Did you edit?!

[bribrius]

Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
Myself, I will expect that the posters themselves take a bit more initiative and do a bit more work because I don't want to waste my time.

I have been teaching, with some breaks, since 1982 and my ways work for me.

I have not taken as much advantage of Lews teaching techniques as I would really have liked to, but i will say that using Skypes audio/video chat features to show people how to edit photos is brilliant, and effective.

To actually "see" in real time how he gets the end results he wants is a great learning tool, especially if you have the same software.

That makes a lot of sense. First hand learning is preferable to online commenting.

 

[pixmedic]

This thread baffles me, truly.

It's good to be baffled every now and then. Let me know next time you need a good baffling and I'll see what I can do.

 

[bribrius]

This thread baffles me, truly.

you are trying to fit square peg into round hole. For every student is a teacher and every teacher a certain type of student. Methods and personalities, objectives often clash. To gear ones methodology to another is comparing apples and oranges. This comes into play from everything learning whether it be a tae kwon do instructor and student to economics 101 or to a automotive trade school. Everyone has methods and teachers they relate to better than others.
while in the beginning levels the relationship may not be so important as you specialize or get into higher learning in a craft, art, trade that relationship becomes necessary. And there is no "right" or wrong but rather fitting together in teach/learned with any type of more in depth apprenticeship type methodology.
For instance, I took fma (filipino martial arts) while my daughters personality balked at the idea of the type of instruction I referred her to and opted for a more "fun" family oriented tae kwon do school.
I wouldn't expect one to take on the others methodology for their art or the other to do the same, or for my daughter to change her personality and preferences. Given the right hole and peg the instruction comes much easier and the student excels much easier. (she has entered competitions now and is visibly more adept than if I pushed her into something she did not enjoy or relate to)

 

[bribrius]

I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable. It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik

 

[bribrius]

Since that is your own particular style of working, I will look forward to you jumping in there and leading the crush of comments to manage all the posters in the best way.
Myself, I will expect that the posters themselves take a bit more initiative and do a bit more work because I don't want to waste my time.

I have been teaching, with some breaks, since 1982 and my ways work for me.

Did I ever say that your ways were wrong? Or simply suggesting that they are not the only ones? That perhaps not all students benefit from only one style of teaching?

I've been teaching non-stop since 1994. What's your point?

nevermind, missed this you already addressed it. Yeah, if someone is having a problem with lews (or any instructors) methodology just skip over them and find a new one. Better for both sides in the end or it just goes round and round and frustrates everybody, isn't constructive. As the instructor would do well to bypass the student or refer them elsewhere.

 

[limr]

I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable. It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik

Of course there's a limit. I've been asked by students to do things in class that were not possible and would only benefit one person when I needed to think about the entire class. What baffles me is why "Can you sometimes post things about your editing process" is considered beyond that limit when it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The OP was never asking anyone to change anything about what they did but to sometimes include more information about what happens after the picture leaves the camera. She didn't ask for detailed descriptions of each step but just a few words about the tools used. How is that overly burdensome or unreasonable? As this thread shows, most people feel that post processing is a very important part of their work and yet folks are strangely tight-lipped about it.

 

[The_Traveler]

Of course there's a limit. I've been asked by students to do things in class that were not possible and would only benefit one person when I needed to think about the entire class. What baffles me is why "Can you sometimes post things about your editing process" is considered beyond that limit when it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The OP was never asking anyone to change anything about what they did but to sometimes include more information about what happens after the picture leaves the camera. She didn't ask for detailed descriptions of each step but just a few words about the tools used. How is that overly burdensome or unreasonable? As this thread shows, most people feel that post processing is a very important part of their work and yet folks are strangely tight-lipped about it.

That's exactly the point.
It isn't burdensome but it is misleading.
Much of the time, the tools are both irrelevant and incidental.
It's like asking a writer what kind of word processor he/she uses.
It's off the track and gives the tool too much importance because there are tens of tools and hundreds of pathways.
A clear example is that you used the idea of a mask to darken something in a previous comment. You fixated on that as the key when it is a minuscule, almost irrelevant tool. It is like thinking one can design and build a house because one knows how to work a hammer or a saw.
What is important is why one does something and the desired end point, then the appropriate process can be determined after that.

I am happy to tell people what I did something and why - and let them puzzle out the best way to do it that works in their hands.

