StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I think the Post Processing Section should remain. I visit it to see what others are doing in PP, even though I don't do much more than minor enhancements or modifications to my images at this point. I don't produce that many images in a month, but I do use the PP Section, as well as YouTube tutorials, to try and learn more of the capabilities of my PSE 2018. So, please keep it in operation despite the small numbers of users. It is a valuable resource to those of us who are on the low-end of the learning curve of PP.

Stan

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much Stan. I'm learning there are quite a few active viewers. I always wondered how many of UHH "view" numbers are Google bots and such - maybe not as many as I suspected

Your support is appreciated!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I'm in too. I miss Searcher. When he left for other pastures I stopped reading there. I'm having fun rediscovering the discussions about post processing.

A couple weeks ago I put up a few things that were fun to share, but quickly got overwhelmed by what seemed like a quick shift to "manipulative art" using tools, techniques and software that make photos into "neo-impressionism". I was about to put up a couple other pieces but they were too "photographic" to fit the theme.

Is the post processing section about photography? Or "art forms"? Both or neither? When Searcher was posting it seemed to be more about photographic processing?

kenievans Loc: Dallas

I think there is and should be a place for both. I appreciate the art and skill it takes to process a beautiful photograph just as much as I do the the art and skill that goes into the more photo-graphic styles that take them beyond a photograph. As an aspiring photographer and artist I want to learn both.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I’ve gotten to the point where nearly all my UHH time is spent on the PP and FYC forums. Just find considerably more civility there. In support, I shall try to put together a topic regularly. I feel the forum is most worthwhile.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bill, thanks so much for sharing your concerns.

I've been browsing earlier years, and there have always been composites and artsy stuff. Looking at the user names of those who initiated "straight" questions or topics, I recognize very few as still being on UHH.

There were also far more challenge-type topics compared to the second half of 2018. Prior to Shakey's regular postings, the "what can you do with this picture?" came from a wide variety of folks. It might be instructive to know why there were only 16 topics per month from June 1 through December 31, 2018 - but maybe earlier years were not that busy either?

When I received moderator controls, I posted this topic. In it I said, "I hope some of you will consider hosting new challenges, or create a tutorial or share topic, and will encourage folks - especially those new to pp - who may be reluctant to share their work. All are welcome!"

The only way we'll know if there is interest in the more realistic side of pp is if you - and others with your same interests - create topics. Another point I've been making in this thread is there are probably a great many people who don't even know PP Forum (or the other specialty sections) exists, so I am hoping our conversations here help change that a tiny bit.

Many thanks!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thank you Bruce! Life does get in the way of our play sometimes

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

A POST-PROCESSING ESSAY.

OF COURSE, there needs to be a section dedicated to POST PROCESSING!

I don't like to start my posts with negativism but there are folks who are anti - post-processing, retouching, special effects, and believe that every image must come Straight Out Of The Camera- they even have an acronym! For some, this may be a kinda "Macho "thing, for lack of a better word, although some ladies proport to this approach as well. Great! if you can do it all the time and if it applies to whatever you are doing. Memories of Polaroid and Diane Arbus!

I have long experience with the SOOTC "mandate". At one time I managed a "wedding factory", that is a large studio operation with many shooters doing a significant volume of wedding coverages. We had to remain competitive in our lower priced (economy) packages so we had our lab making "machine prints". These were high-quality color prints made on automatic printers. Density and color could be controlled to some extent but we were expected to make consistently well-exposed negatives with film-compatible light sources as to color temperature. Erratic exposures could not be economically managed. What's more, is there was no dodging or burning in, so thigs had to be kept in range, flash lighting had to be precisely managed so there were no overexposed foregrounds and "black hole" backgrounds and there had to be ample detail in white wedding gowns and black formal attire. Cropping was also limited to a few mask/lens combinations on the machines. Essentially the rule was "PUT IT ALL ON THE NEGATIVE. Inconsistent shooters were fired. Believe me, you get pretty good at this with that kinda "Sword of Damocles" hangin' over your paycheck!

