Man of Honour
I try to do the minimum of pp whenever I can.
Does anyone here refuse to post process?
- Thread starter ScarySquirrel
- Start date
If you're not touching your files at all you're almost certainly not seeing anything in print/screen how you saw it with your eyes. There is a whole industry of colour management dedicated to helping that very process (amongst others), and not touching a single thing in post is not the same thing. Not to mention the wild variety of screen settings, papers, inks, etc.
If we're talking about digital, and you're shooting RAW (which you should be), they are deliberately neutral to capture the maximum amount of information, giving the user the greatest possible amount of leeway in determing the photos feel and tone when developing the RAW file. Just as we chose different films for their colour/tonal properties.
We need to get out of this post processing = impure stigma some people seem to be clinging onto. If anyone here has any experience in colour/b&w darkroom printing they will know how much you can alter the print from the same negative, even on a very basic level (I think a lot of this negativity is born of the digital age).
If people don't like larger manipulations (lots of healing, removing items, composites, etc) then that's of course entirely upto them, a matter of taste. The only problem is sometimes it feels like these comments somehow imply inferiority to these processes, as if they're really easy to do well. Good post-production is as much an art form in itself!
Exactly how I feel, I'm just too lazy to type it.
I see people posting pictures (not just here) which have clearly just come straight from the camera, and it really shows!
Soldato
If you took it right in the first place you shouldn't have to fiddle with it
Although this statement was made in jest I actually agree with this to a certain degree.
With film photography once you've composed metered focused etc so that you're happy with the image you take the shot and if all goes well, once you develop your image you're left with something you're happy with. But with digital photography I think there is a level of complacency because you don't have to spend money for rolls and rolls of film you can take a few shots pick out the best and think well I can tweak things in Photoshop or Lightroom to get it looking better.
I wouldn't say post processing the photos are 'cheating' as such though. Removing imperfections to enhance an image is fine. its just utilising the tools that photographers have at hand these days.
A lot of my shots these days are taken at football matches so for me its a case of capturing a moment rather than taking time to set up a static scene be it landscape, portrait etc so conditions can change throughout the day which will have to be corrected in the post processing whether it be a touch of sharpening, colour boost or whatever.
So after all that waffle the answer is no!
Real life, is dull boring and never perfect. Post processing is as much of an art as using the right colour gels on an enlarger, the right chemicals or the right filter. Some people can do it better than others, and this means its an advantage.
Imo use it or get left behind.
I could go into mountains of info on how the images you see from many famous photographers have gone through tons of extra work after the picture has been taken (digital or negative). Computer post processing is nothing more than a digital comparison of the standard chemical processes i learnt.
Photographer choose contrast through different grades of paper, they dodge and burn using time on enlargers, they choose brightness and saturration is a simialr fashion, etc etc.
From some of the comments so far, it seems some people believe they have to be so good at photography that they should have masterpieces from the instant they click the shutter, because that's what the famous people do. That's naive and shows a lack of knowledge of the actual process of photography, its not click and finish, its a two stage process.
You wouldn't mix the ingredients of a cake, then not cook it.
Imo use it or get left behind.
I could go into mountains of info on how the images you see from many famous photographers have gone through tons of extra work after the picture has been taken (digital or negative). Computer post processing is nothing more than a digital comparison of the standard chemical processes i learnt.
Photographer choose contrast through different grades of paper, they dodge and burn using time on enlargers, they choose brightness and saturration is a simialr fashion, etc etc.
From some of the comments so far, it seems some people believe they have to be so good at photography that they should have masterpieces from the instant they click the shutter, because that's what the famous people do. That's naive and shows a lack of knowledge of the actual process of photography, its not click and finish, its a two stage process.
You wouldn't mix the ingredients of a cake, then not cook it.
Last edited:
This is how I feel too. If you're shooting in RAW then adjusting sharpness, levels, white balance etc is a necessary level of post-processing for the digital medium. But, major alterations to the photograph such as compositing multiple images, or cloning large objects out of the photograph goes beyond that.
