To touch ...

... or not to touch? That is the question.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments about my winter motorway image. I appreciate them.

One that I found particularly interesting came from someone called 'mollieb' ...

I love the touch ups you made on this photo. Especially making the signs the same neon color as the road, and highlighting the snow with the fence posts. Overall contrast made it work. Takes a good eye and lots of practice to see what can be done to a photo to enhance it's qualities. Right?

Do I detect a hint of scepticism there? Or am I misreading an electronic communication, which is easy to do?

Well ... yes, I did do some post-processing. All photography involves post processing. I was doing it years ago, in darkrooms, with film and the fumes of hypo getting up my nose, dodging and burning with strangely-shaped bits of paper on wire, under the dim glow of an enlarger.

Post processing is necessary because, no matter how good your camera and film/digital sensor, it's not as good as the human eye.

How much did I do with this image? Well, no 'touch-ups', that's for sure. I listed the processes in my reply to mollieb.

But, so as you can see for yourself, here are the two images side by side. The first one is exactly as it came out of my camera. All I have done is convert it from RAW to JPG, and reduced the size so that it will fit on this page. The second is the result after processing ...

But, it's an interesting question. How much post-processing is valid?

In my opinion, some photographers do go way over the top, producing images that bear little relation to reality.

However, I believe in getting it right in the camera, as far as I can. (It's also a lot less work.) What's more, if you start off with a lousy photograph, no amount of post-processing will make it better. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Any others' thoughts on this matter?

No comments: