Photography Extension task

Should post-production be carried out on images and if so, when?I personally believe that when it comes to post production it is entirely dependant on the type of photograph it is, as many images dont actually need any post production work at all as some feel that is taking away the natural, honest element of the image. However there are some styles of photography where post-production work is essential or not so frowned upon by people. I think that it depends what image it is as there is not definite right and wrong when it comes down to it and it all relies on each individuals own opinions. I think if youre talking about fashion photography for example post production can be taken to the extremes which I personally dont agree with as there is so much negativity surrounding it, however some fashion photographers apply only limited post-production and in this case I dont see any problem with it. Many photographers and magazines feel that fashion photography needs to have some post production done to them which I do understand as this whole industry is about advertising and marketing products and to get the sales the item and the model need to look good and desirable to the reader so that they do go out and purchase that product or item of clothing. There is definitely a lot of negativity surrounding fashion photography purely as a result of the bad example it sets to the young girls that read these magazines and see this idea of perfection that they believe the model is as they dont understand the amount of post-production and heavy editing that it done to the image to get it to look perfect. In this case I think that it is rightfully controversial and I dont personally agree with it or see the reasoning as to why it is needed. Body image is something a lot of young girls struggle with so I think that turning a normal girl in to this perfect, flawless model for the cover of a magazine sets unrealistic expectations and can have damaging effects on the people that see the images. However when it is a slight touch up or if it is removing of a product or item in the background that wasnt needed I understand it, I just dont agree with the amount of heavy editing some publications and some photographers use. On the other hand there is medical photography where post-production is needed and I think that if anything this is the main form of photography where I feel it is necessary to use post-production. Medical photography involves them taking images of crime scenes, evidence purposes and also for advertising purposes in the case of them promoting a hospital. When it comes to medical photography applying post-production isnt changing the image in a negative or controversial way it is actually a way to figure a crime out or to help people so this style of photography in a way needs the time to apply post-production to do their jobs properly and to help police and investigators do their job also. Lastly I think that when it comes to something like documentary photography although I do understand when post-production is applied it can almost glamorise the image, which isnt something I personally agree with. I think it should be a real and honest image that has been taken in that moment and not been touched since as this gives a true portrayal as to what was happening in the image as they tend to be very powerful and emotive.

To what extent should post-production be carried out on images and in what context? I think that there is a fine line between post-production going over board and almost ruining the image and when you have applied just enough. For example in documentary photography I completely understand why photographers do carry out post-production on the image as they are just trying to make it look the best it can, however I do feel that sometimes it is slightly overdone and the raw emotion is taken from the image and it doesnt have the same emotive impact on the audience that sees it. In this case I think it is vital that photographers know the limits with post-production and when its a little too much and is taking the honesty and powerfulness from the photograph. I think that when it comes to something like architectural photography issues with post-production dont apply because even though the image is being changed from the original it is only changing the way a building looked or how bright it was the day it was taken and that isnt as controversial as something such as fashion photography where they completely change the way a person looks, giving their readers a model or perfection and someone that they then look up to and want to look just like which obviously then causes a lot of issues and controversy. With architectural photography post-production can help to enhance the natural light or the colours of a building or a road sign but these little changes and adjustments help to create a more powerful image and an image that people are going to look at instead of it being very dull and boring which can make the image look really flat and lifeless. I agree with this and have no problem with it just because it isnt majorly affecting anyone personally like fashion photography can do as it can be a cityscape or the inside of a building. In this type of post-production there isnt need for airbrushing and completely changing the appearance of something which would be much different like in fashion but it is just slightly adjusting, brightening or enhancing parts of the image which I dont personally see as a problem. I think that when you talk about photojournalism it is very controversial and lots of people have split opinions on it. I believe that if it is an image of a person such as a celebrity, which is most commonly, used and splashed across the font pages of tabloids then that are unnecessary and also a way to demean someone. For example many tabloids feature pictures of a celebrity on the cover when they have found a story about them, if it is a negative story such as they have gone on a downward spiral and are struggling they will pick a very unflattering image and edit it even further in postproduction to ensure that the image links with the article and projects the celebrity in a really negative way to increase their sales. I think in this context it is wrong and shouldnt be done as you are doing it to potentially ruin a persons reputation. However there is also the other side of photojournalism where a very powerful image can be taken, for example if there is a natural disaster many photojournalists will go out and get an image and then apply post production. In this circumstance I think it has to be done with respect so entirely changing or exaggerating an image definitely isnt appropriate, on the other hand enhancing an image and changing it to black and white for example to add definition isnt in anyway disrespectful in my eyes and is a way to present a powerful image and to possible get people to help out with a charity in some cases.

