250swb Posted February 23, 2015 Share #21 Posted February 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) But coming back to my desk having to go through 200 - 300 shots and editing them is pure drudgery. Editing is something all photographers should be proficient at, it means you only need to post process the goods ones, not all of them. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Anyone else really dislike post processing?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted February 23, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 23, 2015 And presumably there was a good reason to press the button each of the 200-300 times. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted February 24, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 24, 2015 PP can be a pain, I usually browse through after a "shoot" and set aside those I think need PP. I throw away/delete those that don't make the "cut" .. I might tweak a few, after a couple of days I will take another look at the "orphans" and either PP, delete or just keep as is on file. Every image deserves some PP consideration, but obviously experience tells you:- Save or not to save.. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted February 24, 2015 Share #24 Posted February 24, 2015 ?? i absolutely love post processing in the same way that i loved the dark room, but did not have as much time for that as it meant locking yourself away for hours at a time. How cool is it that you can sit with a laptop whist watching EastEnders (kidding) and process your images with a mug of tea and your favourite biscuits, dog asleep at your feet, log fire on.... and still be part of the home environment without locking yourself away for hours in another part of the house. I never delete in camera, always download everything into LR and cut from there and then process only my favourite images. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted February 25, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 25, 2015 And presumably there was a good reason to press the button each of the 200-300 times. Jeff No, I have an uncontrollable, nervous twitch that affects my photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 25, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 25, 2015 No, I have an uncontrollable, nervous twitch that affects my photography. Just use the same twitch for editing. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Thompson Posted February 26, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Post-processing is what you do when you find an image you love deeply. That occurs perhaps once in thousands of images. The rest are good at the default workflow, or no post-processing.. Couldn't have said it better. I call this honest photography. I try to capture the image as it exists at that moment in time. Makes you work at perfecting your skills behind the camera too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 26, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 26, 2015 ...I call this honest photography. I try to capture the image as it exists at that moment in time. Makes you work at perfecting your skills behind the camera too. And if you're skilled enough to visualize the pic in a way different than the camera records the scene out of camera, and then able to carry that out in PP? The most basic example might be a b/w pic from a color digital camera….a bit difficult to do without PP, and not every pic demands the same tonal rendering. If PP to achieve a desired look is not honest photography, there have been an awful lot of historically great and dishonest photographers….virtually every one who stepped into a darkroom, or had someone else do the work….and digital is no different. If I only processed for printing one image a year…and I'd have to shoot longer than a year to record thousands of pics….I'd give up photography. Not every print is a masterpiece, but a selection is portfolio worthy for me….and totally honest doing my own shooting, processing and, if warranted, matting, framing and display. To each his/her own... Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Thompson Posted February 26, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 26, 2015 And if you're skilled enough to visualize the pic in a way different than the camera records the scene out of camera, and then able to carry that out in PP? The most basic example might be a b/w pic from a color digital camera….a bit difficult to do without PP, and not every pic demands the same tonal rendering. If PP to achieve a desired look is not honest photography, there have been an awful lot of historically great and dishonest photographers….virtually every one who stepped into a darkroom, or had someone else do the work….and digital is no different. If I only processed for printing one image a year…and I'd have to shoot longer than a year to record thousands of pics….I'd give up photography. Not every print is a masterpiece, but a selection is portfolio worthy for me….and totally honest doing my own shooting, processing and, if warranted, matting, framing and display. To each his/her own... Jeff Hi Jeff - Sorry I ruffled your feathers. I don't shoot B&W and I am not a painter. I shoot what I see and try to record the moment faithfully. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 26, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 26, 2015 Hi Jeff - Sorry I ruffled your feathers. I don't shoot B&W and I am not a painter. I shoot what I see and try to record the moment faithfully. Without any PP you record what the camera says you can record, whatever the result the only faithful representation is what the camera is programmed to emulate by the boffin who wrote the code. But you have already heavily edited the scene in front of you just by pointing the camera at it and deciding when the press the shutter button. You've cropped the scene by deciding what to leave out and what to include, you may have even taken a step to the side and made sure a telegraph pole wasn't coming out of somebody's head. So how dishonest can PP be to if it comes to getting closer to what you felt about the scene? Having feelings or not, there is still nothing 'faithful' about photography, there never was, 'the camera doesn't lie' is disingenuous phrase at best. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 26, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 26, 2015 I don't shoot B&W and I am not a painter. I shoot what I see and try to record the moment faithfully. Then I guess you don't print either. PP is required merely to select the paper size, select the paper type and profile, sharpen the image (which otherwise would lose the sharpness you so 'faithfully' though you recorded), make exposure/color adjustments to account for display conditions, etc, etc. That's just to achieve what you thought you captured, without even considering other subjective interpretations. To think that the whole digital workflow from camera... to screen... to printer... to paper…to display requires zero processing to achieve the 'look' you thought you recorded at the time of shutter release is a fantasy. What's painting got to do with it? Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted February 26, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 26, 2015 Couldn't have said it better. I call this honest photography. I try to capture the image as it exists at that moment in time. Makes you work at perfecting your skills behind the camera too. I must be doing quite well as i have many images that i deeply love, without shooting thousands of frames. I see that the skill is in not just capturing the image, but right the way through to a printed image. If you forego everything after pressing the shutter button, then frankly, you are short changing yourself, especially so with the ease of digital processing which van be as much or as little as 'you' decide and printing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted February 26, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 26, 2015 The phrase:- Each To His Own" comes to mind... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted February 26, 2015 Share #34 Posted February 26, 2015 Without any PP you record what the camera says you can record, whatever the result the only faithful representation is what the camera is programmed to emulate by the boffin who wrote the code. But you have already heavily edited the scene in front of you just by pointing the camera at it and deciding when the press the shutter button. You've cropped the scene by deciding what to leave out and what to include, you may have even taken a step to the side and made sure a telegraph pole wasn't coming out of somebody's head. So how dishonest can PP be to if it comes to getting closer to what you felt about the scene? Having feelings or not, there is still nothing 'faithful' about photography, there never was, 'the camera doesn't lie' is disingenuous phrase at best. Steve +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted February 27, 2015 Share #35 Posted February 27, 2015 I've come to realize that I hate post processing. Sitting around moving a bunch of sliders to change the picture is not my thing. I can leave the photos unretouched or edit them solely to make them mirror what the scene genuinely looked like at the point of capture but of course more in depth processing makes them look better. I prefer washed out low contrast grainy photos but while editing in Lightroom or Nik the options are endless and it feels like cheating to make such drastic alterations and seems more like digital artwork rather than photography and that sliders in a computer program are making my photos for me. Anyone else dislike editing or not edit at all? I enjoy post-production processing but I prefer to think of it as developing the image. Your photograph isn’t finished until you’ve worked on it in the darkroom and given it its final form as a print or a screen image. I regard it as part and parcel of photography and, as far as I know, it always has been. My preference is to try to draw out the potential of the image, not to alter or falsify it so that it becomes something that does not reflect the scene as I saw and understood it. Digital art sometimes uses photography as its raw material but it has nothing to do with developing the image as a photograph. How far one goes in editing an image (in the sense of altering or retouching it) is something every photographer has to decide for his or herself. If you were documenting a scene for forensic or news reporting purposes, you wouldn’t change its content in any way. An advertising shot, on the other hand, might be heavily altered. I’m an amateur, I can do what I like. Nonetheless, I prefer not to change anything that would alter the substantive content or meaning of the scene but it’s a continuum and everyone will draw their line in a different place. One person’s dispensable power line is part of the scene’s essential truth for another. The digital darkroom provides a set of tools to help you make the image look the way you want it to, but make it your servant; don’t let it be your master! Handle the controls with a light touch and don’t apply effects just because you can! Above all, don’t run away with the idea that software, such as Lightroom, makes processing easy. Superficially it may seem to but using the developing tools isn’t just a matter of moving sliders. You’re the one judging which effect to use and how much of it to apply. There is real skill in getting that right. There is as much to learn about using the digital darkroom as there is about using the camera. The complete photographer knows how to use both. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torgian Posted February 27, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 27, 2015 The only thing I hate about post processing is storage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plewislambert Posted March 3, 2015 Share #37 Posted March 3, 2015 "Others may know better, but my understanding is that RAW files were never meant to be used straight out of the camera" The raw image is often what the photographer decided he wanted.. sometimes it doesn't turn out as he expected (exposure not optimal, white balance ditto, cropping needed, verticals tilted slightly etc) Post processing is very important (to me at least) and much better than working in a wet darkroom. Getting it right in the camera is best, if you can. Philip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted March 3, 2015 Share #38 Posted March 3, 2015 Here is something I wrote one the subject of 'image fidelity', which includes the process of in camera 'editing' through to post processing: The Truth In and About Photography Its a series of rolling opinions, so please bear that in mind before tearing it apart! We cannot look at PP in isolation, but ought to recognise selectiveness throughout the whole imaging chain, from before the specific image is even considered. We all get to make choices and we have different opinions, but for any of us to think we are 'impartial light portals' is perhaps naive. PP is just the final link in the chain.... well... before we do a final edit of the work we actually intend to present on the gallery wall, or online! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted March 10, 2015 Share #39 Posted March 10, 2015 I hate PP with unbridled passion. Which doesn't surprise me because I hated wet darkroom also. In the film days I shot slides and viewed them with a projector. Either they were good enough to make it into the tray, or else they went into the wastebasket. For the occasional print, I had an excellent local pro lab who I could communicate what I wanted and they gave it to me. Digital killed them. Nowadays large flat-screen TV has replaced projector and screen, but my end use is otherwise quite similar. For the rare print, I sent a file to a service, but so far I haven't been able to develop the kind of personal communication I had with my local film lab. I shoot digital as if it were film. The "it's free" factor does not affect me. I use a Leica because I've been using Leica's for 45 years and I like a rangefinder. I feel no need to shoot DNG if the JPGS suit me. Fortunately those from the M240 do. With the M8 and M9 I had to shoot DNG and PP. Very glad those days are gone. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted March 13, 2015 Share #40 Posted March 13, 2015 Photography has always been not just taking the photo, there has always been post processing, and if you don't like it photography isn't for you. Back in the day you came back and had to develop your film, then dry it, then start enlarging the image... getting a base contrast and exposure on your paper... developing it, and looking it it after it has dried, then the real 'editing' starts with dodge and burn, or contrast filters on multigrade paper etc. Be happy you can just sit in your chair and push and pull some sliders, the photographers of the past would be jealous of you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.