Those machine prints were not bad- nice color, good saturation, and good negative yielded decent enough prints, however, there was nothing like a CUSTOM made "C" print. A good negative was still prerequisite but those little tweaks and perfect cropping made for exceptional prints.

My SOOTC other experience was on my day job in commercial photography during the era when most of the product, architectural, catalog and even some of the fashion work was done on large format transparency film. These films had little or virtually no latitude for exposure era, there was no remedial solution for bad transparencies as to exposure, color balance, saturation, and there was no burning, dodging, or anything of the kind. You had to select the appropriate film for the job at hand, test for the correct filter pack, and control all the technicalities to a fault. We could push or pull process but there were limitations and color shifts to contend with. Certain corrections could be made by retouching, transparency stripping, and airbrush and there were some computerized corrections available in the color separation or lithography stages but again, these kinda things were extremely expensive and would take certain projects beyond their budgets. The transparencies, mostly, had to be spot on. I try to apply this to my digital files but again, the tweaks in post-processing can make a marked difference in the final quality. So...I don't encourage sloppy shooting and post-processing to the rescue but we are all human and WHEN we mess up or are working under less than ideal conditions, it great to have the tools to save irreplaceable shots.

My other pet-peeve of the day is what I call "false philosophy" or "misconceived idol worship". Some many of the online "purists' continuously refer to their iconic photographic heroes. I love 'em all too but let's get real about our super-heors and post-processing. Ansel Adams and his zone system are the EMOTOME of post-processing of the era. Read his books- "The Camera" obviously is about camera handling and technique but so much of the exposure and dynamic range management is predicated on what was gonna happen in the darkroom! "The Negative" and "The Print" pertains to every kind of manipulation that can happen in a darkroom in the hands of a master technician.

If you love Adams or his ANTITHESIS, William Mortensen- now THERE is the KING of post-processing. I don't think Mortensen ever published a STOOTC image. If he had a studio today it would be called "MANIPULATIONS 'R' US- paper negatives, texture screens, major retouching, and darkroom madness.

IS all photojournalism, SOOTC? My hero was W. Eugene Smith. He fell out of favor with his editors because he spent endless hours in the darkroom- nearly missing deadlines, burning, dodging, bleaching and God knows what else he was doing to perfect his images. This did not alter the "story"- it just told the stores better, clearer and more succinctly!

Two of my portraiture- heroes are Yosef Karsh and his Uncle George Nakash (who was Yosef's first mentor). I knew both of them personally and loved them both but they used to "lecture" that retouching was a kind of "desecration of character" and portraits should be pure and unretouched etc. etc. etc. Yet I know for a fact that they both employed highly skilled retouchers in their studios. One came to me for a position in my studio when Yosef retired and my lovely wife's Aunt Nettie was George's retoucher, back in Montreal, before she took over her father's studio. Retouching is only bad if it is bad retouching that becomes visible and calls attention to itself.

Henri Cartier Bresson was said to never manipulate an image. Whatever was on the negative ended up on the print. I know a gentleman in New Yor City who was doing Cartier-Bresson's prints for various gallery and museum exhibitions. He too was burning, dodging and bleaching his head off but NO CROPPING! So all the Bresson "disciples" would never crop and took to including the sprocket holes from their 35mm negatives in the prints. "Macho" or what? To me having sprocket holes and the words "Kodak Safety Film", the frame number and the Kodak product number in the composition was districting- just to prove there was no cropping? Post- processing does not un-decide the "decisive moment"!

Special effects? Bad? Been to a movie lately? Even in the most straightforward "Cinema Verite" production, check out the credits at the end of the film. There is a usually a very long list of post-production processes and folks and companies that do all of that. Some films are ALL special effects- we don't actually have combat in space or monsters that eat entire continents YET! So we have to fake 'em!

I know all these old iconic photographers worked in darkrooms but it must be obvious that nowadays our computers and all the latest and greatest electronic stuff is our present-day darkroom. This is not a kinda analogy or a metaphor- theses computer/electronics are just as much of an intrinsic part of the photographic process as was the chemical/silver/wet darkroom.

