Why so much Post Production?

[MrB]

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 appreciate your assistance.

No idea. Don't know what your problem is (the one that you refer to here, that is ), and what you were trying to achieve (unless perhaps in posting this you were setting a trap ).

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.

Ask someone who is an experienced photographer - someone who is already very knowledgeable and skillful in image capture and image processing - to assist you. That's what I always hope will happen when I post a question on CiC. Hopefully, I also will be able to learn some more from his/her reply.

Philip

[Mito]

Andre, World champions fight! The title of the post was why so much post production? I don't think it has ever been implied that PP is wrong. As I said earlier and I'll continue to say it is that if you can't capture a decent image with the camera in your hand using what ever gizmos are inside, attached or held no amount of PP is going to produce a decent outcome. If you enjoy sitting infront of a computer manipulating an image, great, but there are those who prefer to be "snapping the action" and I do not use that in a disparaging manner. Let us all enjoy our hobby in our own ways. Those that do it for a living must produce the highest standards otherwise they will quickly be out of buisness.

[William W]

(ASIDE) -

[Re: Post #80] I do have reservations about P mode in that I believe perhaps erroniously that I have no control over ISO . . .

In mostly all, if not all digital cameras, I believe that the Photographer has control over the ISO whilst using P Mode.

WW

[enaiman]

Just to throw my 2 cents in ...

"I" need PP many times because the SOOC jpg won't look like what I've seen.
I will give just an example sunsets/sunrises - how many times can you get the SOOC photo to look like you have seen it? For me - never?
I know, I could use some graduated filters but why should I spend money on them when I can very easy take a couple bracketed shots then combine them in Photoshop? Cheaper solution with the same result.
Why should I spend the money on these filters, carry them all over, fiddle with them on site then spending much more time to get the "perfect attempt"? Just to be able to auto-label myself as "professional" or "true photographer" or to take pride on "my photos have absolutely no PP because I am so skilled to get everything perfect"?
No thanks, I am happy to be considered an amateur. I will be able to get my photos in a fraction of the time it takes you to get your SOOC perfect pics and guess what - in many cases my PP pics will look better. I'll be able to use my time in many other ways. My time is precious, why waste it?

The end result is all that matters - the less effort to do that, the better.

I am definitely looking forward toward new cameras able to do much and much more, that will save on my PP work - in the end it will be still "me" choosing the subject, choosing the angle, chosing the lights and pressing the shutter button.
It might not seem too much and you would think that anyone can do it (in fact anyone can do it ... but what the result will be?) - I think that composition and subject is the most important thing - it is what makes a great photo.

It all comes down to personal choice - you want to get everything perfect on camera and take pride on that? - be my guest.
Will you consider me an amateur with little knowledge in "true photography"? Sincerely - I don't care about that. I am taking pictures for myself/family/friends if they look at my pictures and they like them that's all that matters to me.

As a final thought - I can't see why somebody will hide that fact that they did post-process their pics - there is no shame in that.

I think I should close my argument with an apology - my post might have been harsh. I didn't mean to offend anybody, all I wanted was to state clear my "amateur photographer" position.

[Andrew1]

Andre, a great thread with lots of input from which to pull out what each of us feel is pertinent to our own ideals. As such it's a good read but nobody's opinions will be altered very far. Judging by some of the retorts you hit pretty close to home in a couple of cases. I had a rather lengthy response prepared but have waited so long most of my comments agreeing with you have been covered by others. Over-manipulation will not fix a problem in the original technical or creative aspects of most photographs. In any skill you need to learn to use the basic tools properly and the advanced tools come later. In photography, some basic processing is required for every finished product whether it be chemical developing of a print or sharpening a digital rendition to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter.

I have to agree with a previous poster that terminology needs to be shifted. There's no dictionary reference to Post Processing and the only formal documentation I could find was Wikipedia's notes on video. Search the internet for other references to post processing and your more apt to get erroneous definitions that PP is fixing problems or correcting issues. Some people use the photograph as a starting point in their editing endeavours so do we then need to define when a photograph is no longer a photograph? I've seen some examples in a gallery that I would swear were paintings. Perhaps the term digital imaging is best for that work as we go forward. There are no restrictive walls. A digital image can be anything from the x-ray of a broken foot to the extraordinary work of Rado Javor. All encompassing - no arguments, maybe. There's still going to be the discussion on how bad photos turn into art.

