In Defense of Post Processing
Dec 21, 2018 13:12:58 #
Regardsless of your skill in photography, all photos need post processing. Remember the camera is a machine and it only gives you what you put into it... So, disregard comments from the so called professionals stating post processing is an amateur way of improving photos.
Dec 21, 2018 13:16:47 #
rond-photography wrote:
I have heard that a famous photographer tried and tried to duplicate a shot he made of Half Dome, but could never get a decent sky.
When she talked to someone at the Ansel Adams Gallery, who knew Ansel, she was told that he didn't like the skies he got either, and
he layered the negative with a masked negative of a good sky!
When she talked to someone at the Ansel Adams Gallery, who knew Ansel, she was told that he didn't like the skies he got either, and
he layered the negative with a masked negative of a good sky!
Dec 21, 2018 13:31:48 #
rond-photography wrote:
This is my first "new topic", and it may... (show quote)
Photography is a process. Part of it is in camera capture and part of it is processing--chemically or electronically or both. As Linda's (the one from Maine) tag line says, it's your image do what you want with it. As far as the film DAZE are concerned, you can bet your Bottom--and Dollar too that even the Transparency images you see in print are processed. The corrections and adjustments made on the 4 color separations were often extensive and VERY expensive. I know, I've paid for them.
Every post here and elsewhere about printing talks about Monitor Calibration and printer, paper and ink adjustments. Yet I see no righteous indignation over how they are the cause of image alteration or lack of fidelity to the reality of a scene. A few Poster makers using a tool we also use to process photos have set a silly expectation for all. I suggest we petition Adobe (giggle) to re-name their flagship product POSTER Shop and simultaneously re-issue the current Photoshop and Lightroom as something else. Maybe even change the lingo to something that makes more sense to a photographer. too. It is like calling everything from plain Gelatin Dessert with banana and fruit cocktail to exquisite pears in aspic JELLO!
That's my opinion, but I could be wrong!
C
Dec 21, 2018 14:14:14 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I believe Ansel Adams manipulated the photo in the darkroom (AKA today Photo Shop).
You know he did!Dec 21, 2018 18:03:55 #
Architect1776 wrote:
I believe Ansel Adams manipulated the photo in the darkroom (AKA today Photo Shop).
He "manipulated" the image even before he pressed the shutter - in other words, it was mostly planned. He would evaluate the contrast range in the scene, decide what camera settings and recipe for development he would use to maximize shadow detail without blocking up the highlights too much, and then make a contact print to figure out his dodging and burning strategy. His ability to previsualize the end result was his single most powerful talent.
Dec 21, 2018 19:00:06 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
G Brown wrote:
There have been posters here who say 'I do not PP' and then add that they ONLY crop or rotate their images,make subtle adjustment to exposure etc. As if there are 'acceptable limits'. With digital we all have to PP to get the image out of the camera. Once you open that door....The rest is 'always open to doubt and assumptions'.
It turns out that these are not arbitrary limitations on processing (at least for some people). I participated in a workshop last summer in which the instructor was, among other things, a photographer who contracts assignments with National Geographic. He also advocated using the camera's capability to get white balance, exposure, noise reduction, and other controllable parameters correct when taking the photograph. Turns out that National Geographic has very specific limitations on what post processing is allowed. Their list includes mild cropping, very limited color correction, limited rotation, and not too much else.
Dec 21, 2018 19:42:44 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
larryepage wrote:
It turns out that these are not arbitrary limitati... (show quote)
The reason for those limitations is not because the images look better that way, it because it gives National Geographic better control and confidence that the images they publish really represent what was actually seen, and are not fabrications.
Dec 21, 2018 19:43:24 #
rb61
Loc: Maple Grove, MN
Architect1776 wrote:
I believe Ansel Adams manipulated the photo in the darkroom (AKA today Photo Shop).
He started the process before he activated the shutter. He calculated the exposure for shadow detail and made notes as to how long the negative would be developed to reach the right density in the highlights to hold detail. He and the followers of the Zone System were controlling dynamic range. He then had a negative that would allow him to print/manipulate in a way to reproduce the emotional image he had in his mind.
