Why so much Post Production?

[Mike Buckley]

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?

Why in the world would I ever have to tell a photographer that s/he is allowed only to use a camera, not a computer? I really can't imagine any practical situation that that would be needed other than to satisfy the needs of a paying client who happens to hate the idea of people using computers to accomplish their tasks.

I also disagree with your assertion that the photographer who uses only the camera would necessarily be more skilled. Consider the situation that the photographer who uses only a camera takes a lot longer to to produce the same results as the photographer who smartly uses a computer to achieve the same results in a far shorter period of time. Under deadline situations, some would argue that the photographer who uses the computer is more skilled.

Even so, even in that situation, I would not consider one photographer more skilled than the other so long as the results are the same and the project is completed on time.

I could hire a handy man to screw screws into wood. One handyman would use a drill to drill the hole first. The other handyman would use only a screwdriver. So long as I'm paying by the screw, I couldn't care less which handyman is hired so long as both produce the same quality on time.

[Polar01]

Andre: I want to get my head straight on your opinions from Post #75. "The problem lies...with the camera", correct me if I am wrong, it is when the unskilled photographer takes an image that in your opinion is trash then uses some post production program, to create a passable image, then you are an "incompetent photographer ...with lots of "Photoshop" skills". Is that more or less correct? So following that line of thought, if I were to set my camera on a tripod, switch to full auto, take the image, then only "to tweak the image", it would not render me a lesser photographer. That in my opinion is crap.
It is the photographer with the knowledge and learned skills that you will find out in rain gear sitting not standing on a gale force wind blowen beach, 2 degrees C, tripod buried a foot in the sand, a towel on the camera to keep out the salt spray, and the sky from top to bottom 18% grey. They will be there taking images where others are still in bed, you will see trash(in your opinion) coming out of their cameras, however you do not see what they see. Once they have finished, using all their camera skills to capture their vision, then their post production skill, they will pull out that image that they saw and you will be dumbfounded.
I have been on that beach, but I am not one of them, I try and fail but that is how I learn each time getting a little better, to be a photographer. As I said I have been on the the beach with them, I know them and you will never be one of them. But that is my opinion.

Allan

[Inkanyezi]

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?

Not splitting hairs, but maybe you would not consider it redefining, although it is clearly a case of obfuscation.

Post production, the necessary steps to make an image, are not mentioned, neither in the Wikipedia or the Merriam-Webster entry on Photography. The definition is indeed not narrowed down to a particular step in the process, and neither the photochemical model nor the electronic one would create a visible image by that narrow definition.

The word photography has two parts, photo and graphy. The first part of it denotes the capture of electromagnetic energy by any means, the second part of the word includes the steps to make an image of what is captured.

When capturing an image in the photochemical process, in the camera, a physically chemical process takes place, where silver is bound to impurities in the film emulsion, mainly sulfur, creating "sprouts" that may contaminate other silver salt grains around it under certain conditions. Those are not visible to the eye, nor are the unexposed parts stable to light. There is no image, the photographic process has not yet created an image. We have only a physically chemical alteration of the silver salt, which may be used for creating an image that in some way describes the light that fell upon the emulsion. An image may be derived from these "sprouts", when they infect other silver salt grains in their vicinity, by exposing the whole emulsion to chemicals that reduce the silver salt to pure silver. This process is always done after capturing the impressions of light. It is the root of the second part of the word photography, it is the writing process, the graphic process.

In the digital camera, instead of silver salt, we have a semiconductor surface with millions of small cells, each one of them capable of registering impressions of light as an analog electrical voltage. Those voltages cannot be seen by the eye, so they are not an image. They are only voltages representing the amount of light that each of these light-wells received during exposure. The voltage may be read by electronic means, and by calculating the relative positions of all light-wells and mapping them out over a surface, giving each of them colour according to the colour filter in front of it, we may create an image. This is done in a similar way as in the photochemical process, although instead of chemicals, we use a computer. This computer may reside either inside the camera or elsewhere. So we read each and every one of these millions of small cells that caught a voltage, compute an image using a map of their positions and their respective colour filters, and present this image in visible form for humans, in a similar three colour system as the one used in the human eye.

