Post Processing

[tegan]

The difference between newbies and experienced photographers is that the latter see a lot more in a photograph. The reason is simple. We have had to spend a lot more time looking at photos to correct our own mistakes and bring out what the technology misses. We have also seen a lot more photographs.

Despite the attitudes that some new photographers bring with them to this field, postprocessing is necessary for all photographs and it is not just to correct mistakes, but also to correct problems that are inherent in digital photography.

Minor variations in colour temperature mean that colours are often not correctly rendered by the camera. A beige colour may look white or grey. A purple colour may look blue. White may look orange, blue, grey, or yellow.
Processing is necessary to correct the colour.

Despite the overall shot being correctly exposed, areas of underexposure due to shadows for example will display either little or no detail or desaturated colour. Either problem requires postprocessing.

Minor exposure differences throughout any photograph result in minor colour differences too. A series of portraits of the same person, each with a slightly different skin colour would certainly not be acceptable, so here too postprocessing is necessary.

Some cameras tend to easily blow out highlights or produce harsh dark shadows. This often needs to be remedied by bracketing in combination with postprocessing.

I also recommend the picture puzzle books that are available in bookstores that show you two photos and you have to pick out 12 or so differences which are extremely minor at the more challenging levels. All the changes have been done in postprocessing and these puzzles train your eye to look more carefully at images.

Tegan

[Marko]

I totally agree with tegan here:D

And even BEFORE digital many great photographs (probably most) have been post processed.

Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson and many other legends of photography all used techniques like dodging, burning, toning, applying bleach to whiten whites etc. during or after printing.

I post process every digital shot I take somewhat. Just like I did in the darkroom.

For me the issue that gets blurry is stuff like photoshop filters (like the posterize filter, warp filter etc.) or tone-mapped HDR imaged whose effects you could NEVER reproduce on your own without the aid of a machine. We call that postprocessing too. Some people call it blasphemy and I can totally see their point of view.

I don't think that post-processing is an accurate term in these cases.
What do you think tegan or other members?

[tegan]

Perhaps postprocessing and editing is a more accurate description.

The other basic concept is however that photography doesn't duplicate or capture reality so there is nothing blasphemous about processing or editing an image. As a matter of fact one popular magazine has already named the field: Photography and Imaging.

To use an example, I once had to photograph a scene for the court, where a student had suffocated and died in snow that had been ploughed into a pile near a school yard. Any photographer knows that the focal length you use and what camera angle you take the photo from, determines the apparent height of the snow pile. My photos were the "reality" that the inquest saw, but postprocessing or editing would certainly have not been necessary to considerably distort that reality.

Photos only create a limited, already edited by the lens, partial representation of a particular scene. This representation is already distorted by the lens and then processed by the chip technology.

So, I find it silly that anyone would rationalize any editing or processing as blasphemous. On the other hand, unless the technical and compositional quality are present then it is still a poor image and should not be taken seriously as photography\imaging.

Tegan

[Marko]

I also like that term postprocessing and editing!
It's not blasphemy for me either , it's just something I think about - but I do understand the 'Purist' s point of view. I think calling it Photography and Imaging is more honest for many of today's shots and I like that term. Photography has changed because of software. Although we have always distrorted reality through lens choice, printing etc. that level of manipulation is miniscule compared to the warp filter in photoshop and any of its other possibilities.

[Travis]

Good thread..

I think pictures fall into two distinctions -

Realistic Portrayal - In which post processing is only used to advance the print closer to what the eye saw the moment the photo occurred.

An example would be layering a properly exposed moon overtop a properly exposed horizon(both shot in the same moment). In this case, the camera's inability properly relay the truth provides a disadvantage to the viewer. Post is acceptable to reclaim the moment as the photographer viewed it.

Adding or remove items in realistic portrayal are unacceptable because you would be fibbing. You are telling what is supposed to be a true story and are embellishing it via post.

Fictional Portrayal - In which post can be used without limitation. The artist molds the photo to convey a certain feeling. This is a separate art form.

I also think the viewer is owed the truth when making evaluation of a picture. It should be disclosed if the picture appears realistic but is actually fictional.

My 2 cents....

[tegan]

Photography has NEVER involved realistic portrayal. The scene itself is irrelevant. It is the photographer's reality that rules as in what the photographer sees and HOW he sees it and what he feels is important or not important in a scene.

Sophisticated photoshopping, taking things out of a scene and other edits are not fibbing at all. They are simply a way of expressing the photographer's vision. The product is his representation of the scene and if it meets the technical and compositional criteria of a good photo then that is the ONLY thing that is important.

If the silly concern with realism is carried to its ultimate conclusion, someone would be complaining that some great photo in an art gallery is a fraud because the photographer cloned some garbage out of the shot. Ridiculous!!

