DSLRUsers.com

let me preface this by saying i have no issue with PP of any kind. i like alot of it and am in awe of some of the things people are capable of doing in photoshop which is a technique and art in itself. so i hold no bias, make no judgement about this and am not a "SOOC nazi" either. my lack of PP has more to do with my pathetic skill level and laziness as opposed to any noble quest to nail everything perfectly in camera.

but, (of course there's a "but" ), recently i discovered how much PP a landscape guy i have come to really admire alot, (no one on this forum), performs in his shots. the majority of it was merging several shots together to get very cool and interesting water movements and sky interest into the frame. i gotta admit...it left me a little disappointed and i dont look at the shots in quite the same way. what made alot of the shots unique was just that...the great patterns etc which i thought was just awesome timing, foresight, local knowledge, skill level etc

i found this quite a peculiar feeling to have, cos i like HDR's and blends etc eg: love kanes shots which i know are HDR...but i dunno...this one kinda made me feel "less impressed" for want of a better expression...does that make sense ? anyone else felt that way ? and more broadly...given the boom in photography in general...has post really become essential to get the WOW factor given the glut of great shots about nowadays ?

Rooz wrote:has post really become essential to get the WOW factor given the glut of great shots about nowadays ?

Chris,

All that I will say at this time is that post has always been an essential part of most photographic images. It's just that today it's far more prevalent and obvious that you're performing it.

Interesting thread, one which Energypolice would have much to say.

From a purely instinctive position, I hold photos which are a montage of different images (dropped in skies, for example) in lower regard than a single photo that has been processed.

I appreciate that this view is not necessarily rational or defensible:

1. How is cloning out something any different than adding something in?
2. How is smoothing skin (and therefore taking something away) any different?
3. How is HDR any different (when taken with multiple exposures)?
4. Etcetera

For me, when I look at some images, say a fantastic landscape with awesome skies or a shot which includes a bird entering the frame at "just the right time" and find out that the sky or bird, respectively, have been added, the impact of the photo is reduced.

Doesn't make it a bad photo. But my initial impression that the shot was a result of patience, or great timing or great luck is diminished.

This is just an off the cuff response, without serious thought (it is new years day, after all )

I do agree that PP seems to be 'a necessary evil'. These days, even entry level cameras offer functionality far exceeding the above average photographer's capabilities.

I see post processing as the 'presentation' of an underlying image. The difference in a photographer's 'vision' aka the final image presented to its audience, ultimately is comprised of the way it has been 'presented'. Individual preferences then takes over, as to what is deemed acceptable and what goes beyond what should be called 'photography'.

Reschsmooth wrote:I
For me, when I look at some images, say a fantastic landscape with awesome skies or a shot which includes a bird entering the frame at "just the right time" and find out that the sky or bird, respectively, have been added, the impact of the photo is reduced.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if you found out that the bird entering the frame at just the right time was just a fluke and not planned would the impact of the photo be equally reduced?

Maybe then the answer is to keep secret how the photo was produced

I think it depends on how ones sees it. I see PP today as an evolution from the darkroom days and a necessary skill dependent on the photographers industry (eg Wedding, portrait, commercial). As Gary pointed out, it is more prevalent because instead of making a darkroom full of chemicals and mechanical equipment which can deter even the budding photographer its now more easily accessible with digital.

Look at it this way instead. Admire your landscape photographer for his skills at taking the exposures and admire his skills at processing the images that you loved. After all, PP'ing is not a simple push of a button and voila the computer spits it out. It does require creative direction and the necessary skills to bring out the best images. At least for the thinking photographer. Hope that helps.

Photography and PP’ing to me is just like custom cars. You can have a ordinary looking car but give it to Foose and you will end up with a classic car. Substitute car for photograph, Foose for PP’ing and classic car for the end result.

PP a necessary "evil" ?

as previously mentioned, maybe its not the actual fact of PP'ing, since it is well established that even your jpeg etc has been PP'ed before getting to your computer, but more the level of PP, how far is too far? is there such thing as too far?

as with alot of things it is probably very subjective....