 

[bribrius]

I guess my point is, while some changing in methods from a teacher can be expected as gearing the learning toward the student. There is a limit in what one can ask from the teacher as their methods are somewhat a part of their ideology and some requests by the student for the teacher to adapt may not be realistic or even reasonable. It becomes more a matter of the student taking the steps to find someone else to learn from equivalent to their needs and learning preferences/ability. But wtfdik

Of course there's a limit. I've been asked by students to do things in class that were not possible and would only benefit one person when I needed to think about the entire class. What baffles me is why "Can you sometimes post things about your editing process" is considered beyond that limit when it seems perfectly reasonable to me. The OP was never asking anyone to change anything about what they did but to sometimes include more information about what happens after the picture leaves the camera. She didn't ask for detailed descriptions of each step but just a few words about the tools used. How is that overly burdensome or unreasonable? As this thread shows, most people feel that post processing is a very important part of their work and yet folks are strangely tight-lipped about it.

you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. When you post your own photos include more pp info (as you feel is necessary).
I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't know either why often people don't seem to want to talk about how they process photos, or as mentioned earlier in the thread, sometimes even seem defensive about it.

I suppose it might depend on how someone views editing or processing; to me correcting mistakes should be minimal and the post processing should be more about enhancing your photos or doing something creative - but it takes time and learning and practice to develop skills to be able to do that.

If there's a need to correct every single photo in post I'd think that might indicate a need to think about the process of using the camera. I liked Gary's example of darkroom work - same for me, much of the time I could crank out a number of finished prints with no dodging or burning, or with a little, or I might once in awhile have a print I'd spend more time working on for a particular reason or purpose. But if I can't get properly exposed and focused images with a camera I'm not going to have anything worth spending time on in the darkroom anyway.

To me it's somewhat like writing, if I had to rewrite every single sentence I wrote I'd never get anything done! and I think I'd have to realize maybe my writing skills could use some improvement.

Lew I don't think the tools are necessarily irrelevant, especially if it's related to something that's newer to the person asking, or if it's something the person is completely unfamiliar with.

Certainly there's a learning curve in getting good at framing and composing and focusing and getting proper exposures, and how to go from pictures you took that are on a media card or film, to a finished product. I don't see why it would be a problem to discuss how you do that, but certainly anyone has the option to not comment in threads asking for help with that, or just give some general or brief suggestions if that's what the person feels is appropriate to share.

 

[pixmedic]

Lightroom for import.
Auto WB.
Auto tone.
Drink glass of Bordeaux.
Crop to 8x10
Export with big azz watermark.
Drink another glass of Bordeaux.
Boom, done.

 

[limr]

you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. When you post your own photos include more pp info (as you feel is necessary).
I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.

This is exactly what the OP was asking about. She said she was curious about it and thought it would be helpful to see some basic info, but hadn't seen anyone post anything. She wasn't asking that we all sit down and hold her hand and teach her everything. She wasn't even asking for us to explain everything. She just wanted to know if anyone else would find the information useful. Then it was blown into the dead-horse discussion of processing vs no processing.

 

[bribrius]

you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. When you post your own photos include more pp info (as you feel is necessary).
I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.

This is exactly what the OP was asking about. She said she was curious about it and thought it would be helpful to see some basic info, but hadn't seen anyone post anything. She wasn't asking that we all sit down and hold her hand and teach her everything. She wasn't even asking for us to explain everything. She just wanted to know if anyone else would find the information useful. Then it was blown into the dead-horse discussion of processing vs no processing.

hey I found that kind of amusing (the discussion not the o.p)


lot of people wouldn't share their photos or their pp information I would guess.
I have my suspicions why.
kind of like I admit how I suck at many things? some don't like to admit it.
i wonder if they cant shoot worth **** and take a thousand shutters and pp the hell out of them to come up with a couple good photos. why i usually don't even listen to people online half the time. And suggest, especially locally that people take a walk with me and shoot. Because i cant be bullshitted when they are standing in front of me. we had one person locally, pretty well known...

well, and lets just say i found out the truth..
kind of like i admit what i suck at? i suspect (not to make accusations but i have noticed a few) that we have a lot of bullshitters out there that rely HEAVILY on pp. kind of like the million shutter person i met here locally (must be the monkey playing the piano thing)...

