To post-process or not to post-process

[SOLA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having previously used film cameras and now with an SL2-S I'm having what must be a new-to-digital conflict; seems to me that taking to Lightroom and significantly altering an image is akin to computer hacking.  The image is what it is and the quality of what you capture shows what you and your camera can do.  I understand wanting a little less or more exposure, cropping and maybe shading here and there - that's been done for years when making a print - but seeing photos online described as having "significant processing", it just doesn't do anything for me.   Personal taste and to each his own.

I suppose I'll leave the Jurassic age and get into Lightroom more, but the liberal use of it still seems a bit like cheating.  If you're goal is more 'artistic' than capturing realty, then I get that.

[wda]

Welcome! There is no need to 'significantly alter an image' unless you choose to do so. You can produce any number of derivative versions of your picture, especially if you shot in Raw (DNG). You have belatedly taken a huge step. Now enjoy the possibilities LR offers you. It is well worthwhile investing time learning LR via videos and books, and just doing it.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

27 minutes ago, SOLA said:

Having previously used film cameras and now with an SL2-S I'm having what must be a new-to-digital conflict; seems to me that taking to Lightroom and significantly altering an image is akin to computer hacking.  The image is what it is and the quality of what you capture shows what you and your camera can do.  I understand wanting a little less or more exposure, cropping and maybe shading here and there - that's been done for years when making a print - but seeing photos online described as having "significant processing", it just doesn't do anything for me.   Personal taste and to each his own.

I suppose I'll leave the Jurassic age and get into Lightroom more, but the liberal use of it still seems a bit like cheating.  If you're goal is more 'artistic' than capturing realty, then I get that.

I'm surprised you said any of that being an ex film user. Weren't you manipulating the scene in front of you by choosing different films based on what each could bring to the image? And when ever is the 'image is what it is', didn't you just crop a small section out of reality when you framed the photograph? Maybe somebody viewing the image would have liked to see what is a bit more to the left in the scene, but you've imposed your rules on them. So basically you're making decisions before you've even pressed the shutter, which leads to the question what's so noble about pretending 'the image is what it is' when you've interfered with it by composing the scene, choosing the focal length, choosing the moment to press the shutter etc. all along the way? Lightroom just finishes the job off.

Edited March 21, 2023 by 250swb

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, SOLA said:

Having previously used film cameras and now with an SL2-S I'm having what must be a new-to-digital conflict; seems to me that taking to Lightroom and significantly altering an image is akin to computer hacking.  The image is what it is and the quality of what you capture shows what you and your camera can do.  I understand wanting a little less or more exposure, cropping and maybe shading here and there - that's been done for years when making a print - but seeing photos online described as having "significant processing", it just doesn't do anything for me.   Personal taste and to each his own.

I suppose I'll leave the Jurassic age and get into Lightroom more, but the liberal use of it still seems a bit like cheating.  If you're goal is more 'artistic' than capturing realty, then I get that.

Sorry, that  is complete nonsense.

You used film.
Would you consider using the negative only and not do the other half of the process in the darkroom? 
There is no difference here -  the camera output is the half-product  and the final image is created in your post-processing, be it wet or digital.
Sometimes it is. a straightforward  process - exposure, cropping and maybe a dodge here and there, sometimes there is significant work involved, extensive dodging and burning Schleimpflug parallax correction, application of an Unsharp Mask, Vignetting correction, adjusting exposure and development to correct the tonal range,  and much more. Read up a bit on darkroom techniques, it may surprise you. Digital processing is exactly the same - basic or extensive.
You are confusing simple work with expert work which is as much relevant in the Darkroom as the Lightroom. And since when did a photograph capture reality? Basically never - it captures the photographer's interpretation of reality -  or even surreality.
To add, Lightroom only offers simple to medium editing - that is why you can switch seamlessly to Photoshop. And yes, digital processing, whilst based on time-honoured darkroom concepts offers a host of new options and techniques. That is called progress in the real world, the art (or if you prefer craft)  of image making is anything but static.

So: Learn Lightroom (as you learned to use a camera) and apply your photographic skills aided by your photographic tools to get the optimal raw material, to create the image that you visualized.

 

 

[dem331]

I use LR extensively, but I sometimes rue the days when what came out of the camera - the slides - were the definitive version. Unfortunately there is no real equivalent to that in these digital days. I guess out of camera jpegs are the closest equivalent. You could just use those and be done with post-processing. 

[jaapv]

Did you never print your slides on Cibachrome?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Did you never print your slides on Cibachrome?

I did but it was a print of the slide, no manipulation or other adjustments.

 

[earleygallery]

35 minutes ago, dem331 said:

I use LR extensively, but I sometimes rue the days when what came out of the camera - the slides - were the definitive version. Unfortunately there is no real equivalent to that in these digital days. I guess out of camera jpegs are the closest equivalent. You could just use those and be done with post-processing. 

