| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2013 01:05:30 AM · #1 |
It's important. I'll try to remember to pop back in in a week or so and show you how important it is. :D
This week's entry really did rely on subtle processing to make it work at all - thank goodness for topaz remask and capture one.
ETA:
Here's a good example from a while back.
This is a brown garden snail. I was screwing around with a flash, and just got a nice shot of a very boring snail.
Original
Processed
A bit of careful processing brought that silly little snail up to a 6.7 and 11th place finish in a freestudy.. Not bad really.
Here's another, no idea how it would have scored, but this was an image I helped Denielle with a while back. You can read the thread here.
Original
Processed
Message edited by author 2013-06-24 01:29:19. |
|
|
|
06/23/2013 08:27:31 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by jagar:
I was looking through some of my photos from a few years back the other day and it struck me that the editing was incredibly poor, maybe in three years time I'll look back on now and think the same. |
Right on! I look back at previously edited photos and wonder if I was drunk while editing. |
|
|
|
06/23/2013 06:02:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
Mine look crap before editing so for me, yeah it's pretty damn important, capture the shape, form and story, then bring it to life with editing. |
what do you use to process your images? |
I am pretty sure John uses magic. |
Ha, thanks, no magic though, just lightroom, silver efex and color efex, never gotten my head around photoshop, that was maybe a mistake, not sure.
I was looking through some of my photos from a few years back the other day and it struck me that the editing was incredibly poor, maybe in three years time I'll look back on now and think the same. |
|
|
|
06/23/2013 03:46:23 PM · #4 |
| I do minimal editing...mainly because I'm an idiot and don't know photoshop very well and my editing sucks rotten eggs. |
|
|
|
06/22/2013 05:20:31 PM · #5 |
Processing is not my strongest side.
I like to show reality.
But I found that often this doesn't work and that people want to see images which are more impressive and powerful than reality.
I need to learn how to push my process further than what I'm used to and to define the limits between "just right" and "a bit too much" |
|
|
|
06/22/2013 05:12:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by jagar:
Mine look crap before editing so for me, yeah it's pretty damn important, capture the shape, form and story, then bring it to life with editing. |
what do you use to process your images? |
I am pretty sure John uses magic. |
|
|
|
06/22/2013 04:52:21 PM · #7 |
shooting RAW:
exposure, focus, depth of field
to make the camera see what you want it to. get that right, and
post process:
levels, curves, hue/saturation
should make for a good result.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2013 02:43:03 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Mine look crap before editing so for me, yeah it's pretty damn important, capture the shape, form and story, then bring it to life with editing. |
what do you use to process your images?
i know good processing when i see it, and i know my way around LR and photoshop better than many, but i still struggle to get the editing just right without over doing it. I'll often edit and then let them sit for a while and then go back to make sure i wasn't smoking crack when i edited them to begin with.
i look back on my earlier work and i don't know what i was thinking.
Message edited by author 2013-06-22 14:46:25. |
|
|
|
06/22/2013 12:47:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I am a fan of Adams. He started with an excellent image, and his processing was amazing for the time.
Why I like his images, is that they look to me like they way I would want those scenes to look. We have more powerful tools today, and I wonder what he would have done with them. |
I had a chance to visit Adams' studio in Carmel a few years ago, and I asked one of his assistants the same question -- he said Adams would have been all over Photoshop if it had been around ... |
|
|
|
06/22/2013 11:49:39 AM · #10 |
I think the whole process is important. No part is separate from the others.
I am a fan of Adams. He started with an excellent image, and his processing was amazing for the time.
Why I like his images, is that they look to me like they way I would want those scenes to look. We have more powerful tools today, and I wonder what he would have done with them. To me, the best images are like the best makeup. They look like very little has been done, but they are beautiful. The highly process stuff, all to often reminds me of the early days of desktop publishing. People would become so enamored of the power of their computer, they would try to throw almost every font they had, on the same page. The result was usually horrid. The same holds true with some people, and their post processing. I know that I, at least, have been guilty of it, in the past. |
|
|
|
06/21/2013 09:38:04 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
And within a day of posting my new edit I sold a 20x30 canvas of it. May have to find some more older shots to revisit. |
Maybe find some....I don't know what would you call it....hidden gem ?
|
|
|
|
06/21/2013 05:18:03 PM · #12 |
| Mine look crap before editing so for me, yeah it's pretty damn important, capture the shape, form and story, then bring it to life with editing. |
|
|
|
06/21/2013 12:38:06 PM · #13 |
| And within a day of posting my new edit I sold a 20x30 canvas of it. May have to find some more older shots to revisit. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 11:07:46 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by bvy:
You make reality sound sterile and boring. I find it endlessly fascinating. |
I certainly didn't mean to! I think the vast majority of my pictures end up pretty close to what I saw, if not what the sensor was able to capture. I take a lot of macros trying to "see" what's often overlooked. I just don't think there's any one "right" way to make pictures, and I try to use whatever technique seems appropriate for the subject/situation. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 10:13:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Not even close to reality but I love it. |
 Photography is a collection of processes, not a genre in and of itself. Unless you have a strict requirement to "document reality" (e.g. forensic/photojournalistic/scientific, some portraiture and nature photography, etc.) whether your photo resembles "reality" is in reality irrelevant. Saying a photographer "shouldn't post-process" is like telling a painter to not use impressionism, cubism, pointillism, or any of the other various techniques used to communicate their artistic vision.