Dec 21, 2018 20:11:24 #
Gene51 wrote:
He "manipulated" the image even before he pressed the shutter - in other words, it was mostly planned. He would evaluate the contrast range in the scene, decide what camera settings and recipe for development he would use to maximize shadow detail without blocking up the highlights too much, and then make a contact print to figure out his dodging and burning strategy. His ability to previsualize the end result was his single most powerful talent.
I am sure he visualized things. And in order to get that vision he had to manipulate and combine photos to get the end result.
Not just dodging and burning but far more than that as far as manipulation.
Dec 21, 2018 21:16:10 #
Gene51 wrote:
He "manipulated" the image even before he pressed the shutter - in other words, it was mostly planned. He would evaluate the contrast range in the scene, decide what camera settings and recipe for development he would use to maximize shadow detail without blocking up the highlights too much, and then make a contact print to figure out his dodging and burning strategy. His ability to previsualize the end result was his single most powerful talent.
Dec 21, 2018 21:38:49 #
rond-photography wrote:
This is my first "new topic", and it may... (show quote)
Those that are satisfied with images SOOC aim too low.
Dec 21, 2018 22:48:40 #
It's simple so why make it complex!
For time immemorial serious amateur and professional photograhers have realized that their (analog) darkroom work is part and parcel of the QUALITY photographic process. That's why all theses photograhers did the own darkroom work and did not send their film to a "drugstore" or mass production photofinishing plant. Most advanced workers and professionals preferred to do their own processing and printing, employed and supervised expereinced technicians at their studios or work very closely with a custom processing lab service. Even color transparency work, which did not entail printing needed to be closely monitored to ensure the best results enabled film speed variations.
Most successful professional I know believe in careful and precise shooting and routine tweaking in printing- dodging, burning, contrast control, some enhancement or the addition of special effects when required. This does not mean sloppy shooting and "re-shooting" the job in the darkroom. That was and is uneconomical, inefficient and usually negates optimum results. Any tweaking or manipulation that is performed in printing must not call attention to itself or become obvious- it has to be invisible. If it shows up or is overdone or gaudy, it is considered inept and unacceptable.
In digital photography, post-processing has exactly the same function and shoud be judged my the same criteria. It's just part and parcel of the complete photographic process.
Special effects, abstractions, extreme saturation, wahtever,- theses are artistic and creative options some of which are applied in post processing. Therese are a matter of taste and style and as long as they are executed in a craftsman-like manner I can't see anythg "illegitimate" or phony about it. If you are only interest in pure photograhy, simply don't bother about special effects.
In the good old analog days, custom fine printing was HAND work- MANual work- folks dodged, burned, rubbed concentrated developer into highlights in the tray using their HANDS. All of theses prints were MANipulated. So... nowadays we do all of this with a basically good file and a computer. SAME DIFFERENCE! If it's a masterful well crafted job it fine if it is inaptly done, it's a mess!
All good photographers wanted to make negatives of optimum quality and perfect the results on the enlarger. Now we all want to make the best possible file and perfect the image on the computer. Sometimes, however, seeing that we are all human and can make mistakes, even the best of us, it's great to have remedial options in post processing Sometimes we are working under dreadful conditions and come back with an equally dreadful files. Post processing to the rescue- better massive manipulation than no pictures.
So y'all who keep talking about Ansel Adams and Edward Weston- they manipulated their heads off! Weston's son continued his dad's work by printing the negatives that were left behind after the senior Weston's death. Each negative was enclosed in a glassine envelope with exacting burning and dodging instruction mapped out on a overlay. Adams produced photo-murals on a horizontally oriented 8x10 enlarger mounted on floor tracks. He just about danced around in the light path to dodge an burn. W. Eugene Smith laboured for days on one print and use more bleach than a washing machine. There was a photgraher right here in my home town that masterfully retouched Kodachrome slides with a brush! The result were magnificent!
At the end of the process, I don't judge an image on HOW it was produced. I judge the image on how it LOOKS!
Major motion pictures do no come to the theatre straight out of the camera. Post production is oftentimes more complex and lengthy than shooting.
Perhaps the term POST- processing is silly. Of course PROCESSING is done after the shooting and even the simplest file needs some form of preparation if it is to be seen other than only on the camera's LCD screen. it's gotta be "processed" just to move it off the card and onto some mode of exhibition.
