Appropriate processing?

I see an awful lot of overly processed images here. They come in many types and sins (to me). I recently perused an urban candid thread where some guy processed overly contrasty yet flat (no blacks, blocked lower mid tones) and yellow highlights. I questioned the purpose and was told that the poster was being original. Right... that exact same effect is everywhere. It was mentioned that tons of work was done to get this effect, screwing with contrast and adding many color fill layers. And the comment that his images weren't "complete" until he processed like this. Huh?

I am not posting any specific images because I don't want this to be about anyone. I'd like to see this transcend to the philosophical.

So I ponder:

1) Is the original really a weak image, compositionally, and is this like adding glitter? Sort of like KISS was rock and roll in costume. Personally, glitter is horrid and so was KISS.

2) Do people that process to these extents actually know how to expose and compose an image, and is this a band-aid? I see tons of images of dogs and kids here that are just horrific (bad color, no composition) with the added vignette that makes it all better...

3) I studied at the Institute of Design with some of the greats. And great images from Cartier-Bresson, Gibson, Lerner, Stieglitz were my homework. We learned to get a black and a white and as many grays as possible (if appropriate). Remember the Zone system? We did selenium toning and sepia if appropriate. I say all this as a preface: What the hell happened to traditional B&W processing goals? Do people even know what that is or how to achieve it? If there is no goal, then what the heck were all those guys doing? Do you think that Cartier-Bresson WANTED to make his images look like this processed stuff and cringed every time his prints came out fully toned?

No, this is not a matter of "eye of the beholder" — Is it ignorance, lack of technical skill, or what?

called style. his own. everyone has theirs.

ohhbekay wrote in post #13970277
called style. his own. everyone has theirs.

Oh, so none of the old photographers had style? Style should be vision, not how many color fill layers you can add. I'll change my mind if I can ever see one of these images straight from the camera and/or if they ever make it to a museum.

Style, like Buzz Lightyear flying is falling with grace.

I agree with the dude.

When I'm assessing a photograph that seems to present itself so that I as the viewer am focusing more on the processing than the underlying photo, I ask (or like to ask): what is the purpose of the processing you are applying ? And is it leading toward your final goal for the image ?

The biggest problem, I think, is that processing is often applied in an arbitrary fashion: meaning, that while it may be a good choice for photo 1 of a series, it often isn't a good choice for photo 2 (even if we consider the stated goal of the photographer). A decision is often made to process a series of photos a given way for the appearance of coherence, unity.

We must also remember that many folks are playing dressup, and 'trying on' different kinds of processing. Some are trying to adopt forms that they associate with good photographs--and perhaps carry this out poorly. Either way, all of this is sort of forgivable if seen as part of a learning process and not as an end goal.

The point about style is a tough one. The apparent suggestion about the criterion for style seems too lax for me. Perhaps I'd say that a particular kind of processing is a style but that it doesn't necessarily mean that it has style or that it is in fact unique. Style is earned, I think, regardless of whether or not it is arrived at consciously or unconsciously. The idea that you click on a preset and <boom> you've got your style seems misplaced to me. If we're seriously talking about style I think we'd have to be talking about everything else of which the processing is only a superficial glaze.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #13970691
I agree with the dude.

When I'm assessing a photograph that seems to present itself so that I as the viewer am focusing more on the processing than the underlying photo, I ask (or like to ask): what is the purpose of the processing you are applying ? And is it leading toward your final goal for the image ?

The biggest problem, I think, is that processing is often applied in an arbitrary fashion: meaning, that while it may be a good choice for photo 1 of a series, it often isn't a good choice for photo 2 (even if we consider the stated goal of the photographer). A decision is often made to process a series of photos a given way for the appearance of coherence, unity.

We must also remember that many folks are playing dressup, and 'trying on' different kinds of processing. Some are trying to adopt forms that they associate with good photographs--and perhaps carry this out poorly. Either way, all of this is sort of forgivable if seen as part of a learning process and not as an end goal.

