Post=Processing...

[kelvin]

This may have been done to death so apologies if i'm covering old ground, but i'm interested to know what people's views are on the merits/purposes of post-processing?

Given that we live in the "digital age", and that on the whole pretty much anything is possible with imaging software, should PP be used to manipulate an image into what we want, or simply to enhance, and more accurately reflect that which was there? It's certainly far easier now than it was in the days of the darkroom, should we exploit what's out there? Is it "proper" photography if we do?!

I'm aware that we have a wealth of talent on this forum when it comes to the realm of PP, some who take it to the extreme (and to great effect I should add - vulkan75 to name one ), and others who are a little more "restrained" but who none the less produce some incredible work. I'm not sure that I have an opinion either way as to what is "right", but imagine most have a view...

What are everyone else's thoughts?

Kelvin.

[stevegreen]

Ooooooo, this old chestnut!!

Speaking purely from a personal point of view I prefer to limit my post processing as much as possible, but having said that I see a lot of stuff going into photo competitions (external) that have clearly been more heavily processed.

So, I am starting to look into different ways of presenting a shot these days. I like the Orton effect quite a lot as I really like the soft feel it gives to certain pictures and I have been quite sucessful with two shots that I have used that effect on.

Overdone HDR does not appeal to me purely because I don't like the look but others have dfferent opinions on that.

As for what is right and what is not, it's down to the individual and what they are tryin to portray in the shot as far as I am concerned and if by processing the shot in a certain way they achieve that then thats fine by me

[Tobers]

It depends what you like to be honest.

I have to admit I ended up doing lots of post processing to begin with just because I enjoyed playing about with all the settings and variables that Photoshop and Lightroom place in your hands. I doubt that this made any of my pics any better at all.

After a while I've settled into a small number of post techniques that I like and that aren't overly "invasive". Obvious ones are simple mono conversions, and gentle HDR/blending/fill-light. Also, cropping, a bit of sharpening, and some levels fiddling is fairly frequent.

These days, with the likes of Lightroom, it's so easy that it's almost second nature to tweak the parameters of a bunch of images on import. I'll then maybe select some that I want to do something "special" to and play with them in Photoshop.

So it's a personal experimentation thing really - just play about and do what you like. If other people dont like it, they are obviously wrong .

[lightpainter]

Yes old chestnuts, I look at it this way, I find it very hard to determine what exposure to set for a given capture so I use the bracketing function of my camera to take three photos of the same scene then I blend them in PP.
OK it takes time but what the hell, it’s my hobby.

This is the before.
[IMG]

[/IMG]

This is PP.

Which do you prefer?

[Pirate!!]

Oooooooooooooh! Now THAT is cool. Me like. Talking of pp . . as in Blue Peter speak . . here's one I prepared earlier:

In short, pp makes your images better (or different). You don't HAVE to know what you are doing, just what's happening because you re doing it. All part of the learning curve. There are a lot of simple easy things that you can do such as selective colouring and unsharp mask.

[Liquid101]

I generally limit my processing to getting the best out of the RAW file, but hopefully without looking overly processed. I try not to do anything I wouldn't be able to do in the darkroom.

Saying that, sometimes I might clone a little, just to clean things up - or do some selective contrast adjustments which while not impossible would take hours of darkroom work.

I try to do as much as I can 'in camera' to make the job of processing easier.

I would also say that some shots need less than others. Yesterdays beach shots had quite a lot of shading and contrast adjustments to control the eye a little. Today's Peacock shot had virtually nothing at all.

[RobDickinson]

'Post processing' has always been used, even back in film days.

Thesedays , especialy if you shoot raw, you have to post process (or in effect turn the negative into a print), but you can go further than that, its easier with digital than film btu that doesnt make digital unique.

IMO do what you feel the image needs to acheive what you want. Unless you havea paying customer then do what you can to acheive what they want.

[Pirate!!]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

'Post processing' has always been used, even back in film days.

