Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
In Defense of Post Processing
Page <<first <prev 8 of 15 next> last>>
Dec 22, 2018 14:48:59   #
MrGNY Loc: New York
 
I agree with the OP. Post processing is needed to make your image come alive. Contrast, saturation, color correction etc.

Photo shopping is when you combine images, air brush people to look thinner, remove people etc. Nothing wrong with this but this isn't post processing, this is minipulation.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:00:42   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
A good example. Here's a couple of SOOC images. Without processing this is as good as they are ever going to get.
--Bob

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)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:02:10   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
"No one is so blind as those who will not see." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3T-qQFZsA

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 15:08:31   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
gessman wrote:
"No one is so blind as those who will not see." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t


(Download)

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:14:17   #
Bill P
 
1. Anyone who thinks a SOOC jpeg is totally unprocessed is a fool. A raw file is flat and lifeless and can't be shown.

2 AA did a lot of darkroom manipulation. Were he alive today, he would be skilled in PS.

3. In the late unlamented 70's, I worked in a commercial studio, we worked with advertising agencies mostly, and did a bit of business making what were called composite prints. they were made with pin registration, lith film masks, and 4x5 or 2 1/4 square negs. After printing, they were sent to a graphic artist that would soften the crisp transition left by the mask, with subtle airbrushing. It was considered normal, and many of the folks bitching about PP probably saw the results and didn't say a word.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:18:56   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Bill P wrote:
1. Anyone who thinks a SOOC jpeg is totally unprocessed is a fool. A raw file is flat and lifeless and can't be shown.

2 AA did a lot of darkroom manipulation. Were he alive today, he would be skilled in PS.

3. In the late unlamented 70's, I worked in a commercial studio, we worked with advertising agencies mostly, and did a bit of business making what were called composite prints. they were made with pin registration, lith film masks, and 4x5 or 2 1/4 square negs. After printing, they were sent to a graphic artist that would soften the crisp transition left by the mask, with subtle airbrushing. It was considered normal, and many of the folks bitching about PP probably saw the results and didn't say a word.
1. Anyone who thinks a SOOC jpeg is totally unproc... (show quote)


If your film world was the FotoMat drive-thru, than your world was literally SOOC (minus whatever adjustments the technician did to your film, unbeknownst to you)

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:24:28   #
karno Loc: Chico ,California
 
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)

Yet you take your wildlife images in a zoo?

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 15:38:44   #
gessman Loc: Colorado
 
Sorry - should work now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3T-qQFZsA

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 15:51:58   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
karno wrote:
Yet you take your wildlife images in a zoo?


And I’m pretty sure he cooks his meat, grain, etc....

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 16:00:37   #
Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC
 
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)

Of course we know that all digital photos are processed. Post-processing just means you roll your own (no pun inteded) instead letting the camera's processor do it according to a collection of parameters preselected by the shooter. If you have the time and need more control, you do it yourself. Actually, immediate processing, or SOOC, needs more of a defense since if is pooh-poohed far more often than any detractors ciritciize PP, at least in what I have read here.

I and others have mentioned this before, so please excuse the repitition. The analogy of between post-processing and darkroom work is often misunderstood, or is at least off by a significant step. Adjusting the highlights, contrast, hues, etc. in a JPG is like working in the darkroom with a strip of negatives from roll film. The image is already pretty much determined either in film development or the camera's conversion to JPG. Some adjustments can be made in enlarging or contact printing, but these are more like what JPG editors do. (Of course if one never edits a JPG and sends it straight to Costco or Walgreens, that would be like sending a roll to the drug store).

Post-processing is a whole lot better. It is like starting with a large set of bracketed exposures of cut sheet film for each composition. You then get to choose how each sheet is developed and printed until you get the final image you want on the negative (or run out of sheets). Except for the actual laying of ink on the paper, you even get to print all in the same step. With post, you start all the way back from the latent image, or exposed film, and take it to the file to be printed in one sitting. There is no early setting in stone like what happens with film, or with SOOC. In the darkroom, you had better get the development right. So I think of the JPG file more like a finished negative, and the undeveloped film as the RAW, except that with a piece of film you only get one shot in the tank.

I would be very suprised to hear a reply from a so-called detractor who thinks it is always wrong to process RAW files manually rather than having the camera do it in the manner you say they claim as being pure. I would hear only from trollers more than likely.

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 16:04:05   #
AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire
 
Bipod wrote:
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 think that is mostly true, but DAN Phillips in this very thread has already stated almost this exact position. It's rarer today, but not extinct.

What makes me chuckle is the idea that an in-camera JPEG is not processed. It's just processed from RAW by a Japanese engineer's algorithm rather than the photographer's eye and judgment.

Andy

Reply
 
 
Dec 22, 2018 16:12:02   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
Retina wrote:
...
I would be very suprised to hear a reply from a so-called detractor who thinks it is always wrong to process RAW files manually rather than having the camera do it in the manner you say they claim as being pure. I would hear only from trollers more than likely.


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!"

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 16:18:47   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
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)


I’m guessing that you have seen his work?

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 16:22:37   #
rond-photography Loc: Connecticut
 
Bipod wrote:
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.
This argument sets up a b straw man /b so it can... (show quote)


As a matter of fact, I often encounter folks who complain that their photos just don't look like they want them, but they won't try doing some simple adjustments.
I also encounter (and several have responded to this thread) folks who just don't think it is natural to process photos in some sort of software.

My hope was to simply enlighten both of those groups so that they would either try post processing, or not simply dismiss it.

As Linda pointed out in an earlier response, "defense" is probably too strong - maybe I should have titled it "In Support of Post Processing"

I am actually surprised that the vast majority of responders are positive on post processing.

Although a number of people have questioned calling the digital development "post" processing, I think it is the correct term.
When we shot film we had to "process" it - no choice. If you did not process it, you did not get to see any results.
With digital, you can see a result immediately. Once you upload it to your computer, you can see a bigger view of it, and make further judgements on it.
I consider what is done at that point as "post" processing, since it has already been "processed" by the camera, so further enhancements are "post".

Thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread. I was expecting some feedback, but I am surprised how many responses I have gotten!

Reply
Dec 22, 2018 16:25:18   #
mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey
 
tdekany wrote:
I’m guessing that you have seen his work?


Oh yeah. I looked at most of the images he's posted. Really impressive stuff, right? Judicious use of PP might rescue some of them, but the rest are better discarded unless the specific subject renders them important enough to keep despite their mediocre quality. If you are going to talk the talk, you better be able to walk the walk. This guy "talks" but can't "walk".

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 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.