But really, this is going, and going, and going.
who cares?

you can't make someone do what they don't want to do. This is a primarily volunteer society. suggestions on providing more pp information may sway the posting and critique that direction but all you can really control is yourself. When you post your own photos include more pp info (as you feel is necessary).
I have noticed dan did that the other day to, so at least some people do seem receptive to the idea. Questions could also bring forth more post processing info. There may be some that desire to hide it or avoid the complexity of it if it seems unfathomable to give that response but that doesn't mean there has to be no response at all.

This is exactly what the OP was asking about. She said she was curious about it and thought it would be helpful to see some basic info, but hadn't seen anyone post anything. She wasn't asking that we all sit down and hold her hand and teach her everything. She wasn't even asking for us to explain everything. She just wanted to know if anyone else would find the information useful. Then it was blown into the dead-horse discussion of processing vs no processing.

well don't look at me i don't know chit about pp i just do real basic adjustments for the most part. i am more into having people take a walk with me and shooting with someone first hand to find out what they really know or don't know. i don't even pay attention to half the stuff online you never know who is really who. sorry for starting off the jerry springer stuff though, it was just too easy and then when you read through the responses it gives you some at least inclination of who is who....

you dont seem like you know much about pp either but you probably know more about pp than i do i think, i will probably ask you. lol.

i could put up mine, but really it is limited mostly to moving a slider a notch for adding contrast or something not very eventful or informative. .

 

[limr]

That's exactly the point.
It isn't burdensome but it is misleading.

Why is it misleading? Is it wrong information?

Much of the time, the tools are both irrelevant and incidental.

Then why the comments about how, for example, changing one step would change the picture, or how learning how to use certain tools will "change the way you edit forever?"

It's like asking a writer what kind of word processor he/she uses.
It's off the track and gives the tool too much importance because there are tens of tools and hundreds of pathways.

But if someone knows next to nothing, then it's at least a place to start, right?

A clear example is that you used the idea of a mask to darken something in a previous comment. You fixated on that as the key when it is a minuscule, almost irrelevant tool. It is like thinking one can design and build a house because one knows how to work a hammer or a saw.

I didn't "fixate" on it. I used it as an example because 1) that was the tool mentioned in Joe's post, and because 2) it is something that I don't know how to use and the examples he posted helped me learn something more about it. It gave me a starting point. Now I have a better understanding of the next thing I might experiment with an practice to see if it's of any use to me. But without his mentioning it, it would still be off the radar.

And if it's so irrelevant, then why bother learning about it?

Like I said, from the perspective of someone who knows nothing or next to nothing about editing, ANY information is valuable. Why are you so against this?

What is important is why one does something and the desired end point, then the appropriate process can be determined after that.

And just how is a beginner supposed to just know what the appropriate process is?

I am happy to tell people what I did something and why - and let them puzzle out the best way to do it that works in their hands.

When did I EVER say that we are supposed to instruct them on the way to do it? When did I EVER say anything other than "just a few words" or "just a quick mention of tools used so that then the beginner can have a starting point to know what things to practice"?

I don't know how many ways I can say this and have it misunderstood yet again.

1) NO, we don't have to explain post processing in detail.

2) NO, we are not telling people what they should do with their own photos.

2) Yes, learners have responsibility to do their own work.

3) Yes, editing a photo for someone else can be a useful teaching tool, BUT...

4) NO, it's not the best tool for everyone.

5) Saying "This technique is not useful for me personally" is NOT saying "This technique is bad," JUST AS...

6) Saying "Some information is helpful to me" is NOT saying "Tell me what to do."

7) Not every learner request must be indulged...BUT...

8) ...the teacher must also be flexible and be open to the fact that not every person is going to learn from their preferred technique. And if that requires the learner simply going to someone else, so be it. The teacher doesn't have to change his or her style completely.

9) If the teacher and learner styles don't mesh, it does NOT mean the teacher is bad, and it does NOT mean the leaner is a slacker.

10)"You don't know what you don't know" usually manifests as a learner who thinks he or she doesn't have anything to learn. "I have a new DLSR and 100 likes on Facebook, so I'm ready to be a wedding photographer!" But someone who is asking for a certain kind of information understands that he or she does NOT know much and is looking for any information to get a start on learning more. This is someone who DOES understand that he or she doesn't know and is trying to rectify that.

And I really have no more energy for repeating myself any further.

