Am I the only one that refuses?

[dslrdave]

Thanks would you be able to direct me to a thread that maybe would be more pertinent to my question? Maybe I could get a few answers?

 

[Josh66]

Here's another Before & After.

You can see that I didn't really do a whole lot, but it made a big difference.

The original was pretty flat and had minor WB issues. I also cloned out a couple reflections that were bothering me. (I could have done that in camera by shooting it in a light tent.)

I shoot RAW, so processing is required. If I had shot this as a JPG, the in camera processing would have made it look closer to my final result, but probably not exactly the same.

 

[benlonghair]

I shoot RAW, so processing is required. If I had shot this as a JPG, the in camera processing would have made it look closer to my final result, but probably not exactly the same.

Has anyone ever told you your username looks like the front end of an old jeep? Or is that the point?

 

[Josh66]

OMG! It does!


Yup, it is. Most people don't notice right away. You must be cool.

:thumbup:

 

[Darkhunter139]

OMG! It does!


Yup, it is. Most people don't notice right away. You must be cool.

:thumbup:

Now I feel stupid for never noticing that until now

 

[burstintoflame81]

But you didn,t ask for comparisons, you asked who agreed with you. Being that you stated that everyones pics on here are PP'd ( haha i just said peepee'd) which kinda answers your question for you. Anyway, no harm, i will post some comprisons later. On phone now at work.

 

[Warren Peace]

I may be out of line joining this thread, but I would consider myself new to photography, and one of the reasons I joined this forum was to learn more. I was shooting with a Canon A530 (yes a point and shoot) for the longest time, until I was able to get enough money to purchase a Canon Xti.
When I was shooting with my A530, I was just taking my memory card to a local photo lab and having my photos printed, so I could see what they looked like. Isnt that a form of post processing? It might not have been done by me, but wouldn't the lab have to do something. Does that mean the image I took is not really what I saw when I captured it? :er:

 

[Skyclad]

I don't think its too abrasive, I am not here to pat people on the head and boost their self esteem. I am being blunt and honest. Its ok to be a NOOB, but its also ok to know when you post a comment thats going to stir up crap. Now if the OP asked "Why does someone PP" then I would take the post a little more seriously.

Thats fair enough. I understand where you're coming from and I can respect that.

True, the OP could have stated a his question a little better, but it happens. The main thing is that us noob's here learn and become better acquainted with the boards.

 

[Overread]

Another before and after editing:
Mostly me playing around with a lighting setup, didn't quite get the effect I was after sadly, but I was chancing it with a halfmade setup. Not even sure I like the editing (esp with the darkening around the eye and the way it brings up the highlights).
Still didn't do anything that I would consider major to this work:

Before:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4750150864_42b48dfc54_o.jpg

After:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/4750151452_3b547879e9_o.jpg

What I did:
Not normal for me, but I left all RAW settings to 0 barring setting the whitebalance and adjusting the exposure to get more light to work with in editing (the shot was underexposed a bit straight out of camera - nothing I could do my flash was at full power and the test required that I keep shutter speed, ISO and aperture fixed rather than adapt).

So straight out of RAW it looks like the above then we get into photoshop (elements so nothing fancy!)

Level/curves - auto
Yep for once auto curves did quite well and I didn't set my own darkpoint (mostly as I was concerned about not overdarkening the shot and losing the eye within the darkness.)

Shadows/Highlights
Lighten Shadows 2%
Darken Highlights 5%
Midtone Contrast 0%

Constrast and Brightness
Brightness -25
Contrast 0

Use of layermask to remove effect from the main subject and also the foreground, mostly aimed at darkening the background areas surrounding the louse to lessen their distraction of the foreground and subject.

Constrast and Brightness
Brightness +10
Contrast 0

Using layermask again to limit this effect to only the foreground of the louse, all the remainder was blacked out. Also around 50% of the effect (using opacity) was removed from the middle of the subject where the hightlights from the lighting can be see.

All layers were then flattened into one to continue on with a highpass sharpen:
Unsharpen mask
Amount 22
Radius 250
Threshold 4

Effect was slightly reduced for the back highlights (again through a layermask) and also over the eye to avoid overdarkening it. From there standard noise reduction and regular sharpening were done as I resized (and sharpened) for the net. I also took a moment to use the heal and clone tools to remove two distracting bright blue points on the shot

 

[Artrina]

Last night I went to a class a camera shop had to help people understand what some of the functions on the cameras can do. I am amazed as to what my camera can do! That said, after that class I have a reason to lean post processing a little sooner than I had planned. My old eyes can read the type in the processing programs a heck of a lot easier than the small print on my camera!