Tegan

[Travis]

"Photography has NEVER involved realistic portrayal"

What?!? says who? This is my goal when taking pictures... I find the moments and the camera records them... the picture shares the story of the moment I found.. not the moment I made up or envisioned.... what you are describing in your post falls into #2 distinction of fictional photography.... there is nothing wrong with that.... but it is what it is.... fiction....

photographer: Hey... take a look a my vacation picture on the beach

viewer: wow... beautiful.... the sand looks beautiful

photographer: Well... actually I found the actual sand to be a little brown.... so I photoshoped this sand in from another picture

viewer: oh.... well... the water is crystal clear.. it must have been nice to swim in...

photographer: the ocean had an film that was kind of green and foggy... so i swapped it with a picture I scanned of another destination

viewer: okay.... the beach is so big and empty.... you guys were so lucky to have it on your own

photographer: actually... there was 200 people there.... but i removed them when i switched the beach...

viewer: well the sun is certainly blazing... where is your tan?

photographer: oh it rained every day on my trip so I had to insert the sun and skyline from a picture I had at the cottage back home

viewer: okay....hmmm.... well your sister certainly looked like she was having a fun time....

photographer: oh... she didn't make the trip but as a photographer i envisioned her being there

viewer: wow.... great holiday picture... i really feel like i was able to experience your vacation

To me, I feel like I owe it to the viewer to properly represent the image with the integrity in which i found it. Anything else is fibbing.

[tegan]

What you are talking about is taking snapshots to document a vacation. That is not photography in the most accurate sense of the term.

Snapshots are badly posed images of people in front of some monument or scene to prove that they were there. Snapshots do not win photographic competitions, do not end up as blow-ups on many walls, do not get published, and do not earn money for the snapshot taker. One big difference between snapshots and photographs is quality both technical and compositional.

A snapshot taker in a fine art photography forum is somewhat of a contradiction. No wonder we are on different wavelengths.

Tegan

[Travis]

my faux conversation was only meant to be an example of how over-editing while well intended, has no place in certain types of photography (aside from restoring the image due to limitations of the camera.)

photography itself is just the process of capturing images. After that it must be sub-classified... real, fiction, snapshot, abstract, documentary, fine art.... whatever you want to call it...

an image does not have to be heavily processed to be effective and/or successful in the eyes of the viewer... there are millions and millions of images in the world that can speak for themselves... they don't need manipulation..... there is room out there for a class of photographer who remains neutral and unbiased in documenting an image....

i may be a newbie.... but i don't think i'm a snapshooter or whatever you call it... i also don't think that we are different wavelengths... just a difference of opinion on this subject... :)

[tegan]

[QUOTE=Travis photography itself is just the process of capturing images. After that it must be sub-classified... real, fiction, snapshot, abstract, documentary, fine art.... whatever you want to call it... :)[/QUOTE]

With that sort of thinking, a photographer is not even necessary. :) A good digital camera can capture images. Is the role of the photographer just to put the camera in the appropriate location and let it capture images? In that view, photographers require NO skills whatsoever. No learning is required to "capture images" and there is NO difference between one photographer and another since both "capture images" in your view.

No photography is real. All of it is representational and all of it reflects the photographer's individual view of the reality present in the scene.

No photography is fictional since the photographer's perspective and decisions related to portraying the scene refkect what he considers to be his interpretation of reality and whether that involves editing the image or not, it is still the photographer's view of the scene and what he considers important.

Photography does not capture anything. It represents the photographer's personal interpretation of a scene using the camera and all the rest of the appropriate technology and because it is personal and dependent on the limitations of digital imaging ,it will NOT accurately reflect the scene.

Tegan

[tegan]

an image does not have to be heavily processed to be effective and/or successful in the eyes of the viewer... there are millions and millions of images in the world that can speak for themselves... they don't need manipulation..... there is room out there for a class of photographer who remains neutral and unbiased in documenting an image.... :)

Interesting that it could be considered that many of the great photographers did heavily process their images in one way or another. Some used 4 by 5 or 8 by 10 cameras while their colleagues were using smaller cameras. Special film, special plates, processing methods, and one heck of a lot of dodging and burning were also done. At the time, this was considered heavy manipulation.

There is NO such thing as a neutral and unbiased photographer in documenting an image and that includes those in photojournalism which I have also done.