Are there any photography applications where post-production should not be carried out? I personally think that with the majority of different photography styles, post-production is an individuals personal opinion so saying it shouldnt be done isnt really fair. However there are some, where post-production isnt particularly necessary such as illustration photography. Illustration isnt used as a way to promote or advertise anything necessarily and is most commonly used in school textbooks or geographical books to show different places in the world. I think that in this case post-production definitely isnt essential or even really needed at all and would only be used to enhance an image and make it look slightly better or improved in some way, not to drastically change it. I dont think that in illustration photography post-production should be used just because you are trying to educate at times young children and if the image has been changed a lot and s vastly different from the original it can affect them and their learning. For example, in geographical textbooks colour is a main aspect and colours are used to highlight the different countries and are used as a kind of key so changing the colours as a result of heavy editing in the image is going to disrupt the learning of the child and isnt even appropriate or needed at all in this context. I think that if you are using photography as a way to advertise and make a product look its best so that it is desirable to the audience that sees it post-production is ok and justified to a certain extent. For example, ' ' is a form of advertising and is purposely shot to promote a product whether its clothing or an accessory, very often brands use post production on this because they want to highlight the product and make it look perfect so that when the audience see it they immediately want it for themselves. Such as many jewellery adverts where the model's face might not actually be in it but their body has been clearly photoshopped to make their appearance more flawless which definitely isnt necessary, however it helps to draw attention away from the model. On the other hand I completely disagree when post production is used on beauty/hair products as this is so often done and has caused a lot of problems In some cases where they have used editing on a mascara for example to make lashes look longer or added vibrance to the models hair on a hair dye advertisement. This is commonly the case in a lot of these advertisements which I dont personally agree with just because you are changing the product and giving the audience unrealistic expectations of what that product is actually going to look like if they use it themselves.

Fashion photography is less important than medical photographyI completely understand when people make this statement as when you dont look at all the details it does at first seem true as medical photography helps to solve crimes and save lives which is obviously extremely important and without it many people in the medical industry may struggle and it could potentially cause a lot of problems. However I dont personally think you can look at fashion photography as being 'less important' as they are so entirely different that they really dont even compare. Fashion photography helps to keep this industry alive and helps to keep businesses going, whether that is small businesses or major corporations. I see both sides and why each of these styles of photography are so Important as without either of them there would be major problems, however each of these problems are extremely different and I dont think they can be compared like this. Medical photography is a way of documenting evidence or research In the industry so is extremely important and the photography isnt done out of passion or love of photography it is done in a scientific sense and is done so that doctors and police can do their job properly. Fashion is completely different and is done as a way to make money and advertise and promote different brands around the world. It keeps businesses going because without this important advertising no one would see the products meaning a massive decrease in sales. It helps to keep a massive portion of people in jobs and running their own business as the demand in fashion is huge meaning lots of jobs and lots of opportunities to start your own jobs. Without fashion photography it would affect models, magazines, newspapers, small business owners (in fashion) and major corporations such as department stores and publications. I think that it may seem extreme that all these things would be affected but no matter how big or small the impact would be It would still happen without fashion photography. Then there is medical photography which without it would make it much harder to document evidence and many other things such as research so a huge advancement in medicine would be taken away. People could argue that there hasnt always been photography in this industry so they could cope without it, however it would be a massive step back in the medical industry's progress. I think that overall each of these industry's would definitely be impacted in a really negative way without photography, however each in very different ways as one would mean taking a step back in advancing and the other would mean a decrease in sales and availability of jobs so either way it affects people and the industry itself.