Post-Processing ... a Necessary Evil

[xpatUSA]

In the late 40's early 50's, My dad had one of those cameras that opened out with the lens on the end of a bellows. He shot BW negatives and developed them in what was supposed to be a pantry and didn't do any Ansel Adams as far I know other than adjusting the developing time, I guess.

I myself think that getting a good shot out of any camera with minimal post-processing, say just exposure and capture-sharpening is admirable.

Nevertheless, today I'm playing with a 'SLR Magic' manual 8mm cine lens on my Lumix G9. Although the G9 is most helpful with manual lenses, my brain is still trying to catch up with getting the settings right.

So here is a raw exported as a JPEG with no adjustments of a Texas rural White Trash's yard:



And after processing in the mighty RawTherapee:



A fairly noticeable vignette which RT can fix - but I didn't bother for this test.

For me most of the time post processing is a necessary evil, sometimes in extremis.

Thoughts welcome on PP - image is just a quick snap though ...

[pschlute]

"I myself think that getting a good shot out of any camera with minimal post-processing, say exposure+capture sharpening is admirable."

I would say it is irrelevant. I do not regard photography as a game whereby the aim is to do as little PP as possible.

I regard photography as a pursuit where the only thing that matters is the end product. If I have to take 5 exposures and merge them to give me a HDR image that gives me detail in shadows and highlights I will do it.

If i have to do extensive PP work to enhance brightness/contrast/colour in one part of the image I will do it.

Nothing is off the table when it comes to me producing a picture.

[xpatUSA]

I myself think that getting a good shot out of any camera with minimal post-processing, say exposure+capture sharpening is admirable.

I would say it is irrelevant.

Oh.

[DanK]

I think it's admirable to capture it as well as possible in camera, but not to avoid processing, but rather just to get the most out of the tool.

It's worth keeping in mind that all digital images are processed. What varies is whether only you do the processing yourself or instead trust it to a recipe concocted by an engineer in the manufacturing firm who has never seen the image to which you're applying it. I can see times when one might want to do the latter--e.g., a photographer who has to produce a large number of images very quickly. However, that's expediency, not virtue.

Re processing in the B&W wet darkroom age: there was lots of it; it was just much harder and vastly less flexible. I think you can actually find online the chart Adams drew showing how he wanted to process Moonrise Hernandez, but I don't recall where I found it. However, my guess is that a very large part of it was simply complex burning and dodging. I did that in the old days, using either little pieces of cardboard (for dodging) or bigger pieces with holes cut out (for burning). Here's one link that shows some examples: https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/mar...ited-darkroom/. Here's another: https://retouchingacademy.com/histor...otography-era/.

The range of things I can do now that I, at least, couldn't do then is vast, and it's one of the major reasons I totally gave up film years ago.

[xpatUSA]

I think it's admirable to capture it as well as possible in camera, but not to avoid processing, but rather just to get the most out of the tool.

Bearing in mind this and Peter's response, I must have worded the OP quite badly. At no time did I mean that I or others try to shoot perfect shots just in order to avoid processing.

It's worth keeping in mind that all digital images are processed.

No need to "shout" Dan, most people here know how images are created, I would have thought.

What varies is whether only you do the processing yourself or instead trust it to a recipe concocted by an engineer in the manufacturing firm who has never seen the image to which you're applying it. I can see times when one might want to do the latter--e.g., a photographer who has to produce a large number of images very quickly. However, that's expediency, not virtue.

Re processing in the B&W wet darkroom age: there was lots of it; it was just much harder and vastly less flexible. I think you can actually find online the chart Adams drew showing how he wanted to process Moonrise Hernandez, but I don't recall where I found it.

Saw them on YouTube just last night.

However, my guess is that a very large part of it was simply complex burning and dodging. I did that in the old days, using either little pieces of cardboard (for dodging) or bigger pieces with holes cut out (for burning). Here's one link that shows some examples: https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/mar...ited-darkroom/. Here's another: https://retouchingacademy.com/histor...otography-era/.

The range of things I can do now that I, at least, couldn't do then is vast, and it's one of the major reasons I totally gave up film years ago.

In fact, I never started with film as a photographic hobby. Only got seriously interested in photography when shooting watches for sale and quickly learning that a Kodak EasyShare C643 point-and-shoot just wasn't hacking it ...

[Manfred M]

Carefully said, post-processing has been with us for a very long time and I was taught the grease pencil markup method of print-making in the wet darkroom. When it comes to custom printing with a high-end retoucher, that method is still in use, although many modern photographers do the markup in Photoshop rather than using a physical print.

Let's also make the distinction between a basic image that has simple adjustments; simple cropping, white balance, contrast boost and brightness adjustments; all of which are effectively global adjustments versus the mark-up prints giving very specific instructions to the print maker on adjustments required to small individual areas in the image (a.k.a. dodging and burning). Practically every image I have ever taken needs some of this more intensive post-processing, but most photographers don't want to spend the time and effort digging into the image to bring it out properly. This process is often the difference between an ordinary image and one the really impresses.

[Manfred M]

While we are onto retouching, here is one of Karsh's most iconic portraits.







There is some major (and very well done) retouching to this image. Can you spot what it is?

I had not noticed this until someone who worked for Karsh for a number of years pointed this out to me. Now I notice it every time I look at this image. I'll post the answer in a few days.

[Chataignier]

The objective for me is to make a pleasing image. Post processing in Lightroom and/or Photoshop is just one of the tools available to me. Of course it is good to do as much as possible in the camera, but it's rarely enough to satisfy me.
I dont shoot film any more, but if I did I'd still be retouching at the print stage. Today we have the option to process and retouch digitally - no more toxic chemicals - suits me fine.

