Post Processing... condemned or not?

[Link64]

((...dunno if this was asked earlier but didnt find it from search...))

Ok, so before I had my slr I was quite a photoshop guru, and i loved it, used to make my photos look far better thanks to this program - but that cause I used to semi-blame my lack of functions and options in my point and shoot camera.

Recently I got an slr, and ever since i'm figuring out how to create the poper effect directly through the camera, i'm growing a feeling of turning off edited photos ((you know, like "that looks great only thanks to photoshop..."))

question is - does anyone appricate truly non-edited photos more then the edited ones? (even if edit will almost always look better)

personally I prefer an average photo but faithful/true, then faked ones
(on most of the subjects that is, unless ur aiming for surreal effects, hdr or whatnot)

[RDKirk]

question is - does anyone appricate truly non-edited photos more then the edited ones? (even if edit will almost always look better)

With any subject, the camera always fails to accurately replicate either reality or the vision of the artist, and must be forced to do so. Much of that force can be applied within the camera, but never all of it, and that is the way it has always been in photography.

To pretend otherwise now is either ignorance of the history and art of photography, or the acceptance of a heterodoxical ethic that has nothing genuine to do with the history and art of photography.

[nemo man]

Film photography is post processed - sometimes to a considerable level. Movies are shot and then post-processed. Fish are caught and then cleaned and gutted. Cars are made on a line (well maybe not at the moment) and then de-waxed in the showroom and modified by the buyer. Paintings are painted, then framed by the buyer. Nearly everything is post-processed.

The import thing IMO is what a thing looks like, feels like, tastes like etc. The means of its production and post-production are not really important - apart from things like not exploiting labour etc.

I'm having a shop pizza for supper, but I'm adding olives cos there ain't enough!

No?

[yogestee]

Film photography is post processed - sometimes to a considerable level. Movies are shot and then post-processed. Fish are caught and then cleaned and gutted. Cars are made on a line (well maybe not at the moment) and then de-waxed in the showroom and modified by the buyer. Paintings are painted, then framed by the buyer. Nearly everything is post-processed.

The import thing IMO is what a thing looks like, feels like, tastes like etc. The means of its production and post-production are not really important - apart from things like not exploiting labour etc.

I'm having a shop pizza for supper, but I'm adding olives cos there ain't enough!

No?

Bloody great answer Nemo!!

In short, you do what wets your whistle..

[theague]

Film photography is post processed - sometimes to a considerable level. Movies are shot and then post-processed. Fish are caught and then cleaned and gutted. Cars are made on a line (well maybe not at the moment) and then de-waxed in the showroom and modified by the buyer. Paintings are painted, then framed by the buyer. Nearly everything is post-processed.

The import thing IMO is what a thing looks like, feels like, tastes like etc. The means of its production and post-production are not really important - apart from things like not exploiting labour etc.

I'm having a shop pizza for supper, but I'm adding olives cos there ain't enough!

No?

Great Answer!

A photo or image is what the creator makes of it. Whether it is straight from the camera or it's been heavily PP'd. The end result is what is important and what is important beyond that is if it functions for it's purpose. Was the image created solely for your pleasure? Does it bring you pleasure? Was it created to be sold? Does it appeal to the masses?

I shoot for myself, so all my editing and results are for ME. I get feedback from people from time to time but it's more a technical feedback than a fundamental one.

[joedlh]

I wonder why this is an issue.

If one considers photography an art, then the artist uses whatever tools are at his or her disposal to create the image that was envisioned. Seldom will that be the image that comes right from the camera, especially if one bypasses the camera's image processing programming by shooting in raw mode. So what's the big deal about post processing? Sometimes I think people poo-poo it because the don't have the willingness or ability to take it on. But don't criticize the rest of us when we do.

It does come down to personal style. Some may be happy if the camera does all the work. So the idea of in-camera processing is a delightful proposition for them. As for me, I often don't care for the camera's choices. I also shoot in settings where there's lots going on and my goal is to capture a fleeting instant of time. Therefore, it would be foolish for me to spend a lot of time processing images in-camera that I've already shot. It would guarantee that I completely missed something compelling. So my strategy is to let the camera grab as much data from the scene as it can (raw mode) and let me do the work later on at home when there are no quick wildlife or fleeting moments of human emotion to be missed.

