Why PP rocks... in B&W... and in Color!

[eNo]

I would reproduce my write-up here if its length and content made it easier. Instead here is a link to it. Hope you find it useful.

[carregwen]

eNo

Even if you just cut and paste it, I think it's worth doing as the points you make are very valid. I haven't heard anyone say recently "I prefer things straight from the camera..." but I'm sure there are many who still think so. I like the effect in The Joshua Tree. You said it was PP on the red channel - could you elaborate a little more perhaps? It's a very nice shot.

[The Blue Boy]

Looks like he's used the Channel Mixer in Photoshop Rob. It has presets which you can then tweak. But then again I could be wrong!

[Stinky]

Being new to PP, I have mixed emotions. I feel some PP is great but not to change the entire photo to something that was not seen through the lens. Just my 2 cents.

[Klickit]

I'll put my neck in the noose here and say that I come out firmly on the side of pp. I haven't worked seriously with film, so can't comment on that side of things, but in my opinion, and it is only an opinion, there are very few images coming straight out of a digital camera that don't need some post work, even if that is only some sharpening.

The degree of that pp depends on the desired end result. Some landscapes just cry out to be represented harshly as they are harsh in themselves. A good example is eNo's Joshua tree. That would be much less attention grabbing if it were SOOC. And what s/he did with the plane pix gives us a good vision of what the view really is from X-thousand feet, without those 2 sheets of dirty glass to obscure our view.

A photo often starts in the mind and emotion of the photographer. We have an idea or a picture that we want to present to our viewer and that idea may not be exactly what we see, any more than many of the great painted works of art were exact representations of their subject. The painter had his brush as a tool to present his idea to us - we have our cameras and software as tools to present our ideas, too.

Um....better step of my soapbox now....

[pwnage101]

the way I see it, PP is done no matter what. it's just a matter of letting the computer do it (camera computer) or doing it yourself.

[carregwen]

... The painter had his brush as a tool to present his idea to us - we have our cameras and software as tools to present our ideas, too.

Well put, and I agree completely.

[Wirefox]

my view is "whatever it takes to produce the vision in your head". It depends on why you take photographs. If you are forensic photographer or use photography as a technical record then PP is probably a disadvantage. If on the other hand you wish to convey feeling, emotion and impact in an artistic sense then to ignore the benefits of PP would be ignorance indeed. The bottom line is there is no 'right' answer to this. I have read the views of the vocalists on other forums who insist a good photographer does not need PP since his or her skill at twiddling knobs and mental arithmetic negate the need for putting things right with software. I believe that these people are creating an elitism that stunts their artistic potential. It is like owning a ferrari just to drive it around cones...it misses point

Steve

Steve

[Maritimer1]

Eno, thank you for that article. As someone who doesn't have all the "arthimetic", but who likes to shoot manual as often as possible, I was feeling a little guilty about PP. Not any more. I will view it as a learning tool and a tool for photographic voice.

Beautiful shots, btw.

Myra

[eNo]

carregwen, blueboy: yes, I use Channel mixer. For various details on my approach, check out previous articles I've written on the topic (in reverse chronological order).

Klickit and Steve: you're right. It's about achieving your artistic vision... the purpose you have for the photo.

Myra: think about it this way... back in the day, folks like Ansel Adams would spend as much time in the dark room as they did looking for the shot.

[ANSORB]

With colour, apart from sharpening, I like to look for and try to get rid of colour casts. I think minor ones are quite easy to miss if you don't check (OK, lots of people have better eyes than I do but I bet none are as sharp as the Info palette) and removing even a very slight cast can make an unexpected improvement. The other reason for removing one is that you may do someting further down the line which makes it worse.



John

[The Blue Boy]

eNo, a good point about Mr Adams in the darkroom. You've only to look at Photoshop's tool pallete to realise that nearly all of them existed in physical form way before digital. Just don't go too far.

[carregwen]

I just ordered the book you recommend by Michael Freeman. You shouldn't suggest books to me, I'm a sucker for them.

[Donald]

I just ordered the book you recommend by Michael Freeman. You shouldn't suggest books to me, I'm a sucker for them.

Rob

My own offerings of gratitude to eNo (and others) was made here, in the thread in which you made hugely important contributions. I shall forever remain grateful for picking up this reference. Freeman has been my B&W bible ever since I laid hands on it.