Is it all in the post-production?

Hi All,

I just wanted to ask a question about taking photo's, etc.

I have seen so many great photo's on this forum, some so striking you can hardly believe they are real.

I have been taking photo's for a while now and experimenting with various techniques and have had some good success overall. That being said, my photo's simply do not compare to ones seen on this forum.

I wanted to know how many of these photo's are created post-production using photoshop, etc.? Of course I understand that it all starts with a good photo, but I am interested in knowing if many of the pics have been altered after the original shot was taken?

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

Thanks,

It could be, probably is though

I would say that most are done in Lightroom

I can't speak for others, but for me, all of my photos go through some level of post processing mostly with Photoshop but other programs as well such as CombineZP, Lightroom, and DPP. Sometimes it's just level adjustment but most times it's way more.

Usually it's something like this.
1. Start with the end product in mind.
2. Do your best to get as close as possible to what your mind sees as you hit the trigger.
3. Optional: take support shots if you will need them (ie "hdr" bracketing)
4. Post-process to take it the rest of the way.

Done! The most important step is #1, by the way.

SolEterna wrote in post #12733516
I wanted to know how many of these photo's are created post-production using photoshop, etc.? Of course I understand that it all starts with a good photo, but I am interested in knowing if many of the pics have been altered after the original shot was taken?
Thanks,

Crap in is nicer crap out. You have to start with something good, good composition, lack of distractions, appropriate lighting and depth of field as well as good capture (focus correctly no camera or subject shake unless that's what you are going for).

Those photos that look out of this worth may by HDR attempts that make it look like a painting and yes things like that are image created by photoshop.

And just about every photograph ever taken has to have things done to it to look its best. You could shoot JPG and not touch it or shoot slide flm and never scan it into a computer. But all print film had to be adjusted to deliver good prints using appropriate paper to give saturation and contrast. And any photo shot RAW /has/ to be altered to get it into a photo format since RAW is a file format and is /not/ and image at all until a photo conversion program is used.

I'd rather fine tune my images on my computer than shoot JPG and leave it to a computer to process the image in a split second without much regard to how the scene actually looked!

Thanks everyone for the information. It certainly makes me feel better about making the decision to do some post-production work.

i am of courses aware that I need to ensure that I get my shot as close as possible to what I'm looking for and then running the finishing touches in Lightroom or Photoshop afterwards.

Thanks again,

I put all of my images through PP. It comes as naturally as when I used to make prints from film.

David

Personally I feel that most of the wow shots are at least 50% PP. Just look at the before and after shots threads. Most of these are posted by the less experienced and the changes are amazing.

I think the most obvious examples are of the zoo animals. You get many shot with the same equipment and lighting etc is impossible to control. Those with the PP skills shots are light years ahead of the others.

Post processing suffers the stigma of being a corrective agent, and while it can certainly serve this purpose, it is also a means of enhancement, and in some ways, it can be the most creative aspect of the whole photographic process.

Even if you shoot JPEG, a form of post processing is occurring; in terms of photographic "pureness," there is no philosophical difference between setting sharpness or saturation in camera before the shot or on the computer after the shot…manipulation has occurred in both instances.

I understand the mentality: My first digital camera was a G3 (still a great camera), and I had read that RAW was best. So I shot in RAW. However, I noticed that my photos actually looked softer than the JPEG shots (at this time, the concept of RAW was as foreign as the meaning of f-stop or ISO, absolutely clueless on all levels). Yet, I felt as though I would be 'cheating' if I used software to sharpen up the RAW files. Actually, it would be a couple more years (fortunately prior to buying a DSLR) before I learned that RAW files generally require post processing; and then I learned about Ansel Adams' work in the darkroom, and the importance of post processing in general when working with black and white.

Anyway, if considerable post processing is used to make a photo look great; the appropriate response should be, "so what?" A great shot is a great shot irrespective of the means used to achieve its qualities.

Yes, there are some photographers who admit to lazily relying on post processing to cover up mistakes that could have been avoided during the shoot, and if one wants to criticize this approach, that's fine. However, post processing has been an integral aspect of photography since its inception (digital simplified the mechanics, but it did not necessarily invent them)---it is a tool like any other photographic tool, and its use will vary depending on the demands of style.

But if one likes a photo, and they find themselves saying, well yes, it's a great photo, but only because of the post processing, as if to self-consolingly devalue the actual quality of the photograph, then this person needs to shelve all jealousies and study up on the history of photography and direct their energies towards improving their post processing skills.

All digital photography is post processed one way or another. Some people just do it more than others, either to achieve better results or a desired effect.. IMHO, it's no different than it was or is for film photographers who use various techniques and filters during the process of developing film into prints.

sjones wrote in post #12734251
But if one likes a photo, and they find themselves saying, well yes, it's a great photo, but only because of the post processing, as if to self-consolingly devalue the actual quality of the photograph, then this person needs to shelve all jealousies and study up on the history of photography and direct their energies towards improving their post processing skills.

Amen. +1. Sign me up.

This should be mandatory reading.

This is what can be done with utterly dreck images....

Before:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/spacemunkie/3​914842431/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/spacemunkie/3​855768204/

Life is much quicker if you take good photos to start with though

sjones wrote in post #12734251
Post processing suffers the stigma of being a corrective agent, and while it can certainly serve this purpose, it is also a means of enhancement, and in some ways, it can be the most creative aspect of the whole photographic process.

Even if you shoot JPEG, a form of post processing is occurring; in terms of photographic "pureness," there is no philosophical difference between setting sharpness or saturation in camera before the shot or on the computer after the shot…manipulation has occurred in both instances.

I understand the mentality: My first digital camera was a G3 (still a great camera), and I had read that RAW was best. So I shot in RAW. However, I noticed that my photos actually looked softer than the JPEG shots (at this time, the concept of RAW was as foreign as the meaning of f-stop or ISO, absolutely clueless on all levels). Yet, I felt as though I would be 'cheating' if I used software to sharpen up the RAW files. Actually, it would be a couple more years (fortunately prior to buying a DSLR) before I learned that RAW files generally require post processing; and then I learned about Ansel Adams' work in the darkroom, and the importance of post processing in general when working with black and white.

Anyway, if considerable post processing is used to make a photo look great; the appropriate response should be, "so what?" A great shot is a great shot irrespective of the means used to achieve its qualities.

Yes, there are some photographers who admit to lazily relying on post processing to cover up mistakes that could have been avoided during the shoot, and if one wants to criticize this approach, that's fine. However, post processing has been an integral aspect of photography since its inception (digital simplified the mechanics, but it did not necessarily invent them)---it is a tool like any other photographic tool, and its use will vary depending on the demands of style.

But if one likes a photo, and they find themselves saying, well yes, it's a great photo, but only because of the post processing, as if to self-consolingly devalue the actual quality of the photograph, then this person needs to shelve all jealousies and study up on the history of photography and direct their energies towards improving their post processing skills.

Simply put.....

No it's not all pp. I feel it's an integral part of the end product though.

I mean even something as simple as cropping is pp, right?