[Link64]

Sometimes I think people poo-poo it because the don't have the willingness or ability to take it on. But don't criticize the rest of us when we do.


well for me its easier to use photoshop then to shoot a proper photo primarily.

what I actually meant was for those effects which can be obtained directly with the camera via settings or accessories, not for artistic edits.

personally I think that getting the pic u want from the camera is more professional then editing to make it look good - that type of post processing

*confused*

[nemo man]

So my strategy is to let the camera grab as much data from the scene as it can (raw mode) and let me do the work later on at home when there are no quick wildlife or fleeting moments of human emotion to be missed.

Well said, and if you think about it, that's exactly what a painter sometimes does if not painting at the scene. He will take pictures and do sketches, then go back to the studio to create the painting. However, it is important to get things as right as possible in the camera when shooting. PP should be a refinement, not a butchers job.

[nphsbuckeye]

((...dunno if this was asked earlier but didnt find it from search...))
Very often.

[yogestee]

well for me its easier to use photoshop then to shoot a proper photo primarily.

what I actually meant was for those effects which can be obtained directly with the camera via settings or accessories, not for artistic edits.

personally I think that getting the pic u want from the camera is more professional then editing to make it look good - that type of post processing

*confused*

I'm from the school,,do everything you can in camera.. For me, post processing is only a tool to enhance your images.. I do very little in Photoshop if I can..

Check this out,,all done in camera..

[Link64]

I'm from the school,,do everything you can in camera.. For me, post processing is only a tool to enhance your images.. I do very little in Photoshop if I can..

Check this out,,all done in camera..

wow how did u create that black upper part?
this is what i meant!!!
it would be easy enough (and lazy) just to take the shot and add the dark part later - but true photographers do it in the shot :)

[theague]

It could be a storm cloud or he also could have used a soft grad neutral density filter at an angle. The image could still be improved in PP though.

[nemo man]

OK, as we are into posting shots now... this shot was taken a couple of years ago at a local scene. This jpeg is straight from the unprocessed RAW file - crap isn't it?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg259/carregwen/forum/amroth_1.jpg

But, I sold the following post-processed (CS3) version, framed, to someone for £100 (US$170) who wanted it because the scene had a particular memory for her and she was moving abroad. She never saw the original RAW - which is just as well. My argument remains - it's the end product that counts. I don't like this version either - there are several flaws in it, but she bought it, and I profited. Both happy.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg259/carregwen/forum/L003_amroth_1.jpg

[LeuceDeuce]

The horse is dead.

[Chrazer]

Link64 stated that he was post processing P&S photos before. My experience was that I tended to over process my P&S photos because there was not much to play with, the photo comes out heavily processed. You cannot really recover a photo merely dress it up a bit or even a bit too much. With a DSLR the RAW files are able to be manipulated in a fashion that leaves an image that bears no marks of a heavy handed manipulation. I am not saying that heavy manipulation is wrong, far from it.

[RDKirk]

personally I think that getting the pic u want from the camera is more professional then editing to make it look good - that type of post processing

"Professionalism" is a matter of achieving the intended results in the most efficient and effective manner possible. "Efficient and effective" includes not only speed but also economy, consistency, and certainty.

If I can more quickly, more certainly, or more economically create an effect in Photoshop than in the camera, then it's "more professional" for me to do so.

Methodology that is slower, less certain, or more costly to gain the same end product is the luxury of the hobbyist.

[RDKirk]

So my strategy is to let the camera grab as much data from the scene as it can (raw mode)

This is a different proposition. The fact is that "grabbing as much data from the scene" as the sensor is capable of producing actually requires raw and requires post processing.

In effect, this isn't different from the expert use of B&W film, in which collecting as much image data as possible in the negative required customization of both exposure and development, and even then might require additional "post processing"--dodging, burning in, ferricyaniding--before the image matched either reality or the vision of the photographer.

