You know what bothers me?

[Buckster]

Absolutely on target advice Randy!

 

[jbylake]

I'm wondering if, perhaps, if confusing "processing" for "overprocessing". Processing is simply a normal part of making any good photo. Overprocessing is usually done as an attempt to make a crappy photo look good (and consistently fails at doing so).

I tend to agree here. I still shoot a lot more film than I do digital. "back in the day" I had access to a full blown darkroom. Don't have that luxury today. I shoot film, and use a scanner to convert it to digital. I've used GIMP and Photoshop Elements.

I try not to "over process" (what ever an individual deems that point to be), but I do enhance, on the computer, just like I did in the darkroom.
(caveat: I was never a pro in the darkroom, just learned a trick or two from the experts).

I think that probably the majority of people shooting today, film or digital, fall into this category. By that I mean doing about the same thing that film processors or people in the darkroom did (and still do).

I think there is another group that fall into a completely different category, and those are the ones that tend to do extremely creative abstract photo's. Photoshop has just allowed them to do just about anything they want. You know, not so long ago, I would have been typing this on an IBM selectric typewriter. The computer has made my life , during my years as an engineer, much better, more productive, and the ability to create many acutaliztions of the same concept, many times faster. Think CAD programs, etc.

There are a few, I guess that use PS or some other preferred software, to make an otherwise crappy photo look decent, but I'd say that they are in the minority. Still, with today's technology, it's possible.

If you look at the very beginning of photography, those guy's probably would have snubbed their noses at the notion of a color/B&W high tech darkroom.

In summary, I think PS has allowed people to advance thier skills as photographers, much more than it has allowed people who shoot crap, don't know their camera and use PP software as a crutch. I truly think they are in the minority.

It's all relative I guess...but ususally the people who "photoshop to death" photo's are easily recognized by poor composition etc. Not prudent use of a computer program to enhance their work.

I try like hell, to use PP software as little as possible, much like I would have PP'd in a darkroom. But I also end up printing, maybe one or two pics from a roll of film, too. The rest goes in the trash.

I think it's all a matter of perspective.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[bhop]

Do you also know of any books or sites to look at for composition? This seems to be a problem of mine. (yes I know about rule of thirds but people say it's a habit to break, so I'm confused).

non-photography/art books are good, but I also found and like this one

Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I strongly suggest non-photography books for this because photography specific books tend to focus (pardon please the pun) primarily on technology rather than the core concepts of line, form, shape, value, etc.

For learning design and composition I would suggest books like Pictorial Composition (ISBN: 0486233588) or A painter's guide to design and composition (ISBN: 1581806434). Also consider taking a design course at the local community college. There is precious little taught in Design I and II that does not directly apply to photography, yet few people with cameras appear to have any idea of how important these concepts are.

The only people who should break composition rules are those who already have an ingrained understanding of a) why those rules are considered rules in the first place (and no, being able to recite them has nothing to do with understanding them) and b) why, specifically, breaking them will add impact, rather than reduce or eliminate it. These rules did not rise to the level of rule over night - they got that status because they really do work, very well, as proven by hundreds and hundreds of years of still powerful art, and until you understand why, you should not be concerned about arbitrarily breaking them. You'll never be more than lucky every once in a great while ignoring these rules, but if you learn them, and more to the point, understand them, fundamentally, you will be able to know exactly when they should be used and when they should be broken for maximum effect and your work will improve dramatically...

- Randy

Very nicely said. And I'm glad you have titles as I have been looking for such books for my students. Descriptions of books on the internet are unfortunately not enough for me to judge of their value. So thank you for this post.

Also, I totally agree with you. I took Design I and II in Art School and have never regretted it. Also agree that photo books are kinda light on the subject.

 

[Sachphotography]

Post-processing is half of what makes a good photo. Don't fall into the rockwellian myth that "pros get it right in the camera". It's baloney. I have only one photo in recent memory (as in, within the last several months) where the only adjustment I made was a 10% increase in contrast.

