Why so much Post Production?

[Ady]

Interesting thread.

I went through very similar sounding arguments in the 90s regarding the authenticity and integrity of music production with the move to a full digital workflow.

Many of the anti-digital proponents back then failed to understand that many of the 'new' digital studios were in fact the same old studios. Full of the same people, carrying out the same creative processes, exercising the same aesthetic judgment and manipulating/processing the material in much the same ways as they were when they had been analogue studios. They were just using a different toolkit to do the same jobs more quickly, with greater flexibility and with less degradation of the source.

There was of course an elitist subset who didn't like the transition to digital simply because it meant anyone could acquire the technology for relatively little money and have a go. Music production was no longer the preserve of highly experienced engineers with rooms full of very expensive, often esoteric and occasionally bespoke analogue kit that they had built for themselves. Though an equal number of the anti-digital proponents were, oddly enough, newcomers to the discipline who had a rose tinted nostalgia for an analogue world they didn't really understand or have any experience of.

I'm probably barking up completely the wrong tree but I do wonder if there isn't a similar issue with PP in contemporary photography and that one of the drivers behind the discomfort around digital PP is a misconception of the differences between the digital and the analogue.

Digital is all about bits and bytes, computers and software, it's easy and accessible and anyone can do it; as a result the end product has little value unless you deny yourself use of the very tools that made it possible for everyone to join in and enjoy creating images. On the other hand analogue was pure and simple; all you needed was a camera, some film, a bit of light, and some developing fluid.

As a result 'real' (or analogue) photography is all about the long and painfully acquired artistry with which the camera is deployed, where digital is just playing with software.

Of course this (over-simplified and possibly misconstrued) view does rely on forgetting (or possibly never having understood) how much PP occurred in the developing phase. As others have pointed out a certain Mr. Adams spent more time in the darkroom than most of us spend on digital PP, as an artist and visionary I suspect he would have loved some digital backs for his cameras and copy of Photoshop.

[AB26]

...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[/QUOTE]
Hi Philip,
First had to recover from the anti-poison I had to take after reading your posts.
I appreciate your input, It is just what I need to encourage me to do research.
Would there be any benefit for me to “deny people the freedom of creativity”.
Perhaps I am trying to encourage people to express their creativity by mastering the tool used to “grab” (Bill) images – the camera.
Am I really the one trying to redefine “photography”. Photography has been defined:

Definition of photography:
Merriam Webster - the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)
Wikipedia - Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film, or electronically by means of an image sensor.
That would by definition mean, anything done after “grabbing” the image is no longer considered photography.

Will we keep splitting hair?

[AB26]

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

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?

Colin, NO, not the girl and the chopper - the flower you tweaked. How about some settings in camera to obtain that result?

About the big fat pimple:
Johnny's wife had left him, and Andy wanted to know why. See Johnny was a very keen photographer.
"See Andy, the whole fight started as Betty told me I always take pictures making her look fat"
"So Johnny, is that reason enough for her to be so angry that she left you"
"Don't know Andy, I only said to her, "My dear a camera does not lie".

[bambleweeney]

- the flower you tweaked. How about some settings in camera to obtain that result?

You mean like - saturation, sharpness, D-Lighting for example ? All post processing I'm afraid but done in camera and calculations done by an anonymous programmer somewhere. Personally I'd rather tweak my image than let that guy loose on it

[Mike Buckley]

Andre,

Assume two scenarios. One photographer makes a stunning image using only the camera. Another photographer makes a stunning image using the camera and computer software. Does that make the first photographer a better photographer? If so, why are we rating the photographer and not the image?

[arith]

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.

I think a chap called LeGray discovered HDR and whatever you think of it, it has been around for quite a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Gray

I think your photo is a wonderful photo, possibly you used a flash or reflector but wouldn't it be even better if it was cropped closer and lens or filter flare cloned out?

Or do you think maybe you should use a more expensive lens filter combination?

[AB26]

Interesting thread.


On the other hand analogue was pure and simple; all you needed was a camera, some film, a bit of light, and some developing fluid.

where digital is just playing with software.

