Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
Does anyone here refuse to post process?
- Thread starter ScarySquirrel
- Start date
Associate
Another firm believer in the importance of PP here, but I think it's relevence is always going to vary depending on the type of work you do and how you approach it.
I always say to customers when they're viewing my landscape work in particular that I like to do as much of the work on-camera as I can, but this isn't to minimise PP work, it's simply to make PP easier and less time consuming. For me, photography (again, landscape in particular) is part of the system that allows me to create an image of an scene, person or object as interpreted by me. PP allows me to realise these interpretations to their full. That said, the PP tools I use (dodging, burning, filters) are just as common to film processing as they are to digital, and I take efforts not to make large changes to original image, merely continuing it's production to it's pre-visualised end.
For those who shoot subjects is a more documentary fashion, say for example sport, fashion, maybe even wildlife, then I would agree that the legitimacy of PP is a harder path to tread. Certainly, there is a big difference between using PP to bring out the best in photography, or whether the camera is now merely a tool in the production of an image and that the processing has become the real skill focus. Perhaps the term "Photographer" is nearing its demise as an accurate description for how many of us treat our work.
I always say to customers when they're viewing my landscape work in particular that I like to do as much of the work on-camera as I can, but this isn't to minimise PP work, it's simply to make PP easier and less time consuming. For me, photography (again, landscape in particular) is part of the system that allows me to create an image of an scene, person or object as interpreted by me. PP allows me to realise these interpretations to their full. That said, the PP tools I use (dodging, burning, filters) are just as common to film processing as they are to digital, and I take efforts not to make large changes to original image, merely continuing it's production to it's pre-visualised end.
For those who shoot subjects is a more documentary fashion, say for example sport, fashion, maybe even wildlife, then I would agree that the legitimacy of PP is a harder path to tread. Certainly, there is a big difference between using PP to bring out the best in photography, or whether the camera is now merely a tool in the production of an image and that the processing has become the real skill focus. Perhaps the term "Photographer" is nearing its demise as an accurate description for how many of us treat our work.
Last edited:
I have made a few B&Ws, but normally not because I am not good enough to make a good black and white photo.
I like B&W but simply turning a digital colour photo into a Black and White doesn't make it interesting. Too many people take a failed photo and make it black and white.
Using a B&W film camera will force you to think of the photo in B&W terms rather than a quick convert in LR like too many people do.
Besides which, black and white film exceeds a digital sensor. If B&W is your passion then buy a film camera.
Fair enough, can't say I agree though.
Photography is of course all about opinion though
Photography is of course all about opinion though
To my mind the only time when the amount PP becomes any sort of relevant debating point is in the application of sharpness to an image. You could argue that in terms of comparing one lens/body system to another in terms of what it is capable of you perhaps should add no additional sharpening. You will often see comments like "Wow, that is sharp!" which may suggest the viewer is thinking the kit used must be better than that similar photo that other bloke took the other day, who didn't happen to crop and sharpen the pic. What I'm saying is is that making comments on how sharp an image looks is pretty pointless if the poster hasn't said how much it is cropped and sharpened.
Thanks to my dad, and his fairly vast collection of black and white prints, I am very aware of the qualities of b&w film and the processing of it. You can never just hit the black and white button to make a great image out of a decent colour one. The way film (b&w or colour) and it's processing renders light is very different to digital sensors. Not superior.
To mimic the qualities of B&W film in digital you have to think very hard about how the colours are being presented to you in monochrome. Why is one colour darker than the other when they seem to have an apparent equal brightness? and similar questions need to be at least pondered before just converting.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
There are instances the environment you are shooting can heavily impact the sharpness an image (mist, placement of sun, time of day). I don't think its pointless to comment on how sharp an image is; who cares if its the designated lens or a smart sharpen in Photoshop? If an image looks impressively sharp, I would happily say that.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
The end result of film B&W, is dependent on the type of film chosen, the camera using it and the chemicals/developing process. This is no different in my eyes to how one could work with a colour image to do a B&W conversion. Just take Silver Efex Pro for Photoshop; its an amazing plugin for B&W conversions.
Fair enough, can't say I agree though.
Photography is of course all about opinion though
Don't get me wrong, I love B&W photos (Ansel Adams work is iconic for me).
And yes, of course you can get great B&W photos from a modern digital camera, quite possibly better than B&W film.
But taking good B&W photos is a a very difficult skill. I certainly don't have the ability.
It is not simply about playing with RGB channels to get the contrasty B&W you want (and heaven forbid those who merely desaturate the image). There is a whole new way of thinking, of seeing the photo, of composing, getting the subject, the lighting can be even more important.
Taking a colour photo, and then making in B&W, even if the technical Post processing was done to perfection, doesn't make an image any more interesting.
Making a B&W photo takes away a lot of information form a photo. You need a good reason to do this. There are many good reasons, and these tend to be subjective measures from artistic-stylistic effects to making the viewer perceive details of the photo in a different way. For example, lighting, contrast and texture are more pronounced in black and white photos. a low contrast but high saturation colour image can be very pleasant - when colour information is removed the low contrast result is very flat. (indeed, technically you could make 3 equal sized blocks of red, green and blue of the same brightness, when desaturated the image would be completely flat and the 3 blocks indistinguishable).
B&W conversions can be a powerful tool to convey lighting or texture, to focus a viewer on a subject. More often than not when people make a B&W conversion it merely detracts from the image and looks poor.
The usual case is that someone takes a photo in poor lighting (e.g., mid day in summer with a heat-haze) of a dull subject (yet another bland beach scene). Upon viewing the photo on their computer dull photo prompts the photographer to click "high-contrast B&W" in Light Room. And hey presto, we have an artistic picture. Or not.
The reason I suggested I would prefer to use a film camera for black and white is similar to why people prefer to use prime lenses. With a fixed focal length you have to think about the composure, which lens you need, and you actually walk closer or further away rather than zooming in, making a big difference to the depth of field.
Using B&W film would force me to think within the realms of B&W, rather than tkaing a colour photo and seeing if it would work in B&W.
Soldato
A good photographer should not need PP, as he will try to get it right when he took it. Im a Purist!
Caporegime
Soldato
That's quite ironic given your username
And I disagree with your statement.
Yep but im not a good photographer so I "cheat" and use PP.
But my philosophy is that which I state above and stick by it.
I would very much like to know who you consider to be good photographers?
Caporegime
Some breath taking photos taken by VERY well respected photographers simply are not possible without PP'ing. Does that not make them a good photographer?
A good photographer, imo, is someone who can capture a moment, exactly how in their head they saw it/pictured it and can display it. Via PP'ing or not.
Now I'm not saying a completely computer generated image is a good thing, you can tell when someone has gone over the top with it, but using it to bring out the raw data from a raw image (as the camera isn't doing any of the processing), nothing wrong with that imo
Thats what it is there for.
Soldato
I don't know any but there must have been great photographers before the dawn of Adobe Photoshop. Just look at the great pics from the World Wars...
Caporegime
Is Chase Jarvis a good photographer?
Soldato
No idea who he is.
Look guys, im not here to agree or disagree with you's. All im merely saying is that for me, my philosophy is that a photographer should get it right the first time. If he is skilled then he will. A photographer should know his camera so that he gets the best out of it eliminating the need to get it right later or to touch bits up in PP.
I'm not into impressionistic art, I prefer renaissance art. I prefer things that are true, faithful, raw and do justice to their subjects.
I consider PP to be cheating.
Soldato
Auto focus must by inference be cheating as well, also light metering, auto white balance, the flash in all it's guises, reflectors, any filters, pretty much anything that effects in the slghtest way the "true" world you see before you.