Bob Patefield
@bobpatefield3 Jul
What are the unwritten rules of street......
...and documentary photography when it comes to post processing? So I asked Grok (AI) the above question and got this reply... https://x.com/i/grok/share/5fe3aa5279ee401d9e92870e67a529ac I'm curious to know what you all think.
Good question!
In lightroom there is the option to remove objects with ai. When I remove something with this Ai option I ask myself the same question. Is this ‘allowed’ because it is fills in what it thinks it should be.
It’s a thin line because the clone function is joy very different than Ai
I think it’s acceptable to protect someone… maybe? For example, you had a great photo but a child that you don’t know is in it. Maybe for safeguarding reasons, I’d remove the kid before I posted online, just because of all the nasty things people can do with that image, and the kid can’t technically consent.
Have a read of this John and see what you think..... https://streetphotographymagazine.com/article/the-ethics-of-street-and-documentary-photography-why-youre-not-a-bad-person-for-documenting-reality/
I just try not to have children in my photos in the first place.
Agreed
Why so? Is it fear of a bad reaction from a parent/caregiver, or is there more to it?
Any software that allows you to remove objects or add in fake atmosphere like mist/fog or fake sunlight is a step too far imo.
What about colour 🤔?
The moment we take photos, already the colour is being interpreted by the digital camera/film stock and not a true representation of the actual colours. I shoot in black and white so replace colours with tone instead. I mainly have an issue with AI tools that totally misrepresent the photo by taking away or adding elements that were never there in the first place.
Agreed, but there's a lot of heavy colour manipulation done in post these days that also misrepresent reality further. For example, I only have a mono camera these days so was digging through old images for a shot with blue in it. I found a decent one and started messing with it to make the blue pop as much as possible. The end result was nothing like I saw at the time, or what initially came out of the camera, but it looked kinda cool. Like grok mentioned, how far can we stretch things before they become digital art rather than street?
Replying to Bob Patefield
As the comment from Seb below says it's creative expression, not documenting what was actually there and as I've stated I think adding/removing elements is the step too far. I do the ultimate in 'heavy colour manipulation' by removing it altogether with black and white 😀.
Replying to Corin Wales
Replying to Bob Patefield
Well, firstly, representing reality isn’t always the objective. And secondly, reality and Photography make uneasy bedfellows.
Replying to Kim Aldis
Interesting. So does that not then legitimise the use of AI for the editing/manipulation of photographs?
Replying to Bob Patefield
Well, that presupposes that all AI work on photographs is illegitimate, which I don’t believe to be the case.
Replying to Kim Aldis
I haven't formed an opinion on it yet as I've never used AI on images, but it seems that many folk think that's the case. I'm interested to hear more about your views on it if you wouldn't mind.
Replying to Bob Patefield
"AI is wrong"; it's an oversimplification. The question shouldn't be about whether AI in photography is good or bad, it should be about truth and deception, and the use of AI doesn't necessarily diverge from that. Deception in photojournalism is obviously wrong but what about photography in advertising or fashion where there isn't a truth or reality and the aim is something entirely different.
Replying to Kim Aldis
Interesting points Kim. We were talking specifically about street and documentary. In a nutshell I'm curious if the community here think that anything goes, in terms of editing, or if there should be some agreed upon restraint. I suppose this all ties in with the more foundational question which is 'what is street photography?' I feel a new thread coming on.
Replying to Bob Patefield
A significant part of what people appreciate in street photography, I think, is the skill required in making the photograph. Which I agree rules out the use of AI.
What street photography is or isn't doesn't really interest me much; a photograph is a photograph, labelling doesn't add anything.
Replying to Kim Aldis
That's a bit like saying a martial art is just a martial art, but if I like watching or participating in sumo and then someone starts doing kung fu, it feels completely different. The movements, the rhythm, the strategy, the culture, the aesthetic are worlds apart, in the same way street and landscape photography are. I have to ask why you're participating on a street photography community website if what street photography is or isn't doesn't really interest you Kim. I'm genuinely curious.
Replying to Bob Patefield
I'd like to think there's more to the community talking about what street photography is or isn't, but more importantly, as a topic it's been done to death.
What does interest me is making work.
