Truth Be Told
Jun 20, 2018 13:09:43 #
joer wrote:
Its not the gear or the photographer, although eac... (show quote)
I am sure that many use PP to make their images look a lot better than it came out of the camera. I always do post processing even in the film days but I don't do that much more PP with my digital images as compared to film. In the darkroom I would do the color balancing and printing exposure for each print. At times I did some dodging and burning in. With digital as I always shoot RAW and leave white balance on auto and picture control to standard. To the least I would have to correct for white balance and change the contrast for each image. I at times would change the exposure in post and perhaps bring up the shadows and bring down the highlight.
So I always do some PP but very little compared to many others.
Jun 20, 2018 13:20:47 #
This “question” or arguments as to the importance of camera work vs. post processing reemerges on this site on a regular basis and it will likely continue forever going forward. What I am going to opine on now, will probably be scrolled away and forgotten but here's my take anyway.
Back to the future. Many long time photographers nostalgically refer to the darkroom era. Any photographer worth his or her “salt” knew that good camera work and careful and precise darkroom management went hand in hand in achieving superior results- especially where fine printmaking was concerned. Meticulous film processing was required as a prerequisite to good prints and fine printing techniques maximized all the information on the negative. Certain special effects such as the addition of texture screens, montage printing and many other more radical methods such as ultra high contrast and solarizations were also in the domain of the darkroom.
Especially in professional circles, sloppy or careless shooting and remedial darkroom work was frowned upon mainly because it is inefficient, time consuming, not cost effective and oftentimes resulted in inferior results. The darkroom, in many instances was indeed a place of “rescue” for certain inevitable shooting situations such as extremely low lighting, limited access to subjects and other issues confronting photojournalists. Push processing, negative intensification, radical cropping and printing techniques such as dodging burning, and bleaching were the “intensive care” that saved many “front page” images. Obviously many kinds of retouching and enhancement were and still are also part of the post-production process.
Even the very best camera crafts-persons were seldom satisfied with a totally straight print- a bit of tweaking always added that perfect touch. So many folks on this site make references to the iconic photographers of the film era- Ansel Adams and other practitioners of the Zone System and speak of adaption of theses systems to contemporary digital methodologies. Theses are prime examples of camera work and perfect post processing integration.
Thing was, really expert darkroom work, even much of the remedial product was “invisible”, none of the printing manipulations called attention to themselves- it all blended in perfectly when it was done correctly.
Even in the production of transparencies and slides, good lab work was required to ensure good quality, color rendition and grain structure.
So here we are, well into the digital era of photography and when you strip things down to brass tacks, nothing has changed. Good well crafted digital file will generally yield the best final images with a minimum of post processing minipulation but this does not entirely negate the need for post processing. Good post-processing technique still goes hand in hand with fine camera work in many ways.
With film, we chose various brands, speeds and emulations based on color saturation levels, bias toward certain colors and other intrinsic characteristics. Nowadays much of theses aesthetics need to be addressed in post-processing. Of course composition, in terms of placement of all the visual elements in the frame is mostly in control of the photographer at the time the images is conceived. In many instances, however, a slight adjustment in cropping, proportions, orientation, tilt or level, can turn a good image into an outstanding one. Certain special effects are still in the domain of post-production- some are per-planned and others may be an afterthought.
Realistically, some original files can be categorized as a total train wreck in a dumpster fire” and very little can be done to resurrect them. Some basically poorly crafted files can be somehow saved through some savvy post-processing applications but this usually requires many skill sets and a high level of proficiency. Bad post processing results should not be blamed on the entire concept of post processing. Poorly executed post- processing applications can be detrimental to to a perfectly good original file. Bad post production applications will exacerbate an already poor file. Plainly, bad lighting or use of light, neglect of detail, lack of any compositional apprehension can not be remedied in post production. Although some profess to the contrary, may optical and filtration effects that should be applied at the camera, such as polarization, can not be realistically applied in post processing.
There are also various levels of acceptability in different areas of photography. I don't think there is a good “excuse” for a poor landscape, formal portrait, still life or studio image- the photographer usually has the time and the place to do things correctly. Historically, in photojournalism, however, especially in many dangerous situations, many essential images of war, strife, commotion, revolution and violation of human rights, resulted from 8mm sections of 35mm negatives pushed processed in “dynamite” developers with mothball size grain and would otherwise never made it to publication without radical processing and numerous printing manipulations. In many cases the story trumps the quality.
