post processing

thebaz

I assume most of you use photoshop for your post processing , i've only started myself , learning photoshop , but use picasa !
Just wondering do you think too much post processing is cheating as such ?
I suppose its a bit like computers in music , i prefer a natural organic sound in comparison to a synthesiser ?
Does anyone not use any post processing , and just rely on what was captured by the camera ?

does a good photographer have to have ps skills or should he/she be able to take shots requiring very limited post processing?

The array of features available to tweak a picture in ps astounds me , even with picasa a lot can be done !

5uspect

Oh you're going to start a big debate here!
Well the file the camera gives you is just a RAW file converted to JPEG using the default settings and you have no creative control over this. So if you do go into photoshop and do correction to your picture there generally isn't too much wrong with that IMHO. However if you decide to clone in additional information etc then things start to get grey. Take for example that Lebanese guy recently with his war shots. Burning and dodging are generally acceptable but more devious stuff can be seen as cheating.

Fajitas!

"does a good photographer have to have ps skills or should he/she be able to take shots requiring very limited post processing?"

Good post processing skills complement a good photographer.

No amount of post processing can make a bad photographer good...

Too much processing? I think when the processing is the 'focus' of the image it's too much.

mikedragon32

I don't use photoshop.

I have editing software alright, and use it for the most basic functions of cropping, resizing and/or perhaps changing it from colour to B&W.

I don't view those who use PS as cheating, I just have neither the inclination to learn the skills or the need. The pictures I take are primarily for my enjoyment and I figure if I take 100 pics and one comes out exceptionally well, then I have one good pic. No worries!

I do admire those who post well worked images here that underwent treatment in PS. It's a skill in itself.

Ruu_Old

I use Photoshop, a great deal of the time too much when I should just be happy with the shots I have. That is something I have to learn to deal with.

Fionn

Photoshop is considered by most people to be the best image processing application available today. There are other programs too such as the Gimp (open source), Corel Paintshop Pro Photo (which I’ve seen on some new PCs) which are pretty up to the job for most tasks and like Photoshop, can achieve some amazing results.

I think as far as digital photography is concerned that post processing is essential, how much should this processing be applied? in my opinion is up to the photographer. As has been mentioned for RAW format theres a need obviously for processing, even at that there is processing going on inside the camera anyway


The way I see it, the photographer makes a photograph others take pictures I would say use whatever you can to achieve the image you want to create. But really it's what your happy with yourself!!

Oh and by the way don’t think processing is a new thing as can be seen here
Photohistory

elven

Fajitas! wrote:

Good post processing skills complement a good photographer.

No amount of post processing can make a bad photographer good...

I concur, doctor. The minute you try to manipulate something that's technically poor, the holes start to show. There's a pretty small margin for 'rescuing' I think - unfortunately for me

Sometimes it's difficult to know when to stop, when you've been working on something for an hour, you get too focused in on the details and sometimes have to stop, and step back, to figure out if you're doing it for the sake of doing it.

There are also two (well infinitely more than two but I'm going to focus on these particular) ways of looking at it like you're trying to represent what's in front of you as realistically as possible - or - you are trying to interpret what you saw and put across a mood or a feeling. That requires a different approach to processing.

Sometimes you want to produce something that's the other side of reality - you have to push the light, or the colours, to put across the atmosphere you're trying to create.

I was thinking about it on the way home tonight, actually - about how I feel so much more like I'm creating something when it isn't over after I've pressed the shutter. Shooting slide film was very frustrating that way - but ironically a lot of the processing I do is to recreate the luminous effects of slide film - it's just nice to be able to do it locally in a scene rather than overall, save highlights here but blow them out there, deepen shadows in a particular area, soften and sharpen as desired. That's where the control is really good fun.

I like how we have a good balance of approaches to processing here. It saves us getting caught up in 'fashions' of photoshoppery, I think.

It's nice to try and bring something else to the discussion about pp actually, instead of just pointing to the last thread, or saying "you should!" "No, you shouldn't!"... I hope maybe in this thread we can change the way it usually goes... Vive la revolution!

Valentia

I'm not going to say a word...........;)

elven

Oh this actually reminds me of something that happened at christmas. i was showing some prints to the in-laws and in particular, this one:


and they oohed and aahed and said, wow, was the tree really that colour?

At this point I had to share that I had processed it to push the colours and the glowyness, and got a particularly lukewarm response, exactly as if they'd found out their 9 year old daughter had used a calculator to do a times-table... and I looked like a fake. It really pi$$ed me off, I tell ye, and I toiled with it in my head for weeks afterwards.

But is that a reason not to 'shop?

I dunno, but I haven't stopped yet...

JMcL

I use PS occasionally, mainly to clone out dust spots, and to merge bracketed shots, some dodging/burning for vignetting, clone out wires etc

I do all of my processing in Lightroom (and before I had a PC that could run that, Rawshooter), which gets me 99% of constrast/saturation adjustments.