Replying to Kim Aldis
Is that you way of asking me to shut up lol 🤣
Replying to Bob Patefield
not at all 😃
edited
My personal perspective is that photography is my creative exercise, I'm not shooting for documentation or information logging, this is purely a creative expression.
What works best for me is to be as unrestricted in thought as possible without thinking of rules. Personally I'm trying to not think when editing or shooting, and if i start thinking whether I should or shouldn't do XYZ it will ruin that state of mind and produce worse output in my experience. In reality i don't add or remove subjects in post as i think that is a bit naff, ill crop, adjust colour and other stuff, but it's not something i ever try to think about.
I think this type of restricted thought also makes me a worse shooter as I have found it kind of bleeds over and I start to doubt myself, and then i stop seeing compositions. I guess this is also why i almost exclusively shoot with a zoom lens as I don't like being restricted generally.
Not saying this is best for everyone, a lot of people like restriction and i've heard many photographers say its best for them, but this is just my view.
Thanks for the response Seb. It's really interesting and useful to know how Framelinesers (that doesn't quite work does it? 😅) think about these things.
My question to you then would be, if new technologies such as colour film, digital cameras, photoshop etc are just a natural progression of tools for use in creative expression, why is AI frowned upon?
'Why is AI frowned upon?'
Human expression vs artificial algorithms. I know which I much prefer.
Lightroom operates on algorithms I believe.
Respectfully, what do you think, Bob? I’m not interested in what Elon Musk’s AI is regurgitating…
Hey Jordan. Thanks for asking.
I think that with pretty much any discipline, we work within rules or parameters because without those we are just doing a different discipline (in the case of street photography it would be digital art) I've nothing against digital art and I'm not a street photography purist. That said, l presume we are all here because of the street photography aspect of photography, so I'm curious as to what those rules are/would be. Can a group such as this decide to work within certain rules, such as no AI, or is it anything goes?
There's an interview with Mark Davidson on Eyeshot's Youtube channel. Overall it's a really great watch but towards the end there's a section that's relevant to this discussion where he talks about how ridiculous rules are in street photography. It's at 42:47, but do watch the whole thing.
Claiming that rules within a discipline like street photography are "ridiculous" undermines itself logically and practically. It functions as a rule itself. Declaring "rules are ridiculous" or "there are no rules" is itself a prescriptive statement about how the discipline should be approached. It's meta-advice that imposes a boundary or norm: don't follow norms.
This is similar to the classic self-refuting claim "all statements are false" (if true, then it too is false) or "there are no absolutes" (which is presented as an absolute). The claim detonates its own credibility by doing exactly what it criticises.
Disciplines imply shared practices and standards. Street photography isn't pure chaos or random snapping. It's a recognisable genre with traditions, aesthetic expectations, ethical considerations, and technical approaches (e.g., candidness, timing/"the decisive moment," composition, working the scene etc).
If everything is allowed and no distinctions matter, the category "street photography" loses all meaning. You might as well call any photo "street photography." The claim erodes the very discipline it references. "rules are ridiculous" ignores that disciplines thrive on some structure.
Also, the claim is "self-detonating" because it relies on the existence of a rule-bound discourse to assert its anti-rule stance, while hollowing out the coherence of the activity it describes.
If street photography has no rules, why don't you go do some at the bottom of the ocean, in the pitch dark, using a banana as a camera?
“Rules are ridiculous” isn’t a rule, it’s a statement expressing an opinion. So your argument falls apart.
But if you feel the need for rules;
1. Don’t lie
2. Don’t mislead
But that’s life, so not really specific to photography.
“Rules are ridiculous” isn't an argument to begin with. It's a truth statement. For there to be such a thing as truth, there has to be rules. So the claim “Rules are ridiculous” is self detonating. Just saying 'your argument falls apart.' is not an argument.
Replying to Kim Aldis
So, if you don't feel the need for rules, does that mean you lie and mislead?
Replying to Bob Patefield
I always lie. ;-)
Replying to Kim Aldis
I'm 2,600 words into my new article called 'What are the Rules of Street Photography and Who Gets to Decide?' - Thanks for the inspiration Kim. I wish you well.
So my original question was... 'What are the unwritten rules of street and documentary photography when it comes to post processing?' In the video Mark Davidson says... 'Yes, of course post production I think there are rules you should adhere to...' 🤔