Philosophy on Post Processing

[sf_1857]

This is a commentary on the widespread use of post processing in dig photography.

I'll start by saying that I spent 10 years in video production industry including digital non-linear editing, shooting, etc. Also am a web/graphic designer/developer so I understand the purposes, processes and tools of post processing.

But as I recently moved from film to digital in photography, I was surprised at how often 'post processing' is used and discussed. A couple of points on this issue.

1) Comparing lenses. How can you compare the quality of lenses in the forum by posting pics that were 'post' processed. Doesn't this defeat the purpose?

2) (With digital in general) When shooting in the field, there can be a danger of laziness, thinking, I'll fix it in post. This can lead to hurried shots, not taking the time to 'get it right', shooting 100 shots thinking, some of these have to be good.
Yes, this is also an advantage when done the right way.

3) Misrepresentation of what a camera/lens/photographer combo can do. Of course it makes sense in the end to post process if it improves the product for your customer. There are skills involved with shooting, lighting, etc that can be misrepresented by post processing then saying, look what I did. In a forum of photographers, I would rather see the original output to compare to my work. I can do post later.

4) Grey line between photographer and graphic designer (great shot vs great graphic). I've seen pics here that have border added, effects, etc and thought, I wonder what the original looked like. Isn't the true simplicity/beauty of photography represented solely by what an individual can do with a camera, lens and good eye. I think that is what should set apart a great photo, not what happens in PS.

I'll end by saying, I know a shot can't be made 'great' simply by adding effects. I just wish there was more 'untouched' representation of photos, placing the emphasis on the "shot", not the "graphic".

[ghocking]

I not for or against post processing. You can always tell one thats been done badly. A few of the photos on this forum do state that they have use a small amount of USM, but a bad unsharp shot can never get is sharpness back.

Also these are digital days and PS is only the darkroom that was used with film. People who did there own film processing did the same, burn here, mask there, so were is the difference.
Isn't using filters just another way of processing (pre), you are attempting to achieve a shot that the camera can not take.

[weemannie]

I take your point, but the nature of digital, particularly RAW means that sharpening is required, either in camera or using photo editing software.

As sf_1857 rightly says, some sort of post processing has always been undertaken by enthusiasts so what's the difference? Whether its digital or dodging, burning in film the end result is the same. :)

As far as your second point is concerned, again, so what, if some people prefer not to learn how to take a good shot in camera and 'create' it on their PC, good luck to them. The key is surely to ENJOY the hobby. After all, a great image to one person, may be just fair to someone else. Its subjective, and to some extent, dependent upon the viewers interest in the subject matter.

To me the BIG advantage of digital is that I'm not afraid to experiment anymore. I don't go out and think, hang on, if I shoot 300 pictures today I won't be able to eat for a week :) so that attempt at trying something new costs no more than the time it takes to view the image and say great or press the delete button.

[WepWaWep]

My philosophy has been and always will be, the picture starts at the camera. I experiment with the aspects, I learn the ins and outs of my lenses and I strive to capture the best image I can.

I also shoot in RAW, which is a bit dull and even though I set my camera to increase the various areas of sharpness etc, I do need to do some work in post processing. A darkroom is dark room to me whether it contains chemicals or electrons. You can take a great capture and make it look stunning in the darkroom, you can salvage a missed shot if the elements are there, but a crappy photo will always be a crappy photo and no amount of post processing can change that.

[sf_1857]

What got me started on this was in viewing pics posted on the forum as a way to show the sharpness of a lens, yet at times, having USM run. Without having a baseline of format (RAW v jpg) and processing (none v USM, etc), it is a little challenging in lens comparison.

On the overall usage of post, everyone made good points. SInce I didn't so my own dark room work with film, I had not thought of that comparison.

[blue_max]

Is it not the case that digital slr pictures must be sharpened on a computer to achieve acceptable results (or at least results which we all try to achieve). It is not really an option and some lenses produce files that 'lend' themselves very well to the process. I think that sharpening a bad photo will not make it good, whereas it will enhance a quality image.

If post processing is an integral part of the process, then judging the raw article is not really seeing the potential.

Whether this is a direct comparison of lenses depends on who does the sharpening. If they are done in the same way, it may be a useful conclusion.

Hopefully we are all aware how to get the best out of our photos – that's why we are all here.

Graham

[ed2day]

1) Comparing lenses. How can you compare the quality of lenses in the forum by posting pics that were 'post' processed. Doesn't this defeat the purpose?

I agree with you here. I even wonder when someone says "no added sharpening" if it's really true since I know the Canon RAW utility will default to the sharpening programmed in the camera unless you specifically null it out each time.

