Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Wondering how many photographers use minimal if any P.P.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 21 next> last>>
Mar 17, 2014 21:40:25   #
Neubee Loc: Wisconsin
 
What do you do if you are a photojournalist and not allowed to PP your shots????

Reply
Mar 17, 2014 21:42:47   #
Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI
 
Neubee wrote:
What do you do if you are a photojournalist and not allowed to PP your shots????


Simple...Point, click, send, and live with results.

Reply
Mar 17, 2014 21:42:47   #
Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI
 
Neubee wrote:
What do you do if you are a photojournalist and not allowed to PP your shots????


Simple...Point, click, send, and live with results.

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2014 22:17:53   #
n3eg Loc: West coast USA
 
I will only respond the the original poster's comment - poster number two should have started his own thread.

The only PP I do regularly is to convert from RAW to JPG. However, when posting to a forum, I always do a little PP. That's only because I feel I have to tweak things to meet "accepted forum standards" rather than let it stand on it's own. For example, I feel I'm balancing exposure to even out the "underexposed" and "overexposed" commenters, not the actual exposure.

Reply
Mar 17, 2014 22:39:11   #
Rbrylawski Loc: Tampa, FL
 
Count me in the minimal PP camp. I have both Elements 12 and Lightroom 5 and I will use them if I've taken a shot that is really crappy and I have no other option to salvage a moment I really want to keep. Otherwise, if the pic is crappy and I can live without it, I trash it.

Reply
Mar 17, 2014 23:41:38   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
f8lee wrote:
I saw a presentation by a photographer last year at the Annenberg Space for Photography (those of you in the Los Angeles area ought to check it out - a great gallery with Thursday night lectures - all free). Anyway, this was during their exhibit called "The Digital Darkroom", and all of the images displayed in the gallery were heavily post-processed (most way too much for my personal liking).

But my point is that this particular photographer, whose name I forget, said something that crystalized the concept - she said "some people take photographs, and some make photographs." I'm personally in the former camp - the 'get it in the camera' approach. But certainly the notion of having that image in your mind's eye and using not only the original image but your skills in post to make the final image so others see what you envisioned is just as valid.
I saw a presentation by a photographer last year a... (show quote)


^^^YEP!

Art really IS in the eye of the beholder.

And people find beauty in different aspects of the same thing.

I have ALWAYS liked to push whichever camera I was using to it's technological limits, or perhaps I should say MAXIMIZE the usage of the camera. All in the idea of capturing a scene or image to the best of my ability USING that camera.

In some cases that meant using fast black and white film in low light, in others, a wide angle lens with distortion correction turned off.

It is as much "FUN" for me to take the best possible picture in camera is it is for others to create something other than what their camera captured on a computer.

Different strokes. ;)

Reply
Mar 17, 2014 23:45:26   #
cntry Loc: Colorado
 
Count me in the minimal PP group...I recently bought Elements 12 but it's not something I enjoy doing, so unless I really want the shot, it's either good enough to keep or it gets deleted. Once I learn Elements a little better my opinion may change but right now I see PP as a sometimes necessary evil. Hard to shake 35 yrs of "get it right in the camera".

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2014 23:56:43   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
^^^YEP! ;)

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 00:50:45   #
kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA
 
I Hate It! Too time consuming and it doesn't look any better than sending in the film and getting back good looking prints.

And I spent $thousands$ on computers Cameras lenses and programs and upgrades and on and on and on........

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 05:38:03   #
georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.
 
Actually there are several ways to do post processing, one way I am exploring now is to use a lot of it, but make it look minimal or nonexistent, the only way you could tell would be to see the original. Then there is the extreme effects that I think everybody says they dislike, but may be achieved merely with a few clicks (but can also be very extensive and time consuming), and then there is the kind that uses as little as possible and as unnoticeable as possible, which most condone.
Blue Spark wrote:
First off an apology if this has been asked and hashed over many times already.

I'm curious, not trying to make a statement or judgement. I fall into the minimalist camp most of the time unless I have something I really want to try to "save".

Where do you stand? And in your circle of photographer friends, what percentage of them would you estimate do minimal if any P.P. Vs those who consider it a normal part of the process? Not talking about pro shooting here, just personal.

Thanks for having a look.
First off an apology if this has been asked and ha... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 05:57:15   #
Bob Andrews Loc: Scotland
 
Define minimum processing? I cringe every time I read that someone does minimum processing or HAS to get it right in camera. What happens if an important image - a bride & groom - is captured with a -1 underexposure? Do you bin it and tell the couple that the important image is binned or do you ask someone who is skilled to process it. It is impossible to get it right in camera everytime so a darkroom or LR or Photoshop is your friend.

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2014 05:58:39   #
katbandit Loc: new york city
 
i am over 60 and shoot in a RAW format with a nikon d7000 and d700 ..therefore it always needs a bit of tweaking ..i usually sharpen the photo and then reduce any noise..if I'm shooting portraits i edge sharpen eyesÂ…add a bit of definition ..sortof like buying a dress off the rack and then having it tailored to fit you perfectly...

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 06:01:28   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Rbrylawski wrote:
Count me in the minimal PP camp. I have both Elements 12 and Lightroom 5 and I will use them if I've taken a shot that is really crappy .


Then you're missing the point of pp completely. It's actually shocking to see how many people here think it's for "fixing" bad photos. That screams ignorance.

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 06:19:24   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
For the record I an 62. 100% of my images get some form of PP. Sometimes it is as simple as a little capture sharpening, clarity and vibrance (micro-contrast and color saturation for colors other than flesh tones). When I shoot in challenging situations - low light/high iso gets some noise reduction and careful sharpening - high contrast situations, I expose to the right, which usually means I preserve highlights at the expense of the rest of the image, then I make exposure, shadow and contrast adjustments. When shooting flowers with vivid colors I individually adjust colors to avoid color channel clipping, and so one.

I have not seen an image that a photographer "got right in the camera" that couldn't benefit from additional enhancement in PP. Not a single one. I am a mentor, and I shoot close to 75000 images a year. I see a lot of images.

Reply
Mar 18, 2014 06:33:10   #
AlexS Loc: Minnesota
 
I am under 60. I shoot 99% of the time in manual. I don't do any PP beyond cropping, some sharpening.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 21 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.