There is little doubt that some photographs are simply over processed. All of the various tools that are available make it possible to achieve some amazing images. In some cases a photographer has no choice but to spend a lot more time developing and working on an image. It has made the news on a number of occasions that photographs that appear on the front of magazines are often edited extensively so that facial features are smoothed and every potential defect is removed. Somewhere in the photograph is the original person, often identified by a certain look in their eyes and by the general shape and general colouring, but they are significantly different from the person that you would meet if you were to see them in the street. So digital photography has allowed for a certain style of look to be achieved at the expense of what might be termed naturalness.
Is there anything wrong with using these tools? Some people would argue from each opposing position. The fact is that editors for magazines require a specific image. The photography can achieve this by some judicious editing. A nice looking house may be just what is required for a certain feature page but the editor wants the house to appear near a mountain so the house is cropped from its original setting and carefully placed within a background that is appropriate to the article. The image makes a point that supports the article and all is well.
For photographers looking for a more natural and realistic approach the temptation might exist to adopt some of these techniques. Colours may become unrealistic with blue skies taking on a tone that is much deeper than naturally occurs. Skin tones may have their red tones reduced considerably. We often see this with coastal settings where the foreground seems a bit dull and drab so the photographer uses tools within photo shop to significantly enhance the colours. Thus the foreground works well with the image. A number of people that I've spoken to do become somewhat concerned about this.
For example a major photography purchaser had purchased a number of images from a well-known Australian photographer. He had been assured that the images that he was purchasing conveyed natural colouring at certain times of day on our West Australian coast. Having spent on a number of images for corporate settings he confided in me his sadness when he discovered that the overall colouring of the evening sky was part of a stock standard editing program designed to give that tone as well as a feature of the printers the photographer was using. He had spent some time on the coast himself and realised that photographs that he had previously dismissed, despite the fact that they were beautifully composed, were in fact much more natural. He had just thought that the photographer had a flair for being on the coast at the right time whereas in reality all of the photographs that had been purchased had been over manipulated. To him this was really important.
Now don't at all think that I am suggesting that there is anything wrong with enhancing colours and tones in photographs. It's doubtful that we will ever see images where some enhancement doesn't occur. And I'm sure that many purchasers of photographs by the aforementioned photographer are very happy with them. Personally I think that they are great. It was simply the case that this individual purchaser felt very strongly that he wanted something that conveyed natural tones and colours. And interestingly I have spoken to a number of people who have made the same request.
On the wall in my office I have a number of photographs. I took them on brightly lit days and tried to capture the gorgeous light that we have in the morning and evening in Western Australia. Not always an easy task. But I'm confident that the colouring in the images captures the reflected sunlight at that time of day accurately. The first thing that some will say when they see some of these images however is "is that the real colour?" And the number of times that I've heard this suggests that this is the sort of thinking that is now becoming popular in the community in general. People are looking for realism with realistic colours.
What about all the tools? Well I'll give you an example of a situation where I cannot see any harm of using cloning tool or some such tool to fix the photograph. I was taking a photograph out in the country in the early morning and noticed a lovely track leading alongside a field which had a light mist in the background. There were sheep grazing in the field. A perfect opportunity for a photograph. So I took some time and took the photograph. On getting the image up on the computer screen I was very pleased that then noticed to my dismay to piece of rubbish partially obscured in the grass in the bottom right-hand corner of the photograph. It was a discarded can of soft drink that I had not seen looking through the viewfinder so I used the cloning tool and removed it.