Substitute car for photograph, Foose for PP’ing and classic car for the end result.

and 'classic' is very subjective also I bet, some may think of an old alfa tweaked up as a classic....

anywhos... if it takes more than 5 mins and involves more than 5 steps its too much imo (panos excluded)

keep secret how the photo was produced

once you know a magicians secrets they do not seem so special....

If PP was necessary evil, Ansel adams would be the satan

I think if an image looks good, one has to give credit to the artist who created it. Whether you are dissapointed in how it was created, is another matter.

Compared to the old darkroom, the current 'light'room gives you too many options. If you can choose the right one for that specific image to make it look good, that shows your creative side.

I don't see the difference in spending blood, sweat and tears outside 'waiting' for the shot vs doing all that to 'make' the shot. It's great that sometimes 'making' the shot can be done with beer in one hand, mouse in the other.

Just my two cents.

surenj wrote:If PP was necessary evil, Ansel adams would be the satan

I think if an image looks good, one has to give credit to the artist who created it. Whether you are dissapointed in how it was created, is another matter.

Compared to the old darkroom, the current 'light'room gives you too many options. If you can choose the right one for that specific image to make it look good, that shows your creative side.

I don't see the difference in spending blood, sweat and tears outside 'waiting' for the shot vs doing all that to 'make' the shot. It's great that sometimes 'making' the shot can be done with beer in one hand, mouse in the other.

Just my two cents.

beer in one hand, mouse in the other

not to be taken out of context but... theres a good point

I was in the old fashioned darkroom today and I have to admit that there was a lot of work (lots of dodging and burning!), I definitely do less in digital...but then again I am lazy.

As for a necessary evil? well nothing is necessary it is to your liking IMHO.

I agree with Surenj.

Can an image be too good? If so, such an image is likely to project a reality of its own that makes any technical considerations subservient if not irrevelant.

phillipb wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:I
For me, when I look at some images, say a fantastic landscape with awesome skies or a shot which includes a bird entering the frame at "just the right time" and find out that the sky or bird, respectively, have been added, the impact of the photo is reduced.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if you found out that the bird entering the frame at just the right time was just a fluke and not planned would the impact of the photo be equally reduced?

Maybe then the answer is to keep secret how the photo was produced

I will refer you to my subsequent paragraph.

Necessary? Yes.

Evil? No.

While PP can extend from very minor tweaks to wholesale changes, it is an integral part of photography, just as the darkroom was (and still is for some).

Here's a question... Is it better to set the camera up for the correct white balance before you take the shot or correct it in post processing? If the end result is exactly the same, what difference does it make (ignoring time and convenience)? OK, that's two questions and here's another. If you didn't set the camera correctly, is it better to do the PP and make the white balance "accurate" or leave the image as is because without the PP the image is "more accurate"?

I don't wish to speak on behalf of Rooz, but I took his question/comment to relate to cutting and pasting, so to speak, of different images to create a new image, as opposed to changes like WB, exposure, etc. It is possible that I could be wrong. It has happened before.

Whether this changes arguments or not, I don't know.

Reschsmooth wrote:I don't wish to speak on behalf of Rooz, but I took his question/comment to relate to cutting and pasting, so to speak, of different images to create a new image, as opposed to changes like WB, exposure, etc. It is possible that I could be wrong. It has happened before.

Whether this changes arguments or not, I don't know.

I would say that doing this is stepping WAY over the border...IMHO it ceases to be photography and belongs in the realm of digital art.

just my 2c!

And why can't Photography be Art? (the word digital is irrelevant in this context). After all Max Ernst was a Photographer as well as a Painter.

And as far as combining images goes, in the nineteenth century, when Photography was "pure and archaic" using large format cameras and glass plates, the dynamic range was usually too small to take skies at the same time as foregrounds so Photographers commonly combined the two from separate images. With some subject matter it is possible to take in-camera multiple exposures that are not obviously multiple exposures. How is that any different from doing it in post-processing whether the effect is obvious or not?

