Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
In Defense of Post Processing
Page <<first <prev 11 of 15 next> last>>
Dec 23, 2018 08:15:02   #
tommclaughlin
 
When I began taking pictures at age ten or twelve with my 620, plastic, box camera my vision was 20-20 or better. Now at 67, I need trifocals. What our eyes see or don't see changes over our lifetimes. Is using a flash impure?

Yes, Ansel Adams did PP and he's not criticized. Audobon shot his birds and posed them before painting them.

I had a little experience in a B&W darkroom in college back in the early seventies and I really enjoyed manipulating my photos, especially evening shots near streetlights. I lived in the city then. Those images had mood. They had feeling -- even more of it after I manipulated them. I still love them because I remember how I felt when I shot them with my old Minolta SRT-101 which I still have.

I'm almost never happy with paper prints of my images and I'm still disappointed sometimes by my prints on metal. I prefer them on screen, but then they look different on my Macbook Pro than look on my large, Philips 4K TV because those screens are adjusted differently.

I continue to PP until I get closest to the way my images FELT when I was first inspired to frame them in my zoom lens. If I have time when in great light, I shoot multiple images at different settings. Don't we all? Which of those is "real"? Are any? To me, they're real if they feel right, and I don't care who else approves. They're mine and mine only. If someone else asks for a copy, I provide it. I assume they're asking because they get the same feeling I did when I created it, but I can never know that for sure either, right?

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 08:18:04   #
tommclaughlin
 
When I began taking pictures at age ten or twelve with my 620, plastic, box camera my vision was 20-20 or better. Now at 67, I need trifocals. What our eyes see or don't see changes over our lifetimes. Is using a flash impure?

Yes, Ansel Adams did PP and he's not criticized. Audobon shot his birds and posed them before painting them.

I had a little experience in a B&W darkroom in college back in the early seventies and I really enjoyed manipulating my photos, especially evening shots near streetlights. I lived in the city then. Those images had mood. They had feeling -- even more of it after I manipulated them. I still love them because I remember how I felt when I shot them with my old Minolta SRT-101 which I still have.

I'm almost never happy with paper prints of my images and I'm still disappointed sometimes by my prints on metal. I prefer them on screen, but then they look different on my Macbook Pro than look on my large, Philips 4K TV because those screens are adjusted differently.

I continue to PP until I get closest to the way my images FELT when I was first inspired to frame them in my zoom lens. If I have time when in great light, I shoot multiple images at different settings. Don't we all? Which of those is "real"? Are any? To me, they're real if they feel right, and I don't care who else approves. They're mine and mine only. If someone else asks for a copy, I provide it. I assume they're asking because they get the same feeling I did when I created it, but I can never know that for sure either, right?

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 09:57:54   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
mwsilvers wrote:
Then be surprised. Here is a quote from an earlier poster, Dan Phillips, in this thread. I love his "real photographer" reference, especially considering the images he's posted over time are for the most part very mediocre. He's not a troll, just not a particularly talented or knowledgeable photographer who believes he knows best.

"Please don't get me started this morning. If you want to post process feel free. For me, a real photographer will do his work with a camera, not artificial intelligence. Your eye should be your darkroom and the camera the brush and paint in the hands of the artist. To each his/her own. I prefer black coffee, no sugar, no cream. When I drink water, I drink water; when I drink bourbon, I drink bourbon. To post edit is to diminish your true photgrapic ability and you learn to rely on the computer, not the camera!"
Then be surprised. Here is a quote from an earlier... (show quote)

Thank you, mwsilvers. I must have missed it.

Reply
 
 
Dec 23, 2018 10:33:09   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Aldla wrote:
I agree. Too many beginners rely on post processing and don't take the time to compose a good photograph. PP can make a good photo great.

Unfortunately that's why post processing seems to have gotten a bad name in some circles. Uniformed photographers may think the only thing its good for is fixing exposures taken by people who are incapable of get it right in camera. While getting it as right as possible in-camera is always the goal, post processing can take that image to the next level and beyond. I've seen few good images SOOC that could not be enhanced to varying degrees with a judicious use of adjustments in post.

Some detractors are quick to mention that professional sports and news photographers don't use PP. But, that is because they have transmit smaller JPEG images quickly to meet deadlines and don't have the time to employ it. It doesn't mean they don't appreciate its value.

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 10:38:15   #
ChrisRL
 
For me, this is a no-brainer.
Photography has always been a process.
It's just been converted from analog film into the digital world.
The process is identical.
There were always people who said the Kodak Brownie, then the Instamatic was the purest form of photography - i.e. no interference with the image. Then it became the Polaroid. Now it's the iPhone.
Then there were other people who started with the full-plate and half-plate cameras.
Now they're sheet cameras with drum scanners on the other end. Then Photoshop or other Lightroom/Darkroom tools for image manipulation.

Taking photographs, or making photographs.
Fact, or fiction.
Documentary, or feature film.

Same as it ever was.
Just digital now.

