Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 12, 2012, 8:40 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Digital post processing is not any different than film processing (IMO), just digital is a lot easy to do. Note: I say easier because I'm not yelling at CS5 at this moment. Everything done in digital post processing was done in the darkroom processing and most all digital in camera processing was done in camera with film. Use to have lots of stock negatives of clouds, sunsets, stars, moon and trees, all for the purpose of adding to the original shot. Heck, we even added people to shots, so adding things to pictures film or digital is nothing new. One famous picture of a family morning a dying loved one was really seven different pictures all added together and this was done in early 1900's. As to most in camera processing there isn't really much difference between film and digital. Today we use in camera filters to correct or change what we see, with film we added a CPL, yellow, red, green, star burst or soft focus filter to the camera. To me, I don't see that much has changed in photography other than it is a lot easier to manipulate. That not to say it is easier to make a great photograph, that still take a vision of the person behind the camera as it has from the begin of photography.
So I say keep shooting, processing and having fun with photography in what ever way you see your vision.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 9:56 AM   #32
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrderek View Post
We share the same views cav, shame some people feel the need to impose their own views onto others.

To me, ultimately, I'd like to think that photography is the equivalent of saying to a friend, "look over there, isn't that beautiful?".
It's not the same saying "look over there, now imagine the sky a bit bluer and the clouds a bit whiter..."
I like the irony LOL..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
Digital post processing is not any different than film processing (IMO), just digital is a lot easy to do. Note: I say easier because I'm not yelling at CS5 at this moment. Everything done in digital post processing was done in the darkroom processing and most all digital in camera processing was done in camera with film. Use to have lots of stock negatives of clouds, sunsets, stars, moon and trees, all for the purpose of adding to the original shot. Heck, we even added people to shots, so adding things to pictures film or digital is nothing new. One famous picture of a family morning a dying loved one was really seven different pictures all added together and this was done in early 1900's. As to most in camera processing there isn't really much difference between film and digital. Today we use in camera filters to correct or change what we see, with film we added a CPL, yellow, red, green, star burst or soft focus filter to the camera. To me, I don't see that much has changed in photography other than it is a lot easier to manipulate. That not to say it is easier to make a great photograph, that still take a vision of the person behind the camera as it has from the begin of photography.
So I say keep shooting, processing and having fun with photography in what ever way you see your vision.
This is true, many people forget how much was done with filters and in post, not much has changed as you say apart from we are doing on a computer.

I see photography, both then and now, as an art form which involves being skilled at using all the tools available to the photographer. There are some purists who like to keep everything very simple and that's fine for them, there are other photographers who like to continue to create their vision of the photograph in post. There is a point at which is does become digital art but that's a lot further down the road (IMHO) than the OP suggests.

We've all seen this question raised loads and I love to laugh to myself when I see people who raise it as the only way to shoot then a few months later post obviously edited photos..... I don't say anything but it's very tempting when seen

The main thing for me it to get out and enjoy your photography in the why that is good for you. I don't think there is any point imposing one view over another, if you are a happy photographer then all well and good..... oh and for me, I'm happy when my clients are happy, after all, they are the ones who pay my bills
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 10:36 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

Being in photojournalism I believe photos should show things as they are/were and not look like a painting, heavily edited, artistry looking etc. I do white balance at times if the lighting doesn't come out close, crop an image if needed, may apply a little noise reduction if its sports but other than that I do very little if anything to a photo. I try to spend as little time post procession images as I can. What time I do spend in post production is to weed out the non-keepers, caption or number the images and file them to my back-up drive and DVDs.

To me a photo should show a moment in time and not someones ability to make a painting or something else out of it.

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 11:09 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Somehow,when posted- I just knew this would run and run...lol...
They used to say there are 2 things you don't discuss in a pub- religion and politics- well,I guess you can add post processing to that...lol..

One thing I will add though- in the days of film,unless you had expensive developing equipment,your prints were at the mercy of a supermarket photobooth- or those envelopes you used to send your films away in.. lol...
At least now,with a bit of PP,we can get the results we want- all in the comfort of our own homes on our PC....
Brilliant...