The point about style is a tough one. The apparent suggestion about the criterion for style seems too lax for me. Perhaps I'd say that a particular kind of processing is a style but that it doesn't necessarily mean that it has style or that it is in fact unique. Style is earned, I think, regardless of whether or not it is arrived at consciously or unconsciously. The idea that you click on a preset and <boom> you've got your style seems misplaced to me. If we're seriously talking about style I think we'd have to be talking about everything else of which the processing is only a superficial glaze.

I'm glad you understand and can take the conversation beyond "its the way I want it." And how did you know everyone calls me the dude? (rhetorical... )

mcluckie wrote in post #13970235
I see an awful lot of overly processed images here. I recently perused an urban candid thread where some guy processed overly contrasty yet flat (no blacks, blocked lower mid tones) and yellow highlights.
I I don't want this to be about anyone.

So I ponder:

Is it ignorance, lack of technical skill, or what?

...i post in that thread often with the type of processing you are referring to, I do not have professional training nor do I claim to be one but I do it because i like the results (obviously, my opinion).

isn't this one of the many reasons for owning these types of camera, so the person behind it could have the option to overexpose/underexpose ? i rely on the histogram to "properly" expose a shot to achieve what I imagine it to look!

"ignorance or lack of technical skills", maybe both for me !

depends on whether I am creating an image for you or someone else. depends if I am taking a photo for you or someone else. thats four options I have.

if I have the ability and understanding to over process, it stands to reason I have the ability to under process just by not doing what I am doing.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, such a simple statement.....

mcluckie wrote in post #13971044
...And how did you know everyone calls me the dude? (rhetorical... )

I've told him (just kidding)

Yeah, from my experience, many people I know are all over learning postprocessing rather than knowing anything about photogrpahy itself...

I'm amazed at how similar post processing photos is to music production...in my opinion...I prefer to try and do less and less and less, as little as I can get away with, or at least make it look that way and get it as right as possible in camera or when recording, on the first take. Saves time too.

Soma Jones wrote in post #13977400
I'm amazed at how similar post processing photos is to music production...in my opinion...I prefer to try and do less and less and less, as little as I can get away with, or at least make it look that way and get it as right as possible in camera or when recording, on the first take. Saves time too.

Yup. Simple is hard.

If it bothers you...then don't look at it. Kind of silly to complain about it. There are too many great images out there. Just move along, nothing to see here

I think this is a very interesting discussion. I've recently been going through the whole color fill and weakening of black point phase... I think the OP is definitely on to something here. I sometimes felt that even well exposed images just lack a certain something straight out of the camera. i'm sure that some of them lack good posing and composition for sure, but is it sometimes necessary to have your own kind of signature editing process (cough preset action) that makes your photos look like yours and nobody elses. I mean if 2 people own a 5Dii and 85L and show up at the same event, is photographic technique to separate two photographers, if both are similarly enthusiastic and experienced? I don't really know what my point is, but i like this discussion!

I don't think this forum is meant to be exclusive to professional photographers. There are professionals, people just starting their businesses, serious hobbyists, people who just picked up a camera, etc... and some of these people, just want to take snapshots of their kids in P mode... some want to learn the craft and make a living at it... No one was born with a camera in their hand. No one has never made a single technical or compositional error. Everyone's tastes and perspective changes over time and as they learn more. When some just starting out, or with little to no training/education, has access to powerful tools like Photoshop -- it's quite easy to go overboard and lose perspective because it's your own piece. Having an eye for it and an understanding of what makes for an appealing image, comes with time just like anything else. :/

Does your portfolio contain pictures from when you first started? Were you proud of those first few hundred pictures at the time? Would you be embarrassed to show them now?

mcluckie wrote in post #13970235
Is it ignorance, lack of technical skill, or what?

In my case, it's probably both.

I try to PP as little as possible but I do get caught up trying to salvage a photo that wasn't exposed properly, etc.

Which leads me to another question, how much PP would you consider acceptable to save something before you should just move on?

I think everyone is entitled to do what they want to their own images. But we the viewers are equally entitled to like or dislike it should we so decide.

I certainly don't PP to save an image. I only bother with images that already show promise.