Tegan

[Travis]

you make some good points...

i agree that every picture is framed through the viewfinder of the photographer, and as such, every picture in some capacity lends itself to it's author... and this to me is the essence of photography..

i am aware that a good digital camera can capture images, but it's obviously not that easy. A photographer who's goal is to show a realistic portrayal still has weighty responsibilities and craftsmanship. He/she must firstly find the image that is noteworthy to be documented (this could be the bulk of the work). Then it must be framed properly. Careful consideration has to been given to calibrate the camera in order to best reflect the integrity of the image. Finally, the image may require post processing if (a) the author failed to reflect the integrity of the image or (b) the camera by it's limitation failed to reflect the integrity of image.

If you document a scenic image that lacks quantitive quality, and as a result, you have to manipulate it by taking out this and adding that, I would ask why you journeyed out to document the image in the first place? If you are happy manipulating images to this degree why don't you just stay at home and create them from scratch?

The fact that many of "the greatest" photographers used trickery in some form or another does not deduce my argument. Their work can still be great.... but it is abstract... unless the methods of trickery used are to defeat the limitations of the camera.... then they are real...

I am not saying there is anything wrong with post editing an image to create the desired effect of it's author. If you edit the picture past it's point of truthful representation then the work is abstract. It can still have great value and be admired.

:)

[Marko]

I am totally digging this thread and have a lot to say about it - i feel a podcast brewing LOL.

For me, with photoshop and other graphic programs being adopted by photographers of all skill levels, we are in a totally new phase of photography. Some people may not agree. No problem, that's what makes the world go round'.

As was mentioned a few posts ago, EVEN the nomenclature in photography is changing to include 'photography and imaging' to describe photographs. I am in total agreement with changing the nomenclature for what many of us are now calling photography. :twocents:

[tegan]

i am aware that a good digital camera can capture images, but it's obviously not that easy. A photographer who's goal is to show a realistic portrayal still has weighty responsibilities and craftsmanship. He/she must firstly find the image that is noteworthy to be documented (this could be the bulk of the work). Then it must be framed properly. Careful consideration has to been given to calibrate the camera in order to best reflect the integrity of the image. Finally, the image may require post processing if (a) the author failed to reflect the integrity of the image or (b) the camera by it's limitation failed to reflect the integrity of image.

If you document a scenic image that lacks quantitive quality, and as a result, you have to manipulate it by taking out this and adding that, I would ask why you journeyed out to document the image in the first place? If you are happy manipulating images to this degree why don't you just stay at home and create them from scratch?

The fact that many of "the greatest" photographers used trickery in some form or another does not deduce my argument. Their work can still be great.... but it is abstract... unless the methods of trickery used are to defeat the limitations of the camera.... then they are real...

I am not saying there is anything wrong with post editing an image to create the desired effect of it's author. If you edit the picture past it's point of truthful representation then the work is abstract. It can still have great value and be admired. :)

No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal. Take a look in a large book store in the magazine section under Photography. You won't see a single scenic that looks realistic. Water is blurred by a slow shutterspeed. Gradient software filters change the colour. Exposure, contrast and tone have been adjusted in Photoshop. In fact Popular Photography profiled a highly successful nature scenic photographer who used as many as 1,000 shots to create his final image, and it was breathtaking.

For that matter even the term "realistic portrayal" cannot be accurately defined. Are the colours that you see in a scene, somehow more "realistic" than the colours that you don't see? Should a photographer bring out the colours you don't see, in postprocessing? Which is more realistic: the original colours in the scene or the colours modified by the natural or artificial light present? It would seem that even the use of a flash would be a "fib" because that does not portray the realistic lighting in the scene. If the sun is bouncing off a highly reflective surface creating a glare and washed out look, does that mean that the photographer should duplicate that look in order to be realistic despite overexposing his image?

I think a lot of portrait photographers would be out of work if they realistically portrayed scars, acne, cold sores, wrinkles, red eyes, pouches under eyes, prominent chins and double chins of their clients. People want to see a flattering portrait of themselves without the unflattering problems whether they are realistic or not.

The ONLY area of photography where realistic portrayal is at all important is legal photography. In any other area of photography it is totally irrelevant.

Tegan

[Travis]

"No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal"

It is not right for you to assert this comment because you do not represent all serious and experienced photographers. If you google any combinations of the words "ethical" "photography" "without alteration" "manipulation" you can find millions of hits in which both theories are debated and supported by professionals.

The North American Nature Photography Association has a guideline on misrepresentation:

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/truth_caption.pdf

http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_con.html

and so does the National Press Photographers association:

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/digital_manipulation.html

those were just a couple that i found very quickly, but there is plenty more on the topic...

"Take a look in a large book store in the magazine section under Photography. You won't see a single scenic that looks realistic. Water is blurred by a slow shutterspeed. Gradient software filters change the colour. Exposure, contrast and tone have been adjusted in Photoshop. In fact Popular Photography profiled a highly successful nature scenic photographer who used as many as 1,000 shots to create his final image, and it was breathtaking."