I have no aversion to SOOTC but there are so many other ways to produce, create, enjoy and "sell" photography. There are all kinds of creative methods and effects in post-processing. We can create many different interpretations of the same image. We can emphasize realism, enhance the truth, tell some fun lies and creat fantasy. Why restrict yourself or worse, anyone else. If there is a popular interest in SOOTC, by all means, start a section for it and restrict any and all post-processing.

If folks are gonna post process their files, create various interpretations, try their hand as special effects, retouching, restoration, photo-montages, overlays, novelties or serious stuff, why no strive to do it well, exchange ideas, help each other out in a peaceful friendly section.

I too, manage and co-manage few specialty sections here on this site, but the traffic there is slow. Folks post things in the main section that would do very well in theses and all the specialized sections but old habits die hard. If not anything else, they could ask their questions and give their opinions in peace. As a moderator, I am the "Snark-Sniper"! Any rudeness is instantly neutralized! I realize that there are various levels of "snark" and some of it is rather harmless, however, some of the "drama" that takes place on the main section is not just borderline sarcasm or comical but sharp quips- a good deal of it is the stuff we were told not to do in kindergarten!

Process in Peace!

Keep up the good work, Linda!

Leitz Loc: Solms

Methinks you might come across with some credibility if you practiced what you preach. When one reads "... how to shoot a full moon" in the title, and you specifically mention the moon several times in the text, one can only conclude that your subject was photographing the moon, for which there is a specialised section. But you posted it here in Main anyway, yet now you're trying to tell the rest of us that post-processing topics should be posted in that section instead of here.

My comment represents my thoughts after I did read your post

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Many thanks for your support, Ed, and for all you do for UHH!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Oh, you mean my moon should have gone to the Astronomical Photography Forum?? I don't believe I'm subscribed there 🤔

srt101fan

I hear you Ed, but, at least for some of us, I don't think the issue is SOOC vs post-processed images.

I think the problem, at least for me, is that too many images are "over-processed". I think that too often post-processing is used to mask the absence of an interesting content/subject/story. Some people seem to think that pumping up colors, etc, will turn photographs into art....

And sometimes appealing images are post-processed to a degree that makes them less appealing. I'm thinking of the images Bill Gates is pushing on my computer via Windows 10 - OK, but nothing I would want to hang on my wall...

So I know it's a matter of individual taste. But I ask you to at least consider the possibility that there are a lot of us that recognize post-processing is an integral part of photography but consider a lot of the end results less than appealing...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

As I suggested to bsprague, the only way we'll know if there is interest in discussing "straight" pp is if folks step up and post topics. Having jumped into UHH full throttle (mixed metaphor? ) - with 300 topics my first year and daily comments numbering 25+ on other people's, it's sad to see reluctance in that area. I see you visited PP Forum in December and seemed to have a positive experience; hope you'll come back again soon!

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I think that the strength of any specialty section lies in the enthusiasm and commitment of the moderator(s) and the core group that post on a regular basis. You could call the pp section anything you want, and I'd be tempted to follow it because I like the people in the section. Interestingly, the people active in PP are also interested and very active in For Your Consideration. I would encourage members just learning about the specialty forums to look around and find several that you enjoy. You don't have to be active everyday. Checking in will give you ideas about things your peers are doing and will inspire you to pick up your camera and do something. That, after all, is why we bother with the forum in the first place.

I learned how to do composites because of the people in the specialty forums. I'm no expert; but I can make a composite and that is more than I could do when I started. I've also learned to appreciate the many ways that other photographers see things. I don't think I would want to copy everything; but I take what I can use and leave the rest. I'm into motion blur and long exposure photography right now. That is not everyone's cup of tea. The great thing about the people who comment on my work is that they give it real thought and tell me what they think of my ideas and how I execute them. We don't always agree; and they don't always like me work. But the communication is honest and helpful. It's hard to ask for more than that.
Erich

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I agree! There are many aspects of photography that cane be overdone and post-processing and retouching are some of the more prevalent ones. The only way to solve the issues and get better at wahtever it is you want to master is to practice, share, compare, learn and teach. My only issue is some folks tend to write things off before they try their hand at it and and begin to progress.

Half the stuff I experiment with I wouldn't hang on my own wall. Every once in a while I get a keeper!