People today extoll the "long tonal range" of B&W film, but the fact is that the long tonal range that makes photographers smack their lips is the result of post-processing techniques that have become so common photographers hardly think of them as "manipulation."

And none of us old guys who ever ferricyanided a print should have anything to say about Photoshop manipulation...if breathing the fumes of a deadly poison just to get a tone to our liking isn't extreme, nothing is.

[yogestee]

People today extoll the "long tonal range" of B&W film, but the fact is that the long tonal range that makes photographers smack their lips is the result of post-processing techniques that have become so common photographers hardly think of them as "manipulation."

Sure,,development has a hand in aquiring a long tonal range but there is more to it than that.. Exposure and the type of film you use is very important..

Tri-X has some of the longest tonal range and grey separation I've seen especially when overexposed by a tad and the development pulled back by about 10-15%.. Ilford PanF rated at 40 ISO then development pulled back also exhibited a very long tonal range and virtually no grain..

[Mosca]

((...dunno if this was asked earlier but didnt find it from search...))

Ok, so before I had my slr I was quite a photoshop guru, and i loved it, used to make my photos look far better thanks to this program - but that cause I used to semi-blame my lack of functions and options in my point and shoot camera.

Recently I got an slr, and ever since i'm figuring out how to create the poper effect directly through the camera, i'm growing a feeling of turning off edited photos ((you know, like "that looks great only thanks to photoshop..."))

question is - does anyone appricate truly non-edited photos more then the edited ones? (even if edit will almost always look better)

personally I prefer an average photo but faithful/true, then faked ones
(on most of the subjects that is, unless ur aiming for surreal effects, hdr or whatnot)


So, if you're doing it all in camera, you're shooting jpeg, right? and you're not using any of the picture styles, are you? Rather you're setting all the colors and everything yourself?

Oops; looks like you just missed the shot.

It's digital. They aren't colors, they are numerical values that represent colors. Manipulate them here, manipulate them there; no difference.

You have to change your thinking, otherwise you get caught up in that heterodoxy thing. And no one wants that to happen.

[thebishopp]

This is a different proposition. The fact is that "grabbing as much data from the scene" as the sensor is capable of producing actually requires raw and requires post processing.

In effect, this isn't different from the expert use of B&W film, in which collecting as much image data as possible in the negative required customization of both exposure and development, and even then might require additional "post processing"--dodging, burning in, ferricyaniding--before the image matched either reality or the vision of the photographer.

People today extoll the "long tonal range" of B&W film, but the fact is that the long tonal range that makes photographers smack their lips is the result of post-processing techniques that have become so common photographers hardly think of them as "manipulation."

And none of us old guys who ever ferricyanided a print should have anything to say about Photoshop manipulation...if breathing the fumes of a deadly poison just to get a tone to our liking isn't extreme, nothing is.

+1 on this... a fact that should be true for anyone who has ever spent time in a darkroom (I myself haven't set foot in a dark room in nearly 18 years... whew lol).

Now I will agree that there is a point where photoshop (using the term generically) becomes more than the digital darkroom and rolls over into the realm of Graphic Design.

[alabama1980]

((...dunno if this was asked earlier but didnt find it from search...))

Ok, so before I had my slr I was quite a photoshop guru, and i loved it, used to make my photos look far better thanks to this program - but that cause I used to semi-blame my lack of functions and options in my point and shoot camera.

Recently I got an slr, and ever since i'm figuring out how to create the poper effect directly through the camera, i'm growing a feeling of turning off edited photos ((you know, like "that looks great only thanks to photoshop..."))

question is - does anyone appricate truly non-edited photos more then the edited ones? (even if edit will almost always look better)

personally I prefer an average photo but faithful/true, then faked ones
(on most of the subjects that is, unless ur aiming for surreal effects, hdr or whatnot)

Since I loath post processing I try to get what I want in the camera and minimize my processing time.

I would much rather be shooting than stuck in front of a computer trying to turn a pile of crap into a bed of roses. I feel editing should be a fine tuning of an existing product not the beginning of its creation.