If it is obvious the scene does not look realistic than it is photo fiction or a photo illustration. It is pretty, but not real. Personally, I think some blurring of the water infers motion and is naturally occurring in the shot, so it would be truthful. Exposure, contrast and tone adjustments are all acceptable to defeat the limitations of the camera, but not to exagerate the integrity of the scene. If your work is photo fiction, you are not subject to any post editing restrictions and are free to create carte blanche. I am not arguing this right. I participate, view and enjoy photo fiction.

"For that matter even the term "realistic portrayal" cannot be accurately defined."

The art of documenting an image of interest in which the author preserves the truth and integrity of the image to the best of their ability. As they, and most others would see it by eye.

"Are the colours that you see in a scene, somehow more "realistic" than the colours that you don't see?"

Yes... because the colours you see are generally equal to the colours are viewer would see. The colours we don't see are a moot point pertaining to the truthful recreation of the image.

"Should a photographer bring out the colours you don't see, in postprocessing? Which is more realistic: the original colours in the scene or the colours modified by the natural or artificial light present?"

Generally speaking if I am documenting an image in a room with a light bulb. The colours cast and/or reflected from that light bulb would be considered truthful, as a viewer in the same room would experience the same result.

"It would seem that even the use of a flash would be a "fib" because that does not portray the realistic lighting in the scene."

Tell me about it. Flash is tricky. My first post to this forum was to seek advice on how to obstain from using flash in order to get a more truthful looking image. Even still, a flash is acceptable because it serves to defeat the limitations of the camera in the most truthful way possible.

"If the sun is bouncing off a highly reflective surface creating a glare and washed out look, does that mean that the photographer should duplicate that look in order to be realistic despite overexposing his image?"

It depends what you see with your eyes. If the glare in the photograph does not accurately reflect the image as you(and others) would have viewed it at the moment it occurred, then post editing for truthful purpose is acceptable.


"I think a lot of portrait photographers would be out of work if they realistically portrayed scars, acne, cold sores, wrinkles, red eyes, pouches under eyes, prominent chins and double chins of their clients. People want to see a flattering portrait of themselves without the unflattering problems whether they are realistic or not."

Deception is defined as the manipulation of perception to alter thoughts and feelings through lies and cleverness (wiki)

If people want to pay photographers to deceive, and photographers want to accept money for deceiving on their behalf then so be it... it's a free country... the fact that this happens every day as common practice in no way makes the work more legitimate. It is still a form of deception and is not a truthful representation. Except you mentioned red-eye, this is a camera limitation.

The manipulation of photographs is so common practice it has gotten to the point that the viewer doubts the integrity of every shot. This is unfortunate as it degrades what was once the photographs strongest ability.

I have enjoyed the debate and feel I have no more to offer this thread as we are going circular. I would like to add that I agree with your opening post on the thread as it pertains to photo editing for rectification of camera limitation. However, I still remain unchanged in that a photographer must use their moral compass when manipulating an image, if that image could be perceived by the viewer as authentic when it's is not.

In closing if you have time check out this link:

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/ETHICS.HTM

The ethics of Digital Manipulation by Jerry Lodriguss

I find this author to best articulate both our points.

:)

[Marko]

A Well written post Travis and I'm loving the tete a tete (head to head) in this provocative debate.

In terms of tegan's quote

"No serious, experienced photographer has a goal of realistic portrayal"

I'm fairly confident that that statement in itself was meant to provoke :)

[tegan]

To summarize from your post, I would say that there are "conflicted" organizations and individuals who are "conflicted" to the point of confusion.

NANPA has an agenda to promote wild life, conservation, education and the environment so it is logical that they would not want to be promoting wild life with photos from a zoo or preservation of the environment with a photo of an artificial environment created for captive animals.

At the same time, at least they seem to realize that their agenda is not necessarily the agenda of a photographer who for example, simply needs a photo of "a lion" for a client. Labeling is the obvious compromise to these conflicting agendas with the further addition that it is only a guideline. So their "line" is really not surprising.

The problem with the individuals and their discussion of ethics is that everyone has their own interpretation of ethics and photography and one even indicated that he has gone over his own line. By that I mean despite espousing truthful photography, they all have their own version of what is or is not appropriate manipulation and what is or is not truthful photography.

Some have also made the historical argument that photography was more "real" in the past while at the same time recognizing that almost all the present manipulations were possible in the past. They were simply more difficult to do which contradicts their assertion.