Of course, each of us have the perfect right to approach things in our own ways. If a photographer wants to remain a “purist” of sorts and makes it a personal challenge to make every shot right out of the camera, I can understand that kind of thinking. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some may use their photography as raw material for computer art- again, I can relate to that although I don't do that on a regular basis. I must admit I love to fool around with crazy apps on my cell phone camera- it's fun but I don't do that at work. On the other hand, nowadays, as a commercial photographer, I find clients are now demanding many effects that used to be in the domain of the art departments, commercial printers and ad agencies. They are asking for special effects, typography being “stripped” into images, and all kids of goodies that are doable in post processing
Then there are matters of taste ans style. Some folks who are not into professional portraiture may take a dim view of “soft focus” or extreme skin retouching. Fact is, however, like it or not, many folks are not at all interested in seeing their pores, lines or wrinkles in their portraits- others don't mind the character. The photographer may be a purist, or a stylist, a fantasist or a documentarian, at the end of the day, in commercial professional work, the client rules. Of course again everyone is entitled to their own “ethic”.
My advice- In the olden days serious amateurs, aspiring professionals and professionals always got into the darkroom. They did not entrust the final disposition of their work to be determined by a mass production photo finishing lab. Many studio operations maintained their own in-house darkrooms and color labs or worked very closely with custom outsourced facilities. If you want to maintain total control over you images, be able to enhance certain aspects of your work and introduce many creative special effects when appropriate, definitely get into post processing. If you are a veteran of the darkroom, and haven't as yet tackled PhotoShop and/or Lightroom, you will find the basics very familiar- density, dodging, burning, cropping, contrast control, color balancing and correction. Personally, in my professional work, I try to make good clean files and seldom need to get into layers upon layers of post processing work- not very much more than I used to do at the enlarger. If need-be, you can get into very advanced and complex applications and special effects. If you are totally new to the craft and want to get into advanced work, it's like anything else in any craft, hobby or aspired profession- it pays off to take the time to study, learn, practice and master the entire process. A decent laptop computer, a current operating system, and a basic processing program such as PhotoShop or Lightroom will do the trick. There are zillions of accessories, plug-ins and auxiliary programs and gadgets- it's just like camera stuff, lenses and accessories- there is loads of marketing out there but oftentimes simplicity is the best route. The next step is a nice printer so you can produce you own prints in a variety of fine papers. Conveniently, the entire system is not as potentially messy and complicated as building a darkroom and the entire system can be contained on a desktop. No more pungent or corrosive chemicals and no plumbing. Don't drink the ink or dispose of you old computer gear in the landfill and you are environmentally safe and sound.
Good luck and best regards.
Back to the future. Many long time photographers nostalgically refer to the darkroom era. Any photographer worth his or her “salt” knew that good camera work and careful and precise darkroom management went hand in hand in achieving superior results- especially where fine printmaking was concerned. Meticulous film processing was required as a prerequisite to good prints and fine printing techniques maximized all the information on the negative. Certain special effects such as the addition of texture screens, montage printing and many other more radical methods such as ultra high contrast and solarizations were also in the domain of the darkroom.
Especially in professional circles, sloppy or careless shooting and remedial darkroom work was frowned upon mainly because it is inefficient, time consuming, not cost effective and oftentimes resulted in inferior results. The darkroom, in many instances was indeed a place of “rescue” for certain inevitable shooting situations such as extremely low lighting, limited access to subjects and other issues confronting photojournalists. Push processing, negative intensification, radical cropping and printing techniques such as dodging burning, and bleaching were the “intensive care” that saved many “front page” images. Obviously many kinds of retouching and enhancement were and still are also part of the post-production process.
Even the very best camera crafts-persons were seldom satisfied with a totally straight print- a bit of tweaking always added that perfect touch. So many folks on this site make references to the iconic photographers of the film era- Ansel Adams and other practitioners of the Zone System and speak of adaption of theses systems to contemporary digital methodologies. Theses are prime examples of camera work and perfect post processing integration.
Thing was, really expert darkroom work, even much of the remedial product was “invisible”, none of the printing manipulations called attention to themselves- it all blended in perfectly when it was done correctly.
Even in the production of transparencies and slides, good lab work was required to ensure good quality, color rendition and grain structure.
So here we are, well into the digital era of photography and when you strip things down to brass tacks, nothing has changed. Good well crafted digital file will generally yield the best final images with a minimum of post processing minipulation but this does not entirely negate the need for post processing. Good post-processing technique still goes hand in hand with fine camera work in many ways.
