Does anyone here refuse to post process?

[ScarySquirrel]

HAHAHAHA! Thanks for that Derek

 

[86JR]

Theres a guy at uni who constantly tells me my shots are rubbish compared to him due to use of PP on mine. Yet he cant actually PP, he doesnt know how to use PS, LR, etc. And, his published shots simply arent as good, and mine arent great.

Then again hes the same guy who complained for the class to the lecturers because i got the highest score in the class on another peice of work. Thus, they all got the same mark as me. Yet im the one registered disabled (dyspraxia). At my uni it seems if your disabled your discriminated against. But thats another topic.

 

[Phate]

Theres a guy at uni who constantly tells me my shots are rubbish compared to him due to use of PP on mine.

I was about to say thats probably because he can't do it. But then you answered that one already

 

[robertgilbert86]

Can't process won't process!

 

[robmiller]

I'm constantly amused when discussions break out about the validity of using Photoshop to tweak colors or to retouch a small imperfection. "People expect photos to document the real world, and you should print images as you took them" goes one argument. Poppycock. The mere act of taking a picture destroys the ability to "capture" reality.

You choose which lens to use. You choose where to focus. You choose the exposure. You choose the composition. You choose a direction to point the camera. You choose what time of day and what season to take a picture. You choose the exact moment to preserve (and may distort that moment by using an extremely long or short shutter speed). You choose the type of film used (or the digital camera's color settings). And the list goes on. Meanwhile, reality also includes the moments before and after the shot, the area outside the frame, and much, much more. In short, you as photographer are making choices for the eventual viewer of your photo. The viewer only sees what you want them to, period.

On my living room wall is a large Ansel Adams print (Wonder Lake and Mt. Denali). It's a powerful image that captures the same spirit I felt standing in that same spot years later. But Adams shot in black and white. And he clearly manipulated the contrast in the final print. Even more interesting is that over the many years that Adams produced prints of that image, it appears that his burning and dodging techniques changed--later versions seem more contrasty and brooding than earlier ones. The exposure appears to be taken in very early morning on an unusually clear day (you can sit on that same spot for 20 days running and sometimes not see the full mountain). Did he document reality? I'd say no. He created an image that conveyed what he saw and how he felt in the presence of this immense mountain and Alaska's ever-changing light. And if you think he did document reality, try this exercise: take a large format camera and some black and white film to that same spot and try to duplicate the image. I'm betting that you'll find that very difficult to do, and only possible if you spend some time manipulating the final print.

So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.

 

[Mr Jones]

Great quote there Rob.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Great quote there Rob.

Agreed as astute and eloqent as you could hope for.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Originally Posted by Thom Hogan

So one of the first lessons I try to teach in photography classes is to break the mental constraint that you, as photographer, are merely "recording" something. No. You're carefully manipulating the scene using all the tools and tricks available to you, all in order to produce an image that conveys what you saw and felt.

And therein where a photographer finds his style, and unique perspective on the world that he sees.

 

[L0rdMike]

I wish I could PP.

 

[ChazHurst]

+1 for PP

I pretty much always process. It is quite rare that the default RAW import settings make an image which has the look that I had in my head of the scene. I find the concept of categorically refusing to process RAW files very difficult to understand. Exposure (while important) isn't the end of it.

P.S. robmiller: That quote is excellent.

 

[boxley]

I don't think there is anything wrong with post-processing but if you give yourself a target of not doing so I think you think a lot more about the shot itself. If you get the image right in the first place it generally looks better than what you could do in photoshop imho.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I don't think there is anything wrong with post-processing but if you give yourself a target of not doing so I think you think a lot more about the shot itself. If you get the image right in the first place it generally looks better than what you could do in photoshop imho.

The problem is that modern SLR cameras when shooting in raw are creating images that are prepped for post work. When you buy the camera it comes with software for the post processing work. When shooting in raw, it is never going to look as good as when you have done some post work on it IMO.

I think your perception of post is very different to what it actually is.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

That was a good quote Rob, and one that I completely agree with.

 

[D.P.]

I try to minimise PP and the PP is used purely to process photos such that appear closer to how my eye saw scene, and how I felt the moment to be.

Minimal exposure and lighting changes, a moderate USM and a touch of vibrancy for scenes that I believe my eyes saw more colour. Then there are modifications based upon my felling and mod of the scene and what I want to convey. This only applies a to a select few photos form a set. Sometimes more mood in needed in the photo

The only cropped I do is to make a panoramic. Again, cropping a landscape to a panorama adds to the feeling

HDR, absolutely no.
B&W, if I really wanted to shoot B&W I would buy a cheap 2nd hand Nikon F5/6 and some ilford.