As others have pointed out a certain Mr. Adams spent more time in the darkroom than most of us spend on digital PP, as an artist and visionary I suspect he would have loved some digital backs for his cameras and copy of Photoshop.

Adrian, I can assure you that analogue was not as simple as a camera, some film, a bit of light and developing fluid.
Film and chemicals cost a lot of money and if you overexposed on Ektachrome 64 the shot was ruined, no chance of recovering. Digital is a lot cheaper and easier.
"Digital is just playing with software." Exactly the point I am trying to make - a total misconception of the truth. It is this conception of “just playing with software” that denies the new entry into photography the opportunity to attain the knowledge and skill to be a potential Photographer. No bother, hang a camera around your neck put it on P for “professional” and shoot – fix the errors later in “Photoshop” and call yourself a Photographer, easy as that. If you go on a shoot just click, get a thousand shots you are bound to find one that can be used.
The name of Ansel Adams keeps coming up in this thread.
I have often wondered what Mr. Adams would have said. He never had a technologically advanced camera, as we have today and maybe if he had we would probably have seen much more of his work. He was probably forced to spend so much time in the darkroom because his camera was not digital. Did he not perhaps help developing the Zone System to spend less time in the darkroom and more time in the field? But, we will never know. I don't think it is appropriate to assume what he would have or would not have said and done.

[AB26]

You mean like - saturation, sharpness, D-Lighting for example ? All post processing I'm afraid but done in camera and calculations done by an anonymous programmer somewhere. Personally I'd rather tweak my image than let that guy loose on it

You let some guy in an assembly plant loose to fit the steering in your car properly, and that could cost you your life.

[AB26]

Andre,

Assume two scenarios. One photographer makes a stunning image using only the camera. Another photographer makes a stunning image using the camera and computer software. Does that make the first photographer a better photographer? If so, why are we rating the photographer and not the image?

Would make no 1 a more skilled photographer. Assume the same two photographers have to do a shoot in the field, no computer, whose photograph would be used?

[musickna]

It's all art. And it all depends on what tools you choose to use. Would the modern painter be discounted because they use synthetiic brushes, canvas and paint because DaVinci had to grind his pigments and didn't have the color choice we have now? Or are Da Vinci's less than early man's cave paintings? Personally I like photos that are less PP. But that may be because I don't know how to do much of that and it has been a steep learning curve for me-but I enjoy it when I do learn to do something. Also my tastes change-what I thought looked good before doesn't now. But I'm always fascinated by what others can do. I think it just comes down to each individual's taste.

I agree with this. It's a fascinating discussion here and it's always good to consider these questions, but all the work here is the product of a person's imaginative use of photographic equipment and image processing technique. How such a person choses to use such materials is again a matter of artistic choice and the result is that person's art whether it comes straight out of the camera or via extensive image manipulation. The only serious question to consider is whether that art is meaningful, and, frankly, it need be meaningful for no one beyond its creator to still be of value.

[AB26]

I think a chap called LeGray discovered HDR and whatever you think of it, it has been around for quite a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Gray

I think your photo is a wonderful photo, possibly you used a flash or reflector but wouldn't it be even better if it was cropped closer and lens or filter flare cloned out?

Or do you think maybe you should use a more expensive lens filter combination?

Thanks Steve. No, no flash, no reflector, used that little button with the +/- to get the exposure on the flower. Clone, i'd rather do it again from a different angle.
You think a more expensive lens will be free of flare shooting straight into the sun like that?
Sony and Nikon now has built in HDR.

[William W]

The name of Ansel Adams keeps coming up in this thread.
I have often wondered what Mr. Adams would have said. He never had a technologically advanced camera, as we have today and maybe if he had we would probably have seen much more of his work. He was probably forced to spend so much time in the darkroom because his camera was not digital. Did he not perhaps help developing the Zone System to spend less time in the darkroom and more time in the field? But, we will never know. I don't think it is appropriate to assume what he would have or would not have said and done.

Ansel Adams has been brought into the conversation BECAUSE he DID spend so much time in the darkroom, and in that darkroom he WAS performing “Post Production” – those are facts and not assumptions about what he would or would not have done.