So Wikipedia and M-W make a shortcut, neither explaining the actual works of light upon the sensitive material, nor its source, and it does not describe the post-capture process that is necessary to render a visible image from the physical processes involved. In fact, in neither of these processes an image is created in the camera. It is moot to propose that the camera makes the image, because it does not. It only captures light, and the impressions of light must be processed to render a visible image.

That would by definition mean, anything done after “grabbing” the image is no longer considered photography.

Will we keep splitting hair?

I wonder if you will keep splitting hairs. There is nothing in the definition that denies the necessary steps to make an image, the "graphic" part of photography. By introducing a condition that is not suggested in the definition, you try to create an impediment to the photographic process, which, if applied strictly, would imply that there is no photographic image other than those that were either tanned on skin or bleached on coloured areas that were exposed to the sun while other parts were covered. That is in fact not what is generally implied by the word photography. By photography, just as both Wikipedia and Merriam Webster suggests, we mean producing images. If no post capture processing takes place, no image is produced.

[arith]

Before reading this I wasn't aware of any modes but Av, Tv, M(Mindless) for don't understand the others and A-Dep. So I turned the knob and took a shot on green square, then turned it to CA and blimey what's all that about.

I use M mostly because it is just like using an old camera and even use manual focus most of the time; not because I like to show off but because I don't understand the others.

Thanks for getting me to turn the knob, I might even try something different one day and I don't know what the P mode is for.

[MrB]

Have you seen what the definition is for Photographer?

A photographer is someone who uses photography to make a photograph.

This has been described for you several times, most recently and in detail in post #83 (many thanks, Urban), but I urge you to concentrate on two sections quoted from that same post, which paraphrase previous contributions and which form the crux of this matter -

...The word photography has two parts, photo and graphy. The first part of it denotes the capture of electromagnetic energy by any means, the second part of the word includes the steps to make an image of what is captured...

...There is nothing in the definition that denies the necessary steps to make an image, the "graphic" part of photography. By introducing a condition that is not suggested in the definition, you try to create an impediment to the photographic process...

If you cannot see the light of the truth in these statements, then you have closed your mind to the extent that it is impenetrable to reason, rendering any further discussion pointless. The battery might be charged, the power switch might be correctly positioned, the camera might be fully functioning, but I am afraid that the lens cap is on.

Philip

[jcuknz]

Bill, while I find your causes worthy as listed in message 80 I do have reservations about P mode in that I believe perhaps erroniously that I have no control over ISO and I use A mode less to artistically control depth of field but rather to maintain what I understand is the sweet spot of my lens. Other than those two over-rides I am usually happy to let the camera have its own way once I have found the focus I want by proper use of AF.

Oh yes I also curse the designers when my thumb hits the WB button and I have to return it to AWB
Perhaps the solution would be to have AWB on the righthand end of the options instead of the left end. So continual thumb pressures would maintain AWB That is known as 'fail safe'.

+1 Philip

[Ady]

Adrian, I can assure you that analogue was not as simple as a camera, some film, a bit of light and developing fluid.

Andre, I am perfectly well aware of that, I was trying to make the point that a lot of folks I've come across suffer the misconception that an analogue process is clean, pure and simple and therefore the quality of the creative output is purely down to the artistry of the individual. Whereas using digital means to manipulate creative media is a cheat because the software 'makes the picture' or 'produces the music' not the individual.

To my mind if creative output is the result of manipulation of media by software alone, that's absolutely fine. Aren't the creative, technical and aesthetic qualities of the final output what matters, regardless of the means of achieving it?

I apologise for writing my post with insufficient clarity.

