How much post-processing do you do?

[jprzybyla]

Hello Djoran,

I have been following this thread pondering whether I wanted to wade in or not. I have decided to add my two cents. I shoot is RAW because that gives me the most flexibility in post processing, which I do a lot of. At this stage in my photography I am most interested in images I can turn into photographic art, an image that could be printed and hung in a home or gallery. I agree with Manfred (GrumpyDiver) that what separated Ansel Adams from his peers was his work in the darkroom, how many have taken photographs from his locations and never achieved his look. My photography is birds, so I have to work quickly. Anytime they can fly away, so playing with the settings on the camera other than setting what experience tells me is not an option. I depend on what I can do with software on the computer for the look of the final image. The computer and software, the digital darkroom, is to use what the darkroom was to Adams and his colleagues. Below I have posted images from a recent workup (already posted in High Key Heron) that will show my workup.

This image is straight out of the camera, some might say... dark, underexposed. The day had a heavy overcast, the early morning was dark. I could have spot metered the bird and the sky would have blown out. I chose to leave the metering to matrix, knowing from experience what I could do later.



In my workflow I always crop an image first, I like working on what will be close to the finished image. After cropping I worked through the Develop Modules in Lightroom 4. After getting the sky to look as I wanted the bird and limbs appeared too dark, using the Adjustment Brush to work locally on the bird and limbs I lightened them by Dodging (lightening the exposure). I then edited the image in Photoshop Elements 10. I used the Clone Stamp with the opacity set at 40 to clean up a couple branches that intruded in the image on the left side. The other editing I did in Photoshop Elements was to add Local Contrast Enhancement using Unsharp Mask at an amount of 10, radius 200, and threshold 0. Below is the image as it came back into Lightroom from Photoshop Elements.



I still did not have the look I wanted, in Lightroom I added contrast and lightened the exposure. I then applied a Post Crop Vignette to more focus attention on the bird and limbs and to darken slightly the corners. Below is the finished image.



Do I do this with every image...no, but I do with images I see a potential to turn the photography into art.

Along the lines of what Manfred showed in his post above at the ghost town. I do not know who to attribute the quote to but it goes like this, " A artist decides what to put into the painting, a photographer decides what to remove from the image".

[rpcrowe]

Rather than considering post processing a chore, I enjoy the process every bit as much as I enjoy the shooting. Of course, I am retired and have the available time to work with my images...

I try to get each image as close to how I want that image in camera. That is one reason that I prefer high-grade zoom lenses to primes; although I have several quite good prime lenses also. The zoom lens "usually" allows me to crop "in-camera" fairly close to how I want the image to look. I shoot with a pair of cameras and usually use 17-55mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. That gives me a 17-200mm (I don't miss the 55-70mm gap) focal range with excellent IQ...

When I use a prime, I am at the mercy of subject distance and subject size along with the focal lengths I have with me. If one lens is too long for my shot, I have to select the next shortest focal length available and then I will need to crop to how I want the image framed...

I cut my teeth on prime lenses and respect their advantages but also realize their disadvantages. Prime advocates love to say, "Just zoom with your feet!" Zooming with ones feet is a much overrated and often impossible technique - unless you have "Walk on Water Shoes" or "Seven League Boots". I don't own this type of foot-gear so I am unable to foot-zoom in many cases...

I always shoot RAW and use both input and output sharpening. IMO, this is more flexible and efficient than having the camera apply the sharpening...

Shooting RAW allows me great versatility and control over my images. I never worry about color balance when shooting but, will frequently include a color target (such as a WhiBal card) in my series of shots...

There are other many reasons that I choose RAW and high among these is that the RAW images are non-destructible. In fact, I have some images which I previously post processed in CS3 that I have reprocessed in CS6 + NIK software. I am able to improve some of these images due to the increased capability of the CS6 and NIK software...

I began shooting JPEG and after a while switched to RAW + JPEG because I was reluctant to shoot in RAW alone. After a while, I realized that I was not touching the JPEG images so I switched to shooting RAW alone and have never looked back...

IMO, you are manipulating your image from the first time you pick up your camera and decide the point of view and angle as well as the focal length, shutter sped and aperture, etc. I have nothing against some further manipulation in post processing as long as the results are to my liking. If other people like my images, that is just icing in the cake. However, I shoot for my own pleasure. IMO, that is the great advantage of the hobbyist over the professional photographer. I really don't have to consider if other people will like my images any more...

