Skip to main content

Over use of image processing from RAW

In view of my comments in my previous blog, this is an interesting article. Danish judges in a prestigious competition have rejected a photographer's images as being over processed from RAW. The images were changed dramatically from the original versions. The judges have raised an interesting debate about RAW processing, especially regarding photo-journalistic images.

Read the article here and see the images for yourself.

Cheers,

Paul
www.indigo2photography.co.uk
Follow me on twitter
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't see anything wrong with the post processing of those images. They have not heavy edited in sense of new objects coming to the photo, and change of clouds and stuff. It's just playing with the contrast and the lighting.
15:08
Rudy said…
For me it depends what the objective of the photo or story is. If the objective is to document and inform on the reality, the photo's should be realistic. If the objective is to create glamour, the photo should be glamour. If the objective is to be creative, i think you can do anything you like in post processing. But you should clearly identify it as a creative work of art using a photo as starting point. In this case the results are more creative expressions ; in my opinion they are not suited for documentary purposes. I disagree with M. G. it is not just playing with contrast and lighting - this is much more.
18:51
Iain Jeffrey said…
And so the debate continues... How would the judges have considered a B & W conversion? Isn't that a significant change from the RAW original? A simple grayscale conversion would probably have resulted in a flat and lifeless image. Some manipulation of the contrast would be required, maybe extracting some detail from the shadows or recovering details from the highlights... is that going too far.

It is naive to think that the phrase "the camera never lies" has ever been 100% accurate. Photographers have burned and doged while printing from film since the beginning of photography.

I guess it comes down to the rules and the spirit of the competition... what is the purpose of the competition? Is it art? Is it a record of the technical ability of the camera carried by the photographer at that point in time?
17:53
Post a Comment