Trying to set back the clock to before the advent of Photoshop is like trying to put your fingers in the dike. The reality is that unless an individual photographer sees a conflict between his postprocessing/editing of an image and its use, he will continue to label it as he sees fit. A photographer has no more responsibility to indicate how he produced the image, than a television director has, concerning how he produced the television program even if it is documentary or educational.

There have been hysterical attempts by some such as Reuters to maintain their perceived credibility for accurate photojournalism but the reality is that newspaper photos are still edited and processed and will continue to be biased at the camera level as well.

Most photographers and most knowledgeable members of the public see problems with processing and editing, only when it reaches the totally fraudulent level such as adding bodies to a battle scene. They also see more of a problem with adding something to a scene rather than taking a distracting element out. That is probably the basic line that most photographers follow now and will continue to follow in the future, despite any efforts of organizations or individuals to impose their own ethics or views on the field of photography. :)

Tegan

[tegan]

A Well written post Travis and I'm loving the tete a tete (head to head) in this provocative debate.

In terms of tegan's quote


I'm fairly confident that that statement in itself was meant to provoke :)

A little too sweeping but I was trying to suggest the reverse, that it is a view that is prevalent with some newbies that changes as they gain more experience.

Of course I need to keep aware of the differences between amateurs and pros. Amateurs who have no aspirations of becoming pros can do their own thing in photography.

Pros need to take a more "balanced" view between their personal attitudes and the views of their clients in order to be successful. We also need to be more aware of general trends in our markets.

To take a strictly pro view, in order to be successful, I shoot to meet the needs of the client, related to use. Clients are concerned with how an image fits into the content or visual look of their book, notice, ad, poster, etc. Realistic portrayal does not even come into the picture. :) (good pun)
I am designing a book and am finding that I am also shooting to design needs.
The shots are "real" as far as I am concerned but I am making no effort to try and duplicate any perceived "reality" at the scene. It is not fiction or photo illustration, it is just other priorities determining postprocessing and edting.


Tegan

[Kiddo]

A really interesting debate, being a complete noobie to photography, i always wonder where the line is drawn for doctoring or adusting/editing pictures. Being a graphic artist, i often have images given to me to adjust, and they're often minor adjustments, but sometimes you come across ones where you're making vast changes to the image.

In my very humble opinion, the way i see editing or pp is always that experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited, i myself cannot tell at this stage when a photo has been subtly edited. Then there is the other extreme where the image has been altered enough to become "digital art" as opposed to a photograph.

It's all art for me, but photographs, even edited, i always find breathtaking because the image feels more real than digital art.

*Edit*

Thankfully being on a forum like this, i'm surrounded by a wealth of experience and talent, so will get to learn more about the different facets of photography. :D

[Travis]

In my very humble opinion, the way i see editing or pp is always that experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited, i myself cannot tell at this stage when a photo has been subtly edited. Then there is the other extreme where the image has been altered enough to become "digital art" as opposed to a photograph.



I'm not so sure the average experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited.... at least not at first glance.... maybe pixel peeping at 300% looking for irregularities okay.... but a printed, framed image can easily be edited and go unnoticed.

[tegan]

I'm not so sure the average experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited.... at least not at first glance.... maybe pixel peeping at 300% looking for irregularities okay.... but a printed, framed image can easily be edited and go unnoticed.

But then it doesn't really matter since even if you are at the scene of an event you are editing the event by deciding what to look at and listen to, and concentrating on what you think is important, ignoring other things happening at the scene.

All photos are edited/manipulated by the nature and technological features and limitations of the medium. Darkroom work has always been prominent in the photos of the past including even major modifications in processing.

Tegan

[Travis]

oh boy....

[tegan]

oh boy....

What can I say? Photography has never ever been about realistic portrayal because the technology does NOT make such a goal possible or realistically desirable. Why would you want an artistic, creative, or skilled photographer to duplicate reality? What a waste of talent to even attempt such a thing?

I find it rather contradictory that some say that photography is not an art because it simply records reality, while others say that editing reality is not photography. Photography can't be an art if it just records reality. If that is the case, the photographer is somewhat irrelevant because skill, talent, creativity, are irrelevant and unnecessary. Build a robot to point a camera and press the shutter. The result is perhaps a little closer to "reality".

At the same time, what viewer is really only interested in seeing reality. What viewer would put up a photograph of a "real" hazy view of a lake with a blurred horizon and a slightly blue/grey colour cast and dead colours on the wall in 16" by 20" or a smog filled view of a major city. That may be reality but that is not what we want to see.

Whether some appreciate it or not, photography is becoming more creative and more about skill and art and far less about any attempt at realistic portrayal. I find it interesting that some young people find it harder to change with the times than some baby boomers. :):):)

Tegan

[Marko]

I think the conversation got off track here when kiddo resuscitated that thread from last April :D :

Originally Posted by Travis
I'm not so sure the average experienced photographers can tell when an image has been edited.... at least not at first glance.... maybe pixel peeping at 300% looking for irregularities okay.... but a printed, framed image can easily be edited and go unnoticed.

