Who think images can be made without PP?

[RandyMN]

I see it every where and my wife says photo's are all a lie. She also tells me that any photo takes 4 hours to process per photo.

So my question here is; who believes PP is a bandaid, a tool, a weakness or an art?

[tonybear007]

Old habits die hard. When I used my EOS 3 35mm film camera I was forced to be patient and disciplined. I took time to choose the right lens, compose properly and metered off the closest thing to 18% gray.

A few times I catch myself using the "spray and pray" method with my digital camera but there is nothing better than getting it right when you hit the shutter button - right lens, right lighting, right exposure, good composition and steady hands if a tripod is not available.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 40D, EOS 3 (35mm film), Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Improve Your Skills with the EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)

[RandyMN]

Funny thing is that I think that good input equals good output! I think that which is done during original exposure, composition, color, posing, lighting and mood will all contribute to a great peice that can be worked on later.

I do not think PP is a tool for sloppy work, but sometimes my work gets sloppy and I use it for that particualr reason.

I also realize that pp can lie, but I choose to keep it honest looking without drastically changing an image.

I love PP and see it as the digital darkroom of today! And to get a good piece to work on, obviously you must start with a great photo to begin with.

I also feel that those who see PP as a way to make photographs lie, either are commercial photographers that want to lie, or are those who don't see the original image as a block just waiting to be sculptured...

[Bob_A]

I think PP is required for every shot, even those that are captured perfectly.

Why?

- Digital cameras create images with color casts and have poor automatic white balance
- If you shoot RAW you must add some sharpening in PP to compensate for the AA filter (amount required varies from camera to camera). Also, sharpening applied as the last step versus in-camera gives the best result.
- Often the light that is available requires an exposure that is full of compromises requiring adjustments to black point and contrast in PP.
- You need to do PP to match the output device (printer) than you've selected ... by using "Proof Colors" and the correct printer profile. It's unfortunate, but different printers will produce different results unless you tailor your output to their specific profiles.

[Bob_A]

By the way, if you shot film and sent it to a lab for processing they did "PP" on your images ... auto-correcting exposure and contrast. You only notice exposure issues when you do your own darkroom work and need to tweak exposure from frame to frame when making prints.

And anyone that did their own darkroom work certainly knows how to dodge, burn and vignette to get the most out of an image ... and the more advanced ones know how to make an unsharp mask. :)

"PP" isn't just a digital thing ...

[RandyMN]

By the way, if you shot film and sent it to a lab for processing they did "PP" on your images ... auto-correcting exposure and contrast. You only notice exposure issues when you do your own darkroom work and need to tweak exposure from frame to frame when making prints.

And anyone that did their own darkroom work certainly knows how to dodge, burn and vignette to get the most out of an image ... and the more advanced ones know how to make an unsharp mask. :)

"PP" isn't just a digital thing ...

I can not agree with you any more strongly!

In fact, this day of digital demands more PP from the photographer than film ever did. Why? Because film had built in color expectancies that photographers and labs learned to rely on.

With digital we have lost that expectancy and all color is the responsibility of the photographer even more so than it used to be with film.

Secondly, people have began to expect PP from us! They now know that what once used to require someone touching up a large format negative is now done easily, and therefore expected!

HMMM, okay, I said easily, but it still truly reamins an art! I try to explain this to my wife every day when she tells me how photographs lie!

[tonybear007]

I think PP is required for every shot, even those that are captured perfectly.

Are you saying my digital camera is not capable of getting the shot right directly out of the camera?

I am very disappointed that I have to depend so heavily on PP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 40D, EOS 3 (35mm film), Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Improve Your Skills with the EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)

[RandyMN]

Are you saying my digital camera is not capable of getting the shot right directly out of the camera?

I am very disappointed that I have to depend so heavily on PP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 40D, EOS 3 (35mm film), Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Improve Your Skills with the EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)


Please don't get into the RAW verses JPEG debate. We all understand that JPEG will process according to settings used in the camera and RAW always requires some sharpening, color correction and minor adjustments.

My point and question is much more beyond that in wondering how people think in advance while composing shots!

[Bob_A]

Are you saying my digital camera is not capable of getting the shot right directly out of the camera?

