To post-edit or not...

Those who actually think that others that use Photoshop in their creation of photos are naturally sloppier in their shooting the photo are unfair in their thinking towards those who do use post processing software (need not be Photoshop, though that's the one that works best - to my mind). When you have decided that post processing software helps you gaining more control over the production of a photo, it does NOT mean you can start out by taking a BAD photo, thinking you'll "make it better later". You cannot make a bad photo any better later. But you can gain control over making a GOOD photo more "your photo". To my mind, that is all there is!

Unless you can call a colour darkroom your own, few of us film users (I am both, film and digital) have to rely on handing in the film and getting back our prints, and we gave control over the making of the prints into the hand of the big machine in the lab that is set by default to a "one version for all" way of developing. The middle way. Always. But (!) that is a kind of post processing, too. Even the creation of the negatives already is a kind of post processing. Only is that totally out of my control. A machine takes the decisions (or not, but someone has ONCE set that machine!).

When my uncle and dad still made their own black and white prints in their darkroom, I watched them straighten tilted horizons by putting the paper no quite at a 90-degree angle onto the plate, I watched them crop their negative by moving the enlarger further away from the paper, I watched them dodge or burn, I watched them choose their paper according to what they wanted to achieve, I watched them decide on the time the print would stay in the developer and and and.

Why rob us of the chance to be equally creative today, in our computer darkrooms?
 
As little as possible, as much as has to- Get it right.
 
I prefer good photos.. I don't care how it gets to that point.

The great master, Ansel Adams is a good example of someone that did a lot of post processing to his photos. I doubt he'd be as legendary if he just printed the negatives 'as-is'.
 
If the final result is a beautiful shot, I believe, it's up to me to use any tools necessary to get that shot. I wouldn't turn down anything. For me it's that simple.
 
I too am one of those 35+ year photographers that learned and still practice "Get it right in the Camera". With that said however, the one thing that I haven't noticed anyone mention about film is that it was also post processed.

It just happened in the darkroom. Right in the camera still might be printed a bit lighter, or darker, colors being subdued, or brought out. Dodging and burning in post processing to get a desired result was all done. Not by the local Walgreens when you turned in your film. They just stuck it in the machine and picked the best average and pushed the start button. But anyone that worked in their own darkroom did. It was just part of photography.

It is also one of those things I miss in this digital age, right up until I think about all the busy work there was just to get to the stage of developing or printing my own stuff. Not to mention chemical storage.
 
If I remember right, there was this guy, Ansel Adams, who used to do a lot of analog post-processing ("dodging" and "burning")...and I really like a lot of his B&W work. I don't think I'd consider him to be "just a graphic artist".

Personally, I run the whole gamut. Some images look fine out of the camera. Some need post-processing to approach what my eye saw when I took the picture ("eyes" have a higher dynamic range than the electronic sensors in cameras). And some I process a bit more because they look extra nice/cool/whatever partially *because* they are over dramatic.

However, you still have to hit composition, lighting, etc. right, or no matter how much or how little processing you do, your photos will not be what you want.

Just my 2 cents. With inflation what it is, that ain't much.
 
...the one thing that I haven't noticed anyone mention about film is that it was also post processed.

:cry: :cry: :cry:
Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
Hey, i said it first! No one reading my posts either :confused:.
 
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:

Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.

You ever watch some one add text to an image in a dark room or a border?

Oh yeah...It's easy

Getting the translucent text commonly used in modern watermarking takes a little more finesse but it too can be done.

That is part of why there are some things I'll do and some I won't. If I don't know of a way to do it in a dark room or can not imeadiatly think of one I won't do it digitally.....that is just me and my 2 cents though.
 
Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.

Right on. I wish there was an easy way to deal with this... then again is how most people function when they don't know something, they make convenient assumptions to fill in the gaps.
 
Right on. I wish there was an easy way to deal with this... then again is how most people function when they don't know something, they make convenient assumptions to fill in the gaps.

Sadly this is another aspect of photography that one really needs to experiance to learn and get a true feel for, even if it is just watching some one else do it.
 
I will sometimes add some contrast to my pics if I think they need it - usually i leave them alone - but I do shoot in colour and then convert to B&W via software just incase i want to keep the colour one - I do tend to have the shot in mind as a B&W but I take it in colour.

You ever watch some one add text to an image in a dark room or a border?

Oh yeah...It's easy

I remember as a kid watching my brother in his dark room ( a converted outhouse) and he showed me how you could write on pics while the print was being developed.
 
I have yet to come across a photo that wouldn't be improved by minor touchups. So many people these days say they should keep it pure like the film users. Personally I let them believe their fantasy arguments as I've given up on this almost religious debate.

To put my 2c into this thread, messing with the colour, and contrast is nothing more than selecting which film to use and how long to develop for, cloning could be done on film too, putting a dark gradient map on an image is nothing more than using an GradND filter, and cropping is nothing more then... well cropping.

The "pure like film" analogy is clearly taken only by people who have never shot a roll of film before.
 
Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.

I couldn't agree more but the argument goes both ways. I met a photographer a bit ago who only shoots film and he said he did so because "Digital isn't art since everything can be edited in a computer.". To your point, those same edits can be done in a darkroom which really voids the entire argument.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top