It only becomes inappropriate in a photojournalist kind of context where the image needs to be an unfiltered representation of reality. This is seldom relevant to creative photography.

For that matter, no photographic image can actually depict reality (except perhaps somen copies of two-dimensional objects) - the photographic image has a reality of its own.

Regards,
Murray

Well, folks - the whole process is a continuum. At what point on that continuum do you say "enough"?

There is a model. Should the model wear makeup?
There is lighting. Should the studio be banned, and only pix taken in "natural" light be allowed?
There is a camera. Are pinhole cameras the only ones to be used?
There is post-processing. Should that be restricted to dodging and burning?

I think you see my point.

the foto fanatic wrote:Well, folks - the whole process is a continuum. At what point on that continuum do you say "enough"?

There is a model. Should the model wear makeup?
There is lighting. Should the studio be banned, and only pix taken in "natural" light be allowed?
There is a camera. Are pinhole cameras the only ones to be used?
There is post-processing. Should that be restricted to dodging and burning?

I think you see my point.

yepp. i agree with that. thats the first thing that i thought aswell. when is something too much. when is the blurry line between what one considers too much, not enuf or just right...i suppose this is very personal.

i think the issue for me was that i wasnt aware there was that much post in the shots. i was under the impression that it was 1 shot; so when i found out it wasnt it probably surprised me which is why i felt so wierd about it. i certianly dont look at the shots with the same awe and admiration i had originally. i admire them for the skills he used in post to make it look so wonderful, but i dont look at it from a photography POV in the same way.

merging several photos in that way to achieve an effect for which represents the principal "wow factor" of the photo, for ME is too much. before anyone gets too PO's about that statment...i repeat...for ME its too much.

Rooz wrote:I admire them for the skills he used in post to make it look so wonderful, but i dont look at it from a photography POV in the same way.

I'm probably not challenging your opinion, particularly since I don't know the images and techniques you are referring to and I am therefore responding in general terms to something you may largely seeing in specific terms. I also don't know whether there might have been some context for those specific implicit images that in some way make post-processing less appropriate for them. However, I question the possible inference, which may not have been your intended implication, that a photography point of view excludes post-processing.

If we start from the days of the chemical darkroom, Photography to me was essentially the whole process - inspiration, capture, processing, printing - to finally result, at least potentially, in an exhibition print. Many of the processes even then were inscrutable and demanding and there were many both adventurous and subtle things you could do in a darkroom. Some things such as contrast masking which are now dead easy were fiendishly difficult in the darkroom. There were commercial masters of darkroom technique who printed to combine images using using multiple enlargers and pin registration.

So this discussion is not a digital one, it's grounded in the history of photography and there have always been various adventurous options available.

When I go and see a film and I come out of the theatre and it was a good one, the last thing I want to do is to discuss and analyse it. I will have been enveloped by the conjured reality of the film and want to savour that imagined reality as long as possible. If I can analyse it at that point it can’t have been a very good film.

Similarly, I feel that when there is a really good print up on a wall, if someone merely wants to ask questions about how it was done, they are either completely missing the point or it hasn’t worked well enough.

Regards,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote: However, I question the possible inference, which may not have been your intended implication, that a photography point of view excludes post-processing.

no, that was not what i was implying at all. as i have stated in my OP and the last one.

When I go and see a film and I come out of the theatre and it was a good one, the last thing I want to do is to discuss and analyse it. I will have been enveloped by the conjured reality of the film and want to savour that imagined reality as long as possible. If I can analyse it at that point it can’t have been a very good film.

i dont think its quite the same thing. there are innumerable processes in film making and all of them are individually recognized as arts in themselves. a counter argument to this would be that if you went to a live concert and were blown away by the performance and the guys voice only to find out later it was dubbed and it wasnt a live performance would you not feel disappointed ? by your logic...as long s you enjoyed the performance and savoured that imagined reality then its all good.

i'm not suggesting that my example is an accurate analogy either, just pointing out that the movie one wasnt really relevant either.

