PP to what you saw: I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular scene looked like at the moment it was captured. I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. It's all so subjective anyway. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

Leitz Loc: Solms

gvarner wrote:

I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular scene looked like at the moment it was captured. I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. It's all so subjective anyway. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

Or one could try to expose as if using colour slide film, and keep the photoshopping to a minimum.

TheDman Loc: USA

Leitz wrote:

Or one could try to expose as if using colour slide film, and keep the photoshopping to a minimum.

Why is that beneficial?

Leitz Loc: Solms

TheDman wrote:

Why is that beneficial?

For those who prefer to manipulate their images on a computer, it is of no benefit at all.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A fascinating discussion in For Your Consideration that you may want to re-activate:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-436618-1.html

Regarding your first sentence, I don't call that "advice," I call it one point of view. It's your image, do what you like to it!
http://digital-photography-school.com/its-your-image-do-what-you-like-to-it/

gvarner wrote:

... Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

Envisioned - emphasizing the mood and emotion with pp (e.g. Fine Art Photography). Saw - documentary

--

Brasspounder001 Loc: Erewhon

Leitz wrote:

Or one could try to expose as if using colour slide film, and keep the photoshopping to a minimum.

I agree 100% with this. The only post processing I generally do are a bit of cropping and improving contrast and colour balance where needed.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

gvarner wrote:

.../... I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. .../...

If you can do this, the rest is BS. You are good to go w/o any further need for 'instruction', 'advice' or 'criticism', constructive or not.

Now will other folks appreciate it or not is another can of worm. 100 folks, 100 visions so... Who cares what other folks think?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

gvarner wrote:

I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular scene looked like at the moment it was captured. I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. It's all so subjective anyway. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

The advise you saw is only one philosophy in photography. Since photography was invented, some photographers have wanted to make their photographs look as much like the original scene they photographed as possible. Others have used photography to accomplish a vision which can be quite different than the way the eye sees things. It's up to you to decide what you want to do.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

gvarner wrote:

I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular scene looked like at the moment it was captured. I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. It's all so subjective anyway. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

You are definitely correct. You process it to your vision, not to what you saw. What you imagined is probably more accurate. Unless you are doing photojournalism, where there is no latitude for "interpretation" of a scene, and any post-capture manipulation is verboten.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Leitz wrote:

For those who prefer to manipulate their images on a computer, it is of no benefit at all.

If I post process my image on the computer and it turns out just right, hey than that is benefiting me!!!!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Brasspounder001 wrote:

I agree 100% with this. The only post processing I generally do are a bit of cropping and improving contrast and colour balance where needed.

Conveniently, you left out B&W. I never understand why people such as yourself make a point about doing minimal PP. like that makes you a better photographer than those who post process? You do have some cool shots, and your shots do look SOOC. Now what? I mean if you are happy with your photos that is great. That is all that should matter. But little to no PP doesn't make your shots any better and definitely can't compete with a shot that is processd by a competent artist. Just saying.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

I agree. No need to apologize for PP. Some make it sound like a terrible thing that you must minimize . Simple not true.

tdekany wrote:

Conveniently, you left out B&W. I never understand why people such as yourself make a point about doing minimal PP. like that makes you a better photographer than those who post process? You do have some cool shots, and your shots do look SOOC. Now what? I mean if you are happy with your photos that is great. That is all that should matter. But little to no PP doesn't make your shots any better and definitely can't compete with a shot that is processd by a competent artist. Just saying.

Lundberg02

The world is unsaturated.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

sodapop wrote:

I agree. No need to apologize for PP. Some make it sound like a terrible thing that you must minimize . Simple not true.

You need to spend an hour with my wife - on my behalf. I'm frequently berated because the original scene "didn't look like that."
To my eye, it "looked like that" though. Different strokes for different folks!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

gvarner wrote:

I see a lot of advise to post process a photo to what you saw when you took the picture. I have trouble remembering my wife's birthday let alone what a particular scene looked like at the moment it was captured. I usually PP to what I want the scene to look like. It's all so subjective anyway. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to use the word "envisioned" rather than "saw".

Vision can make a mundane image spectacular. Even though Ansel Adams was a major proponent of straight out of the camera images and unmanipulated contact prints made from large negatives, and devised an entire exposure control system to enable this, all of his work seems to have been manipulated.

The other things that happens is that what you envision today may be totally different if you interpret the image 5 yrs from now. In fact this image below has had many iterations though the years, to the point that he took his only negative of this scene and re-processed it to further enhance the contrast.

Like the work of many SOOC advocates - the first image below is an excellent exposure but not a memorable image, But it is a good exposure since it has all the elements necessary to "create" an image based on his vision. To my eye, given the tools currently available (camera/lens, software, techniques), most SOOC images leave lots of "money on the table" as far as impact is concerned. Put another way, I have yet to see a single SOOC image that could not be improved upon with skillful application of post processing. Even images taken in a studio where there is 100% control over lighting, can be improved.

What the scene looked like as the camera recorded it

What he envisioned
What he envisioned...