[dubaiphil]

I'm with Richard - I find the pp process enjoyable and relaxing if I know where I'm going with my workflow.

Many of the scenes that I take photographs of need pp - not a huge amount, but enough to make them presentable. Having a look through many travellers' images from Dubai and the region shows that without the pp and local knowledge you end up with hazy sandy mush a great deal of the time. A certain amount of pp is required to cut through the atmospherics of the region.

Going back home to the UK, or on vacation anywhere else in the world and it is as if I've had cataracts removed - far less pp is required.

So I only do as much as is required to make the final image look as much as the eye should see it in good conditions, for landscapes/cityscapes and nightscapes...

[Donald]

I'm with Richard - I find the pp process enjoyable and relaxing if I know where I'm going with my workflow.

That's the crux of it for me as well. In working towards a goal; i.e. what you told yourself that the final image was going to look like when you captured the photograph, the process of digital PP can be described in the same way as the developing of a negative and making of a print in the darkroom. It's about seeing your vision realised. And that is enormously satisfying.

On the other hand, if you're working with a file and aimlessly sliding sliders and adjusting layers in the hope that something half-decent is going to appear on the screen, then it is a hugely frustrating and annoying activity.

[RustBeltRaw]

I'm with Richard - I find the pp process enjoyable and relaxing if I know where I'm going with my workflow.

If I know where I'm going with my workflow is part of the reason I don't relish PP. I am still rather weak on Photoshop, even if I know ACR like the back of my hand. However, I take the Ansel Adams approach to PP and handle it all myself, partially because I don't have the option of hiring it done, but mostly because I prefer to maintain control of my work. If I took a truly critical, paid-for portrait, I would probably hire a professional retoucher with explicit instructions to use restraint (client's wishes permitting, of course).

How much time do I spend in PP? For my journalistic work (documenting events, for instance), roughly 2 minutes per picture. At a minimum, these images get color correction, straightening, cropping, noise reduction, and sharpening where necessary. My longest images take multiple hours, mainly because I'm figuring things out as I go. For instance, I spent 2 hours on the image below. If I'd done similar treatments before, it would probably have taken no more than 20 minutes.



Cropped, with lots of selective color-correction and saturation, cloned-out lights flaring in the background, and selective sharpening. The roof is heavily saturated, but not the skater. The skater had really weird light (oddball ambients plus my flash) which required separate color correction on his face and each hand to get it looking natural. Still not totally happy with the IQ (ISO2000 at 1/160sec, so it's noisy as a bar fight and there's some motion blur), but I like the moment and the colors.

This question comes up quite a bit. Some people seem to think a camera is a perfect recorder, so PP is somehow always a distortion of reality. I disagree, since what we see is normally unaffected by luminance noise, slow shutter speeds, and bokeh. Even if you're looking for an accurate picture of reality, some level of PP will, realistically, be necessary. If you're taking and manipulating photos as an art form, there are no rules, and all tools are valid. BUT. I think you should always be prepared to explain what you did to the photo. How much your process has to do with reality, and whether the alterations are enough to dismiss your work for abstract aesthetic distinctions, is up to the viewer. For instance, those who ignore all digital work. As if chemical film is somehow more pure. It's harder, to be sure, but it's not free of digital PP dilemmas.

[tbob]

I shoot exclusively in RAW, so post processing is a necessity. I shoot in JPEG rarely, mainly for grandkids birthdays, family stuff, SPCA events, where I will shoot a hundred plus pictures and I refuse to spend hours post processing. Like the majority of people who have posted so far I do quite quick adjustments. I work solely in Aperture; and not to bore people with minutiae but, this is my workflow sequence: colour saturation sliders (red,yellow,green,blue,purple and magenta),definition slider, overall colour saturation slider , vibrancy slider , adjust highlights slider, adjust black slider, midtone contrast slider, remove sensor spots, overall exposure and lastly sharpness. Takes about 2 minutes, most of which is hunting down and removing sensor spots. It is not a task I enjoy, however it has become quite routine.