I have to disagree. I think that the good photographers know how to take the shot and need less processing. I take all my shots with the intention of being able to do as little processing as possible. A good photographer should be able to take the picture desired without doing a ton of processing. Photoshop can fix a lot of mistakes. Unfortunately people rely on this convenience and do not take the time develop the knowledge they should to be able to take better pictures from camera without 5hrs of post processing. People have gotten lazy and do not take the time to do things right. If they did, they would be taking even better pictures.

 

[Randall Ellis]

Very nicely said. And I'm glad you have titles as I have been looking for such books for my students. Descriptions of books on the internet are unfortunately not enough for me to judge of their value. So thank you for this post.

Also, I totally agree with you. I took Design I and II in Art School and have never regretted it. Also agree that photo books are kinda light on the subject.

Another one that you may be interested in is Design Principles and Practices (ISBN:0030511666). This is the one that I got back to over and over. That said, I have not read every design book out there, but this one is particularly useful. I couldn't recall the title in my other post (plus, I was at work ) but there's the info...

- Randy

 

[taracor]

I..agree with the original poster by 100%. Post processing has it's place, but I stay far, far away from anything heavier than levels, curves, and cloning out a seagull or two. I think it looks very nice when people do more advanced things, and I am not going to make any ridiculous claims about photographic merit, but it's just not my thing. I do what I deem as the basics in PP, and not more, but it's just my personal preference I guess.

It's one of those "stick to what you're good at" things for me. I can spend time taking photos, or I could spend time learning how to post process. I would LOVE to know how to do the unbelievable things some people (on this forum and in general) can do with post processing, it's one of those things I really want to learn to do, but I honestly don't know if it's going to happen. I'm good (adequate) at what I consider the basics, and stick to those. So far I have been nothing but pleased with this.

 

[djacobox372]

I personally don't care how an image is achieved, but if you're a purist then you may want to pick up a film camera and head on over to www.apug.org.

 

[Big]

I..agree with the original poster by 100%. Post processing has it's place, but I stay far, far away from anything heavier than levels, curves, and cloning out a seagull or two. I think it looks very nice when people do more advanced things, and I am not going to make any ridiculous claims about photographic merit, but it's just not my thing. I do what I deem as the basics in PP, and not more, but it's just my personal preference I guess.

It's one of those "stick to what you're good at" things for me. I can spend time taking photos, or I could spend time learning how to post process. I would LOVE to know how to do the unbelievable things some people (on this forum and in general) can do with post processing, it's one of those things I really want to learn to do, but I honestly don't know if it's going to happen. I'm good (adequate) at what I consider the basics, and stick to those. So far I have been nothing but pleased with this.

Thanks! BTW many of the things I learned in photoshop have been by pushing buttons and watching youtube tutorials.

 

[Antithesis]

I generally think that a film print with less processing will tend to look better than an image on a computer screen, regardless of the film used. They do look different. But, times have changed. Pro's process their photos too, and often the processing will turn mediocre photos into works of art. I don't think any photographer would give that up purely out of principle, because RAWs basically look like rubbish straight off the camera. It's just the way it is and I recommend you just accept it and learn to utilize it. There are a lot of very powerful tools that Ansel Adams would kill for that can be had with very little effort or expense.

 

[yogibear]

Sure some photos look great because of the proccessing, but you have to take a look at an images other areas before writing it off as just good because of post processing. Perspective, Composition, use of natural textures, shadows and lines are all things that happen before you post proccess. The best images start with.... WHOA great images Post processing can help a bad photo, but the fundamentals of the image will still be bad. PP is a tool that helps polish up those photos and make them really shine.

Take a look around at all your favorite photos, Guaranteed they all had some work done to them beyond going down to local print shop and getting them developed.

Its admirable and ecouraged to aim for a shot that doesnt need to be touched up at all, but the majority of clients just want a great image and could care less about what went into it.

Anyway like I said earlier, a great image starts with a great photograph. Its pretty easy to tell when something is made 'good' or started off that way to begin with, however it shouldn't keep you from enjoying a quality final product.

Unless you never want to be happy or satisfied by anything... haha!