Why so much Post Production?

[Daisy Mae]

II hereby introduce the term "Pre-production" . . (just kidding, there's enough obfuscation in this game already).

[AB26]

How about Post Production Art?

[AB26]

Hi ,
Again I wish to thank everybody for spending time, contributing to this thread. It is great to see so many members responding with so many different perspectives and opinions.

Don’t think I have implicated an objection to all PP in my post. What makes me wonder about PP is when it is being promoted as the only resolution to producing good images.
What really upsets me is when manipulated photographs are called “real photography”. It happened some time ago that I received an e-Mail with manipulated photographs attached. The sender’s opinion “Now that is Photography” Make no mistake the images were amazing, but in my opinion it should not be called Photography, rather Computer Art. Although photographs have been used in the manipulated images, I don’t think it is the raw guts of Photography.

I have to agree with Richard, I am not a competent Photographer, that is why I joined CiC,
“a learning community for Photographers”.
Yes William the point is the amount or degree of “manipulation” to be used, how much is too much?
Thanks Dave, you understand my point.
Alex, what you say make cense.
Yep Scott, would you pay so much for “The Scream”?
Trevor, I do not see myself as a purist, I just don’t like manipulated photographs to be called Photography, rather call it Post Photographic Art.
Colin, that is what I call Post Photographic Art. Are you keeping her on ice until you get your
new Can(n)on?
No Lennart, you assume that I assume the eye is a camera. Agree with you, the eye does not see, the brain translates reflected light into images. Think that is why cameras have a thing called white balance, to tweak the camera to reproduce colour as accurately as possible to what the brain has interpreted in the scène.

I may be wrong doing so, but I will keep measuring my own ability to capture images to the degree I need to adjust them on a computer. Never will I measure my ability as photographer against the work of others, that is a seed of envy and jealousy. I’d rather admire the work of others and strive to perfect my own technique.
Thanks again for all the input, I have learned more than any of you will ever know.

Here is an image I captured late this afternoon, SOOC, how much PP is needed?


CiC019.jpg (70.8 KB)

[rtbaum]

Excellent example; composition is pretty good, nice contrasts, interesting lighting. Just imagine how it would pop with some sharpening

[arith]

The flower looks a bit dark dear; bit this is SOOC



and there is no point telling me about how bad it is; I already know how good it is.

By your rules you give, no PP, either you wait until some drunk takes a fancy to your camera or you don't take the photo. Most of the time either auto works or you don't take a photo.

[MajaMolly]

Why so much PP? For me, simply because it is fun.

[AB26]

Excellent example; composition is pretty good, nice contrasts, interesting lighting. Just imagine how it would pop with some sharpening

Thanks Randy,
I messed up the sharpness hand held at 1/30sec and not enough support.

[AB26]

The flower looks a bit dark dear; bit this is SOOC



and there is no point telling me about how bad it is; I already know how good it is.

By your rules you give, no PP, either you wait until some drunk takes a fancy to your camera or you don't take the photo. Most of the time either auto works or you don't take a photo.

Sorry Steve, you need to go back to Photoshop, a little blown out in the top left corner (see your histogram)

[William W]

Don’t think I have implicated an objection to all PP in my post.

You did not.

***

What makes me wonder about PP is when it is being promoted as the only resolution to producing good images.

I did not understand that to be the thrust of your OP, but now that you mention this particular issue: it is my firm belief that this is a widely held view but not a conscious movement but rather it is as a result of the means fit the end.

In 2003ish, I wrote a paper on exactly this point, this paper was as an annexure to a submission on Art Curriculum in High School.

A (very short) two point synopsis of the Premises for the Hypothesis, in that paper is: –

1. Photography is now learnt back to front – every newbie is already computer literate, so the camera is
the ‘image grabber’ and the computer is the ‘image maker’

2. Photography is now ‘images on a screen’ – i.e. not Prints.

***

Yes . . . the point is the amount or degree of “manipulation” to be used, how much is too much?

I understood all along, this to be one of your points.

I believe that a most relevant question to ask is: ‘the point is what is the purpose of the “manipulation”; and why is it used?”