Similarly, I feel that when there is a really good print up on a wall, if someone merely wants to ask questions about how it was done, they are either completely missing the point or it hasn’t worked well enough.

i respectfully couldnt disagree more. i see nothing wrong with analysis of an image no matter how good it is, (i'm talking analysis of technique here...not pixel peeping). in fact the better it is, the more questions i have. the questions i have are not skeptical questions nor are they derogatory, they are questions about how they did it...how could i do it ?...how can i learn from this ? how can i improve ?

i dont think analysis in any way prevents you from appreciating an image nor does it detract from your admiration. they are not mutually exclusive at all. in fact i would i would suggest to you that from my POV the opposite is true; if you arent asking questions then it hasnt worked well enuf and/or you arent trying to improve and develop your own skills.

Rooz wrote: they are questions about how they did it...how could i do it ?...how can i learn from this ? how can i improve ?

with you here. Interestingly the more I learn about light and understand how to use it, I am now asking different questions. How in the world did he manage to get that smile? etc etc
Still I am trying to learn the technical stuff. I feel that I am way behind in the ART of photography. It is something that's much less tangible.

Rooz wrote:… a counter argument to this would be that if you went to a live concert and were blown away by the performance and the guys voice only to find out later it was dubbed and it wasnt a live performance would you not feel disappointed ? by your logic...as long s you enjoyed the performance and savoured that imagined reality then its all good.

I don’t think that’s the same thing. You’re talking about fraud here. It doesn’t matter how good a print is, if it’s presented as an Ansel Adams print and it’s a forgery, then that leaves a bad taste that overwhelms any competence in its creation.

Rooz wrote:

Similarly, I feel that when there is a really good print up on a wall, if someone merely wants to ask questions about how it was done, they are either completely missing the point or it hasn’t worked well enough.

i respectfully couldnt disagree more. i see nothing wrong with analysis of an image no matter how good it is, (i'm talking analysis of technique here...not pixel peeping). in fact the better it is, the more questions i have. the questions i have are not skeptical questions nor are they derogatory, they are questions about how they did it...how could i do it ?...how can i learn from this ? how can i improve ?

i dont think analysis in any way prevents you from appreciating an image nor does it detract from your admiration. they are not mutually exclusive at all. in fact i would i would suggest to you that from my POV the opposite is true; if you arent asking questions then it hasnt worked well enuf and/or you arent trying to improve and develop your own skills.

Ah but that's not what I said.."

This is NOT what I wrote:Similarly, I feel that when there is a really good print up on a wall, if someone wants to ask questions about how it was done, they are either completely missing the point or it hasn’t worked well enough.

This IS what I wrote:Similarly, I feel that when there is a really good print up on a wall, if someone merely wants to ask questions about how it was done, they are either completely missing the point or it hasn’t worked well enough.

This is not merely semantics; it’s a fundamentally different meaning.

Every competent photographer will be familiar with analysing images otherwise they wouldn’t be a competent photographer. Analysing an image can sometimes help you see it – but if you analyse an image without contemplating it you’re not really seeing it.

Here’s another anecdote. In secondary school I had a friend who answered literature questions in English by reading the “Classic Comics”. He was able to get quite good marks for his analysis but no way did he actually experience or appreciate the books. Probably most of those who read the books as a chore to get grist for analysis didn’t really experience or appreciate the books either.

Over the last 30 years I’ve been Competition Director of the Canberra Photographic Society for 6 or 8 years (and am now) and President for 6. I’ve seen a lot of public image appraisal and done some myself. The best Judges are wonderfully incisive and illuminating. Occasionally you get Judges who turn personal prejudice plus shallow understanding into snap judgement and thereby even reduce general appreciation of the images.

It’s the same with technique. There is much to learn in all aspects of photography, the learning process never stops and it often takes years to start to get a handle on some things. It is very common for people to want to know what the magic bullet is – “what camera did you use?”; "what Photoshop technique did you use”? Sometimes seeking or seemingly receiving the magic bullet can reduce both understanding and appreciation.

