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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2012, 7:22 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 33
Default Opinions on Post Processing

Personally, I don't like too much post processing.

I feel that too many people blur the line between photography and digital art. When there's too much post processing you cross the line and it's no longer about photography. To me, photography is about capturing a moment in time, spend too much time and effort on making things look pretty and it's no longer about 'the moment'.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy imagery that has undergone a lot of post processing, but only from a digital arts perspective.

What's your opinions? what is photography to you?
Mrderek is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 7, 2012, 8:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Photography is recording light. Anything (Everything) you do after you fully depress the shutter button isn't 'Photography'.

I will confess, however, to cropping, brightening shadows and darkening highlights, and removing CA, yet still calling the result a photograph.
__________________
  • 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 7, 2012, 8:39 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Photography is recording light. Anything (Everything) you do after you fully depress the shutter button isn't 'Photography'.
I guess that is the definitive answer.

I'd like to think that good photography is also about capturing an image which can bring out emotions in the viewer. Whether if that's by capturing other people's emotions, capturing a different perspective on a scene or evoking memories.
Mrderek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 9:36 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Most of my post processing takes the form of fine tuning to give the image "as I was there" look- mostly with regards to balancing out the lighting and the colour in tricky lighting conditions.
I,personally,am not one for manipulation beyond what was seen initially.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 10:07 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrderek View Post
I'd like to think that good photography is also about capturing an image which can bring out emotions in the viewer. Whether if that's by capturing other people's emotions, capturing a different perspective on a scene or evoking memories.
"good photography"? Absolutely!

But there's a lot of "not-so-good photography" out there. It's still "photography", it's just "not-so-good".
__________________
  • 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.

Last edited by TCav; Jan 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 10:44 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
Most of my post processing takes the form of fine tuning to give the image "as I was there" look- mostly with regards to balancing out the lighting and the colour in tricky lighting conditions.
I,personally,am not one for manipulation beyond what was seen initially.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea of manipulating an image intended for artistic purposes. Photojournalism is quite a different story. But, for artistic purposes, I think anything goes. That doesn't mean that everything works. For example, many HDR photos fail to my eyes, because they look weird. There is nothing wrong with creating them, it just requires a good feel to create an HDR that enhances the shot instead of looking "gimmicky."

The same can be said for many kinds of manipulation -- software that turns a scene into something painting-like usually has the efffect to me of reminding me that the result is neither a good photo nor a real painting. But that isn't a criticism of using such software -- it's recognizing that using the software failed to accomplish the desired result. We would not say that photography is junk just because most photographs are -- we would say that creating a good photograph is hard. The same is true in using pp software. In the right circumstances and with a skilled artisan, the tools can enhance the effect of the photograph. If that doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that the tool is bad: it means that it was either inappropriate or used clumsily.

If you believe that you have taken a terrific scene except for the fact that telephone wires ruin the desired effect, and you decide that you were just unlucky that telephone wires existed in that scene and could not be avoided in the composition, you are artistically lazy if you refuse to remove them. There is no virtue in failing to realize your vision because you have an ideological commitment to not using software. Or so ISTM.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 3:55 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

The line between technical and artistic photography has always been wide and blurry. The only 'pure' photographs are those contact prints made from glass negatives, and even there, variations in exposure can change the output.
The place I draw the line is in adding something to a photo that wasn't there in the original scene. I can accept masking out electrical wires and such, if it seems necessary, though I prefer not to do it.


brian
VTphotog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 4:27 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
The only 'pure' photographs are those contact prints made from glass negatives, and even there, variations in exposure can change the output.
Photography is recording light. In the days of film, light was recorded twice: once in the camera, and once in the darkroom. Both of these qualify as photography. Using an enlarger qualifies as photography. Dodging and burning qualifies as photography. Solarizing even qualifies as photography. It's all just light being recorded. In digital photography, the process of photography ends when the shutter closes.
__________________
  • 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 7, 2012, 5:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Bob Nichol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 822
Default

Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away I had my own black and white darkroom where I developed and printed. This was all considered photography. Now I shoot digital and post process on the computer but feel this is still part of photography as I tweak the exposure, colour balance and other minor alterations some of which I could have done in the darkroom.

Sorry Tcav but my position is that post processing as I do it is the darkroom of the 21st century and is part of photography.
Bob Nichol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2012, 6:44 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

I have to side with Bob and Tclune. There is nothing pure about capturing an image on film or a digital sensor, followed by dark room or in camera processing, followed by in computer processing. Just because the camera makes adjustments automatically through its algorythms doesn't make it any less processed. And if it wasn't , it probably wouldn't be useful. It'd be a bunch of ones and zeroes, perhaps useful in the Matrix...

Now if we were comparing an actual flower to a fake flower, that's a different story entirely. But in this case we're comparing one fake flower to another.
iowa_jim 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 1:30 AM.