Hand on heart..

[AntoninoRusso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How much LR or PS do we apply before submitting our images and will we admit to it?

 

Or.… does it really matter?

 

I guess we all want to make sure our images look the best they can.

But then can we really say it’s the result of a Leica?

 

 

Thanks

 

Antonino

[250swb]

As much as is needed, sometimes a lot, sometimes not much.

 

Just because I use a Leica there is no point in thinking that the guy who programmed the software has the same tastes as I do, just as with film it would be very unusual to think the chap who designed the emulsion for Ilford has exactly the same taste. It would be a far fetched coincidence. They are my photographs, not Leica's photographs. There are no points available for not doing your best.

 

Steve

[Jager]

No different from film.

 

Photographers have been editing, tweaking, masking, cropping, spotting and otherwise modifying their images since the dawn of the art. Different emulsions, different filters, different developers, different papers, dodging, burning, overlaying... on and on. The notion that changing an image began with Photoshop is, well, just a notion.

 

Only the tools have changed.

[flyalf]

Its a result of having the best possible start basis for LR / PS. So Leica as a tool used by the photographer provides the input.

[alun]

The only difference I see between digitally processed 'prints' and wet darkroom prints is that the former is both easier to do and to *over* do -- hence one sees many, many over-processed pictures both here and on other forums.

 

But beyond that, the principles, as others have noted, are the same -- it's about making the end product look the way you visualised it....

 

Where processing - both digital and conventional - fall down is when we are tempted to try and make a picture look the way we *wish* it had looked. My simple rule of thumb is that you can't process boring photographs into interesting photographs.

[philipus]

But then can we really say it’s the result of a Leica?

 

How's that even a relevant consideration?

[garysamson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A raw file needs to be processed before the image can be presented. Lightroom allows you to realize the full potential of the image you have envisioned / created with your Leica gear.

[AntoninoRusso]

Hi all and thanks for your comments.

I find all points of view very interesting.

 

Like everybody else on this forum I am very proud of my Leica camera and lens and even prouder when I get nice comments of my photos, comments that very often are accompanied by " did you take that with your Leica" and so on.

 

So sometimes I must admit I feel a bit of a cheat if I know that that shot didn't come out from the camera looking like that,

 

Ultimatly like has correctly been said previously the Leica is the tool I most enjoy taking the photo with.

The way I want the shoot to look is my own interpretation of it.

 

thank you

 

Antonino

[pgk]

I use sufficient post processing to optimise my images. Occasionally I do manipulate them but rarely. There is of course crossover, depending on your point of view.

[azzo]

...

 

So sometimes I must admit I feel a bit of a cheat if I know that that shot didn't come out from the camera looking like that,

 

... /QUOTE]

 

 

The shot coming out of camera is only the starting point. Then comes the work for it to be presented.

 

Cheating is another thing, IMO.

[TomB_tx]

There was a time when photography applicants/students were evaluated on the basis of the Kodachrome slide show, where you had to optimize the shot and not rely on darkroom work. In many publications staff photographers did the shooting, and darkroom techs did the rest. The idea was to work to improve your eye and camera technique, so that when you submitted work for publication it would require less effort by the publisher to get outstanding results.

Yes, there were a lot of boring slide shows, but I think the principle of becoming as proficient with the "capture" part of the process still has merit - especially for those of us who are tired of so many hours in front of a computer.

I still like to see my work with a Pradovit instead of a computer monitor. The projected film image has a vibrancy that is lacking on electronic images.

[250swb]

 

So sometimes I must admit I feel a bit of a cheat if I know that that shot didn't come out from the camera looking like that,

 

Hardly any famous photograph in the entire history of photography has ever been presented to the world unmanipulated after the initial exposure. So where are all these photographs that excel right out of the camera, which photographers, who have you been looking at to believe this?

 

 

Steve

[skinnfell]

As little as needed.

 

However, I have spent quite a bit of time tweaking LRs standard settings to achieve the "look" I want. After that, I will rarely do anything to a picture beyond adjustments WB and exposure. I have one setup for color and one for B/W.

In "film analogy" this would be similar to finding a film/chemical/paper combination that fits my style or likes.

 

I have almost all but stopped doing dodging/burning beyond maybe half a stop plus or minus. The reason for this is that I would rather preserve the naturalness in the picture. The "perfect" is boring.

In a series of several pictures, i find it very important that they look like they come from the same batch.

 

Also, I would rather be out shooting more pictures than spending hours ´shopping.

Leica is perfect for this, as after you find "your" settings, the pictures come right out of the camera looking gorgeous.

Get the expsure and Wb right and there is no processing at all needed.

 

I never send off unprocessed pictures to clients, but at the same time I hate the overprocessed, HDR-like pictures that are so rife these days.

 

In particular I think people go overboard with sharpening and selective dodging/burning.

Just because a technical aid is available, doesn´t mean you should use it ALL the time.

 

Photoshop is like salt in food. A little is ot better than nothing, a lot ruins everything.

[pop]

I can not give an answer which applies to all of my images. In some instances, I take the image as it comes out of the camera with as little processing as I can possibly manage. In other cases, I want a result which makes that quite impossible.

 

Whether the image can be considered a true Leica image or not is only relevant to me when illustrating a technical point and then the original question becomes moot, I think.

[Paul J]

The camera is only a means to an end.

[pop]

The camera is only a means to an end.

 

Yes. So is a painter's canvas or dye or the substance on which a print is printed. Also, all of those means influence how the "end" looks, and looks might be of great importance when producing images. I don't quite see how this statement answers the question.

[Paul J]

A means to an end, yes. Insignificant, no. Why should a photographer limit his/her image making only to preserve the look of the camera? I'm not interested in the photo a camera can take. I'm interested in the photo a photographer can make.

 

The original post is mostly regarding the final image. One can retouch as much or as little as necessary as a means to an end too. If that makes my images un Leica then I care not as the camera is a means to an end.

[AntoninoRusso]

Hardly any famous photograph in the entire history of photography has ever been presented to the world unmanipulated after the initial exposure. So where are all these photographs that excel right out of the camera, which photographers, who have you been looking at to believe this?

 

 

I am sure you are right but I would be surprised to discover that Bresson or Capa spent more time in the darkroom then in the field.

Leica gave them the opportunity to show their talents, expertise and imagination.

And they knew that Leica would have given them the best results in their hands.

 

I doubt they were shooting thinking “oh well we can fix it in the darkroom”

 

I am not denying technologies but I am asking myself:

 

Who is more important the photographer/camera partnership or the PS artist?

 

I think if the split was maybe 70/30 then it is probably 30/70 now.

[jaapv]

Bresson did not spend any time in the darkroom afaik. He had a technician do that for him.

And I doubt that Capa did any developing with bullets flying around his ears.

That does not mean their images were not carefully developed and printed. Professional lab technicians were most likely responsible. If we disavow postprocessing in the computer we should condemn Ansel Adams at the same time for his elaborate darkroom work.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

Who is more important the photographer/camera partnership or the PS artist?

Well the creator of the image is the most important and creating the image takes what it takes. A well captured image appropriately adjusted relies on both and neither can in reality be more important than the other as both are essential to the process. Using digital technology means choices in camera and choices in post processing - even if this is simply a choice of default software to open the image with.