Why so much Post Production?

[tbob]

. Someone presented here not too long ago a scientific paper on the fact that some women could see much more colours than man! Would their representation of the reality be qualified the only "real" version? Humm.

Not to change the subject; however I just want to point out that after 34 years of marriage: for me my wife's representation of reality IS reality. No manipulation or processing allowed.

[Muriel]

This is an interesting thread.. I think of Photography as art... Therefore the more creativity the better...maybe I should back up a bit. I guess sometimes there is a little too much creativity for me. But what I am trying to say is using your creativity is theraputic. So the outcome to you personally is what is important. If you like it right out of the box great..if you want to pp great..If you want to merge and create your own pictures great. That said.. If you are sharing, selling, displaying and such maybe it should be stated that these are your creations with a lot of help form the camera and post prossing.
The Key to me is learing new things, tecniques, creating pictures that I can be proud of and sharing my creations with friends and family.

[William W]

I am not sure if everybody understand my perception of Post Production - or maybe I do not understand it.
Never knew a camera does PP.
I was under the impression that a camera was the instrument to produce the photograph. No matter what is happening inside the camera or what it uses to produce images, the camera is capturing image producing data. RAW data is just not processed to the extent it can be printed. This raw data has to be converted either in camera or on a computer, by converting software, to be printable.
If data captured by a camera is altered by any human interference after it was downloaded from the camera, I call it Post Production.

Thanks

Hmm . . .

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

The camera and the lens are tools to focus light which will eventually make an image: on or in a medium.

The very act of those light rays stimulating the capture medium is "Post Production" - i.e. “a re-production of the moment", milliseconds after that moment.

Then the act(s) of conversion to a print or a screen image and the mediums used in that process are all "Post Production".

The millions of 'ones and zeros' contained in a 'raw' file is not a "photograph" - merely just millions of 'ones and zeros'.


What you are debating is the AMOUNT or DEGREE of manipulation which should be used, from ‘The Moment’ to the final RE-PRODUCTION of that moment: and the discussion is being confused by the incorrect assumption that one can make a "re-production" WITHOUT any production processes.

WW

[Mito]

Muriel, I agree with you, very interesting. Many thoughts and questions have gone through my mind.
Photograpy is regarded as both an art and science which raises the question, When does a photograph cease to be a photograph and become a work of art? The definition of photography as stated by Philip does not apply here. As a relative newby I feel I cannot answer that but I think it raises another question, How much does PP cost? I am a pensioner on a small pension. I cannot afford to buy Photoshop nor its associated programs. Photoshop Essentials 8 came with this laptop, Silkypix with the camera and I downloaded Fusion 2.2 for HDR manipulation. I am getting my head around Gimp but in general I work on the premise that "less is best".
I take what I see and usually the result is what I have seen. One day I will take the WOW photo.
May opinions range wide and be openly discussed. I like it!

[FrankMi]

If data captured by a camera is altered by any human interference after it was downloaded from the camera, I call it Post Production.

So you wouldn't copy, crop, resize, sharpen, or retouch the image in any way? Good luck trying to make any money doing portraits or weddings...

[Inkanyezi]

Of course, there always is the challenge to take great images that would stand out well even as the in-camera jpegs without any alteration at all, and usually when a great picture is taken, that is also the case. To take such images, it helps to have some basic knowledge of how a photographic medium renders tones and colours, and it is hardly possible to learn those basics without working a lot not only taking pictures, but also with post production tools. Then most photographers that take nature shots or other documenting photography, will adjust their camera to make the image so good already in the camera, that rather little post production work is required.

And a photographer that knows his tools will invariably know that the camera never renders truly, or as truly as possible, what was in front of it at the moment of releasing the shutter. A photograph is always an image that in some way records what was in front of the camera, but the creator of the image is free to take whatever steps necessary to present the image in a good way, whether pleasing or not. From the moment of releasing the shutter, everything done to the image is post-production, whether it takes place in the camera itself or elsewhere.

And anyone that denies the necessity of post-production is neither a skilled photographer, nor does he understand the essentials of what photography is, or what it is about.

