The document discusses when post-production should be used on photographs. It argues that post-production is acceptable for art as it allows artists to achieve their desired creative effects, but should be limited for factual photography. For photojournalism and documentary photography, minor adjustments for lighting may be acceptable, but extensive post-production could mislead audiences. The document concludes that minimal post-production is appropriate for factual images, while artists should have freedom to pursue their visions, and some editing may be suitable for portraits and commercial photography.

1. Should post-production be carried out on images and if so when?
I think that post-production is needed in some cases, yes. I think it is acceptable when it comes
to art, if that is what the artist needs to use to create the desired effect. Post-production is
sometimes very important, I think that post-production separates art from factual photography
such as documentary photography. It separates it because the post-production is what allows
photographers to get creative. Post-production can distract you from what is really there so you
can focus on the colours and mood of the image. It allows the audience to gain an insight as to
what the artist was really thinking and feeling while looking out through the camera lens. Editing
images allows the artist to create things that wouldn’t otherwise be possible.
Post-production may also be needed in some cases in more photography such as
photojournalism or documentary photography, though I think that this should only be in cases
where the natural lighting was not enough and the image came out too dull for the purpose.
Often post-production used in photojournalism is harmful as it can be used to deceive people,
and to lie to sway peoples opinions of a news story. Post-production on photographs in the
news is already highly restricted to avoid issues with the law. Another reason why the postproduction process on photographs used for the news is so short is also due to time, they need
to get the story out quickly so that they art up to date so there is no time to spend editing the
image.

2. To what extent should post-production be carried out on images and in what context?
In the case of any factual photography used to back up a story or to demonstrate something I
think that the least amount of post-production should be done as possible. Perhaps some
lighting changes but that should be it, any more could be seen as deceiving. In the case of art
however I think that the artist should have the freedom to do as much or as little as they like if
the editing being done is beneficial to obtaining the desired effect. I think that it is acceptable to
do a bit of editing on portrait and high street photography, especially for a high street
photographer as they are trying to please a customer, and they would want themselves or their
family to look the best possible. Some amount of airbrushing, lighting editing, colour correction
or adding an effect such as black and white is perhaps needed in the case of portraiture or high
street photography.

3. Are there any photography applications where post-production should not be carried out?
I think that if possible it shouldn’t be used in photojournalism at all as it could be seen as
deceiving the public. I don’t think there is any reason though for editing medical photography
as bright lighting will be provided by the surgery, and the photographs need to be as true to
real life as possible to provide medical students with the right information. Similarly with
documentary photography of photojournalism, architectural photography shouldn’t be too
edited, though for different reasons. Architectural photography should show how the building
really is, so only a short post-production process will be needed, maybe to touch up the
lighting. If the photograph is being used to sell the building maybe a few more things will be
done to make sure it looks appealing to the audience so they may consider going to view it in
real life.

4. Is fashion photography less important than medical photography?
I believe that both fashion and medical photography are important, though in different ways. I
don’t think it is possible to make a decision as to which one is more important as they are so
different. They have completely different audiences, but the importance of those images to
their audience is equal.
Fashion photography may be important to their audience as it could be their business. Small
clothing boutiques need to know what the fashion will be for the upcoming seasons to gain
inspiration as to what to create or order. As fashion photography is often found in magazines or
online fashion blogs, the majority of the audience will be people looking for enjoyment
purposes. I think that enjoyment is vital to our quality of life. Reading magazines and fashion
blogs, and looking at those photographs has the power to uplift and inspire people, and when
people feel good and feel inspired they tend to do better in work, or in school or perhaps have
better relationships with others. I think that the power of happiness is under estimated by
many.
Medical photography is important as it helps in training doctors, nurses and surgeons. The
images used provide factual evidence of injuries or diseases, often used to support text in a text
book. These images are important in their learning process as is can help them gain a better
understanding of the text by looking at the real thing. It is vital that the images are as
representative of the real thing as possible, as any mistakes or misinterpretations could cost
lives.