Get it right in camera?
Jan 5, 2015 02:14:06 #
Wallbanger wrote:
There seems to be a "great" debate here regarding post processing.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
Banger, yes, we probably all recognize the pic.
Is there a question in there???! :lol:
SS
Jan 5, 2015 03:50:51 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Just because you can do extensive manipulation and fixing in pp, this is no excuse for taking lousy images! The stronger the unprocessed originals, the better the final image will be.
It is incorrect to assume A. Adams simply took random photos with little thought, then relied on the darkroom to yield something useable from the negatives. He worked with a clear vision as to what he wanted, and worked toward that goal before even releasing the shutter.
It is incorrect to assume A. Adams simply took random photos with little thought, then relied on the darkroom to yield something useable from the negatives. He worked with a clear vision as to what he wanted, and worked toward that goal before even releasing the shutter.
I don't think you the story behind this photograph.
Jan 5, 2015 06:08:52 #
Wallbanger wrote:
There seems to be a "great" debate here regarding post processing.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
No argument here - but there are those that will try to beat the dead horse - Again!
SOOC is a stupid concept conjured by lazy photographers who need to justify their lack of motivation, lack of desire, lack of ability to see a photo and identify weaknesses that can be ameliorated by PP - or they are documentary photographers - a highly respected discipline where it is unethical to alter a photograph other than cropping, sharpening and perhaps a little tone adjustments. SOOC in today's digital environment is also a myth - since you cannot "see" what the camera captures until the image is processed.
raw capture = undeveloped latent image
raw developed image = developed film negative
working 16 bit tif/psd = test print
jpeg = final output.
Jan 5, 2015 06:25:24 #
Wallbanger wrote:
There seems to be a "great" debate here regarding post processing.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
To quote the gentleman in the photo you posted, "The negative is the score. The print is the performance". However, if the score is crappy, you'll never get a good performance out of it.
--Bob
Jan 5, 2015 06:33:43 #
Wallbanger wrote:
There seems to be a "great" debate here regarding post processing.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
I'll argue that post processing is part of the photographic process.
Left image: print with no post processing.
Right image: post processed print.
I assume everyone recognizes the post processed image.
It's just like anything else. Years ago, I painted quite a few cars. I knew that I had to make the surface as perfect as possible, from the bare metal right on up. I couldn't ignore flaws and assume I could correct them in a later coat.
It's the same with photography. Use the best equipment, learn as much as your brain will hold, and take the best shot you can. Then make it even better with software.
Jan 5, 2015 06:39:42 #
Gene51 wrote:
SOOC is a stupid concept conjured by lazy photogra... (show quote)
I see no reason to call people names because they do things differently than you and I might do them. I shoot RAW and post process everything I ever show anyone. But other people have different needs, different talents, and different abilities. To each his own. It doesn't mean you should vilify those want SOOC, regardless of why they do.
Gene51 wrote:
raw capture = undeveloped latent image
raw developed image = developed film negative
working 16 bit tif/psd = test print
jpeg = final output.
raw developed image = developed film negative
working 16 bit tif/psd = test print
jpeg = final output.
The raw capture, or raw data set contained in a RAW file, is essentially the same as a negative. Both contain all the information.
As Ansel Adams said, that's the composer's score. The RGB images produced directly from it are intermediate images, much like the worksheets of a band leader setting up an arrangement. The JPEG is the ultimate performance.
When Adams was asked if that meant another person would print his original negative and most likely have a totally different print, his answer was "I hope it would be different!"
And we should always assume that even when we redo our own RAW file another time, that too will provide a "different" image!
Jan 5, 2015 08:22:16 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
ebrunner wrote:
Live and let live. Use the techniques that make you happy. (unless of course, you are shooting for a client). Don't forget there has always been a lot of "post processing done in the darkrooms of the good old days. For some of us (not me, sadly) a darkroom is still being used.
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/
Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum Photos New York headquarters, has personally worked on some of the cooperatives best-known images. A number of his marked-up darkroom prints have appeared online, revealing the enormous amount of attention Inirio gives photos in the darkroom...........
Jan 5, 2015 08:22:45 #
jerryc41 wrote:
It's just like anything else. Years ago, I painted quite a few cars. I knew that I had to make the surface as perfect as possible, from the bare metal right on up. I couldn't ignore flaws and assume I could correct them in a later coat.