[AB26]

No idea. Don't know what your problem is (the one that you refer to here, that is ), and what you were trying to achieve (unless perhaps in posting this you were setting a trap ).

Ask someone who is an experienced photographer - someone who is already very knowledgeable and skillful in image capture and image processing - to assist you. That's what I always hope will happen when I post a question on CiC. Hopefully, I also will be able to learn some more from his/her reply.

Philip

Hi Philip, do you now understand what this thick skulled Dutchman is trying to say.
You cannot assist me because of lack of skill with the most important tool in photography – the camera.
The object of this thread: to convince members to improve skill with the camera. It is very simple to say “manipulate this or that”, how about “try adjusting the exposure compensation by - ⅓ stop. I don’t want to “fix” errors in PP, if the error could have been avoided should I have had beter skills configuring my camera.

Know your camera and reduce time spend on PP! Do you love your computer more than your camera?

[AB26]

Andre, World champions fight!

Can't win against a reff.
Thanks Brian, I appreciate you being in this mud bath with me.

[MrB]

Hi,
Post processing in photography. Is it still Photography or has it become Photoshop art? How much Post Processing is too much? Should post produced photographs still be considered the work of a Photographer or does it become the work of a Computer (software) Artist?

By mastering the art of knowing your tools a good photographer should not need to Photoshop his/her work to get the desired effect.

I think it is very clear to all of you that I am an activist against manipulating photographs into images that reflect a world of colour that does not exist. Perhaps too many have become so dismayed with the world we live in that they want to change it into something it is not. Capturing an image of a bird, a tiger, flower, tree or any other natural object without rendering the colour correctly is a false image.

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?

There are many respected photographers, including some of the members of CiC, who produce stunning black & white photographs from the colour images captured by their cameras. Many of them achieve this by using extensive post-processing, perhaps using software even beyond the capabilities of PhotoShop (e.g. Silver Efex Pro) to manipulate their images and realise their vision - their "desired effect". They are competent photographers using photography to produce excellent photographs.

But hang on, black & white is not real, it does not exist in the real world - we see in colour. And if extensive post-processing is not photography, the product is not a photograph. So those who produce black and white images cannot be described as capable photographers.

Philip

[AB26]

As a final thought - I can't see why somebody will hide that fact that they did post-process their pics - there is no shame in that.

Eugen,
Do you really believe that, I have seen many examples of the exact opposite.

[Mike Buckley]

The object of this thread: to convince members to improve skill with the camera.

Maybe it's just me, Andre, but I have read your first post several times including just now and I didn't understand that that is the purpose of your thread. I thought it was more of a philosophical discussion. I don't think anyone, certainly not I, would disagree with you that it's always good to improve our skills with the camera. On the other hand, I would argue that it's also always good to improve our skills with post-processing software.

[AB26]

But hang on, black & white is not real, it does not exist in the real world - we see in colour. And if extensive post-processing is not photography, the product is not a photograph. So those who produce black and white images cannot be described as capable photographers.
Philip

Shame Philip, you keep bumping your head against the same erroneous assumptions. In your opinion the world does not exist for colour blind people. Or maybe you live in a world where there is no such thing as a colour blind person – you simply deny the very existence of these people.

[jcuknz]

Originally Posted by AB26
The object of this thread: to convince members to improve skill with the camera.

Nothing against that unless it is a disapproval of PP which if so is a very narrow point of view as digital camera and editor are as film camera and darkroom and both should be pursued to the highest standards ... preferably so the PP doesn't show.

[Mito]

The end result is all that matters - the less effort to do that, the better.

Exactly and the discussion here is how to do it. Set up your camera correctly and you will get a good image. Poor quality image, poor quality result after PP.

[AB26]

Maybe it's just me, Andre, but I have read your first post several times including just now and I didn't understand that that is the purpose of your thread. I thought it was more of a philosophical discussion. I don't think anyone, certainly not I, would disagree with you that it's always good to improve our skills with the camera. On the other hand, I would argue that it's also always good to improve our skills with post-processing software.

Agreed Mike. If we as members of CiC can learn from each other to improve our skills, don't you think it should start with the camera? If all else fail - PP. I just don't see it in the posts. It is almost always - "Photoshop it".