[DanK]

I think it's the title of the OP that directed the thread in the direction it tool: "a necessary 'evil'". I would have said "a necessary and extremely valuable set of tools."

[Manfred M]

I think it's the title of the OP that directed the thread in the direction it tool: "a necessary 'evil'". I would have said "a necessary and extremely valuable set of tools."

Agreed 100% Dan. For the most part, retouching is part of the photographic process and with the exception of slide film that was only projected, not printed, this was the only time that I did not retouch my images.

While the amount of post-processing I do will vary based on the actual image, but 100% of the shots I post on CiC have some level of retouching. Those posted on social media can be SOOC images that have not been touched at al, although quite often they have been extensively been retouched.

Retouching is just as integral to making a strong image as taking the picture in the first place.

[MrB]

It is disappointing that the some of the words, statements and attitudes in posts on topics such as this one seem to come across as arrogant and extreme. Even black and white photography usually has many shades of grey. I can agree that "the only thing that matters is the end product", but different photographers have different perceptions of how the product should look and how they wish to produce it, and that seems OK to me. I happen to think that the "recipe concocted by an engineer" often gets my images close to what I want, particularly as (probably other) engineers have provided many user controls in the camera to adjust its setup to my liking. Those images from the camera can be tweaked to my taste on the PC, globally and/or selectively, if necessary, and I often do that. I also know that the previous two sentences don't matter to many readers here, and that also seems OK to me.

To each his own.

Philip

[DanK]

seem to come across as arrogant

I don't think insults are helpful.

Since I was clearly the target--the quote was mine--I'll try to explain.

My point was not that it's bad in my view to shoot JPEG. I don't care a whit how others shoot. My point was that considering processing as an alternative to getting it right in camera misses the point that all digital photos are processed. You just have to choose how they are processed, and there is nothing purer about deciding to do little.

Re the statement "concocted by an engineer...": that's not a value judgment. It's a simple statement of fact. The same is true of many of the filters applied by people who do their own processing. For example, Nik contains scores of filters, and for the most part, it's not at all clear (at least to me) what they are doing. I know what they look like, but if you were to ask me how they got that effect--what the recipe is--I would be clueless. An engineer at Nik devised the recipe, and Nik rarely tells people what the recipe is. That actually one reason why I use them so little, but that's just personal taste.

If you shoot Canon, Canon does publish basic information about the recipes in their "picture styles". For example, the "landscape" style boosts contrast and sharpness, and it increases saturation in the blues and greens. Their explanation:

In photographic expression, deep blue sky and vibrant green leaves call for more vivid colors than in reality, for more impressive finish. The “Landscape” Picture Style changes the color respectively; blue to a vivid and deep color, green to a vivid and bright color.

(https://global.canon/en/imaging/pict...landscape.html).

Note that these recipes, because they are designed by an engineer who hasn't seen your photo, are limited to global adjustments. Global adjustments constitute a minor part of my processing, and I think an even smaller percentage of that of some others, e.g., Manfred. It's often local adjustments that make or break an image, in my opinion--at least, in the case of my images.

Re further editing a JPEG: that often works just fine. Many sports and wedding photographers do this routinely. Sometimes it doesn't work well. When I first moved to digital, I shot JPEG. One year, I did some shots at a dinner, and the colors of one shot were way off. I couldn't correct them well. I mentioned this to a cousin who teaches photography at a university. She smiled and said, "that's one reason I shoot raw."

I thnk I had best bow out of this discussion at this point. I doubt anything I can add would be helpful.

[rpcrowe]

If you viewed most (if not all) of Ansel Adam's photographs as SOOC with no PP involved, I do not think that you might consider Mr. Adams as the expert master of his craft that he was...

As an example -here is a YouTube video regarding one of Ansel's most famous images: "Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Ar5ZPuKUM

IMO - the original SOOC image was pretty bland and what makes this image was the retouching that Ansel applied to the image and his ability to recognize what could evolve from the original image.

I don't think that there was ever any controversy regarding the retouching of images when the capability to do that retouching was limited to experts like Ansel Adams. It was pretty well excepted tha the experts manipulated their images to one degree or another. It (IMO) became a point of controversy when computer aided retouching in programs such as Photoshop became available to anyone with a keyboard (no I am not saying that all Photoshop users are equal when it comes to results).

I cut my teeth on "real darkroom" photography and can testify that the manipulation of a print from a photographic negative was a lot more difficult that manipulating a digital image!

[xpatUSA]

If you viewed most (if not all) of Ansel Adam's photographs as SOOC with no PP involved

I did no such thing!

[DanK]

I cut my teeth on "real darkroom" photography and can testify that the manipulation of a print from a photographic negative was a lot more difficult that manipulating a digital image!

Amen. Not only more difficult, but vastly less flexible. To take only one of many examples: I now often increase midtone contrast in only parts of an image. I would have had no idea whatever how to do that in a wet darkroom, and if there is a way, it's likely very complex. My postprocessing in the darkroom was mostly limited to dodging and burning.

Not to speak of the fact that color processing was beyond the reach (technically if not financially) for virtually everyone I knew doing darkroom work at that time. A jury-rigged darkroom with approximate temperature control was fine for B&W. Not for color.

[pschlute]

There is some major (and very well done) retouching to this image. Can you spot what it is?

Something to do with cigar smoke ?

[Manfred M]

Something to do with cigar smoke ?

Actually no.

Have a look at the chair where the hand is resting; it is on the same plane as the hand, but is soft but the hand is not.

The hand was rebuilt in post to make it seem sharp.

The story that Karsh removed the cigar from Churchill's mouth and that caused the frown is apparently a myth created by Karsh. Other members of Karsh's crew that were in the room saw no such thing.