What is the limit?

Fair postprocessing is a personal choice.
I postprocess as much as I like. Some like that and others don't, so there is no correct amount of postprocessing but the amount that I prefer for my pictures.
I draw the line at not changing the imagecontent. So I don't put additional persons or things into an existing picture. But that also is a personal choice.

light...

Thanks for your opinion, Arne!

I think the same as Arne, Roberto!

Since I started taking digital pictures I was more or less agains postprocessing of pictures. Although I always was against: even I have been starting postprocessing my pics. I noticed that some pictures look even more natural than I could even imagine.
Like you said: we used to do it in the darkroom, so why not now. I more or less agree with tuvalu: the line for me (at least at this moment) is leave the origional contest and just adjust till the results is what you want it to be.
I like pictures where preferably just one item in the picture tells the story (and where if nescasary a secound item is available as a kind of "supporting" act).
I would not how to put it in words otherwise (since english is not my native language).
I am curious how others will react on this topic Roberto.

For myself; I tend to limit the amount of post-processing that I do. I prefer to keep my pictures close to the originals. But in general, as long as it's not photo journalism(!), the limit is your own artistic freedom.

... and even with for photojournalism these days there is a lot of debate ;-)))

Yes, but I think the rules should be strict there. A bit of USM or contrast enhancement would be ok, but what is in the picture should be what you can see with your own eyes.

Ok, I give it a try ...
Like tuvalu I think "fair" postprocessing is a personal choice.

Some pictures are fine just as they are, so that sometimes (too much) postprocessing can ruin the whole thing. Unfortunately (or luckily?) the "too much" depends on the viewer.
On the other hand some pictures in original look boring, but postprocessing can provide verry interesting results. Unfortunately (or luckily?) this depends on the viewer. ;-)

I like both, less ore even none postprocessing and a more excessive postprocessing. It depends on the photo and on my current mood (!) .... I admit that there is more than one picture, that I like only in a specific mood. :-/

So for me postprocessing is also a big "playground" ... I started with image processing just a short time ago, and figured it out as a fascinating opportunity to build something new, beyond the original image.

Ask yourself, what you want the picture to look like ...


P.S.:
The "Winter stories 46053"-image I like most, is the intermediate one. The clouds look verry dynamic and the details are shown best. The original photo don`t attrac me the same.
The upper image with the frame loses the fine details in the sky and looks (for me) too dark.
--
Seen in aachen13 home page (?)

I agree very fair processing !!

A colour negative can still be used in a darkroom for analog processing and a picture from a digital capture can be made into a digital negative.

After that normal analog darkroom processing, including toners can be applied to give the effects and colours.

I don't believe that there is any line to cross. Take the image and explore its possibilities. I will add and/or subtract elements according to what I see or feel in the image. It is this process of exploration that I enjoy. It is my image to do with whatever I like. You may like or dislike the result and that is fine with me. I will manipulate film aswell as digital images and sometimes will combine the two.

That being said, I am also a hardcore film shooter who will tweak my images in PS using the same processes-dodging and burning, controlling contrast, etc as I used to in the darkroom and I enjoy the purity of these images.

I like all three of the above images. Why should there be only one version, etc of an image. Why should one be judged better than another? We see the same scene differently all the time. When I drive down my street every day, the scene is the same but different. One day it is foggy, another sunny, one day crowded with people another empty,etc.

Hope this makes sense....

I know what you mean: my Trees album is mainly built of shots of the same tree taken in different moments of the day, different weathers, different seasons or, simply, differently processed.

Tu retravailles tes photos pour qui ?
Ceux qui regardent la photo ou toi même ?
Quand tu prends une photo c'est dans quel but ? Transmettre quelque chose ? (Peut etre ? )
Et bien c'est toi qui décide quand tu t'arretes...
Ensuite, nous on aime ou pas....

Perso la première photo de ce blog, je n'aime pas la tonalité pour moi c'est "trop"
(mais qu'est ce que ca peut te faire ?!)
Si tu veux mettre les nuages en valeur (excellente idée :D) c'est fait avec le peu de details dans les ombres

Pourquoi as tu ajouté ce "filtre" ensuite ? Si c'est reflechi à nous de trouver pourquoi ou essayer d'y penser ... (ou bien tu expliques si tu veux)

Pour moi le post processing en argentique comme en numérique est important parce que c'est le choix du photographe.
On peut juger en disant
"ouai c'est pas de la photo"
"c'est nul c'est retouché"
" il aurait du faire comme ca ou comme ci "

On s'en fout c'est ta photo ! c'est TON MESSAGE ! et ta façon de l'écrire :)

Pour moi le plus important c'est connaître (apprendre)
Les règles (post pro, photographie, nombre d'or, composition, calques, masque, flous, teintes, ...)
Pour pouvoir les oublier SEULEMENT QUAND ON LE VEUT ! (Dans ce cas, tu es honnête avec toi même...)