Cheers,
Adrian

[AB26]

Before reading this I wasn't aware of any modes but Av, Tv, M(Mindless) for don't understand the others and A-Dep. So I turned the knob and took a shot on green square, then turned it to CA and blimey what's all that about.

Thanks for getting me to turn the knob, I might even try something different one day and I don't know what the P mode is for.

Steve you can't be serious, are you? If you are serious you have just proved my point.
Get to know the first tool of the trade, the camera. The PP will be less if you know all the settings and how, where and when to apply them.
At least your lens cap came off.

[AB26]

Reading all the posts of contributors to this thread is enlightening. All the different opinions and views.
It is sad that some make assumptions and throw in false accusations. Due to the fact that I have now been put on trial in this debate I will now have to defend myself for my lawyer is still in jail.

Firstly I plead innocent to all the false accusations made against me. I do not for one moment believe the prosecution will be able to prove me guilty of making a statement that I reject Post Processing.
Accusing me of making a statement that I would be opposed to manipulating photographs to completely change the image into surreal shades of colour, I am guilty. This must however be read in context with the afore going sentence. “By mastering the ART of knowing your tools the good Photographer should not need to Photoshop his/her work to get the desired effect.” No special effects were mentioned here, only the desired effect. Special effects is not being discussed in this thread, although some assumed it was.

To post process, beyond whatever the camera does, would in many instances be a necessity and the Photographer should not be denied the opportunity to improve the result of his or her hard work.
Accusing those whom have to manipulate the results of their work, in special software, to make their work look acceptable of not being knowledgeable enough in using a camera, GUILTY.
Judging the capability of a photographer according to his/her skill with the camera, to the amount of post processing to be done after taking the shot, I am guilty as charged.

What have I to say for myself:
In the world of photography there are those who do Wedding Photography. Many big studio’s, in Wedding Photography, use a guy called a candidman. This would be a competent individual shooting in the style the studio wants him/her to shoot. A candidman will go out and shoot the wedding, return to the studio and hand over the media, or film, the camera recorded the data on. The data on the media or the film will be processed by an assistant working for the studio, to produce the final print to be handed to the client. Producing the final print surely does not make the assistant a photographer, or does it?

Two candidmen were shooting for the same studio. John would bring back the recorded data and the assistent would have to spend hours in trying to correct the images to be presentable to the client. Paul would bring back the data and it would take the assistent an hour to produce the final print and the client would get the product the same day. John was refused more work by the studio. You be the judge of whom is the better qualified photographer.

Trying to encourage users of cameras to rather improve their skill with the camera instead of spending hours in front of a computer manipulating images to be presentable, guilty as charged.
Would you rather be a John or is it beter being a Paul?

I rest my case.

[MrB]

Would you rather be a John or is it better being a Paul?

Neither, because they were only capturing the image data. My aim is to become a good photographer, which involves developing the skills, knowledge and understanding of the whole of photography - capturing and processing images - to produce good photographs.

I suppose George was the assistant. Perhaps some of us here feel more like Ringo without drums - repeatedly banging our heads against a wall.

Philip

[Manfred M]

I find this funny, because I've heard this arguement for decades, starting back in my days in the high school darkroom doing black and white prints. We did PP even back then, although the tools were limited. The negative size did not exactly match the paper sizes, so some cropping was alway involved in printing. As well as controlling the exposure, we used different grades of paper from grade 0, which was very low contrast to grade 5 that was very high contrast, depending on the outcome we were looking for.

Even back then there were "purists" who only printed the full frame and trimed the paper to suit. Some even printed the entire negative so as to include the perforations in the film and the frame markings that the film manufacturer had on the edges of the film stock. There were arguments as to whether grade 2 or grade 3 paper should be used...

When we make the argument today; are we assuming that the jpeg output, based on some algorithm that an engineer at the camera manufacturer developed is correct. Have we overridden any of the default camera settings to tweek the output? What adjustments do we do when we use a RAW file? Even the default values have been decided by a software engineer at companies like Apple or Adobe.

