EDIT: I should add that Alex's post acted only as a motivation for this post, I'm not really addressing this to him, and I urge you to read his original post to make sure that his views are accurately represented. To a large extent, I agree with what he said.

Just the other day, =Alex37 wrote about the ethics of post-processing in his journal. You can see my reply in the comments, but I thought I'd say a few words about related issues, as I've been giving them some thought lately.

Alex seems to think, in short, that photographers should try to cause the same aesthetic response in their audience as they had themselves while taking the shot, but he also insists that the shot should be believable and, presumably, reflect the reality as accurately as possible. From this we get some sort of an argument against heavy post-processing (tonemapping and so on).

My intuition about the matter is that photography is an art form which doesn't have to copy the reality to any great degree. As you might recall, I just did an experiment with a tonemapped image and one that was not very heavily edited at all. Both were relatively popular, but it seems as if "unrealistic" tonemapped images are what people want. Of course there are always complaints about how realistic the shots are, but if we insist that photography is just about copying reality, then it becomes a rather boring process altogether. Consider this: black & white photography should be abandoned as well, because it in no way resembles reality!

From a slightly more philosophical point of view, I would add that if the purpose of photography is to transmit the original aesthetic response of the photographer to the audience, then we are far off in any case. It's never the same to look at a photo from the top of a mountain than it is to be there - you won't get even close. Accordingly, I think that the aesthetics of photography amount to something different. Perhaps something like this:

(1) The photographer starts with the aesthetic response that she gets when looking, say, at a mountain landscape. This is the inspiration for the photographer - as it could identically be for a painter.

(2) The photographer uses her technical knowledge and eye for aesthetics to create a framework for a further aesthetic response - this is how the painter creates a new work of art as well.

(3) Finally the photographer releases the shutter and completes the framework, but as opposed to the painter, the photographer still has to complete her vision. It could be that what comes out of the camera is already very close to this, but it could also be that the photographer wants to express something quite different. The original scene does not impose any constraints as to what she is allowed to do, quite like it didn't for Picasso when he pursued his artistic vision.

In conclusion, I think that post-processing is, or can be, a crucial part of the whole process in creating the final work of art. There are no normative constraints in terms of how "real" the photo will be. In fact there isn't even an objective way to measure this. Accordingly, I will process my shots with clean conscience. Sometimes I feel like tonemapping and pushing the colours and contrast to the very limit, sometimes I prefer a bleak black and white image. But in any case the result is an original piece of art, not unlike a painting inspired by the original scene.

Apologies for the long post, but I am a philosopher after all!


Last weekend saw the end of the hill walking term, we did a very nice coastal walk from Staiths to Whitby (15km), and also went through some woods and saw the Mulgrave Castle. I've got a bunch of photos coming up! Whitby is a nice town, I'd like to go there again with more time... Anyway, the next walk will be towards the end of April, so you can expect something else from my gallery for a change (although I still have a bunch of old shots to go through).


Recently, =JRd1st put into words what I'm sure many of us have felt for a long time: it doesn't make sense to waste time copy pasting "thank you" notes for every single . Now that this idea is getting some momentum, I will officially start acting accordingly. What this means is that I will not post the usual thanks etc. for every favourite, but will instead do what I have been doing before: visit the gallery of whoever faves my shots, and possibly or comment on some of the person's work, provided I find something I really like. This also means that I don't expect anyone to thank me for faves either, it is more than enough if you take the trouble to visit my gallery!

I've always liked photography, but before I bought my precious 400D in June 2007 I couldn't have called myself even an amateur photographer. I've learned a lot since, but I'm still far from being able to take full advantage of my equipment. Hopefully the day will come when I can - the support and advice from this community have certainly helped me approach that target.

In my "civil" life, I'm a philosopher. I'm based at Durham University, where I am about to complete my PhD. Philosophy is and will always be my first love and my profession, but photography, hill walking (or the outdoors in general), literature, music, films and food&drink are also very important for me. A couple of other random facts about me: I'm originally from Finland and have lived most of my life in Helsinki. I moved to England to do my PhD in October 2005. Presumably I will stay, I like many things British. I'm also a vegetarian, have been for some eight years. I'd be more than glad to hear from anyone who shares my interests, especially if you're local!

Proud founder and admin of