Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
In Defense of Post Processing
Page <<first <prev 7 of 15 next> last>>
Dec 22, 2018 12:33:02   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
BlueMorel wrote:
My grandkids will probably never shoot on film, so once our generation and some in our kids' generation is gone, postprocessing will be the natural mode of photography and there wont be any of us left to tell them otherwise. No one to tell them, "Why, when I was young we did it the right way - dodging and burning with chemicals and enlargers! And I walked six miles to school in waist-deep snow and never complained!"


Six miles uphill both directions in that snow!!!! Someday when our brains are interconnected with technology it will be different again, "minds eye" photography!!! Of course, they will be levitating to school, or direct injection schoolwork, who knows!

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 12:39:16   #
srt101fan
 
rond-photography wrote:
This is my first "new topic", and it may come across as a little bit of a rant, but I hope it helps guide some newbies.

Post Processing is dismissed by some as not being pure; the detractors feel that only photos coming out perfect in camera are acceptable.
I disagree, and I base that on over 40 years of shooting (so, yes, I have shot film!).

When I got my first SLR in 1971, I started shooting as much as I could afford - it cost money to buy the roll of film and money to get it processed (no option except to post process when you shoot film).

I was usually disappointed because my pictures never looked as I remembered the scene. Mostly, at first, I shot color print film. Skies were blown out. People were weird colors, etc.
It took me a while to figure out that part of the problem was the way labs processed the photos. When I shot transparencies (the jpeg of the film world - because it was pretty much whatever you caught on that slide was what you were stuck with, ala jpeg), I found that the camera actually could produce good photos, but the issue of color prints still bugged me.
Shooting black and white, then sending it to the lab, was no better.

Over the years, I came to find out that the award winning images that we see everywhere are NOT always Straight Out Of Camera. When I made my own darkroom, I found that there were tools such as dodging and burning that were commonly applied in a darkroom to almost every good print. Test exposures in the darkroom were the norm - you didn't just set the timer for 10 seconds and expose the paper - you made a strip test to see how long you needed to expose for the best overall image, and you saw where parts were blown out or under exposed and dodged or burned those areas, maybe even applying a vignette.

Color was trickier since home processing was less forgiving than black & white, but I tried it, and had moderate success (color correction was tricky and I never spent enough time or money to get that perfect).

Ultimately, I found that certain labs (not my corner drug store) could produce excellent prints from my negatives and stuck with them from then on.

In the digital world, we apply the term "Photo Shopped" to many images (but it should be post processing, since we don't all use PS any more than all photocopier machines are Xerox copiers). It is often used in a derogatory manner, sometimes deservedly so. It is definitely possible to over process a photo and make it look unnatural. This can be done to advantage for some subjects, but if every photo you take looks "crunchy", you might be overdoing it.
It is better to keep it simple and just use the techniques that were most often used (and most easily understood) in the analog darkroom.

I contend that you MUST post process. Otherwise, you will get those blah photos that the film users among us have seen again and again.
As the photographer, you owe it to yourself and your audience to process those photos in the best lab (your own), and not just take what the camera produces.
It is rare that I have taken a photo and simply exported it as a jpeg without it first requiring exposure, shadow, highlight, white balance, and sharpening adjustments at a minimum.
There have been several, out of about 100,000 digital images I have, that were good without any adjustments, but that is extremely rare.

In the digital darkroom, we use the same techniques used in the analog darkroom - dodging, burning, adjusting for the best exposure, etc.
I am a huge advocate of LightRoom because it most closely matches the analog darkroom - terms are different, but the results and techniques are the same.
PhotoShop, with masks, becomes more complicated, but also has those simple tools embedded in it, so keep it simple and make great photos,
but don't dis' post processing - it will improve your photos immensely.
This is my first "new topic", and it may... (show quote)



This is my view of the digital processing part of going from “click” to the final image. There is nothing new here, only my interpretation of what many have said before me. Please correct me if I’m wrong. (Note that I think of “post-processing” as any processing done after the “click”, including the in-camera creation of the JPEG, since you have some control over that)

1) Photographer decides and sets what file formats the camera should save: Raw only, JPEG only, or both Raw and JPEG

2) Photographer sets the “Picture Controls” (or leaves default settings) that will influence in-camera Raw to JPEG conversions

3) After the photo is taken, the camera collects the Raw data, creates a JPEG image viewable on the LCD screen, and
3a) creates and saves a downloadable Raw file if camera was set to do so in 1)
3b) creates and saves a downloadable JPEG file if set to do so in 1); this JPEG is processed from the Raw data in accordance with the “Picture Controls” set in 2)
3c) creates and saves both downloadable Raw and processed JPEG files if set to do so in 1)

4) Once the files created by the camera are downloaded to the computer,
4a) the downloaded Raw files MUST receive initial computer-processing to make them viewable; this is done automatically when you open a Raw file in an editing program; after initial opening, the photographer can CONTINUE the post-processing to his/her heart’s content
4b) the downloaded JPEG files do not have to be computer post-processed but can be if desired

So, bottom line, to post-process or not to post-process is not a choice, only the EXTENT of processing is!