With film, we chose various brands, speeds and emulations based on color saturation levels, bias toward certain colors and other intrinsic characteristics. Nowadays much of theses aesthetics need to be addressed in post-processing. Of course composition, in terms of placement of all the visual elements in the frame is mostly in control of the photographer at the time the images is conceived. In many instances, however, a slight adjustment in cropping, proportions, orientation, tilt or level, can turn a good image into an outstanding one. Certain special effects are still in the domain of post-production- some are per-planned and others may be an afterthought.
Realistically, some original files can be categorized as a total train wreck in a dumpster fire” and very little can be done to resurrect them. Some basically poorly crafted files can be somehow saved through some savvy post-processing applications but this usually requires many skill sets and a high level of proficiency. Bad post processing results should not be blamed on the entire concept of post processing. Poorly executed post- processing applications can be detrimental to to a perfectly good original file. Bad post production applications will exacerbate an already poor file. Plainly, bad lighting or use of light, neglect of detail, lack of any compositional apprehension can not be remedied in post production. Although some profess to the contrary, may optical and filtration effects that should be applied at the camera, such as polarization, can not be realistically applied in post processing.
There are also various levels of acceptability in different areas of photography. I don't think there is a good “excuse” for a poor landscape, formal portrait, still life or studio image- the photographer usually has the time and the place to do things correctly. Historically, in photojournalism, however, especially in many dangerous situations, many essential images of war, strife, commotion, revolution and violation of human rights, resulted from 8mm sections of 35mm negatives pushed processed in “dynamite” developers with mothball size grain and would otherwise never made it to publication without radical processing and numerous printing manipulations. In many cases the story trumps the quality.
Of course, each of us have the perfect right to approach things in our own ways. If a photographer wants to remain a “purist” of sorts and makes it a personal challenge to make every shot right out of the camera, I can understand that kind of thinking. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some may use their photography as raw material for computer art- again, I can relate to that although I don't do that on a regular basis. I must admit I love to fool around with crazy apps on my cell phone camera- it's fun but I don't do that at work. On the other hand, nowadays, as a commercial photographer, I find clients are now demanding many effects that used to be in the domain of the art departments, commercial printers and ad agencies. They are asking for special effects, typography being “stripped” into images, and all kids of goodies that are doable in post processing
Then there are matters of taste ans style. Some folks who are not into professional portraiture may take a dim view of “soft focus” or extreme skin retouching. Fact is, however, like it or not, many folks are not at all interested in seeing their pores, lines or wrinkles in their portraits- others don't mind the character. The photographer may be a purist, or a stylist, a fantasist or a documentarian, at the end of the day, in commercial professional work, the client rules. Of course again everyone is entitled to their own “ethic”.
My advice- In the olden days serious amateurs, aspiring professionals and professionals always got into the darkroom. They did not entrust the final disposition of their work to be determined by a mass production photo finishing lab. Many studio operations maintained their own in-house darkrooms and color labs or worked very closely with custom outsourced facilities. If you want to maintain total control over you images, be able to enhance certain aspects of your work and introduce many creative special effects when appropriate, definitely get into post processing. If you are a veteran of the darkroom, and haven't as yet tackled PhotoShop and/or Lightroom, you will find the basics very familiar- density, dodging, burning, cropping, contrast control, color balancing and correction. Personally, in my professional work, I try to make good clean files and seldom need to get into layers upon layers of post processing work- not very much more than I used to do at the enlarger. If need-be, you can get into very advanced and complex applications and special effects. If you are totally new to the craft and want to get into advanced work, it's like anything else in any craft, hobby or aspired profession- it pays off to take the time to study, learn, practice and master the entire process. A decent laptop computer, a current operating system, and a basic processing program such as PhotoShop or Lightroom will do the trick. There are zillions of accessories, plug-ins and auxiliary programs and gadgets- it's just like camera stuff, lenses and accessories- there is loads of marketing out there but oftentimes simplicity is the best route. The next step is a nice printer so you can produce you own prints in a variety of fine papers. Conveniently, the entire system is not as potentially messy and complicated as building a darkroom and the entire system can be contained on a desktop. No more pungent or corrosive chemicals and no plumbing. Don't drink the ink or dispose of you old computer gear in the landfill and you are environmentally safe and sound.
Good luck and best regards.
Jun 20, 2018 13:44:23 #
joer wrote:
Its not the gear or the photographer, although eac... (show quote)
Notwithstanding your dedication to post processing as an end in itself, which is an individual opinion, "Its not the gear or the photographer..." is a patently ridiculous statement. Now that I think of it, maybe we don't need either one! We can cut pages out of newspapers and start the post processing immediately. >Alan
Jun 20, 2018 14:06:43 #
And always brought up by snapshot shooters. Every Single Time.