Tegan: But then it doesn't really matter since even if you are at the scene of an event you are editing the event by deciding what to look at and listen to, and concentrating on what you think is important, ignoring other things happening at the scene. All photos are edited/manipulated by the nature and technological features and limitations of the medium. Darkroom work has always been prominent in the photos of the past including even major modifications in processing.

I think you misunderstood the question Tegan and went in a different direction. That's why ya got the 'Oh boy':p:)
I think we are talking about the technical proficiency of editing itself. And yes it matters. Sloppy colour correction, poor contrast control, sloppy cloning .. is just sloppy. It doesn't work at the higher levels in painting, photography or any craft. You have to agree with that no? skill matters.
On this forum we all want to learn to get better, to improve our skills. That's what gets you the better picture at the end of the day. I also agree with Travis's assessment. Many photographers are excellent retouchers and post processors or editors or whatever and you can't tell they've worked on the photo. (sometimes EVEN when you are looking for the evidence) We get closer to it by practice. Hope I didn't :footinmou

Marko

[Travis]

lol Tegan... I knew I was gonna get roped into this seemingly unfinished business....





I find it interesting that some young people find it harder to change with the times than some baby boomers. :):):)

Tegan



This is quite easily explainable. Young people are constantly saturated with artificialities and are quite aware of it. Politics, entertainment, marketing, daily news are all ripe with half truths. Young people generally reject BS.... it's the reason they are watching reality shows instead of Leave it to Beaver or the Cosbys. It's the reason they get their news in satirical format via Jon Stewart in lieu of CNN.


If find it almost amusing that the principle of earning your shot is somehow lost upon you.

Sometimes I will trek to a planned spot in the woods and sit there each morning at 5am waiting for a perfect blend of sunrise and colours. The last spot I've been to 5 times with no admirable results. Every morning is not a stunning morning. Eventually, I will capture a beauty at the spot and the truthfulness will pay off in my mind fivefold. Are you telling me that somehow you are more artful by just showing up at my spot, taking a lame sunrise picture, and using photoshop to create something that never happened?

It's no different then one olympic runner who trains truthfully getting blown past someone on the track who has a "good" doctor. It's no different than fishing a large lake with skill, as opposed to fishing a stocked pond.

There is a market and a taste for everybody artistically inclined. I have already disclosed to this forum many photoshopped artistic efforts and many SOOC efforts. My SOOC work is merely one of many photographic styles I actively pursue. While I've seen many of your photoshopped efforts, I can't recall seeing much SOOC. Give in and try it already..... back away from the photoshop and see what you make with just your eye and your camera...:)

[Richard Annable]

My aim as a wedding photographer is to get as much correct in the camera as possible. Some of my best images have required less than one minute in post.

When I go through (on average) 1000+ images after a wedding, the less I have to do the better.

[Kiddo]

I think the conversation got off track here when kiddo resuscitated that thread from last April :D :

Marko

lol, apologies, being new, i was just "catching" up so to speak and going through the threads, and found the debate highly interesting, especially as i'm new to photography and a lot of these topics are completely new!

But i must say, having no previous experience with the field aside from simple P&S "snaps" it's quite refreshing to be learning new topics and opinions, both Travis and Tegan have made some very compelling arguments and view points :) Very informative reading!

[Travis]

My aim as a wedding photographer is to get as much correct in the camera as possible. Some of my best images have required less than one minute in post.

When I go through (on average) 1000+ images after a wedding, the less I have to do the better.

Hey Richard ... welcome to the forum!!!

Your statement is somewhat refreshing to hear..... On another forum I post, it seems there is a growing number of people who no longer do this.... the general concept is just to get everything on the sensor and fix it later.... the flexibilities of shooting RAW have allowed for this.... you can drag over/under exposed images into range that are out 3 stops....you can adjust white balance...

It's up to the individual how they want to shoot.... I see no problems with both techniques.... even with 1000+ images you can still make bulk adjustments to white balance etc....but I'm with you... I prefer getting it right in camera... I think it's from my JPEG shooting which is not as flexible...

[Travis]

lol, apologies, being new, i was just "catching" up so to speak and going through the threads, and found the debate highly interesting, especially as i'm new to photography and a lot of these topics are completely new!

But i must say, having no previous experience with the field aside from simple P&S "snaps" it's quite refreshing to be learning new topics and opinions, both Travis and Tegan have made some very compelling arguments and view points :) Very informative reading!


no worries Kiddo... there is mutual respect in these arguments.... it's what makes a Forum like this so great!!

