mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I personally look much better naked! :)

chaman

PP is part of photography there is no other way around it. What I have been observing for sometime now are guys shooting really bad pics, poor composition, OOF and then trying to some to pass it as "artistic" when obviously is not. Also doing terrible PP work trying to hide mediocre images, only making them worse.

One thing to remember: a bad pic cannot ever be made good with PP. Anyone who infers that just does not know what he/she is talking about and usually lack the proper skill to perform adequate PP. They hide behind a false high pedestal of SOOC mumble-jumbo because, in their minds, they think its something special...well, its not.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

That's what I thought also. However, just to convince the others, can you supply a little evidence?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Aaah! The cold, grey light of dawn! Where the hell is Dawn when you need her, anyway?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

A "little" evidence???!!! Is that a pun??!! :lol: :lol:
SS

chaman

Whos Dawn? Should I be worried? LOL!

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

Extremely well put.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

It is interesting that you note Ansel Adams, who, as we all know, waited and waited and waited until the light was right before he shot. BUT, he also lead the way in post processing (in the darkroom). If he were alive today, he would still have a great eye, but he would also rely heavily on post processing. Now, to your other question, post processing is all subjective, you create what you like, not what someone else likes. That is the beauty of post processing. Post processing is also the main reason photographs are not always excepted as proof in a court of law anymore. I am reminded of the phrase "figures lie and liars figure".

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

What you say brings up some ideas and I must admit that I am with you on this one. I think many do not understand the camera and are not really concerned because they think they can correct it in PP. And I have had some argue that a natural image in no good but has to be altered, wherein when you look at the PP image it is not even close to reality. The real problem is the camera does not see things, sometimes even close to what we perceive in our minds and when we look at the image we are disappointed. Much of good photography is taking the photos at the right time of day. Or altering the light to make it more appealing. The camera see things much more contrasty than we do. Hence the dodge and burn. Things that can help with this are taking photos when the sun is not so dominate, using fill flash or reflectors or even indoor setups. Funny thing though with some photos high contrast is a greatly desired characteristic.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

D

I do not frequent too many different photo forums so I can't say that this is the only forum, but I have not seen this same question come up anywhere else but here. And each and every time the thread starter is someone who couldn't take a decent shot if their life depended on it. That is what bugs ME. There is nothing wrong being a snapshot shooter, until that person starts to complain about post processing. But back to your question, I feel that both men would disagree with you. And I'd bet big $$$ that if they were honest with you, they would tell you that your posted shots on uhh they would not keep. Don't feel bad, I also don't have an artistic bone in me and like you, love to take pictures. But that doesn't make us authorities as far as what goes. In fact we would do best if we were to (study) I mean search the net and look at what real photographers are able to achieve. My choices for something like that are 500pix and FM (Fred Miranda.com)
PS: I don't think I have ever browsed the gallery section on uhh but do you have a link to that specific thread? I'd love to see what you think of as ugly. Thank you.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

As you will learn here - digital cameras store the data from the image in a certain format ("RAW" format for most). The camera then does its own set of post-processing to turn it in to a file which can produce a displayed image (such as in a JPG format). The camera does its own post-processing! Many photographers prefer to start with the RAW file and process it to their own standards. You will find that the digital images as they come out of the camera often do not have the dynamic range that film did. I started processing RAW files after looking back at my old 35mm transparencies and seeing that those images had far richer colors than what was coming out of my camera.

I agree that sometimes the post-processing results in freakish images with un-natural colors. And sometimes our members are creating "art" and not just photographs. Sometimes I like what they do, sometimes not so much. But that is the glorious thing about art... "I don't know art but I know what I like".

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

I have learned and am influenced by the constructive criticism offered on this forum. When you have a strong feeling about a photo posted, you should offer your views; you may influence someone's perspective.

twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Ansel Adams was one of the best Dark Room experts ever. He would have loved to use Photoshop or Lightroom.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I get what AZ Dog means. He is not necessarily saying all PP is bad just that he does not like it when it is obviously an effect that makes for a "unnatural" or overly graphic "non-photographic" image. I would venture to say he is not a fan of HDR or other "enhancements". I also personally I'm not generally a big fan of "special effects" processing of images beyond the traditional of say contrast alteration, sepia toning, black and white conversion, etc., yet at times I've seen so way out processing either in the darkroom or via digital processing (Photoshop) that I like.

The OP should check out Wynn Bullock for some old school far out film based photography. But I also realize we are talking about art and I know better than to expect everyone else to like or dislike what I do. Also I am more tolerant of others photography than my own. I usually try to create digital photographs that are what I might get (but don't) as film based images. Other people fall more into the realm of graphic art.

Jim S Loc: Barrington RI, DC now Hilton Head,

I'll add my 2 cents. There are people on UHH than do a lot of PP. Especially sharpening bird photos where the feathers just are not that sharp.

That said National Geo was a client for 30 years. We did prep & printing work - i.e., Separations and corrections prior to plate making to print.
The amount of correction/improvement/manipulation of the proofs/files was very large and time consuming.

So that is the way things are - right, wrong or indifferent?

But I agree that one should get it right in the camera and then minimal PP.