Appropriate processing?

Lowner wrote in post #13984208
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.

I agree with this...


Another point, how do people feel about adding artifacts i.e grain, noise, dust, scratches, vignettes, (exposure 4 comes to mind), or film presets. I sometimes love the look of these things when done subtly i think that some of these tools can add a "feel" to an image... What do people think?

I understand where the OP is coming from. Christopher also makes a good point. There are people all over the internet that are into photography at all various levels, learning on their own, have no guidance or insight and have different learning curves. I'm pretty sure if you only looked at well experienced photogs and pros the difference would soley be on personal preferences, but there will always be that small % that will never catch on and just don't have what it takes no matter how long they've been doing it. I've talked to over a dozen hobbyist that consider photography their passion, but take horrible to mediocre photos and put no effort in learning the techincal and art aspect and everything else that comes along with it. I also think some people are not able to appreciate good photography and get distracted by the glitz and glamour.

I personally don't care what anyone else does because I know what I need to do to improve, including post processing. I think if anyone that truly loves photography had the essential equipment, right guidance (even tutoring), time and opportunity they could reach an acceptable level of photography including their post processing skills.

Processing is like writing a book, sometimes albeit a complex book. I agree that some people try to save an image in post processing, while others make the image shine. Some people follow what is trendy (like a B&W with selective color). Some people have the same work flow for every image.

It is all personal preference. I dislike HDR. I think it is a gimmick, but that is my opinion. Some people are against blending images (but it is a poor mans' filter in a way).

I'm sure I don't necessarily disagree but not knowing which thread you are referring to (probably because I don't browse these forums for inspirational images ...it's great for info/entertainment though on gear!)... but I find it also works both ways ie. some old dogs who can't learn new (digital processing) tricks feel that images must be just as what you saw them at the time of their creation where colours need to be as accurate as possible with every element perfectly exposed. For me those shots also can make me cringe, are often boring as hell and show no artistic inclination. I don't mind where someone has done a great job trying to mimic film or create a cinematic effect.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970437
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.

Do not put words in my mouth, so to speak.
old photographers may have wanted their images to be a little different, but at the time, the did what they could. you cant really compare olden days to the digital days.
processing is style
perception and composition is style
this is an art form, a style.
style makes it into museums.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970235
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?

The same lament was directed at Ansel Adams, that he did too much with processing rather than just capturing the image. Yet it was he who developed the Zone System. And to their credit, most of his contemporaries changed their opinions as time passed. One of the few books I'm taking with me in my move to the Bahamas is his autobiography. He is still my primary inspiration when I get "stuck", even though I shoot color. I recognize my limitations in not being able to visualize very well in black and white.

Most of my "work" (if you can call it that) probably wouldn't impress you. I'm not trained by anyone but myself. I have no illusions of the quality on my work. But I do share your feeling on overprocessing. It's too easy to cop out and call it style. Processes like surrealistic HDR which, in my opinion should only be displayed on the cover of a late 60's hard rock album cover - like something from a bad LSD trip. Over contrasted, undercontrasted, over sharpened, over saturated... the list goes on and on. Processing is necessary, but one must try to resist the seductive siren call of moving the sliders too far.

I only express my own opinion, but I like to look at good photographs, not the "artistic" vision from the processor's imagination. There is a limited place for such works, but they should not be for the sole purpose of splinting a broken image. When the processing becomes more interesting than the subject, then I feel that the photographer has missed his target, or he has at least missed my point of interest.

Three pages on: Retouching images

Image altering in the film days.

ohhbekay wrote in post #13993470
Do not put words in my mouth, so to speak.
old photographers may have wanted their images to be a little different, but at the time, the did what they could. you cant really compare olden days to the digital days.
processing is style
perception and composition is style
this is an art form, a style.
style makes it into museums.

no it doesn't. images of quality, not odd processing, gets in museums. cool composites and things like alt processing might make a collection. museums worth their weight in frames won't even accept overly processed images. this stuff is not an individual vision, but a Facebook and Flickr ruse where uneducated and trendy crap lives in abundance, as in hardly unique. trendy with underlying ignorance to the process never makes a museum. processing should not get in the way of the image, but the images I speak of are nothing and weak without circus tricks.