Once in a blue moon I get an image I will spend more time on. These get dodging, burning, cloning out bits of extraneous muck, crop, straighten and/or noise reduction as needed. I try really hard to get decent composition in camera.

I have no aversion to images that have been processed quite a bit to get an artistic interpretation or show what should have been in a perfect world. Manfred's images of the old buildings are a prime example. Diamonds from dreck. And there are any number of other people on this site who do brilliant things with their images.

[DDK]

If I'm doing any more than that it usually means it's raining out and there is nothing better to do.

That's what I use reddit's /r/gonewild for...

[plugsnpixels]

Some nice work posted here!

As stated earlier on above, the bottom line is if you're doing photojournalism, very little post work is allowable beyond what is needed to ensure a clear reproduction in the paper, for example. Though it can be debated that even the act of taking the photo in the first place (choosing an angle and selectively cropping a scene from your particular vantage point, plus stuffing reality into an electronic box) is already too much intervention and highly subject to bias. For fine art/creative work, pretty much anything goes. Somewhere in between is the usual clean-up most images require (tonal correction, sharpening, etc.).

[DDK]

Some nice work posted here!

As stated earlier on above, the bottom line is if you're doing photojournalism, very little post work is allowable beyond what is needed to ensure a clear reproduction in the paper, for example. Though it can be debated that even the act of taking the photo in the first place (choosing an angle and selectively cropping a scene from your particular vantage point, plus stuffing reality into an electronic box) is already too much intervention and highly subject to bias. For fine art/creative work, pretty much anything goes. Somewhere in between is the usual clean-up most images require (tonal correction, sharpening, etc.).

This just reminded me of an article that was written about me in a local newspaper when I owned and operated a small business. The photographer asked me to stand in a certain way, in a certain location and in a certain pose and took the picture when I made my, "Huh, what? Why?" face and used that to completely and utterly misrepresent me as a grumpy, angry, possibly criminally violent person. That and the article took everything I said in the interview out of context and was written in a way that sensationalised and detracted from my actual argument.

It has forever soured me on the media.

[Mike Buckley]

Rather than considering post processing a chore, I enjoy the process every bit as much as I enjoy the shooting.

The same for me. And I enjoy cataloging my photos every bit as much as capturing and post-processing them.

[William W]

The conversation regarding what Post Production is “allowable” for Photojournalism is more Philosophical than what is practiced.

The final output of any Journalists’ work, (audio, video, still photography and word) has been and still is at the behest of Sub-editors: and ultimately the Editor-in-Chief has aegis.

Photos “as submitted” are often post-produced in the editorial process.

Obviously the above does not apply if the Photographer is also the Editor-in-Chief.


WW

[pnodrog]

The same for me. And I enjoy cataloging my photos every bit as much as capturing and post-processing them.

Yes the same for me as well. The more time I spend on PP then the more likely I will look at them again or maybe even show them to others.

[Glenn NK]

Post-processed to whatever extent it takes to get the result I am after.

From an art perspective there are no rules other than it has to look right. For natural history, reporting etc it must remain true to what was there or happening.

I'm in L. Paul's camp.

One can approach photography as an art form or a process for duplicating the look of something. I prefer the former, and as such, creativity is important. This doesn't mean (for example) that I run the saturation on a sunset so far that it's not believable.

Learning PP is boring - so is learning scales on the piano, and learning brush techniques in graphic art - but they are the essentials to mastering the medium so to speak.

Glenn

[NorthernFocus]

... I do not know who to attribute the quote to but it goes like this, " A artist decides what to put into the painting, a photographer decides what to remove from the image".

Reading the same quote was a major breakthrough for me in my development as a photographer. I believe it goes "Painting is the art of inclusion, photography is the art of exclusion." The point being that a painter decides what to include in his work in order to tell a story or illicit the desired feeling. A photographer on the other hand has to try to exclude extraneous things around the subject that confuse the scene or don't add to the "story". In the digital age, that job has been made easier though more time consuming. One can choose to spend less time setting up a shot, waiting for people to get out of the way, etc., or one can capture the primary subject and clean it up later.

PP isn't a new phenomenon. Whenever I have a chance to speak with well established professional "fine art" photographers, I always ask them how much time they spend behind the camera versus in the darkroom/on the computer. Even those who still shoot medium and large format film indicate that they spend significantly more time processing images than capturing them.

