Post Processing

[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 :

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'
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

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 :

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! 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!