For the wedding photos, do we tone down the hot spot from the sunlight or the flash? What about that unsightly pimple that just showed up or that eyelash that fell onto the bride's cheek?

I'm sorry, these arguments are complex and there are as many different opinions as there are photographers, but let's face it; any image that we see out of a digital camera has some degree of PP work, either applied by the camera itself or by the software (using default values) we use to get it ready for the end use. I guess I come from the school that I want decide on what my final image looks like and not leave it to the default set by some anonymous camera or lens designer or a software engineer.

[Mito]

Andre, I agree with you. The camera is the tool that captures the image. It is imperative to master that tool first. If you are unable to capture an good image with a camera, using all the electronics of that camera, then no photo manipulating program is going to improve that result. To me a photographer is someone who captures an image. To use what ever post-production methods you become an image manipulator. If that is your forte so be it but I maintain that the better photographer is the person who captures the better original image.

[Markvetnz]

Andre

I have not trolled through this thread, but this topic comes up often. I am a purist when it comes to getting it right in camera.
I am also a skilled Photoshop user.

I like to think of my raw file as a "negative" and then my PP work as "developing" the image.

If you choose not to PP then that is your own valid choice, but it will honestly limit your photography. In my opinion photography is both a science and an art and I see it as a means of producing my desired image. If you tend more towards the science side then you would probably use PP to tweak and imrpove the quality of the final product. If you tend towards the arty side then you might use it to totally manipulate or alter the image to an abstract form. Either way, they are valid causes.

This type of discussion always stirs up a biy of controversy. Here in NZ we have national competitions that take on an anything goes approach which obviously recognises the fact that times have changed for good, and we also have categories that allow only minimal post processing equivalent to what we used to do in a darkroom, allowing true photography in its purest form.

As I've got a bit older I've come to realise that I'm the only one who suffers when I adopt a rigid inflexible attitude to anything. My advice to you would be to use PP software to a level you are happy with. Digital photography and everything that goes with it creates limitless possibilites. It is truly liberating. Time to get out the dark ages.

[AB26]

Andre, I agree with you. The camera is the tool that captures the image. It is imperative to master that tool first. If you are unable to capture an good image with a camera, using all the electronics of that camera, then no photo manipulating program is going to improve that result. To me a photographer is someone who captures an image. To use what ever post-production methods you become an image manipulator. If that is your forte so be it but I maintain that the better photographer is the person who captures the better original image.

Hi Brian,
Don't know if being World and European champion inspires you to jump in the deep end with me.
Not many to agree with me. I am not saying no PP at all, the software supplied by my camera manufacturers Nikon and Sony is good enough to get the image looking like I want. Should I go beyond that I would do it soly for special effects. That will be manipulating an image.
I find more pleasure in shooting than computing.

Brace yourself, the ride is rough.

[AB26]

Andre

I have not trolled through this thread, but this topic comes up often. I am a purist when it comes to getting it right in camera.
I am also a skilled Photoshop user.

Mark, did you read post #89?

[RustBeltRaw]

That was a scintillating 95 posts. Interesting that everyone has apparently thought about this extensively. Now it's my turn to throw a little ether at the inferno.

I tend to agree with those who say that there is nothing inherently correct or incorrect about post-processing. Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP, and other programs are only tools, as are cameras, and in the vast majority of cases it's only fair to judge the end result rather than the tool used to achieve it. Every individual strikes the whatever balance they find appropriate between camera skills and processing skills, then either stays in their comfort zone or keeps pushing to improve. Nowadays there are some non-professionals who try to make up for a lack of one skill with the other, but I don't think you'll find true digital-image professionals who are weak in either area.

