DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is post-processing really needed?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 88, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/08/2005 09:41:02 AM · #1
After taking a picture, I wonder if some people are trying to avoid post-processing as far as possible. When I look at some pictures (with a lot of post processing), I am not sure what to think, most of the times, the pictures look very nice, but on the other hand, it seems quite 'fake'. I might be quite reluctant with this concept of post-processing. I am just not really sure yet. I guess it is just a matter of taste.

Let me know.

Thanks
12/08/2005 09:47:05 AM · #2
Our eyes normally take the best photos the world can ever offer, but technology as it is today doesn't show what we see through our eyes. So a lot of people, in my opinion enhance these photos to match the picture they've created in their own realm of reality.
It just helps out to clear those imperfection in today's perfectionist society.
Although I do admit, too much post processing done, and the very obvious ones look rather tasteless. Generally speaking in most cases though.

Editted: grammar and silly mistakes.

Message edited by author 2005-12-08 10:06:46.
12/08/2005 09:54:02 AM · #3
How about if example answers this question:
and

The first image is straight from the camera, the second has been processed. My answer to your question, especially with digital cameras, is yes. Granted some images require less (almost none sometimes) processing than others.

Note: For some reason the colors on the processed image uploaded to DPC aren't as nice than when I see it on my local drive.
12/08/2005 10:03:00 AM · #4
Is this "quite fake?"



This image has about 10 seconds of post processing done on the eyes. That's it. A tiny burn/dodge and I was done. Oh and I sharpened it after I resized. That's it. :)

M
12/08/2005 10:08:39 AM · #5
As someone who works in a photo mini lab, I have to laugh at the "purists" who insist that we should do no post processing.

Do you have ANY idea how much post work actually goes into your 35mm film shots? The lab tech (if they have clue) makes decisions on color and density. Your shots look so great "out of camera" because a trained lab monkey put in time and effort. :) (I use lab monkey as a term of affection btw).

Some level of processing on any image is needed to bring the photographer's vision to fruition. Because photography is an art form, there's room for everything from impressionism, to photojournalistic reality.

Just something to consider. :)
12/08/2005 10:08:52 AM · #6
But I think that is more a matter of how the picture was taken. The first picture is too bright (maybe due to a slight overexposition). I think that it could have been corrected using different properties of your camera (maybe enhance a little bit the contrast and hue saturation). I wonder what people who used to shot with film camera think? It might be interesting.

I agree the second picture look much nicer, but the post-processing might not have been necessary if changind some setting of the camera.

Thanks for sharing

Max
12/08/2005 10:40:45 AM · #7
By changing the settings in camera then you are actually processing the image there rather than in an editing program where you would generally have more control.

Processing is processing whether in camera or not. The in camera processing only works if you shoot jpeg. I don't. The RAW converter does a much better job than the jpeg processor in the camera does and I can keep all the captured information by using 16 bits/channel.

I have shot film and still do once in a while. The lab always does some processing. Try asking the lab to process as is if you don't want the tech to adjust anything. Better yet, have a set of prints done the way they normally do and as is, then compare.
12/08/2005 10:49:00 AM · #8
If the viewer can notice it's effects the photographer's post processing has failed.

That's how a "purist" thinks. Acheiving a perfect picture without doing any post processing is a rare thing indeed, but it is what all of us should be striving for in every shot. Post processing is a necessary evil to make up for our shortcomings as a photographer, and for those of our equipment. With the abilities that modern software brings to digital images, it is very, very easy to get seduced into depending on post processing and neglecting to do the best you possibly can with your camera and your skill.
12/08/2005 10:54:13 AM · #9
What is considered post processing?

The hue/contrast/sharpening adjustments done in camera?
These same adjustments done in RAW conversion?
These same adjustments done in a program like photoshop?

;o)
12/08/2005 10:56:32 AM · #10
Originally posted by coolhar:

If the viewer can notice it's effects the photographer's post processing has failed.


In that case there are about a million and a half failed images here at DPC.

Man....that's not good...we'd better rethink things.
12/08/2005 10:58:46 AM · #11
Originally posted by coolhar:

If the viewer can notice it's effects the photographer's post processing has failed.


But then wouldn't people "notice the effects" in my shot? I boosted in cam saturation and contrast - and the rest is lighting. The same effect could be achieved by taking a darker version and blowing it out. Why is it better if I do it in camera rather than in PP.

Message edited by author 2005-12-08 10:58:57.
12/08/2005 11:00:12 AM · #12
When will people ever get out of the mindset that post-processing is *only* to rescue a failed image and finally understand that post-processing is a useful tool to *enhance* an image and make it have even more impact than it would have straight from the camera? The "purists" have pretty flawed thinking if they think all processing programs are good for is for salvage.

le sigh
12/08/2005 11:02:47 AM · #13

My latest failure....and I have a porfolio full of them. ;)


This a simple image that I shot with this PP in mind. Noticable but IMHO, it makes the image (desturation and selective red and green enhancement, light USM after sizing)...no great shakes..but I think the effect works and is the first test image, of how I might slide my PP style. Good for NYC lighting and architecture....does anybody agree BTW?

Message edited by author 2005-12-08 11:10:40.
12/08/2005 11:03:51 AM · #14
Originally posted by laurielblack:

When will people ever get out of the mindset that post-processing is *only* to rescue a failed image and finally understand that post-processing is a useful tool to *enhance* an image and make it have even more impact than it would have straight from the camera? The "purists" have pretty flawed thinking if they think all processing programs are good for is for salvage.

le sigh


Well said, Laurie! In fact, even the best software can't revive a truly bad shot, but can beautifully enhance a good one.
12/08/2005 11:04:23 AM · #15
Very true Laurie!
12/08/2005 11:07:14 AM · #16
General rule of thumb:

Get the best shot you can out of the camera then use post processing to bring out the vision you saw when you snapped the shutter.