I am very disappointed that I have to depend so heavily on PP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOS 40D, EOS 3 (35mm film), Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8
How to Improve Your Skills with the EOS 40D (http://mycanoneos40d.com)

Certainly you can get a decent image right out of the camera, and if you're in complete control of the light (studio) and use a grey card to set your white balance you can get excellent results ... but you'll still need to make adjustments to suit the printer you're using.

The kind of PP I do is pretty simple and quick. I don't reconstruct faces or replace skin.

[FlyingPhotog]

There's "PP" and then there's "PP..."

Basic, simple adjustments that mirror what was done in a darkroom are a very different animal than creating something akin to a Roger Dean album cover.

Nearly everything I shoot benefits from a quick wash through ACR but if it needs major, pixel level surgery, then I screwed up at the time of exposure.

ETA: Similar reasoning to Perry's, I voted 1 and 3 as well.

[Perry Ge]

Your first and third options in the poll are not mutually exclusive...I voted for both of them.

[Bob_A]

Your first and third options in the poll are not mutually exclusive...I voted for both of them.

Agree. If I knew I could vote for two I would have done the same :)

[Sean]

Honestly I think your poll is pretty biased. There seems to be a heavy slant towards PP being evil or wrong. I'll opt out.

[tom1s]

I agree with Sean and I'm not sure what to think of "I PP because I love making photo's lie." Heck, I rarely send out an email on the first draft and every single one of them I spell check! Is every one of my emails a "lie"? I can look at almost every photo I've ever taken and think of some way to make it look better, from simple curves to color tone.

[RandyMN]

Biased or not, these are the opinions I have heard both in and outside this forum. Although all may be true to an extent, If my own thoughts appear biased then it's most certainly not because I see PP as only an evil or bad.

In fact I feel it's absolutely mandatory but only after one has done the best poossible job with the camera.

Just like the old saying "You are what you eat", in digital photography it's the stuff you put in that makes for a successful output. In fact pushing exposures that were underexposed to begin with results in muddy colors and excessive noise while over exposure results in loss of detail in hilights.

How many actually over expose with the plan to recapture the detail during post processing?

[Dan-o]

What the heck is she doing to the image to spend 4 hours on each. Can you get it right in camera and not do any PP? Sure. The question though, is every photo perfect? Almost any photo can benefit from some sort of adjustment, so why not do it.

I'll shoot a sporting event in RAW with 500+ photos and have them processed, cropped and on my site in less then 2 hrs.

[Bobster]

4 hours? for some serious PP sure, skin treatment, reshaping of the body etc..

i don't think i've ever spent more than 2 hours on an image..

[thisdorkagain]

PP is an enhancing art. but there are some good lenses out there like the L-series Canon lenses that don't need touchup if you do the right lighting and what-not

[S.Horton]

Your first and third options in the poll are not mutually exclusive...I voted for both of them.

+1

;)

[cdifoto]

Who think images can be made without PP?

Slippery slope.

You can either have the camera do it for you or you can do it yourself but you cannot avoid it altogether.

[Pinto]

Ansel Adams said something to the effect, "Half the photograph is made in the camera, the other half in the darkroom". If you want control over your final image, it is impossible to separate the two.

[ssracer]

I am still pretty new to photography, but I shoot every shot with the intention of it being "perfect" right out of the camera. However, every shot I have taken can be improved with at least some simple pp work. The better I get the shot out of the camera, the less work is required to "perfect" it after the fact.

[ofdphoto]

Lightroom represents the second half of my workflow. I depend on a great exposure to get a great result in post ... just like I depend on my processing to complete the work I start behind the camera.

Incidentally, my policy is "if it can't be done in Lightroom, it doesn't get done". That makes it easy for me to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable PP. But everyone is different.

[Analog6]

Naturally, I try to get it right in camera, but becuase I use Adobe colour balance pics appear dull straight off camera. P is necessary to do fine tweaking.

I too disagree with major adjusting and then showing a pic as 'natural'. I saw one that won a landscape comp and the guy had made 28 adjustment layers and it looked totally different from the flat and dull original pics - he had made it dark and brooding. I think that is cheating.