Consistently making good images is about conceptual imagination, life experience and probably years of technical experience. Looking at a photograph and enquiring about the technique is in some cases not particularly going to help in the same way that standing in the “Ansel Adams footprints” at a Death Valley lookout is unlikely to help anyone to be Ansel Adams.

To start to be more specific, here’s an example image.



Some people may think it’s wonderful, others may think it’s boring. That’s fine either way.

Some may dismiss it because it’s a flower. They’re merely applying a prejudice and I wouldn’t have much respect for their opinion. Some may think it’s wonderful purely because it’s a flower. I’d wonder about their opinion too.

Some might think it’s easy and dismiss it for that. Others might think it’s hard and have a higher opinion of it for that. In my opinion, neither attitudes are particularly valid. Either the image is evocative or it’s not.

Now if I were to tell someone “this is a bromoil print made inside a camera obscura and hand adjusted to correct tonality” then that might stop them contemplating and wondering about the image and they might start dismissing it as “this is merely a bromoil print that …” .

Back to the original point of this thread – I don’t believe that a viewer’s opinion of this image should be influenced for better or worse from what they know or conjecture I did to create it.

Ragrds,
Murray

Murray Foote wrote:I don’t think that’s the same thing. You’re talking about fraud here. It doesn’t matter how good a print is, if it’s presented as an Ansel Adams print and it’s a forgery, then that leaves a bad taste that overwhelms any competence in its creation.

no its not the same thing...as i stated already. it was there simply to illustrate that your example was also not the same thing. the print and its final look is one small piece of the puzzle to me. i also care about how the print was done, for the reasons i gave. above. thats no different to any field of choice. i used to box, so i would look at tapes and not just admire what ali did, but wanted to understand HOW. photography is not immune to similar questions about technique. just cos its "art" doesn't mean i cant ask questions and analyse it.

This is not merely semantics; it’s a fundamentally different meaning.

you think ? lol

Every competent photographer will be familiar with analysing images otherwise they wouldn’t be a competent photographer. Analysing an image can sometimes help you see it – but if you analyse an image without contemplating it you’re not really seeing it.

Here’s another anecdote. In secondary school I had a friend who answered literature questions in English by reading the “Classic Comics”. He was able to get quite good marks for his analysis but no way did he actually experience or appreciate the books. Probably most of those who read the books as a chore to get grist for analysis didn’t really experience or appreciate the books either.

Over the last 30 years I’ve been Competition Director of the Canberra Photographic Society for 6 or 8 years (and am now) and President for 6. I’ve seen a lot of public image appraisal and done some myself. The best Judges are wonderfully incisive and illuminating. Occasionally you get Judges who turn personal prejudice plus shallow understanding into snap judgement and thereby even reduce general appreciation of the images.

It’s the same with technique. There is much to learn in all aspects of photography, the learning process never stops and it often takes years to start to get a handle on some things. It is very common for people to want to know what the magic bullet is – “what camera did you use?”; "what Photoshop technique did you use”? Sometimes seeking or seemingly receiving the magic bullet can reduce both understanding and appreciation.

Consistently making good images is about conceptual imagination, life experience and probably years of technical experience. Looking at a photograph and enquiring about the technique is in some cases not particularly going to help in the same way that standing in the “Ansel Adams footprints” at a Death Valley lookout is unlikely to help anyone to be Ansel Adams.

To start to be more specific, here’s an example image.



Some people may think it’s wonderful, others may think it’s boring. That’s fine either way.

Some may dismiss it because it’s a flower. They’re merely applying a prejudice and I wouldn’t have much respect for their opinion. Some may think it’s wonderful purely because it’s a flower. I’d wonder about their opinion too.

Some might think it’s easy and dismiss it for that. Others might think it’s hard and have a higher opinion of it for that. In my opinion, neither attitudes are particularly valid. Either the image is evocative or it’s not.