There's a broad zone of exceptions for people who are as interested in the camera as their results. I have a bit of this strain, and I suspect Andre does too. It's occasionally amusing to fool around with extreme-fisheye lenses, unusual techniques, and older hardware. I learned on a Canon A1 (part of the reason I almost always set ISO, aperture, and shutter speed manually) and still mess around with my dad's Zenza Bronica for a change of pace, but my ultimate goal is the highest-quality images I can get, which these days means digital equipment and painstaking post-processing. The exact definition of post-processing, like many aesthetic considerations, is broadly contentious (as we're proving ).

The only area where I take issue with extensive post-processing is when it's applied to people. Artistically, there is no problem with taking a model who's beautiful to begin with and lengthening their legs, smoothing skin, enlarging eyes, increasing color, darkening lips, retouching, nipping, tucking, and liposucking until they look nothing like their original self, but the instant you constantly present such images to the public, you have a problem. I would love to know how many anti-depressant prescriptions are linked to artificially-enhanced Photoshop beauties heaped ten-deep and twenty-wide on every magazine stand. That, I think, is more digital art than photography, but it's presented as the latter.

There's an implied obligation to maintain reality applied to the photographer (which I think is entirely fair, and one of my favorite things about the medium) which has been breached. This highlights what I see as the critical difference between post-processing and creating digital art. As applied to a person, the minute you alter a permanent feature, whether by deletion, obfuscation, or reshaping, you are outside what I consider photography, and I think, in sketchy moral territory. Deleting a rock from a landscape, as shown earlier, is not going to do anyone any harm.

While I agree that trying to make up for a lack of camera skills with Photoshop is a little sleazy (my opinion, justified only by my personal sense of aesthetics), I don't think you'll find many people who both take themselves seriously and permit their unprocessed images to be crap. Personally, I prefer to emphasize camera skills, but that's mainly because, to me, roaming about finding images is vastly more satisfying than moving sliders. But neither do I like half measures, which includes trying to avoid any part of the process because I like it less. To skip post-processing just because I don't enjoy it is letting my camera work down, and if I'm not learning to be the best photographer I can by whatever means, why did I pick up a camera?

[AB26]

I guess I come from the school that I want decide on what my final image looks like and not leave it to the default set by some anonymous camera or lens designer or a software engineer.

Manfred, you don't if you know how to tweak the settings on the camera. You are using a tool designed, manufactured and programmed by some anonymous engineer. Do you trust the shutter in the camera and the aparture setting for the lens? How about the WB, ISO or exposure control. The censor????

[Manfred M]

Manfred, you don't if you know how to tweak the settings on the camera. You are using a tool designed, manufactured and programmed by some anonymous engineer. Do you trust the shutter in the camera and the aparture setting for the lens? How about the WB, ISO or exposure control. The censor????

Andre: Carefully said, some of the things you list are more trustworthy than others. The shutter speed and aperture should be working within a reasonable tolerence, otherwise there is something physically wrong with the camera and it needs to be repaired. The WB is irrelevent if you use RAW (and if I am shooting jpg in interesting lighting conditions I will do a manual WB using a target or will play with different settings at sunrise and sunset), ISO may be off (take a look at the DxO website to see what your camera body's test results really are), exposure control I don't trust at all and I always look at my histogram after a shot and I do compensate based on what I see.

What I am saying though, if you shoot jpg, you are essentially letting the camera do PP work for you.



This is an out of the camera jpg image with both contrast and saturation cranked up. I could have achieved the same results in Photoshop, yet by one definition this is okay, while doing it in PS is not?

[AB26]

Neither, because they were only capturing the image data. My aim is to become a good photographer, which involves developing the skills, knowledge and understanding of the whole of photography - capturing and processing images - to produce good photographs.

I suppose George was the assistant. Perhaps some of us here feel more like Ringo without drums - repeatedly banging our heads against a wall.
Philip

Philip, in this capture, SOOC, I made a mistake with camera settings, can you please advise how to solve the problem by changing the settings. I will appriciate your assistance.

[AB26]

Manfred, that capture is picture perfect. Can't see the EXIF, why not?