[cdifoto]

I too disagree with major adjusting and then showing a pic as 'natural'. I saw one that won a landscape comp and the guy had made 28 adjustment layers and it looked totally different from the flat and dull original pics - he had made it dark and brooding. I think that is cheating.
It's only cheating if the landscape competition rules stated "show the image as straight out of the camera" and even then the final result would depend upon the camera settings or choice of film, not to mention development of said film and then final print (choice of printer, inks, paper, etc).

There are far too many links in the chain to ever get an "unprocessed image."

[Bobster]

all photos are processed..

[René Damkot]

I think that is cheating.
Why?

You make choices as you take the image: Exposure, FoV, perspective, framing and the like.

You also make choices in post processing: What do you want the image to look like?

Both are the same in my book: You decide how you want an image to look.

[gcobb]

I have several views on this. I believe that the camera should do the biggest part of the work. I used to rely on the camera alone, but these are times where at least some level adjustments or something are almost required to get the most out of an image.

What I don't agree with is someone who takes a noticable crappy image, spend a few minutes adding effects to it with PS and calling it a "photograph". There is a fine line in that instance where you go from a crappy photographer to a good PS guy.

But PP is something that is everywhere, every magazine, billboard and almost everywhere else. Good photographers can do without it, but then if you add a little PP it could easily make the images better.

[gcobb]

all photos are processed..

Are all of them post processed?

[canonnoob]

I did the first option and the second option. I think that exposure and composition are the true art but I also see nothing wrong with PP being done to make an image come alive. and show things that the camera may not totally pick up on. But there is no subsitute for the photographers eye

[davidcrebelxt]

Are all of them post processed?

Yes... (excepting polaroid's (maybe.))

The digital camera is making major decisions in outputting that .jpg, and that takes place after the time of capture. It's just that the camera's computer is designed to do this within miliseconds, whereas it may take a much more discerning human minutes... but still, its done after the time of capture.

When arguing ACR's bad colors, many Adobe fan-boys first response was "Camera .jpgs aren't accurate colors either... they are over-saturated and too contrasty." And why is that? Because the camera post-processes the image. And my argument was, although that may be true, that Adobe's "unadjusted ACR" representation was even MORE wrong by taking a red fire-engine and turning it orange.

In film, you had choices too... you could use Velvia, and get a saturated image that would really pop!

"What if you set camera to neutral?" Its still processing to a set of parameters... its just the camera is adjusting the sliders rather than a human hand. And is that always BETTER?

To quote a line from a movie 'It's all shadows on film.' None of it is 'real.'

Our eyes have much more true dynamic range than any printed photo.
Photos are a small window on the world, while our eyes give a much wider, undistorted field of view.
Our eye-brain combo has an uncanny ability to filter out noise - say telephone wires, or signs - and still see a beautiful vista... yet when captured on static film, our eye suddenly focuses on those objects at the expense of the beauty.
A typical photo will never capture, say, the view (or smell) of a garbage dump just outside the frame of the image.
But any photo could be considered a "lie" then to some extent.
So in the end alot depends on the usage of the image.
In photojournalism, you would do a little as possible (no cloning, skin smoothing, etc.) because you are telling a story trying to represent absolute reality.


Portraits, modeling shoots, landscapes, however are another story. In these types of images we are often trying to convey emotion, sometimes as the way something looks in our memory. For these, I think its absolutely reasonable to clone out that sign, remove that pimple, or boost the saturation. How far each person wants to go is up to them and what they are trying to accomplish with the image. Is it a lie... or just reflecting reality from your point of view... or is it art, representing a percieved "ideal?"

So... I didn't vote for any of the choices. In the end, if someone wants to think of all photography as a lie... that's their choice. They can live in a world without pictures if they so desire.

[elysium]

Whilst I understand the options, where is the one which says.

"Whilst I enjoy my photos as they are, I feel a bit of PP brings them to life"?

Processing is not wrong, its evolution. Photography is still art just with more variations than previously and if someone cannot keep up, I think that would be a weakness.

[MattMoore]

I chose "I PP because I love making photo's lie" b/c it made me laugh.