Mon idéal serait :
1. D'apprendre à faire des photos nickel à la prise de vue (pas de recadrage, et lumière comme je la souhaite)
2. De maîtriser mieux les outils de post processing pour mettre en valeur tel ou tel point que je n'ai pas su mettre en avant à la prise de vue (un visage dans l'ombre, un nuage à dissimuler par rapport à un autre,....)

Tu as le tiens... chacun le sien...

Exemple
www.ipernity.com/doc/adrian-campfield/home/photo
...
Alors ? retouche ou pas retouche ? trop ou pas assez ?
ON S'EN FOUT ! ON AIME OU PAS :)
(On peut demander au photographe de justifier ses choix si on veut apprendre, ou essayer autre chose pour nos propres photos par curiosité....)

EDIT : Souvent le post pro est utiliser pour rendre sa photo plus "spectaculaire"
(couleurs incroyables, rajout de personnages, lissage de peau à l'extrême)
On aime ou pas...Y a aussi un effet de mode (me semble t il)
ET ALORS ?! Pareil on aime ou pas :)
A nouveau je trouve qu'il est important de justifier ses choix et ses actions, sinon à quoi ca sert ?

Je retravaille pour moi, mais si je télécharge ici est parce que j'aime savoir ce qu'on pense et j'aime apprendre ;-)

j'ai travaillé sur cette photo car il y avait la vignette due à la qualité de l'objectif et car le ciel m'a donné l'idée que cela pourrait etre mieux en n&b. Je ne suis pas satisfait du rendu dans la partie la plus sombre.

Quelle est la limite entre plus "belle" et plus "spectaculaire"? Quand est qu'un couleur devient "incroyable"?

Enfin je suis d'accord avec ton ideal!

I agree with comments above.
The good post-processing is the one the author likes... what else could it be?

I don't think post-processing is linked to numeric images. I was already post processing in my dark room with filters, caches, paper specificity and so one. Photoshop & others are just much more powerful tools.

Personnellement j'aime bien la seconde et comme dit Anthony, l'essentiel est que le message passe que l'emotion soit vehiculée, car une photo non retouchée aussi belle soit-elle qui ne transmet rien est comme un plat sans saveur, le beau ne suffit pas encore faut-il que ça ai du gout ! c'est a cela que sert le traitement parfois c'est de mauvais gout mais ça a tout de même une saveur, la vraie photo est un art comme la poésie et avoir cette sensibilité n'est pas donné a tout le monde peindre avec les mots ou peindre avec la lumière n'a pas de limite dans l'absolu

""c'est de mauvais gout mais ça a tout de même une saveur""
Pour toi, qu'est ce qui est de mauvais gout ? le post traitement ?

pas le post-traitement, je le pratique regulièrement mais certains post-traitements sont mal adaptés a mon gout, c'est cela que je voulais dire !

ah ok :)

There is no limit to creativity!
The photograph can be art at the time that the technique is mastered and it is left in the background.

Autre suggestion :
www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2418895&id=738497844&ref=nf#/photo.php?pid=2418897&id=738497844&ref=nf

Je rappelle que Laurent Nivalle est sur Ipernity :)
et qu'il est un tres bon photographe (entre autre)

c'est un lien facebook non accessible

Oups
bon alors Facebook, Laurent Nivalle, Photos, Vogue ...
:))

i don't like potatoshopping in general ;) i like experiments, but when pictures turn into something else, they are not pictures anymore, it's a different kind of art. :) but it's me, and i like things the way they really are ;)

Post-processing is fine as long as it supports the meaning and feelings of the picture.
There are images that would be "killed" by "over-post.processing" and others that just won't work without.

