Subject Focus Posted February 17, 2015 Share #1 Posted February 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Hi Subject Focus, Take a look here Anyone else really dislike post processing?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeffry Abt Posted February 17, 2015 Share #2 Posted February 17, 2015 I loath the post processing of images. If I'm involved in doing a project, capturing the images is generally fun, even though it can be hard work. But coming back to my desk having to go through 200 - 300 shots and editing them is pure drudgery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted February 17, 2015 Share #3 Posted February 17, 2015 I find it relaxing. There is a continuum for post processing. You can try to match the photograph to what you saw, you can add some punch with contrast, saturation, and other adjustments, or try to simulate the look of your favorite film, or you can turn the photo into a fantasy. There is not a right answer; only the one that you are comfortable with. I, however, would not characterize the effort as cheating. One approach you might consider is simply shooting jpeg, although that is simply leaving the decision to the camera's settings and internal processing, but at least you don't have to bother with the sliders. Here is some food for thought on the "cheating" aspects of post-processing. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 17, 2015 Share #4 Posted February 17, 2015 ... 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. You evidently never spent much time in a darkroom. Nothing new under the sun whether film or digital….some like the back end of the workflow, some don't. I never loved it like going out shooting, but with prints always my end goal, I've found it necessary...and ultimately rewarding. Plus, the 'lightroom' approach is a lot less smelly and messy than the darkroom equivalent….and more convenient and flexible. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted February 17, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 17, 2015 Emphatically no....I love the whole process!! Having revelled in black and white darkroom work for many years I get the same pleasure from digital post processing, it's such an integral part of the creative process. I guess if I were not addicted to going out and shooting "it" and bringing it home to be translated into the essential image of my mind's eye then I would not still be bothering with the whole thing at this late date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Focus Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted February 17, 2015 I find it relaxing. There is a continuum for post processing. You can try to match the photograph to what you saw, you can add some punch with contrast, saturation, and other adjustments, or try to simulate the look of your favorite film, or you can turn the photo into a fantasy. There is not a right answer; only the one that you are comfortable with. I, however, would not characterize the effort as cheating. One approach you might consider is simply shooting jpeg, although that is simply leaving the decision to the camera's settings and internal processing, but at least you don't have to bother with the sliders. Here is some food for thought on the "cheating" aspects of post-processing. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/world-press-photo-manipulation-ethics-of-digital-photojournalism/ Cool article. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 18, 2015 Share #7 Posted February 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree PP involves work, but I like the magic moment (in capture One) when getting the WB right makes the image wake up. Mostly I do WB, cropping, and exposure n contrast. I don't miss the smell of hypo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Focus Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted February 18, 2015 I knew there was manipulation in the darkroom but this article really showed how much! Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom I don't have the means to do film and the dodging, burning, using filters and such with film seems more authentic since it's tangible. It's like playing an instrument. You can learn the violin and play music or you can use a computer to produce sounds like dubstep. I belong in a darkroom but until then I'll have to try to figure out the most minimal editing process or to only use the equivalent sliders that the darkroom tools would have allowed for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted February 18, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 18, 2015 I knew there was manipulation in the darkroom but this article really showed how much! Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom I don't have the means to do film and the dodging, burning, using filters and such with film seems more authentic since it's tangible. It's like playing an instrument. You can learn the violin and play music or you can use a computer to produce sounds like dubstep. I belong in a darkroom but until then I'll have to try to figure out the most minimal editing process or to only use the equivalent sliders that the darkroom tools would have allowed for. George: Each to his own, but I would ask you to at least reconsider your posture for your own sake. Now having seen how much was done in the darkroom, I wonder why you continue to draw the distinction between "tangible" chemicals and filters, on the one hand, and what you perceive as "intangible" key strokes on the other. What's the difference? Either way, the photographer is doing something to the image that alters it from what would happen if he just printed it fresh out of the camera with no further intervention. To me, there are three aspect to photography--capture, process, and print. Each are important to the final image. Post processing doesn't necessarily mean putting a new sky in, eliminating distracting items, or making the color super saturated. Others may know better, but my understanding is that RAW files were never meant to be used straight out of the camera. Just to be clear, my comment is not a criticism. If you like a light-hand applied to your captured images, that's fine with me if it works for you. But I don't want to see you miss an opportunity. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Focus Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted February 18, 2015 George: Each to his own, but I would ask you to at least reconsider your posture for your own sake. Now having seen how much was done in the darkroom, I wonder why you continue to draw the distinction between "tangible" chemicals and filters, on the one hand, and what you perceive as "intangible" key strokes on the other. What's the difference? Either way, the photographer is doing something to the image that alters it from what would happen if he just printed it fresh out of the camera with no further intervention. To me, there are three aspect to photography--capture, process, and print. Each are important to the final image. Post processing doesn't necessarily mean putting a new sky in, eliminating distracting items, or making the color super saturated. Others may know better, but my understanding is that RAW files were never meant to be used straight out of the camera. Just to be clear, my comment is not a criticism. If you like a light-hand applied to your captured images, that's fine with me if it works for you. But I don't want to see you miss an opportunity. Best I agree that I don't want to miss the opportunity to make my photos as good as they can be. I think I just have a problem with how easy computers have made everything whether its music, post processing, etc. My personal taste is for vintage looking black and whites but I get frustrated since I currently do not have the means or time to do film photography and using plugins or sliders on the computers seems artificial to me. The classic photographers were using black and white film with real grain and things of that sort while I