***

I may be wrong doing so, but I will keep measuring my own ability to capture images to the degree I need to adjust them on a computer.

That is one method of learning. It will work for you if you use it wisely.

***

Never will I measure my ability as photographer against the work of others, that is a seed of envy and jealousy. I’d rather admire the work of others and strive to perfect my own technique.

There are lots of traps there.

Although appearing an honourable position - it is foolish.

Photography and the ability ‘at it’ can be measured many ways. In simple terms we could separate the technical and the artistic. Mostly all Art Work can be cordoned into those two arenas. Don’t be fooled that great Artists were not (rigorously) trained in the Technical. (And the Theory.)

Measurement of one’s own abilities by critique, contrast and comparison to other’s work is not any seed of envy and jealousy.

But rather, coveting the fact that ANOTHER person MADE a good work is the seed of evil – and there is a very distinct difference between those two processes, of one’s mind.

***

Here is an image I captured late this afternoon, SOOC, how much PP is needed?

Sharpening will assist mostly all SOOC digital images. That is just a technical fact.

I might be wrong in my interpretation of the low res file you supplied BUT . . . Sharpening will not assist (though skilled sharpening will reduce the appearance of) what appears to be SUBJECT MOVEMENT in the image:


The image appears to be made with a Nikon D200 with a 35 Prime Lens – at a guess probably the AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G DX .

The Shooting Specs appear to be: F/2.8 @ 1/30s @ ISO100

In that shooting scenario, prima facie, it appears that better Shooting Specs to use would have been in the order of – F/2.8 @ 1/125s @ ISO400.

And to use those shooting specs even IF a Tripod and Remote Release were both used would be better practice: as the higher Tv (Shutter Speed) is required to arrest any Subject Motion of the delicate petals.

(It is noted in post #47 that you have already addressed the lack of Camera Support whilst using Tv = 1/30s.

Please note well: I am discussing the Shutter Speed to arrest SUBJECT MOVEMENT - not camera movement, which is also apparent in the image.)

***

Also an interesting side note about this image and in consideration of this . . . :

Never knew a camera does PP. [Post#13]

. . . is that in camera JPEG setting were: the CONTRAST was ‘HARD’; the SATURATION was ‘HIGH’ and the WHITE BALANCE was ‘AUTO’.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Colin, that is what I call Post Photographic Art. Are you keeping her on ice until you get your new Can(n)on?

No need - Ashley is a good friend who I see every few weeks, so I'm sure there'll be lots of shoots with her and the new camera (when it arrives in about 46.5 hours!)

Here is an image I captured late this afternoon, SOOC, how much PP is needed?

Define "needed". Here's the result of a couple of minutes PP ... Better or worse?

[MrB]

It happened some time ago that I received an e-Mail with manipulated photographs attached. The sender’s opinion “Now that is Photography” Make no mistake the images were amazing, but in my opinion it should not be called Photography, rather Computer Art. Although photographs have been used in the manipulated images, I don’t think it is the raw guts of Photography... I just don’t like manipulated photographs to be called Photography, rather call it Post Photographic Art.

Andre, you want to redefine photography in your own terms, according to your own likes, dislikes, opinions and prejudices, but I would guess that the majority here would disagree with your views. Moreover, as people gain the experience and knowledge to form a better understanding of light, I would suggest that they are likely to move further away from your position, and become even more likely to apply any available technology - hardware and software - that enables them to realise their vision in their images.

If the method chosen to create an image is to use knowledge of a camera to set it up so that it records and reproduces a 2D clone of a 3D scene, then it is photography, but it is just one of many possible approaches to photography. The real "raw guts" of photography are clearly presented whenever anyone reads the word in print or hears the word spoken, and they were described in Post #20...

For a few moments just give a little thought to the basics. Photography literally means writing or drawing (-graph) with light (photo-). It is clear that the fundamental meaning of photography does not in any way prescribe the methods used to create its products. Therefore, anything that anyone does involving light to create any image must be a valid photographic activity.

...and yet it seems that you would choose to ignore the truth in its etymology, and your redefinition of photography would deny people the freedom of creativity that its true meaning allows.

