What should we do with questions which assume photography is all Photoshop tricks?

Question

It seems to come in waves, but we often get questions with a sample photograph and tags like "photoshop", "post-processing", "photo-editing" and the base assumption that the photographer's primary effort was in a computer technique (possibly just choosing the right software filter — with "filter" being another often-selected tag even when there is no strong indication that a filter, software or otherwise, is essential to the photograph).

Other times, they assume that there's some magic camera setting which will Make My Photos Be Like That.

Recent examples:

• Photography editing style and secret
• Is there a name for the type of editing applied to this photo?
• How is this effect created in Photoshop?

And a few older ones:

• How were these portrait photos edited to get this look?
• Bright green Nature photography ("Could anyone tell me a photoshop or lightroom workflow to achieve this effect?")

(And so on....)

We can answer each of these with "actually, that's lighting / composition / timing / artistic vision", but that gets tedious. Half of the answers end up being about the basic lesson in photography (sorry, no magic button) — and then that doesn't necessarily help with what the asker actually wanted to learn. We can close them as unclear, but really it's fairly certain what was wanted (usually, how to actually learn to get the desired result — but sometimes, just still the magic button). Or we can edit the questions drastically — but that's a lot of work and will generally completely change them. Is there a better way? (Perhaps a custom close reason?)

Answer 1

We should answer such questions.

However, most of these questions fit into a few generic types. We could write one question for each type, answer it well, then close others as duplicates pointing to that one. This would work for questions like Photography editing style and secret, where the answer is basically, "No, there is no special magic post-processing technique. This is artistic style.".

Others really are about post-processing to create a certain look. Since there are many different post-processing options and therfore many different looks, one generic answer won't work. However, we can have one generic answer about post processing options and some of the effects resulting from them. Individual questions can then be answered with the specifics, like "Black is made a little bluish, colors desaturated, and contrast reduced. For more about post-processing see xxxxx.". For example, see How is this effect created in Photoshop?. This should not have been closed, at least not for being unclear, since it wasn't. Note also that I only gave a very brief answer. This would have been a perfect place to reference a generic post-processing discussion if there was one.

In other cases I took more time and decomposed the sample image to show how the original was probably processed. For example, see What is this "Dreamy" effect called and how can I achieve it?, and How do you create a washed out effect with deep blacks?. From the number of upvotes to my answers, it is clear that not just the OP appreciated them. There is nothing wrong here, nothing to "fix".

The basic point is that these are legitimate questions, even if they seem redundant to us. They are on-topic for this site. You can't fault people for not knowing the answer when they ask a question. If you consider them tedious, then just don't answer them. We are all voluteers here, and are free not to answer any questions without any obligation to explain why.

Answer 2

This is a situation where I don't really think our current system is broken, just the way some are using it.

If they link to photos only and don't describe them, close as unclear because links are not dependable. Similarly, if they give multiple examples and there is no clear similarities between them, close as either unclear (if they think they are the same and they aren't) or too broad (if they are asking for multiple techniques in one question.)

If the photos are linked, described and have a consistent style, it is a perfectly valid question. I would challenge that answers that simply lecture that it needs to be an artistic thing without actually going in to answers to the question are the problem, not the question itself. Such answers should be downvoted and removed as they do not answer the question.

It is valuable to make sure the poster knows that, but we could make a standard post about the importance of artistic vision in photography and then make a simple "Related..." comment linking to it to make sure the OP understands the importance of artistic skill and vision in accomplishing high quality photography.

A well scoped and defined question on how to achieve a look is a good question. If it isn't well scoped and defined, we have other close reasons already. An answer that doesn't explain how to do it is a bad answer.

I suggest this question as our go to Q/A as a reference. Please feel free to add your own answers to it or edit the question to further improve it's coverage of the general case.

Answer 3

One suggestion would be a custom close reason:

This is a "How do I get pictures like this?" question which presumes a magic button. Don't assume a photographer's work is due to the application of a certain camera setting, a software filter, or post-processing. Instead, describe the effect you see in as much detail as possible, ideally with examples of your own attempts for comparison.

Ideally this would be a close reason other than an off-topic explanation (I agree with Olin that they're topical; that's not the issue) but as I understand it, that's the only place we have custom control, so, oh well.

I think this is superior to closing the questions as duplicate, because it encourages the poster to improve the question towards what's actually wanted — many of these questions leave us guessing in any case. Then, if they do turn out to be duplicates, we can easily identify and match them. And it's better than closing as unclear, because it gives guidance on what exactly needs to be improved. (And, as noted, in many cases it's not really that the question was unclear, just predicated on a wrong assumption.)