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
b This “question” or arguments as to the importan... (show quote)
Jun 20, 2018 14:13:28 #
tdekany wrote:
And always brought up by snapshot shooters. Every Single Time.
And your point is?
Many of my best photos involved no post processing. My point is that this works for ME,not
necessarily for anyone else. Straight-Out-of-the-Camera is not my religion; it's just a preference
which has given me results I am very happy with for many years. >Alan
Jun 20, 2018 14:38:10 #
aellman wrote:
And your point is?
Many of my best photos involved no post processing. My point is that this works for ME,not
necessarily for anyone else. Straight-Out-of-the-Camera is not my religion; it's just a preference
which has given me results I am very happy with for many years. >Alan
Many of my best photos involved no post processing. My point is that this works for ME,not
necessarily for anyone else. Straight-Out-of-the-Camera is not my religion; it's just a preference
which has given me results I am very happy with for many years. >Alan
My point is that creative, artistic photographers, who have the eye, also understand what pp is. Pp isn’t to fix mistakes. And btw, you were not the op, so I’m not sure what your point is. Just be happy with the end product, that should be the only thing that matters. SOOC, RAW, RAW+PP, SOOC+PP, who cares how it was created?
Jun 20, 2018 15:16:21 #
aellman wrote:
Notwithstanding your dedication to post processing as an end in itself, which is an individual opinion, "Its not the gear or the photographer..." is a patently ridiculous statement. Now that I think of it, maybe we don't need either one! We can cut pages out of newspapers and start the post processing immediately. >Alan
Funny.
Jun 20, 2018 15:17:40 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
This “question” or arguments as to the importance ... (show quote)
I think you just about said it all and very well at that.
Jun 20, 2018 15:19:23 #
aellman wrote:
Notwithstanding your dedication to post processing as an end in itself, which is an individual opinion, "Its not the gear or the photographer..." is a patently ridiculous statement. Now that I think of it, maybe we don't need either one! We can cut pages out of newspapers and start the post processing immediately. >Alan
Go back and read the whole sentence...
Jun 20, 2018 15:51:17 #
WHO CARES?? The finished product is what matters. Time marches on, things change. That is the life works. If you dont like it, then do it the way you wish but stop belittling those who wish to do it another way.
Jun 20, 2018 15:56:29 #
CatMarley wrote:
I have been doing PP for 20 years or more. No need to accuse people of insecurity because they disagree with your premise,. I think there may be an inverse relationship between artistic imagination in photography and post processing. So many of the people doing it cannot even use the tools of the trade like a tablet and stylus. There must be a lot of dreadful PP going on if the amount of dreadful photography is any indication. I would not encourage it.
Everyone starts somewhere. After all this is supposed to be a learning forum is it not. No one should be discouraged or criticized for trying.
Jun 20, 2018 16:12:52 #
tdekany wrote:
My point is that creative, artistic photographers, who have the eye, also understand what pp is. Pp isn’t to fix mistakes. And btw, you were not the op, so I’m not sure what your point is. Just be happy with the end product, that should be the only thing that matters. SOOC, RAW, RAW+PP, SOOC+PP, who cares how it was created?
Agreed!
Jun 20, 2018 16:42:17 #
I realize my opinion is worth exactly what it costs, but I am 200% in favor of PP. I know that it may not make a masterpiece out of a snapshot, but if done right, it can make it a better snapshot. It can make a fairly nice picture out of a fairly poor picture and it can make a masterpiece out of an ALMOST masterpiece...so...why settle for almost? I hate when it's over-done, but when done right it can make a lot of ordinary photos beautiful.
Jun 20, 2018 17:06:22 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
tdekany wrote:
Only if you didn’t know what you were talking about, would you think that an average image can be turned into a spectacular one.
Btw, my images are in my signature. On the other hand, I don’t need to see yours to know that you are most likely a snapshot shooter. I am one for sure but at least I understand what makes a photo spectacular. I really don’t thing that you do.
Btw, my images are in my signature. On the other hand, I don’t need to see yours to know that you are most likely a snapshot shooter. I am one for sure but at least I understand what makes a photo spectacular. I really don’t thing that you do.
What’s a snap shot again? Please define. There’s no such thing as a snapshot or photograph they are all just pics
Jun 20, 2018 18:26:48 #
davyboy wrote:
What’s a snap shot again? Please define. There’s no such thing as a snapshot or photograph they are all just pics
For everyone who thinks they know what a snapshot is, see the
out-of-print "The Snap-Shot." (Aperture Vol. 19 #1. 1974.) It is
available (used) from Amazon. It will expand your definition of
the nature of snapshots and inspire you.
Trust me. >Alan
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.