Photography v Editing

[gooseberry]

I think the issue of people thinking that photographs shouldn't be post processed and that a good photo comes straight out of the camera, is due to the 1 hour Colour Print lab. People are so used to just taking their photos, then dropping them off to the lab to be printed - not realising what the adjustments to contrast, colour etc that the print operator does or the auto corrections of the printing machine.

If you've developed and printed your own B&W photos, you'd know that's not the case that you get photos straight out - there's a lot of post processing invovled, be it creating an unsharp mask, dodging and burning, getting different contrasts with different grades of paper etc.

To me post processing is an integral part of photography and I actually enjoy it. And with digital I'm certainly getting more consistent, repeatable results in post processing than with film - and not having to mess around with nasty chemicals, though that can be fun sometimes if you're into that....

[StarForge]

As much as a purist I am about having unaltered photos, I also enjoy the post-processing stage where I can make a good photo even better. The view finder and LCD on the camera can only show you so much when you're out there taking photos, its only when you get to your computer (or lab if you're using film) that you notice what needs adjusting.

I started on B&W film so I do miss the developing process where I could do all sorts of cool things, but sitting in front of a computer with a large display, cup of tea and Photoshop is great fun too.

Photography vs. Editing? I think without editing (even if its just cropping) you're not making the best of the original shot.

[Reschsmooth]

Interestingly, a lot of the finalists of the Canon Better Photography Photograph of the Year 2008 have been processed to within an inch of their inanimate lives. Whilst these are great images, some of them could be considered photo-based images. Discuss.

[NewbieD70]

Patrick,

Good post. Yes that was exactly what I mean when posting my original question in this thread. While some of those "photographs" are outstanding, some look so processed that they, in my opinion, dont even qualify as photographs in the sense of the word. Some actually look like paintings.
Thanks for the link.

[surenj]

Another good example of cartoony painting like images.. http://www.davehillphoto.com Does that make it a bad photo? I suppose the customer/consumer/you have to decide depending on who you shoot for.

[mickeyjuice]

Man, that the DAVE HILL LOOK ! You can't diss that!

[wider]

im with aim54x on this one - try to stay away from PS except for a crop and watermark.

Crop? CROP? Geez, why don't you get it right to start with? Cropping is clearly PP, which is verbotten.

i too am too lazy to spend lots of time on one image

So everyone should be lazy. I like where this is going.

and enjoy the challenge of trying to get the image right the first time.

Like lots of people.

i do feel however if you have that shot that you need to rescue, a certain amount of PS work is excusable ^_^

The generosity is only matched by the condescension.

Seriously, this is quite ridiculous. Given that virtually every shot taken with a DSLR in RAW needs sharpening (due to the AA filter), do we declare that anything taken with a DSLR is somehow tainted and not 'real'? Man, don't get me started on those cameras that don't exactly match everybody's range of vision, they must be poor as well, as they're not showing the 'real' scene. And people who change lenses? Deadset.

And those jokers like Ansel Adams - if only he hadn't done all that work in the darkroom, he could have been really good, instead of someone we can all pity.

the amount of laziness i exert is in proportion to how much im getting paid for the job and the number of shots that i have to process

congratulations you have displayed your skills in sarcasm well

i'd be keen to see you show the same level of disrespect to other members

[kipper]

(We had a nutbag here a couple of years ago who had some sort of obsession with this issue, it was funny
for a while, then ridiculous, then annoying, then he disappeared )

I think I know who you refer to. This has to be said (italian mob saying and post processing pun) - "did somebody rub him out?"

[mickeyjuice]

i'd be keen to see you show the same level of disrespect to other members

You would? Very decent of you.

I was just reading the thread having a bit of a chuckle, and then I read the bit about it being "excusable" for a little PP in desperate circumstances, which was utterly, ridiculously laughable and condescending.

So I decided to have a bit of a laugh, while making a fairly obvious point. Most people took it as that, and had a laugh as well.

Anyone who knows anything about digital knows PP is an intrinic part of the process. It is impossible for it to be anything else, as I said in the first post.

[gstark]

Anyone who knows anything about digital knows PP is an intrinic part of the process.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about photography knows that PP is an intrinsic part of the process.

[mickeyjuice]

Anyone who knows anything about digital knows PP is an intrinic part of the process.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about photography knows that PP is an intrinsic part of the process.

Well, yeah, but I thought I'd made that point in my initial post, and just wanted to make it clear about digital. I wasn't trying to exclude chemical at all.