[sjones]

As noted by Mosca, adjusting saturation in camera before the shot or in Photoshop after the shot does not evince any philosophical incongruence in regards to purity and skill. Digital manipulation is occurring after the shutter release in both cases. The former can offer expediency, should the photographer not have time for post processing on a computer, while the latter offers greater flexibility. Also, as joedlh and Mosca noted, if you are having to photograph fleeting objects in changing conditions (or should you want to change the style via your in camera settings), you better be pretty damn quick with it.

The issue of white balance, for example, demonstrates where digital offers a different framework incomparable to traditional methods of ensuring proper color correction, whereby attempting to get it right in camera offers no advantage in terms of purity or skill compared with adjusting it in RAW in Photoshop.

Notions of "I shoot JPEG because I don't like to manipulate my imagines" ignores reailty as explained above, and assumptions that the use of RAW/post processing is only for corrective purposes is myopic at best, often times arrogant (as annoying as the RAW-only proponents can be, the other side can be too).

To be sure, striving to get proper exposure, focus, composition, and a compelling subject matter "in camera" is a worthwhile pursuit; increasing reliance on Photoshop to correct mistakes could lead to lazy habits. More importantly, Photoshop is not a magical device, and some mistakes are irreparable (I believe this is what the OP is getting at).

Yet, assuming that getting the desired photo "from the camera is more professional then editing to make it look good" requires further clarification, because at face value, the statement ignores the simple fact that, at least with black & white, the post processing (darkroom) phase can prove the most integral and creative aspect of making an excellent print. If professionalism pertains only to those who extract a photo straight from a camera, whether JPEG from digital, film, or Polaroid, without further post processing, then you will have to exclude a number of immensely talented photographers from the list; not to mention that such a definition slights the talents of master printers, or for that matter, Photoshop masters.

Additionally, I would hate to think that the innards of Canon and Nikon (for the most part) would dictate the only styles produced, as various at they might be.

All of this said, if the process of never using post processing is enjoyable and rewarding, then that is great. No rule exists demanding the use of computer software, at least beyond whatever the photographer uses to upload the images. Having fun; that is what it is about, and however a photographer decides to achieve such fun is his or her personal choice.

[wickerprints]

I have a friend who is also an avid film photographer. His only post-processing goal is to make the resulting image look like how his eyes saw the color and light of the scene, as faithfully and accurately as possible. He has said to me that if an object showed up on the film, that's what's there and that's how he saw it.

On a certain level, this is true, but on another level, I think all photography is a sort of deception. Perhaps that's a bit strong; I would be more inclined to say that there is no objective point of view, that everything we see and experience is filtered through our perceptual frames and is therefore subjective.

Ironically, this same friend and I happened upon an interesting demonstration of this intrinsic subjectivity when we visited a science museum. There was an exhibit that displayed a spot of light of a certain color. Next to this spot were several other colors, all ranging in similar hue to the reference. The exercise was to select the color that was most similar to the reference. As we simultaneously observed this exhibit, we chose entirely different colors. He claimed that his was more "accurate" than mine.

As we solicited answers from other people at the museum, we found that on average, more people tended to select a color closer to the one I chose (relative to the one he chose), but that is beside the point. The purpose of the exhibit was to demonstrate that color perception is slightly different from person to person because it depends on the particular extent of excitation of the cones in the retina, and as in any biological system, there are naturally occurring variations.

But this goes back to the whole illusion of objective truth. If each of us sees color in ever-so-slightly different ways, how is it even possible to claim that there should be precisely one way to see something? In that context, it is meaningless to ask whether photography should be truthful, or if post-processing is deceptive. Our own visual systems deceive us.

There is no baseline reality. It's turtles all the way down.

So in my view, trying to chase truth with light is a bit self-defeating. In the end, you're only pursuing your own truth, which means nobody else will ever see exactly what you see, and that's why it is art. Post-processing is the slippery slope, the shades of gray, and at the end of the day there really is no difference between my friend who adjusts the color to reproduce what he felt he saw, and someone who decides to soften the wrinkles, clone out the acne, or remove a distracting background object. It is all manipulation and there is no such thing as one manipulation being more or less deceptive than another.