[Daisy Mae]

Bit of a puritanical attitude going on here.

It is surely up to the individual and to the audience. I sometimes merge two pics .. both taken by me..straight out of camera and create something I find aesthetically pleasing. I don't use photoshop. Am I producing an artifiicial art..or simple able to see how two photographs taken by me could create a third and better one?

and most importantly...does it actually really matter?

Technology will march on apace..are we to use it and explore it or be luddites in which case we presumably need to go back to a carboard box with a pin and a black cloth to be acceptable.

Maybe I have taken this all wrong...I hope I have.. :/

[Colin Southern]

For me, the bottom line is that the camera doesn't work the way the human eye does therefore some post-capture "translation" is ALWAYS going to be required, so it's just a matter of degree ...

... and that's up to the individual photographer / artist to decide.

We discussed it somewhat recently here.

From a commercial perspective, if it's quicker/easier to do something "in camera" (like removing a strand of hair across a model's face before shooting 200 frames) then that's what I do -- on the other hand, if it's quicker/easier to do something in post-production (like removing acne rather than waiting 5 to 10 years for the model's complexion to improve) then that's what I do.

For the purists, how would you have created this shot?

[Simon Garrett]

Any judgement on this is subjective. We all make adjustments to composition, exposure and other camera settings before pressing the shutter release. So what is inherently different about making more adjustments afterwards?

Personally I don't generally do a huge amount of post processing, but that's my choice (or is it laziness?) For me, I prefer pictures not to look as though they've been post processed - but even deciding if they "look" post processed is sometimes a subjective judgement.

Sometimes you just can't get the shot you want without PP. To say that "it must look like the original scene" is deceptive. Even without (deliberate) PP, the image won't look like the original, as others have pointed out. Here's one that (IMHO) needed PP. The original, out of the camera:


Bit flat - not how it "felt" at the time. I don't quite like the framing, and there's an objectionable rock centre left (which I can't move). I prefer:


I couldn't have done all that in the camera. Quite apart from a bit of cloning, there's no in-camera tone setting that matched what I wanted. But I'd hardly call that excessive PP.

PS - if you want to see serious grown-up PP, see or Google for "Fotoshop by Adobé" if that link doesn't work. And, yes, I recently photographed some ladies of a certain age, and applied a little "Fotoshop by Adobé" magic (but I didn't tell them!)

[gilliebg]

I consider that post processing is an extension of, and compliments what we do with a camera, and is part of the creative process of a photographer. It can not be used to compensate for poor technique and will never make a bad photograph good, but it can make a good photograph great and is a tool to help to reproduce one’s creative vision in the final print or image.

[William W]

Nice Helicopter.

[Mike Buckley]

For the purists, how would you have created this [helicopter] shot?

That would be really easy. Freeze a rope and get a beautiful woman to use it to lift a helicopter over her head.

[rpcrowe]

Should we not measure our ability in Photography by the amount of post production needed to make our images portray what we want others to see in it?

You are correct if you do post processing, you are obviously not a competent photographer. And I know that you will totally agree with me when I say that Ansel Adams must have been either an incompetent photographer or have a darkroom fetish. After all, why did he spend hours upon hours in the darkroom working on a print? Obviously, the images that he produced were worthless because they probably did not EXACTLY portray the image as it was taken

[Loose Canon]

Should post produced photographs still be considered the work of a Photographer or does it become the work of a Computer (software) Artist?

And...

The camera in the hand of the Photographer is in fact a very sophisticated small computer.

I assume by this reasoning we are all Computer Artists from start to finish?

Hokay! Works for me, Andre!

[Colin Southern]

Nice Helicopter.

Thanks Dr. Bill! (not my shot though -- I only shot the model).

[Colin Southern]

That would be really easy. Freeze a rope and get a beautiful woman to use it to lift a helicopter over her head.

... whilst jumping really high into the air! Luckily she's a big model - or it's a really small helicopter - can't recall which!

[William W]

For the purists, how would you have created this shot?