Now if I were to tell someone “this is a bromoil print made inside a camera obscura and hand adjusted to correct tonality” then that might stop them contemplating and wondering about the image and they might start dismissing it as “this is merely a bromoil print that …” .

Ragrds,
Murray

i've read this a couple of times and i don't really understand what your saying to be honest. nor do i need your resume and qualifications.

Back to the original point of this thread – I don’t believe that a viewer’s opinion of this image should be influenced for better or worse from what they know or conjecture I did to create it.

fine, i'm ok with differences of opinions. but to be frank here, when you say things like you did you come across a little holier than thou and condescending.

In the photo competition put on by Better Photography magazine last year, I recall that almost all of the winners and finalists had a very 'processed' look to them such that the winner/finalists seemed to be picked as much if not more on their PP abilities than their photographic abilities.

I am concious of the fact that you can't PP a crap photo to make a diamond, but still...

Please, all, let's not bring personal stuff into the debate.

Reschsmooth wrote:I am concious of the fact that you can't PP a crap photo to make a diamond, but still...

But you can put pressure on a lump of carbon to make a diamond

sirhc55 wrote:But you can put pressure on a lump of carbon to make a diamond

Hence the saying: "He is so tight you could shove a lump of coal up his a#$e and get a diamond in a week!"

Hi Patrick

Reschsmooth wrote:In the photo competition put on by Better Photography magazine last year, I recall that almost all of the winners and finalists had a very 'processed' look to them such that the winner/finalists seemed to be picked as much if not more on their PP abilities than their photographic abilities.

I think that successful post-processing should either (1) make an image seem really good though convincingly "normal" or else (2) make it seem quite unreal and impressive in its own terms. If I interpret your comments correctly, the images sound like exercises that may be technically accomplished but reflect poorly on the aesthetic discernment of the editors of the magazine. I suppose what I'm saying is that maybe the post-processing abilities of the authors weren't really so good if the images look inappropriately processed

Reschsmooth wrote:I am concious of the fact that you can't PP a crap photo to make a diamond, but still...

It's almost always the case but there can be exceptions. I remember a few years ago I had an image that had a strong composition but was out of focus. I wanted to see if I could get something out of it and I played round with edge contours, maybe some posterisation, some combination of filters in Photoshop - and ended up with a reasonable image, albeit not a realistic one. Maybe not a diamond but I put it in an exhibition, someone tried to buy it and I think they paid a deposit but never came up with the money.

Regards,
Murray

Rooz wrote:just cos its "art" doesn't mean i cant ask questions and analyse it.

I didn't say nor imply otherwise and then tried to go to some lengths to point that out.

Rooz wrote:

I wrote:This is not merely semantics; it’s a fundamentally different meaning.

you think ? lol

I may not have expressed it well but there is a significant difference notwithstanding what appears to be your contempt. The meaning you took was quite different from what I believe I said and what I meant.

Rooz wrote:... nor do i need your resume and qualifications.

I was merely making the point, specifically in response to your previous post, that I have a reasonable level of familiarity with image anaylsis. (I could as well have said that I didn't need to hear about your pugilistic background (that would have been an equally inappropriate comment)).

Rooz wrote:you come across a little holier than thou and condescending.

No, I don't think so and that would have been an inappropriate comment in any circumstance. I put this thread aside and came back after some days to allow for a more balanced contemplation. I think your admission that you have no idea what I am talking about undermines your personal aspersions.

Rooz wrote:I don't really understand what you're saying

I had thought we were talking at cross purposes so I took the time to provide a detailed and considered point of view. What I didn't expect was a response that I found arrogant, aggressive and quite inappropriate in terms of forum politeness.

Essentially what I was talking about was seeing rather than analysing - and perhaps the zen of photography as opposed to the mechanics.

Gary wrote:Please, all, let's not bring personal stuff into the debate.

I agree entirely.

I did feel a need to defend myself and I hope I have done that in a quiet, calm and considered manner. If anyone still has a sense of personal grievance relating to this thread I suggest they PM Gary and allow him to adjudicate. I remain open to discussing ideas and opinions.

Regards,
Murray