AND it is appropriate to put forth the proposition that he, having already displayed so much attention to Post Production in the Darkroom, would most likely take on Digital Post Production with a similar passion and for similar reasons as to why he spent so much time in the darkroom originally.

It is also reasonable to argue that the 10 x 8 view camera, (three lenses I think); the couple of 4x5 view cameras, (five lenses I think) and the Hasselblad kit with its various lenses . . . were not kiddy’s play things and each of those cameras and their lens kits would hold their own apropos image quality with many digital cameras today . . . so AA was NOT spending time in post production because his gear was producing crap negs.

***

Technical Point -
“P” Mode is Programme A-E.
P Mode should NOT to be confused with “Full Auto Mode”
P Mode’s Functionality and override limitations are very different to those of Full Auto Mode.
Programme A-E has functionality and user control much more akin to the Automatic Modes: Tv (Shutter Priority) and Av (Aperture Priority).

WW

[Inkanyezi]

As Ansel Adams pops up every now and then, I can assure you that his work on the zone system was in order to make his shots more predictable, which of course also meant less fuss in the darkroom. My photo teacher told us the zone system almost before everything else, although he was an artist doing painture, sculpture and pottery and other clay work. What was tought in parallel with the zone system was composition; for images, composition and visualisation of the final image were the two supporting pillars for the whole art of image making, with no difference between photography or painting. Of course light and lighting came with visualisation, so most practical work around photography was with light and lighting. The darkroom was a minor part, but necessary. We used tables for exposure and dynamic range, and always had to decide tonal range and in which zones to put the respective values.

In fact, visualisation became part of the creative process, and much of the technical aspects of photography are covered by it. Our modern cameras can, in a "standard" environment, make an image "to the book" without any tweaking, without our help for more than pointing it toward the subject and pressing the button.

However, in the real world, we did tweak also those photos we made with chemical processes on sensitised film. We had grip over exposure, so that we could render all the subject light values as shades on the negative, but sometimes, tweaking was made to make a dark part of the image appear brighter, in order to see the detail in that part. We do the same with digital images, and it is not less photography. The impressions are still done by light on the sensitive surface. The alteration of its presentation is part of the creative process, and it is done in order to show what was registered. Hence, the tweaked image is still a photograph, we have not deviated from the photographic process, not even as narrowly defined as in Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster. But lo and behold! I am the photographer, and I decide what to do with my image. It is not defined, neither by Wikipedia or M-W, but by me. And it conforms to the definition also of those, even though it is post processed. The image is still impressions of light on a light sensitive surface, then brought to a presentation, where you can see it, by a process after the image was taken. The last step only is where I have no control, your computer, your programs for viewing, your screen, and your vision.

But the processes I use in RAW conversion and image processing, do not make my image less a photograph, than what you get directly out of the camera.

[Polar01]

This has been very interesting topic, AB26 states that it is the shooter who gets the image straight out of the camera, that is the true photographer, as he does not want to use post production. Yet is seems that it is ok to let the camera do it according to what some tech states is correct. I would put it to AB26 that he should only shoot images in RAW as that is the only image that has had no post production done to it in any way straight out of the camera as such he can then follow his vision of the true pure photographer.

Cheers:

Allan

[AB26]

But the processes I use in RAW conversion and image processing, do not make my image less a photograph, than what you get directly out of the camera.

Urban, I thank you for that little lesson. You talk of tweaking; I just love that word, to tweak. No major manipulation, just tweak.
If you read my post and understood what you read, you will be aware of the fact that I never objected to PP. The problem lies where an image has to be corrected in “Photoshop” to save it. That would be manipulating a bad image to make it look good. The only reason the “photographer” would need to do this is because of his/her inability to master skills with a camera. The less the photographer has to do in PP the higher the skills level of the photographer (only my personal opinion).