[tirediron]

My aim as a wedding photographer is to get as much correct in the camera as possible. Some of my best images have required less than one minute in post.

When I go through (on average) 1000+ images after a wedding, the less I have to do the better.

You sir, are a man after my own heart! :highfive: I hear of people spending hours in post on one image, and then think, "Hmmm, I only spent a minute or two on that one... what am I doing wrong?" The answer is nothing; they spent 1/125 of a second composing and exposing the image, and an hour in post. I spent ten minutes setting up the shot and two minutes in post. Mebbe it's just me, but I like that math! :D

[kiley9806]

TiredIron & Richard - you make good points! If youre not interested in getting the shot right in the camera, why not just become a good graphic artist or something, instead of a photographer?
Just wanted to point out that this thread has had over 1600 hits... :eek:
Nice debating Tegan & Travis!!

[tegan]

You sir, are a man after my own heart! :highfive: I hear of people spending hours in post on one image, and then think, "Hmmm, I only spent a minute or two on that one... what am I doing wrong?" The answer is nothing; they spent 1/125 of a second composing and exposing the image, and an hour in post. I spent ten minutes setting up the shot and two minutes in post. Mebbe it's just me, but I like that math! :D

That is the simplistic view. No serious pros spens hours on one image in post processing, for the simple reason that time is money. Workflow and the speed of workflow is important.

On the other hand, a lot of photographers who do little postprocessing have a poor eye and don't see the weaknesses in the technology or their work.
Few shots produce the colour and detail that was present in the scene when you looked at it. Postprocessing can also bring detail out of the close to pitch dark, depending on the ISO used.

Setting up the shot is also not always possible. Try setting up a shot of a wild animal on the move. At dawn the light changes so fast that even shots taken within a few minutes are totally different in the quality and colour of the lighting.

So basically any serious pro does postprocessing and with a good eye recognizes what needs to be done and what is not necessary. It is as much an integral part of photography as work in the darkroom.

Tegan

[tegan]

TiredIron & Richard - you make good points! If youre not interested in getting the shot right in the camera, why not just become a good graphic artist or something, instead of a photographer?
Just wanted to point out that this thread has had over 1600 hits... :eek:
Nice debating Tegan & Travis!!

Kiley, it is virtually impossible to get the shot right in the camera, but you need a good eye to recognize that simple fact. You have not carefully looked at the same number of photos that I have, yet. :)

Tegan

[tegan]

lol Tegan... I knew I was gonna get roped into this seemingly unfinished business....

While I've seen many of your photoshopped efforts, I can't recall seeing much SOOC. Give in and try it already..... back away from the photoshop and see what you make with just your eye and your camera...:)

:D Travis, of course, you don't expect me to let you get a way with anything. :) And I won't let you get away with the above.

I have indicated that some of my shots are straight out of the camera and some have had very little postprocessing. The "thru the window" for example just had a few attempts at straightening. Even when the shore/ocean one was as shot, it was suggested that I take out the noise in post.

I might suggest to you that perhaps you should learn to recognize how the camera is "manipulating" what you think is your realistic shot. Sometimes post is just getting back to what the eye saw.

Tegan

[tegan]

More spam cleaning to do!

[The_Camera_Poser]

Sorry to dig up an old thread- but I'm with Travis here- with all respect Tegan! I postprocess to get the photo looking like it did to my eye- I find that the art is in Nature, and with my humble skill set I'd be dreaming if I thought I could do better. So for me, PS is a great way to try and make sure it looks "real".

Horses for courses I think! I love the work of people like Ansel Adams, but I prefer work by landscaper photographers that keep it looking more real, like Peter Dombroskis. To me, he is the supreme photographer in that genre, because you can't see his hand in the picture (metaphorically speaking of course), even though you know he spent hours working on it.

But then, I'm definitely not a fine art photographer- and I'd be saying something different if I was!

[edbayani11]

this is one advantage of using film, you will know if it is edited by comparing the print with the negative.

[Barefoot]

It’s funny that this thread should be revisited today, but I’m glad it has. I read it from one end to the other yesterday and formed some opinions. I would have commented then, but didn’t want to cause any undue stress for the major contributors to the debate.

Long before the advent of celluloid and sensors, artists were relegated to mediums such as stone, clay, and canvas. I, for one, am glad that the artists from those days were free to interpret and portray scenes and subjects as they saw fit and not restricted to depicting them in anything less than a realistic manner. Otherwise, today we may find ourselves deprived of such works as this one by Van Gogh.