Good point about slides - I used to shoot slides more than negs and I think we forget that we had to get things right in camera all the time with those!

[jaapv]

I had a full colour darkroom Dichroitic colour head, on the enlarger,  Colorimeter, etc., so I did dodge and burn and finetune colour balance on my Ciba prints. 

[Jeff S]

The tools and processes are secondary; user decision making and judgment remain paramount, film or digital.  Anyone can learn techniques; where, when and to what degree to apply them has always been the hard part.

Jeff

[wda]

1 hour ago, dem331 said:

I use LR extensively, but I sometimes rue the days when what came out of the camera - the slides - were the definitive version. Unfortunately there is no real equivalent to that in these digital days. I guess out of camera jpegs are the closest equivalent. You could just use those and be done with post-processing. 

But what a waste of potential enhanced value.

[dem331]

2 minutes ago, wda said:

But what a waste of potential enhanced value.

Agreed

[ianforber]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:14 PM, SOLA said:

Having previously used film cameras and now with an SL2-S I'm having what must be a new-to-digital conflict; seems to me that taking to Lightroom and significantly altering an image is akin to computer hacking.  The image is what it is and the quality of what you capture shows what you and your camera can do.  I understand wanting a little less or more exposure, cropping and maybe shading here and there - that's been done for years when making a print - but seeing photos online described as having "significant processing", it just doesn't do anything for me.   Personal taste and to each his own.

I suppose I'll leave the Jurassic age and get into Lightroom more, but the liberal use of it still seems a bit like cheating.  If you're goal is more 'artistic' than capturing realty, then I get that.

I see exactly where you’re coming from. I don’t enjoy post processing so do very little unless I’ve deliberately taken a picture with the intention of producing something that needs some manipulation. 

[roydonian]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:39 PM, jaapv said:

And since when did a photograph capture reality? Basically never - it captures the photographer's interpretation of reality -  or even surreality.

I'd like to think that the photos I took as a working journalist captured reality. I was trying to show my readers exactly what I was seeing.

The same goes for some other jobs I've done. When the Russian Tu-160 strategic bomber made its first visit to a Western air show I remember taking closeup photos of its electronic-warfare antennas and chaff/flare dispensers. I wasn't interpreting anything - I was recording reality (though the Russians would have regarded what I was doing as espionage.)

[jaapv]

Obviously a good journalist will strive to keep as close to reality as possible, but it will still be reality as you see it, and your photographs will give the crop, perspective, composition etc, to best express your vision to your viewers. However I grant you that there is little creativity in purely reproductive technical photography. 

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, ianforber said:

I see exactly where you’re coming from. I don’t enjoy post processing so do very little unless I’ve deliberately taken a picture with the intention of producing something that needs some manipulation. 

There is the rub: regarding postprocessing as manipulation. It can be, but not in my style. To me it is (re)creating the scene as I visualized it. 

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, ianforber said:

I see exactly where you’re coming from. I don’t enjoy post processing so do very little unless I’ve deliberately taken a picture with the intention of producing something that needs some manipulation. 

I’m guessing that your typical goal is not to make a fine print of a worthy pic.  Otherwise, your approach can easily lead to some very mediocre results. There are just too many variables, subject to user decisions/control, in the camera to print workflow, whether film or digital, to expect that pushing the shutter button will instantly create a pic/print worthy of framing.  Otherwise we’d all be regularly cranking out gems.  
 

Jeff

[Michael-IIIf]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:51 PM, dem331 said:

I guess out of camera jpegs are the closest equivalent.

Funnily enough I shared one of my old Kodachrome slides today (or rather a scan thereof) and it struck me that the non-manipulated colour, tone, white-balance, exposure were just beautiful.

Jpeg might be the nearest but your camera's manufacturer has already decided how the raw information is going to be processed before handing it over to jpeg. I never like the white balance of any manufacturer's jpeg out-of-the-box.

[ianforber]

30 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’m guessing that your typical goal is not to make a fine print of a worthy pic.  Otherwise, your approach can easily lead to some very mediocre results. There are just too many variables, subject to user decisions/control, in the camera to print workflow, whether film or digital, to expect that pushing the shutter button will instantly create a pic/print worthy of framing.  Otherwise we’d all be regularly cranking out gems.  
 

Jeff

 

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

There is the rub: regarding postprocessing as manipulation. It can be, but not in my style. To me it is (re)creating the scene as I visualized it. 

I don’t print (heresy, I know) and fine art is not my goal, otherwise I wouldn’t bother taking any pictures. As it is I delete around 95% of what I shoot because it’s not good enough for my liking. On manipulation, I had in mind when I’m producing an IR picture using a filter and the DNG needs a fair amount of work.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

You might delete a smaller percentage with processing. If I like the content I will go all-out with processing and regularly arrive at a satisfactory result However certainly not always 😉