Last edited by SIMON40; Jan 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 11:15 AM   #35
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo 5 View Post
Being in photojournalism I believe photos should show things as they are/were and not look like a painting, heavily edited, artistry looking etc. I do white balance at times if the lighting doesn't come out close, crop an image if needed, may apply a little noise reduction if its sports but other than that I do very little if anything to a photo. I try to spend as little time post procession images as I can. What time I do spend in post production is to weed out the non-keepers, caption or number the images and file them to my back-up drive and DVDs.

To me a photo should show a moment in time and not someones ability to make a painting or something else out of it.

dave
It's true, photojournalism you shouldn't be making any changes apart from colour correct, noise, exposure and size. It's all about accurately capturing what is happening at the time. I would be worried if a PJ was changing things, then you start getting into the realms of what we see in major magazines where things are not really what they seem
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 11:18 AM   #36
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
Somehow,when posted- I just knew this would run and run...lol...
They used to say there are 2 things you don't discuss in a pub- religion and politics- well,I guess you can add post processing to that...lol..

One thing I will add though- in the days of film,unless you had expensive developing equipment,your prints were at the mercy of a supermarket photobooth- or those envelopes you used to send your films away in.. lol...
At least now,with a bit of PP,we can get the results we want- all in the comfort of our own homes on our PC....
Brilliant...
This topic always does, we've done it a few times and sure it will go around a few more

If we are talking about a 'real' photographer then back in the day it was only them who could do the manipulations that we see now, so possibly something that doesn't have a little bit of an edit isn't taken by a real photographer but rather a happy snapper......... LOL.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 2:30 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The title of the topic is Opinions on Post Processing. Mrderek ended his initial post with what is photography to you?

I don't have a problem with post processing the heck out of an image. That's my opinion on Post Processing.

"Photography" is the recording of light. In the days of film, light was recorded once onto film, and then (in the case of prints) re-recorded onto paper. That second recording has been replaced in digital photography with the use of image editing applications. Those same image editing applications are much more capable and flexible than the darkroom ever was. At some point, as you manipulate the image that started off as a recording of light, it stops being a "photograph". That's not Photography to me.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 4:55 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Manipulations, only people with film darkroom could do manipulations. I never had a darkroom setup at home and never did developed color film but yet manipulations were done to many of my pictures. It was done at what we use to call a photo lab. Send in your neg's along with written instructions and your pictures were made to your order. Okay, computers with photo editing software is still a lot easier but we did manipulate photo back then even without a darkroom.
__________________
Comments always welcome.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 6:34 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: oakville, on
Posts: 491
Default

Opinions on Post Processing -- Hate It.

Let me explain.

I make my living doing graphic art, ad design, marketing materials etc. I work with a number of photographers and the one bug bear that I have is those that insist on handing me their work that they have "improved" with their post work. The client may like their images, looking at the medium res images on their untuned crts. But I have to now take that image -- lacking dynamic range, pixels, detail -- and prepare it for publication on high gloss stock in a national publication. I am constantly going back to the photog begging for "camera original" images. Only to be sent their latest version cropped, softened and all glowee. Yes, this says more about the level of expertise of some of the working photographers out there (and sadly about clients that hire these shooters).

I have seen the post processing results of many of the posters to this thread and your photographs would be a dream to work with. But some of the clowns I deal with...

Oh, The Royal Society for Art once stated that unless a photographic print was printed on high gloss paper, the image could not be considered art. Gloss paper would show off the post processing of the day cira 1902
KulaCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2012, 7:03 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photo 5 View Post
Being in photojournalism I believe photos should show things as they are/were ... I do ... crop an image if needed ...

To me a photo should show a moment in time and not someones ability to make a painting or something else out of it.

dave
Even cropping, or selecting where you stand and what lens to use, is a manipulation of reality. E.g., when shooting the couple coming down the stairs of their new home, do you include the homeless guy sleeping next to the overflowing trash barrel?

It depends on what you are trying to show. The happy couple? The problems of poverty? ...

What else is going on where the photo is shown? Stories about Elvis & Big Foot? Arctitectural journal? Art gallery? Flyer asking for donations to a food shelf? ...

Not a condemnation of photojournalism, just a recognition that any representation of reality is limited. I think poetry does it better than most.

Good poetry - bad poetry, like bad photography, is something you do not want to be around.

Last edited by BillDrew; Jan 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.