Philip

[Mike Buckley]

Make no mistake the images were amazing, but in my opinion it should not be called Photography, rather Computer Art.

Call it whatever you want, Andre, but if I understand you correctly, I believe you're fighting a losing and probably senseless battle in trying to get more than the smallest minority of photographers to agree with you. Perhaps most of them will agree with me that it really doesn't matter what the results are called. All that really matters is that we determine whether we like to look at the final product.

[jiro]

I only have a simple answer to this - If you are satisfied with your SOOC shot and you don't need any post-processing and you are really happy about it, then no one will prevent you from enjoying your work. Much the same way, if someone thinks that his image would look better and more convincing by applying some extra post-processing, let him be. There will always be two sides on everything. Besides, we are all free to express ourselves in the way that we see fit, may it be in photography or anything that interests us. Go out, shoot what interests you, enjoy your camera, and enjoy life! Good luck with your photography Andre.

[Polar01]

I only have a simple answer to this - If you are satisfied with your SOOC shot and you don't need any post-processing and you are really happy about it, then no one will prevent you from enjoying your work. Much the same way, if someone thinks that his image would look better and more convincing by applying some extra post-processing, let him be. There will always be two sides on everything. Besides, we are all free to express ourselves in the way that we see fit, may it be in photography or anything that interests us. Go out, shoot what interests you, enjoy your camera, and enjoy life! Good luck with your photography Andre.

[Colin Southern]

The camera (of itself) never ever "produced a photograph".

The photographer makes the photo -- the camera + computer + lighting + makeup etc are just the tools of the trade

[rtbaum]

SOOC



Adjusting contrast, clarity, and sharpening with LR3



I am pretty weak with my PP skills, but I think the difference is notable

[Polar01]

AB26: This is computer art, it was started in the mind, and the brush was the computer.

Cheers:

Allan

[arith]

Sorry Steve, you need to go back to Photoshop, a little blown out in the top left corner (see your histogram)

Actually it is the border that is blown. The top left has little definition but there are a lot of pubs around here to wait for better light. Possibly even get a shot of a gangster shooting somebody, this is sin city even well known to the MET (London) police and of course then there is the rush hours where you cannot help but get people in shot.

A group of very loud youths jumped off a minibus a moment ago; there was a very interesting smell coming from them( very big ciggies), they rushed in a pub and then straight out back on the minibus and off. This place makes me jumpy as hell and besides most of the time it is a trendy nightspot and this is the only grubby view.

I liked the light, it is very eerie but the only way I could get anything was to do HDR. I can hear Colins teeth now. You know with demosaicing the very minimum you need to do is sharpen, but in fact I do quite a lot because I like to; don't like carrying hundreds of filters and lighting on the bus you know.

[AB26]

Thanks Bill, no argument. Factual and correct, no assumptions there. Will take your comment seriously.
Shoud not even have taken that shot. The wind was simply to strong and the light to low.
I appreciate your suggestions on camera settings, much better than - "try this or that in Photoshop".

Colin, what would be your suggestion on achieving that result SOOC? Don't you think it would be a shame to Photoshop an image from a $7000 (body only) Canon to get the result you want?

Steve that shot is as good as you know. HDR or not.

Thank you to everybody.

Another shot: Cropped a bit.

[Colin Southern]

Colin, what would be your suggestion on achieving that result SOOC?

Well I'm not going to hang a girl under a helicopter just to get a "cool shot" (although Joe McNally did just that with Michelle Yeoh).

Don't you think it would be a shame to Photoshop an image from a $7000 (body only) Canon to get the result you want?

Shame? Not in the least. It's expected. Normal. Photography is always a multi step process - from preparation - to capture - to processing and presentation. Only the tools have changed.

How do you get rid of a big fat pimple on a models chin when the shot needs to be taken & printed in the next hour, without adjusting the image in PP?

Folks who think that it's possible to always get images straight out of the camera (so long as one is good enough) that can never benefit from any amount of post-production simply don't understand a lot about photography I'm afraid. Striving for ideals is great -- but the reality is ALWAYS a compromise of many things.