gessman Loc: Colorado

LOL, thanks big guy. At least someone humored me a tad. Those are some pretty crisp and detailed images. I'm not much on b&w but those certainly deserve some attention.

clickety

[quote=E.L.. Shapiro]I have no aversion post processing-

A very informative and well crafted reply that I will keep as a check list for future reference to keep me from straying from the basics. This outstanding reply (and others as like it) is the reason there is nothing comparable to the UHH site. Daily gleaning these gems is better than a graduate course in photography. Thank you.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Hi SAVH,

My first thought on your post is why must your photos reflect only what you believed you saw? Why would you not want the image to also reflect what you felt upon seeing that scene or even how you wanted that scene to be viewed? The art of photography is not about documenting a specific scene, the art of photography is about providing your viewer with an image that is emotional and lasting in some way. This is assuming, based on what you wrote, that you are not doing documentary photography.

Processing your image allows you to determine the outcome of the eventual photograph. Processing images has been done for the entire life cycle of photography and is nothing new. The current software programs were based on darkroom photography. Remember, you are creating a piece of art, not a document of something that "is." How you process depends on your software of choice.

Having said that, the first step in any processing might be to set a black and white point and to check the highlights to ensure they are not blown out. If highlights are blown out, take down the highlights as far as you can go but be sure that it does not negatively affect the overall brightness of the image. It helps if you have a visual in your mind of what you want the image to look like: look at photos that you find attractive in order to determine the overall look you desire. If the image is too dark you may want to bring up the exposure or if too light then decrease exposure, but you must be aware of the highlights in your image when increasing exposure. Sometimes you can simply pop up Shadows or Blacks to increase the exposure in certain parts and thus lighten the shadows and blacks. Learning to process an image is complex and time consuming but very rewarding in the end. There is way too much to learn to actually assist you in this post regarding processing your images: read some books, use the manual with your software, look at videos on the subject. Look up photographers on the web and look at their work to determine if you like what they do and follow their posts or blogs. I like Gary Hart and Michael Frye, both landscape photographers and each one processes their images differently. I also like Seth Resnick, who is very creative in his work. Going to a workshop given by a landscape photographer who also includes going over how he or she processes would be helpful.

I have posted an image that I took recently of Yosemite (El Capitan) to show you how a look can be created in processing (in reality, the image is much sharper, the downsizing and screen shot have affected the sharpness but not the color). This image was shot in RAW as I take all images in RAW. I like to process photos and I want to control the conversion so that works well for me. This image was processed in Lightroom. I did not change the scene, but simply enhanced what was already in the scene to meet my vision. It could also be that the photos you see were taken in very specific ways, too, as perhaps the photographers were very skilled and this also affects our final output.

(Download)

TheDman Loc: USA

These people are often mentioned, but I still don't know an example of one.




I disagree, as do many of today's best landscape photogs. Who cares how many layers you use or how much time you spend in pp. The final result is all that matters. Doesn't matter if you get there with amazing camerawork/little pp, terrible camerawork/amazing pp, or amazing both.

acreationimage Loc: Everett, WA

First Question is what program do you use for post processing or viewing your images. Do you shoot jpg or raw? From reading your post, my opinion is that a simple dehaze and clarity will get you a long way. I use Lightroom (LR) to do the majority of my adjustments. I find that does a tremendous job for bringing an image to the point I believe to what I believe you are referring.

Roger

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I am not trying to pick a fight or generalize too much about photographers shooting/processing habits- to each his or her own.

I do, however, see, read and hear about so many photographers' dependence on automation and technology as opposed to using simple time-honored techniques. It's all right here on the forum. Folks explaining complex procedures to correct some issue or defect that could have been easily addressed by simple attention a to detail, exposure, accurate focus white balance and careful composition. I am not referring to "amazing" camera work- just good clean technique.

I often read, again right here on the forum, about folks upgrading cameras just to have more automation- features. People complaining they can't achieve acceptable focus without " focus peaking" and the don't have any vision issues or impairment. I have no argument with theses observations but theses approaches do exist.

Usually my advice is based on my professional experience. I don't consider myself part of an elite group or advise folks out of snobbery or self-importance. It's just that in business we have to deliver a high quality product, produced in the most efficient, cost effective and expeditious manner. My philosophy and methodology is a holdover or a throwback to my 50 years in the darkroom where an optimum quality negative always made for the highest quality prints in the least amount of time. I find this is directly relatable to digital photography in that a well crafted files makes for the best final images with the least amount of time and expenditure.

None of what I suggest or advices is carved in stone or should be considered as stringent rules. My input is offered in good faith and my propensity for sharing. Folks can take it or leave it or apply any part of it that they might find helpful.

I DON'T care how every photograph is conceived, shot, processed or produced in that I never judge or critique an image based on those aspects. I will only point out poor results results from faulty workmanship anywhere along the process or if over processing has called attention to itself and distract from the motif of the image- things like over-sharpening or visible evidence of selective adjustments. I will only critique images if I am asked to do so or participating in a section where critique is assumed.

The only reason that I included my first post in the thread is to make photographes aware of the advantages of good camera work. Heaven knows there is more that sufficient advice here and elsewhere about post processing complexities.

In my studio's production room I have PhotoShop, Lightroom and enough plugins to sink a barge. As I alluded to, I have no aversion to post processing and am not arguing against it. To me, it's like seasoning in cooking- just the right amount and not too much!

And of course, y'all have the perfect right to disagree with me! It makes for lively conversation.

anotherview Loc: California

Well said, and to the point:

"My philosophy and methodology is a holdover or a throwback to my 50 years in the darkroom where an optimum quality negative always made for the highest quality prints in the least amount of time. I find this is directly relatable to digital photography in that a well crafted files makes for the best final images with the least amount of time and expenditure.:

Read and heed.

TheDman Loc: USA

Funny, what I see most in this forum is so many photographer's dependence on time-honored techniques instead of taking advantage of all the wonderful new technology of today. But I don't care, because it doesn't matter.





Why do you believe that has changed in any way? Did you spend 50 years in the darkroom because you didn't compose carefully or focus/expose correctly?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Agree—although I respect E.L. Shapiro.

An example where I believe he misses the point is the reference to “focus peaking”.

In the beginning, we depended on our eyes for critical focus. Then we may have used a loupe on ground glass—not because we had defective vision but because it was an improvement on visual examination. Then we had focusing screens with the split that indicated focus when aligned.

Of course we now have AF, with spot, zone, matrix—and an increasing number of focus points—to provide us with a number of choices.

However, there are still situations where manual focus is preferable—or even required. (Focus stacking is one instance where manual focus is used)

“Focus peaking” is simply another tool to find the point (or points) of critical focus. Nothing “wrong” with that.

I’m an “old guy” but I strive to always remain receptive to new ideas and new tools.

You have a different approach—and produce some wonderful images. That should be the goal—not which tools we used—although we “should” be receptive to different ways of producing the best results possible. Well, anyway, that’s my approach.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

When you need to nail focus, another feature is your touchscreen. Imagine the difference compared to manual focusing and messing with the gear, especially when focus stacking.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Agree—although I don’t currently have this on my camera. I have used it when tethered using Helicon Remote.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Doesn’t your xt2 have touchscreen?

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Don’t have one. I’m saving up for one as my “retirement gift” to myself....or maybe the latest Fuji at that point. I have an XE2s.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Oh! My apologies. For some reason I thought it was the xt2. Do you check pro photo for used stuff?