Post Processing

[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...
Nice debating Tegan & Travis!!

[tegan]

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!

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...
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...

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/catalo...mages/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.