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/image.aspx?fn=images/0618.jpg

[Iguanasan]

I think that whenever subjectivity comes in to play too many people want to try and say that "X is the RIGHT way" or "Y is the WRONG way" when, really, it doesn't matter.

For me, I like to try and capture the moment in the camera. For others, they use the camera image as a starting point. I'm not wrong and they're not wrong. It's just a different perspective. I say "Vive la Différence!".

[Mad Aussie]

My aim as a wedding photographer is to get as much correct in the camera as possible. Some of my best images have required less than one minute in post.

When I go through (on average) 1000+ images after a wedding, the less I have to do the better.
I'm only going to comment on Richards comment above and simply concur ... sort of.
I don't shoot weddings, I shoot Mountain Bike events and similar.

Two weekends ago I shot an all night race and returned home with almost 1700 photos. Quite obviously I'd like to just upload those and sell them without spending days post processing (PP). Needless to say that although that's always my intention the reality is I spend a lot of time PP and after 5 days I finally had 998 photos I think it was. With dark and dust to deal with there was a lot of work.
I finished them just in time to race out last Friday night and shoot an adventure race around the streets of the Brisbane CBD ... 500 more photos and back to the PP for a couple of days.

If I could avoid PP I would. But in the end if I expect people to buy the photos I need to do my best both at the event with my compositions etc and afterwards with any PP I think is necessary.
I do accept some photos as 'good enough' and don't PP them in these cases.

It's a matter of time/effort versus the odds of selling that photo.
Out of 998 photos from the MTB event I've sold about 60 so far and I suspect it won't be a lot more than that. That doesn't sound like much but it's actually the most I've ever heard of selling at such an event in this area and it's certainly well above my previous efforts.
The sad thing is that event represented about 60 hours of work all up and the financial return isn't enough to cover that. However, we also put in flyers and business cards into the competitors racepacks and the commentator speils on about us from time to time during the race also so it's an advertising opportunity as well.
In the end though when I write an article and supply photos of a few events for a national mtb magazine over here I can get a similar financial return for far less work. Although I still had to be there to take the photos.
So getting back to PP ... it's hard to decide how much is warranted sometimes.

[Iguanasan]

When I go through (on average) 1000+ images after a wedding, the less I have to do the better.

What I find interesting (and maybe a little off topic) is the quantity of photos that people take these days. Please don't take this as a criticism as it's only meant as an observation. I notice that most people shooting a wedding are taking 1000-3000 shots whenever I hear wedding photographers talk about their work.

When I hired a photographer to do my wedding 19 years ago (and yes, this dates me a bit) he had a planned shooting schedule and shot exactly 60 shots on his medium format camera. There was one where he had the chauffeur hold the flash and it was not positioned correctly, however, the other 59 came out perfectly. No closed eyes. Exposure was perfect.

Again, no point really... just an observation...

[Mad Aussie]

It stunned me that Richard took 1000+ for a wedding and apparently that's common practice.
At an event like an MTB event I'm trying to get a shot of all the riders ... 300 - 500, some of whom are in teams and might not ride more than once every 2 hours or so. It becomes necessary to shoot a lot of photos to get everyone.

I'm sure your wedding photographer still had some post processing to do IG

[kat]

It' s funny. When I first got my camera and started taking photos I was one of those people who really stood by the fact that the photo isn't great unless it came out that way with no pp.

I've found that the more I take..the more I realize that in most cases..that isn't going to happen. Ha ha..now that may be because of the photographer :P but I can take a shot a million different ways and it seems there is always that one thing.

I also have feelings about too much pp. I'm not one for adding an element that wasn't originally in the photo. I guess the basics I'm all for. Unless it's for artistic value..but then I still think it's not the photo but an image created from a photo...

[Mad Aussie]

It' s funny. When I first got my camera and started taking photos I was one of those people who really stood by the fact that the photo isn't great unless it came out that way with no pp.

I've found that the more I take..the more I realize that in most cases..that isn't going to happen. Ha ha..now that may be because of the photographer :P but I can take a shot a million different ways and it seems there is always that one thing.

I also have feelings about too much pp. I'm not one for adding an element that wasn't originally in the photo. I guess the basics I'm all for. Unless it's for artistic value..but then I still think it's not the photo but an image created from a photo...
Yep, I'm the same. A photo remains a photo for me if no 'photoshop' elements etc are added that weren't there. As you say, it becomes an image for me if that's done. I enjoy both and create images sometimes just because I'm bored or feeling creative or have a 'nothing' photo I wouldn't otherwise use.

Digital demands more PP than other, non digital formats I think. The digital camerta's inability to handle a wide range of dynamic range (about 6-8 stops I think for most decent DSLR's) pretty much means there will be something that can be improved in the photo and not the fault of the photographer.