Crop as the only post processing to alter the image?

[Fuad7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, this is my first post on this forum.  The amount of information and the level of expertise is overwhelming and a bit intimidating.

I am a Fujifilm X100V user who has given his camera to his daughter and am now awaiting my first Leica, the Q3 43.

I learned to shoot on my father's old Pentax film camera in the 1970's.

I have been looking at the numerous images posted here and was wondering if there are any out there who like me, do not process the image except for cropping?

Seems to me that the level of processing being done these days is excessive and becomes quite apparent.

 

Thanks for your response.

[MikeD70]

I would say that on average, there is LESS processing done to the images when compared to what was needed in my old darkroom days.  That's just my opinion, but there was usually more to be done when processing images in the darkroom days than now.  I tend to re-check my white balance, and then crop, and may add a final touch such as Topaz or Radiant Image to the final image.  Normally, if I use a filter such as these, I then fade the final down to the 25-50% level.  I do favor the crop only process, but sometimes the image just needs a little boost.  Hope you get your camera soon, the wait is agonizing, but worth it.

[LocalHero1953]

I agree that some post processing is rather too obvious, and is detrimental to the image.

However, without knowing your (age and) experience I am not sure what examples of beneficial post processing to offer. Darkroom printing skills were and still are highly valued, including cropping, dodging and burning (and some are happy to use pens, brushes and scalpels on negatives and plates). Without such skilled work, you are reduced to taking your exposed film to Snappy Snaps and accepting a stack of batch processed enprints in return.

Even if you ignore such adjustments, are you willing to ignore the limitations of sensors, which tend to be more sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, and without intervention can easily lose detail in bright skies? And then you have the colours of artificial lights, which the eye and brain compensate out, but become glaringly ugly when seen in a digital image.

If that's the hair shirt you wish to wear, you can enjoy your unprocessed image. I'm very pleased that over the last 10-15 years I have developed post processing skills that allow me to make the photos I saw in my mind's eye before pressing the shutter.

Welcome to the forum!

[Dazzajl]

A very wise photographer once said that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. I think that is as relevant in the digital age, possibly even more so. 
 

As ever, taste and restraint are the marks of elegance but ultimately, all that matters is that the photographer is happy with the final image. Whatever road is travelled to get there. 
 

Hope you enjoy that Q. Looking forward to seeing some pics.

[bobtodrick]

Don't spend much time in post processing.  When shooting film I always had the attitude that expose properly and crop in camera (lens selection).  In the darkroom I seldom spent more that 1/2 hour getting the image 'right'...some minor burning/dodging was about it.  I always figured that if it was going to take me hours to save and image that I pooched in the camera than I would move on to the next neg.

I have the same attitude in the digital world.  I like being out taking photos...not sitting behind a computer for hours.  I'm very careful with exposure so often only have to do minimal adjustments.

On the other hand I definitely respect those who do what I would term photo illustrations...who are able to combine multiple images to come up with some truly fantastic images.

[jaapv]

Each to his own but I would never print or even show an unprocessed image. Sometimes little, sometimes more depending on the raw material but it always needs some processing. Of course it is possible to overcook the file but you soon learn to avoid, mainly by having a second look the following day. And time yourself.. Five to ten minutes max, depending on your level of skill ( often a couple of minutes suffices)!, unless you need to save a failed but essential photo. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All images are processed. The only question is whether you are the one processing it, or engineers at Leica/Adobe/Capture One/Apple/Kodak etc. An unprocessed Q3 image would just be a series of charge levels recorded in binary. Or at best a raw bayer matrix which is just green, red and blue pixels in uneven proportions.

https://www.red.com/red-101/bayer-sensor-strategy

I understand what you mean about over-processing, but I think that basic adjustments to white balance, curves and exposure are quite similar to what has always been done in photography, whether chemical or digital. Color enlargers required you to tune yellow, magenta and blue, and black and white enlargers have contrast filters etc. The companies making papers and chemicals tuned them to a specific outcome that was based on someone's taste. Ultimately there is no "real" process. Keeping it natural is more about tuning your eye to the natural world and recognizing when things start to deviate too much than about avoiding processing itself.

Edited March 26 by Stuart Richardson

[keithlaban.co.uk]

1 hour ago, Fuad7 said:

Snip...

Seems to me that the level of processing being done these days is excessive and becomes quite apparent...

Well, you could of course just press the button and leave the processing to Leica or Hasselblad or Fujifilm... or alternatively you could show us your own take on the world and share your own vision.

Each to their own.

But hey, thankfully my days supplying clients with Kodachromes straight out of camera are behind me and I'm now free to express myself at will.

Good shooting to you.

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

All images are processed. The only question is whether you are the one processing it, or engineers at Leica/Adobe/Capture One/Apple/Kodak etc. An unprocessed Q3 image would just be a series of charge levels recorded in binary. Or at best a raw bayer matrix which is just green, red and blue pixels in uneven proportions.

https://www.red.com/red-101/bayer-sensor-strategy

I understand what you mean about over-processing, but I think that basic adjustments to white balance, curves and exposure are quite similar to what has always been done in photography, whether chemical or digital. Color enlargers required you to tune yellow, magenta and blue, and black and white enlargers have contrast filters etc. The companies making papers and chemicals tuned them to a specific outcome that was based on someone's taste. Ultimately there is no "real" process. Keeping it natural is more about tuning your eye to the natural world and recognizing when things start to deviate too much than about avoiding processing itself.