[AB26]

Originally Posted by AB26
The object of this thread: to convince members to improve skill with the camera.

Nothing against that unless it is a disapproval of PP which if so is a very narrow point of view as digital camera and editor are as film camera and darkroom and both should be pursued to the highest standards ... preferably so the PP doesn't show.

Thanks Photo Nut,
Positive.
PS. At CiC the members are not ashamed of a name.

[Mike Buckley]

If we as members of CiC can learn from each other to improve our skills, don't you think it should start with the camera?

Depending on the situation, I don't think it should necessarily start with discussions about how to use the camera but I do believe in many situations that it should include discussions about how to use it. That leads to my next comment.

If all else fail - PP. I just don't see it in the posts. It is almost always - "Photoshop it".

I see and participate in lots of discussions about things that could have been done better at the time of capture. Just in this reading session alone, I have seen many discussions about improving the images by getting it right in the capture.

Personally, I think you're making more of an issue about this than really exists and that you're throwing out conflicting statements to the point that I really don't understand where you stand on the issues that you are raising. As an example, in your first post you challenged readers to convince you to start using Lightroom or Photoshop. On the other hand, you have mentioned in other posts that you understand the need for certain kinds or amounts of post-processing.

[Inkanyezi]

/.../ Some people use the photograph as a starting point in their editing endeavours so do we then need to define when a photograph is no longer a photograph? I've seen some examples in a gallery that I would swear were paintings. /.../

And sometimes a photo may look very much like a painting, although it is an unadulterated photograph, which is perhaps why I like the snake image I posted in #6 in this thread. There is little to reveal that it is in fact a photograph; hence you will occasionally find the photograph that looks like a painting, just as there are paintings that look like photographs.

Myself I never built any image from scratch or with a photo as a base in the editing program, even though I use the Gimp which was originally conceived to create images. Mostly I only tweak a little, and I prefer doing that in the RAW converter, which I regard as a better tool for colour correction than the Gimp (or PhotoShop).

And that is about it. Colour correction, white balance, is done in the RAW converter, and often I use it also for adjusting contrast curves. Then I fine tune in Gimp, where I convert the image to jpeg, often reducing its size and adding sharpness accordingly. My tweaks are at about the same order as in-camera jpeg conversion, although often I capture a bit more dynamic range. I also sometimes correct fringing that results from colour aberration in the lens. Such a tweak makes the image more resemblant of reality, not less.

Sometimes nature looks like a painting, and I like it that way.

[Mito]

But hang on, black & white is not real, it does not exist in the real world - we see in colour.
Philip

Philip,
My elder son was colour blind and very much of this world.
I have a very dear longstanding friend whom I call Mr B. He too is cantankerous. Can I make an analogy, a non-digital one that I hope will explain our feelings towards PP.
I have a piece of wood I want to cut. I have two saws, one a 9 TPI cross cut, the other a 24TPI tennon saw. I make a cut with the first and oh dear, the end grain is open and the ends are splintered. The second the cut is much cleaner but still needs a bit of work to finish it. Not to worry I'll take the first to my do-everything woodworking machine and tidy it up, the second I'll touch up with a piece of fine sand paper. I've tidied up the first and it's ok but it has turned out 2mm too short.
The similarity? Do it right or as best you can the first time and there is far less to do afterwards.
Isn't the term "image manipulation" or "image editing" a so much more accurate description of the computer process than PP?

[Manfred M]

Philip,
Isn't the term "image manipulation" or "image editing" a so much more accurate description of the computer process than PP?

PP is more of a generic industry term that has been around for a long time that describes pretty well anything that happens after the picture is taken. Image editing and image manipulation are two forms of PP. As an example photocompositing, creating a slideshow and preparing an image for printing are common areas of PP that more than just "image manipulation" and "image editing".

[AB26]

I really don't understand where you stand on the issues that you are raising.

No Mike I don’t think you understand.
Let me try to explain in a way you should understand.
The very people who manufacture our cameras understood and adopted a postulate called ZD. They apply it in every sfere of their lives. ZD stands for Zero Defects. If you understand the principals of ZD you will understand why those very people manufacturing our cameras today, also produce beter cars than the people who first implemented the principals of ZD.