The "art of exclusion" is a threshold that every photographer must cross in order to produce truly compelling images. Or more specifically images that are compelling to others. Personally I found reading material on Gestalt perceptions/psychology to be very helpful. One must grasp the concept that humas eyes gather light, but we really see with our minds. Post processing is simply another tool available that one can utilize to the degree desired or necessary to reproduce the image in our mind's eye.

[martinp2502]

I'll do what's necessary and that's it. I prefer my pics to look natural so normally I do fairly normal adjustments just sharpening, shadow lightening, minor saturation adjustment etc. Sometimes I'll remove something like rubbish from the beach etc.

[jcuknz]

If you do not make yourself competant with the editor, a proper editor not any of the quick fix variety, as much as with the camera you are missing out on what digital has brought us. Editor and camera are of equal importance the same way that camera and processing lab were/are.

Occasionally I have fun with editing but rarely do the results leave the computer, but it is worth doing to see what the editor can do, and if I manipulate a photo I try to make it look as if that is what it was in the first place ... it is nice to get everything right out of the camera but not always possible ... and ignore the people who say you cannot edit jpgs ... that is about the most irritating mis-truth I strike on forums I am sure that statement will irritate those people ... each to their own

Often I get out of the camera the file that I know I can use to get the effect/result I want

[Downrigger]

This is an illuminating discussion for a relative beginner like myself - and I have been pondering the same question a good deal as I get deeper into shooting and processing. This is a lot of useful thought from some accomplished folks. Thanks to all.

A dimension of the question that also puzzles me is this: Not "how much to do"?, but when to stop. I am impressed that there are many available adjustments (*for me, so far, in LR), most of which have an infinite (continuously variable) numbers of set points, so there are clearly an infinite number of possible solutions when combining these for any given image. Some very similar results can be achieved with different combinations of adjustments, too. It's pretty easy to get to something one likes, but hard to stop. Every time I come back to one of my favorites, I find something else to tweak.

When do you know you're really done? I think never. Unless 1. you have achieved something perfect and 2. can recognize it when you have. But will await others on this question.

[Brauerworks]

My name is Hans and I do PP.
Seriously, my take on the subject is pretty simple.
There is no such thing as SOOC. We are recording light onto a sensor and converting it to a visible image.
I do as much PP as I see fit.

One interesting fact about "real" photos is the fact that if you are to submit pictures to National Geographic they only want RAW images, nothing else.

[Donald]

A dimension of the question that also puzzles me is this: Not "how much to do"?, but when to stop.

...

When do you know you're really done? I think never. Unless 1. you have achieved something perfect and 2. can recognize it when you have. But will await others on this question.

Mark - You make a hugely important point. When you start finding the answer and realise that you are content with whatever it you do, you will have reached an important milestone on your learning journey.

Knowing when to stop is the great question and I think it is only experience and finding your own vision and style that helps you reach that point. Until then you are always feeling, 'If I just do ...........', or, 'I've just seen someone else do .................'

Do you stop when you've achieved perfection? You never will, so stop trying. You can and will achieve, 'beautiful', 'excellent' 'gorgeous', 'brilliant', but never 'perfect'. What you can and, hopefully, will learn to recognise is, 'That's the vision I saw when I pressed the shutter' and, 'That's as good as I can make it and I'm very pleased with it'. And that will tell you it's time to stop.

[James G]

Djoran,
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments just submitted by Mark and Donald as regards knowing when to stop. Recognising that you are content with what you have achieved with an image, is the target. I invariably feel that I could do better with an image, but experience tells me that 'further' work is subject to the lay of diminishing returns. More seriously, further work is likely to become detrimental to what is already achieved.

As regards post processing technique, I try to do as little as possible, since I invariably shoot RAW, I prefer to do as much as possible in Adobe Camera Raw.
But the post processing I tend to use in Photoshop is generally along the lines of adjusting Hue and Saturation, increasing 'punch' using Vibrance changes.
I also use a number of different techniques to adjust sharpness, and have a preference for using an action I put together based on 'wavelet sharpening' to sharpen for screen, and I use the High Pass filter for final sharpening for print.

As to what I use and when, that I guess is where the 'art' and 'experience come in, but in the context of your question, I suppose these are my 'favourite' tools.