 

[skieur]

OP...I think your original premise about the distinction between photography and graphic arts is a good one. A good case in point was the winning entry in this year's Popular Photography magazine contest--one of the the winning images was a very involved composite image, shot over two days. Other contest winners have been criticized for being composite images made mostly at the computer. Plain old straight photography has fallen out of popular favor in many circles. The line between photography and computer-generated illustrations is one a lot of people today seem to not care much about. I think the original post needed a bit more definition or expansion of the term "post processing", which a number of people have seemingly over-interpreted to mean routine, global image adjustments like brightness, contrast adjustment, curves, and so on. Those types of adjustments are typically not considered under the umbrella of image manipulation, but higher-level,targeted image manipulation/pixel-rearrangement/compositing are pretty major types of image manipulation.

Media have been merging together for quite a while and will continue to do so in future. Computer art has been around for more than 25 years and so has simulated photography done with computer software in 3D. Popular Photography was using the term: Imaging as part of its magazine title at one point. So, the purists are fighting a battle that has already been lost. Photography is now part Imaging but has no relation to graphic arts.

skieur

 

[n781lc]

Well said by the "Photographers" and thank you from an 86 year old who started at 12 by building a cardboard darkroom in the garage .. wet develop & fix (watch shading), dry, print (careful with time), enlarge (whee! have a ball).

Art is just that. All forms, seeking that which is pleasing in the eye of the beholder.

Music is obtained in a vast variety of ways and, at times, using really weird instruments ... BUT it is MUSIC.

People of different ages see everythig in their scope of kowledge ..limited but ...

And, by the way, did the kid use a filter?? oooh! Not very cricket, eh??

Bless you all from a new (but very old) member,

Ed

 

[Morpheuss]

I'll admit it I agreed with the OP for a little bit but then i read more and more and got more educated. I think the reason I find pp not as important is because I haven't really done it before and have been afraid to edit it because I don't want to turn the photograph into something its not.

 

[Gaerek]

Well said by the "Photographers" and thank you from an 86 year old who started at 12 by building a cardboard darkroom in the garage .. wet develop & fix (watch shading), dry, print (careful with time), enlarge (whee! have a ball).

Art is just that. All forms, seeking that which is pleasing in the eye of the beholder.

Music is obtained in a vast variety of ways and, at times, using really weird instruments ... BUT it is MUSIC.

People of different ages see everythig in their scope of kowledge ..limited but ...

And, by the way, did the kid use a filter?? oooh! Not very cricket, eh??

Bless you all from a new (but very old) member,

Ed

You sir, are awesome. Thank you for this post.

 

[OrionsByte]

This thread may have run its course but I wanted to comment on a couple things anyways...

It would be like handing a scalpal to a premed student and having him do a vasectomy.... Yes surgery is apart of being a doctor... but why would you start out doing it... .Just like post processing, whether in camera or out, certainly has its place.... for many reading this shouldn't even be thought about.

That analogy is closer to describing why a beginning photographer shouldn't start off by shooting weddings. A medical student does have to learn how to use a scalpel, but they practice, practice, practice on cadavers long before they have to use that skill when it matters. Learning to use post processing as a tool is the same thing; you have to practice. A doctor that knows everything he needs to know about performing an operation but is really unskilled with a scalpel would not be a very good doctor; a photographer that knows a lot about how their camera processes a photograph but lacks the skill to do it themselves would not be a very good photographer.

The are many ways to process in camera that can just as well be done out of camera... but I'm more interested in learning it in camera.... exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, color modes.... I want to learn how to do that in camera... I want to be able to look at a scene and know what settings I can set to make the shot pop in the first place.

You might want to think about this the other way around. Take some pictures in RAW, and then go in to the RAW processing software of your choice and mess with the values to see what changes. That way, you actually learn what it does to the picture, so later on if you want to do it in-camera, you have a good idea of what the effect will be.

Basically, what I'm saying is, learning post-processing techniques will make you a better photographer. Adjusting exposure compensation or white balance or anything else is pretty much the same whether you do it in-camera or by using RAW conversion software, but the big difference is that if you do it in-camera, you have less control and it's essentially permanent. Why put yourself through the agony of ending up with a shot that could have been great if only you'd changed some settings on the camera first, when you could take a shot and adjust the settings later to make sure it's great? Eventually, doing all that post-processing will help you decide what settings to use when taking shots later, and then you'll find that when you do the post-processing on those, that you'll really be able to make them pop.

The point is, PP is part of photography, and you can learn from it or you can learn in spite of it. You'll be a better photographer in the end if you do the former.