Reply
Dec 22, 2018 12:50:20   #
Errickcameron
 
Just do what you enjoy and don’t worry about what people think.

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 12:59:38   #
mudhen
 
A very enjoyable read.
Which leads me to believe that, anything perfect is still subject to improvement.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 13:13:57   #
xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada
 
Happy for you. Like most things in life, different strokes for different folks. Spending time with hundreds of photos in processing may or may not be considered enjoyable or an appropriate/effective use of precious time. To be honest, I’m not sure if it matters what I like other than to me, I guess.

Merry Christmas “road-photography.”


rond-photography wrote:
This is my first "new topic", and it may come across as a little bit of a rant, but I hope it helps guide some newbies.

Post Processing is dismissed by some as not being pure; the detractors feel that only photos coming out perfect in camera are acceptable.
I disagree, and I base that on over 40 years of shooting (so, yes, I have shot film!).

When I got my first SLR in 1971, I started shooting as much as I could afford - it cost money to buy the roll of film and money to get it processed (no option except to post process when you shoot film).

I was usually disappointed because my pictures never looked as I remembered the scene. Mostly, at first, I shot color print film. Skies were blown out. People were weird colors, etc.
It took me a while to figure out that part of the problem was the way labs processed the photos. When I shot transparencies (the jpeg of the film world - because it was pretty much whatever you caught on that slide was what you were stuck with, ala jpeg), I found that the camera actually could produce good photos, but the issue of color prints still bugged me.
Shooting black and white, then sending it to the lab, was no better.

Over the years, I came to find out that the award winning images that we see everywhere are NOT always Straight Out Of Camera. When I made my own darkroom, I found that there were tools such as dodging and burning that were commonly applied in a darkroom to almost every good print. Test exposures in the darkroom were the norm - you didn't just set the timer for 10 seconds and expose the paper - you made a strip test to see how long you needed to expose for the best overall image, and you saw where parts were blown out or under exposed and dodged or burned those areas, maybe even applying a vignette.

Color was trickier since home processing was less forgiving than black & white, but I tried it, and had moderate success (color correction was tricky and I never spent enough time or money to get that perfect).

Ultimately, I found that certain labs (not my corner drug store) could produce excellent prints from my negatives and stuck with them from then on.

In the digital world, we apply the term "Photo Shopped" to many images (but it should be post processing, since we don't all use PS any more than all photocopier machines are Xerox copiers). It is often used in a derogatory manner, sometimes deservedly so. It is definitely possible to over process a photo and make it look unnatural. This can be done to advantage for some subjects, but if every photo you take looks "crunchy", you might be overdoing it.
It is better to keep it simple and just use the techniques that were most often used (and most easily understood) in the analog darkroom.

I contend that you MUST post process. Otherwise, you will get those blah photos that the film users among us have seen again and again.
As the photographer, you owe it to yourself and your audience to process those photos in the best lab (your own), and not just take what the camera produces.
It is rare that I have taken a photo and simply exported it as a jpeg without it first requiring exposure, shadow, highlight, white balance, and sharpening adjustments at a minimum.
There have been several, out of about 100,000 digital images I have, that were good without any adjustments, but that is extremely rare.

In the digital darkroom, we use the same techniques used in the analog darkroom - dodging, burning, adjusting for the best exposure, etc.
I am a huge advocate of LightRoom because it most closely matches the analog darkroom - terms are different, but the results and techniques are the same.
PhotoShop, with masks, becomes more complicated, but also has those simple tools embedded in it, so keep it simple and make great photos,
but don't dis' post processing - it will improve your photos immensely.
This is my first "new topic", and it may... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 13:47:19   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
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)


" For me, a real photographer will do his work with a camera, not artificial intelligence." I'm guessing you don't know many "real" photographers.

You clearly lack any understanding that processing of you images to create a final jpeg is being performed regardless of whether you do it in camera or in post processing software. The major difference is that you can get better results editing a raw image in good software then you can when the cameras native raw images are processed in camera with far more basic and limited processing functionality. In either case, though, processing is taking place. You can either fully control that processing and the resulting quality, or you can let others make that decision for you with far more limited results. Perhaps you need to educate yourself about what is actually taking place when you push the shutter on a digital camera.