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 10:56:45   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Aldla wrote:
I agree. Too many beginners rely on post processing and don't take the time to compose a good photograph. PP can make a good photo great.


Really? How many people do you actually know, who, are great at PP but suck at photography?

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 11:35:26   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
tdekany wrote:
Really? How many people do you actually know, who, are great at PP but suck at photography?

I agree, but today many PP applications have automatic settings that can make even some of the most terribly exposed images look less terrible and perhaps acceptable to the shooter.

Reply
 
 
Dec 23, 2018 12:33:13   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
DAN Phillips wrote:
Please don't get me started this morning. If you want to post process feel free. For me, a real photographer will do his work with a camera, not artificial intelligence. Your eye should be your darkroom and the camera the brush and paint in the hands of the artist. To each his/her own. I prefer black coffee, no sugar, no cream. When I drink water, I drink water; when I drink bourbon, I drink bourbon. To post edit is to diminish your true photgrapic ability and you learn to rely on the computer, not the camera!
Please don't get me started this morning. If you ... (show quote)

It sounds like you are attempting to redefine a "true [digital] photographer" as one who works solely with whatever you conceive happens in the camera. That's painting with a very broad brush. Actually, ALL digital photography is computer graphics and involves processing from RAW to JPG or other compressed form. PP vs SOOC is a matter of the degree and level of control of the process. (You probably knew this and maybe your reply was not serious.)

We can accurately say that SOOC devotees fill a niche form of sensor/computer based, or digital photography, and some can be very good at it. But it is narrow minded to attempt to redefine all of true photography as being limited to that form. It is like saying you aren't a real film photographer unless you master and stick with Polaroid, and I take away nothing from those who did.

Not being personal here, but as an example, do you dry, roast, grind, and brew your beans before ingesting coffee? I think you must, or pay others to, because you like yours black, and I presume you drink rather than chew raw beans. One can say "At least it's pure coffee" but is the water pure? Do you clean your palette before sipping or do you ever pollute it with whatever you just ate? Do you like chocolate or baklava with it? That's post processing! The real issue here is relativism and rationalization. We tend to define as excessive that which we do not do or have ourselves whether by choice or circumstance. Again, nothing personal. I just to keep concepts and terms straight, not processed by negative opinions what others do.

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 13:25:33   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
The real beauty of modern photography is that one "can do what they like", and it works for them (or it don't). One can spend all their time in SOOC land, or PP land, or some combination of all of it, and no one is wrong in their approach. Forums are full of individuals, and "different strokes for different folks", all good!

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 13:32:11   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
olemikey wrote:
The real beauty of modern photography is that one "can do what they like", and it works for them (or it don't). One can spend all their time in SOOC land, or PP land, or some combination of all of it, and no one is wrong in their approach. Forums are full of individuals, and "different strokes for different folks", all good!


You should tell DAN that. He obviously has a different idea.

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 17:23:37   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Of course you are correct “Rod “, no digital product should portend to be unprocessed. You will win this bet every time. In the end, post processing is a decision for each photographer. Some like to seek what they see as perfection with considerable time in post, while others are happy with little to no post work. I know several Fuji types that are so pleased with the simulations Fuji offers with its JPEGs that they save a whole bunch of post time not having to do the extra work. To each their own. It’s a bit like the Raw vs JPEG debate. Lots of attention, lots of commentary all supporting their own preference as “the best.”

Merry Christmas


rond-photography wrote:
I challenge you: List 10 iconic photos that had absolutely NO processing adjustments made to them. I will be happy to see them, but I am not sure you can come up with 10.

Reply
 
 
Dec 23, 2018 17:26:25   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
aellman wrote:
Whether to PP or not is very much an individual decision and not legitimately open to criticism from either side.



Reply
Dec 23, 2018 17:32:02   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
All photos are processed to be made visible.

rmalarz wrote:
A good example. Here's a couple of SOOC images. Without processing this is as good as they are ever going to get.
--Bob

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 17:39:31   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
“Regis,” I enjoy your shots, however, am surprised by your seemingly condescending comment regarding product SOOC. Lots of photographers thoroughly enjoy the JPEG output from some of today’s high tech cameras. I’m not sure a subjective personal preference provides sufficient evidence to relegate a photographer to the “amateur” file.
Merry Christmas.



Regis wrote:
I totally agree with you. I have been taking pictures for more than 50 years (I am 74) and went to the Art Institute of Pittsburgh of Pennsylvania and studied photography, etc. A photographer had very little control over the finished photo, so I am glad to have a little professional control of having the photo look it's best without going too far with PP except to give it a realistic professional look to it. To expect a photo to look it's best straight out of the camera is ridiculous. That is a amateur's point of view.
I totally agree with you. I have been taking pictu... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 23, 2018 17:43:24   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Around here, we push a controversy to its max and we end up with a lot of noise.

Welcome to UHH mudhen.

Mike



Reply
Page <<first <prev 11 of 15 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.