Is it cheating? It depends. In the case of news reportage, I don't think that anything should be added to or subtracted from the image (other than dust bunnies though I guess) - to do so is a lie. If, however, your goal is to produce an image that's pleasing (or disturbing as the case may be), then fire away, just know where to stop. I think Fajitas! has it pretty much spot on

sineadw

Hmmm... Apart from the last lot I got done up I usually get my film processed onto paper (I like having an actual object to look at), so the hassle of scanning them all in puts me off. I'm only learning all this, so I'm trying to concentrate on one thing at a time (although its not working out nearly as linear as I'd thought ) At the moment that's framing and composition. I'm trying to get the image right in the viewfinder. Its a different story with film, for me anyway, in that the period of time between the shot being taken and the result being seen is much longer. Post processing feels like a completely different and separate stage rather than the more organic follow-through I think I'd get with digital. Does that make sense?

At some stage when I feel more confident with my shots I'd like to get into developing my own stuff. Kinda the same as photoshopping I'd say - you can change an image completely in a darkroom - so I'd have to say a resounding No to the cheating question. Even if there were no parallels, digital is a new medium and I think the post processing can be an integral part. Its a tool to create an artistic image. With photojournalism I agree there would have to be lines drawn though.

PS is HUGE. I've been working with it for about 8 or so years and I STILL find bits I don't know. Lots of bits. The photography side of it is all new to me, coming more from a graphics background. Personally I'm gonna learn to walk before I try to run and work on the bit before the click, and tackle post-processing when I'm able to produce high-quality images. As has been said, you can't make a bad picture good with it.

thebaz

one of the reasons i voted for "lonliness" , was that it looked so real; when stuff is over-photoshopped , it can have a plasticy unrealistic glow , well to my untrained eye, anyway . As i learn ps ,i wonder am i learning something that may make my photographs less real looking , (or possibly a lazzy excuse ). Also i don't want to become like Ruu , over working each image , striking for perfection, when perfection is impossibe ....

magicbastarder

elven wrote:

At this point I had to share that I had processed it to push the colours and the glowyness, and got a particularly lukewarm response, exactly as if they'd found out their 9 year old daughter had used a calculator to do a times-table... and I looked like a fake. It really pi$$ed me off, I tell ye, and I toiled with it in my head for weeks afterwards.

well, i think people will react more negatively to something which doesn't look obviously processed - possibly because the image might seem to be purporting to be reality, when it's not.

elven

I kind of know what you mean, but - in that case, it would seem that in order to get around that you either need to go over the top with your processing, or have a sticker on them all that says "PHOTOSHOPPED"...

Or, stop showing your stuff to family members.

Does anyone else just not bother showing friends and family their pictures because they just don't get it? Was looking through my Charleville set with a work colleague last week and it was all very "what on earth did you take a picture of that, for?" ...do you even try to explain?

magicbastarder

it's not so much when i'm showing the pics that i get that, more when i'm taking them...

sineadw

elven wrote:

do you even try to explain?

I was told the other night my band shots were 'just pictures of a dirty guitar'.

I have officially given up. Most people I know just want snaps. I usually keep myself to myself (apart from here).

Ruu_Old

thebaz wrote:

one of the reasons i voted for "lonliness" , was that it looked so real; when stuff is over-photoshopped , it can have a plasticy unrealistic glow , well to my untrained eye, anyway . As i learn ps ,i wonder am i learning something that may make my photographs less real looking , (or possibly a lazzy excuse ). Also i don't want to become like Ruu , over working each image , striking for perfection, when perfection is impossibe ....

Whoa there every image! I don't strike for perfection, I do strive to make improvement (who doesn't?!)and sometimes a poor judge on that. I'm learning to leave things be and using minimal PS work though.

thebaz

Ruu wrote:

I'm learning to leave things be and using minimal PS work though.

Thats what i'll strive for, but now that i'm learning ps , theres so much there to learn , i wonder will i go down the perfection route , and then just get frustrated and it would all become a chore . Count yourself lucky though your not starting from scratch learning it :mad:

magicbastarder

sineadw wrote:

I was told the other night my band shots were 'just pictures of a dirty guitar'.

I have officially given up. Most people I know just want snaps. I usually keep myself to myself (apart from here).

why bother listening to people with a different aesthetic to you?
your hobby should be for your enjoyment, not theirs. i'm not saying that feedback is not valuable, but don't take photos for other people, take them for yourself.

Xios

magicbastarder wrote:

why bother listening to people with a different aesthetic to you?
your hobby should be for your enjoyment, not theirs. i'm not saying that feedback is not valuable, but don't take photos for other people, take them for yourself.

Em, unless you want money....

Other than that, no comment.

Xios

Actually, who says post processing is a bad thing, this is a good example, http://www.render.ru/tmp/gallery/1133531714292746_3.jpg