It's the same with photography. Use the best equipment, learn as much as your brain will hold, and take the best shot you can. Then make it even better with software.
It's the same with photography. Use the best equipment, learn as much as your brain will hold, and take the best shot you can. Then make it even better with software.
Amen to that Jerry. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 5, 2015 08:43:05 #
OldEarl
Loc: Northeast Kansas
The purpose of shooting is the image. Those of us who started with film realize that the negative or transparency is key to all steps afterward--there is just so much burning and dodging that can be done. Adams, like Weston and the others, used the Zone to create the negative. Then, with a good negative, made good prints.
Something not spread around a lot is that Kodachrome is a very demanding film, with low latitude for high contrast subjects. Knowing this is as important as the aperture/shutter speed/ISO triad. Working with light is a deliberate process and if you are not willing to deal with that you face the consequences.
Post processing, whether film or digital is not magic.
Something not spread around a lot is that Kodachrome is a very demanding film, with low latitude for high contrast subjects. Knowing this is as important as the aperture/shutter speed/ISO triad. Working with light is a deliberate process and if you are not willing to deal with that you face the consequences.
Post processing, whether film or digital is not magic.
Jan 5, 2015 09:05:05 #
Apaflo wrote:
The raw capture, or raw data set contained in a RA... (show quote)
Yeah, I was harsh. But I didn't call anyone any names. I characterized some photographers who insist that SOOC is "true" photography - as lazy, unmotivated, unaware of the difference between a snapshot, a postcard and an excellent image, complacent, etc etc etc. No one was vilified.
In fact, I was clear to single out those photographers who, in my opinion, are the elite among us - those guys and gals that cover news worthy events - (not the idiot paparazzi - yeah, I did call group of photographers a name, but it is well-deserved), often risking their lives and gear to get the shot, and bound by the ethics of reportage to provide unaltered photographs.
I am tired and frustrated by the lowering standards of the profession. It's happening among the shooters, which in turn is dumbing-down the public's and clients expectations. Mediocrity should not be the new normal. How many times have I seen an image posted with comments like "amazing capture" "great work" "very nice job" - all platitudes to reward mediocre results.
I won't do that. If the image is lacking - and 90% of the images that cross my eyes can stand some improvement - I will say so - and suggest what can be improved. But not after asking the photographer what their intent was when they took the picture, and did they think that the picture truly represented their intent.
As a teacher I try to motivate and inspire others to be more self-critical, and sharpen their vision and focus to produce great images.
I have yet to see a SOOC image that could not use at least a little improvement using some post processing. It could be as simple as cropping, toning, white balance, color balance, sharpening noise reduction, or a little more aggressive like using content aware tools to remove distractions, dodging and burning to remove blemishes on skin, frequency separation to replace and/or even out colors etc etc etc.
Yes, I was harsh. And no, I won't apologize for my rant. MY patience wears thin with elitists that insist that the less you do to an image in post processing the better the image is.
I do agree with everything else you said. Nor do I feel the need to be condescending to those that do things differently than me. After 48 yrs at this business, a day does not go by that I don't learn something I didn't already know. A good day is when I learn 5 things. :)
Jan 5, 2015 09:14:31 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Banger, yes, we probably all recognize the pic.
Is there a question in there???! :lol:
SS
Is there a question in there???! :lol:
SS
For future reference, a question will be followed by a question mark (?). :D
Jan 5, 2015 09:18:34 #
jerryc41 wrote:
It's just like anything else. Years ago, I painted quite a few cars. I knew that I had to make the surface as perfect as possible, from the bare metal right on up. I couldn't ignore flaws and assume I could correct them in a later coat.
It's the same with photography. Use the best equipment, learn as much as your brain will hold, and take the best shot you can. Then make it even better with software.
It's the same with photography. Use the best equipment, learn as much as your brain will hold, and take the best shot you can. Then make it even better with software.
Yeah Jerry - enough with Earl Scheib, I want my car clay bar detailed!!!
:)
Jan 5, 2015 09:32:12 #
If you're going to do all that post processing why not just use an Instmatic.
Jan 5, 2015 09:45:52 #
Because Instamatics have been out of production for 25 years and the film cartridges are hard to find?
Jan 5, 2015 10:08:12 #
starlifter wrote:
If you're going to do all that post processing why not just use an Instmatic.
Can we assume you are not really serious with that question?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.