Should we PP our photos?

[JK6065]

Viewed from a mere technical point of view: In photography you process a bunch of light that's passing through your lens into a picture that you can hang on you wall for instance. Post processing itself can be explained in different ways. Most commonly it's referred to as the adjustment you do after the the shutter closed, but basically that's a little part of the processing I mentioned in the first place.

When you adjust your aperture you change what the final image will look like. If you do an adjustment in post processing, lets say in photoshop for the digital photography, your adjustment might be very likewise but in a different stage in the process.

For me it is very important to get the shot as good as possible when capturing. Not at all because post-processing would be wrong, as some people might claim, but because of the experience that for every step in the processes from light to a print on the wall there's an optimal moment to take care of a certain part.
To put that in context: You've to take care of the composition when shooting, because there isn't barely anything you can do about it when post processing. Contrary to that I use quite some colour filters when converting my shots to black and white. Simply because It's way easier to do in post processing I apply the filters in processing instead of carrying a bunch of colour filters with me when shooting en screw them on at the moment I take the capture.

Besides that, people who think a jpeg from their camera is un-processed and they don't apply any post processing on their computers because they are 'purists' are just foolish. They certainly do not have a clue what's going in in their camera.

[krispix]

If you look through your viewfinder and find yourself saying, "Never mind, I can fix that in Photoshop." You should step away from the camera and give yourself a hard slap. Then go back and re-position, re-compose, or whatever you need to do to avoid that PP fix.

My view is that PP is to tweak images and to get out of them any hidden detail, in much the same way as we old-timers would have done with enlargers, dodging and burning, and chemical processes. Retouching was something we did with very small brushes and very sharp knives - it was a pain in the proverbial and we only did it when necessary. Occasionally we want to do a trick, like Colin's helicopter and sometimes the only resurrection for an image is to paste a better sky in, and that's fine. But, we should never look at PP as the means to rescue a poorly exposed/composed original.

BTW. Why are you guys so worried about the AB/Canada clash. England's going to thrash you all anyway!

[melitonrotea]

Erik,

I'm Sonny and I've just joined this forum. I also teach photography and I think that PP should be used to a minimum. The danger of losing the discipline of trying to capture the best possible image in camera and relying on PP is very real, especially for new practitioners of photography. It is an easy way out for sloppy camera work.

[MiniChris]

Erik,

I'm Sonny and I've just joined this forum. I also teach photography and I think that PP should be used to a minimum. The danger of losing the discipline of trying to capture the best possible image in camera and relying on PP is very real, especially for new practitioners of photography. It is an easy way out for sloppy camera work.

Also as a photo teacher, I start all my students off in pinhiole, then alternative using 4x5 camera formats, then they get to migrate to 35/med. format for a minimum of one full year before they ever touch a digital for exactly all the reasons stated above. I have one simple action setup my students use for their PP and that's all they are allowed to do. Ninanative's work is a good example of how well this foundation design works for my students.

[accystan]

Hi Erik: A fascinating question. One that's been asked many times but is still interesting.

I haven't read all the posts but Dave Humphries said it all in the first response. I don't think for a moment the Ansel Adams hiked up a mountain to shoot a pic. and then didn't adjust the print somewhat. It's just that he did it in a darkroom and got wet.

I think it somewhat depends upon whether you see yourself as an artist or as a recorder of exactly what was in front of the lens. I'd have a problem with a photojouralist adding or removing corpses in Photoshop from a shot taken in a war zone when he/she was purporting to convey the facts and the reality of a situation.

Many artists (I'm thinking painters here, but it applies to others) when creating a watercolour or acrylic painting of a scene would remove an aesthically offending garbage can - is that cheating? Some, who feel a landscape needs a tree here or there will paint one in where none exists - is that cheating?

Following on from that - is a sin of commission worse than a sin of omission? Is it more wrong to photoshop someone into a picture vs. photoshopping someone out of a photo? I suspect that (for e.g.) more separated spouses would be in favour of deleting an 'ex' from a pic. than would be comfortable pasting someone into a photo.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Dave D

[cichlid]

Wow, 2 pages of responses.
Thank you all very much for your posts.

In the end, I will continue to strive for the best shot possible in camera. I admit that photos that I intend to print, I do edit as required.

Erik

[rpcrowe]

Reading the forum here I see lots of talk of Photoshop-ing the photo to fix all kinds of stuff. Are we at risk of losing photographic skill? Should we not keep on adjusting our settings in order to get the Perfect shot?

I am sure that no one familiar with photography will ever accuse Ansel Adams of "losing photographic skill?" His images are mind boggling but, they did not come straight from the camera and he did not just "keep on adjusting... settings in order to get the perfect shot".

Of course, Adams exposed for the "perfect shot" but, that was not the end of his technique but, rather the beginning. He would individually process each sheet of film, adjusting development to get the very best out of the negative. After the negative was processed, Ansel would spend literally hours in the darkroom manipulating each image until the print was exactly how he wanted it.

Except that we don't have to stand in front of trays of smelly chemicals in the dark or near dark, IMO, there is not a lot of difference between the manipulation that Adams did to achieve his final print and the digital photographer manipulating images in Photoshop.

[FrankMi]

In the end, I will continue to strive for the best shot possible in camera. I admit that photos that I intend to print, I do edit as required.

Hi Erik, it appears that the consensus to the question is yes. To get the best out of any image, some post processing may be required. Just how much is a personal decision based on your skill and goals for the image at hand.