Some pictures "need" a heavy dose of PP, and some need none at all ... I think it's always good to learn how to use those tools, and then hope to have (or develop) the wisdom and judgement to know whether or not to ... |
You make reality sound sterile and boring. I find it endlessly fascinating. But then again, I have the strict requirement that you speak of. As for processing, I have no desire to post-process beyond very basic corrections -- exposure, color balance, etc., always global, always in the RAW editor. If I've taken a picture that "needs" a big dose of PP, then I've done something wrong.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2013 10:08:13 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Oh I have no desire to capture reality, I'd much rather create something than document something. Still working on it :) |
Nice statement!
I am the opposite, and that's what brings balance |
I try to do whichever is appropriate under the circumstances, perhaps why I have no "style" ... ;-) |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:39:49 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Oh I have no desire to capture reality, I'd much rather create something than document something. Still working on it :) |
Nice statement!
I am the opposite, and that's what brings balance
|
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:36:19 PM · #18 |
| Oh I have no desire to capture reality, I'd much rather create something than document something. Still working on it :) |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:33:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by MinsoPhoto:
Not even close to reality but I love it. |
Photography is a collection of processes, not a genre in and of itself. Unless you have a strict requirement to "document reality" (e.g. forensic/photojournalistic/scientific, some portraiture and nature photography, etc.) whether your photo resembles "reality" is in reality irrelevant. Saying a photographer "shouldn't post-process" is like telling a painter to not use impressionism, cubism, pointillism, or any of the other various techniques used to communicate their artistic vision.
Some pictures "need" a heavy dose of PP, and some need none at all ... I think it's always good to learn how to use those tools, and then hope to have (or develop) the wisdom and judgement to know whether or not to ...
Message edited by author 2013-06-20 21:34:51. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:31:10 PM · #20 |
Here's my classic before-and-after. Extensive notes in the comments section of the "after".
From this:  to this: 
Note that the image-as-shot was specifically intended as the "score" for the "performance" to follow, as per Ansel, and the image-as-presented exactly matches my previsualization at the time of exposure.
Message edited by author 2013-06-20 21:58:45. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:28:07 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
to ask a question in response, how important is any part of the photographic process? I think processing varies to various degrees depending on the photographer. Some actually send their photos to labs that process them on their behalf.
Improving all aspects of your technique is generally going to improve your work as a whole, processing included. The level of emphasis you put on any one aspect will in turn help develop your own vision and style.
Thats what i think anyways. |
Very well stated. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 09:03:56 PM · #22 |
Another example, this is really taking it a bit far but the response has been pretty good. Not even close to reality but I love it.
Before
After
 |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 08:12:11 PM · #23 |
to ask a question in response, how important is any part of the photographic process? I think processing varies to various degrees depending on the photographer. Some actually send their photos to labs that process them on their behalf.
Improving all aspects of your technique is generally going to improve your work as a whole, processing included. The level of emphasis you put on any one aspect will in turn help develop your own vision and style.
Thats what i think anyways.
Message edited by author 2013-06-20 20:42:19. |
|
|
|
06/20/2013 06:18:02 PM · #24 |
After the shutter click, film certainly needs considerable post processing -- typically first to convert the latent image in the exposed emulsion into a negative and then to convert the negative into a positive print. Both steps can require quite a bit of judgment and expertise. But both steps can be delegated to others in commercial labs, where the steps are less visible but still exist. The range of actions personally involving the photographer range from using an external service to do the work (drugstore or mail order lab) all the way to doing it all personally in a darkroom and adding additional steps such as cropping, dodging, burning, and combining images.
Seems just like the digital world, where much processing after the shutter click can be accepted at the default raw conversion routines and jpg settings of the camera maker, or limited processing can be done by the photographer based on various camera settings, or raw files can be converted using a whole range of raw converter software settings and additional steps can be added via image processing software such as cropping, straightening, adjusting color balance, merging different exposures in HDR, focus stacking, compositing, and the like.
Both in film and in digital we have no such thing as “no” post processing, just variations on how much and how accomplished.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2013 05:26:02 PM · #25 |
Sometimes I like a salad with raw vegetables :)
I loved to HDR everything
focus stack
composites
I used to spend hours post processing and in the end produce blah results
Today I still enjoy it, but I'm way more selective, I may discard a large number of images when I feel the PP is not really going to help
Message edited by author 2013-06-20 17:26:22.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:17:45 PM EDT.