[airfrogusmc]

PP is just seeing your vision through. Think of photoshop as the digital darkroom. You need to master it the same why you need to master your camera and your vision. Its all part of the process. Like Adams said once

Exposing the film the is like writing the musical score processing then printing the negative is performing the piece. All part of the process...

[gcobb]

Yes... (excepting polaroid's (maybe.))

The digital camera is making major decisions in outputting that .jpg, and that takes place after the time of capture. It's just that the camera's computer is designed to do this within miliseconds, whereas it may take a much more discerning human minutes... but still, its done after the time of capture.

When arguing ACR's bad colors, many Adobe fan-boys first response was "Camera .jpgs aren't accurate colors either... they are over-saturated and too contrasty." And why is that? Because the camera post-processes the image. And my argument was, although that may be true, that Adobe's "unadjusted ACR" representation was even MORE wrong by taking a red fire-engine and turning it orange.

In film, you had choices too... you could use Velvia, and get a saturated image that would really pop!

"What if you set camera to neutral?" Its still processing to a set of parameters... its just the camera is adjusting the sliders rather than a human hand. And is that always BETTER?

To quote a line from a movie 'It's all shadows on film.' None of it is 'real.'

Our eyes have much more true dynamic range than any printed photo.
Photos are a small window on the world, while our eyes give a much wider, undistorted field of view.
Our eye-brain combo has an uncanny ability to filter out noise - say telephone wires, or signs - and still see a beautiful vista... yet when captured on static film, our eye suddenly focuses on those objects at the expense of the beauty.
A typical photo will never capture, say, the view (or smell) of a garbage dump just outside the frame of the image.
But any photo could be considered a "lie" then to some extent.
So in the end alot depends on the usage of the image.
In photojournalism, you would do a little as possible (no cloning, skin smoothing, etc.) because you are telling a story trying to represent absolute reality.


Portraits, modeling shoots, landscapes, however are another story. In these types of images we are often trying to convey emotion, sometimes as the way something looks in our memory. For these, I think its absolutely reasonable to clone out that sign, remove that pimple, or boost the saturation. How far each person wants to go is up to them and what they are trying to accomplish with the image. Is it a lie... or just reflecting reality from your point of view... or is it art, representing a percieved "ideal?"

So... I didn't vote for any of the choices. In the end, if someone wants to think of all photography as a lie... that's their choice. They can live in a world without pictures if they so desire.

I see your point but it was WAY off in left field from what we are after in the thread. :)

[cdifoto]

I see your point but it was WAY off in left field from what we are after in the thread. :)
"Spot on" is a more accurate description.

[RandyMN]

"Spot on" is a more accurate description.

"So... I didn't vote for any of the choices. In the end, if someone wants to think of all photography as a lie... that's their choice. They can live in a world without pictures if they so desire"

I think this statement has too much emphasis being placed on only one aspect of addressing the issue of whether a photo is a lie or not.

I never suggested that photo's lie by just making a few changes. Photo's only lie when legs are stretched, subjects that weren't there are placed into the composition, or when the original image becomes so different from the original that someone looking at the same thing would not recognize it.

Surely we don't want granny looking like a teenager any more than the family, or even granny would like to see that lie!!

I disagree about this descrition being "Spot On"!

To live in a world without pictures is as far fetched as me telling you to starve to death because you dislike carrots...

As with any form of art, interpretation is that of which the artist wishes to portray and has chosen to do so for a reason that is not necessarily right or wrong, only a form of expression.

[airfrogusmc]

Randy your wife is right photographs are and have always been lies. From the very first photo Neipces Window at Les Gras 1827 till the last one anyone has taken. They are abstractions by their very nature. They freeze time. Photographers choose what to focus on. What to include and what to leave out. Theres is nor has there been absolute truth in a photograph. Commercial portraits are usually an attempt to make people look better than they really are with lighting, make up and art work.

[BestVisuals]

You can't make blanket statements like they're all lies or they all take 4 hours.

Even Ansel Adams used to say that his photographs were his "interpretations" of what he saw that day. He never represented them as photographically accurate, even though he came closer to making the media accurate than anyone else did.

