, blurring, fades, etc are great, and can make a picture that much better. But when people photoshop additional objects into a picture, is when I no longer consider it a photograph, and it then turns into a graphic design. Even if someone captured all of the said content with a camera, it is still altering a photograph and turning it into a graphic at that point. Not to say that a set of pictures can't be compiled as a set next to each other, that can look great and should still be considered photography. But when someone adds something within the image, it doesn't deserve the title any longer. Some of you may be thinking about this for the first time, some may be thinking "that's a no brainer." I have been on many photograph contest websites, and people will photoshop pictures (terribly at times, I might add) and submit the in photo contests. It really pisses me off sometimes. Especially when others post comments and say that the "picture" is great. Come on... What's your take? (I have nothing against graphic design, I love it, but a graphic design is NOT a photograph)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-18-2008, 02:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
voyagernavy2004 Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 34 From: Silverdale, WA My Camera: Canon 40D	Wow. I never thought of that... I do totally agree with you. I think pictures can be compiled, in a sense...but when you add something was not originally there in the photo, it would/should be considered graphic design. Very interestingly put. I agree.