I took the liberty of looking at every image you posted here and while some of them probably should have been discarded, almost all the rest would have greatly benefited by the judicious use of post processing. Since many of them are poorly composed, and have poor sharpness and contrast can I assume that you also don't consider yourself a "real photographer"?

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 13:49:17   #
jak86094
 
bsprague wrote:
If anyone doubts the OP's level of photographic knowledge, abilities, etc., take a glance at is SmugMug presentation!

https://rond-photography.smugmug.com/Nothing-serious-here/i-H9B6GFd


Thanks for sharing that link and opinion. I agree that he has taken many attractive and stimulating photographs shown in the linked SmugMug page. It was definitely a pleasure to view his pictures. I tend to agree that nearly every photograph can benefit from some extra processing after the image has left the camera. In my own case, I try to present a sharp, properly exposed image and use the PP tools to make a stronger image, including the removal of distractions, adjustment of color and lighting...but if a photographer prefers SOOC...with no PP or cropping or evening a horizon line...that's their preferred image. I may not like the handling of those shots even if the image is otherwise compelling. As others have said, cameras apply a wide range of adjustments to the image received by the sensor. In camera adjustments to the manufacturer's default settings are a second level of adjustments. Sometimes the limitations of what the "adjusted" hardware can produce are acceptable, but if they are NOT acceptable to me, I use the post-exposure tools that are available to control or adjust the image to satisfy myself, and hopefully any viewers of my work.

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 13:49:54   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 

--Bob

mwsilvers wrote:
" For me, a real photographer will do his work with a camera, not artificial intelligence." I'm guessing you don't know many "real" photographers.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:04:32   #
cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX
 
I am not sure why we are even having this discussion these days. Someone previously mentioned that nearly all photography we see has been post processed except some older scanned prints. But if you really thing about it, even those prints, were post processed. EVERYTHING that was printed was post processed to some degree. That is what it took to convert a those silver halide crystals suspended in a gelatin into an image on the film. In black and white we would vary the developer, time, and temperature depending upon the grain characteristics, ASA (yesterday's ISO), contrast we desired the film to possess when printed. With color films there was less latitude in adjusting the development of film, but still we pushed the film when we needed to and changed the development to do so. Post processing.

It may be argued that chromes are straight out of camera, and I suppose they might be considered so as long as they remain projected. But the minute you print those chromes you throw yourself into post processing. The print reproduces color, saturation, and contrast differently than the chrome. For example, Cibachrome prints increased contrast. Accurate color matching often meant changing the filtration to best suit the paper and then sometimes adjusting a bit. Each film and paper seemed to have a different pallate. Moreover, in printing you had to account for the difference in how we perceive transmitted light and reflected light.

To a certain extent, the issue is confused today. The camera is now the functional equivalent of the film. Most cameras seem to have several choices as to how the camera will processes the image into a jpeg. That seems to me to be the equivalent of post processing/film development. Or, you can shoot raw and develop later.

Some of us hate computer time and would rather shoot than spend time on a computer post processing. To choose between the modes the camera, with their different saturations, contrasts levels, and color palates, that determines how the camera will process the image after you press the shutter is perfectly acceptable, if the results please you. To delay that processing decisions for a later date with your computer is acceptable too, if you desire that measure of control. In this regard, my work as a museum photographer, made me sensitive to the accuracy of color reproduction. If you profile your camera by shooting a color chart and then creating a profile, you will see that your camera shifts the hue and saturation of certain colors. If color accuracy is very important to the job, post production is necessary at this time.

The pejorative use of the term Photoshopped to mean overdone is unfortunately with us too. All it means to me is an image that the way processing interferes with the enjoyment of the image. How much red pepper to add to the pot depends on your tastes. Some prefer none while others prefer fire hot. Too each their own. The amount and type post p is a matter of taste.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:07:49   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
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)


Good morning and happy holidays to you.

Do you realize that you just insulted the majority of real photographers? Did you do it on purpose or out of ignorance?

I hate discrimination, so I did what I always do when I see a post like yours. The first thing I do is look at the person’s post history. I have to be honest with you, you didn’t disappoint. Looking at your snapshots, the first thing that jumped out at me is your lack of compositional skills. (I know that you received positive feedback from several members, but these same people do that to any and every picture posted, no matter how bad, so I wouldn’t let that get into your head)

These kind people must be angels, who love practical jokes and have fun with all the snapshot shooters. But that is just my opinion.

