Am I the only one that refuses?

[Boomn4x4]

Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.

Well thanks for taking a few mintues out of your busy schedule to reply

You don't know the first thing about film do you?

Depends on what your definition of "first thing" is, but considering your obvious distaste in being forced to answer yet another newb's question, my best guess woud be, "No, I don't"

Those actions in PhotoShop such as dodging and burning are techniques taken from the dark room.

It's like shooting a negative, taking it to walmart, and having them run it through the machine without touching it. Not doing any processing to your images that is.

Yes, I'm aware. Which is my point.... Being the burdon on society in my newbieness.... When trying to learn to "take" better pictures.... dodgin and burning for the time being is irrelevant to me.... I don't even want to TRY and do that because I'm not there yet... "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind. I'm not going to try and swallow pp techniques until I feel I have an advanced level of "pre-processing" techniques. Put the horse before the cart.

And if you're shooting JPG files, processing is being done in the camera, so you are having PP work done to your photo. And if you're shooting RAW and not touching your photos afterwards, you're just being stupid. Even some of the camera manufactures websites state that RAW images should be sharpened by so much, iirc.

I mean, a RAW file is a digital negative. If I had a darkroom and shot film, I'd still be doing processing and I'd still have creative lighting that helped me get the best image possible.

Thank you Mr. Gates. However, you should know, I am a computer programmer... I know a few things about data processing.

And the other point here is that certain clients request a certain style to their images. I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't want to do any processing afterwards.

Please refer back to my original quote... I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't have paying clients.

Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cokronk/4528955783/
There are a slew of processed images floating around on the web... most commonly refered to as being "photo shopped". Would you say a photograph of George Bush and Dick Cheney being morphed into images of Beavis and Butt head be considered "photography"? At what point does processing stop being photography and start becoming graphic deign?

My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

Since about April. Does that offend you? Is there an "extra extra beginners" forum I can post to so that my ignorance isn't a bother for you anymore?

 

[ababysean]

Digital Photography IMO is also learning how to alter/enhance images on the computer, which is why it is DIGITAL!
If you want to, learn film, that also have post processing.

 

[R.D.]

I think the issue is more of the over saturated photographer world.. there are photographers who are better graphic artists.. they take lazy shots with little consideration and then jazz it up with photoshop.. not to say anyone here or anyone you know is guilty but that is more reasonable than saying no PP'ing your shots..

i married into a family of nothing but photographers and anyone of them will tell you what people like Village are saying.. its a neccesity.

 

[Boomn4x4]

OP...I'm not trying to be rude in this...but you're 16.

You're half way there buddy...

You don't understand how photography as a whole really works.

Which is why I'm in the beginners forum.

Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?

I've got an idea.... there's an elementary school a few blocks from my work... why don't we all head over there and tell the students how they don't know the first thing Physics. Who's with me?

 

[KenC]

I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.

There is the difference. I always try to search for a good composition while taking the picture to prevent any cropping. I shoot the object with several compositions so I can find the best.

My objection to people who refuse to crop, like the ones who used to file out their negative holders so there would be a black strip around the image to show that the whole negative was there, is that many images do not work best at the 3:2 ratio of film negatives or DSLR sensors. What happens to those images is that the photographer either prints them at a non-optimal aspect ratio, or simply discards them. Why would anyone want to do either? Keep in mind that in the darkroom we would do certain adjustments without even thinking about it. Using the easel we could not only crop, but adjust perspective by tilting. We would also adjust brightness and contrast via exposure time/aperture and choice of paper contrast grade, respectively. No post-processing would be the equivalent of printing everything full-frame at the same standard time/aperture regardless of whether this would give acceptable results.

 

[Village Idiot]

Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.

Well thanks for taking a few mintues out of your busy schedule to reply

I work for the government, I'm not busy. I usually do see this topic 4-5 times a month.

You don't know the first thing about film do you?

Depends on what your definition of "first thing" is, but considering your obvious distaste in being forced to answer yet another newb's question, my best guess woud be, "No, I don't"

That's exactly what I thought. If you want to be a good photographer, you should read up on the history of photography.

Yes, I'm aware. Which is my point.... Being the burdon on society in my newbieness.... When trying to learn to "take" better pictures.... dodgin and burning for the time being is irrelevant to me.... I don't even want to TRY and do that because I'm not there yet... "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind. I'm not going to try and swallow pp techniques until I feel I have an advanced level of "pre-processing" techniques. Put the horse before the cart.

But in the original post you state that you flat out refuse to do post and those that do post work are doing it commercially and that work that does have processing done to it is not photography. That's garbage.

Thank you Mr. Gates. However, you should know, I am a computer programmer... I know a few things about data processing.

No, Thank you Mr. Torvalds (ooooooo, clever computery name!). Being a computer programmer doesn't mean you know about photographic techniques like shooting to the right. It may mean you have some understanding of the concept of why it happens and why you can't do it with a JPG image. I do a bit of programming too. Like at my job. Like where I'm at now. Like, the reason why I'm on the computer so much during the day.

Please refer back to my original quote... I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't have paying clients.

You make it sound like you would. Please refer to me paraphrasing your OP saying that photos that have processing done to them are not photography.

Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.

There are a slew of processed images floating around on the web... most commonly refered to as being "photo shopped". Would you say a photograph of George Bush and Dick Cheney being morphed into images of Beavis and Butt head be considered "photography"? At what point does processing stop being photography and start becoming graphic deign?

You're on a photography forum where probably 95% of the images posted are not photos of two people morphed into one. You're bringing this issue up but then going on to point out graphic designers all over the web.

The image I posted I photoshopped out the light stand and flash head, did a bit of skin smoothing, adjusted the curves, sharpened it, and maybe touched the WB a bit. Does that make me a graphic designer and that image not a photograph?

I have a friend that does flyers and business cards for me. He's a graphic designer. I suck at stuff like that.

My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

Since about April. Does that offend you? Is there an "extra extra beginners" forum I can post to so that my ignorance isn't a bother for you anymore?

And this is exactly what I though. It doesn't offend me, it just shows me that you're a noob and that one day you'll either learn that processing is essential, or you'll be putting out photos that just aren't as good as they truly could be.

And not that there should be an "extra extra beginners" forum, but maybe a few more giant search boxes.

 

[subscuck]

Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?

Because if people had to make public their real name, address, phone # and a current pic of themselves before joining a forum, they would have to be nice to people. The anonimity of the internet allows them to say what they want and not get the s--t kicked out of them like they did in high school. I lurked here for a few weeks before joining, and trust me, people here are much better than some other forums. That's why I'm here. Some people are so lacking in their lives that they feel the need to show their self assumed superiority and the internet gives them that in spades. Best just to ignore them.

 

[benlonghair]

Oh Jesus... so much drama.

Seems like this forum is a magnet for it recently.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I :heart: this topic!

 

[KmH]

... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.

How about pre-processing? Is that "photography"?

 

[kundalini]

Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?

Same reason your mother yelled at you for playing in the street. You're ignorant and need the coaching. I use the word ignorant purposely, not to be offensive.

I too did not want to spend the investment of time in post processing. I still don't and my approach to PP is minimal. However without it and particularly if you shoot RAW, it just cannot be avoided if you want to produce pleasing results, even at a hobbiest level. Soon enough you'll learn this on your own.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You shouldn't shoot in RAW. Shoot in Jpeg, and let the camera apply contrast, saturation, noise, and sharpening adjustments...

Oh, wait...that's post proccessing too!

 

[bentcountershaft]

I would recommend to the OP to dip your toes in post processing and see how you like it. You don't have to spend a lot of time on a shot to get some great improvements and you don't have to spend a lot of money on editing software. If you shoot Canon, their supplied software, DPP, is great for all the basics and is all I use.

I think your focus on taking the picture itself is good, because you have to have a good shot to start with. I assume you don't just take random shots and just click away, you walk around your subject looking for the right angle. Perhaps you move some stuff out of the way if your shooting a still life and you might even try to manipulate your light source to better suit the shot you have in mind. So that means you're doing pre processing. And then you're taking the time to get everything right in camera before you take the shot. You're only missing the last step. Take control of your art and finish the process. Don't let your camera have the final say of what your art becomes. Get the shot you had in your head before you took it, not the shot some programmer on the other side of the world thinks you want.

It doesn't take a lot of time to do some minimal editing. After you get the hang of it you can do a shot in less than 30 seconds (Fight Club taught me this). If nothing else do some sharpening after resizing so that it is optimized for the new size. Anything less and you're actually doing a disservice to your work in my opinion. And don't worry about being a noob, I'm a noob too. I got my dslr in December.

 

[o hey tyler]

So you're taking the approach that "post processing an image does not make genuine photography, it's graphic design". And then you go on to say that you don't post process an image because you don't feel like you've learned the basics of photography well enough yet. So which are you going to choose? High and mighty photography elitist, or inexperienced high school kid with an attitude problem? Your argument has more holes than a 10lb block of swiss.

 

[Overread]

The others have raised many good points (as well as a bit of unneeded drama....) However I'm going to pull out this bit from what you said:

Then I see these absoltuly georgous photographs and it leaves an empty feeling inside knowing that I've never, nor do I think I'll ever be able to capture the colors, highlights, shadows and overall 'feel' of the image. Only to come to the realization, that the person who posted it got all of that post processing. Now, that photo really has no value to me as a photographer.... it certainly raises some question as to how I could also acheive similar looks PP, but as a beginner photographer, it does nothing to teach me about proper exposure, proper flash usage, and proper compesation values.

Post processing for many photographers is not about creating something that wasn't there with the editing tools; its about using the light that the camera captured in a correct exposure and using that data to unlock the full potential of the photo. Sometimes this might be something minor like a little contrast boost, saturation decrease and a bit more brightness - othertimes it might be processing the shot twice to pull the most detail out of dark and bright areas at once.
Your argument stems more I suspect not from a hatred of incorrect photography, but the fact that you have not yourself learnt how to use editing software - whilst also having some doubt over your own photographic skill - mixed in with that is the sound feeling and desire to do your best with photography as well. All mixed in together it creates a mess and a mindset where you want to "pass" as a photographer before you try approaching the editing. This is a problem because the editing (however major or minor) is part of being the photographer.