Good photo editors do their PP amazingly quick. And if they're good photographers, they do less because they capture the image very close to ideal in the camera.

I have several images right out of the camera that I'd enter in competition.

[gcobb]

The way we interpret things, whether they're straight from the camera or post processed (with Photoshop) is what we see and doesn't really make it a lie in that sense.

What it sounds like the OP is getting at is whether a heavily post processed (with PS) image is turning one image into something it clearly isn't.

[airfrogusmc]

Once the photographer has decided how to crop (in camera) angle of view any of the things one does to capture the image he/she has put their interruption on the photograph. Even if he/she does nothing post. Don't you think?

[sjones]

No post processing? What else am I supposed to do at night?

Here's a photo that likely received minimal processing, and yet...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/closedhl.asp

[joedlh]

If you shoot raw, post processing is always necessary. In addition, your photographic equipment will seldom capture the subject as the you either envisioned it or remember it. Post processing lets you tell the truth, not to lie. But it can be used to lie too. It can also allow you to create art that goes beyond the captured image. It's another tool in your utility belt.

[RandyMN]

Oh you mean like calling post-processing a lie. Gotcha.

Sometimes, in fact often times photo's do lie. Post processing allows that aspect of photography to more easily be achieved.

You notice I put emphasis on teh word sometimes?

I think again as said before, we are getting hung up here on just one aspect of photographic processing.

[cdifoto]

Who's getting hung up? I've seen a lot of scenarios put forth but no one getting stuck on any one over the other...

[René Damkot]

Well, this thread just got a bit shorter it seems...

Play nice kids, otherwise this thread would need processing again and, just like a jpg, I'm afraid it wouldn't hold up to such extensive manipulation :rolleyes:

[davidcrebelxt]

"So... I didn't vote for any of the choices. In the end, if someone wants to think of all photography as a lie... that's their choice. They can live in a world without pictures if they so desire"

I disagree about this descrition being "Spot On"!

To live in a world without pictures is as far fetched as me telling you to starve to death because you dislike carrots...

As with any form of art, interpretation is that of which the artist wishes to portray and has chosen to do so for a reason that is not necessarily right or wrong, only a form of expression.

Well, it seems we agree then... becasue that's my point exactly... the statement was supposed to sound as ridiculous as it came across, exactly like your carrots description. I was being facetious. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Get it as close to right in the camera at the time of exposure but why wouldn't you use PP to finish it? No different than increasing, decreasing development time, split developer, burning, dodging, etc to get the best representation of your vision in a final form. But they shouldn't be thought of as separate but all a part to achieve a better whole.

[ohansen]

Once you have pressed the shutter button, you have created a lie.

Did you change any of the camera parameters, like the shooting styles etc.?

Then, you zoomed in or out, you set your aperture maybe to get rid of something unpleasant in the background, you stepped aside maybe to get rid of something unpleasant beside you, you tilted your camera for a more interesting crop. You might even have interfered with your subject and told them to "smile" (shock horror, a picture of my wife smiling)!

Maybe you even went as far as to walk down behind/around your subject to get rid of some rubbish, instead of cloning it out. Did you put the rubbish back (where it belongs according to the theory of truth), did you do the right thing and take it away and put into the bin, or did you just leave it outside the picture frame?

Dammit, one could argue that even before we take our pictures, we create our lies.

And even when we don't take pictures, my view of the world is different from yours. Whose view is the biggest lie, yours or mine?

Philosophic rubbish aside, I voted for PP being mandatory because when I have clicked the button, I'm not looking to tell the world the truth, I'm looking to tell myself what my eyes can do with what I captured in that very moment, and if the world doesn't like that then tough.

But then I take photos for fun, after all I'm not a photojournalist in a war zone. For them other rules apply. Moving dead leaves around (in Photoshop or in real life) for effect doesn't make the autumn forest much different, moving dead bodies on the other hand...

[LuckyRobJ]

Since the poll indicated "sharpness and color correction not counted" I voted that exposure and composition can only be attained at shutter time. Garbage in equals garbage out. Even with RAW you can have a much better image if it was captured correctly.

PP is a tool to make an image better, but it will not make a bad image great.