Anyway, back to your snaps. I’m like you, there isn’t an inch of artistry/creativity/imagination in my bones, but I have eyes that see my lack of talent, when I look at photos taken by TALENTED photographers. How come you can’t? Do you not see the differences between what you produce and a great photo?

I’m going to assume that you are a good human being, but is your post based on envy? Why? I sincerely can’t imagine someone with 50 or more years of pressing the shutter could be this ignorant.

While I noticed that you don’t have any landscape photos posted, when your camera’s sensor can’t handle the Dynamic Range of a scene, what do you think happens? In case you are not sure, what happens is that you can expose for highlights and end up with dark shadows, or you can expose for the shadows and blow the highlights that can never be recovered. Of course such photo doesn’t resemble reality, SO THANK GOD FOR POST PROCESSING SOFTWARE so we can make adjustments to make it look real.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:10:16   #
Bipod
 
rond-photography wrote:
This is my first "new topic", and it may come across as a little bit of a rant, but I hope it helps guide some newbies.

Post Processing is dismissed by some as not being pure; the detractors feel that only photos coming out perfect in camera are acceptable.
I disagree, and I base that on over 40 years of shooting (so, yes, I have shot film!).

When I got my first SLR in 1971, I started shooting as much as I could afford - it cost money to buy the roll of film and money to get it processed (no option except to post process when you shoot film).

I was usually disappointed because my pictures never looked as I remembered the scene. Mostly, at first, I shot color print film. Skies were blown out. People were weird colors, etc.
It took me a while to figure out that part of the problem was the way labs processed the photos. When I shot transparencies (the jpeg of the film world - because it was pretty much whatever you caught on that slide was what you were stuck with, ala jpeg), I found that the camera actually could produce good photos, but the issue of color prints still bugged me.
Shooting black and white, then sending it to the lab, was no better.

Over the years, I came to find out that the award winning images that we see everywhere are NOT always Straight Out Of Camera. When I made my own darkroom, I found that there were tools such as dodging and burning that were commonly applied in a darkroom to almost every good print. Test exposures in the darkroom were the norm - you didn't just set the timer for 10 seconds and expose the paper - you made a strip test to see how long you needed to expose for the best overall image, and you saw where parts were blown out or under exposed and dodged or burned those areas, maybe even applying a vignette.

Color was trickier since home processing was less forgiving than black & white, but I tried it, and had moderate success (color correction was tricky and I never spent enough time or money to get that perfect).

Ultimately, I found that certain labs (not my corner drug store) could produce excellent prints from my negatives and stuck with them from then on.

In the digital world, we apply the term "Photo Shopped" to many images (but it should be post processing, since we don't all use PS any more than all photocopier machines are Xerox copiers). It is often used in a derogatory manner, sometimes deservedly so. It is definitely possible to over process a photo and make it look unnatural. This can be done to advantage for some subjects, but if every photo you take looks "crunchy", you might be overdoing it.
It is better to keep it simple and just use the techniques that were most often used (and most easily understood) in the analog darkroom.

I contend that you MUST post process. Otherwise, you will get those blah photos that the film users among us have seen again and again.
As the photographer, you owe it to yourself and your audience to process those photos in the best lab (your own), and not just take what the camera produces.
It is rare that I have taken a photo and simply exported it as a jpeg without it first requiring exposure, shadow, highlight, white balance, and sharpening adjustments at a minimum.
There have been several, out of about 100,000 digital images I have, that were good without any adjustments, but that is extremely rare.

In the digital darkroom, we use the same techniques used in the analog darkroom - dodging, burning, adjusting for the best exposure, etc.
I am a huge advocate of LightRoom because it most closely matches the analog darkroom - terms are different, but the results and techniques are the same.
PhotoShop, with masks, becomes more complicated, but also has those simple tools embedded in it, so keep it simple and make great photos,
but don't dis' post processing - it will improve your photos immensely.
This is my first "new topic", and it may... (show quote)

This argument sets up a straw man so it can rip him apart: purists who believe that "only photos
coming out perfect in camera are acceptable." I've never encountered any such person.

I don't remember ever hearing any complaints about dodging and burning. Least we forget, these were:
* hands-on
* controlled by the photographer, not a computer
* manual, not a secret algorithm
* only used where necessary
* no software or software bugs
* can't lock up or cause "the blue screen of death"
* won't fill up your hard disk
* not promoted as a cure-all
* not requiring product registration or a license key
* not a product being aggressively marketed to photographers
(or worse as a subscription!)