For time immemorial serious amateur and professional photograhers have realized that their (analog) darkroom work is part and parcel of the QUALITY photographic process. That's why all theses photograhers did the own darkroom work and did not send their film to a "drugstore" or mass production photofinishing plant. Most advanced workers and professionals preferred to do their own processing and printing, employed and supervised expereinced technicians at their studios or work very closely with a custom processing lab service. Even color transparency work, which did not entail printing needed to be closely monitored to ensure the best results enabled film speed variations.
Most successful professional I know believe in careful and precise shooting and routine tweaking in printing- dodging, burning, contrast control, some enhancement or the addition of special effects when required. This does not mean sloppy shooting and "re-shooting" the job in the darkroom. That was and is uneconomical, inefficient and usually negates optimum results. Any tweaking or manipulation that is performed in printing must not call attention to itself or become obvious- it has to be invisible. If it shows up or is overdone or gaudy, it is considered inept and unacceptable.
In digital photography, post-processing has exactly the same function and shoud be judged my the same criteria. It's just part and parcel of the complete photographic process.
Special effects, abstractions, extreme saturation, wahtever,- theses are artistic and creative options some of which are applied in post processing. Therese are a matter of taste and style and as long as they are executed in a craftsman-like manner I can't see anythg "illegitimate" or phony about it. If you are only interest in pure photograhy, simply don't bother about special effects.
In the good old analog days, custom fine printing was HAND work- MANual work- folks dodged, burned, rubbed concentrated developer into highlights in the tray using their HANDS. All of theses prints were MANipulated. So... nowadays we do all of this with a basically good file and a computer. SAME DIFFERENCE! If it's a masterful well crafted job it fine if it is inaptly done, it's a mess!
All good photographers wanted to make negatives of optimum quality and perfect the results on the enlarger. Now we all want to make the best possible file and perfect the image on the computer. Sometimes, however, seeing that we are all human and can make mistakes, even the best of us, it's great to have remedial options in post processing Sometimes we are working under dreadful conditions and come back with an equally dreadful files. Post processing to the rescue- better massive manipulation than no pictures.
So y'all who keep talking about Ansel Adams and Edward Weston- they manipulated their heads off! Weston's son continued his dad's work by printing the negatives that were left behind after the senior Weston's death. Each negative was enclosed in a glassine envelope with exacting burning and dodging instruction mapped out on a overlay. Adams produced photo-murals on a horizontally oriented 8x10 enlarger mounted on floor tracks. He just about danced around in the light path to dodge an burn. W. Eugene Smith laboured for days on one print and use more bleach than a washing machine. There was a photgraher right here in my home town that masterfully retouched Kodachrome slides with a brush! The result were magnificent!
At the end of the process, I don't judge an image on HOW it was produced. I judge the image on how it LOOKS!
Major motion pictures do no come to the theatre straight out of the camera. Post production is oftentimes more complex and lengthy than shooting.
Perhaps the term POST- processing is silly. Of course PROCESSING is done after the shooting and even the simplest file needs some form of preparation if it is to be seen other than only on the camera's LCD screen. it's gotta be "processed" just to move it off the card and onto some mode of exhibition.
Dec 21, 2018 23:17:30 #
Might as well say "In defense of painting, the use of a brush to manipulate paint is justified".
There is no photography without manipulation of the image, whether digital or film. It is inherent in transferring the artist's vision from the real world to the two dimensional one. Any artist from da Vinci, to Picasso, to Adams knew this.
Those who look on "SOOC" as some kind of grail may be lazy, or inspired by some photo realist ethic, but they are missing the point, IMHO.
Andy
There is no photography without manipulation of the image, whether digital or film. It is inherent in transferring the artist's vision from the real world to the two dimensional one. Any artist from da Vinci, to Picasso, to Adams knew this.
Those who look on "SOOC" as some kind of grail may be lazy, or inspired by some photo realist ethic, but they are missing the point, IMHO.
Andy
Dec 21, 2018 23:38:44 #
Search out Ansel Adam ‘recipe books’ for his printing! Among the greats, only Henri Cartier Bresson rejected post processing and cropping, IIRC my History of Photography classes.
Dec 22, 2018 05:38:25 #
Excellent example of what should really be done with your pictures. I post process most of mine. Unfortunately I don't find my pictures to be goo right out of the camera. I need to setup my camera better and to pay more attention to light. So, I can adjust all these problem with PS.
You said it all perfectly.
You said it all perfectly.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.