I thought that being more open about our own post processing might be a good thing to consider in order to further this site's reputation as a place to learn. There are some who are open to this idea and I for one would be happy to start discussing it more openly on my own posts. It's not even that I've been secretive about it - it's just that I don't do a lot. Others think that learners should just go figure it out on their own, or have it shown by editing photos for the other person. I don't care to participate in that based on my own personal preferences for learning and based on my own status as someone still learning about basic post processing.

Do with that what you will.

 

[limr]

[
you dont seem like you know much about pp either but you probably know more about pp than i do i think, i will probably ask you. lol.

i could put up mine, but really it is limited mostly to moving a slider a notch for adding contrast or something not very eventful or informative. .

Heh - see the end of the post I was still writing when you posted this.

No I don't know nearly as much as most people here, which is why I consider myself a beginner at post processing. This is why things like "masks" and "layers" are still mysteries to me, and so ANY information or examples that offer more clues to it will be helpful me, and perhaps others like me.

 

[bribrius]

That's exactly the point.
It isn't burdensome but it is misleading.

Why is it misleading? Is it wrong information?

Much of the time, the tools are both irrelevant and incidental.

Then why the comments about how, for example, changing one step would change the picture, or how learning how to use certain tools will "change the way you edit forever?"

It's like asking a writer what kind of word processor he/she uses.
It's off the track and gives the tool too much importance because there are tens of tools and hundreds of pathways.

But if someone knows next to nothing, then it's at least a place to start, right?

A clear example is that you used the idea of a mask to darken something in a previous comment. You fixated on that as the key when it is a minuscule, almost irrelevant tool. It is like thinking one can design and build a house because one knows how to work a hammer or a saw.

I didn't "fixate" on it. I used it as an example because 1) that was the tool mentioned in Joe's post, and because 2) it is something that I don't know how to use and the examples he posted helped me learn something more about it. It gave me a starting point. Now I have a better understanding of the next thing I might experiment with an practice to see if it's of any use to me. But without his mentioning it, it would still be off the radar.

And if it's so irrelevant, then why bother learning about it?

Like I said, from the perspective of someone who knows nothing or next to nothing about editing, ANY information is valuable. Why are you so against this?

What is important is why one does something and the desired end point, then the appropriate process can be determined after that.

And just how is a beginner supposed to just know what the appropriate process is?

I am happy to tell people what I did something and why - and let them puzzle out the best way to do it that works in their hands.

When did I EVER say that we are supposed to instruct them on the way to do it? When did I EVER say anything other than "just a few words" or "just a quick mention of tools used so that then the beginner can have a starting point to know what things to practice"?

I don't know how many ways I can say this and have it misunderstood yet again.

1) NO, we don't have to explain post processing in detail.

2) NO, we are not telling people what they should do with their own photos.

2) Yes, learners have responsibility to do their own work.

3) Yes, editing a photo for someone else can be a useful teaching tool, BUT...

4) NO, it's not the best tool for everyone.

5) Saying "This technique is not useful for me personally" is NOT saying "This technique is bad," JUST AS...

6) Saying "Some information is helpful to me" is NOT saying "Tell me what to do."

7) Not every learner request must be indulged...BUT...

8) ...the teacher must also be flexible and be open to the fact that not every person is going to learn from their preferred technique. And if that requires the learner simply going to someone else, so be it. The teacher doesn't have to change his or her style completely.

9) If the teacher and learner styles don't mesh, it does NOT mean the teacher is bad, and it does NOT mean the leaner is a slacker.

10)"You don't know what you don't know" usually manifests as a learner who thinks he or she doesn't have anything to learn. "I have a new DLSR and 100 likes on Facebook, so I'm ready to be a wedding photographer!" But someone who is asking for a certain kind of information understands that he or she does NOT know much and is looking for any information to get a start on learning more. This is someone who DOES understand that he or she doesn't know and is trying to rectify that.

And I really have no more energy for repeating myself any further.

I thought that being more open about our own post processing might be a good thing to consider in order to further this site's reputation as a place to learn. There are some who are open to this idea and I for one would be happy to start discussing it more openly on my own posts. It's not even that I've been secretive about it - it's just that I don't do a lot. Others think that learners should just go figure it out on their own, or have it shown by editing photos for the other person. I don't care to participate in that based on my own personal preferences for learning and based on my own status as someone still learning about basic post processing.

Do with that what you will.

geez limr, just sign up for him to be your mentor and use Skype. Don't like the way he works find someone else.
you can carry over the debate there and maybe brush up on that pp it seems you want to learn.