Vision after the fact:

Sometimes we don't see things until we get the image in the computer and we get other ideas of what the image can become and go from there. This can be a lot of fun.

Message edited by author 2005-12-08 11:07:40.
12/08/2005 11:10:36 AM · #17
It depends what you get from your photography.
If it's simply to test yourself to get better, and not show it to anyone else, by all means try to be a purist.
But if you have an image in your mind and want others to see it, use every tool at your disposal. That's all post processing is, another tool, just like darkroom "magicians" used on film.
12/08/2005 11:13:28 AM · #18
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

General rule of thumb:

Get the best shot you can out of the camera then use post processing to bring out the vision you saw when you snapped the shutter.

Vision after the fact:

Sometimes we don't see things until we get the image in the computer and we get other ideas of what the image can become and go from there. This can be a lot of fun.


Post processing can be used as a learning tool as well. If you find yourself doing the same thing to all your images then try and think if there's anything you can do to improve the images coming out of the camera. There isn't always something but getting yourself to think about it will help in the long run.
12/08/2005 11:15:29 AM · #19
Originally posted by blemt:

As someone who works in a photo mini lab, I have to laugh at the "purists" who insist that we should do no post processing.


I don't quite laugh, but I do have to shake my head at such flawed logic. This "purist" argument only came to fruition recently with the advent of digital technology. In fact there was no such thing as "out of the box" UNTIL the digital camera, for the last 150 years everything has been chemically post-processed out of neccessity for developing ANY photograph.

For example, look at most Ansel Adams landscapes. He used a combination of a very intricate metering process and post-processing to come up with his dramatic landscapes. Heaven forbid if he was around today, because these 'purists' would rip him to shreds out of their own ignorance.

Photography is a lot of things. It's a means of journalism and documentation. It's a mean for artistic expression. Or mirroring what you see or want your viewers to see. And every photographer freely chooses what path they want to take.

12/08/2005 11:23:31 AM · #20
Point and shoot digital cameras, in general, are set up at the factory to produce pics that need very little or no post processing at all. On the other side, if you read Canon and Nikon websites about their digital image processors, they tell you that from the factory the cameras are set up to take pictures a little on the 'flat' side because you are EXPECTED to post process them (just as a lab would).
12/08/2005 11:26:13 AM · #21
Originally posted by Alienyst:

Point and shoot digital cameras, in general, are set up at the factory to produce pics that need very little or no post processing at all. On the other side, if you read Canon and Nikon websites about their digital image processors, they tell you that from the factory the cameras are set up to take pictures a little on the 'flat' side because you are EXPECTED to post process them (just as a lab would).


YES! This is so true! I only learned that recently, but when I heard the entrie explanation of "why" it made perfect sense. It gives us much more control over the final product.
12/08/2005 11:56:00 AM · #22
Originally posted by laurielblack:

When will people ever get out of the mindset that post-processing is *only* to rescue a failed image and finally understand that post-processing is a useful tool to *enhance* an image and make it have even more impact than it would have straight from the camera? The "purists" have pretty flawed thinking if they think all processing programs are good for is for salvage.

le sigh

Maybe when people start to acknowledge that there is a difference between photography and art. In reality, the purists are the ones who have the least flawed thinking.
12/08/2005 11:58:26 AM · #23
Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by laurielblack:

When will people ever get out of the mindset that post-processing is *only* to rescue a failed image and finally understand that post-processing is a useful tool to *enhance* an image and make it have even more impact than it would have straight from the camera? The "purists" have pretty flawed thinking if they think all processing programs are good for is for salvage.

le sigh

Maybe when people start to acknowledge that there is a difference between photography and art. In reality, the purists are the ones who have the least flawed thinking.


Uhm? huh? Photography IS an art!
12/08/2005 12:00:57 PM · #24
If you shoot RAW then you have no choice really - it's the cost of the flexibility and possibly higher quality. If you shoot JPG then you can make most SLR's approximate the P&S cameras that need little in the way of post.

Post is a progressive scale and people have different lines to what is over done to them. As somebody already implied, people have a different perception of "true” colour/exposure e.t.c. then the camera captures in large part because of the brain filter in affect (I have little doubt the hardware is closer in most cases to reality – something I learnt the hard way from video stuff I did years ago; can you say what colour cast with a straight face when everything is yellow).

I know all print film has been manipulated in the lab so I am under no illusions (although there is a reason a lot of people shot slide rather than print film after the 70’s).

What bothers me a bit is the let down feeling I sometimes get when I see the pre-post version of some of the amazing photos posted here. I am not so much talking about the flat/un-sharp effect which is part of the nature of the digital capture but the more effective techniques that change the photo dramatically (yeah I know Adams did a lot of playing with the chemicals but so what, he was not the average Joe Photg and I would expect the fine art types to use PS heavily now).
12/08/2005 12:08:07 PM · #25
Originally posted by sestevens:

Originally posted by blemt:

As someone who works in a photo mini lab, I have to laugh at the "purists" who insist that we should do no post processing.


... these 'purists' would rip him to shreds out of their own ignorance.

Is it necessary to label a person as ignorant, or to laugh at them, just because they have a different approach to their photography than you do? or have a different philosophy about it? Doesn't help much if we are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:37:53 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 10:37:53 AM EDT.