Perhaps I was unclear in my post. I'm sure that noone can say what I can do with my shots: I'm free to express myself as I want!
I'm also sure that everyone can judge differently a shot, like or dislike it: it happens with masterpieces and it happens more with amateur photography, as mine and as the majority of the shots uploaded to ipernity.
What I was asking is something more specific: do you think it is possible to trace a limit between photography and graphical expression? when do you think that an image can't be considered a shot no more and have to be considered a graphical work (or another form of artistic expression)?
I can't relate the word Art to my crap.
I try to express myself through photography, through my way of capturing what's in front of me.
I'm sure that in front of a real scene or in front of a snapshot everyone of us "sees" and "feels" something different and I'm also sure that "the map isn't the territory", as someone said.
As Mat Fot said, there isn't a limit for creativity, but I suggest that the result of creativity on a shot isn't always photography, as you can see in Pimp my shot and related experiments.
I'm curious to know what everyone of you define as photography.
Feel free to add your thoughts to this thread ;-)

Ok, that is a real puzzler to me too. I call my work photography. But the border between photography and graphical work is really fluent. I have no idea where to draw it.
The noun "photography" has a touch of objectiveness to it (and I think a lot of people err on that). But as soon as I decide what to put on the picture by just framing I start giving personal feelings into the picture. So any objectiveness is lost already. But would you already call it graphical art?
Some pictures become graphical just because of a long exposure time or complete unsharpness or extreme exposure. Others require a lot of postprocessing, but in the end look like a perfectly normal photo. So to me there is no correct answer to that.
I call my work photography, because I start with a foto and don't add additioinal content. But that's just my personal defintion.

light...

The word photography means painting with light. It is that simple.

That's true. But at least we germans tend to make everything more complicated than it is...

light...

Not only Germans but it seems everybody else too :) The tendency is to make everything in black or white: either or forgetting that things are rarely that. The distinction between "photography" and "graphic art" or "art" is very contrived and the debate should have been settled very long time ago. However, it seems that every now and then this same debate pops up again and again with the same old tired arguments.

The question really is why process? The answer to this question is also an answer to what is "fair" processing. In my opinion the photographer is not a machine which snaps pictures. Pictures are simply a translation of the photographer's emotions, thoughts, mood and self. There is a common misunderstanding that photography is about recording an object, a moment in time, etc...This understanding negates the photographer and the role he or she plays in the act of making a picture. I chose the word "making" rather than "taking" deliberately because they are not the same. A photographer makes pictures and a machine such a camera takes a picture. Pictures are not simply a passive or objective recordings. They are what the photographer wants them to be and therefore it is the photographer's choice and only the photographer's. Some may object but who says that their feelings are right and that their wish should prevail? Those who object are also free to do what they like: if they don't like post processing well they shouldn't post process but they may not tell others that they shouldn't.

Very interesting point of view, my friend! (If I remember well we discussed it before...)

Yes dear Roberto. It seems that this debate never ends :)

I agree with Aref. When I take an image I am striving for two things: technical excellence and an image that conveys my thoughts or feelings at the time I took it. I see no reason to limit myself to only certain types of tools or techniques. I will use whatever tools, skills and techniques I need to produce the result I want. Some times this is more processing, some times this is little processing, it depends on the image and the result I want.

I personally don't like bright, contrasty HDR images, but if other people want to do that, fine.
www.interfacepublications.com.au

whats the difference between post-processing, and pre-processing? ... all the variables that can be altered on the camera before the shot is also processing...

Are boundaries in a creative process fair? I don't think so. As long as you want to reach a certain result, a vision, there should be no no-go's. We made our tools to use them, or at least to choose which we would use. Fair is the result, how close you come to your imagination. The way does not matter, and can't be fair or unfair.
Of course, this is just my opinion. ;-)

I think a post processing limit would be the one you fix for yourself, for your taste.
we are on our very own (o;'

Thank you very much to all of you for your contributions to this interesting discussion!

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)

Second is better for me Roberto... :)

--
Seen in christinelebrasseur home page (?)

Merci Chris!

I think people should be able to take owner ship of their photos and do with them what they like.
Personally i luv all the photos i look at. Creatvity is within all of us,being photographer,artist ,gardeners.An expression of our inner selves.Its a good thing..

ciao Roberto, ti rispondi in italiano se posso, il tema interessa anche me, io non mi occupo di fotogiornalismo, dove secondo me c'è un'etica da rispettare, quindi le mie foto sono ""artistiche"" e posso usare tutta la post che mi piace, l'unica limitazione è il mio gusto e la sensazione che cerco di comunicare con l'immagine che tratto.
non dimentico di considerare come più importante il momento di ripresa, componendo/esponendo la foto al meglio, senza considerare che in camera chiara si può risolvere quasi tutto...
ciao
fabio