 

[D.P.]

The problem is that modern SLR cameras when shooting in raw are creating images that are prepped for post work. When you buy the camera it comes with software for the post processing work. When shooting in raw, it is never going to look as good as when you have done some post work on it IMO.

I think your perception of post is very different to what it actually is.

It is true that a RAW file is not meant for direct viewing but has neutral settings for maximum information.

the thing is, as soon as you import the RAW into LR or PS it will already be processed for viewing, to a moderate amount.

If you want to get Point and shoot viewing images form the RAW then you simply need a slight contrast boost, minor saturation and a bit of USM.

The difference then comes to an artistic manipulation of images to convey further meaning

 

[jr1104]

Since I shoot in RAW I find I always process, usually just a small boost in contrast and saturation. Most of my photos only get to that stage, and that's fine by me, but I also do enjoy treating my photos as art.

People that don't like processing a photo so much that it is no longer what you saw when you took it, have kind of missed the point I feel. There are plenty of photos out there which only capture a simple subject, but the processing style means that they stand out as abstract and exciting. This is another side of photography that I wouldn't mind getting more into. I realise it isn't to everyone's liking, but it certainly is still photography.

 

[The_Abyss]

Frankly, I'm not a good enough phtographer to take a photo that I'd like without any processing, and this includes basics such as cropping.

Decent processing skills bring my better pictures up to a reasonable level.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

B&W, if I really wanted to shoot B&W I would buy a cheap 2nd hand Nikon F5/6 and some ilford.

I find this mentality rather odd if I'm being honest. You don't convert ANY digital photos to B&W?

Do you simply not like B&W, or do you think that because it's a digital image it shouldn't be B&W?

 

[SteveOBHave]

I find this mentality rather odd if I'm being honest. You don't convert ANY digital photos to B&W?

Do you simply not like B&W, or do you think that because it's a digital image it shouldn't be B&W?

Yeah I agree - it does seem odd... Surely it's better to have the option to retain the colour in an image.

 

[valve90210]

I'm firmly in the pro-postproduction camp!!!

I have been using photoshop for over 12years and feel that the skills required to undertake some of the more noticeable pp, such as air brushing, object removal etc etc, are something which should not be frowned upon. They take time and practice to learn how the tools all work and what effects they have etc etc, and be able to do them well, just the same as it takes time and practice to get to know how a camera works, and how the shutter speed, aperture, white balance etc etc affect the image you capture.

They are both skills which need learning and which I think should be celebrated.

Yes, of course pp can be overused to the point where it begins to look cheesy and naff (think back to the days when anything and everything had a lens flare added..., or as has been mentioned, the selective colouring etc etc) But at same time a learned hand can take a nice photograph and turn it into something stunning, and with careful work, the new stunning image can retain everything that was great about the original photo.

Not all pp work has be blatant and obtrusive and I think that is where the skill lies and where the line is often drawn. If it is obvious that a photograph has been played with, then maybe it has been over pp'd...

However, you also need to think about the intent/audience the image is intended for. Is the image intended to be merely a reflection of what a person has seen, or is it intended to be something beautiful to adorn a wall or mantle piece for everyone to see? Is it a piece of 'art' or is it just a snapshot?

These distinctions can make a huge difference to the way in which an image is viewed and should be taken into account both when an image is being viewed, and when an image is in pp.

For example, if I have taken a quick snapshot of a group of mates on a holiday, I will do very little to an image like that, aside from the odd little thing here and there if needed, maybe remove a bit of red eye etc (in such a case my pp hand will be very gentle and upon looking at the photo no one would know I had been there) but on the whole it wil be left in virtually the same state as when it was taken so it remains an accurate portrail of the event.

If however I am out walking somewhere and see a beautiful vista and have taken a photo of it that I like and would like to put on my wall, I will make it look as good as possible using whatever techniques I need...though once again my preference and belief is that my pp should remain faithful to the original image and my pp shouldn't be too overtly obvious.

If I'm doing a product shot or such like, I will do everything possible to make that product look as good as possible and my pping hand is likely to be much heavier and more obvious (to the trained eye at least) as long as it is in keeping with the final destination of the image!

I'm not one for using whatever the current vogue is in the world of pping just for the sake of it. Of course sometimes it can look good but I tend to go by the personal mantra...is it really necessary?



Of course, despite my belief that pp is fine (is used well) it is certainly preferable to get the shot right in the first place...after all you can't polish a turd (well you can but it takes more work...lol)

Valve