Rai33 wrote in post #13988935
I'm sure I don't necessarily disagree but not knowing which thread you are referring to (probably because I don't browse these forums for inspirational images ...it's great for info/entertainment though on gear!)... but I find it also works both ways ie. some old dogs who can't learn new (digital processing) tricks feel that images must be just as what you saw them at the time of their creation where colours need to be as accurate as possible with every element perfectly exposed. For me those shots also can make me cringe, are often boring as hell and show no artistic inclination. I don't mind where someone has done a great job trying to mimic film or create a cinematic effect.

I've been using photoshop since beta v1 and consulted with adobe on future releases. I used to be a master trainer in my off time. I taught university photo for a decade. I know how to do all these effects in my sleep. but it's a strong image, with good exposures not requiring weird repairs and camoflage to mask the weaknesses. please don't try to suggest that proponents of quality work simply don't know how to add color fill and blending modes. we chose not to, like all the lame artistic filters in photoshop.

mcluckie wrote in post #13970437
Oh, so none of the old photographers had style?

How do we know if they had style?

When we talk about the old masters having style it is a recognition they did something that is appreciated at some level, some where.
It might be only with in the art world, or with in academic communities, or in the wider society, or even across societies and cultures.

But we can also talk about individuals having their own style with out any references to its appreciation or recognition. Style does not have to be defined by good or bad, it can be either, both or neutral.
In the case of an individual it is simply how they choose to express themselves.


Which leads to another question, who are you to decide how someone else should express themselves?

I spend a fair amount of time posting in that thread...

There are a few people that post images I wouldn't create. Most are not my cup of tea because they are lacking something from a compositional aspect: the DOF is WAY too narrow or there's too many distracting elements. Occasionally there are too few mid-tones and there's missing detail that would make the image more compelling but I do believe it is the author's intended result. These people have posting other images in other threads and have created stunning portraits in a completely different style. So I do believe it is their style for that genre (urban candids). It isn't my style and perhaps it serves to hide elements that others feel could have been handle differently.

mcluckie wrote in post #14025690
no it doesn't. images of quality, not odd processing, gets in museums. cool composites and things like alt processing might make a collection. museums worth their weight in frames won't even accept overly processed images. this stuff is not an individual vision, but a Facebook and Flickr ruse where uneducated and trendy crap lives in abundance, as in hardly unique. trendy with underlying ignorance to the process never makes a museum. processing should not get in the way of the image, but the images I speak of are nothing and weak without circus tricks.

I think you might be stuck in the perspective that everyone wants their work to be in a museum.

Coming from a long, professional music background (as a performer and recording artist); I can tell you this debate happens across all artistic mediums. In music it's the debate between feel and technique - but the same principles apply.

Now I'm a MUCH better musician than I am a photographer, but I tend to approach both mediums the same way. I try to get as much of it right at the source and THEN evaluate what else I want to do with it (if anything) after that.

At this point in my (albeit short) photographic journey, I tend to favor images that have a certain "feel" to them. I compose that way, I process that way, I envision that way. I can certainly appreciate a technically perfect image - i just prefer an image with more "character" to it.

I've run into more than my fair share of people on each side of the debate over the years (in music). What I've always noticed - almost without exception - is the one's who must have everything clinically perfect are usually the least flexible when it comes to improvising. For them, the rules or guidelines don't just show them A way to do things, it shows them the ONLY way to do something. It's almost like they get lost unless the "rules" are followed to a "T".

Different strokes...

I think that Ralph Gibson referred to it as a "visual signature." The problem I see a lot in forum land is far to few know the history of the art form they are trying to participate in. And yes Weston had a very strong visual signature. His nudes looked like his peppers that looked like his shells that looked like his clouds that looked like his peppers that looked like his nudes. Most all the greats had a visual signature. Gibson, Robert Frank, Ansel Adams, W Eugene Smith, Eggelston, Siskind, Callahan etc all had a look to their work. You pretty much know it is their work before you see the name attached to that work. It is like this in most art forms. In music you knew after just a few notes that it is Coltrane or Jeff Beck or a Beethoven piece. In literature if it is story by Hemingway.

Here is a great quote by Weston.
....so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing."-Edward Weston

I think some of the issue is many photographers today do not know where the bar is because they have not seen enough examples of the great photographers work. I mean the actual prints. And because they don't know what a great print looks like in both color and B&W they create work that is what mcluckie is talking about.

mcluckie wrote in post #13971044
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... )

As long as no one pees on your rug it s all good dude.