2) (With digital in general) When shooting in the field, there can be a danger of laziness, thinking, I'll fix it in post. This can lead to hurried shots, not taking the time to 'get it right', shooting 100 shots thinking, some of these have to be good.
Yes, this is also an advantage when done the right way.
There's some truth to what you say, but you're going to get better shots overall if you can shoot as close to optimum as possible in the field. So there's still incentive to try to get it right.


3) Misrepresentation of what a camera/lens/photographer combo can do. Of course it makes sense in the end to post process if it improves the product for your customer. There are skills involved with shooting, lighting, etc that can be misrepresented by post processing then saying, look what I did. In a forum of photographers, I would rather see the original output to compare to my work. I can do post later.

Disagree here. Skills as photographer and post processor are too intertwined to seperate, so I don't see it as misrepresentation at all. As someone pointed out, this didnt just begin in the digital age.

4) Grey line between photographer and graphic designer (great shot vs great graphic). I've seen pics here that have border added, effects, etc and thought, I wonder what the original looked like. Isn't the true simplicity/beauty of photography represented solely by what an individual can do with a camera, lens and good eye. I think that is what should set apart a great photo, not what happens in PS.
Ahhh, that's a big topic. Really a matter of philosophies. I personally think there's a matter of journalistic integrity in photograpy; that if you are portraying an actual scene then portray it as it was, or could have been. "Could have been" is open for wide interpretation. Of course others take a more artistic view and use a photo as a launching point, taking creative license to do amazing stuff. I guess it's what feels right to you. But yes, the distinction does become muddled.

[Persian-Rice]

1) If someone is PP'ing an image used for comparison, such as a lens comparison, then I would consider it a useless comparison, the whole point is to know what they can do out of the camera.

2) I agree, thats is why most people who started in digital will have a hard time photographing in film, especially if they have taken on some of the bad habits caused by digital photography. If you go to any photography undergraduate program, you will notice that they almost never let you touch a digital camera in the first semester or even year. I Good film photographer is going to usually be a much more technically skilled photographer then any photographer who started in digital. It's the nature of the beast, film is far less forgiving and it requires much more discipline. To me a photographer who can shoot film is a real developed photographer, a person who cant has a lot to learn.

3) Although I agree, people are artists, as myself. I want to express a photo the way I see it. Yes, there are cases that shooting out of the camera is what is best, but its really a preference. You shot film long enough, don't you need to PP in the lab? Even setting exposure time on the enlarger and your method of chemical treatment will greatly influence the look of the photograph, the type of film you use will also be a big factor in the "the look". The there is dodging and burning mos of us do or have done in the lab. I think it is okay to cut and rip from different pictures to make one image, but then I wouldn't consider it a photograph.
If you are a heavy PP'er and have a weak handle of photography, then it will show if you work pro, but if you are an amateur, does it even matter?

4) As I said above. But yes, in digital there is a grey line. But I said this as well, if you are an amateur, you are your only real fan, so it doesn't matter. If you are a pro posing as a photographer, I hope that you are able to achieve a look you want without needing massive amounts of photoshop. For me personally, I will only PP a photograph to a point where I know I am equaling what my allowances are in film. ie. exposure, chemical and film. Mind you, most of these photographs you see in magazines or wherever are heavily edited in one way or other, film or digital. Your argument even questions the use of filters. Although Digital and Film are totally seperate world, they aren't all that different either.

[smittymike19]

ask ansel adams if the post processing makes a difference. this is just a trolling type of discussion. to get on a post processing forum and tell everyone that they are basically stupid for post processing, is just trying to rattle cages. its like getting on a sports teams forum and saying hey your team stinks, why bother rooting? no need for this.

[sf_1857]

First, I did not place this thread in Post Processing, the moderator did.

I placed it in Lenses, bc one of my points was related to comparing lenses. Please tell me how one can compare lenses on this forum w/o a baseline of whether PP was done.

I don't think it was a 'critical' post but one to start a discussion which I think is interesting. I'm not here to rattle cages, but rather to learn.

Some good points have been on the relevance of PP, some which I had not thought of. I appreciate positive feedback and healthy discussion.

BTW, I never called anyone 'stupid'.

[jfrancho]

Those whom reside in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

[dannym]

sf_1857's questions and comments are common for someone who never used a darkroom to process their own work. I felt the same way until someone quoted Ansel Adams to me. And while I can't remember the exact quote it was something like this. "The real work begins after you trip the shutter." I'm beginning to come around now.