simply move a slider. There will be a time when I'll be back in a darkroom but until then I feel strange about adding grain and manipulating my photo. It's a philosophical quandary that I don't know the answer to yet and so I'm stuck with a bunch of decent photos that I don't post or complete because I haven't yet figured out what the acceptable levels of processing are that I'm comfortable with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 18, 2015 Share #11 Posted February 18, 2015 ...or to only use the equivalent sliders that the darkroom tools would have allowed for. That leaves out far less than you might imagine. Besides burning/dodging (both global and local), darkroom practices include perspective controls, contrast adjustments, toning, vignetting, cropping, and lots more…not to mention more creative techniques such as merging negatives, solarizing, bleaching, etc. Add to that myriad paper choices, film choices, exposure and development techniques, and more. The film/digital workflow distinctions are less about 'what' than about 'how'. And the issue of 'straight' versus 'manipulated' prints has been going on for ages. See Jerry Uelsmann. Do whatever makes you happy. The audience only cares about the end product. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted February 19, 2015 Share #12 Posted February 19, 2015 I must admit that I like the deleat button. I take a lot of bad images; the paring down a large batch of images to the few good ones is satisfying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 19, 2015 Share #13 Posted February 19, 2015 I must admit that I like the deleat button. I take a lot of bad images; the paring down a large batch of images to the few good ones is satisfying. I bet you'd eventually shoot a higher percentage of keepers if you didn't delete the others. Worth studying and learning IMO. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 19, 2015 Share #14 Posted February 19, 2015 Would anyone be interested in sending selected photos out to a post-processing service? I've seen a number of posts from people who have bought excellent camera gear, but don't have the time or desire (or sometimes skill) to do post-processing. The reason I ask is that I'm thinking of offering such a service. I have a good deal of experience post-processing my own work. These services exist for wedding photographers who shoot thousands of photos, but I'm thinking of something much lower in volume, such as where a photographer sends from 1 to a few dozen photos for high quality post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 19, 2015 Share #15 Posted February 19, 2015 You evidently never spent much time in a darkroom. Nothing new under the sun whether film or digital….some like the back end of the workflow, some don't. I never loved it like going out shooting, but with prints always my end goal, I've found it necessary...and ultimately rewarding. Plus, the 'lightroom' approach is a lot less smelly and messy than the darkroom equivalent….and more convenient and flexible. Jeff +1 Although I prefer my 'lightroom' rather dimmed and use CaptureOne. No hate at all. The process of getting out of the photo what you meant with it when you saw the moment, especially getting it shown in print, is quite nice and rewarding to me. The only thing I hate is when I made too many shots of one sce and have to select and delete afterwards, pfff boring. So I try to be as efficient with shooting as with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffry Abt Posted February 19, 2015 Share #16 Posted February 19, 2015 I bet you'd eventually shoot a higher percentage of keepers if you didn't delete the others. Worth studying and learning IMO. Jeff I have heard (it maybe just an urban legend) that the Sports Illustrated bathing suit edition has at its' base hundreds and hundreds of images that they then edit down to the "bare" minimum. I suppose in that case I might keep all the outtakes just in case I might "need" them for study and learning. All joking aside, I understand National Geographic uses only a tiny fraction of the images that a photographer takes for any given story. I'm afraid that I delete images merely to conserve space on my hard drive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 19, 2015 Share #17 Posted February 19, 2015 I'm afraid that I delete images merely to conserve space on my hard drive. Did you throw away negs or contact sheets before? Storage now is incredibly cheap, and more efficient. Nevertheless, I try to be as deliberate in my digital shooting as I was with film. To each his own…. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 19, 2015 Share #18 Posted February 19, 2015 Perhaps ask why you take photographs. This is crucial. If it is to show what things actually are, then consider the effect of individual perspective and forget creativity, art etc. All these things are disallowed. You must now pursue the impossible universal truth and you will not be able to ever present a single photograph that is not torn apart based on this premise. If it is to show how you feel, or how you are responding to something, there not much point or purpose in claiming true objectivity. But since when has this been a bad thing? If you photograph to communicate... to share how you respond to something, we need some of you in there. This means your photo, your post-processing... whatever it takes to bring the viewer into your world. The world you observe and which we share is... something we can experience for ourselves. Your perspective... your subjective response is much more interesting. We are all alone in this world, constrained by our own craniums and staring out from behind two eyes, somewhere. I see the world through my eyes. I feel what I see, but when I look at other people's photographs I want to see what you feel. If you just show an unfiltered view, I have no interest. I do not look at photographs to understand the world in perfect, impartial, non-human terms. I look at photographs to better understand what it means to be human, to be a 'you' that is also a 'me'... just like me. However you wish to achieve this is up to, well..... you. I hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 20, 2015 Share #19 Posted February 20, 2015 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. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Focus Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted February 20, 2015 Perhaps ask why you take photographs. This is crucial. If it is to show what things actually are, then consider the effect of individual perspective and forget creativity, art etc. All these things are disallowed. You must now pursue the impossible universal truth and you will not be able to ever present a single photograph that is not torn apart based on this premise. If it is to show how you feel, or how you are responding to something, there not much point or purpose in claiming true objectivity. But since when has this been a bad thing? If you photograph to communicate... to share how you respond to something, we need some of you in there. This means your photo, your post-processing... whatever it takes to bring the viewer into your world. The world you observe and which we share is... something we can experience for ourselves. Your perspective... your subjective response is much more interesting. We are all alone in this world, constrained by our own craniums and staring out from behind two eyes, somewhere. I see the world through my eyes. I feel what I see, but when I look at other people's photographs I want to see what you feel. If you just show an unfiltered view, I have no interest. I do not look at photographs to understand the world in perfect, impartial, non-human terms. I look at photographs to better understand what it means to be human, to be a 'you' that is also a 'me'... just like me. However you wish to achieve this is up to, well..... you. I hope this helps. Nice insight and something to think about. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.