Photography, per se, is not an art; it can only become an art in the hands of the skilful user of the camera, the photographer. The Art of Photography would be what your photo teacher taught you, the skills to see an image, to see the light, compose and capture the image. If you need to tweak the image afterwards would not render you a lesser photographer. If you have to manipulate the image in “Photoshop” to make it look good, that would make you an incompetent photographer with lots of “Photoshop” skills.

Who gave you the impression that I would have suggested that if you have to convert an image in Post Production it makes it less a photograph than the one SOOC ????? M-W and Wikipedia? Read between the lines of post #62.
I am pleading for improving the skills of the “Photographer” with the camera to minimise PP. Teach me the skills your photo teacher taught you and I will be closer to calling myself a Photographer

[AB26]

so much time in the darkroom originally.

***

Technical Point -
“P” Mode is Programme A-E.
P Mode should NOT to be confused with “Full Auto Mode”
P Mode’s Functionality and override limitations are very different to those of Full Auto Mode.
Programme A-E has functionality and user control much more akin to the Automatic Modes: Tv (Shutter Priority) and Av (Aperture Priority).

WW

Bill, see the "professional" in inverted commas.

[MrB]

Andre, do keep taking the medicine if you think you need it , but also keep in mind that, by describing what the word photography means in its basic structure, I was attempting to simplify this matter. The dictionary definitions that you quoted are inadequate, because they are actually describing the two most commonly used methods of image capture, they are not describing what is photography.

The product of photography is a picture called a photograph. But, as several others more qualified than I have tried to tell you, there would be no photograph without processing. A film must be processed by using chemicals to reveal the photochemical effect of the light it has captured. Similarly analogue data from the photoelectric effect of light on a sensor must be processed by both hardware and software, by using the electronics in the camera, and/or by using another computer. Processing is the part of photography that produces a visible image for display on screen or in print - this is the photograph. The photographer is the person who controls the series of actions to capture and process the image. He/she decides how to do each action, and whether and when each action and the set of actions is necessary and complete, such that the resulting photograph satisfies his/her vision.

You would end the series of actions with the image produced by a camera. I would guess that most people here realise that you are a photographer describing your choice of method of achieving your vision. That is fine, but it simply wrong for you to claim that your choice should define photography for everyone else. As I stated previously, the fundamental meaning of photography does not in any way prescribe the methods used to create its products.

Cheers.
Philip

[AB26]

This has been very interesting topic, AB26 states that it is the shooter who gets the image straight out of the camera, that is the true photographer, as he does not want to use post production. Yet is seems that it is ok to let the camera do it according to what some tech states is correct. I would put it to AB26 that he should only shoot images in RAW as that is the only image that has had no post production done to it in any way straight out of the camera as such he can then follow his vision of the true pure photographer.


Cheers:

Allan

Allan, please read the post again, do not make assumptions, that is the mother of all - you know what.

[AB26]

Andre, do keep taking the medicine if you think you need it ,
Cheers.
Philip

Don't worry Philip, antidote comes by the gallon here.
Have you seen what the definition is for Photographer?

[William W]

ASIDE -

Bill, see the "professional" in inverted commas.

I did already see that.

The Topic of "P Mode" and its uses is one topic which is a little passion for me.
I have several of these passions.
I also get in and fight for the Kit Lens; also differentiating between Depth of Field and Depth of Focus; also defining the constituent parts of Perspective are some other examples . . . Bokeh and Management of Depth of Field really fire me up . . .

I digress:
“P Mode” is sadly misunderstood and misrepresented.
I feel very sorry for “P Mode” and the low status and how it is poorly treated when it should stand proud and useful beside “Av” and “Tv” Modes, this low status is quite a slap in the face for “P Mode”.
Whilst your intent could have been most pure - I was compelled to address this matter and perhaps save another reader from cascading into the mire of misunderstanding about “P Mode” by assuming it was as "bad" - as or even worse than using "Full Auto".

IMO, a better anecdote to express your point of view, would have been to use the words “Full Auto” and not the phrase “P for Professional”.
P Mode is a very useful mode and oft used, professionally.
The phrase ‘“P” for Professional’, just adds to the confusion of suggesting that P Mode is very similar to Full Auto Mode, which it is not.

WW