Most photographer made their own dodging wands and burning masks. I always did.

The fact of the matter is that optical manipulation of an optical image and algorithmic
manipulation of a digital image couldn't be more different. What's easy to do optically
is very hard to do algorithmically, and vice versa.

And computers impose limits on mathematical computations (finite, limited precision).
The ways around this (e.g., FFT arbitrary precision arithmetic) use a lot of resources.
The algorithm that gives the best result may not be feasible to use.

No one could seriously argue that color correction isn't better done in post-processing.
Color correction optical filters always were a guessing game.

On the other hand, optical post-processing never introduced any digital artifacts, nor
were extravagant claims made for it. It was 100% hype-free. And photography is
inherently optical, whereas it's only digital or chemical if you want it to be.

Neither digital nor optical processing can evade the laws of information (signal)
theory (which are similar to the laws of thermodyanmics). Information that the
lens didn't captuer is gone forever--there's no getting it back. So is information
that got lost in post-processing.

It's very hard to visualize what an algorthim is doing to your iamge file.
Unfortunately, seeing is not believing unless you are looking at the final print.
What looks good on the screen may look horrible when you make a large print.

Sadly, the companies selling processing software usually do not explain the downsides
or side effects of digital filters --- they don't even tell the users whether or not a given
filter loses information from the image. For example, they don't tell you the bad
things that "sharpen" does to your image--the price you pay for that phony sharpness.

In the movie industry, "we'll fix it in post production" is a laugh line. All experienced
film makers know that certain things can be fixed in post-production, while other
things can't. Post-production is no miracle cure or substitute for good cinematography,
good sound recording, good directing, good art direction, good acting, etc.

A typical strategy of propaganda is to substitute a straw man for the real facts. That does
everyone a disservice. It is neither helpful nor productive.

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 14:26:22   #
Cyberkinesis70 Loc: Northern Colorado
 
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!
Ansel Adams was well known for his darkroom manipulations. Try as one might, no camera, film or digital, will capture what you think you see or remember as what you saw. Even Playboy and other magazine photographers used darkroom manipulation. Retouch artists were well skilled and got paid as such. You can't remove blemishes in camera, by using some kind of zit filter and no amount of makeup will cover it. It cost a lot of money to remove pimples off a kid for his/her senior portrait. Post processing is just a form of darkroom manipulation without the darkroom.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:28:27   #
tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana
 
Architect1776 wrote:
I believe Ansel Adams manipulated the photo in the darkroom (AKA today Photo Shop).


Yes, he did, and masterfully so...

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:33:30   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
mwsilvers wrote:
" For me, a real photographer will do his work with a camera, not artificial intelligence." I'm guessing you don't know many "real" photographers.


I think that quote is a "laffer", as all the photographers I've ever known (I'll leave myself out) do some sort of processing to produce their product (print or digi-pic on a screen). Doesn't matter if they were a PRO Studio photog, Industrial, Design, Scientist, Media, Combat, Nature, etc., either they, or someone processed the exposed film, or the raw data to arrive at an image.

I did a lot of film and am currently doing a lot of digital - unless your film camera is of the poloroid/instant internal development variety and can "develop it pic in cam, or after the shot" (and that has a chemical process built-in or is a P&S and you buy the output), all film or digital is processed in one way or another to become a print, or a pic on a screen. Artificial Intelligence can looked at a number of ways too...… I have a couple friends who I'd swear have no real intelligence, maybe they have artificial intelligence .. . . ……. and then there are computers and algorithms that perform a thinking process.

It is what my mind pictures when I look at a setting that I am after.....sometimes I get it perfect in the camera, sometimes not, sometimes there is a bit of shading, a tick of sharpness, some plus or minus exposure factors, etc., to get to what I imagined. It is all work, but it is (for me) all a great pleasure, a piece of creativity, a process that yields fruit for all my intent and effort. For the Pro (or anyone trying to make money from photography) it is work, but hopefully they are doing something they love. No offense meant to anyone, just my take - Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 14:42:09   #
Bipod
 
tommystrat wrote:
Yes, he did, and masterfully so...


Ansel used Dodging Studio v. 1.0, but then it was too slow so he had
to upgrade to v. 2.0, but that locked up the system so he had to
install more RAM, which required v. 2.1, but that wouldn't run
Mac so he switched to Dodging Shop 5, but that went to a
subscription service so he downloaded DodgingRoom which
was infected by Russian malware....

And because of the terms of the license agreement, he could
not establish his foundatrion and all his photos are now in the
public domain and being used by Chinese knockoffs and
political ads...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 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.