Post Processing

Poor B/W photographers of the past, they were shooting fake images all the time, without even realizing that!

For authentic images people use surveillance cameras.
For artistic photography, people 'cheat'.

tdodd wrote in post #5885435
The fakery starts before you even release the shutter.....

- when you use an ultra wide angle or telephoto lens the camera does not capture what the eye sees;
- when you choose a shutter speed you are influencing the capture of time/motion, if there is any;
- when you choose an aperture you are influencing DOF;
- when you choose a film stock or white balance setting, or use correction filters, you are making choices that change the colour of the light;
- when you add light - flash, hotlights, or use reflectors then you're completely altering the apparent reality.

Well said - great point. I am not a fan of over processing either but with regards to fakery it DOES start even before you load a picture into a PP program

Hermeto wrote in post #5885617
For authentic images people use surveillance cameras.

I wouldn't even call those authentic. It's not like the robbers look garbled to snozz in real life...

PP is a part of photography. If you didn't do it then someone/something else did.

It all depends on the purpose.

For PJ stuff any respectable outlet would not take an HDR picture and run it as a "photo". Even though with an HDR we are talking color and exposure the mere fact that you are combining multiple files is a risk too great for people to question everything about that photo.

For shots that are composites they will run as a "Photo Illustration" or something to that effect.

If it's a auto mag they seem to do quite a bit of touching up (and I'm not talking about the fake composites).

Even with the PL filters, shooting in the magic hour, etc. it seems like there is quite a bit of PWL (Paint With Light) work done in PS on the cars to get that wet deep impression of color depth and shine.

cdifoto wrote in post #5885638
I wouldn't even call those authentic. It's not like the robbers look garbled to snozz in real life...

Yeah, but in CSI they have an advanced version of PhotoShop that can make that security camera shot tack sharp.

i'll use whatever tools are available to me, to make my images sing. A camera is a tool, as a lens is a tool, as software is a tool.

binliner wrote in post #5885441
PP can make a good image better but it can't make a bad image great if the image is out of focus, blurry or badly composed photoshop isn't going to help

Imo tweaking things is all part of the fun but (I should imagine) it's even more satisfying if the image is so good out of the camera you can't make it better!!

I love that feeling too. When you take your workflow to lightroom or PS and look at a picture and just say to yourself, "well done, move along..."

I don't think its bad or fake to post process, its all part of the fun and creativity of digital photography. Now, the "Dave Hill" craze that's going on right now is a little over the top for me, but its all a matter of opinion really...

WaltA wrote in post #5886857
Yeah, but in CSI they have an advanced version of PhotoShop that can make that security camera shot tack sharp.

Heh heh heh

I love PP. It's like art. I love being able to take one photo and create so many versions of it; all of them so different than the original. Especially glamour photos and nudes. Women love to see themselves glamourized! When a woman looks at a photo I took of her and says, "OMG I look beautiful!" It makes my heart sing. She doesn't care how much PP was done, she only cares that she looks like a movie star in that photo. There are different types of PP of course. If you're wanting to keep a natural looking photo with out any obvious PP then you can do that and most people probably won't notice the slight changes that made a great photo even better. Then there are times I want to take a photo and take it in a whole different direction. I guess for me the joy in photography comes not from the technical side, but from the creative side which is where I find my true passion.

cjcastan wrote in post #5887893
i'll use whatever tools are available to me, to make my images sing. A camera is a tool, as a lens is a tool, as software is a tool.

I think thats the point. Some people use post processing not just to make their images sing but go so far as to make them wail, warble or even scream. Not very pleasant but gets your attention. You need to know that boundary of when too much is too much. But, that is a completely subjective matter for each individual.

dtufino wrote in post #5885502
But i realized that RAW images look alot better than Jpeg. so i been shooting RAW as of late.

If you shoot with RAW, then you definitely need to PP.

When did did the Empire State Building fall over?!?

I think all this depends on the purpose of the photograph. If you are required to be as faithful as possible to the scene at hand, obviously over processing can be considered "fakery".

Otherwise, who cares? Really...

Dermit wrote in post #5885468
But you must realize that the camera itself is doing manipulation and doing it in a general sense. It does it generally because every image can benefit differently from different enhancements...

...If you shoot in jpg, well the camera captures in raw anyway and then decides and automatically converts it to jpg, throwing out data it does not think you need and making the very adjustments you are arguing against, but just automatically with no input from you, the supposed artist here....

This point cannot be stressed enough. If you shoot JPEG, and you set the parameters in camera, such as sharpening, contrast, and saturation, you are invariably engaged in the practice of post processing. Just because the process occurred within the camera does not make it anymore 'sincere' than if done afterwards.

As a general statement, not one directed at the OP, assumptions that JPEG offers some sort of puristic sanctuary from the manipulative threat of Photoshop is highly misguided.

Obviously, a person using JPEG can set the parameters within the camera to attain the perfect picture that they need. Yet, this does not mean that they automatically "got it right in camera" more so than someone shooting RAW, who will typically need to make further enhancements on the computer. Ansel Adams 'got it right in camera' using a technical approach many of us cannot even comprehend, but he still did a lot of work in the darkroom, and that work required its own set of admirable skills. In this sense, bragging rights to "getting right in the camera" are, as far as I am concerned, largely limited to focus, composition, exposure, and an interesting subject matter, including the use of light, shadows, shapes, and movement.