My Aerial Photography mate and Helicopter Pilot, informs me those main rotors would be at about 350rpm – and a Rotor diameter of about 45ft – so at the tip of the rotor a linear speed of about 825ft/sec . . . to freeze (blur of let’s say 3 inches only) the tip of those rotor blades, whilst the ‘chopper was hovering: a Shutter Speed of about . . . 1/3300s (let’s say 1/4000s) is required.

So I am thinking that the Flash Fill on the Model and her Hair Light was a very interesting set up. . .

***

If we want “purity” -

In the olden days, two shots would have been taken and then (the easier method) - the negs would have been carefully cut with a surgeon’s scalpel and sandwiched, then retouched (the negs that is) and then printed with careful dodging and burning at the negative seams and then the print would have been retouched for dust marks, seam marks and scratches – but that wasn’t referred to as “Post Production” just Darkroom Work – and specialist (and often diploma qualified) Darkroom Technicians performed these tasks at the directions of the Art Director and / or the Photographer.

Another “pure” method would be the Double Exposure – and that’s how we placed the Bride and Groom in the Brandy Balloons or Champagne Glasses – and that wasn’t referred to as “post Production” just fancy Photography (albeit now passé).

WW

[William W]

Following on from my previous posts #23 and #37: and specifically for the sake of the discussion begun by the OP . . .

I pulled three sample PRINTS from my files circa 1970~1980 and scanned them – no “post processing” in the scans – the Prints are the “Photographs” - ‘as is’.


The Catwalk – lots of Darkroom Work (mainly Dodging and Burning) before B&W Publication, necessitated because we didn’t set fancy strobe arrangements – but shot high end catwalk work with 6x6 and a Metz Quick Release in the left hand and using Manual Mode – and angling the Flash so that the Darkroom Techie could remove the shadows – easily.

This technique was commonplace and no-one argued about “too much Post Production”:


***

The Wedding – Sepia was revived in the 1970/80s – that Sepia Darkroom work wasn’t frowned upon as “Post Production” – but rather those still having the darkroom toning skills, were sought after:


***

The Grand Final – Speed to the Newspaper Editor was the key – at dusk and no flash allowed during the game this is an example (shot just at the final whistle) of shooting underexposed and push processing 400/800ASA – and getting the negs to Press, quickly.
Underexposing and Push Processing was not shunned as “too much post production”:


My point is “Post Production” has been around for a long time: no-one seems to question the hours Ansel A. spent in the darkroom


WW

[lenelg]

The problem with the original question is the assumption that your eye is a camera: "Camera manufacturers spend millions on research and development of equipment to make it possible to capture images as closely as possible to what the eye sees".

What hits the retina of your eye and what your mind "sees" are very different things. The eye has a rather limited circle of focus, so what you "see" is integrated from a number of images while your eye continously moves to take in the scene. Meanwhile, exposure is constantly adjusted, both by varying your eye´s aperture and through signal processing, so we have both "panorama stitching", "focus stacking" and "HDR" processing going on at once..

To go on, what your mind sees is not a pattern of light and dark but your brain´s interpretation of that pattern, which makes heavy use of your understading of what is supposed to be in front of you, memory of previous similar situations etc.

As an experiment to see what is going on in your brain, try to draw a copy of a photo of a loved one, and then do the same with the photo turned upside down. Most likely, the second drawing will be a better likeness - the unfamiliar viewing angle blocks a lot of your mind´s assumptions about what is supposed to be there.

To return to the original premise, a better interpretation would be that "Camera manufacturers spend millions on research and development of equipment to make it possible to capture more image detail which you can use to recreate what your mind perceived of the scene". But, of course, on examining a photo we usually also discover a lot which our mind missed when we took the shot..

[xpatUSA]

If data captured by a camera is altered by any human interference after it was downloaded from the camera, I call it Post Production.

So you wouldn't copy, crop, resize, sharpen, or retouch the image in any way? Good luck trying to make any money doing portraits or weddings...

I think he was just trying to define his view of "Post Production", not to ban it.

Most of us routinely do all of the above, mostly to compensate for the limited capability of digital imaging equipment compared to to our own ocular equipment. The OP is, as far as I can see, bitching about image distortions of any kind - color, shape, texture, lighting, etc.

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