Thesedays , especialy if you shoot raw, you have to post process (or in effect turn the negative into a print), but you can go further than that, its easier with digital than film btu that doesnt make digital unique.

IMO do what you feel the image needs to acheive what you want. Unless you havea paying customer then do what you can to acheive what they want.

Give me silicone or natural . . . beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We don't all like the same thing, though the same thing we all see differently, so each to their own I say.

[LFC_SL]

Even though Light Room is nearly idiot proof with everything a simple slide to do/undo... I try to get a shot as close to right in the first place

One day I might make use of the books from the library

[lloydy53]

Ansel Adams was a genius with a camera, and also in the darkroom.

[denno75uk]

Originally Posted by rasputin

Some people like real boobs, others prefer the enhanced variety.

If the picture looks "fake" then it detracts from the overall look and feel. The idea situation would be that if the looks like it hasn't had any artificial enhancement.

Excellent analogy.

I agree that PP is a perfectly legitimate tool so long as the end result doesn't look overcooked. Personally I want whatever I've done in PP to reflect what I saw in my mind when taking the shot, though for each individual that could be interpreted any way. In the interest of vanity I suppose, I want the result to look like I knew what I was doing in the first place.
That all said, there are some things that can be done in PP that are an art form all of their own. The end result doesn't pretend to be a 'natural' photo, just an aesthetically pleasing image.

lightpainter, you asked so... No doubt the second one is better because so much is lost in the first. However, for me the second looks like two shots blended around the horizon. The light in the sky doesn't seem capable of producing the light in the foreground so it seems mismatched. The light in the fog is also coming from below which adds to the confusion and therefore makes the shot look false. Amazing what you've been able to pull out of the sky and foreground though.

PS- Forgive the waffling. I'm on the sick for a while, bored and lacking company. Even posting has become a form of talking to myself.

[salubrious_k]

I tend to do a lot of post-processing. Although I do always try to keep it fairly subtle.

Of course, one person's fairly subtle is another person's evil monstrosity...

[senu]

Originally Posted by denno75uk

Excellent analogy.

I agree that PP is a perfectly legitimate tool so long as the end result doesn't look overcooked. Personally I want whatever I've done in PP to reflect what I saw in my mind when taking the shot, though for each individual that could be interpreted any way. In the interest of vanity I suppose, I want the result to look like I knew what I was doing in the first place.
That all said, there are some things that can be done in PP that are an art form all of their own. The end result doesn't pretend to be a 'natural' photo, just an aesthetically pleasing image

.
Denno.. what medication are you on??

PS- Forgive the waffling. I'm on the sick for a while, bored and lacking company. Even posting has become a form of talking to myself.

Get well soon..

As you say PP can be enhancing the image or getting creative with it .. As long as there is clarity in what the image taker is trying to achieve and doesnt mix one up for the other. Misrepresenting PPed images has lost a prominent photojournalist or 2 their jobs and reputations
Of course these 2 aims might overlap.. Trying to "airbrush" wrinkles is PP but while it is pleasing to the eye it may not represent what the eye sees. Red eye removal is however more true to the original
But given how individuals like their say TV/ Display settings there will always be an element of individuality in a PPed image and don't forget , with your 30D, the image "looks" different with Neutral, faithful, Portrait ect.( Picture Style settings) . which is the genuine article?

[senu]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

I tend to do a lot of post-processing. Although I do always try to keep it fairly subtle.

Of course, one person's fairly subtle is another person's evil monstrosity...

My point exactly about the indiviuality aspect of PP ing

[peskywinnets]

No issue with it.

As photographers we're all (normally) looking for a different angle on a given scene.

For example at the input stage (pre photo) waiting for the light to be 'interesting', selecting the position & crop for most impact, then during the actual picture being taken using DOF to isolate a subject or perhaps underexposing to saturate colours, using a polarising filter etc.

So why is it deemed 'pure' to alter the photo at the pre processing stage, but the snobs come out in force during the post processing stage?

At the end of the day, we all seek one thing - an end image that offers up something & is pleasing on the eye.