By definition, photography means the art of taking a photograph. Nothing more, nothing less. Whilst I appreciate the power of the image editing tools we have at our disposal nowadays, their extensive use falls into the realm of digital art in my opinion.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
I always laugh when I see someone say 'this is straight out the camera, no processing' as they praise an image they have just taken. I think many people forget that the camera has already processed the image with the saturation, contrast etc that has been set in camera.
I think there is a difference between OVER processing and processing, but for anyone to say it's cheating to do ANY processing...well I'd have to question if they fully understand the process of how a digital photo is captured (unless they just really like totally flat, dull images from shooting RAW with no adjustments applied).
I think there is a difference between OVER processing and processing, but for anyone to say it's cheating to do ANY processing...well I'd have to question if they fully understand the process of how a digital photo is captured (unless they just really like totally flat, dull images from shooting RAW with no adjustments applied).
Last edited:
Caporegime
I like to show photos how I see it in my head and how I want the world to see it.
The photograph is there for the world to enjoy, if processing makes that happen then so be it.
The photograph is there for the world to enjoy, if processing makes that happen then so be it.
Soldato
thats not actually true, at least if online dictionarys are anything to go by
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/photography
pho·tog·ra·phy (f-tgr-f)
n.
1. The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
2. The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
3. A body of photographs.
Associate
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed a correlation between people who don't know PP and those that are anti-PP
With my photo-every-day thing I often end up using dramatic PP to save/improve a photo. These photos will never be great but they can be made passable.
In my experience a great photo is made with a camera, not a computer!
With my photo-every-day thing I often end up using dramatic PP to save/improve a photo. These photos will never be great but they can be made passable.
In my experience a great photo is made with a camera, not a computer!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,164
If I like a photo, then i like it plain and simple, if its been PP then what does it matter.
As said above most of the digital manipulation stems from traditional methods, I guess when i started in digital photography i hardly did any PP mainly because I didn't know what it was. I'm now doing bits and bobs here and definately notice an improvement with the end result.
Pretty sure the noob film photographer would take a similar path, start out with no PP then gradually learn tips and tricks from fellow enthusiasts.
Even an upsharp mask stems from film photography, had heard people mention it so i googled it and was a practice used well before digital came along.
As said above most of the digital manipulation stems from traditional methods, I guess when i started in digital photography i hardly did any PP mainly because I didn't know what it was. I'm now doing bits and bobs here and definately notice an improvement with the end result.
Pretty sure the noob film photographer would take a similar path, start out with no PP then gradually learn tips and tricks from fellow enthusiasts.
Even an upsharp mask stems from film photography, had heard people mention it so i googled it and was a practice used well before digital came along.
Caporegime
If people who refuse to post process in digital shot film, they would never get a photo lol
The entire process of negative film processing is processing (shock horror!), you can dodgy, burn, push, pull, etc. But the point is, all the stages that you do, chemicals in the tank, the exposure under the enlarger, all that was guess work, albeit educated guess work, but still guess work and often the first print out will not be your final one because it'll look crap or wrong. What anyone would do is try to say that in the enlarger, what we do now in PS or LR is no different, there are just a few more tools that's all.
If you refuse to process a single photo in film format then you'll never put the negative under the enlarger !
The entire process of negative film processing is processing (shock horror!), you can dodgy, burn, push, pull, etc. But the point is, all the stages that you do, chemicals in the tank, the exposure under the enlarger, all that was guess work, albeit educated guess work, but still guess work and often the first print out will not be your final one because it'll look crap or wrong. What anyone would do is try to say that in the enlarger, what we do now in PS or LR is no different, there are just a few more tools that's all.
If you refuse to process a single photo in film format then you'll never put the negative under the enlarger !
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,489
No camera out there can capture the same DR as your eyes can capture.
This post processing is bad is a total fallacy!
Infact, HDR is in theory "closer" to what the eyes see.
My photos get whatever treatment they require to make them look best. I very, very rarely go into Photoshop to seriously edit a photo (if ever, actually). And I just use Lightroom to correct highlights or whatever.
My aim in post process is to get the photo as close as possible to the scene. Sometimes I might black and white it or boost the saturation or something to give it abit more "bang" but very rarely...