In my chemical colour processing days I used a Kaiser dichroic colour head and a Philips colorimeter plus the Kodak viewing filter set. Digital processing is a doddle in comparison. 

[evikne]

When you're lucky and the light and everything else is right, you often don't need to do much more than fine-tune cropping and straightening, especially if you're using the Adobe Color profile, which makes the image almost look like a finished JPEG. 

Personally, I now like to use the Adobe Standard profile. It requires a little more processing, at least setting the black and white point manually, and adding some color and contrast.

The best images are often the ones that need the least post-processing.

[JNK100]

I use DXO PL and never spend more than 2 minutes processing a shot -

Cropping - rarely

Straighten horizon -rarely

Exposure, LB and highlights/shadows

NR

 

 

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Fuad7 said:

Seems to me that the level of processing being done these days is excessive and becomes quite apparent.

 

 

Or, conversely, not enough, as evidenced by flat, muddy B&W pics from many using various high DR cameras.  Seems some haven’t heard of a tone curve.

All aspects of photography (from shot to edit to final display) are subject to judgment and decision making.  It’s the quality, not quantity, of those decisions that matter.  This has been true whether darkroom or digital. 
 

Like Jaap, I’ve never made a final print without some degree of PP edits, small or big, depending on the desired rendering.  

[T25UFO]

No one has asked the question: do you shoot raw or jpg?  Maybe the assumption is if you buy a Q3 43 you will always shoot raw.  

Raw files are often quite flat and usually need some processing.  If you use Lightroom Classic or import raw files into Photoshop through Camera Raw and feel intimidated by all the different processing options, just try a one click Adapted Colour profile.  An experienced photographer probably wouldn't go this route, but just try it out.  If you like the result, press the Reset button and then try to replicate (or improve) by using individual adjustments.

Cropping - yes, the Q3 43 will do that for jpg files in camera anyway.  Even very minor cropping can make a big difference and draw the eye into the image.

Straighten horizons - yes, I do that all the time even when I think I've taken a perfectly straight horizon I often get it wrong!  Aging eyes and unsteady hands, but it only takes a couple of seconds to put it right.

Converging verticals - this is something I really hate but you see so many photos (yes, even on this forum) where a slight upward tilt of the camera makes it look like the building is leaning backwards.  Easy and very quick to fix using Transform - often a single click is all that's needed.

Washed out sky - should happen if you get the exposure right but do we really get it right every time?  Sadly I don't, so just a touch of dehaze can sort it.  Once again, only a few seconds work is needed.

All the above is simple and basic - doesn't require knowledge of Photoshop and Layers and all that stuff.

Edited March 26 by T25UFO

[Fuad7]

Any  specific image processing software better suited for Leica?

Any suggestions?  Thank you all for your very valuable comments so far.

[Stephen_C]

13 minutes ago, Fuad7 said:

Any  specific image processing software better suited for Leica?

If you are going to shoot RAW (which, purely in my opinion, you probably should 😀) make sure you choose RAW processing software with a profile that supports the camera so that the images will be initially processed as Leica intends and slightly cropped to remove lens distortion. Both Lightroom and Capture One (and no doubt some others) will do that.

Stephen

[LocalHero1953]

The most common (biggest market share) are Lightroom Classic and Capture One. I have the Adobe 'photographer's' subscription, which gives me Lightroom Classic (desktop), Lightroom CC (mobile, though I only use it when travelling) and Photoshop. You will find an equal balance here between those who like LR or C1. There's a smaller share for others, such as DXO - which doesn't necessarily mean they're worse, but you'll more easily find advice here for LR or C1.

[jaapv]

As Paul suggests getting the Adobe subscription is a good way to introduce yourself in postprocessing. Start with Lightroom-there are plenty of tutorials on the internet. The nice thing is that for stuff that Lightroom cannot handle - say 10% or so you can move into Photoshop, do your thing and move back to Lightroom. It is a long and steep learning curve but highly satisfying. 
OTOH if you want to keep it simpler I would recommend ON1. Not too expensive and it offers many beginner-friendly features ranging from adaptable presets to good teaching videos on their website. 

[Jeff S]

No different than using a camera; results  depend on the user.  Techniques are easy to learn (books, free videos, workshops, practice, etc).  Deciding when, where and to what degree to apply those techniques is what counts

Pick a software (the usual suspects mentioned above) and stick with it.  People tend to like the software that they become familiar and comfortable with.

FWIW, I also have the Adobe Photography Plan, for only $10/mo, including LR Classic and Photoshop.  I avoid cloud storage, which is optional.  I use ImagePrint for all print needs.

Edited March 27 by Jeff S

[Cogito]

40 years ago, when I was in school, we used to file down the negative holders so our prints would include the sprocket holes and prove we hadn't cropped the image. it was very important to us then that we not crop, now I crop all the time with the Q343

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

Imageprint is indeed an excellent rip but I doubt that a beginner in printing would see much benefit, especially at 400$ for the cheapest version. My advice would be to buy a simple good printer like the Epson XP15000 and start out with the Epson software for printing. From there you can progress to the level you aspire to, should you feel the need.  Do not fall into the trap of cheap ink, stick with the factory ones. Even if you get decent colour the prints will have low resistance to light.