Avoiding Post Production

[jjeling]

My brother had a concert/recital today at our University here in town. Along with the images from the recent vacation and the images from tonight, I am going to try a PP detox program. For a while now, I am going to try and push myself to take great pictures without the need for PP. This includes cropping/composition, contrast boosting, sharpening, color correction, noise reduction, etc. This is going to help ease the workload but also force myself to take better images. I will not delete any "rough" images so that I can go back and try it later, but want to challenge myself. It seems like it is something we should all try from time to time. It is a problem these days that images "must" undergo some PP to really give the image its punch. It is mostly for the challenge so..

What do you think?

Good? Bad? Worth trying? or maybe you have done the same thing in the past?

Would like to hear some of your experiences or thoughts on this.

[jellotranz]

The whole post processing thing just recently came up on another post. First before I go any further I should say that personally I hate post processing. I suppose there are many reasons for it, first I suck at it. I am horribly color blind so any sort of color correction is just out of the question. But you know… Even when I first got started in photography long before digital, I had a black and white Dark room for probably 15 years. I used it.. But I didn’t like it. In fact I hated it. But that’s just me.

I will say this though. I have watched the whole digital thing come of age, and in many ways photography is so much easier now than when I shot with film and had to process things in the Dark Room. I do think that the down side to this is that all too often people rely on Post to correct the fact that their pictures are not shot well. That’s just my opinion. I would love to hear from those of you who feel differently.

I try hard to get my shots right in the camera and not to rely on post processing. But as I said that’s probably because I don’t really like that aspect of photography. Many people do and that’s great, but even if you love post work and are really good at it, you should try to get your shots right in the camera and just use post to either bring out things that your camera can’t deal with such as light conditions where dodging or burning may be required etc. Then if you want to go crazy on it post, go for it, but at least you know that your initial image was good to start with.

To me if you have to spend several hours post to make your picture worth showing.. Then there was probably something you COULD have done when you shot the picture to limit the post processing required. But I do suppose that it does depend on what things you shoot. For what I shoot, it’s just not needed.

[Marko]

jello makes some good points but here's my suggestion.

Shoot film for a while.

Digital is fun and has many advantages but if you want to forgo the processing, shoot film. You'll much more easily see what a sharp/unsharp good comp/bad comp good exposure/bad exposure image is right out of the box.

[kat]

I used up 3 4gb cards when I went to Mexico..no way on planet earth would I go post process on all of them. I picked out a couple that I thought would go neat B&W or that had someones arse that could be cropped so as it wouldn't been seen hanging on my wall.

I think it's a good thing to get things the best you when you take your shots. Even if you are doing post processing, makes it easier for that too.

[tirediron]

A topic near and dear to my heart. First off, I agree, getting the best possible images in-camera is always something for which you should strive, BUT, NO image is ever as good as it can be without some degree of post-processing.

IMO, PP is absolutely essential to producing good photographs, but not necessary for snapshots, so it really depends on what you're objective is when taking the pictures. Whether you're working in a wet darkroom or sitting at your computer and cursing Photoshop, it's really the same (one just smells less).

Kat makes a good point about not processing everything. Last year when I travelled (literally) around the world, I took something over 8000 images. Out of that, less than 300 made the cut for processing. I consider a one in ten ratio (of keepers to gross) a VERY good result, and am happy with one in fifteen or twenty.

Marko's point is a good one, in that shooting film (assuming you're simply going to drop the film off at a lab and not process it yourself) will definitely give you some good exposure to SOOC results, but I think you could probably achieve essentially the same result simply by centering all of your in-camera processing settings and shooting large/fine .jpgs.

Bottom line, IMO, there's no getting away from post-processing - it's essential to quality output. Images that aren't processed are likely to be relegated to the category of snapshots.

[Alex Wilson]

Two words:
Slide film.

Shooting digital with no post-processing is the same thing as shooting slide. Or, for that matter, Polaroid. Doing it the digital way, you can tweak your various in-camera settings (just like picking Velvia or using tungsten-balanced film).

[Marko]

Two words:
Slide film.

Shooting digital with no post-processing is the same thing as shooting slide. Or, for that matter, Polaroid. Doing it the digital way, you can tweak your various in-camera settings (just like picking Velvia or using tungsten-balanced film).I absolutely agree! and I was about to suggest slide film which IS the best way to go. And slide film is BETTER than digital in many ways. For one your images will come out sharp if they are sharp. You'll also really learn about exposure BIG TIME. You also won't waste as many frames. You'll take the time to choose and frame each shot much more carefully.

The only issue is really seeing the result....you'll need to scan it or project it. You can look at it on a light table with a loupe, but not many people have these tools at their disposal.

[jellotranz]

The only issue is really seeing the result....you'll need to scan it or project it. You can look at it on a light table with a loupe, but not many people have these tools at their disposal.

Ya but these days most companies you take your slides to for processing (Which I assume most people would be doing, Color Processing is beyond most people including me) can do it for you and just give you a CD/DVD along with your slides.

Slide film is fun and I do still have to use it from time to time depending on what I am shooting, Mostly Fashion shots where clarity is paramount. Luckily I don't have to do much of that anymore and the fashion shoots I do have to do, are generally done digitally these days becuase they are for local ads where the output is fairly small or of somewhat poor quality so the original just doesn't need to be that clear.

[Marko]

That's true Jello - It will add to the cost but it will be well worth the learning.