This post processing is bad is a total fallacy!
Infact, HDR is in theory "closer" to what the eyes see.
My photos get whatever treatment they require to make them look best. I very, very rarely go into Photoshop to seriously edit a photo (if ever, actually). And I just use Lightroom to correct highlights or whatever.
My aim in post process is to get the photo as close as possible to the scene. Sometimes I might black and white it or boost the saturation or something to give it abit more "bang" but very rarely...
This is why i hate the term post-processing. I say this every time, but 'fiddling in Photoshop' in my mind is just processing your photo. People saying post-processing sounds like they're trying to be overly technical. Argh it grates with me so much! /rant
Agreed with the points about shooting film. Processing (
) in Photoshop is just the digital replacement of the old tricks of the trade in a darkroom. Get over it!
Caporegime
Whilst I try to take a photo to require as little post processing as possible I'll still edit it where required 
Soldato
Well all of you know exactly where I stand with PP. I believe that it's an integral part of photography. What people need to be aware of is that a crap photo is always going to be crap no matter how much PP is applied.
A really good photo needs the information there to begin with and the only way to achieve that is to have a good exposure.
In the old days of film and dark room processing, the techniques in the room produced the results we now achieve with Lightroom and Photoshop. Even taking photos to a chemist to get processed has a post process applied to them. As people have mentioned when you shoot in JPEG with a modern camera it automatically applies a colour curve to it.
There is too far, and I have clearly overstepped the mark quite deliberately with my Laptops Among the Pigeons shot and also the Cosmic Girl Shot. Without having a decent base to work from in good photos the end result would not have the impact.
A good post process only adds to an already good photo IMO.
EDIT: hehe there appears to be a pretty much identical opinion in here... Sorry for repeating the same stuff.
A really good photo needs the information there to begin with and the only way to achieve that is to have a good exposure.
In the old days of film and dark room processing, the techniques in the room produced the results we now achieve with Lightroom and Photoshop. Even taking photos to a chemist to get processed has a post process applied to them. As people have mentioned when you shoot in JPEG with a modern camera it automatically applies a colour curve to it.
There is too far, and I have clearly overstepped the mark quite deliberately with my Laptops Among the Pigeons shot and also the Cosmic Girl Shot. Without having a decent base to work from in good photos the end result would not have the impact.
A good post process only adds to an already good photo IMO.
EDIT: hehe there appears to be a pretty much identical opinion in here... Sorry for repeating the same stuff.
Associate
If you shoot in RAW then you have to post process, unless you have perfect lighting and shoot with L lens or equivalent.
This is why i hate the term post-processing. I say this every time, but 'fiddling in Photoshop' in my mind is just processing your photo. People saying post-processing sounds like they're trying to be overly technical. Argh it grates with me so much! /rant
Agreed with the points about shooting film. Processing (
The term post processing is correct just frequently mis-used (Or intently used for sake of simplicity). The processing part of digital is when you develop the RAW file. Or if you shoot jpge the processing has already taken place.
Things like dodging and burning are a printing activity with film, not processing. You're going beyond the standard processed negative to manipulate the printed image. Just as with Photoshop you're going beyond the processed RAW file to manipulate the image for web/print. Only difference is we can't choose the colour pallette by the type of film we use, we have to do that afterwards.
Post-processing is exactly that, what goes on post the processing (developing) of the file. Now we just do it with a computer opposed to an enlarger.
Programs like Lightroom are blurring the boundaries somewhat but if we all just stick to calling it 'post' it can just be post anything taking the picture.
Soldato
Is it just me or has anybody else noticed a correlation between people who don't know PP and those that are anti-PP
To be honest I know i cant post process properly but will give it a bash, and certainly I know when you see some peoples work you know you have to work hard to get it to a high standard that has been set in the forums......e.g.
This photoshop masterclass by ScarySquirrel
Soldato
I wanted to avoid post processing and learn to take awesome pictures without the use of manipulation.
Then I worked out i suck and post processing is the only way to save my efforts.
Then I worked out i suck and post processing is the only way to save my efforts.