And even if you feel post-processing is deceptive, so what? The flaw lies not in the idea that photos should be representative of the truth, but rather, that photos can ever be representative of the truth. The greatest lie of photography is not when people digitally manipulate their images, but when people present photographs as evidence of what actually happened or what was there. We see this myth repeatedly promulgated in the media--especially the news, and our legal system.

I believe that part of the next revolution of photography is going to be a social, rather than technological, change, and that it is already upon us. The ubiquity of digital imaging and the ease and prevalence of manipulating digital media has brought this issue into the collective consciousness where it did not exist before. Now people look at images or videos online and they may say, "that's fake, it's Photoshopped." There is an awareness that images may no longer be considered trusted sources of "reality." Most of the non-photographic public did not say such things about traditional film chemistry, though photographers know (or ought to know!) that a lot of things went on in those darkrooms.

So where does this all take us? We are now beginning to come to grips with questions that have been, until recently, largely debated in the fine art and philosophical circles. I think this is a positive development. We need to be critical and ask questions, but more importantly, we need to come to the understanding that photography is just as much a selective telling, a choice of lighting or color or composition, of depth of view and styling and yes, post-processing. It is what makes photography an art, these individual choices.

[canonloader]

What you need to do is get so good at PS that you can edit any image and no one can tell it was edited, like National Geographic does. :mrgreen:

[ralff]

Ansel Adams would have been all over Photoshop.

[joedlh]

I sat in front of a fish tank of filter feeders (anemones and such) waiting for two fish to swim to the spot I wanted them to be so that I would be happy with the composition. After 30 minutes and scores of attempts, I said, screw this. I got a shot of one fish in position. In Photoshop, I took it's image, reversed it, changed size and angle and pasted it where I wanted the second fish to be. The print is hanging on a wall in my house. If anybody asks me how I got them where I wanted them, I tell them the story. So, am I a fraud anyway?

What about people who spray "dew" on flowers? Or others who put a stick near their bird feeders so they can get that bird-on-a-stick shot? If they refuse to manipulate the image in post processing, does that make them more "pure"?

[Mosca]

At the bottom, the photograph is not the same as what has been photographed, nor is it even representational of it; it is an entirely new thing, a photograph. How it arrives to the world is entirely immaterial.

[nemo man]

At the bottom, the photograph is not the same as what has been photographed, nor is it even representational of it; it is an entirely new thing, a photograph. How it arrives to the world is entirely immaterial.

bw!Great comment. All of these people chasing 'realism' are living in denial.

[nphsbuckeye]

What you need to do is get so good at PS that you can edit any image and no one can tell it was edited, like National Geographic does. :mrgreen:
First class editing, they have. ;)

[RDKirk]

We see this myth repeatedly promulgated in the media--especially the news, and our legal system.

To be clear, though, in the US the legal system has never taken a photograph at face value. The photographer must swear that his photograph represents what he saw and what actually happened before the photograph is taken as evidence. It's the testimony of the human that is believed--his photograph is just a different way of presenting his testimony other than verbally.

[canonloader]

Every image has something to tell us. Even if your a diehard purist, can you look at these images (http://www.funpic.hu/funblog/allatok/allatok.html) and say EWWwwwww? ? ?

[Mark_Cohran]

Coming from film, I'm of the school of thought that says get everything you possibly can right in the camera (exposure, composition, etc.) and then process the final image (in the darkroom or in Photoshop) as necessary to complete your vision. In other words, use post processing as a tool and not as a crutch.

[airfrogusmc]

Coming from film, I'm of the school of thought that says get everything you possibly can right in the camera (exposure, composition, etc.) and then process the final image (in the darkroom or in Photoshop) as necessary to complete your vision. In other words, use post processing as a tool and not as a crutch.

Exactly!!!:D

[chopperdave]

if the final product represents what the photogrphaer actually wanted, and looks good, who cares?

I don't. lol.

[yogestee]

Every image has something to tell us. Even if your a diehard purist, can you look at these images (http://www.funpic.hu/funblog/allatok/allatok.html) and say EWWwwwww? ? ?

I had a good long chuckle at these images..I also admired the artist's creativity..

[chauncey]

You guys answer this question often enough, all of you will have your responses down pat.

It is a dead horse.