GETTING THE SHOT AND POST PROCESSING

I’ve tried reading through the forums, but didn’t run across one that asked this question, so if there is already one out there please point me to it…

Ok – this is a long drawn out question. It’s been about 15 or so years since I have really been truly shooting pictures. Now as I begin to pick this hobby up again, everything is digital & electronic, which I truly love digital cameras and especially not worrying about film and its cost as much.

When it comes to shooting certain still life objects and especially portraits, we all try to get things setup correctly – light, composition, background, etc. However, with this digital age has come digital processing with software. Pretty much you can take the plainest shot and make it something that it’s not. I know that touching up photographs has always been around, but it seems that today there is less worry about the composition, lighting and exposure of the shot.

Guess I’m old fashioned and try to look for that shot that needs almost no retouching. If I don't see the shot, then I might shoot it just to see what I get, but if there is a lot of change to be done - I don't try to make it the way I wanted it.

I'm not saying that people here are not looking for the shot; I guess I don't sense it & that maybe because I am new to the forums. Am I wrong in my perception?

Post processing can not make a bad shot good, it can make a good shot better....
It's like a digital darkroom: I used to print my own B&W with film: doging and burning are a lot easier nowadays, and they even come with an 'undo'

lcfr-nl437 wrote in post #2477992
Am I wrong in my perception?

In my opinion, yes you are. I believe your perception is based on an assumption which though popular is fundamentally untrue. Specifically this statement

lcfr-nl437 wrote in post #2477992
Pretty much you can take the plainest shot and make it something that it’s not. I know that touching up photographs has always been around, but it seems that today there is less worry about the composition, lighting and exposure of the shot.

Never, ever will you be able to take the planest shot and make it into a good shot. You may be able to make the contrast just perfect, but those shadows and highlights need to be there in the original scene in the first place. You may be able to accentuate the lighting by giving it more drama, but you will never be able to change the hardness of the light, or the direction it came from. You can alter skin tones to get the right colour balance, but you'll never change a person's expression to better connect with them.

There's alot you can do in post but you can't fundamentally change the picture content itself, so at the end of the day a bad picture will always be a bad picture.

Yes, you're wrong.

Shooting digital is nothing like shooting film, the latter of which I did for nearly 20 years. The workflow is different. With digital SLR's the images are softer out of camera due to the anti-aliasing filters in the camera body. Like film images, digital ones need at least a minimum of post processing to adjust levels and sharpening. Using Photoshop is primarily to enhance, not alter, an image. Getting the exposure and composition right in camera is only part of the equation. Post processing, like Rene said, is part of the digital darkroom.

I was going to write a few lines, but after reading the previous posts from 'René Damkot' and 'elTwitcho' they have really summed it up, so I'll just say...


What they just said ^^^^^

theres no such thing as a bad picture, just bad photographic planning =p

I don't think you can make a bad photo good with post processing, but you can certainly make it decent very easily - particularly for everyday "family stuff" - photos I would have discarded in film days can be made acceptable with minor tweaking.

It also does seem to become much more dependent on individual judgments when it comes to the "look" you get - what previously depended on film choice and lighting alone can now be instantly tweaked with WB adjustments for example to give very different looks, any of which could be considered accurate or realistic in some sense. It's part of the fun of digital photography, but can also give a sense that you're never "finished" with a picture. That's ok for your best shots, but can be annoying when it comes to the 150 shots of a family Christmas holiday I just processed, for example.

Mark

lcfr-nl437,
Well thats one of the benefits of DSLR's (& some P&S), you can choose how you want to do it. It is very possible to get excellent photographs printed without any software editing needed. I personally concentrate on taking the photo correctly at the time of shot, not manipulating/editing later to match what I saw.
But both options are available

I appreciate the comments, I didn't know if it was my perception or not. That's the problem sometime with all of the technology we have - especially email and forums, its hard to get a feel for what people are really saying sometimes. Thanks again.